Harbeth 40 speakers

They are great, indeed. the 40s are fairly big, personally I like the 30s and Super HL5 better (space-wise.). Harbeth recently changed US distributors, so availability was spotty until now. They made their re-entrance at this most recent CES, I was helping them out and have to say the sound was better than I would have thought possible in a hotel room. Fidelis in NH is the new distributor, I think they have maybe a dozen dealers or so? Check with Walter Swanbon if you want a pair: info@fidelisav.com or 603-894-1306.

They sound way better than they look like they have a right to.... what with big boxes, not slim baffles, pro-style construction, etc. They are worth a listen, for sure.

-Ed

Just bought a pair of Monitors 40 and they are amazing! I have them on 12 inch sound anchors in a large room and sound absolutely gorgeous.

I had Spendors for a long time that I loved but these are a class above.

would those of you who own the Harbeth 40's care to share your amp and preamp choices with us. That would be very helpful because I am seriously considering getting a pair and would love to start thinking about amplification. Thanks in advance for you help.

America, did you ever get M40's?

Hello,

I don't know that I have ever posted here at audiogon, but I post occasionally on Audio Asylum. I Recently Purchased a Pair of Vandersteen 5A's, but Harbeth monitor 40's were my second choice and I researched them as thoroughly as I could.

I would strongly recommend reading the harbeth users group at smartgroups.com. Alan Shaw, Robert Greene and other knowledgeable people post there pretty regularly.

The harbeth monitor 40's are not as "dramatic" as many other top speakers, they don't have amazing imaging, there is no extra energy in the upper midrange to make them sound "alive", and they need some room. They have a full mid-bass (many speakers have a little trough around 200-300 hertz) which makes them sound warmer than most speakers. They have a wonderful midrange and an excellent transition between the midrange and the tweeter. It's as good as a conventional speaker gets. Also, they do not have the traditional BBC "dip" - Alan Shaw verified this on these users group a couple weeks ago. Alan Shaw also said something a while ago on the users group which I think sums up his design philosophy best: real sound is distant and clear (paraphrased by me). In other words, if you go hear a live orchestra and close your eyes the sound will be distant and clear. That's the way the monitor 40's sound. Bob Neill described monitor 40's as "patrician" and I would agree. The 30's, while also very good speakers, are more forward with a more "audiophile" sound.

The monitor 40's work best with powerful solid-state implication. You don't need to spend big bucks on an amplifier either, something like a Marsh for $2,000 or a used Pass Labs x250 will make them sing. They were not designed for tubes and they are not especially efficient.

I think they are great speakers and only marginally preferred the Vandersteen 5a's. Certainly the Vandersteen's are not 2x as good.