View Full Version : harbeth factory tour video
hifinutt
02-12-2017, 15:19
anyone interested in harbeth may like to see this video
Ja9BJn0lMxI&feature=youtu.be
Now embedded for you, Phil :)
Marco.
hifinutt
02-12-2017, 15:44
brilliant , you must tell me how to do that sometime
Lol... You just need to know which part of the YouTube browser code to use, and then insert it in between the letters and symbols [ YT ] and [ /YT ], but without the spaces before and after those letters, whilst retaining the square brackets.
Essentially, it's the code shown in the browser, which appears AFTER the last ' = ' [equals] sign.
If you copy the whole of the browser code, you'll end up with something that contains a load of gobbledygook, with the YouTube URL at the beginning and end. However, all you're interested in is the code, shown AFTER the ' = ' sign.
The full copied code, from the browser, on the Harbeth video is: www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=Ja9BJn0lMxI - but you're only interested in the bit in bold.
So, all you'd do is copy and paste that code (Ja9BJn0lMxI), and insert it in between [ YT ] and [/YT], with no spaces (as outlined above), and you should have successfully embedded the video :)
Hope that makes sense! Btw, it was a most informative and enjoyable video, so thanks for sharing :cool:
Marco.
Nice one Phil and interesting to watch as a Harbeth fan. I've been lucky enough to meet Alan Shaw and what impresses me about him (apart from his glorious loudspeakers) is he's not only passionate about what he does, but he's also passionate about music. Those two together I feel are what puts him above so many other manufacturers.
The sound we like though is personal, just as much as our choice in music, but what he says about many modern loudspeakers rings true for me, they have a distinctive sound which I don't like. Harbeth speakers to me sound so natural and as a live music fan, these tick all the boxes - they sound like real music, not Hi-Fi. At the moment I'm without a pair, but as soon as I move and settle into a hopefully permanent home, I'll be buying another pair :)
And I must thank AoS (again) as I had never heard about Harbeth speakers before becoming a member. They are not for everybody, some like that Hi-Fi sound, but for me they come the closest to a live performance than any other brand.
hifinutt
02-12-2017, 18:30
Lol... You just need to know which part of the YouTube browser code to use, and then insert it in between the letters and symbols [ YT ] and [ /YT ], but without the spaces before and after those letters, whilst retaining the square brackets.
Essentially, it's the code shown in the browser, which appears AFTER the last ' = ' [equals] sign.
If you copy the whole of the browser code, you'll end up with something that contains a load of gobbledygook, with the YouTube URL at the beginning and end. However, all you're interested in is the code, shown AFTER the ' = ' sign.
The full copied code, from the browser, on the Harbeth video is: www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=Ja9BJn0lMxI - but you're only interested in the bit in bold.
So, all you'd do is copy and paste that code (Ja9BJn0lMxI), and insert it in between [ YT ] and [/YT], with no spaces (as outlined above), and you should have successfully embedded the video :)
Hope that makes sense! Btw, it was a most informative and enjoyable video, so thanks for sharing :cool:
Marco.
ta
hifinutt
02-12-2017, 18:34
brilliant tim. hope you get some soon when you are settled . a number of folks i know use them and i am a fan of a certain canadian brand of speaker which is very rare and very expensive . the harbeth reminded me of that brand . they have an emotion and are not forced or hi fi sounding .
as you say they are not everyones cup of tea, funnily enough not too long ago i stayed in lindfield for a wedding celebration and had no idea that harbeth was made there
ta
Cool - did you understand it, though? ;)
Otherwise, you'll not be able to do it yourself in future. Try it now, by having a go at embedding some other YouTube video :)
Marco.
high.spirits
02-12-2017, 21:12
anyone interested in harbeth may like to see this video
Ja9BJn0lMxI&feature=youtu.be
Thanks for posting Phil.
Hi Tim,
Nice one Phil and interesting to watch as a Harbeth fan. I've been lucky enough to meet Alan Shaw and what impresses me about him (apart from his glorious loudspeakers) is he's not only passionate about what he does, but he's also passionate about music. Those two together I feel are what puts him above so many other manufacturers.
Based on what I saw of Alan Shaw on that video, and what I know about him in general, I would agree. He came across really well there and seemed genuinely warm and friendly. I also admire his approach to loudspeaker design, as outlined in the video.
I just wish he'd come across like that on the Harbeth user forum, especially when the subject of cables (and such like) comes up, where his science-first objectivist leanings often get the better of him, and he can come across as the complete opposite of warm and friendly! :doh:
He definitely does both himself and Harbeth a gross disservice by writing some of the stuff he does on there. That attitude might appeal to some diehard 'measurists', but I can assure you that it turns off everyone else, especially most subjectivists like me. Maybe he's realised that though and changed? I've not looked there for a long time.
Anyway, that aside, when it comes to the speakers themselves, I'm a big fan, as like you, I enjoy their 'natural sound', and thus how they've been voiced to reproduce music, and especially the human voice, as believably as possible. I admire their heritage and in general am a fan of BBC-based loudspeaker designs.
Plus, Harbeth speakers are beautifully made and not stupidly priced either, considering the quality on offer, and what some other so-called 'high-end' manufacturers charge for their designs! :rolleyes:
Enjoy yours when you get some more, mate :cool:
Marco.
Thanks for posting this vid. Very good.
Many years ago - in about 1994 - I went to the Harbeth factory to pick up a set of speakers and Alan kindly gave me a tour of the 'factory' as it was then. Very interesting - the attention to detail was my overriding takeaway . Since then bumped into him a few times, the last was in Munich this year. Interesting 10 minute chat.
hifi_dave
03-12-2017, 10:55
Hi Tim,
Based on what I saw of Alan Shaw on that video, and what I know about him in general, I would agree. He came across really well there and seemed genuinely warm and friendly. I also admire his approach to loudspeaker design, as outlined in the video.
I just wish he'd come across like that on the Harbeth user forum, especially when the subject of cables (and such like) comes up, where his science-first objectivist leanings often get the better of him, and he can come across as the complete opposite of warm and friendly! :doh:
He definitely does both himself and Harbeth a gross disservice by writing some of the stuff he does on there. That attitude might appeal to some diehard 'measurists', but I can assure you that it turns off everyone else, especially most subjectivists like me. Maybe he's realised that though and changed? I've not looked there for a long time.
Anyway, that aside, when it comes to the speakers themselves, I'm a big fan, as like you, I enjoy their 'natural sound', and thus how they've been voiced to reproduce music, and especially the human voice, as believably as possible. I admire their heritage and in general am a fan of BBC-based loudspeaker designs.
Plus, Harbeth speakers are beautifully made and not stupidly priced either, considering the quality on offer, and what some other so-called 'high-end' manufacturers charge for their designs! :rolleyes:
Enjoy yours when you get some more, mate :cool:
Marco.
Exactly so.
Have you seen the thread "Amp upgrade towards Luxman" on the HUG ? I have patiently tried to explain that no owner or potential owner of a pair of Harbeths is going to even consider a £300 mass market amp. He disagreed, told me my customers must be 'different' and did a phone round of other UK dealers. He got the same answer from them.
There are two, just two, on the HUG who constantly bang on about the £300 amp thing to every enquiry. Similarly, all cables, CD players sound the same. Turntables are crap and stands make no difference. Naturally, this puts people off and they never bother with the HUG again. It's a pity as this attitude is putting off people from joining in on the HUG as they do on AOS.
hifinutt
03-12-2017, 16:24
and yet , you see those amazing stands from hi fi racks with many users . surely they would not bother spending such a lot if they did not bother .
http://www.hifiracks.co.uk/products/speaker-stands/Grand
i can`t afford the 800 pound price tag and if i ever do it will be an ikea type stand possibly with the new iso pucks
https://www.gear4music.com/Recording-and-Computers/ISO-Acoustics-ISO-Puck-Monitor-Isolation-2-Pack/1XHU?origin=product-ads&utm_campaign=*PLA+Shop+-+All+Products&utm_medium=vertical_search&network=google&adgroup=**All+Products&merchant_id=1279443&product_id=90066d1&product_country=GB&product_partition_id=68659054967&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIk9vY7Z_u1wIVLrftCh0qXQ3-EAQYASABEgKnTvD_BwE
hifinutt
03-12-2017, 17:56
olxHJhn3Kg8
ah it worked marco , thanks
:thumbsup: :yesbruv:
Marco.
Have you seen the thread "Amp upgrade towards Luxman" on the HUG ? I have patiently tried to explain that no owner or potential owner of a pair of Harbeths is going to even consider a £300 mass market amp. He disagreed, told me my customers must be 'different' and did a phone round of other UK dealers. He got the same answer from them.
Lol... You see it's that type of nonsense that completely undermines Alan Shaw as the (undoubtedly talented and knowledgeable) loudspeaker designer he is. I wonder what kind of amp(s) the guy interviewing him on the video was using with his Harbeths, for example?
I doubt it'd have been a cheap mass-market one (as he doesn't seem the type), and so how would he have reacted if AS had arrogantly told him that whatever hi-end amp he was using was unnecessary, and that a £300 mass-market one instead would've been 'adequate', and indeed indiscernible from it? :rolleyes:
Would he have left the factory afterwards still as big a fan of Alan Shaw? Somehow I doubt it.
There are two, just two, on the HUG who constantly bang on about the £300 amp thing to every enquiry. Similarly, all cables, CD players sound the same. Turntables are crap and stands make no difference. Naturally, this puts people off and they never bother with the HUG again. It's a pity as this attitude is putting off people from joining in on the HUG as they do on AOS.
My point exactly, Dave. That blinkered attitude and the nonsensical 'advice' being offered on the Harbeth forum does the company and AS no favours whatsoever.
However, that is quite common amongst a lot of engineers I've encountered. They think they know it all, are extremely ego-driven (up their own arse), and often completely blinded by what they consider is the efficacy of their 'science first' approach to audio, to even entertain the notion that in some areas they might be wrong!
However, as I've said, none of that should detract from the quality of the speakers, which as you know is superb.
It's also great to see a small British company doing well in the current trading climate, and in terms of how the hi-fi industry has gone in recent times, so long may that continue. They'd probably do even better if they ended the perpetration of such arrant objectivist bollox, on a forum that effectively acts as a 'shop window' for the company and its products ;)
Marco.
hifi_dave
04-12-2017, 12:44
The Harbeth range of speakers are wonderful, it's the ridiculous, misguided views on the HUG which annoy me.
If you browse through the HUG you will find that there are, at most, 4 or 5 regulars on there, who hold these "nothing makes any difference" views and one of those doesn't even own any Harbeths !!! So it's these opinions which people read and then go elsewhere for info and advice.
Out of all my Harbeth customers I have only one remaining who visit the HUG and he is on the verge of not bothering anymore. The speakers sell, despite the HUG and not because of it. Very sad.
I watched the Harbeth vid but found it more parochial than anything. AS admits at one point that he has little contact with, or awareness of, the work of other designers and the truth of that is clear from some of the comments he makes. Whilst it may be true that some speaker designers may still design entirely be ear (as AS suggests) the vast majority do all the leg work using CAD and only do final voicing by ear (if that). In addition, at one point he proudly shows an injection moulded cone and, when asked, suggests this is unique to Harbeth. Well that exact cone may be but certainly the concept of injection moulding cones (rather than vacuum forming them) is nothing new at all and speaker manufacturers were doing it thirty years ago. In fact, if light, stiff and well damped cone technology is what he wants (and that does seem to be what he is saying), there are some very much more sophisticated technologies available and they have been for some time.
Perhaps Alan Shaw should be invited to respond to the points being made about him, the Harbeth user group and his company?
Hi Edward,
He's free to join if he wishes, and doesn't really require an invite. However, should anyone wish to, they could join HUG (if not already a member) and alert him to the existence of this thread, whereafter he may decide to join and add his thoughts to the discussion.
Dave, you're a member of HUG, so feel free to go there and link to this discussion. I, for one, would have no problem chatting to Alan about anything that's been written here :)
Marco.
I watched the Harbeth vid but found it more parochial than anything. AS admits at one point that he has little contact with, or awareness of, the work of other designers and the truth of that is clear from some of the comments he makes. Whilst it may be true that some speaker designers may still design entirely be ear (as AS suggests) the vast majority do all the leg work using CAD and only do final voicing by ear (if that). In addition, at one point he proudly shows an injection moulded cone and, when asked, suggests this is unique to Harbeth. Well that exact cone may be but certainly the concept of injection moulding cones (rather than vacuum forming them) is nothing new at all and speaker manufacturers were doing it thirty years ago. In fact, if light, stiff and well damped cone technology is what he wants (and that does seem to be what he is saying), there are some very much more sophisticated technologies available and they have been for some time.
Oh Dear, what Alan is talking about...? His Radial cones are nearly as old as the company itself now. No real progress, no real investment in R & D ever since... "Special Edition", "Limited Edition", "Anniversary Edition"... blabla Edition. As long as he is able to move containers of Harbeths to Mainland China & HongKong it will stay this way. His Harbeth Forum full of users fron Asia only reflects this market "Status Quo" as of now. Progress in his eyes is just only CAD based fine tunning of the crossover as it was when replacing SHL5 with SHL5 +... Just ask Howard Popeck and he will tell some stories incl. you how Alan let him down as a Harbeth dealer...
It still works for Harbeth this way and it is OK but I don't care anymore. And I am simply NOT interested what he has or not to say either in his Harbeth User Forum full of his marketing blabla speech or here...
hifi_dave
05-12-2017, 15:54
and Harbeth have some tales about a certain ex dealer too.
people oft forget its a 2 way street as far as complaints in many cases;)
Martyn Miles
05-12-2017, 19:35
My small contribution to this Harbeth / Alan Shaw debate
Whilst my Quad 34/303 was unavailable, I ran my P3-ESRs from an old
Arcam Alpha amplifier.
The combination sounded remarkably good, and I understand AS's contention that
Harbeth speakers will work with any competently designed amplifier.
Good to get the Quad back though...
hifi_dave
06-12-2017, 11:02
That's all god but do all competently designed amps sound the same ??
That's all god but do all competently designed amps sound the same ??
I'm not coming at this from the scientific/measurist angle, but I've genuinely struggled to notice much difference between amps really. It's not night and day is it ? A fine chap from Saffron Walden sold me a Croft 25R and 7 which I adore though I currently have a Quad 303 in the system (P3ESRs), and, y'know, there's no striking difference really. One's definitely heavier though ;-)
It isn't night and day, true. If it was then one of the amps would have to be very poor indeed. Given the job of an amp is to amplify without adding or taking away anything you would really expect all competent amplifiers to sound very, very similar.
But you can't listen to an amplifier without hooking it up to speakers and that is where it can start to get sticky. Some amps will sound great through some speakers and lousy through others.
walpurgis
06-12-2017, 14:27
I hear differences with every amp I try. I have six sets of amplification available and each sounds different through my system. Yes, they're decent amps and my speakers are easy to drive, but very revealing.
hifi_dave
06-12-2017, 15:18
Differences between amps is not as noticeable as differences between speakers but there all the same. I've never had, as I recall, any customer who couldn't reliably tell the difference between amps, providing the rest of the system is up to it. Whether the difference is worth spending money on is down to the individual.
Martyn Miles
06-12-2017, 15:35
That's all good but do all competently designed amps sound the same ??
It's a good point.
This is only a personal finding.
You have much more experience, Dave.
hifi_dave
06-12-2017, 15:44
You have much more experience, Dave.
Not according to the HUG I don't..:rolleyes:
I hear differences with every amp I try. I have six sets of amplification available and each sounds different through my system. Yes, they're decent amps and my speakers are easy to drive, but very revealing.
Differences between amps is not as noticeable as differences between speakers but there all the same. I've never had, as I recall, any customer who couldn't reliably tell the difference between amps, providing the rest of the system is up to it. Whether the difference is worth spending money on is down to the individual.
ditto on all counts. I have (so far as I recall) 5 different amps and notice differences between all of them, however the differences are minor and are of texture, quality, warmth and suchlike. The biggest differences I hear when switching are with speakers. I would go further and say the second biggest differences are between different DACs. All of this assumes a clean source.
walpurgis
06-12-2017, 16:00
I would go further and say the second biggest differences are between different DACs.
I've found that too. And even audible differences between digital cables, which some I'm sure would tell us is impossible.
In terms of hearing fundamental differences between 'competently designed' amplifiers, much depends on the price of the amps concerned, the technology used (valve or SS), and where the money has been spent. It also depends on whether you're judging just sound, or musical ability.
Lots of amplifiers will make a 'nice enough noise', initially, but only the best ones truly draw you into the music - and that's where the big differences lie, and also what costs money!
For example, I'm sure that this Cambridge amplifier, from Richer Sounds, has been 'competently designed' and sounds perfectly good: https://www.richersounds.com/cambridge-cxa60-blk.html
But if compared with something, say, like Gazjam's bespoke-built (by Nick Gorham) 300B, or my KT150 Copper amp, which are both 'competently designed', but valve amps, and also rather more expensive than the Cambridge above, thus allowing the respective designers more of a 'free rein', as it were to optimise their equipment, then although the Cambridge has been 'competently designed', it will not have the same musical ability.
It's easy to design an amplifier that makes a 'nice enough noise', but far harder to make one that truly draws you into the music, which you can listen to for hours, day after day, and that never disappoints, no matter what music you throw at it.
That's the important bit, and something that may not be instantly obvious in a quickfire comparison, but only when you live with a piece of equipment for a while, so that its musical abilities have time to grow on you. Although, to be honest, in terms of the examples given above, I'd expect the differences to be obvious, even on the first listen! :)
Marco.
hifi_dave
06-12-2017, 16:29
Agree totally. Some amplifiers draw you in and are exciting and moving, whilst others are flat and uninvolving.
But listening to amps isn't an option on the HUG. The official position is that all competently designed amps sound the same if they measure the same. In fact, it goes one stage further and amps are chosen because they measure well and nothing to do with how they sound. That's the part I cannot agree with.
Agree totally. Some amplifiers draw you in and are exciting and moving, whilst others are flat and uninvolving.
And chances are BOTH will have been 'competently designed'! ;)
But listening to amps isn't an option on the HUG. The official position is that all competently designed amps sound the same if they measure the same. In fact, it goes one stage further and amps are chosen because they measure well and nothing to do with how they sound. That's the part I cannot agree with.
You should read the posts on the following thread, from both Dennis and me. They examine the psychological condition we suspect is responsible for such thinking: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?55365-What-s-the-best-system-you-ve-heard&p=925809#post925809
Marco.
Martyn Miles
06-12-2017, 17:36
Speaking of amplifiers 'drawing you into the music', my experience with a Pro-ject 7 amp. from the '90s is an interesting
one.
A somewhat 'quirky' model, but had the ability to make you forget the kit and concentrate on the music.
Much more so than an Arcam Alpha 5 amp. which replaced it, bought as it had more facilities than the
Pro-ject 7.
Ho hum, kit you wished you'd kept...
There is a theory that Harbeth promote the idea that you don't need a fancy amp with their speakers so that the punter has enough budget left to be able to be able to afford a pair...
Oh you cynic! ;)
That couldn't possibly be true...........
Marco.
They are ruinously expensive though. I mean you would think a budget of five grand would be enough to buy a pretty good system but even if you bought the cheapest pair they do it doesn't leave much for amp and source. My experience with Harbs is very limited I will confess. Heard the Super SHL 5 at Scalford one time and that's it.
I'd like to get a go on some of the big ones at some point. Small speakers don't do much for me regardless of how good they might be.
southall-1998
06-12-2017, 18:09
I hear differences with every amp I try. I have six sets of amplification available and each sounds different through my system. Yes, they're decent amps and my speakers are easy to drive, but very revealing.
Maybe you also have good ears, Geoff.
S.
Martyn Miles
06-12-2017, 18:19
They are ruinously expensive though. I mean you would think a budget of five grand would be enough to buy a pretty good system but even if you bought the cheapest pair they do it doesn't leave much for amp and source. My experience with Harbs is very limited I will confess. Heard the Super SHL 5 at Scalford one time and that's it.
I'd like to get a go on some of the big ones at some point. Small speakers don't do much for me regardless of how good they might be.
Ruinously expensive ?
Just look at the price of some of the speakers reviewed in Hi-Fi News...
Ruinously expensive ?
Just look at the price of some of the speakers reviewed in Hi-Fi News...
Fair point. Okay let's just say they are ruinously expensive for us mere mortals.
It's all relative Martin - what price to put on pleasure ;)
Lol - like Martyn, I thought that Harbeth speakers were sanely priced (ditto Spendor), compared with most 'high-end' speakers these days! Before I got my Tannoys, I had a pair of these: https://www.whathifi.com/spendor/sp100r2/review
12" drivers, in a huge box, for a stand-mount design, which I sat on Phase 4 Mana....
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/923/m45zyp.jpg
They rocked!! :hairmetal::hairmetal:
Marco.
fatmarley
06-12-2017, 23:27
Interesting and enjoyable video, but here was a bit of sales talk going on - especially the part where he says his drivers are better than anything you can buy off the shelf.
As for speaker designers that don't use software to design a speaker. That's not a speaker designer, that's a chancer or casual hobbyist.
I do agree that the human voice Is the best way to voice a speaker. I use the news channels and movies. A high quality recording of a familiar voice or voices would probably be the ultimate test.
walpurgis
06-12-2017, 23:34
As for speaker designers that don't use software to design a speaker. That's not a speaker designer, that's a chancer or casual hobbyist.
I see. That must mean that all the respected and sought after 'pre-computer age' classic vintage speakers were the products of "chancers" surely?
Lol... Indeed. Somehow much of the best hi-fi equipment ever made, of any description, was produced in the pre-computer era. Brainpower and good judgement was enough at one time for building a lot of things - and very competently, too!
Marco.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 07:40
I see. That must mean that all the respected and sought after 'pre-computer age' classic vintage speakers were the products of "chancers" surely?
I haven't got a clue how they designed crossovers pre-computer age. Like I said before, you'd have as much chance as winning the lottery, as you would blending two drivers perfectly through the crossover region without software. What most people don't understand Is a crossover Is designed to sum correctly at a certain listening height and distance. I'm afraid It's pretty much Impossible to do that without software.
But the point is, Matt, that some of the best sounding speakers ever made were produced during the pre-computer era, so clearly, the lack of such software didn't hold them back! ;)
I doubt my Tannoy Monitor Golds, produced in 1967, would've been built using computer software, and they sound stunningly good, as do many other (even older) vintage speakers.
Marco.
Neil McCauley
07-12-2017, 09:12
But the point is, Matt, that some of the best sounding speakers ever made were produced during the pre-computer era, so clearly, the lack of such software didn't hold them back! ;)
I doubt my Tannoy Monitor Golds, produced in 1967, would've been built using computer software, and they sound stunningly good, as do many other (even older) vintage speakers.
Marco.
+1
Neil McCauley
07-12-2017, 09:12
Not according to the HUG I don't..:rolleyes:
Ouch!
RothwellAudio
07-12-2017, 09:21
...you'd have as much chance as winning the lottery, as you would blending two drivers perfectly through the crossover region without software. What most people don't understand Is a crossover Is designed to sum correctly at a certain listening height and distance. I'm afraid It's pretty much Impossible to do that without software.
Measuring equipment existed before computers were commonplace.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 09:39
But the point is, Matt, that some of the best sounding speakers ever made were produced during the pre-computer era, so clearly, the lack of such software didn't hold them back! ;)
Put It this way, I'd put money on It there are plenty of old designs that could be Improved with modern software.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 10:02
Here's a well known speaker designers creation, reverse engineered by another speaker designer. According to the AudioExcite guy, the crossover was designed to work best at 1mtr. They are not supposed to be nearfield monitors, so It looks like something went wrong somewhere. Good luck to someone trying to get that kind of accuracy without software.
LINK (http://www.audioexcite.com/?page_id=2150)
walpurgis
07-12-2017, 10:11
Does it have to sound right to measure right? Does it have to measure right to sound right?
(there you go, that can be debated for hours :))
As someone once said (Possibly), Antonio Stradivari didn't own a computer.
But through his family and upbringing had a fantastic apprenticeship that allowed him to build what most people say are the best violins ever produced.
RothwellAudio
07-12-2017, 10:40
As someone once said (Possibly), Antonio Stradivari didn't own a computer.
But through his family and upbringing had a fantastic apprenticeship that allowed him to build what most people say are the best violins ever produced.
Quite true. But what's that got to do with loudspeakers?
Put It this way, I'd put money on It there are plenty of old designs that could be Improved with modern software.
Perhaps... Who knows? You'd have to try it. But there's also the chance that you might fuck things up! ;)
The point is, improving is one thing, but without the software the best old designs certainly don't sound broken, in the sense that it's impossible to do the job right without it.
Marco.
Martyn Miles
07-12-2017, 11:04
People had expertise and a knowledge of mathematics long before computers arrived on the scene...
Quite true. But what's that got to do with loudspeakers?
I would guess I am in the audio sceptic camp, I am using an Xbox One and a Surface Pro 4 as my sources on my two systems, and I am not going to be a good customer when it comes to expensive interconnects, but speakers and the rooms you use them in are analogue, the same as the voice and instrument's you are trying to reproduce (Well unless your pleasure is sitting looking at your Hi-Fi), I am sure improvements in speaker design can be made using computers.
But if something sounds good, but it was built before computers I am not going to junk it because someone comes out with a new computerised design and build that may or may not sound as good just because it looks better on a graph.
Would have thought someone selling audio gear mainly used to play music would have appreciated that.
RothwellAudio
07-12-2017, 12:04
But if something sounds good, but it was built before computers I am not going to junk it because someone comes out with a new computerised design and build that may or may not sound as good just because it looks better on a graph.
That makes perfect sense to me.
Would have thought someone selling audio gear mainly used to play music would have appreciated that.
I'm still not getting it - Stradivarius made violins and didn't use a computer. What has that got to do with designing loudspeakers?
Quite often I hear people talking about musical instruments and hi-fi as if the design principles, materials employed etc. were somehow similar, or even identical. For example, when the subject of "the best" material to use in the construction of a turntable comes up there will be people who suggest using maple because it's used in such-and-such a musical instrument, or suggest using spruce because it's used for guitar tops, or whatever.
Musical instruments aren't hi-fi and there's really no connection between the manufacture of the two.
I think the point might be, Andrew, that Strad's violin was hand-built by him using bespoke materials, and 'voiced' by ear. And it sounds both superb and unique for it, potentially just like loudspeakers can, without the aid of computers :)
And one couldn't ever imagine a violin being designed by computer that sounded any good! ;)
Marco.
And if that wasn't enough the musicians, when blind, rated the Stradavarius below a modern violin, preferring the modern one https://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/994.article
I wonder if a blind test between old designed by ears speakers and modern computer designs would throw up some surprises? Once the emotional / romantic investment in the old speakers was removed as a factor, would we prefer the modern ones?
Martyn Miles
07-12-2017, 12:22
That makes perfect sense to me.
I'm still not getting it - Stradivarius made violins and didn't use a computer. What has that got to do with designing loudspeakers?
Quite often I hear people talking about musical instruments and hi-fi as if the design principles, materials employed etc. were somehow similar, or even identical. For example, when the subject of "the best" material to use in the construction of a turntable comes up there will be people who suggest using maple because it's used in such-and-such a musical instrument, or suggest using spruce because it's used for guitar tops, or whatever.
Musical instruments aren't hi-fi and there's really no connection between the manufacture of the two.
There is connection.
Wood for musical instruments is chosen for its effect on the ‘sound’ of the instrument.
I have discussed this with a friend who builds cellos.
I told him about loudspeaker cabinets ( my area ) and the use of birch ply for speakers
such as the Spendor BC1.
We could both see the relevance of the materials used in each of our areas.
I wonder if a blind test between old designed by ears speakers and modern computer designs would throw up some surprises? Once the emotional / romantic investment in the old speakers was removed as a factor, would we prefer the modern ones?
Indeed - I'd love to do a test like that! I suspect that some might find the results rather 'disconcerting', though... Btw, you can also have 'emotional investment' in modern speakers, especially if you've paid a fortune for them, and WANT them to be the best! ;)
Marco.
I see. That must mean that all the respected and sought after 'pre-computer age' classic vintage speakers were the products of "chancers" surely?
The posting you are referring to was.[rude language removed - admin]... All mathematical equations to perform network analysis are known for ages. These mathematical equations are implemented in CAD software for crossover design. What you only have to do is provide input with your crossover configuration, all parameters required and press the "Start" button. The program makes exactly the same calculations that engineers made "by hand" in the pre-computer era. The only advantage is the "time saving factor". In pre-computer era engineers had to calculate every variation in layout + parameter input from new by hand, nowadays the software makes it all. In the pre-computer time you needed around 3 months to get an optimized version of a crossover design, with a CAD software you can make the same job withing 3 days.
Indeed - I'd love to do a test like that! I suspect that some might find the results rather 'unsettling', though... Btw, you can also have 'emotional investment' in modern speakers, especially if you've paid a fortune for them! ;)
Marco.
You certainly can, but I am suggesting that the main potential bias will be from those of us who love it when the old betters the new. It's like Rocky where he fights the Russian. The Russian has the latest hi-tech training environment with computer monitoring and optimisation, Rocky has to do pull ups on a tree branch.
No-one wants the Russian to win, probably not even Russians, because his training is modern, high tech and therefore soulless whereas Rocky's is traditional, organic and primitive, and therefore has 'heart'.
There is connection.
Wood for musical instruments is chosen for its effect on the ‘sound’ of the instrument.
I have discussed this with a friend who builds cellos.
I told him about loudspeaker cabinets ( my area ) and the use of birch ply for speakers
such as the Spendor BC1.
We could both see the relevance of the materials used in each of our areas.
Yup, especially as vintage Spendors, and all Harbeths, are designed along the principles of allowing the cabinet to influence the sound (as was outlined in the video), and then dealing with that issue elsewhere, rather than fighting against what is going to happen anyway.
Marco.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 12:36
I think the point might be, Andrew, that Strad's violin was hand-built by him using bespoke materials, and 'voiced' by ear. And it sounds both superb and unique for it, potentially just like loudspeakers can, without the aid of computers :)
Marco.
Yes, but with a loudspeaker you are trying to combine the sound of two or more drivers that are vertically separated (unless It's a coax type speaker) at a certain listening distance and height. A violin only has to sound like a violin, It doesn't have to reproduce a signal as accurately as possible. I can't see how you can compare one to the other.
You certainly can, but I am suggesting that the main potential bias will be from those of us who love it when the old betters the new. It's like Rocky where he fights the Russian. The Russian has the latest hi-tech training environment with computer monitoring and optimisation, Rocky has to do pull ups on a tree branch.
No-one wants the Russian to win, probably not even Russians, because his training is modern, high tech and therefore soulless whereas Rocky's is traditional, organic and primitive, and therefore has 'heart'.
I totally get where you're coming from. However, the *only* reason I use vintage speakers is because, so far to my ears, they sound better than any modern speakers I've heard - at any price, not because I particularly want to own vintage speakers, and get a 'rosey glow' from it...
Therefore, *if* in the outcome of the test you're proposing, my vintage speakers (let's say that they were the ones used) were fundamentally and comprehensively outperformed by their modern counterparts, then I'd sell them, tout-suite, and buy the modern ones. Simples :)
I'm not 'wedded' to any particular approach. And the same would apply with all the other vintage gear in my system, if the outcome were the same, when tested against modern varieties.
As ever, for me, it's ALL about what makes my favourite music sound best, not how old or new anything is. Hi-fi equipment is simply a necessary tool with which to reproduce recorded music, so it's just a matter of employing the right tool for the job! :cool:
Marco.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 12:42
I wonder if a blind test between old designed by ears speakers and modern computer designs would throw up some surprises? Once the emotional / romantic investment in the old speakers was removed as a factor, would we prefer the modern ones?
The reason why old speakers often sound better In some way than modern ones hasn't anything to do with the crossover and everything to do with driver technology.
Yes, but with a loudspeaker you are trying to combine the sound of two or more drivers that are vertically separated (unless It's a coax type speaker) at a certain listening distance and height. A violin only has to sound like a violin, It doesn't have to reproduce a signal as accurately as possible. I can't see how you can compare one to the other.
Sure, I agree, but there is still a connection, and that connection is the applying of a fundamentally important human element (voicing by ear) in the design of both loudspeakers and musical instruments.
I would also contend, and indeed experience bears this out, that the best loudspeakers, which have had a judicious element of 'human tuning' in their design, sound superior to those who have been born almost entirely via the use of computers.
Marco.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 12:50
In a perfect loudspeaker, only the drivers would produce sound but Harbeth chose to try and keep all the cabinet resonances out of the all Important midrange. The flexible cabinet design gives a better midrange but low frequencies suffer as a consequence.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 13:10
The posting you are referring to was.[rude language removed - admin]... All mathematical equations to perform network analysis are known for ages. These mathematical equations are implemented in CAD software for crossover design. What you only have to do is provide input with your crossover configuration, all parameters required and press the "Start" button. The program makes exactly the same calculations that engineers made "by hand" in the pre-computer era. The only advantage is the "time saving factor". In pre-computer era engineers had to calculate every variation in layout + parameter input from new by hand, nowadays the software makes it all. In the pre-computer time you needed around 3 months to get an optimized version of a crossover design, with a CAD software you can make the same job withing 3 days.
If we go back to my original post I was giving an opinion on what Alan said In the Harbeth video. He said that he knows a designer who doesn't use software and only uses his ears and measurements. To me that sounds like the guy doesn't use calculations In any form (In this modern day and age, why the hell would you do It on paper when It can be done so easily with any old cheap computer?)
When I said that people who don't use software are chancers etc, I assumed that people would understand that that meant any form of calculations. After all, a computer Is just a giant calculator.
Obviously, before computers, people had no choice but to do It on paper.
RothwellAudio
07-12-2017, 13:10
There is connection.
Wood for musical instruments is chosen for its effect on the ‘sound’ of the instrument.
I have discussed this with a friend who builds cellos.
I told him about loudspeaker cabinets ( my area ) and the use of birch ply for speakers
such as the Spendor BC1.
We could both see the relevance of the materials used in each of our areas.
Yes, the wood is chosen (partly) for its ability to produce sound - but it's not even trying to be neutral are accurate in any way, just sound nice.
The program makes exactly the same calculations that engineers made "by hand" in the pre-computer era. The only advantage is the "time saving factor". In pre-computer era engineers had to calculate every variation in layout + parameter input from new by hand, nowadays the software makes it all. In the pre-computer time you needed around 3 months to get an optimized version of a crossover design, with a CAD software you can make the same job withing 3 days.
Yes, I agree, the software is mostly just doing calculations faster than you can do with a calculator.
YA violin only has to sound like a violin, It doesn't have to reproduce a signal as accurately as possible. I can't see how you can compare one to the other.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. A violin sounds like a violin but makes a rubbish bass guitar. Who would want a loudspeaker than sounds like a violin when you're trying to listen to your favourite rock band?
The reason why old speakers often sound better In some way than modern ones hasn't anything to do with the crossover and everything to do with driver technology.
Yes, drivers that behave more like the ideal piston are what modern speakers are about imo.
Going back to musical instruments, modern hi-fi drivers sound terrible as electric guitar speakers. Crappy paper cones with paper surrounds sound much better in guitar amps, but they're terrible for hi-fi.
In a perfect loudspeaker, only the drivers would produce sound but Harbeth chose to try and keep all the cabinet resonances out of the all Important midrange. The flexible cabinet design gives a better midrange but low frequencies suffer as a consequence.
Yes, there's never a free lunch! ;)
However, having listened to and very much enjoyed the musical and natural sound that Harbeths produce (not least because of what you describe), I would applaud that approach, as it clearly pays dividends.
Marco.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 13:18
Sure, I agree, but there is still a connection, and that connection is the applying of a fundamentally important human element (voicing by ear) in the design of both loudspeakers and musical instruments.
I would also contend, and indeed experience bears this out, that the best loudspeakers, which have had a judicious element of 'human tuning' in their design, sound superior to those who have been born almost entirely via the use of computers.
Marco.
I use a combination of simulations, real measurements and my ears to voice my speakers, but my ears always get the final say. I couldn't do It without measurements. If I think there's too much treble, Sibilance or male vocals sound too chesty, then I adjust by ear until It sounds right.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 13:23
Yes, there's never a free lunch! ;)
There Is If you build a 3-way and put the drivers In separate boxes. With each box you keep the resonances out of the pass band, so the driver can't excite them.
In theory, perhaps, but there will always be some other issue to consider. Designing speakers is ALL about choosing your compromises, as there will ALWAYS be some, simply because the perfect loudspeaker doesn't exist - and never will! :)
Marco,
I use a combination of simulations, real measurements and my ears to voice my speakers, but my ears always get the final say. I couldn't do It without measurements. If I think there's too much treble, Sibilance or male vocals sound too chesty, then I adjust by ear until It sounds right.
Indeed, and that's the right way to do it. However, as you say, you don't necessarily need the help of a computer to carry out those measurements.
Marco.
Yes, the wood is chosen (partly) for its ability to produce sound - but it's not even trying to be neutral are accurate in any way, just sound nice.
Wood? Where? 99% are made of MDF for obvious reasons: it is the cheapest raw material (price around 1/3 third of birch multiplex for example) and easiest to CNC cut. Cheap as raw material and you can run your CNC machine head at very high longitudinal speeds and still get pretty clean edges -LS industry loves MDF! :-)
Yes, drivers that behave more like the ideal piston are what modern speakers are about imo.
Yet in many cases still don't sound as good as the best vintage ones.
Crappy paper cones with paper surrounds sound much better in guitar amps, but they're terrible for hi-fi.
Lol - paper cones don't seem to hold back the sound of my Tannoy DCs in any way!
And, pretty much every quality loudspeaker I've heard using paper cones has, to my ears, sounded fantastic. But then, I like the high-efficiency approach to loudspeaker design, driven by a nice valve amp.
Marco.
Wood? Where? 99% are made of MDF for obvious reasons: it is the cheapest raw material (price around 1/3 third of birch multiplex for example) and easiest to CNC cut. Cheap as raw material and you can run your CNC machine head at very high longitudinal speeds and still get pretty clean edges -LS industry loves MDF! :-)
I think we are talking violins here, not speakers.
Not that there is anything wrong with using MDF for a speaker cab. Or chipboard for that matter.
RothwellAudio
07-12-2017, 13:39
Wood? Where? 99% are made of MDF for obvious reasons: it is the cheapest raw material (price around 1/3 third of birch multiplex for example) and easiest to CNC cut. Cheap as raw material and you can run your CNC machine head at very high longitudinal speeds and still get pretty clean edges -LS industry loves MDF! :-)
I think you missed the post I was referring to (#66). Wood in musical instruments is chosen (partly) for its ability to produce sound.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 13:47
Indeed, and that's the right way to do it. However, as you say, you don't necessarily need the help of a computer to carry out those measurements.
Marco.
Yes I could use calcualtions but you'd have to be bonkers to do that. I can make a crossover change, and with a mouse click check the phase Is still tracking nicely and the Impedance/electical phase are still looking good.
I completely agree that a loudspeaker doesn't have to be like a musical instrument, otherwise we would need a speaker like a violin for violin sounds, another for the oboe's and another for the kettle drums, heck may as well go and hear an orchestra in a concert hall or hire in a blues band to play in my living room (Where it would sound awful as the noise would be far too powerful in a small room).
My Xbox One is made out of plastic and metal with some electrical components, no Maple, Cherry or Oak used, even my Cheviots are just an early form of MDF boxes with maybe some plywood for bracing. But they manage between them to produce a pretty good sound (Regardless of using my Quad 33/405 combo, Pioneer receiver or AIWA amp), I am sure the components of my Xbox One (Well the whole lot) is computer designed.
But when it comes to speakers and rooms, the two parts of your Hi-Fi system that have a direct bearing on the sound waves that reach your ears there is a difference, and this is why a speaker is in many ways "Like" a musical instrument, both produce sound waves and some designs work for some, others for others, with an awful lot of input from the rooms they are in, and to dismiss all pre CAD designed speakers is a mistake.
Marco is right, my point about the Stradavarius was to do with how they were made without any computers and I wouldn't have thought an awful lot of maths either, the only link is like a speaker it produces sound waves, some would say pleasing sounds.
I think you missed the post I was referring to (#66). Wood in musical instruments is chosen (partly) for its ability to produce sound.
Yes, you are right. I have only read your posting but not carefully the one you were referring to so I missed the point... Sorry.
Yes I could use calcualtions but you'd have to be bonkers to do that.
Indeed, but my point was that's what happened in the old days, and it still resulted in some truly magnificent speakers being produced. We're going round in circles now ;)
Marco.
RothwellAudio
07-12-2017, 14:04
Lol - paper cones don't seem to hold back the sound of my Tannoy DCs in any way!
And, pretty much every quality loudspeaker I've heard using paper cones has, to my ears, sounded fantastic.
Yes, I had my doubts as I was writing that. I was referring to paper cones that have the pressed-in ridges and the edge of the cone is very er..."papery". They have quite a distinctive sound when you scratch the cone and that seems to impart a pleasant quality to guitar amps. They're also run as "full range" so there's nothing to roll them off before their break-up frequency. I'm sure the paper cones in Tannoys etc. are made differently and employed differently.
Yes, I'm sure they are. It does rather highlight the danger of making absolutist statements... ;)
No worries :)
Marco.
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 14:12
Changing the subject slightly, do all Tannoy dc speakers sound good at low volume? I had some system 10 dmt monitors and the best thing about them was how good they sounded at very low volume.
Absolutely - that's one of the best things about them! And about the high-efficiency approach to loudspeakers design :)
The opposite, for me, always seems rather 'arse about face'...
Marco.
walpurgis
07-12-2017, 14:33
Btw, you can also have 'emotional investment' in modern speakers, especially if you've paid a fortune for them, and WANT them to be the best! ;)
Marco.
HeHe :). Like that!
fatmarley
07-12-2017, 16:09
Absolutely - that's one of the best things about them! And about the high-efficiency approach to loudspeakers design :)
The opposite, for me, always seems rather 'arse about face'...
Marco.
I just built some high-efficiency loudspeakers but unfortunately they don't sound anywhere near as good as my old Tannoys did at low volume - Think I know why now...
Changing the subject slightly, do all Tannoy dc speakers sound good at low volume? I had some system 10 dmt monitors and the best thing about them was how good they sounded at very low volume.
As mentioned I first heard Tannoy's completely blind, I had no idea what make of speakers were playing as they went through a demo of about 5 sets of speakers, I was across a large room, but had to investigate this one particular speaker as it appeared as though the music being played was singing to me.
Again as others have mentioned in this thread and others, most speakers are a compromise of philosophy, design, cost and much more, I haven't listened to Harbeth speakers and I am sure they have their following just as Tannoy do, and I freely accept I am a fan of pre move to Coatbridge Tannoy DC speakers.
But I have to say the idea of the Tannoy dual cone speakers seems to solve a lot of issues for me, they appear to be very untroubled by directional issues, you can listen to them from almost any angle and they still sing, being on the larger side they also have no problem handling bass, they seem much less "Pushed" when it comes to lower midrange and bass notes, I suppose this is why a violin is small and a double bass is large. I have listened to my Cheviots daily for over 40 years, I have had them in large rooms, small rooms even awkward rooms with one time effectively having them pushed together as a mono speaker with stuff piled on top of them, they obviously sound better in a well laid out room with space, but sound good in a poor room , just so pleased I got them back a couple of months ago after a few years absence with them left in my old house all by themselves.
I currently have the telly on (Not actually watching) with Steptoe and Son showing, the volume is low as I have been on the phone, you wouldn't know they were large speakers, just a couple of people talking to each other with a bit of canned laughter thrown in, but put some music on or a film soundtrack and up the volume and they really do let the music do the talking.
I listen to all sorts of music, blues, rock, prog, pop, classical and even the odd bit of jazz, but if you really want to hear them letting go, put on something like "Archie Wah Wah" by Desmond Decker at any volume (OK it still sounds good at low volume but if you want to smile, turn it up a bit).
No surprise that in the seventies if you went past the Tannoy factory in Norwood most of the people outside in the finishing areas were West Indians, by working there they could get a very good discount and enjoy their music using speakers that would normally have been out of their price range.
Now up to 007 (Shanty town) by DD, sounds like swimming in melted chocolate with a firework display going off at the same time :-)
hifinutt
07-12-2017, 17:32
i used to go to a big church in the middle of the high street in west norwood [st lukes] and the church bells were actually tannoy speakers as the factory was nearby . sounded pretty good
Just by the cemetery where the road splits, go past it most days on me way into work. The Tannoy factory was just two side streets and a railway line away, about 200 yards.
If I had a larger home I would probably own a pair of Tannoys in some form, vintage or otherwise, I adore them. Where Harbeth ticks boxes for me is the P3ESR and what it is able to do in a small (12ft x 12ft) room, especially at low volume. Regrettably I cannot afford a house upgrade !
I shall leave the 'amps all sounding the same' debate, but I will say I've shoved all sorts of amplification through them and they always sounded wonderful.
Edit: Actually I must correct that, my much loved vintage Quad IIs alas just couldn't do it with the Harbs.
Big Tannoys will work fine in your room Ian. It's one of the many amazing things about them.
Lol - like Martyn, I thought that Harbeth speakers were sanely priced (ditto Spendor), compared with most 'high-end' speakers these days! Before I got my Tannoys, I had a pair of these: https://www.whathifi.com/spendor/sp100r2/review
12" drivers, in a huge box, for a stand-mount design, which I sat on Phase 4 Mana....
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/923/m45zyp.jpg
They rocked!! :hairmetal::hairmetal:
Marco.
Now that's a great pair of speakers!:cool:
walpurgis
07-12-2017, 18:40
Big Tannoys will work fine in your room Ian. It's one of the many amazing things about them.
Yes. My Cheviots are in a 10 foot by 11 foot room and work just fine. And they not exactly small speakers.
If space is at a premium, the Eaton is smallish and has the authentic Tannoy sound.
Big Tannoys will work fine in your room Ian. It's one of the many amazing things about them.
They might work fine but I also need room for a sofa, a TV, another chair, a little table and a wife ! Oh, and a Hi-Fi :)
Seriously, it's a fair point you make but the Harbs do sit rather nicely in the room and I'm not motivated to change them.
As for HUG, I'm not one to throw negativity around but it is perhaps a tad, erm, dry !
Now that's a great pair of speakers!:cool:
I loved them, Jim, and enjoyed listening to them immensely for over four years, until the Tannoys arrived, which were a different ball game again... ;)
Marco.
I loved them, Jim, and enjoyed listening to them immensely for over four years, until the Tannoys arrived, which were a different ball game again... ;)
Marco.
I have only heard those once at a show. I expect you had them set up much better! Would loved to have heard them with your set up.:)
It sounded 'quite nice', lol..... ;)
Marco.
I remember the S100s appearing on Hi-Fi News front cover, and they being described as panel like.
Heard them at the 92 show and considered them against ATCs, they were described as a little fruitier..
walpurgis
07-12-2017, 23:43
Heard them at the 92 show and considered them against ATCs, they were described as a little fruitier..
That's about the time I first heard them. I thought they were excellent. Once in a while you hear speakers that stand out because they sound right and those did as far as I was concerned.
James the Albarry lover
08-12-2017, 04:31
anyone interested in harbeth may like to see this video
Ja9BJn0lMxI&feature=youtu.be
Brilliant video that I wish I didn't watch as I really want a pair of Harbeth speakers now but I could never afford them, if anyone is giving them away to a good home let me know :please:
Quite often I hear people talking about musical instruments and hi-fi as if the design principles, materials employed etc. were somehow similar, or even identical. For example, when the subject of "the best" material to use in the construction of a turntable comes up there will be people who suggest using maple because it's used in such-and-such a musical instrument, or suggest using spruce because it's used for guitar tops, or whatever.
Musical instruments aren't hi-fi and there's really no connection between the manufacture of the two.
I entirely agree. Such logical flaws and invalid similes seem common in hi-fi. As a component that generates the music (together with the musician) it is fine, desirable even, for an instrument to posses a characteristic colouration or character. However, once the music reaches the hi-fi the artist has generated the sound that is intended - the hi-fi isn’t yet another instrument intended to randomly add its own character to the music.
hifinutt
20-12-2017, 17:55
Just by the cemetery where the road splits, go past it most days on me way into work. The Tannoy factory was just two side streets and a railway line away, about 200 yards.
thats the one bob , think i helped paint the big front doors once
hifinutt
20-12-2017, 18:00
on a slightly different point i am struck that i can buy a pair of harbeth pro audio 40.2 for around 7.5 k . now i know they are not beautiful in grey with handles but presumably they sound the same as the domestic 40.2 at 11k ish ??
am i missing something or is that a cheaper way to get a pair of 40.2 ?
https://www.canford.co.uk/Products/76-138_HARBETH-MONITOR-40.2-Pro-LOUDSPEAKER-650W-6-8-ohms-passive-studio-grey-pair
RothwellAudio
22-12-2017, 10:37
am i missing something or is that a cheaper way to get a pair of 40.2 ?
https://www.canford.co.uk/Products/76-138_HARBETH-MONITOR-40.2-Pro-LOUDSPEAKER-650W-6-8-ohms-passive-studio-grey-pair
What you're missing is the VAT. Add 20% to Canford's price and the difference between the pro and domestic products isn't so wide.
hifi_dave
22-12-2017, 13:17
Well spotted.
Martyn Miles
22-12-2017, 16:33
I bought a pair of tatty grey Harbeth M20s ( the forunner to the present model ) which sounded so much better than
LS3/5as.
I had them resprayed in black ( by a car paint shop, for £40 ) and they looked stunning.
Slightly regret selling them, but my black P3-ESRs are superior loudspeakers.
hifinutt
22-12-2017, 16:35
What you're missing is the VAT. Add 20% to Canford's price and the difference between the pro and domestic products isn't so wide.
ah andrew , brilliant , i knew there must be a reason
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.