Agree, but I still don't understand what's the point and problem in this thread. Both are commercial speakers (diyaudio.com is diy), Stereophile's measurements are simple and quite unprofessional - close to pathetic so conclusions could be questionable too, and 40.1 was top of the line model which are relatively expensive compared to standard bulk with much less costs and profit per unit in every step.
Sorry for the confusion, but I was referring to the 8361, which is more comparable to the Kii(Bass), and costs more than the 8351.
One of the points made was that you have two speakers for $12,000. One with passive 70's technology made in Britain and the other, a powered, active speaker(1,500 watts per speaker)made in Germany with state of the art technology and science. Some see the problem with that, and some don't.
Last edited:
The point is, Remlab will produce an equivalent DIY version of Harbeth 40 for up to 500 bucks, and everyone interested in purchasing these, will be given a chance to do so, for the exact amount.
Last edited:
OK, in an entirely good-natured spirit (we're having fun here), let's run with this a second.
This changes the goalposts. Nobody mentioned 'within reason', nor 'DIY' in the first place. 😉 It was simply stated that:
But the above now, in effect, implies we're now actually talking about 'something that looks a bit similar'. By definition that is not a clone, and finish, time, faithfulness to the original performance goals and all commercial considerations etc. involved in the 40.1 have also gone straight out the window.
So shall we ask the question: what can be done?
The 40.1 is now two generations old, but in principle it's a large, passive 3-way loudspeaker with a Seas Excel 1in soft-dome tweeter, a custom-designed and built polymer cone 8in midrange driver and 12in woofer. Both are nicely made units with what appears to be a reasonable motor design based on appearance and what information appears to be in the public domain.
$500 is about £370 at the time of writing.
The tweeter you can buy -assuming a trade discount I could get a pair for just under £120 (albeit minus grill), plus delivery, but for that price I'd probably have to buy in quantity. Which isn't very realistic for DIY. The midrange and woofer are not available off-the-shelf, so we're by definition automatically departing from the design by that fact alone. To stay as close as reasonably practical to the spirit of the speaker, we'd need a polypropylene cone midrange and woofer, or we're back to the 'well, it's something a bit like' it. Poly cone units are a bit thin on the ground these days, but for the woofer, something like the MCM 55-1220 is at least available, current price £107 for a pair, delivered. It does not appear to be especially comparable in qualitative terms, but it's a 12in poly cone woofer that falls into the minimal budget. There are a couple of very cheap 8in poly cone units from MCM, but they have a somewhat dodgy response -not ideal when they're being used as mids, and it would be something of a stretch to assume they are an equivalent. But we will, for the sake of argument. You can get a pair of clear-cone 55-1240s for £36, and we'll be generous again and assume you order at the same time as the woofers so no extra postal costs.
That means we have about £107 of our budget left for all cabinet materials (MDF, hardwood batons / stringers, veneer, bitumen panel damping + adhesive, and acoustic damping), all crossover components, wire, binding posts etc. Because we can't say 'we'll just use what we already have on the shelf'. That's cheating. The budget has to cover everything. But in a fit of generosity, we won't include consumables -glue, solder, sandpaper, varnish (or choice of finish), rags, misc. other items etc.
By the end of which you will have a speaker that might just scrape in on the budget, which is rather unlikely to be a reasonable equivalent to the Harbeth, and doesn't include any commercial considerations. You might be able to hammer it into a similar axial FR, but I would suggest that doesn't make it an equivalent. Perhaps I'm just strange. It's been said before. 😛
This changes the goalposts. Nobody mentioned 'within reason', nor 'DIY' in the first place. 😉 It was simply stated that:
But the above now, in effect, implies we're now actually talking about 'something that looks a bit similar'. By definition that is not a clone, and finish, time, faithfulness to the original performance goals and all commercial considerations etc. involved in the 40.1 have also gone straight out the window.
So shall we ask the question: what can be done?
The 40.1 is now two generations old, but in principle it's a large, passive 3-way loudspeaker with a Seas Excel 1in soft-dome tweeter, a custom-designed and built polymer cone 8in midrange driver and 12in woofer. Both are nicely made units with what appears to be a reasonable motor design based on appearance and what information appears to be in the public domain.
$500 is about £370 at the time of writing.
The tweeter you can buy -assuming a trade discount I could get a pair for just under £120 (albeit minus grill), plus delivery, but for that price I'd probably have to buy in quantity. Which isn't very realistic for DIY. The midrange and woofer are not available off-the-shelf, so we're by definition automatically departing from the design by that fact alone. To stay as close as reasonably practical to the spirit of the speaker, we'd need a polypropylene cone midrange and woofer, or we're back to the 'well, it's something a bit like' it. Poly cone units are a bit thin on the ground these days, but for the woofer, something like the MCM 55-1220 is at least available, current price £107 for a pair, delivered. It does not appear to be especially comparable in qualitative terms, but it's a 12in poly cone woofer that falls into the minimal budget. There are a couple of very cheap 8in poly cone units from MCM, but they have a somewhat dodgy response -not ideal when they're being used as mids, and it would be something of a stretch to assume they are an equivalent. But we will, for the sake of argument. You can get a pair of clear-cone 55-1240s for £36, and we'll be generous again and assume you order at the same time as the woofers so no extra postal costs.
That means we have about £107 of our budget left for all cabinet materials (MDF, hardwood batons / stringers, veneer, bitumen panel damping + adhesive, and acoustic damping), all crossover components, wire, binding posts etc. Because we can't say 'we'll just use what we already have on the shelf'. That's cheating. The budget has to cover everything. But in a fit of generosity, we won't include consumables -glue, solder, sandpaper, varnish (or choice of finish), rags, misc. other items etc.
By the end of which you will have a speaker that might just scrape in on the budget, which is rather unlikely to be a reasonable equivalent to the Harbeth, and doesn't include any commercial considerations. You might be able to hammer it into a similar axial FR, but I would suggest that doesn't make it an equivalent. Perhaps I'm just strange. It's been said before. 😛
Last edited:
How about sound preference, reliability, design, compatibility with electronics and other environment? DXT and multiple nCores for upper bass...lower mid cardioid: state of the art and science or just cheap and weak gadgets for half deaf.
From my point of view, which may not be shared by others, if you live by the sword you die by the sword.
Harbeth doesn't share their data on their website. Their speaker gets into the hands of Stereophile and their measurements (which you say are poor) become Harbeth's measurements on their flagship. That's a tough nut to swallow if you are Harbeth.
If Stereophile gets a Kii Three in their hands and their measurements are poor, they are going to massage them until they look good. If they don't they look like the fools, not Kii.
Revel Salon 2s benefit from the expectation of good measurements as well. If Stereophile's published measurements looked bad it would make Stereophile look bad not Revel.
Harbeth chooses to live by the sword, therefore...
uh-oh, I forgot to add the price for the staples, sorry guys, deals off! 🙂
https://www.stereophile.com/images/515harb.inside.jpg
https://www.stereophile.com/images/515harb.inside.jpg
phosisticated. After I get the 1/2" plywood, I'll need to pull the memory foam off my bed🙂
Correction- It's 1/2" MDF. That's even more better!
"If I was to criticise anything, it would be to do with attention to details inside the cabinet. When I inspected mine, I noticed that the glue around the bass reflex ports did not go around the whole perimeter of the ports. I noticed a couple of spots that were missed in the harder to reach areas. Moreover, when I inspected the octagonal enclosure of the midrange unit, I discovered that its MDF walls were split by the screws that hold the back plate – could easily be avoided if the pilot holes were of a larger diameter. These things should have no impact on the sound, however, with my pedantic nature I find it a little disappointing to see this in a £10k loudspeaker. I appreciate that these are not visible unless you open the cabinet and this would be absolutely fine if Harbeth M40.1 was not a premium product."
Harbeth M40.1 - Speakers Review at Audio Nostalgia
Correction- It's 1/2" MDF. That's even more better!
"If I was to criticise anything, it would be to do with attention to details inside the cabinet. When I inspected mine, I noticed that the glue around the bass reflex ports did not go around the whole perimeter of the ports. I noticed a couple of spots that were missed in the harder to reach areas. Moreover, when I inspected the octagonal enclosure of the midrange unit, I discovered that its MDF walls were split by the screws that hold the back plate – could easily be avoided if the pilot holes were of a larger diameter. These things should have no impact on the sound, however, with my pedantic nature I find it a little disappointing to see this in a £10k loudspeaker. I appreciate that these are not visible unless you open the cabinet and this would be absolutely fine if Harbeth M40.1 was not a premium product."
Harbeth M40.1 - Speakers Review at Audio Nostalgia
Last edited:
Now I understand why people say that those speakers sound like kitchen radio. Thanks for the link! 😀
I meant what and how Stereophile measures is poor. No better than almost any of us could do at home. No comments about M40.1.
Right. And if a manufacturer doesn't anticipate poor measurements by a publication (e.g. Consumer Reports vs Harman/JBL as explained by Floyd Toole in his book) they might wind up on the pointy end of the review.
Man, that is strangely reassuring. I attempted to replicate a Kii Three and it sounds like a kitchen radio. When I turn off the active portion the speaker sounds muddy.
That's a very strong statement, would you care to justify it? Because as a loudspeaker engineer I could perhaps agree with simple, but I vehemently disagree with unprofessional and pathetic, I think that is not only unkind but incorrect, particularly considering the context of the audience for that publication.
As for "No better than almost any of us could do at home" ok that might be true TODAY but it certainly was not true in the past which Atkinson keeps consistent to. I sang praises and hallelujah when someone (MLSSA) came out with a simpler system to measure magnitude and phase data of frequency and impedance and then double hallelujah out came software (LEAP, RIP Chris Strahm) could do a voltage divider crunching simulation that actually matched what I could measure on $40k of overpriced B&K boxes. How MUCH testing, a print publication certainly can't devote as much space or time as hobbyist websites. I'm just really glad Stereophile hasn't gone the way of Sound & Vision which measures pretty much nothing any more and thus has become pretty useless.
I'd also point out thank god Stereophilemeasures stuff at all, being I think the only remaining publication in the western hemisphere that does. (Websites *may* come up and replace that however that's a more recent phenomenon, and I believe in significant part because Stereophile kept the measurement flame burning).
Last edited: