sciencecop,
How about 47%, would that be better ;)
Sure. If you can actually support that claim.
Which you haven’t.
Today, you can have a pistonic cone that will be well damped and will outperform anything Harbeth’s cone material is doing.
So you claim.
Where are the measurements showing Harbeth’s specific driver design results in "low resolution?’"
Agreed the tweeter crossover gets messy at 12K, but does THAT entail the overall design is "low resolution?" That’s the case you are supposed to be making, remember? Most of the measurements don’t support that claim and as Atkinson says right after noting the tweeter interference: "However, below the top octave, the HL5plus’s response is superbly even." It’s the radial driver that covers most of the audible spectrum, and it seems to perform very well...which you are studiously ignoring. You CLAIM that driver shouldn’t perform well, but we have MEASUREMENTS in support that it DOES work well and is low in coloration.
And note that if you look at something like the Focal Sopra with the type of drivers you laud, it’s got a hashier spectral decay than the Harbeth speaker.
Did you see the parts quality of the XO? The cheap magnets on the drivers,
And the evidence this results in a speaker design that is "low resolution?" Strange how you keep making assertions that fall well short of actually supporting this claim.
As to the lively cabinet, while Atkinson remarked that the resonant mode at 150Hz *may* be audible he said of the cabinet resonances:
"This suggests that the idea of using a thin-walled cabinet to maximize the quality of a speaker’s midrange reproduction —proposed by, among others, Harbeth founder Dudley Harwood when he worked at the BBC in the early 1970s—does work as promised. "
Once again, this debate has been over the claim that Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" and/or only give "50%" resolution.
You have not supported those claims, only made some assertions you haven’t backed up. Where I have owned the speaker in question, compared them to other designs, and I’ve pointed to reviewer listening tests and measurements indicating the Harbeth has overall low coloration, ESPECIALLY within the range of it’s Radial driver which you attempt to denounce, and that the speaker has superb sonic qualities.
Oh...and of course you have conveniently ignored the measurements and comments from the other review I posted, which suggest the high quality engineering of the Harbeth speaker.
That, and comments like these:
To look at something like that and have the nerves to say that it performs better then, just about anything I can think of, not to mention the Magicos, is a sad jock,
...show you do not debate these issues in good faith. That’s a strawman.
I have not claimed that the Harbeths perform "better" than Magicos, either in measurements or overall sound quality. (I'd give some areas to Magico, some to Harbeth. As I said, to my ears vocals in particular sounded more "right" and believable on the Harbeths).
I have merely been saying that claiming the Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" transducers, especially that they only produce "50%" of the resolution, are to say the least, exaggerated.
You’ve done nothing to actually show the Harbeth design fits such a description. Snide remarks about the speaker designer don’t actually accomplish that, I’m afraid.