The Marshall Acton 3 is designed as a vintage retro speaker with a classic Marshall look—vinyl wrap, tactile knobs, and a warm analog aesthetic that’s aimed at delivering directional stereo sound (with angled tweeters and a 30-watt woofer). The Aura 4, on the other hand, is built around a futuristic 360-degree sound design with its dome-shaped transparent chamber and upward-firing driver setup. It’s not just a speaker but also a visual centerpiece, especially with the ambient light ring that responds to the music. The Acton 3 feels more old-school and focused, better suited for a front-facing listening spot, while the Aura 4 is made for filling a room evenly and creating mood—less about pinpoint detail, more about immersive atmosphere for casual listening.
Specs Comparison
The Marshall Acton 3 is a vintage retro speaker with a total power output of 60 watts—30 watts going to the woofer and 15 watts to each of the two tweeters. It’s powered by three Class D amps, and the sound is projected forward with tweeters that are slightly angled outward, giving it a wide but focused stereo image. It uses Bluetooth 5.2 with LE Audio capability which is still not widely adopted yet but could become more relevant later on. There’s also a 3.5mm input around the back which makes it a bit more flexible if I want to plug something in.
The Aura 4 feels like a different world. Instead of directional sound, it uses a 360-degree audio design with a downward-firing subwoofer and six high-frequency drivers arranged to radiate sound evenly throughout a space. The power output isn’t officially listed by Harman Kardon, which is frustrating when trying to directly compare, but based on how it sounds and what I could dig up, it’s likely in the same ballpark—possibly slightly less powerful in terms of raw wattage but more immersive in how it spreads that energy. It uses Bluetooth 5.3 which is a little more current than the Acton’s 5.2, though it doesn’t really change the day-to-day use much. There’s no analog input on the Aura 4 so it’s a fully wireless setup, and it also adds ambient lighting that changes with the music. It’s very much a speaker that blends in with modern decor and acts like part of the mood, rather than something I’d actively control through knobs or fine-tune like I do on the Marshall Acton 3.
From a pure specs point of view, the Marshall Acton 3 gives me more control and a slightly more powerful stereo output, while the Harman Kardon Aura 4 trades directional impact for immersion and design. I find the Acton better suited to dedicated listening in a fixed position, while the Aura 4 is more about filling a room softly and evenly, especially in more relaxed or shared spaces.
Table Comparison
| Specification | Marshall Acton 3 | Harman Kardon Aura Studio 4 |
| Speaker Type | Stereo speaker (front-facing) | 360° omnidirectional speaker |
| Amplifier Configuration | 1 x 30W (woofer), 2 x 15W (tweeters) | 1 x 100W (subwoofer), 6 x 15W (high-frequency) |
| Total Power Output | 60W RMS | 180W Peak (estimate, RMS not clearly specified) |
| Frequency Response | 45 Hz – 20 kHz | 45 Hz – 20 kHz |
| Bluetooth Version | Bluetooth 5.2 (LE Audio capable) | Bluetooth 5.3 |
| Wired Input | 3.5mm AUX input | None |
| Voice Assistant Support | No | No |
| Lighting Effects | No | Yes (ambient responsive light dome) |
| App Support | Marshall Bluetooth App | No dedicated app |
| Dimensions (W x H x D) | 260 x 170 x 150 mm | 283 x 232 x 232 mm |
| Weight | 2.85 kg | 3.6 kg |
| Power Source | Mains-powered only | Mains-powered only |
Sound Comparison
Testing the Marshall Acton 3, I started with “Rosie” by John Mayer and sat about six feet away. The stereo separation was more noticeable than I expected for a single-box speaker. The angled tweeters (powered by two 15-watt Class D amps) helped spread the highs a little wider while the 30-watt woofer gave the kick drum and bass guitar a gentle thump without muddying the mids. Vocals sat comfortably in the mix and didn’t feel pushed. I found the sound tight and purposeful—there’s some warmth, but it doesn’t lean into exaggeration. It performs best when it’s directly facing you, which makes it great for smaller rooms or close-up listening on a shelf or desk.
The Aura 4 was a different experience entirely. I played “Night Owl” by Galimatias and placed the speaker in the middle of the room to make use of its 360-degree setup. The six high-frequency drivers worked together to fill the space evenly, and while it didn’t have the pinpoint imaging of the Acton, it created a fuller ambient layer that felt immersive. The bass came from a 100-watt sub firing downward and it definitely brought more body to the low end, though it wasn’t necessarily deeper—it just resonated more across the floor. Vocals had a bit more space around them but sometimes lacked that edge or forward presence I liked on the Acton. It felt more like I was in the atmosphere of the song rather than in front of it. That worked well for electronic music and ambient tracks but less so when I wanted intimacy.
The biggest difference for me is focus versus immersion. The Marshall Acton 3 sounds sharper and more deliberate, especially with tracks that have tight instrumentation like “Gravity” by Sara Bareilles where piano and vocals are front and center. The Aura 4, meanwhile, makes more sense when you want music to blend into the environment. I wouldn’t use it for active listening or to pick apart a mix, but it’s great for filling a living room during dinner or just creating a relaxing vibe. If I’m sitting down to listen, I’d pick the Acton. If I’m walking around or just letting music color the space, the Aura 4 feels like a more casual speaker to use.
Design Comparison
The Marshall Acton 3 features a classic retro look that’s very much in line with Marshall’s amp heritage (and emulates the retro amp design with brass knobs at the top). It’s wrapped in textured vinyl and has a solid wood frame underneath, which gives it a dense feel when I pick it up. The weight sits at 2.85 kilograms, and it feels grounded on any surface. The brass knobs on top (volume, bass, treble) give it a tactile kind of control that I actually enjoy using. It’s clearly meant to be touched, adjusted and placed somewhere permanent. Everything about the build makes it feel like part of a listening setup rather than a decorative object.
The Aura 4, on the other hand, looks more like something from a design studio than a speaker company. The transparent dome draws attention immediately, and under it sits a central column that glows with a soft ambient light while music plays. It’s a larger unit than the Acton (at 283mm wide and over 3.6 kilograms), and its weight is concentrated more toward the base which helps it stay stable. The body is mostly plastic, but it’s not the cheap kind. It has a smooth matte base and the light ring pulses with the rhythm which makes it feel more like a light sculpture than an audio device. There are no knobs, just touch controls along the rim which respond well, though I miss having some kind of tactile feedback like I do on the Marshall.
What I find interesting is how the designs reflect the way each speaker sounds. The Acton 3 is boxy, deliberate and compact—it’s built to project sound in a specific direction and the design reinforces that idea. The Aura 4 feels open and ambient, with the 360-degree design backed by a layout that avoids hard corners or any sense of front or back. I personally prefer the physical presence and materials of the Acton 3. It feels more solid and timeless. But I get why someone would lean toward the Aura 4—it turns music into part of the environment and doesn’t ask for too much attention unless the lights are on.
The Verdict?
Personally, I would go with the Marshall Acton 3 as I like the vintage retro aesthetic that it gives and looks like a classy speaker to have in the living room. The sound feels more precise, especially when I sit in front of it and play tracks with strong vocals or layered instrumentation. The angled tweeters and 30-watt woofer give it a more directional and articulate sound, and I appreciate being able to dial in the tone manually with the brass knobs. I like how it looks and feels too—it has a solid, retro build that makes it feel like a piece of gear rather than just another gadget. If I’m playing something like “Gravity” by Sara Bareilles or “Rosie” by John Mayer, I get a cleaner sense of space and presence from the Acton 3.
But I think the Harman Kardon Aura 4 is a more tech-heavy speaker, especially if you’re after something atmospheric and room-filling. The 360-degree sound and soft ambient lighting make it less of a listening tool and more of an experience. It works better when music is meant to be shared or when you’re moving around the room and don’t want to lose detail. The build is visually striking with its transparent dome and glowing center, but it doesn’t offer the same hands-on control or sonic sharpness that I get from the Acton. For me, the Acton 3 is the better overall speaker if you value sound precision and physical feedback, while the Aura 4 makes more sense if you want mood, ambiance and a touch of visual flair.