Harbeth M40.1 vs. M40.2 vs. M40.2 Anniversary Edition vs. M40.3XD

@jjss49 You don't think I'll be put off by the upper frequencies of the Anniversary & XD editions? That's the primary reason I want move away from the Sasha, I've tried, with some success, to tame the top end. Tube amps, room treatment, R2R DAC have all helped to varying degrees. They're just too fatiguing and I do NOT want to spend $10k on Transparent cables just to roll off high frequencies.

@donquichotte Not sure if the ARC amps are the best match, but I have found some folks in forums that love the combo. Also some claiming you need high power solid state to make Harbeth sound the best. We will see. Great questions regarding different M40 versions that I was also curious about.

@audio_bidder : your question is not addressed to me; nevertheless, I’ll try to add my 2 cents. I’ve heard the M40.2 Ann. twice and, more importantly, I’ve owned the smaller M30.2 Anniversary for about an year. The tweeter is not at all fatiguing in my experience, it’s obviously refined sounding, somewhat soft (not as in rolled-off, it’s decently extended, but in a soft dome kind of way, lacking the ultimate aggressive rendering of cymbals, trumpet edge etc.) and at the same time quite present. So neutral or even a little bit more forward than neutral, while at the same time not sharp or piercing at all. If this is going to verge on the fatiguing side for you... I cannot tell but if I had to guess I’d say "probably not".

By the way, the above mentioned softness is probably a huge blessing for any loud listening sessions.

@donquichotte

sorry, i lied... :)

i never had the 40.2 anniversary model... i had the original 40’s, then 40.1. then 40.2, then 40.3xd (the anniversary series are identical to the .3xd sonically except the badging, the model designation was changed when time passed the actual anniversary year...)

the original 40’s i had were a pair of the pro version, with britex vinyl cabinet veneer and metal side handles, this generation had very hard-to-tame bass, quite boomy especially in the midbass, a somewhat wooly midrange and a laid back tweeter -- but had that big, life sized sound and a magic with certain voices and acoustic instruments (it got solo piano right!!)

40.1 revision somewhat tightened up the midbass (slightly reduced efficiency too) and midrange wooliness, this resulted, i suspect, from crossover changes and some subtle changes to the cabinet panels so they became less resonant

40.2 further deepened the deep bass and pulled back the midbass and further cleaned up the midrange wooliness, treble brought forward a noticeable step in this version from the .1 - a more balanced speaker was my takeaway

40.3xd is very very close t0 40.2... i was expecting a significant change, but could hear none... if blind a/b-ed i could not confidently pick one over the other with confidence... perhaps the treble ever so slightly livelier... but once again, if there is a difference it was so subtle i could not be sure even with very concentrated comparison - these speakers remain with a laid back treble relative to midrange and bass (thus their wonderful easeful presentation over all)

in each and every case, i felt that tube amps could not sufficiently control the woofer and bass presentation, irrespective of placement -- in my view, these big harbeths require high level high-ish power (sweet sounding non grainy) solid state amplification -- which deals with lower efficiency, controls the woofer for deeper deep bass and cleaner midbass, slightly leans out the midrange (and makes it less diffuse and larger-than-life sounding), and slightly brings forward the highs, thus enhancing imaging

Consider the Spendor Classic 100 or 200.

to the good point raised by @noromance

important take here... https://highfidelity.pl/@main-1106&lang=en

i would concur that these two are the pinnacle of this type/size of speaker