Harbeth Monitor 30 Speaker Review

[MattHooper]

To everybody saying that these sound great in their specific use case (jazz, rock 'n' roll, etc...), one of the points of well engineered speakers is that they sound good with everything. These would probably shatter if trying to play some Godflesh at a Godflesh suited volume.

I think I'll stay with my "toy speakers" costing toy money for toy performances.

One of the aspects I most enjoyed when I owned the Harbeths (and in auditions) was that, to me, they sounded great with every type of music. They were one of the most well-balanced speakers I heard in that respect. YMMV of course. And it will depend on how one listens. If someone demands club-level impact and volume, most consumer speakers won't suffice. That's not what I'm looking for: I just want all types of music to engage me and that was the case with the Harbeths. (I listen to "everything" - classical, jazz, hard rock, tons of electronica and dance music...)

 

[Shadrach]

Which suggests certain "flaws" can be re-considered as "features" not a "bug."

I'm in a position I think most audio-enthusiasts are in: I don't have a high level of technical knowledge about speaker design so I have to sit on the side-lines and watch the issues being hashed out among people who do have more knowledge. But among those people who build speakers, be they manufacturers, DIYers or technically knowledgeable enthusiasts, including on this site, there are still battles over "which approach is best/right." Sometimes I read from these more-knowledgeable types that certain speakers represent "just a wrong, wrong, wrong way to do things!" (Harbeth has often a target). But when I actually hear the results from said speakers they sound "right, right right" and just wonderful to listen to...to me. (No I don't always like "badly designed" speakers BTW). So, while it's fascinating to see the debates and graphs, listening to a speaker and satisfying my personal preference remains my method for selecting speakers. The Harbeths seem to tickle something in my personal preferences as they do in the rest of their audience. (I also quite like aspects of a speaker I now own that are if anything an opposite to the Harbeths).

I've also liked every Harbeth speaker I've heard and I know a bit about how they are built and the design philosophy behind it. But, having built a few speakers I know the idea is all wrong.
Now we have amirm's measurements, which while not at all bad, show some of the speakers shortfalls.
As you point out, there are two camps, possibly three if you include the multiple driver designs, when it comes to box speakers, mass loading with maximum bracing and let it all flop around.

 

[Spocko]

I've also liked every Harbeth speaker I've heard and I know a bit about how they are built and the design philosophy behind it. But, having built a few speakers I know the idea is all wrong.
Now we have amirm's measurements, which while not at all bad, show some of the speakers shortfalls.
As you point out, there are two camps, possibly three if you include the multiple driver designs, when it comes to box speakers, mass loading with maximum bracing and let it all flop around.

It would be very cool to have a few popular DIY designs sent in for measurements (GR Research is one - Danny Richie is VERY big on measurements so it would be interesting to see his designs independently verified).

 

[Shadrach]

It would be very cool to have a few popular DIY designs sent in for measurements (GR Research is one - Danny Richie is VERY big on measurements so it would be interesting to see his designs independently verified).

I agree. I would be especially interested in kit builds from companies like Wilmslow Audio in the UK. I've heard some of these kits and for three grand you can get what I thought at the time, incredibly good sounding boxes.

 

[maltux]

Popular thread! My favorite brand of speaker that I can NOT afford. Thank you for the measurements and I get a kick out of reading through all the comments. I am a fan of Alan Shaw and his design philosophy. Alan does not suffer fools lightly. Recently I listened to the Harbeth 40.2 speakers and was very impressed but bought a good used car instead. I have been toying with idea of building some replicas.

 

[Thomas savage]

This is much more like it , thanks to you all for contributing is such a constructive fashion.

 

[tomtoo]

danger bad joke follows!
Speaker designer 1 (drummer)
Speaker designer 2 (bass)

Sd1: And how do you like our new baby?
Sd2: Not bad, but it dont grooves
Sd1: no groove why?
Sd2: Guitarist is to loud
Sd1 Ah, i see. Like always!
..some noise....
Sd1: And now?
Sd2: This dip is phantastic! Give me five!

; )

 

[ahofer]

Just tried again. I made the vintage a little more obvious (but it was in the thread title the first time in parentheses).

We shall see tomorrow. It's in the product line-up section under the M30 series.

UPDATE 1/28/20: It's gone again. They've killed it twice now.

 

[napilopez]

While I agree with the rest of your post (which I therefore didn't repost here) I have to disagree a bit on this, the directivity of above Revel ist quite better than that of the Harbeth, it may also have its peak around 2 kHz but after it doesn't fall to a significantly lower level than before this like the Harbeth does, which is to be expected if you see its smaller midrange driver, lower crossover frequency and (unfortunately too) small waveguide at the tweeter. Newer Revels like the F208 posted from Krunok are of course even better in regard to this discipline.

I suppose you're right . My comment might come from pickiness and thinking neither is a particulaly amazing DI chart =] Compared to say some newer revels coaxials, etc. But yes the Revel is certainly better.

Something is telling me F208 could get better score than Ultima2 you posted..

View attachment 47668

View attachment 47669

I've wondered about that too though Revel seems to insist their Ultima line is better. One thing that isn't obvious from the spinorama though is that the Ultimas have wider horizontal directivity throughout most of the frequency response, at least in the perceptually important front hemisphere.

It's a reason I personally prefer to look at the SPL curves or even waterfall diagrams for directivity info. The studio's wider directivity is actually much easier to see in stereophiles measurements than in a spin, especially as the DI curve offset tends to be inconsistent (as seen above).

Studio2 from Stereophile:

F208 from stereophile:

It's apparent The F208 maintain a lot more more energy out to 90 degrees throughout most of the frequency range. Taking 8Khz as a reference, the Studio 2 is down 12dB, the F208 is down 18. Similar throughout most of the tweeter's response. From this I'd guess the Studio2 sounds bigger.

The spin obscures this info dramatically. Still a great all-in-one format, but it shows why it's useful to have other displays.

 

[Krunok]

I suppose you're right . My comment might come from pickiness and thinking neither is a particulaly amazing DI chart =] Compared to say some newer revels coaxials, etc. But yes the Revel is certainly better.



I've wondered about that too though Revel seems to insist their Ultima line is better. One thing that isn't obvious from the spinorama though is that the Ultimas have wider horizontal directivity throughout most of the frequency response, at least in the perceptually important front hemisphere.

It's a reason I personally prefer to look at the SPL curves or even waterfall diagrams for directivity info. The studio's wider directivity is actually much easier to see in stereophiles measurements than in a spin, especially as the DI curve offset tends to be inconsistent (as seen above).

Studio2 from Stereophile:

F208 from stereophile:

It's apparent The F208 maintain a lot more more energy out to 90 degrees throughout most of the frequency range. Taking 8Khz as a reference, the Studio 2 is down 12dB, the F208 is down 18. Similar throughout most of the tweeter's response. From this I'd guess the Studio2 sounds bigger.

The spin obscures this info dramatically. Still a great all-in-one format, but it shows why it's useful to have other displays.

Ultima2 would probably sound better on a blind test (most likely not by much though), but I was talking about spinorama rating.

 

[amadeuswus]

"Any wind in the lab was self-generated due to previous meal." (From Amir's review, right before measurements start.)

Is there a calibration for that??

Seriously... I once owned the Harbeth M30s. Bought them used and sold them a few years later for about the same price. I think Harbeths in general work very well for nearfield listening, where the off-axis anomalies maybe don't matter as much, and where you may be more likely to hear the high self-damping qualities of the Radial driver material (assuming that's audible at all). Also, listening up close means you don't have to crank the volume as high. Amir doesn't seem to have updated the review with listening impressions yet, but the M30s would probably run out of steam for him.

I also have a pair of the bigger M40s. But I suspect even those might not play loudly enough for some listeners.

 

[617]

"Any wind in the lab was self-generated due to previous meal." (From Amir's review, right before measurements start.)

Is there a calibration for that??

Seriously... I once owned the Harbeth M30s. Bought them used and sold them a few years later for about the same price. I think Harbeths in general work very well for nearfield listening, where the off-axis anomalies maybe don't matter as much, and where you may be more likely to hear the high self-damping qualities of the Radial driver material (assuming that's audible at all). Also, listening up close means you don't have to crank the volume as high. Amir doesn't seem to have updated the review with listening impressions yet, but the M30s would probably run out of steam for him.

I also have a pair of the bigger M40s. But I suspect even those might not play loudly enough for some listeners.

How do the M40s compare to the smaller speakers? I assumed they could go quite loud.

 

[DSJR]

I repeat if I may - unlikely it could ever be arranged, but to put this particular speaker as reviewed into perspective, you really need to see, measure, dissect and hear the LS5/9 inspirational model - and maybe also the almost equally balanced Graham Audio -re-imagined and re-licensed version.

Here's the HFW measurements of said current Graham LS5/9 interpretation. Note the crude and squashed scale, but showing the upper mid dip, something 'going on' at 2khz or so and the hf set to roughly the upper mid level.

https://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index....eviews/726-graham-audio-bbc-ls59.html?start=3

Dissecting the original - the Harbeth build quality is in another plane of existence usually as one would expect for the prices asked. The Rogers box does seem quite stout though and never 'buzzy' as my geriatric Spendors are..

https://www.markhennessy.co.uk/rogers/ls59.htm

Apologies, but I repeatedly mention the above LS5/9 as this was the model the M30 as reviewed was based on, the later 30.1 and 30.2 being further evolutionary updates and improvements on the original 5/9 concept. Interesting for me anyway, to see how this basic 'concept' has been developed and evolved.

I had a wonderful afternoon some years back listening to a pair of 40.1's driven by a once well respected US made amp (OK, a DC300A mk1.5 with satin trims and IOC lamps) of around 175WPC. The sound was excellent and we had no idea how 'loud' it was apart from the fact the overload lights on the amp were flickering and we almost had to shout to make ourselves heard. No idea how these would compare with say, JBL 4367's which I fell in love with some years later, but for UK tastes and rooms, the 4367's are almost unsellable which is seriously sad in my book!

 

[Willem]

Designing and evaluating speakers is a lot more difficult than doing the same with electronics, because speakers operate on the interface between the electrical on the one hand and the physical world of things that have mass on the other. The result is that speakers are far more imperfect than almost any seriously designed electronics. So every designer has to make unpleasant compromises, and so does the consumer: which imperfections do you find less objectionable than others?
For my main system I have opted for Quad electrostats, because of their supreme clarity, and I my desktop system I have opted for the Harbeth P3ESRs because of all small speakers that I have heard they come closest to that natural clarity of electrostatics.
I also like them because their designer is a true objectivist who passionately believes in the value of scientitic design. In the old days he used the old BBC anechoice chamber until it was demolished. These days he uses a huge barn as his laboratory, with an impressive and expensive collection of B&K measurement microphones and measurement gear. He is a very experienced user of such test gear and he is skeptical about the value of clever instruments that use fancy mathematical models to avoid using an anechoic chamber or free field measurements, and he has on several occasions criticized speaker measurements in Stereophile. He also does a lot of computer simulation as part of his design method, so taken all this together I think it is wrong to discard his work as just old 1950's work. It is not, even if you may not personally like the design compromises that he chose.
Finally, about these specific measurements. First, I think it is important to note that this is indeed a quite historic sample, to put it mildly. Technology has moved on, and maybe this specimen has also deteriorated (speakers do). Moreover, the AVhub measurements show a very flat response for the modern M30.2, and flat response is indeed what Alan Shaw claims he tries to achieve. There are also a couple of oddities in the measurements of these old M30s that may just suggest that the measurement protocol is not quite perfect yet. Finally, for those who bemoan their price: they are quite a bit cheaper in Europe or the UK than in the US. The US importer seemingly prefers to brand them as audiophile jewels for the vinyl and tube crowd for whom a high price is a selling point.

 

[amadeuswus]

How do the M40s compare to the smaller speakers? I assumed they could go quite loud.

The M40s play with much more authority than the M30s, being closer to full range and having a wider baffle, which (if I remember this right) drives down the baffle step frequency. (I have the original version which is especially generous in the mid-bass/bass.) I never felt the need to blast the M40s just to get a satisfying heft, but many people like higher levels than I do.

 

[ta240]

It would be very cool to have a few popular DIY designs sent in for measurements (GR Research is one - Danny Richie is VERY big on measurements so it would be interesting to see his designs independently verified).

It is interesting that he's very big on measurements but apparently also on the unmeasurable improvements. I gave up on his videos after too much pushing of the special $50 speaker connectors that 'make a world of difference in the sound'.

 

[MattHooper]

Also, listening up close means you don't have to crank the volume as high.

That's another thing I like about Harbeths: How well the sound holds up in close listening conditions (which I tend to favor - if not nearfield, somewhat close to it).

I also have a pair of the bigger M40s. But I suspect even those might not play loudly enough for some listeners.

The M40s play louder than I personally would ever want to subject my ears to. At least in terms of being in the same room.

 

[napilopez]

Designing and evaluating speakers is a lot more difficult than doing the same with electronics, because speakers operate on the interface between the electrical on the one hand and the physical world of things that have mass on the other. The result is that speakers are far more imperfect than almost any seriously designed electronics. So every designer has to make unpleasant compromises, and so does the consumer: which imperfections do you find less objectionable than others?
For my main system I have opted for Quad electrostats, because of their supreme clarity, and I my desktop system I have opted for the Harbeth P3ESRs because of all small speakers that I have heard they come closest to that natural clarity of electrostatics.
I also like them because their designer is a true objectivist who passionately believes in the value of scientitic design. In the old days he used the old BBC anechoice chamber until it was demolished. These days he uses a huge barn as his laboratory, with an impressive and expensive collection of B&K measurement microphones and measurement gear. He is a very experienced user of such test gear and he is skeptical about the value of clever instruments that use fancy mathematical models to avoid using an anechoic chamber or free field measurements, and he has on several occasions criticized speaker measurements in Stereophile. He also does a lot of computer simulation as part of his design method, so taken all this together I think it is wrong to discard his work as just old 1950's work. It is not, even if you may not personally like the design compromises that he chose.
Finally, about these specific measurements. First, I think it is important to note that this is indeed a quite historic sample, to put it mildly. Technology has moved on, and maybe this specimen has also deteriorated (speakers do). Moreover, the AVhub measurements show a very flat response for the modern M30.2, and flat response is indeed what Alan Shaw claims he tries to achieve. There are also a couple of oddities in the measurements of these old M30s that may just suggest that the measurement protocol is not quite perfect yet. Finally, for those who bemoan their price: they are quite a bit cheaper in Europe or the UK than in the US. The US importer seemingly prefers to brand them as audiophile jewels for the vinyl and tube crowd for whom a high price is a selling point.

Yeah there's no reason to believe this old model is representative of newer iterations of the same speaker, both for deterioration (probably not that big of an impact, given agreement with soundstage measurements) and modern impovements. Saying that as someone who has never heard a Harbeth.

Funnily enough, I actually only remember Alan Shaw's name because I remember him betting you couldn't tell an amp apart in a blind test:

"If, in a controlled experiment with all variables accounted for (incl. differences in frequency reponse and within the power range appropriate to the amps) under instantaneous A-B relay switchover, driving any Harbeth speakers, if you can positively identify an amplifier by sound alone, I will give you, FOC, a pair of brand new Harbeth speakers, up to and including a pair of M40.1 in any veneer you fancy.

I am quite confident that under controlled conditions, these fabled amplifier differences disappear and that I will never be parting with my money!"

So it seems he's "one of us" at least =] That doesn't automatically make his products good, but it's nice to see that perspective from a high-end speaker designer.

 

[Soniclife]

Just tried again. I made the vintage a little more obvious (but it was in the thread title the first time in parentheses).

We shall see tomorrow. It's in the product line-up section under the M30 series.

View attachment 47697

Do they let other measurement threads stay?

 

[graz_lag]

"Any wind in the lab was self-generated due to previous meal." (From Amir's review, right before measurements start.)

Is there a calibration for that?? ...

It's notorious all beans aren't the same in gassy side effects ...
Some of Dr. Floyd E Toole study suggests some healthy beans - pinto beans and black-eyed peas, are worse than others when it comes to flatulence.

"Audio Speaker reviewers should be aware that beans in the diet may result in more flatulence" writes study researcher Floyd E Toole, University of New Brunswick.