When a budget speaker is preferred to a high end one...

Well there is no denying that the best speaker for the individual is the one they like best. However, when you read some of what the Harbeth "guy" says most doesnt make much sense. Much of what Harbeth appears to do is create a sound that appeals to a certain listener. No problem with this provided that you understand that the sound coming from every Harbeth speaker, to my ears, is the antithesis of neutral or accurate. 

Now I would rather listen to a Harbeth than say any number of other designs that are etched, rough or not organic in nature. But I dont think that creating a "house sound" is really what good loudspeaker design is about no matter ones preference. Coloration should be designed out not in. Just an opinion.

@audition__audio wrote:

Well there is no denying that the best speaker for the individual is the one they like best. However, when you read some of what the Harbeth "guy" says most doesnt make much sense

Are you referring to Alan Shaw of Harbeth, and what’s the written specifics here?

Much of what Harbeth appears to do is create a sound that appeals to a certain listener. No problem with this provided that you understand that the sound coming from every Harbeth speaker, to my ears, is the antithesis of neutral or accurate.

Seems to me the term ’accurate’ has a tendency of getting patented or earmarked as that which is as well a sonic character, but I guess we could argue until Christmas without coming to an agreement here, and that’s fair. Judging by the general popularity of Harbeth speakers however that "certain listener" is plentiful, I’d say. What’s your definition of "accurate" in terms of speakers that are representative here?

As an example of "sins of omission" inaccuracy is (also) a lack of tonal authenticity and coherency, both of which I find are vital areas Harbeth speakers generally excel at. Lack of dynamics (micro and macro) and transient snap is coloration, as is lack of ease, scale and overall image size, etc. What is "designed out" of speakers, as a mantra even, could be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the process..

Now I would rather listen to a Harbeth than say any number of other designs that are etched, rough or not organic in nature. But I dont think that creating a "house sound" is really what good loudspeaker design is about no matter ones preference. Coloration should be designed out not in. Just an opinion.

House sound to some, musical and natural to others. An area in reproduction that’s very often overlooked, to my ears, and that by its anemic nature in many "hifi" speakers seems to be equated with "accuracy," is the lower midrange to upper bass. It makes for a somewhat leaner sound that in turn accentuates detail in the upper registers as well as the lower bass, but it removes the richness and presence in the "power region," important for setting the overall tone and energy of music, that to me is much more prevalent in live music. Harbeth speakers are better than many others in this respect, which is one of the reasons why I don’t find them colored per se but instead relatively natural sounding, not to say that they’re perfect by any measure. To each their own (preferences).

For my office setup, I owned (consecutively) both version 1 and version 2 of the venerable KEF LS50 wireless speakers. Was happy with them at first but after a while they began to grate and sound fatiguing. Sold both and bought a pair of LSA Signature 50s, $600 (one fourth the price of the KEFs). Much nicer. Of course the LSAs don’t have built-in amplifiers and DACs but they don’t need anything fancy to sing, just a decent little desktop amp.

My Tekton Moabs, $4,500, sound better than any other pair of speakers I’ve tried in my listening room, including ones costing two and three times as much.

I now have a pair of Raidhos on the way, a hair over $100,000, that impressed me greatly at two different audio shows. Those may finally outclass the Tektons, but it still might not be night and day. We’ll see (hear).

@flyfish77 

+1 NHT bookshelf.  The original SuperOne was my first bookshelf speakers in my audiophile journey 20 years ago.  The bottom end is down to 56 hz so I pair it with a AR subwoofer.  With Harmon Kardon AVR 25ii, the combo gives a "quasi" full-range down to 35 hz range.  The bass notes are weighty but a bit laid back.  Then NHT came up with SB1 to replace your SuperZero and SB2 to replace my SuperOne, with a better bass extension down to 51 hz.  In 2002, NHT released the mighty SB3 with the bass extension down all the way to 39 hz.  With the hype from reviewers around that time including Stereophile, SB3 starts getting my attention but I was not on a quest for it due to the limited availability in the used market.  This year I was finally able to locate one pair from local area and, boy, I fell in love with its intoxicated midrange and mighty bass (for its size) and starts building a second system in my bedroom.  Paired it with Parasound A23, the bass from this close box digs deep, nimble and uncolored as said in Stereophile.  I even retire AR sub.

Sorry for being rambling but the point I try to make is a budget, nearly vintage pair of speakers could perform really well in a cozy or midium sized space.  With carefully matched gears and well thought out positions, they could potentially be on par with modern bookshelf speakers 10 times higher in price.  I did a 10-songs  recording of various genres of music to demonstrate that and hope you enjoy it.  The audio gain level for video recording using iPhone 13 is a bit low in the beginning.  I do apologize for that.  If you know how to adjust the gain level in iphone recording, please let me know.

I remember back in the 1980s several speakers come to mind that were very reasonable cost that sounded better than many higher priced speakers.

1. Ultralinier 100s. (El cheapo components.)

2. Advent speakers.

3. Radio Shack Minimus 7

Now. My DIY speakers. :)