[Vince in TX]

Is the video in question, "These 3 might surprise you… and why we aren’t upgrading them."?

Because he clearly says in the video title they're not upgrading them.

[subsonic1050]

I don't disagree with a few points you make. You would expect to see more on the spectral decay if there were indeed a lot of cabinet resonances or "bloom" in the design. I'm not an expert on reading these measurements, but that's my understanding. I would also agree that GR Research does profit from the crossover upgrades he sells. I also think that taking measurements with the grills on would be best for these particular speakers since they measure better that way and also Harbeth states they should be kept on.

That's pretty much where my agreement ends. I don't begrudge any business for making money - that is after all why they are in business in the first place. I also think it's pretty clear that Danny isn't smearing these companies for using cheap crossover components - he has mentioned many times that the speaker manufacturers have to keep costs low to sell them for a reasonable price. He doesn't fault the companies for doing so - it's merely one of the downsides you must accept when purchasing most commercially built speakers. He has also explained many times why he doesn't listen to every speaker he upgrades. He understands the parts that he's using and the way that they are going to alter the sound.

You seem to disagree that if the speaker measures well that simply upgrading the parts will improve the sound. That's up to you, but for many people the difference between a crossover that measures exactly the same with cheap parts as a crossover built with quality parts is significant. Measurements don't tell you everything. I can give a normal person and a professional chef the exact same ingredients - but guess whose dish will taste better? If you were to analyze the dishes they could "measure" exactly the same - same amounts of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, chlorine, etc - but taste dramatically different. At the end of the day you're entitled to whatever opinion you like on the subject - but many people do find those components to make a difference, so Danny is providing a very useful service and product for a good number of people.

I don't believe Danny was finding fault with Harbeth for "not leaving space in the cabinet for upgraded parts". Rather, at least in this case, he was concerned with how elaborate the crossover network needed to be to create the smooth response these speakers exhibit. More parts equals more things in the signal path and especially with cheap parts that can degrade the sound quality. I think ideally Harbeth would have started with drivers that worked together better, or a better cabinet design which would result in a less complicated crossover network to get a smooth response.

I've spoken to Danny probably close to 20 times over the phone over the past 7 or 8 months regarding various builds. He has always been friendly and helpful despite being very busy. I've gotten great customer service from GR Research and I really don't agree that his character can be called into question regardless of whether or not you believe he is providing a valuable product to his customers. I don't believe everything Danny says without questioning it. For example, Danny has an inherent dislike of DSP and from my personal experience I have found it to work wonders if done correctly. That said, Danny has forgotten more about audio than I'll ever know and I've found him to be right most of the time. I've also found his speaker designs to be some of the most amazing speakers I've ever heard. The X-statiks are a phenomenal value and the NX-Treme's are probably the best I've ever heard.

[newzooreview]

The emperor does have clothes, usually a pair of shorts and a T-shirt.

Trashing other people's work invites scrutiny of the integrity and rigor of the approach taken in the process. After years of these videos, the promises of real comparisons (remember the cable videos claiming a real A/B comparison would be provided?) and the standards for evidence are just not there.

Trust in the cult leader and belief in the message without regard for evidence (measurement or independent human observation) do not hold water.

Maybe all speakers fall short of their potential because they do not use "tube connectors" or whatever. The problem is that if you just assert things endlessly without trying to validate (and invalidate) the assertion then you are a drain on the profession (or hobby). In the end it's just FUDD.

Sure, in the mind of GR Research this has all been validated. The cryptic "trust me, I know from experience" wears very thin.

I don't doubt someone has heard an improvement in some speaker at some point with a new crossover design and parts. What I question is the specific video that is the focus of this thread. It is a sloppy mess.

Casually claiming at the end that "every speaker that we offer, we're jumping up in performance big steps over this speaker." Seriously? This is a verbatim quote from the video under discussion. If that statement is going to be made then it should be backed with evidence. To assert that without any backing evidence presented is devoid of integrity.

Again, no other vendor on this forum mounts a years long negative marketing campaign against competitors like this. In fact I cannot imagine Salk or Spatial Audio Labs or Omega or anyone else stooping so low. They would be quickly held to account.

[newzooreview]

You seem to disagree that if the speaker measures well that simply upgrading the parts will improve the sound.

No. I explicitly allow that it could be the case. But it's all in the realm of fantasy, or cultish faith, until there is observation to back the claim. As I mentioned earlier, there are videos in which a before and after measurement at least provides some observation (if indirect) supporting the assertion that a speaker sounds better.

In the video under discussion here, no "after" measurement is provided because no alternative crossover was designed and tested. In this video, the criticisms and claims about the speaker have no backing evidence.

[subsonic1050]

No. I explicitly allow that it could be the case. But it's all in the realm of fantasy, or cultish faith, until there is observation to back the claim. As I mentioned earlier, there are videos in which a before and after measurement at least provides some observation (if indirect) supporting the assertion that a speaker sounds better.

I think maybe the issue here is that you're unlikely to believe these things unless you hear them for yourself. I don't think many people on this forum take anybody's words as gospel unless they hear a difference for themselves. You already take issue with Danny's videos as being self serving - I find it difficult to believe that you would take his word that they sound better after upgrades even if he were to conduct a listening test.

[Early B.]

Trashing other people's work invites scrutiny of the integrity and rigor of the approach taken in the process. After years of these videos, the promises of real comparisons (remember the cable videos claiming a real A/B comparison would be provided?) and the standards for evidence are just not there.

Trust in the cult leader and belief in the message without regard for evidence (measurement or independent human observation) do not hold water.

Although your trashing comments have merit, it's simply not true that the "cult leader" doesn't provide evidence. The evidence is in his products and it's easy to prove to yourself through "independent human observation." Buy one of his power cords, for example, and compare it to any other power cord costing three times as much and judge for yourself. I did that and this is why I own several of his power cords. Better yet, build a pair of his OB servo subs and judge for yourself the quality and value you receive relative to the competition. There's no need to watch his videos or even agree with his approach. Instead, let your ears determine whether this guy knows what's he's talking about.     

Again, no other vendor on this forum mounts a years long negative marketing campaign against competitors like this.

The speakers Danny mods aren't from his competitors because the vast majority of them are commercially available. Danny is a DIY guy. His competitors would be other DIY speaker designers.

Also, a primary portion of his business is modding speakers. How can he do that without informing his target audience what's wrong (using measurements) with them and how to fix them? He also informs his audience of speakers that are well designed by providing measurements as evidence.   
 
 

[77SunsetStrip]

In the video under discussion here, no "after" measurement is provided because no alternative crossover was designed and tested. In this video, the criticisms and claims about the speaker have no backing evidence.

You accuse Danny of trashing the competition and self promotion for profit.  Speakers sent to him by individuals are not "competition" of the GR Research DIY business model.  If Danny were only interested in profit, he would design and promote new crossovers for every speaker sent to him.  Did you miss the part about not worthwhile to design an upgrade kit for the three speakers in the video?  Asking for "after" measurements is illogical and is naysaying just for the sake of continued naysaying. 

In the DIY community, we do the dirty work of learning, building, measuring, failing, trying again, and listening until satisfied.  That is vastly different than buyers of off the shelf products that depend on subjective reviews, friends recommendations, or only measurements.  Your criticisms and shots taken at Danny just have no logical foundation or connection to the DIY community.   

[Hobbsmeerkat]

I think one point everyone is missing, is that a good quality speaker shouldn't need a bunch of parts to "fix" the response of the drivers. The Harbeths did measure quite well, and are known for their warmer tonal characteristics, which may not be for everyone.

And Danny tests them as they are given to us by a customer. We often find that the response is better with the grill off, tho the Harbeth is an exception to that general rule.

With some speakers, there's nothing we can do, or what we can do will cost $700-1000 to "fix" and even then, its not a guarantee.. Especially if there are phase issues that can't easily be addressed.
Sometimes, the tweeter has limited extension down low, and the woofer cant play up high enough to meet it without also introducing break-up or ringing in those ranges.

Othertimes, it may be a good candidate, but it's size is an issue, and who wants an outboard crossover that they now need to find space for?

We currently have 2 different versions of the same speaker from the same manufacturer. but the $3000/pair versions measure like garbage while the $2000/pair versions measure pretty well.

Decent quality parts in both of them, one of them clearly needs a lot of work.

Our upgrades are very dependent on the speaker, and also the response to our feedback from the customer, and there are several upgrades Danny has done in the past that he doesn't offer an upgrade kit for on the site.

We've had some speakers brought to us that may have been good candidates, but the customer decided against upgrading them after listening to some of our kits.

Here was the crossover of another speaker we didn't upgrade:


It had the same space issues as the Harbeth, even though it was a bigger cabinet, but it was full of compartments full of thin bracing and foam.

And sometimes we likely shouldn't upgrade a speaker,  but the customer wants us too for nostalgic reasons.

[Cheytak.408]

My, oh my!  What a s***storm that has been brewing.

Some related, but not directly, comments.

I have been building electronics of all types for longer than most of AC members have been alive from audio to nuclear triggers.  With decades of experience, I have come to realize that parts ain't just parts.  I learned long ago that ceramic boat resistors with a TCR of 750-1000ppm sound gritty compared to good low TCR wirewounds.  I learned about the hysteresis inherent in iron core inductors that is just not present in air core inductors or properly designed and sized laminated core inductors.  I learned about the difference in the sonics of electrolytic, polyester, polypropylene, Teflon caps.  I learned about the sonic differences between metallized and film and foil caps.  I learned about the subtle differences between  capacitors utilizing the same technologies sound very different per manufacturer.  I learned about the different formulations of PP film from manufacturer to manufacturer.  I can go on, but I think this is all self evident.  Experience is the best teacher.  Having access to world class measurement gear and predictive algorithms didn't hurt.  Ahhh... the perks.

To the experienced eye, it is easy to see the cost cutting that was impressed upon the crossover in point.

Wirewounds suck

Molded PP (if they are) caps are not audio grade caps.  They are made for consumer electronics built to a price.  The Panasonic caps used in the Harbeth crossover are caps I 'might' use in electronic gear, but NEVER in a crossover.
The inductors speak for themselves.  They are minimalist implementations at best... just like ordered by Accounting.

Measured frequency response is one thing.  The real question is: how does it sound?  Sonics are not quantifiable except by the human ear.  The diaphragm of a measurement mic is not attached to a human brain.

In my many years of experience, Harbeth speakers are 'nice sounding' speakers.  They have never, ever elicited an emotional response, either positive or negative, when I have heard them. A local dealer asked me to take a pair home and give him my critical opinion. My response was to say that they would be great speakers for 80% of their customers:  polite, nice sounding speakers that did everything OK, but nothing well. Not a speaker I could personally live with in my system.

Harbeth speakers are some of the nicest sounding speakers available.  As a great speaker?  They fall way short.

They don't have the resolution and pace that great speakers exhibit.  Their imaging is a bit fuzzy.  They sound slow.  Impact?  Nope.  Microdynamics - the thing that separates good speakers from great speakers - virtually non-existent.

I understand this thread and it makes me sad on many levels.

There are people that do the work.

There are people that have agendas.

Pity.

[S Clark]

Newzooreview is a Harbeth owner- something he might have mentioned up front.
My ears find them to be solid with few flaws, but not detailed enough for my taste.  And overpriced. 

[Tubefly]

Newzooreview is a Harbeth owner - something he might have mentioned up front.

That explains a lot. Hoping he takes his axe home and then finds another location to grind it.

[caryking]

Yeah, this video didn't make much sense. It's quite sloppy, in fact.

The data presented show what the presenter calls a very smooth frequency response. In fact, when the grills are placed on the speakers, the little "hump" at 4k also disappears. The presenter, however, fails to state what Harbeth states clearly and repeatedly: their speakers are designed to be used with the grills on. This is noted in most reviews and on the Harbeth site ( https://harbeth.co.uk/userguide/ ).

When the presenter displays the off-axis response curves, the little 4k hump is back. It appears to be that the measurements were made with the grills off, even though the presenter has already shown the data (but omitted the manufacturer's statements) regarding better measurements when the grills are left on as designed.

This sloppiness appears to be repeated in the spectral display plot: the woofer's range is noted to be "really smooth" but the 4k hump has reappeared here as well ("a little bit of stored energy from that peak…but it's not bad; not bad at all").

It very much appears that even after confirming what Harbeth clearly states, the measurements were made without the grills installed. And even then the little 4k is "not bad; not bad at all."

Why not do the measurements with the grills on when they work best that way (and when the manufacturer states that is how they are designed to be used)?

But then the video dives off the cliff into full woo woo. "It measures so well, why not go in and try to upgrade the parts quality?" Huh?

After criticizing Harbeth for designing a crossover that is very successful in smoothing out the response, the presenter criticizes the lack of space for putting different parts in the tiny speaker. I doubt that the manufacturer had "leave room in the cabinet for user-installed parts swapping" as a design goal, but nevertheless the presenter finds fault here.

And then the most amazing statement is made: the presenter states that the cabinets are designed to have a resonance and "have a little bloom down in that lower vocal region." Didn't we just look at a spectral decay and a frequency response that was described as really smooth in the woofer's range with only a 4k bump when measured (against the intended design) with the grills off? Where is this supposed bloom? What's the point of doing measurements if they are ignored two minutes later?

So, measurements are done that show very good performance and then the measurements are ignored and without even listening to the speaker a "bloom in the lower vocal region" is declared and the speaker is criticized because the type of parts used is, without a shred of evidence, declared "cheesy."

It may be that a bloom is audible that doesn't show up in the measurements. It may be that using different parts here, there, or everywhere would improve something in the sound (measured or audible). None of this is evaluated by listening or supported by any measurement. Consistent with the clickbait video title, the end result is sensationalist hot air.

Most boutique manufacturers try to build their reputations by making products that sound good and measure well. It's a shame to see the low road taken where the dominant approach is to attack and say "other people's stuff is crummy," especially when the observations (measurements or listening) don't support such claims.

This past Saturday, I went into an audio store, in NYC.  The main listening room was setup using Linden components to Devore Fidelity speakers.  The room was treated with a lot of stuff.  Here is what I think:

The sound had some good and bad (my opinion, of course)...  first, the sound was full and large sounding.  Second, the system gave a decent amount retrieval in detail.  Third, the system didn’t create a good soundstage, very flat, even for the song being played.  Fourth, wow!! there was a hardness, in the upper mid that was unlistenable.  Fifth, there was an extremely distinct boxy sound.

I say all this to think, we all appreciate different things in the sound our systems reproduce.  Harbeth speakers may sound very pleasing; however, for the money, I would have thought they use higher quality parts; however, I guess I’m wrong.

Danny has a few things that I believe make up his signature.  Simple crossovers, with high quality parts.  I am a person that appreciates tweaking my system and a GR Research (I do not own) would be a tweaked speaker based on parts quality.  If one can’t hear the difference tweaks make, then good for you...  it saves money!!

If I owned Harbeth’s, I would definitely want to tweak them; however, looking at the number of parts, in the crossover, that would take an expensive speaker and doubling down on them...  also, why so many components in that crossover?  Something is a miss in them that requires that many parts...

[Early B.]

We're not bashing Harbeth. There are cultural preferences to consider, as well. Harbeth supposedly has the classic "British sound" which means it's laid back with minimal bass. For the market that it serves, Harbeth is a very popular option. However, since it's a British speaker, Americans will complain about the high price. In terms of sonic preferences, Americans want it all, but mostly bass all over the place. It's apparent with American car audio enthusiasts. Similarly, Americans insist upon an expansive soundstage "beyond the boundaries" and you need a strong bass foundation to create it. 

Here's a good video that seeks to explain the national sound:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6rEnYbZpNM

 

[newzooreview]

That explains a lot. Hoping he takes his axe home and then finds another location to grind it.

I was wondering when someone would go low and try an ad hominem attack.

I've never owned or heard the P3ESR, and I don't use Harbeth speakers in my system. I don't use any of the equipment in the long-dormant system list in my profile here.

The sloppiness and the lack of professional ethics in the video under discussion are obvious, and the business should issue a public apology for its behavior in this case.

[Tangram]

I enjoy Danny’s videos and the work he does. He is shining a light on a corner of the speaker business that most participants would rather we not see.

But, we need to keep things in perspective. I currently own three sets of speakers in my main system:

Harbeth M30.2
Magnepan LRS
Spatial Audio M3 Sapphire

As you can see, all are completely different designs. The fundamental design of a speaker is going to have the biggest impact on sound. Swapping out crossover caps in a two-way box is not, I repeat not, going to FUNDAMENTALLY change the sound. Room acoustics, speaker setup, how you listen (including volume) will materially impact sound. I think Danny appeals to DIY’ers who like the idea of hotrodding gear but I wonder if it’s the tail wagging the dog? DIY’ers enjoy DIY’ing so they look for things to change. That’s fine. But I question whether the music and the sound are the goal or is it something else?

As for my Harbeths, they are outrageously expensive for a two-way ported box, even if they have nice veneers. My Tontrager stands are even more ridiculously priced for what you get. Five years ago, I balked at the prices. But as my listening skills improved, I asked myself: what’s more important, the parts bill or the sound the parts make when carefully linked together? Danny says they measure well. THAT should be the reason for not upgrading. Do no harm. The speakers are based on a beloved, decades old BBC design and I suspect Alan Shaw's choice of crossover parts reflects his attempts to be true to that design.

Go listen to some vocals or solo acoustic guitar on a properly set up pair of Harbeths and then ask yourself: Do I want to RISK tampering with what I just heard? I bet the answer will be no.

[jjss49]

i agree 100% with tangram's comments above

the hardest thing in a passion-driven hobby eliciting ocd tendencies saying 'everything is important' is maintaining a sense of perspective and proportionality in what we pursue

[Hobbsmeerkat]

It depends on the upgrade for a speaker if its fundamental sound changes.
If all you do is swap parts, the fundamental sound will remain largely same, but you'll likely gain some clarity and detail depending on the parts you swap out.

Redesigning the crossover from scratch based on its acoustic output is a different story, and will fundamentally change the sound, and in Danny's case, he always goes for an overall balanced response actoss the board and reducing any ringing/stored energy where possible.Generally, you'll get a more even/consistent response, with better detail/clarity.

[77SunsetStrip]

I was wondering when someone would go low and try an ad hominem attack.

I've never owned or heard the P3ESR, and I don't use Harbeth speakers in my system. I don't use any of the equipment in the long-dormant system list in my profile here.

The sloppiness and the lack of professional ethics in the video under discussion are obvious, and the business should issue a public apology for its behavior in this case.

Interesting defense/deflection stating your profile is incorrect.  Your first post revealed an agenda.  Use of "presenter" instead of "Danny" is classic passive/aggressive with a tone of arrogant superiority.  Now a more direct attack claiming "lack of professional ethics", pushing the boundary for libel.  We get it, you don't like Danny.   

Axe to grind is the perfect description since you offer no technically grounded argument in rebuttal.  Impugning the character of Danny as a tactic does not wash.
 

[S Clark]

I was wondering when someone would go low and try an ad hominem attack.

I've never owned or heard the P3ESR, and I don't use Harbeth speakers in my system. I don't use any of the equipment in the long-dormant system list in my profile here.

The sloppiness and the lack of professional ethics in the video under discussion are obvious, and the business should issue a public apology for its behavior in this case.

So let me understand.  I look in your systems to find that you list Harbeth under your speakers, something you should have mentioned from the start.  And now you want an apology??  Good luck with that.  Probably best to just let this go. 

[Tubefly]

Interesting defense/deflection stating your profile is incorrect.  Your first post revealed an agenda.  Use of "presenter" instead of "Danny" is classic passive/aggressive with a tone of arrogant superiority.  Now a more direct attack claiming "lack of professional ethics", pushing the boundary for libel.  We get it, you don't like Danny.   

Axe to grind is the perfect description since you offer no technically grounded argument in rebuttal.  Impugning the character of Danny as a tactic does not wash.