Tone, Tone, Tone !

I refer to the entire Harbeth line although I have never heard these speakers in my home. I did, I think, get a very good idea of how they sounded at shows and at a few dealers. I am sure they can sound better but the fundamental "house" is pretty hard to forget.

All Harbeths I have heard all have a tendency to homogenize material. I hate the cabinets and take issue with the designers belief in this being an effective energy dissipation method. Essentially you have a big vibrating box with a large surface area. I dont like large front baffles and I shouldnt have to explain why these are not a good thing. Feel that first order crossovers are best and am guessing a 2nd or 3rd order is used by Harbeth. I certainly dont see any attention paid to time alignment. In addition dont like ported speakers and also feel no science exists that supports this type of design other than a pleasant hump, increased efficiency and a reduction in cabinet size.

So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos" all of which coincidentally reduce the production cost that are then presented as a viable design methodology that doesnt make sense to me and also runs counter to the design philosophies from speakers that I think sound best.

I am not knocking anyone that likes this type of sound. But it is safe to say that those of you that like Harbeths hear things in a very different way than I. Who is to say which of us is correct?

I'm pretty fond of my Omega Super 3i Monitors. These are Omega's entry-level loudspeaker ($695). They are a tube-friendly single-driver design efficient enough to sound great with 2 WPC. Tone, vocals, and coherence is wonderful (no crossover to muck up the sound). I think they're a true bargain. Add a sub for the lower registers. SET/single-driver loudspeaker systems certainly aren't for everyone but I can honestly say I never been happier.

jsautter

So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos"

Which somehow add up to very good measured performance - very often more neutral than the vast majority of measurements found for other speakers.  Take a look even at JA's measurements for the Harbeth Monitor 30.2 40th An. edition.  Beautifully even tonal balance, even the bass "maximally damped" design, cabinet resonances there but "low in level" by JA's comment.  (A bit of a bass bump there, but typical for measurements of most speakers, including my beloved Thiel 3.7s, and even my sealed-box Spendor 3/5s).

Totally disagree that the Harbeths homogenize instruments - I find the opposite (relative to loudspeakers in general - every loudspeaker to my ear homogenizes to some degree, but I find the Harbeths among the most convincing, tonally).  

Anyway, as you say, horses for courses.  No reason you have to like them.  But I do think that once we start making claims about speakers being "colored" or "not neutral enough" etc we are in to objective-claims territory. 

Btw, I'm also a fan of time/phase coherent speakers as I own Thiel 2.7 speakers as well. I just find different speaker designs do one or another thing like like better - no perfect speaker.

Thanks for all the great responses!
@almarg 

(and others)

Yes the whole tone/timbre thing is fairly vexed.  Like a lot of us, when I hear, or play, unamplified instruments I am struck by the richness and harmonic beauty (and, often, "warmth").   I think "that's what I want, wow that would be great if my system could reproduce that."

Unfortunately I find that every system homogenizes instruments, and instrumental timbre to one degree or another.  (I want to lay blame on speakers, which typically introduce the most distortion in the chain).

Even the most "neutral" or "best" measuring speakers I've heard homogenize, in that once I hear drums, cymbals, sax, trumpet etc the sense of "surprise" is gone; I know how those will sound through the speaker forever more, unlike the sense of almost "limitless" timbral pallet in the real world.


So when I hear so many instruments and voices sounding essentially timbrally "right" through a speaker, as I do through my Spendors it's hard to decide whether such speakers more accurately reproduce the actual timbral qualities of the real thing, or whether the speakers have a "voice" or "coloration" that happens to be consonant with the real thing. 
My feeling is that it's more of the latter than the former, as I can hear a consistent voice from the Spendors, like any speaker.   There isn't the level of timbral variety and surprise of the real thing, but most instruments/voices have a *quality* that *feels like* the real thing.

Hand claps through the speaker sound timbrally like my own hand claps in the room.  I have an acoustic guitar I play, that I've recorded and when I play it back on some speakers it sounds vivid, but timbrally gray, plastic, electronic.  "Made of the wrong stuff" and not evoking the same tonal colors in my mind's eye as does the real thing.

When I play the recording of my acoustic guitar on the Spendors - I'll be damned but my brain says "yes, THAT is what my guitar sounds like FOR REAL."  The same "sparkly, warm, golden" overtones that I "see" when I play the guitar.  The same "slightly papery/fleshy quality" of the fingers on the strings.   I can play that recording on the Spendors, then play my guitar and...yup...that's essentially, timbrally, what it sounds like.

This is something I really value - for the same reason I can sit and play my guitar and be transfixed by the beauty of it's tone, if a speaker can do some of the same thing - even by subterfuge of some sort - it's much more pleasurable than speaker producing a hyper-detailed, holographic "guitar thing" in front of me, but which never gives me the sparkle and inherent richness/timbral warmth I enjoy in the real thing.   So every speaker homogenizes, but I prefer one that homogenizes in a voice that reminds me of the qualities I value most in the real thing.

Speakers need to make me notice how pleasant they sound from the other room, doors may be open. Maybe because I will rarely sit in front of them.