$9000 speaker Orangutan or speaker + amplifier

ESSrand, I just wrote a long response that could seem, by its length, to be too hard on Harbeth. They are nice, just a bit forgiving is all, and that can get old....music is more stimulating than they portray. That's one of the better faults to have for sure, but the amount you are spending can get something pretty "easy" sounding yet more musically insightful.

Two important descriptors for me are "low distortion" (which precludes ringing tweeters, grainy midranges, 2 all too common faults of "hi-rez" speakers) and "musically insightful". The latter forgiving requires more information, more subtle detail, more instrumental (or vocal) detail than "glossed over" speakers deliver.

As someone who has owned both Harbeths and Coincident speakers, I think a potential buyer has to realize that a speaker designer ususally has absolutely no idea of the room the speaker will be placed in and therefore is faced with tough decisions. Because of the size of my room, I am forced to listen from about 8 feet away, which I really consider pretty nearfield. A speaker like Harbeth works wonderfully in such a situation, while a more "detailed" speaker might tear your head off. I disagree with Kiddman that the Harbeth sound can get old, but that's a matter of taste and use. My friends had the SHL5s in a large room and they didn't work at all. In a boomy room, a brighter speaker with tighter bass might work far better, while Harbeths could become too diffused and soft.

So the upshot is - all this information dispensed may be correct under certain circumstances, depending on the room or whatever. But ultimately, you have to become secure enough in your own taste to make an informed decision without regard for what others think.

IMO, you need to buy something very good and listen to it for a few years until you develop a point of reference. You've listened to every record you own ten times and you know what everything sounds like. Then, you can listen to other speakers and have a solid foundation upon which to determine whether you prefer them to what you have. But it takes time, experimentation and money. But I guarantee you that everyone here who has a system they really love has gone through this process. Good luck.

Nearfield is REALLY close, I would call 8 feet or further a relatively normal position. I can listen to my current system from 18 feet away to 4 feet away with pinpoint imaging at the 4 foot position, realism like you are up against the stage. The proper design speaker, with great coherency, can do this and I own several that will, including some pretty gigantic speakers that will play 125db. This 4 foot position is possible with the speakers 12 feet apart center to center. The key is a very coherent signal from upstream components, as well as really well designed speakers. Toe in will have to be adjusted for close distances.

As for Harbeths wearing off, I should qualify this statement: Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while. The true bite of a trumpet, the tougher complex harmonics of a muted trumpet, saxes from sop to baritone, the differentiation of different cymbals and high hat, sizzle of the high hat, these sounds are rounded by Harbeths and they are certainly not alone in that regard. It's a stylized sound. It can be very pleasant. It's what I call a little impressionistic. Nothing wrong with impressionism, but don't tell me a Money Water Lilly drawing is an exact reproduction of the look of water lillies....and the Harbeths are a bit impressionistic.

With many brands and models of associated equipment that are a bit harsh or rough, this "bridging over" of transients is a plus. Unfortunately, such band-aid mixing and matching true detail suffers at each piece of equipment in the chain. With the best, most neutral sources and equipment, it's not needed (the softness), and it will just cover over true musical detail.

"Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while."

I think this gets to the crux of the issue at hand. From my personal viewpoint there are two kinds of listeners', those that REALLY are searching for a presentation that mimics real music in the space it was played, in other words maximizing what is on the recording and then there are those that settle for a sound based on their musical tastes and preferences. If one has eclectic tastes and listens to ALL types of music including large scale, the upper frequency and bass range as well as the midrange MUST be reproduced accurately to convey the performance, any coloration in any of these areas will eventually be realized to the critical listener and ultimately lead to fatigue and diminished pleasure over time. Why do so many keep changing gear as frequently as they do I keep wondering?

Kidmann your point of listening to live music as a benchmark in what to listen for in an audio system can not be overemphasized. I am sometimes astounded by some of the systems I have listened to from VERY experienced, seasoned audiophiles and it has nothing to do with achieving the absolute sound, too each his own and I guess this is the bottom line. It is why it is SO difficult to recommend anything without having a real sense of what a particular listener wants to achieve.

Furthermore your point concerning "impressionistic" really drove home to me the difference between artistic representation of music versus realism, indeed it comes down to what do you prefer, art vs. reality?

Music is art. All art is impressionistic. Even the highest quality, highest resolution photography is not perfect. There are many other perspectives of teh same thing possible that the photo does not show.