Hi Rudolf,
Thanks! Yes, that is correct on the woofer complement.
Not including the base, they are 11" wide x 48" tall and 18" deep. These are essentially the same dimensions as the previous units that we showed at RMAF 2019, we’ve shaved and inch or two off of the width and depth.
So the height is definitely needed? I rather hoped for a reduction there 
Yes, the height is needed. The tweeter is mounted coax in front of the planar midrange and the tweeter is centered at ear height. So the speaker has to be a bit taller than the height of the tweeter.
Ah yes sure, a dependence on the coax design…
My initial reaction wasn’t very good. Too boxy for me. Also, the last design which tied the upper and lower cabinets together by using side panels was nice. It gave the speaker a more unified look.
I wonder about the mid-bass couplers being on the sides, and whether that will affect imaging, creating a less coherent soundstage in the lower mid-range and upper bass.
I would also prefer the side drivers be covered, rather than exposed. However, they do look good with no screws being visible.
From a technology perspective, they are impressive.
I’m sorry I can’t be more positive, but that’s how I feel.
Cheers,
RJ
1 Like
Thanks, Chris, I understand and agree with avoiding side wall issues. And, I get the point about reducing enclosure induced vibrations. Still, with the differing driver materials and locations, how do you control time and phase arrivals at the listening position. Do you place equal value on time and phase vs frequency and power response? I appreciate the emphasis on user adjustability, especially in the bass. How close can these go the front wall? What are some of the other goals of this speaker and, indeed, of the intended whole family of speakers? What’s going to set them apart from an already crowded field?
Can you tell what is the front part of the woofer cabinet for, when the subs go to the sides? Is it a continued midrange ribbon?
The original concept was, so far as I recall:
- Line source
- Active bass
- Servo control
- Mid-bass coupler
Some, but not all has survived. The price hasn’t, started at around $12k.
I do share your concerns about phase and timing issues when the mid-bass couplers are firing sideways and the ribbon mid forwards, crossing over at somewhere around 400 - 500Hz.
How that crossover is designed is also critically important, given that it is likely at a somewhat higher frequency than a conventional 3-driver speaker.
The proof of the pudding will be in the listening.
I just measured and saw that mine have the same height, but are wider and especially deeper.
Do you already know the measures of the AN2 and if - as a line source - they might be not much higher than the AN3? But no, I guess not…I think you will go clearly bigger with the next ones, right?
Are there new renderings of the bigger ones, too already?
trust the pro‘s. One who makes such a woofer won’t care for basics differently
I was wondering and it seems from this image that CB’s mid/tweeter unit has survived, presumably the little gold lines are the tweeter, in the middle of a 10 inch midrange ribbon. Per the first post, they are front and back.
There is a matching panel in the lower section, but it seems nothing behind it. That begs the question, why not put the mid-bass drivers in there? Possibly not because not enough space, to which the answer would be to make the lower unit bigger. That gives two problems:
(a) Top and bottom units different sizes => increased manufacturing costs (presumably they are the same size to reduce costs)
(b) Lower unit would have to be more rigid to deal with two forward firing mid-bass couplers.
But better timing?
Decisions, decisions.
WHO are those guys?
It goes back to the fundamentals of the purpose of a mid-bass coupler (2 of them in this speaker). is it because of the limitations of a ribbon midrange driver compared to a mid/bass driver like the Radial 2 in all Harbeth speakers, which is how CB came to be involved in the first place?
I was wondering if the reference to The Who (Daltey and Townshend pictured, still alive and performing, the ones behind long since dead) was that for some years they held the record for the loudest concert, at Charlton Athletic in the mid 1970s. About 125dB. Will AN3 beat that?
Yes, cone midranges can play lower in frequency but planars have intrinsically higher damping, far greater high frequency bandwidth, array far better at high frequency and have other benefits.
Cone midrange are operating in break–up and have many transitional components (former, spider surround cone) whereas the planar is an essentially massless diaphragm being directly driven. This yields a much different sound and characteristics.
The top front baffle has the 10” midrange ribbon and the ribbon tweeter in a sort of coaxial arrangement (where the tweeter sits in front of the midrange). The bottom cabinet baffle is not active and has a matching metal grille for symmetry of looks.
1 Like
I’ve recently owned Quad ESL63 and played them side by side with Harbeth. The ESL arguably have the best midrange on the planet and I was surprised how close the Radial driver got, although ESL imaging is something else altogether.
I’ve heard very impressive ribbon tweeters, specifically from ProAc, but like many possibly most people here I’ve never heard a midrange ribbon. One of the dealers near me stocked Piega for a couple of years, which are a line stage with their own midrange ribbons, but I never got to hear them and he no longer stocks them. Lack of brand awareness I presume, plus they cost a small fortune.
Ah I see, makes sense. I just guess due to the counter-sunk Front this won’t be a speaker used without grills anyway…and it looks better with them imo.
On the pictures the front color of the cabinet looks black, the sides look greenish or grey…is the color different sideways?
No no, it’s the green carpet mirroring.