2. speakers
  3. 1272048158

The Harbeth phenomenon

In my search for a new pair of speakers, I've gone through many threads here and noticed that many owners or fans of Harbeth have almost a love-like connection with Harbeth speakers. It is almost as if the speakers cast a spell upon them. I know many audiophiles love their speakers but Harbeth owners seem especially enamored with theirs. I am extremely puzzled by this phenomenon because on paper Harbeth speakers look average at best and lack many of the attributes that generally make a great speaker.

Their sensitivity of generally around the 86dB mark makes them rather inefficient and therefore, at least in theory, not a good match for many lower powered tube amps, or any amps below 100wpc. Their frequency range is simply inferior to most high-end speakers since they don't go below 40 Hz. This alone should, again at least in theory, disqualify Harbeth speakers from consideration as top high end speakers. And yet I've never heard anyone complain about their bass, while people complain about lack of bass in the Gibbon Nines from DeVore, which is a fantastic speaker. Their cabinets look like a cheap DIY enclosure (disclaimer: I've never seen a Harbeth up close, only pictures). The 7ES-3 is rated B-Restricted, while the smaller and cheaper Usher Be-718 A-Restricted in Stereophile but garners nowhere near the same amount of admiration, praise and following among audiophiles.

So what's going on here? Is this a big conspiracy plot by the company that paid off a few hundred of people to infiltrate audiophile internet forums and a few reviewers? I am of course joking here, but the question is serious. How can speakers so average on paper be so good in real life? I know the opposite is often true, but you rarely see this phenomenon.

Please speak up.
actusreus
helomech
1,702 posts
 
I’m a bit perplexed by the Harbeth popularity myself. I think they are decent speakers but to my ears, their BBC brethren is much better. People often describe them as "warm," "rolled-off," or "romantic," but I found they sounded a tad bright, clinical, and forward. Their tone is more neutral than warm, similar to a studio monitor.

AS has an obvious penchant for marketing, which I believe accounts for much of their follwing. They also have a much larger dealer network than Graham, Stirling, or Spendor.

Alan Shaw himself argues that you need power, and the more the better. At a recent show in Hilversum in the Netherlands the power meters on the amplifier showed it was producing some 500 watts per channel to drive the M40.1 during peaks in the music. Even Alan Shaw was surprised and it most certainly persuaded me.

Lol, a good track to play at high volumes if you want to promote such a fallacy. I doubt you'd ever blast that song on your P3ESRs.
rossb
185 posts
 
I use a 70 watt EAR 890 tube power amplifier with my Harbeth 30.1s. It sounds spectacularly good. This amplifier replaced a pair of solid state Exposure 16 monoblocks which produced 140 watts. The tube amps sound much better.


willemj
1,036 posts
 
The BBC research department  was sadly closed ages ago. For a few years their designs were still being produceed by license holders, but this gradually ended with the demise of successive manufacturers (it never was a very profitable business) and the increased difficulty to obtain the original drivers. So all that remained were BBC inspired designs, following in the same tradition of thin walled damped panels, complex crossover designs  etc. Some of these manufacturers marketed these new designs under their own name and as their own designs (Harbeth, Spendor) but the commercial people in the BBC decided they could make some bucks selling licenses to the orginal model names, even though these speakers only share the name, and are not designed by any BBC department. In the best cases, what they share is the design principles and the ethos of neutrality. But they no longer are the original designs. Personally I own both the original BBC designed Rogers LS3/5a and the modern Harbeth P3ESR and to my mind there is not a shade of doubt that the Harbeth is the by far better speaker. It is far more neutral, has  more and better bass (and almost no bass hump) and handles way more power. Manufacturing quality is also better.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Rogers LS3/5a’s are not dynamic and their efficiency is very low and they have no low bass. The internal crossover is more like a small amplifier and sucks up a lot of power. And Rogers LS3/5a’s really do sound best with tube electronics. Plus they can be quite fussy about placement and stands, and other things. It depends a lot on what your listening priorities are as to whether you think Rogers LS3/5a’s are better than some other particular speaker. Obviously bass freaks need not apply. Or rock freaks for that matter. But in certain important areas, like voices, Rogers LS3/5a’s are very difficult to beat. At the end of the day requirements for dynamics and loudness can trump other factors.
radioheadokplayer
181 posts
 
I own the harbeth 40.2 speakers and my 85 watt VAC tube integrated sounded great with certain types of music but could not provide adequate instrument separation or tight bass for more complex musical passages....

I am now running the harbeth pass labs 250 watt integrated and have better grip and slam while still sounding sublime on vocals and small scale jazz 
More to discover