Harbeth 40.3 XD + Ton Trager First Impressions
I’ve had the 40.3’s (Walnut) in for a week now – they replaced the 30.2 XD’s (Cherry) which are ready for a new home.
I bought the 40’s used (locally) in mint condition. Even used, this is the largest investment thus far in a single component. They came with some decent “homemade” oak stands that did not match the geometry, or height (11in vs. 14.4in) of Ton Trager or Resonant Woods (which I have under the 30.2’s).
I found some open-box TTs for a great price from The Music Room which arrived yesterday. (Hat’s off to Ryan – the transaction/communication/product was great!). The TT’s are beautiful esthetically and the construction, fit and finish are meticulous and although more expensive than RW’s, I think they are worth the extra money.
Side note: Unfortunately, Resonant Woods isn’t manufacturing anything atm – the owner is currently looking for a new shop.
These massive speakers sounded good initially; detail, sound stage, imaging, depth etc. were vastly bigger and better than the 30’s (obviously) but the bass was a tad bloomy/bloated (with or without the RELs). You could feel and hear the unpleasant bass response, especially standing behind the speakers.
Honestly, I was a little worried that I’d made a mistake, but hoped the Ton Trager’s would solve the problem…
…and they did. Big time.
WOW! The sound is really something to behold. Bass is expansive and much tighter, really nice. Very warm and musical with fantastic detail. I’m going to enjoy revisiting every album.
I thought these would be harder to drive than the 30’s but that is not the case at all. In fact, they sound much more satisfying at lower listening levels than the 30’s, but get really loud, easily.
Having said all that, the 30’s are damn impressive for their size. Paired with 2 RELs, they really are the next best thing to the 40’s at roughly ½ the cost.
To drill a bit deeper, I have listened to the 30.1s on the TTs both directly on the floor, and placed on Townshend platforms. The difference in sound is clear, but because some of the bass energy that is typically felt through the floor is lost, some might prefer those speakers, which are a bit bass-light, not decoupled. With the 40.2/40.3, I would expect that there would be plenty of bass, even with greater, or *true* decoupling. |
For those interested, here is a link to a video of some relevant observations and measurements, comparing spikes and isolation bases. It was produced by the Swiss company Credo Audio. spikes vs. decoupling platforms Their conclusions are consistent with the experience of most users of damped spring products, namely faster decays, and a reduction in smearing, resulting in clearer sound. |
in my case, yes i do other than midrange response (which i feel the 40, with its radial driver material and lossy cabinet, do wonderfully), i hear a significantly more pure treble, plus a more even and speedy bass response from the maggies, while they both have wonderfully large, easeful presentations overall... a shared strength is they both lend a realistic scale to the music portrayed |
@jjss49 Interesting, thanks. |
@whipsaw Thanks for the input. I decided to put it to the test. I started by asking Brooks at Resonant Woods if he sold the round plastic feet he uses on his stands and he said yes but pointed out that installing them would likely split the tenon’s, and suggested I try some ball bearings, which work perfectly - held in place by the dimple in the tenon. This helped. Next I contacted Iso Acoustics and they suggested Iso-Pucks between the speaker and stand. I installed 8 of these yesterday - they are just tall enough to lift the speakers off the tenon’s. They are discrete and look good. Sound-wise, they made a BIG improvement. Much tighter bass and better imaging/detail. Cosmic Hippo by Bella Fleck was epic and instruments had better separation. Thank you for steering me towards this. Q: Am I now mostly decoupled? 🤔 |
