Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?

Reference 3A DeCapo

NO crossover to add distortion and filter harmonics.  You will think the instruments are in the room.

sciencecop,

So if cheap parts,

No evidence from you the parts selection reduced resolution in the Harbeth speaker.

none pistonic jello cones,

Assertion, with no evidence, while there is evidence against your assertion. "Jello" cones would hardly provide the linearity and excellent spectral decay characteristics measured in Harbeth’s Radial Cone driver.
This doesn’t help anyone take your claims seriously.

no coherent signal above 12K,

Atkinsons measurements show interference around there. But it’s not like the signal stops there. Plus:

1. Most of the audible spectrum is below that, and even if the speaker didn’t even produce sound above 12K (which it obviously does with a super tweeter), that does not entail it would be "low resolution" within it’s frequency range, which covers most of the musically relevant range.

But more important:

2. You have been given more than one set of measurements for the Harbeth speaker. The measurements I linked to from the Newport Audio Labs show measurements quite inconvenient for your characterizations. Again, there are both the measurements to observe, with these comments from the tester:

"It’s important to first note the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s response, as measured by Newport Test Labs, because it extends from 45Hz to 40kHz ±3dB—extension and linearity that are, in my memory, unprecedented. "

This contradicts your claim the Harbeth SuperHL5 Plus has "no coherent signal above 12K.

Would it helps if you look at the gross THD between 200Hz and 500Hz? Last I checked it was part of the midrange (https://www.soundstage.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/).

Yay! Measurements!

Does that single measurement (of a different Harbeth speaker), that node, warrant the conclusion that the Harbeth design is "low resolution?"

That would seem quite an incautious stretch for someone who is supposed to be waving the flag for a scientific approach to these things.
We’d want to know the actual effects in terms of audibility in the overall audio signal produced by the speaker, while not dismissing other excellent areas of performance, before such a conclusion, right?

You said you can find much better driver design from Focal at similar price, but Focal don’t seem above putting out expensive monitors that have similar distortion in that region, e.g. here:

https://www.soundstage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=902:nrc-measurements...

So it isn’t good enough to simply point to any particular advantage or seeming disadvantage of single parts; it’s about how everything is implemented in the final design.

And the final design of the Harbeth SuperHL5plus seems to be lauded quite highly in the comments and measurement sections in the reviews I’ve provided.

If it makes you feel better, I am willing to let go of the 50% mark; you seemed to be stuck on that. After all, I actually didn’t say that

No, but you entered the thread in support of mheinze’s comments.
And you’ve tried to uphold the idea the Harbeth speakers deserve to be described as low resolution. (Mostly as a way to take jibes at me, quite obviously).

I’ve never once said that no other speaker design, or drivers, are not capable of higher resolution than Harbeth. But that higher resolution exists, doesn’t entail Harbeth are "low resolution." I have ONLY objected that mheinze’s comments exaggerate, to a silly degree and to a point that mischaracterizes Harbeths, when he says things like "low resolution/only 50% resolution."

Is it so hard to admit his comments go a bit far?

If he wants to make the case some other speakers are even higher resolution than the Harbeths...sure...why not? But there’s no reason that has to come with a misleading level of characterization of the Harbeth design.

I doubt we need to go beyond this point, so Cheerio!

@prof
Looks like you were on the debate team at school right? I have an allergic reaction to these circular debating techniques that lead nowhere since the debater has a very shallow understanding of the subject he was just asked to debate.
It is too bad, you should have taken some science classes instead, this could have been a much more interesting discussion, and at the end, you could actually have better sound as well.

The radial cone in Harbeth speakers is quite rigid or pistonic.

Richard should not use a 4.5 inch cone at 5 KHz - it will beam severely. But the idea of pistonic is good provided the material is intrinsically damped. 

Watch the two videos on this page if you want to learn the difference between vacuum formed polypropylene and Harbeth injection molding.

https://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/forum/the-science-of-audio/speaker-design/2215-real-world-drive-unit-and-crossover-issues/page2

Alan Shaw clearly has put a lot of effort into that mid range cone. It is superior to the large majority of designs. Like the ATC mid range - Harbeth have rightly acquired a reputation for excellent mid range quality.

It is neither rigid, (nor pistonic), if compared to CF, aluminum, or ceramic cones, all you have to do is touch one (You can actually see that in the measurements as well, if you know what to look for). I have seen a dealer stand on a Magico 6" cone, that is rigid.