My thoughts on Harbeth C7ES3 vs SH5+.

It's on both digital and analog, but I would say certain female recordings mostly. I think it's probably the recording quality and me being sensitive to it.

 

good, glad your analog set is right on. now it can possibly cables and/or tubes.
i have a set of JJ a2AU7 tubes that have such a nice midrance but the treble has noticeable sibilace. can't listen to them.
likewise i have had certain speaker and interconnect cables that have caused sibilance.
i'm also somewhat sensitive to it and know you don't have to settle for it !

 

I rolled in some 1960s RCA 12AU7 in the input stage and it was a big improvement. I use inexpensive Audioquest cables, Type 4 speaker and G-snake RCA. Also use a Furman Elite 15 PF power conditioner. Not sure where to go next.

 

if you have a chance try some NOS amperex type 12AU7 - you can get the same tube with a different OEM name and they're only $49 a piece- e.g. philips, dario, etc. from auidotubes.com
also try the RCA 5963, a quieter more mellow top end than the basic RCA 12AU7.
i haven't heard your AQ cables but i did own some yukon and king cobra interconnects and the yukons were unbelievably bright, king cobras were not but also not very clear in the midrange.
try a set of van den hul "the name" (available at the cable co.). these are clear but smooth on top / refined cables and not very expensive.
your speaker cables are probably OK but you never know.

 

Even the greatest speakers ever made can't fix all types of bad recordings...if 95% of your music sounds good,don't sweat the other 5%

 

Since you seem to be familiar with most of the Harbeths, can you tell me if the 40.2 is more rolled off than the SHL5 Plus and the Plus AE version?

 

I got to listen to the 40th edition supers and although they sounded a bit more refined and smoother, I was also missing the airy top end. They did sound a bit more natural and bassy but not as engaging as the regular. Good assessment on your part.

 

the 40's need robust amplification to sound their best- also grilles off and proper positioning. for the bigger enclosure Harbeths (SHL5+, 40.2) positioning is very critical for the best tone balance.

 

To my ears there is a tradeoff as the standard version was a bit clearer and cleaner sounding. A bit more extended and lively although not as refined. I missed the apparent extension of the standard. Both were driven by a PrimaLuna tube integrated amp, so I'm sure the sound could be modified a bit by using different components. Can't have it all I guess and that's why there are so many speakers out there. Just my impressions anyway.

 

Especially for the 40.2, a huge room is needed. Can't imagine them sounding good in a small room.

 

Just to update for those interested, I'm now in possession of my 30.2's in lovely walnut veneer.

So, vs my outgoing SHL5 Plus, and knowing them and their previous iteration very well, the 30.2 is easier to work with placement-wise in my room (you can almost plonk them down and get a decent presentation from the off) and, I suspect, mariginally more forgiving in the treble. Mid-band presentation is about the same, which Harbeth owners will know and be familiar with.

So, what does the Plus do better? In short, scale. No surprises there, I suppose - it's the bigger box. And to my shallow mind, it's a belter looks-wise.

So, in summation, if you're hankering for a Harbeth, buy the model that naturally suits your living space aesthetically. Of course, there could be some overlap here in what model may work, but as a general rule it should serve any prospective buyer well.

 

Room plays major role to decide what speakers that can perform well, I had Harbeth C7, sounded bloated finally needed to let go(still I am regretting) and the rein is now taken care by Audio note AX-2.

 

Happier?

 

To your question 'Yes'

Normally if I don't like sound I will be in pursuit of new speaker, so far I am content with Audion note AX-2, even Audio note AN'E' sounded bloated which I tried after Harbeth due to the room acoustics , however went to try the '30.1/.2' if used available.

 

Sorry for the long winded comment, but maybe someone can find it beneficial. I owned the SHL5 Plus briefly, first Harbeth for me, and was really impressed - so detailed while remaining smooth and non-fatiguing. The one thing that bugged me was sibilance as they tended to sound a little dry and thin at times. I drove them with a PrimaLuna EVO 300 integrated with EL34s which should have been a good match. Tried rolling in RCA cleartops and Brimar NOS. The RCAs were better but didn't do quite enough. I still liked the Pluses but decided to try the Anniversary versions based on some research. I have to say the AEs do sound different. Alan Shaw did a lot of work on the crossover trying to blend the mids and highs so they sound more seamless. Although he claims that they have the same high frequency extension and bass as the non AE version, I did find the AEs to be a little warmer sounding. The mids/treble were better integrated, but maybe at the expense of liveliness, perceived air, and clarity. The Brimars were a better match with the AEs as they were more detailed/extended and brought them closer to the sound of regular Plus version, minus the sibilance. I have found that the SHL5s are extremely sensitive to positioning. One degree of toe in makes a huge difference in tonal balance. These are more sensitive to placement than any other speaker I've owned. Long story short, I can see how people give up without really hearing what hey are capable of. With a lot of setup care, I think you can achieve the tonal balance you are looking for.

 

Are your 30.2's new or used? Make sure that the 30.2 have at least 100 hours of run in before making judgements!

I'm really interested on more impressions of the 30.2 vs shl5 plus, as I had the shl5 plus and share the same negatives. I'm curious if the soft dome in the 30.2 make things better, any differences in the soundstage?

 

They're new, they're the XD model. The walnut is really nice, btw.

If like me, you're sensitive to metal domes, then yes, there is something perceptible in their absence. Which is not to say the 30's sound particularly rolled off or anything like it. To be honest, the overall balance of the 30.2 is very similar to Plus - perhaps it is tilted down ever so slightly in the mids/ treble, marginally more forgiving overall. Though, vocals do seem slightly more prominent in mix. Contradictory?! Maybe.

Regarding soundstage etc, the notable biggest difference for me is the presentation due to box size. Indeed, there is a slightly more monitor-type presentation from the 30.2 - as in it sounds focused - whereas the bigger Plus, given space, throw a bigger, more free image. Obviously, the 5's go lower too. That said, the 30's open up beautifully with volume - I guess such things are very much a feature of room and placement. Indeed, I dare say all of my impressions are a feature of room placement!

For me, the greatest attribute of the 30's in my listening space is minimal fuss regarding placement and resulting good sound. Sort of set and forget. The 5's simply were too big for my current space. Also, as detailed, I found something bothersome in the tweeter, though that seems a peculiarity of a few! The 5's demand a suitable room and considered set-up. They do sound stunning in such instances.

 

right on the money. the other thing is time- I have been running my 5+ every day while working from home the past 3 months- est 500 hrs plus week-end and evening listening hours. At the start they had ~ 250 hours on them but as of right now they probably have close to 1000 hours and the sound is smoother - all traces of occasional sibilance are gone.

 

30.2 is extraordinarily accurate, intimate, and detailed. Better than SHL for vocal, acoustic, acoustic rock, and small ensemble classical. SHL5 is better for rock, jazz, and symphonic. Most people prefer the SHLs, but for my listening habits, the 30.2 was the better choice.

 

Van den hul seem to be the brand/manufacturer. Any particular one you'd recommend for speaker cables or interconnects?

 

i use the VDH "The Name" XLR cables between preamp and power amp. for speaker cable i use kimber 8pr- tried other much more expensive and these have stuck.
for sources I use Nordost blue heaven, purpe flare and audience ohno. the nordost blue heaven are excellent.

 

Added spikes to my speaker stands...and holy crap what a difference! Wasn't sure what to expect with Harbeth, but it really cleaned up the bass and improved the mids and highs. I have custom solid oak stands and I thought I'd give it a try since it was an inexpensive tweak. Highly recommended.

 

Did those 40.2s have the magic mids of the c7s? Curious why you were so ecstatic about their sound.

 

The mids were 3D and less warm than the C7s but were talking about a completely different caliber of speaker, here. If you have a big enough room for the 40.2s to shine, the difference is as if the C7s are a B&W TV whereas the 40.2s are like a 4K OLED TV.

OK, just a slight exaggeration but the music had depth and realism I've rarely ever heard.

 

Hi Richard, Fellow Hongkonger here. Am interested in picking up some Harbeths. Are you referring to Garner Co? Thanks!