avanti,
Given I really enjoy speakers that disappear and soundstage (though I’m first concerned with tonality), I’m experienced in getting the best soundstaging out of speakers in my room.
I did indeed listen in nearfield, as that is my preferred set-up, because most speakers disappear more that way.. I have a treated room with great acoustics (done with an acoustician) and I’m used to getting world-class soundstaging from all manner of speakers. The Thiel 3.7s are mind-blowing in that regard, bettered only (if at all) by my MBL omnis. (And to head off the idea that I'm used to false spaciousness with the MBLs, again, the Thiels do realistic soundstage depth, as do my Waveform speakers, Hales speakers, even my Spendor 3/5s, and every other speaker I've owned in the past).
I played with all sorts of positions with the Harbeths including further away than usual, and closer, narrow, wide, perfect triangle and everything in between (they were often about 5 feet from the rear wall, and between 5 and 7 feet from my listening position depending on the set up I chose). I’m not saying there were bad and didn’t do a decent disappearing act, especially given their looks wouldn’t imply they would disappear like more modern, slim designs. But as I said, I never really got a convincingly real depth out of them and they never disappeared in terms of "speaker sound" to the degree I’ve experienced with many other brands.
My hunch is that the lively cabinet approach, though chosen mostly to try and make the speaker invisible, may nonetheless have had an effect on the character of the sound. There was of course a nice fullness. But also what I’d describe as a subtle "thickness" - almost as if even the ambience between instruments had it’s own level of texture. It was pleasant in many ways. But when you set up something like the Thiels right after, a design that has reduced cabinet and other speaker colorations to amazingly low levels, it reveals that added cabinet-type bloom heard with the Harbeths - everything just cleans up and to my ears it really adds another level of believably. The speakers disappear more, and there is discernibly less ’speaker sound.’ I wouldn’t give a damn about a speaker that only disappeared and sounded low coloration if it meant the sound as clinical or anti-septic. However, the Thiels in my set up using Conrad Johnson gear sound anything but clinical - it reveals more about the tonal character of instruments.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure not slagging the Harbeths. I enjoyed them enough to buy a pair and maybe would still be listening to them if I didn’t have other speakers to compare. The Harbeths really do a superb job of sounding crystal clear while not too fatiguing. And they have that special way with vocals: on the Harbeths I was often aware of the actual singer singing, a fleshy presence, where I could sense the actual small efforts of a singer. No matter how music was produced, pop, metal, jazz, the Harbeths always managed to find a human being in there singing.
Given I really enjoy speakers that disappear and soundstage (though I’m first concerned with tonality), I’m experienced in getting the best soundstaging out of speakers in my room.
I did indeed listen in nearfield, as that is my preferred set-up, because most speakers disappear more that way.. I have a treated room with great acoustics (done with an acoustician) and I’m used to getting world-class soundstaging from all manner of speakers. The Thiel 3.7s are mind-blowing in that regard, bettered only (if at all) by my MBL omnis. (And to head off the idea that I'm used to false spaciousness with the MBLs, again, the Thiels do realistic soundstage depth, as do my Waveform speakers, Hales speakers, even my Spendor 3/5s, and every other speaker I've owned in the past).
I played with all sorts of positions with the Harbeths including further away than usual, and closer, narrow, wide, perfect triangle and everything in between (they were often about 5 feet from the rear wall, and between 5 and 7 feet from my listening position depending on the set up I chose). I’m not saying there were bad and didn’t do a decent disappearing act, especially given their looks wouldn’t imply they would disappear like more modern, slim designs. But as I said, I never really got a convincingly real depth out of them and they never disappeared in terms of "speaker sound" to the degree I’ve experienced with many other brands.
My hunch is that the lively cabinet approach, though chosen mostly to try and make the speaker invisible, may nonetheless have had an effect on the character of the sound. There was of course a nice fullness. But also what I’d describe as a subtle "thickness" - almost as if even the ambience between instruments had it’s own level of texture. It was pleasant in many ways. But when you set up something like the Thiels right after, a design that has reduced cabinet and other speaker colorations to amazingly low levels, it reveals that added cabinet-type bloom heard with the Harbeths - everything just cleans up and to my ears it really adds another level of believably. The speakers disappear more, and there is discernibly less ’speaker sound.’ I wouldn’t give a damn about a speaker that only disappeared and sounded low coloration if it meant the sound as clinical or anti-septic. However, the Thiels in my set up using Conrad Johnson gear sound anything but clinical - it reveals more about the tonal character of instruments.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure not slagging the Harbeths. I enjoyed them enough to buy a pair and maybe would still be listening to them if I didn’t have other speakers to compare. The Harbeths really do a superb job of sounding crystal clear while not too fatiguing. And they have that special way with vocals: on the Harbeths I was often aware of the actual singer singing, a fleshy presence, where I could sense the actual small efforts of a singer. No matter how music was produced, pop, metal, jazz, the Harbeths always managed to find a human being in there singing.