What don’t you like about the 30.1 that you feel an upgrade is needed? I'm just curious!I like my 30.1s but I want more of everything! More bass for sure. More dynamics too. A bigger image. All the things you get with better speakers.
94 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
Even though the 7es3 is less expensive than the 30.1 to my ears the 7es3 sounds better. More bass, and bigger image. The 30.1 are great speakers but sound much smaller the the 7es3. I went to my local dealer to listen to the 30.1 but ended up with 7es3. My listening room is 19'x13', and needed a larger speaker. |
I was also wondering which post inspired the rant, but I agree with jethro1964. I own and enjoy Harbeths, but I simply can’t understand why Mr. Shaw sidesteps the amplification thing. To say any well designed amp over 50 (or whatever) watts will give you great sound does not make sense to me. It’s a very well designed speaker, and it will easily allow someone to hear the flaws in a mediocre amp. Probably because he knows something about Speakers and electronics ;-) He wanted to design a robust speaker, not too hard to drive, that would sound good with any competently designed amplifier. And you can find competently designed amplifiers for pretty cheap. Personally I’ve found it to be the case: Harbeth speakers seem especially "amplifier agnostic" - I’ve heard them with a range of amps, from tube to modest solid state to more expensive, and they always sounded good, with the same nice qualities. I’m a bit of a tube-amp-head and I find the Harbeths sound smooth and full no matter what they are powered with. |
Even though the 7es3 is less expensive than the 30.1 to my ears the 7es3 sounds better. More bass, and bigger image. The 30.1 are great speakers but sound much smaller the the 7es3. I went to my local dealer to listen to the 30.1 but ended up with 7es3. My listening room is 19'x13', and needed a larger speaker. FYI, my room is even larger. I had both speakers here at the same time and much preferred the 30.1s.... but all of our ears are different! |
I'm not surprised dhcod, the 30.1 is a fantastic speaker. My preference tends towards a mellow sound and the 7es3 to my ears offers that. I did not have the luxury of auditioning both speakers in my home, only an afternoon at the dealer. Comparing them side by side in your listening room what differences did you notice? |
@desktopguy Scroll down, way down, and check out the photos. The review isn't bad either. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/harbeth-monitor-40-2.25222/ |
I find Harbeth speakers, generally speaking, to be very well balanced. For me they do a nice job across a wide variety of music. Really big rich recordings sound rich, but not overly so. Thinner recordings still have some juice and still sound good. I remember concurring with a reviewer who said something like "With the Harbeth, everything is presented at the correct level. Mixes sound right." |
I can't think of a single voice in audio today that speaks with as much clarity, logic and common sense as that of Alan Shaw. Many, many times I was taken aback by what he had written on the HUG website, only to later find out that he was right... https://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/ |
dhcod, You mentioned, " I like my 30.1s but I want more of everything! More bass for sure. More dynamics too. A bigger image." The M40.2 might be a good a very good option for you, considering you like your M30.1 speakers. That is the exact upgrade I made. You will get more of everything including a more extended defined bass, dynamics , imaging , larger soundstage and most importantly ,a complete full range sound. The M40.1 is also a good speaker. A used pair of these could be a good choice for you. The M40.2 is more efficient ( easier to drive) , room friendlier and more transparent than the M40.1 though. |
Thanks @timo62. The 40.1s or 40.2s are clearly where I'd go if I got a big raise but was still forced to stay in our small home. If the raise was big enough for 40s though, we are likely moving and then I'm buying original Quad ESLs. My interest has been piqued by the suggestions that were in the $4-6k range on the used market. Lots of thing to listen to. I demoed SF Cremona Auditor Ms which are nice speakers but not better speakers. |
The Harbeth's are a good enough speaker to easily decipher the difference between entry level and a $2,000 integrated. If he suggests otherwise, he is selling the speaker short. This kind of comment reminds me: It's always a bit weird to me how many audiophiles seem to focus on how a speaker "resolves" different equipment rather than emphasizing how they resolve actual music. "Could EASILY hear the difference between all my cables" king of stuff. Uh. Great. I'll listen to music, thanks very much. |
One thing I will say, I’ve been using a new cartridge this weekend that’s particularly dynamic and I’m falling in love with the 30.1s all over again. Nice punchy bass and sparkly highs. It’s a London Decca Super Gold for you vinyl people out there. Way better match for the Harbeths than my Lyra Delos. But still going to listen to some Tannoys next weekend! |
avanti, From my auditioning the 30.1s are more even and controlled through their frequency range. When I auditioned the 30s I really liked their sound, but wished for some deeper bass. The C7es3 did that and I liked it for the bigger sound, but found the bass to be a bit overwarm and less tight than I'd like. That's why I ended up owning (for a while) the Super HL5Plus which were for me the perfect version - bigger and more full than the 30s, but also the best controlled and most balanced bass of the line (not to mention, more realistically open and extended on the top end, without losing the Harbeth midrange magic). |
The sound of 30.1 is just more refined. It handles delicate things better. Bass is less but it is punchy. The 30.1 tweeter is a tough to beat. I'm considering trying at home a set of Raidho C1.1s that my dealer has.This was my experience too. The m30.1 tweeter endows it with a more sophisticated and complex sound than the C7ES3. In my 20x14' room I found the presentations similar, but the m30.1 was more lucid and less warm. I much preferred the later. Some of the differences between these two may also be down to cabinet construction - the m30.1's thicker, braced, cabinet was obviously a bit different to the C7. A simple rap test showed this. |
Upgrading from the 30.1s is a challenge due to the lack of criticism regarding Harbeth speakers in general. Some of the above comments suggest that the bigger models in the range will give you more of the same as to what the M30.1s will give you. Alan Shaw has stated that he had tried to get the SLH5+ to sound a little more open than its predecessor (SLH5). However, these improvements seem to be of an incremental nature rather than anything dramatic. Heck! I've even read reviews where the diminutive P3ESRs have been compared to the mighty M40s. There really does seem to be a family sound between the models where even the M models (monitor series) share an affinity with the rest of the line. I guess it's natural enough given that all models share the same material for the main driver and that the cabinets also share a similar construction design. So it looks like it's down to the SLH5s or if funds allow, the M40.1s. I've read that they work really well for nearfield listening. Or just stay with the M30/1s which share the same tweeter as the M40.1s. Here's a great write up on the M40.2s. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/harbeth-monitor-40-2.25222/ I'd be very surprised if the original Quads were an upgrade. They certainly didn't impress in my system. A totally different kind of sound, comfortable with even mids, but somehow sounded challenged at both frequency extremes. |
A perspective on the quality of amplifier issue...I bought my C7s while living in England for a year. I connected them up to my roommates inexpensive Yamaha integrated amp (around 50wpc) which was connected to a equally unimpressive CD player. The room was excellent--just the right size with plenty of room to move the speakers away from walls. The ceiling had multiple angles as it was the top floor of a three story house. I was really impressed with the sound we got. Was it GREAT sound? No. But what impressed me was that even with modest electronics the Harbeth's did NOTHING terribly wrong. When I brought them back to the states after my tour was over I connected them up to my all Naim system. Did they sound better? Yes, a lot better. My takeaway is that the C7s are simply a very forgiving design, one that will deliver better performance as you upgrade the rest of your system but which will sound very good while you are finding the money to improve the upstream components. This may be one reason why Harbeth is so popular. |
I have settled down with Harbeths. They don’t have the best dynamics and deepest bass, but overall they sound just right, musical and lovely. They don’t need great electronics too, sound good even on few hundreds $ amps. But if you pair them with something like pass labs - they will sing. I have had about two dozens of speakers from different manufactures and heard even more. |
I feel like I have settled in the same place. They are tough to replace, especially considering that I have space limitations..... if I didn’t, I’d have Quad ESL57s here in a second. There’s a pair of YG Carmels posted for sale here that I almost took a chance on but my wife said they were too ugly. And that’s the thing. The Harbeths are so elegant plus they sound great so replacing them has been REALLY hard. |
I want Harbeth plus dynamics. Was thinking the with the right front end and amplification it's easier to give souI to carmels than give dynamics to the 30.1s. I don't have space for speakers that need to be plugged in right now otherwise I would certainly try out ATC SCM20ASLs which I've used at work and I love. |
Update: I just spent a week with ATC SCM19 v2s in the house and I can say that for me, they aren't even close to the 30.1s. Very sterile, way more "pro" sounding than I expected. Really no sense of musicians playing in a room with fingers on instruments. So I'm pretty sure a lateral type move to a more dynamic speaker isn't going to work after trying the ATCs and the SF. Hard to replace the things I can't do without that the 30.1s give in spades. |
@dhcod , yes that terrible anticlimactic comedown feeling... On the other hand you might find consolation that your Harbeth's are pretty high up the sonic tree. They have to be if you prefer them to the ATC SCM19s. With any loudspeaker anywhere, its a question of give and take something. Even the giant Avantgarde Trios at £62k will concede something to the Harbeth's despite their huge dynamics and attack. |
04-21-2019 3:52amUpdate: I just spent a week with ATC SCM19 v2s in the house and I can say that for me, they aren't even close to the 30.1s. Very sterile, way more "pro" sounding than I expected. Really no sense of musicians playing in a room with fingers on instruments.Interesting @dhcod. I didn't find the SCM19 V2s sterile at all - in fact they amazed me with their robust sound and realism. Less warm and lush sounding than the M30.1s for sure, but still beautiful IMO. Wonderful with acoustic instruments and voice - piano was outstanding. They had the same dynamic engaging sound at the dealers and in my own system. Guess everyone's different. What did you drive them with? |
| Post removed |
I didn’t like the M30, 30.1 and 30.2 as the sound is too dark in the
treble. The sound is slightly restrained and closed-in to give it the
monitor quality where it excels in jazz and small ensembles. Play some
dynamic music and you can sense something is amiss. Music doesn’t have
the air as if it is held back. This is the trait of the Monitor series
with Harbeth. Try the Super HL5 Plus. I find this speaker to be more balanced in presentation than any of the M30.1 or 30.2 iterations. The midrange is almost the same and the biggest difference is the Super HL5 Plus sounds much more open especially in the treble. You can hear the decay of notes linger in the air unlike the notes being cut short with the M30.1. Also, the bass of the Super HL5 Plus goes deeper as you get more slam and texture in the bass. In summary, I find the M30.1 to sound too warm and shut-in, lacking the air and dynamics of the Super HL5 Plus. Nevertheless, if you like a warm and intimate sound, the sound of a small jazz club and ensemble performing in the front row live, the M30.1 will work out better. For a wider music genre which include pop, rock and jazz fusion, the Super HL5 Plus is a better choice. |