Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?

mheinze wrote:

Harbeth they are too warm, with very bad resolution

--------

If you are confronted, and willing to accept the fact that what you like is only 50% of the resolution (Harbeth speakers)

^^ File this under "Audiophiles say the darnedest things!"

You may not like Harbeth speakers, but I suggest you not go from there to making silly comments like the above.

You have your experience of course and have every right to  decide which speakers sound best to you. But you are taking your opinion into making objective claims about resolution. You aren’t in a unique exalted position in deciding among speakers; many of us here have long experience playing instruments, lots of exposure to acoustic instruments and other "real" sounds (everyone knows what a real person sounds like), and many of us are just as interested in understanding the difference between real and reproduced sound.

Harbeth speakers have been highly reviewed as having exceptionally accurate timbre for voices and instruments by reviewers well familiar with other high resolution systems. A great many audiophiles have agreed.

I have previously owned the Harbeth Super HL5plus and recently completed a several-years-long audition of many top contender speakers (including Paradigm Persona, Audio Physic, Joseph Audio, Focal, Raidho, Revel, Magico A3, etc). The Harbeth speakers held up quite well and showed plenty of detail and resolution.

As everyone knows, reproducing the human voice in a natural manner is one of the biggest challenges for any system, given how familiar we are with the sounds of real voices. Harbeth is renowned for the natural sounding reproduction of the human voice. And indeed, in my auditions where I specifically check this aspect out, between the Magico and the Harbeth speakers, voices tended to sound more realistic, natural and organically believable on the Harbeth speakers, to my ears.

The ridiculous claims about Harbeth being low resolution speakers, or having "50%" resolution are unfounded opinion. Harbeth has been just as fanatical about developing their radial driver, in terms of reducing coloration, as pretty much any other manufacturer attempting realistic sound reproduction, which is why they have some renown in the audiophile world. And the measurements support the high level of performance, as can be seen in the Stereophile review:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/harbeth-super-hl5plus-loudspeaker-measurements


Atkinson’s comments in the measurements section:

AD commented that "the Harbeth Super HL5plus sounded conspicuously, even startlingly, clear." It came as no surprise, therefore, to see that the Harbeth’s cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.8) demonstrated a superbly clean decay throughout the midrange and treble. Harbeth’s RADIAL2 material does indeed result in a well-behaved woofer cone.

-----

Other than that lively enclosure, which is a deliberate design decision—note AD’s comment about "the consistently truthful, present manner with which they reproduce singing voices"—THE Harbeth Super HL5plus’s MEASURED PERFORMANCE IS BEYOND REPROACH.

So if I’m looking at evidence for a claim, I can see the great amount of praise Harbeth has garnered among reviewers and many audiophiles for
sonic excellence and truth of timbre. I can note my own experience actually owning Harbeth speakers and being able to compare them to a broad range of speakers I’ve owned and audiotioned. And measurements support that they are a high resolution speaker via excellent engineering.

Or...I can take the comment from a forum audiophile that Harbeths only give you "50% resolution."

Hmm...I wonder which is more credible ;-)

The tube cult is a relatively small club compared to the rest but has a strong presence here. That’s probably why you hear more in general here about products that are popular with tube gear. Where as Magico is nice and sounds very good but expensive and lots of competition so does not get as much universal accolades, even if perhaps they might be deserved. The build quality of Magico’s I have seen and heard is top notch. So is the sound but hey there are so many other top notch sounds I hear also often for much lower cost.
BTW I have auditioned and know Magico’s sound very good with very good higher powered tube gear to match but few may afford or even want to have to deal with that kind of combo even if they can afford it. Big tube amps use lots of power, throw off a lot of heat, and are harder and more costly to maintain. High TCO. Not for everyone.
Smaller tube amps with higher efficiency, easy to drive speakers (not nearly as many out there to choose from) is way more practical for many. So you hear a lot about the likes of Tekton and others. Of course full range high efficiency speakers tend to be bigger and bulkier than most so no panacea there either.

@prof

I suggest you watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pvz6RDBCE

It will explain to you some facts; they correlates perfectly with what mheinze is trying to say (Unfortunately, JA can not be trusted when it comes to UK made loudspeakers, read the comments on his ridicules conclusion, they are much more in line with reality).

For someone who puts so much time in to this hobby (or at least writing about it), some education may go a long way; you should give it a try, your long posts will be much more interesting and relevant.

sciencecop,

You’ve got to be kidding.

So in response to my post, you are giving a link to one speaker manufacturer’s claims for "why our design is better?????"

As if that weren’t standard for pretty much every manufacturer/speaker designer to claim?

That’s a classic bit of advertisement of the type that can be found by most speaker manufacturers. You have the Vandersteen cone pitted against some selected "unnamed" paper cone, and oh-my-gosh, can you believe it? Look how bad the selected-unnamed-cone compares to OUR cone?

And, as if Vandersteen were the only speaker manufacturer that recognizes the desire for an evenly pistonic cone material????

Of course speaker manufacturers recognize the relevance, that’s why so many brag about the pistonic behaviour of their speaker drivers! Including Harbeth who make a big deal about precisely this engineering goal for their Radial driver. This idea is hardly a revelation.

And why are you posting a comparison between a Vandersteen driver and an unnamed PAPER CONE driver, as if it made mheinze’s point, when the Harbeth speakers use a POLYPROPYLENE cone of their own polymer design, specifically engineered toward attaining lower coloration through highly pistonic behaviour????

And the Stereophile measurements indicate that the Harbeth Radial driver is indeed low in coloration.

And you think all this "correlates perfectly" with the claims I’m objecting to like Harbeth speakers only producing "50% of the resolution?"

Do you want to point us towards measurements showing Harbeth speakers are only giving "50%" of the resolution of the audio signal vs Magico?..or do you think promotional videos from one speaker company comparing their driver to unnamed paper drivers actually make this case? If so, you’ve got a wonky idea of evidence and argument.

Nowhere am I claiming that Harbeth speakers are the best designs.  I've been objecting to the over-board claims that they are "low resolution" and even sillier, only give "50%" of the resolution.   Speaker design is about balancing compromises, and most speaker drivers/designs balance various compromises. The trick is how it all comes out in the mix, and the Harbeth design seems to have balanced these engineering problems quite well.

For someone who puts so much time in to this hobby (or at least writing about it), some education may go a long way; you should give it a try, your long posts will be much more interesting and relevant.

Oh, please.

Should you post something of greater relevance, that actually undermines anything I’ve written, then I’ll heed your gracious advice.

I was hoping that the very simple explanation of why a speaker cone should be pistonic will enlighten you (this has nothing to do with Vandersteen, he just happened to explain it well). These are all very basic concept of physics, but you have to embrace real science first, which I now understand you are not willing (or capable) of doing. 

 BTW, "POLYPROPYLENE" cones are actually much worse, i.e less pistonic,  then harden "PAPER CONE", which is what typically is used in today drivers.