Harbeth 30.1 or 40.1

I don't think you would need a sub with either. The 40's will blow more air which might be not more but much more then you would want. With the Harbeth what you get is a special midrange that in itself is very satisfying. Hook em up to a sweet sounding amp, tubes are nice and you should be happy. For me I would go with the 30's. less room resonance fewer acoustical treatments tighter sound....just me. 

To me they are very different speakers I like them both but the 30.1 is a great small monitor speaker. The 40.1 though stand mounted is totally full range you definitely wouldn't need a sub with it. With 30.1's you may not need a sub either unless you're a bass freak. Do you have a chance to audition them and see which you prefer?

I think the 40.1 might be too big for your room-they have to be out from the walls quite a bit.  Spatial speakers are really good.  What is wrong with yours?

Actually, nothing wrong with the Spatial X5.  But hear the Harbeth on You tube and the midrange sound can’t get away from my head.  I know the sound quality from YouTube is not good in any way, and it depends on the gear and room condition.  But still, I know I need to try them.  The videos I saw are for 30.1.  But there is a used 40.1 for sale locally, so I am wondering.  Another consideration is the price.  The 40.1 is a double of 30.1.  I also need to buy an amp.  So, I can get the 30.1 and the amp for the price of the 40.1.  The biggest concern is, I am spending the money but can’t utilize the benefit because of the constraint of room size and listen volume.

@jond how would you describe the difference?  I never own a monitor speaker, all my speakers are full range speakers.  But then recently, I feel they are actually a bit too big for me.  I realize they sound better when I turn up the volume, but then it is too loud to my taste.  Is there such a thing as optimum listening volume for different speakers?

gte357 to me there is an optimum listening volume for each piece of music not so much for each speaker. To my ears the difference between the two is the 30.1 images a bit more precisely but the images don't have the density of the 40.1. Also you get more sense of the room the music was recorded in with the 40.1 because of their much deeper bass. The 40.1 is much deeper in the bass but a tad less airy on top. Both speakers have a top notch midrange detailed and transparent with natural warmth. 

When you say the 40.1 has much deeper bass, does it need a louder volume to bring it out?  Or they are at similar volume?

40.1 seem designed for larger rooms and yes far out from walls. 

I’d start with the smaller Harbeths in that room.

Buy used and don’t overpay or buy new with return policy if you want to keep your options open.

wrong on both

shl5 super or compact 7

@jjss49 can you elaborate?  Honestly, don’t really know the differences.  But it seems the 30.1 and 40.1 are more popular.  I would like to be educated.

thanks.

@gte357s if there's nothing wrong with your current speaker/amp setup and you are basing your desire on a YouTube video I think you would be wasting your $$$" IMHO. Not only will you need a new amp but also different cables to best match.

This is a no brainer - get the 40.1 if you must have one or the other. It can easily be used in a room like yours. Both designs share the same well regarded tweeter and are both considered excellent loudspeakers, but the 40 is naturally more excellent.

Furthermore all Harbeth speakers can be used near field and are voiced to sound good at low volumes.

However, however, just like @andysf asked above, I would also ask you to think carefully before pulling the trigger.

I’m far from certain that the Spatial X5s are so easily bettered.

Have you considered the possibility that your Spatial X5 speakers might even be better than the Harbeth 40.1s?
It’s certainly not impossible.

Isn’t it all too easy to sometimes denigrate what we have whilst pursuing something better?

Just yesterday I was playing a Smiths compilation on my Tannoys and it suddenly hit me, ’Wow, these are really good speakers!’

Maybe Morrissey’s voice and diction could have been a touch cleaner, maybe the speakers could have disappeared better leaving a ghost like sound behind, maybe the timbre could have been a hint more life-like, but yeah, pretty good.

Good enough to let me forget that I was listening to a recording.

At least for a while.

Curious why the Super HL5 Plus isn't under consideration?  I haven't heard the 30 or 40 series.  One of my friends purchased some 40.2's recently and I'll be checking those out tomorrow.

Yea I have heard both spatial and Harbeth 40.1 and presentation is much different but both were very good with midrange when I heard them. 

I’d be Very careful judging solely on You Tube.

big_greg,

There has a been a online feeling going around for a few years now that the tweeter used in both the 30s and 40s is superior to the one used in the SLH5 - nothing confirmed, just a feeling.

It would be interesting if you could post your impressions of the 40.2s, as I’ve only heard the SLH5s sadly).

The 40s have long been regarded as amongst the big hitters of the audio world, going back around 20 years since
Robert E. Greene posted his iconic review.

He used to own a pair back then but I’m not too sure what R.E.G. thinks of them today.

big_greg,

There's always been a feeling that the tweeter used in the 30 and 40 is superior to that of the SLH5 - nothing confirmed - just a feeling kicking around the net for a few years now.

It would be great if you could feed back your impressions of the 40.2s. I've never heard a pair (only SLH5s sadly) but the 40s have long been regarded as amongst the big hitters of the audio world.

At least going back around 20 years ever since an iconic review by Robert E Greene.

I own the Super HL5 Plus 40th Anniversary Edition and absolutely love them.  I'm looking forward to hearing the 40.2.  I'll post my impressions.

Correction:

The Harbeths I auditioned were 40.2, not 40.1.

Thanks for all the reply.  I believe the only way to find out if I will the Harbeth is to buy one and use it at home.  Although not yet audition the Harbeth, based on my past experience, it is not that useful; because the room is different, the amp, the source ... everything are different.  So, my approach is buy used, bring it home, and if it doesn’t work out, I will sell it out hopefully won’t lose too much.  
It seems now the determining factor is the price.  Not only the 40.1 is more expensive, I believe it needs a more powerful amp as well which is also more expensive.  

@mapman can you please elaborate on your experience between the Spatial and 40.2?  Which model of Spatial you hear?  Are they in different settings, different room and different equipment?  
Since the Spatial is open baffle, I hope or expect it gives a bigger sound stage and more life-like.  This is one of the reason I buy it, and it is true compared to my Zu Omen Def MK I.  The X5 has a big Air Motion Transformer for high frequency of 1k and up.  It provides more detail and sound more transparent than the Zu, but at the same time, I need to be careful about pairing equipments.  For instance, I bought a Toppings DX7 pro which also offers all the details, and I feel fatigued after an hour of listening and need to turn down the volume.  
By comparing YouTube videos and my X5, I believe the Harbeth gives warmer sound.  But I hope it also gives the same level, or a bit less, of detail and clarity.  I expect the soundstage May get smaller.  I hope the instrument separation is still good.  

@gte357s

Yes, totally different setups in all regards. Very hard to compare concisely other than both were top notch in their own way in my opinion, though much different.

Harbeth 40.2 was at Deja Vu Audio in Northern VIrginia in their large showroom off their top of the line Conrad Johnson amps. Spatial (not sure of model) was at Capital Audiofest 2018 in an average size hotel room. Do not recall amp used but was more modest as I recall. The designer/owner was seated right next to me and we chatted as I listened.

The biggest difference was in the overall presentation and soundstage as one might imagine with two such different designs with different dispersion characteristics.

The Harbeth presentation was unique in that the speakers were set up a good 1/3 of the way into the room, and there was good soundstage detachment and some depth but not all the way back towards the rear wall as is often the case with many less boxy modern speaker designs. Donna Godchaux’s vocal on Sunrise from Terrapin Station album struck me as particularly spectacular with the Harbeth streamed from my home library via Plex on my Smartphone using whatever high end DAC it was they used. Maybe Audio Note?

I think " warmth" will vary with gear used. The demo I heard surprisingly did not strike me as warm sounding, more neutral with very good detail and no fatigue.

I suspect both sound their best with room to breath but should work fine as well in tighter quarters. In tighter quarters, I suspect the largest Harbeths might be a bit of overkill. They are very good sounding large box speakers, but I have to wonder how some other similar larger size box designs I have heard over the years for way less cost would fare against them. Overall they remind me of old Ohm model C2 speakers, which I also used to like very much, but listed for $700 or so a pair back in the 1970s. Of course I never heard those running off large high end tube amps like the CJs at Deja Vu Audio back then so again apples/oranges. I wonder.....

I’ve heard Zu many times at CAF and they have yet to grab me.

The 40.2's at Deja Vu were, for me, the best audition--the best-sounding speakers--I've ever had in an audio store.  After just a few seconds of a Beethoven piano concerto I let out a "wow".  If I could have 75% of that at home I'd be a happy camper.

I'm less sure about the 40.1 but there isn't an absolute need to drive the 40.2 with more than 60 or 70 quality watts.  Yes, perhaps more is better, but quality is also better or quantity.

You'll need to add sub(s) to the 30.1 to get the bass quality of the 40's, so something to consider when considering financial outlay.  I agree, though, that you can only ultimately tell at home with an audition there.

That's very funny like @mapman I heard the 40.1s at Deja Vu Audio and Spatial at Cap Audiofest. I heard the 30.2's at both Deja Vu and Cap Audiofest.  I like all 3 speakers actually I thought Spatial Audio with LTA was one of the best rooms at Cap Audiofest last year. 


Harbeth, both models, will be notably a bit warmer than Spatial with more richness if not depth to the bass. As far as bass at louder volumes the 40.1 is 85db sensitivity so you do have to give them some power to open up though they are pretty benign impedance wise.


If you can buy used Harbeth's are an easy resell so you will have a chance to audition at home that is a solid plan. Good luck!

Right I think it was LTA tube amp of some sort at CAF driving Spatials.

Tube amp but LTA is a unique design and does not sound like most tube amps. Much lower output impedance I believe which is a good thing to my ears..the best of both good SS and tubes together.

I tend to think of CJ amps as your stereotypical somewhat warmer tube amp sound but really did not hear much if any of that with the CJ/Harbeth setup at Deja Vu. Of course I am guessing those very large and heavy CJ amps cost at least 30-50K or so, maybe more, and sounded really very good. Most of the other smaller tube amp setups I heard there with much smaller Harbeth and Audio Note speakers: yes. warmer, softer, less detailed...not impressive especially for the asking price to me in many cases.

It's easy to focus on speakers but what is feeding them will have a lot to say about how they sound.   Harbeth or others.

Very good information, than you every one.  I always want to try McIntosh gear.  And I am planning to get the MA252 hybrid to go with the Harbeth.  The Ma252 is rated as follows:

Power Output per Channel
100 Watts into 8 Ohms
160 Watts into 4 Ohms

Maximum Output (Balanced / Unbalanced)
8V Unbalanced

i read Harbeth needs good current, but this is often not listed in the specification.  Is the MA252 good (enough) for 40.1?  Or I need the more powerful Ma352?  That goes into the total cost consideration.

I owned 30.1's and now own 40.2 anniversaries.
My answer is, it depends on how serious you are about music listening.  For me, sitting down and listening is the highlight of my day.  I listen actively and lose myself in the music.  If I were buying speakers for a common living area where I was unable to listen this way, I would probably choose the 30 series as they are smaller and still sound amazing.  
For me the 30.1's were fantastic sounding speakers, but left me wanting more bass.  My room is smaller than yours (12x14) so you definitely don't need to be afraid of the 40.2's.  They will sound great in your room with proper set-up.  
I ran a sub with my 30.1's and really liked the sound, but eventually I grew out of them and purchased some 40.1's.  The difference was not subtle.  I loved them so much and had no intention of upgrading until an opportunity to buy the 40.2A speakers at a great price came my way last year.  I am so happy I made this move.  I do not know if the new XD model is better than the anniversary version but I am not even curious about that.  The 40.2 line is the pinnacle of sound for me.  
I don't regret the journey I took to get here.  In fact, it was the right thing to move through the line-up, as it has helped me understand the difference between these models.  
That said, if you have the means to get the 40.2's I do not think you will be disappointed.  

@snackeyp dis you also upgrade the amp when upgrade to 40.1?  What amp did you use?

Long time 40.1 owner here.  Your room size is fine for 40.1's... and no, you don't need a powerful amp... especially for listening to jazz and vocals at moderate levels.  A good quality amp (I prefer tubes) with 75 WPC is all you need.  I've also owned Harbeth SHL5's... but they don't compete with 40.1's in my experience.  

@gte357s 
My amp was a Lyngdorf TDAI3400 when I got the speakers but after that I tried an LFD NCSE 3 and prefer it.  It’s a solid state amp that sounds more like tubes.  Great amp, but very simple, and lacks the convenience features of most amps, most notably a remote control.  My second favorite amp with these speakers is the Primaluna EVO 400.  I might buy one in the future as a second amp because it’s really that good.  

@gte357sI ran a 4 sub array with my SHL5+40ths in a small room (10x12 minus closets).
The sub array really helped.
Now I am in a bigger listening room (14 x 17) and the SHL5+40ths really opened up at louder volumes.The sub array really helped in this room as well.

I have not heard the M40.1 or 2 but can vouch for the SHL5s.They fill the room without effort.
Seems like an even bigger room will let them play more into their "sweet spot".
I would strongly suggest considering the SHL5s and using the extra cash on a subwoofer solution.

@gt357s

mon 30 are midrange oriented monitor more for semi nearfield listening - will need bass reinforcement if run full range deliver dbs into 18x16 room

mon 40.1 are very full range, perhaps overly so... i had mon 40.1 before, they boomed, need to be far away from room boundaries - have you seen these speakers in the flesh?  they are huge boxes, know what u will be getting, if this is anything but a dedicated sound room there may be aesthetics issues

otoh, the c7 and shl5 bridge the gap between the two - c7 small box but more balanced high thru low, shl5 basically a larger version of c7 with supertweeter, similar voicing - 18x16 is good size but how will you set up the triangle, how close to room boundaries and therefore how much bass reinforcement?

Yes I have only heard 40.2 set up in large room away from walls. In smaller room closer to walls or corner with more bass reinforcement from the room I might be concerned going in about too much bass and no way to tame it other than eq or tone controls., which is always an option. They are big! “Full range” speakers in a smaller room is not always a good thing.
Something to be aware of. Too much bass can be detrimental to the overall sound, obscuring the otherwise lovely midrange and detail, and very hard to tame.

Vu of Deja Vu, who's a major Harbeth dealer, stated to me that the 40.2's needed 2' of clearance from side walls and 3' of clearance from front wall (behind them), all measured from the relevant edge of the cabinet.  The experience of the gentlemen in the link I posted earlier suggests that you can get away with less and still get very satisfying sound.

I have both the 30.1’s and 40.2’s in a room about 20’ x 20’ x 9’. Driving them with a Yggy DAC (one of the best), AR Ref 5SE preamp, and an A21 (to be replaced by a new AR Ref 150SE tomorrow).

They’re both superb, very much like a dynamic Quad ESL57 with bass - just like they sound on YouTube.

But... I think the 40.2’s are indeed almost too big for my room. They’re very loud and the bass is almost overwhelming - in a room that has no soft surfaces or upholstery to dampen the sound. But, the mids and highs are incredible, clear and detailed, without being strident, as well as rich and organic. And with a superb soundstage. Though, I do have a pair of Townshend Super-Tweeters, which adds tone, tenor and air. The bass is so strong, I’m thinking of using a DSP or Equalizer to tame it.

The 30.1’s have much the same sound, which fills the room, but a little less prominent bass.

I would note you really need an amp that can control the woofers - they require very careful system matching to perform to their potential.

I would likely use the same amps you see driving them so well on YouTube: the MA252 or MA352, or the Hegel H360, H390, or H590. Prolly the Hegel amps, which have superb damping factors, though the tube output of the McIntosh amps sound great with them too.

That’s one aspect I like about the set up I’m using, the AR Ref 5SE adds just enough tube sound to them to make them sound superb. I’m hoping the Ref 150SE maintains that sound, with a bit greater resolution, clarity and air, while improving the control over the woofers. The AR amps have a more neutral sound than many tube amps.

I’m not sure I would use other types of tube amps with them, other than possibly, something like the Atma-sphere M60, etc. - that have the current to properly control them, and to produce the resolution and clarity they can provide, if matched properly. Their sound is already very, very rich - almost too much so, without adding an overly rich tube sound.

But... I think... you would be pleased with the sound of the 30.1’s / 30.2’s driven by one of those amps. And... I’d get the Yggy, or one of the other R2R Dacs that sound similar or better (the Audio Mirror Trubadour or Dennifrips Terminator).  Though, the Hegel already has a superb DAC, though it may not have the R2R sound, it nevertheless sounds superb.  

So... one of the setups you see on YouTube that sound so incredible will probably please you the most. I’d prolly go with the Hegel and the 30.1’s / 30.2’s.  And what a bargain you have with the that set up!

Agree with @twoleftears , an 18' x 16' room is far from small and can accommodate at least 2-3 feet of clearance that most speakers need from surrounding walls to sound their best.  Based upon the listening preferences the OP described in his initial post, I'd be shocked if the 40.1's don't exceed his expectations.  

I have owned M40s, M30.2 Anniversaries, and SHL5's I have used in a room 12.5 feet by 22 feet by nine feet high. The M40s, in their original version, were not suited to my room and overwhelmed with bass regardless of placement or even stuffing socks in the ports. I understand the 40.1 and 40.2 iterations of that speaker have tamed the bass somewhat for domestic settings; provided, however, the people I know who have been happiest with 40.1s and 40.2s listen to them in remarkably small rooms, not large room. Have others noticed this?

I have heard the 40.2s sound stunning in a large room at Deja Vu West in La Jolla, California, and that made me want them badly, though I have not gone that direction because of my cautionary experience with the earlier model. I have also been reluctant to buy a speaker as large as the 40.2 as it was very large, heavy (83.8 pounds) and difficult to move.

The M30.2 did not suit my taste despite their obvious excellence. I think I like something with a bit more extended bass and rounder sound. YMMV. 

As for my SHL5s, I have owned them for many years and have always enjoyed them. I have never directly compared them to 40.1 or 40.2 models and when I had the M40s, the bass problems with the M40s prohibited me from thinking it would be a fair comparison. The SHL5s (not the "+" version) extend to 45 Hz on the bottom end versus 35 Hz with the 40.2s. If you do not feel comfortable owning and lugging the 40.2s around, the SHL5s or SHL5+s might deserve your consideration. At about 35 pounds, you need not become a gym rat to qualify as an owner. 

I have not tried the SHL5's, but they have a similarly impressive sound to the 30.1's / 30.2's, but with a bit less dominant bass, and somewhat brighter highs.  It's very possible that they would be just as pleasing to you, though they don't sound as impressive on the YouTube videos.  Sometimes I think I might try them for a pair that have less dominate bass and brighter highs, though maybe a bit less rich mids. 

But, if you're after the sound that you hear in the YouTube videos, I'd start with the 30.1's / 30.2's and a matching integrated amp.  I think you'll find they will provide just the sound you're after at lower to moderate volume levels.  

They're easy to sell, if you want to try one of the others.  Or, you might end up keeping them and using them in another room.  

Once again, thank you very much for all the information.  To summarized all the pros and cons, logically, I should get the 30.1 and not 40.1, because:

1. For the price of 40.1, I can buy the 30.1 + McIntosh MA252.
2. I can’t afford to buy the 40.1 + MA 252 at the same time.  3. Since 30.1 is easier to drive, I can use my Almarro 318 for the interim, and that should yield better result than the 40.1.   4. The 40.1 is huge, much bigger and heavier than I thought.  I am concern to buy something so difficult to move.  And my wife won’t like it.5. 40.1 is harder to sell if it doesn’t work out.
6. 40.1 maybe too big for my listening area.
7. I listened to almost all videos I can find on Youtube, and I like the sound of 30.1 more.  It sounds more lively.  I guess it is because it is easier to drive.
8. If I want more bass for 30.1, I still have an option to add a subwoofer.

"listening to how they sound on youtube and like them"

sorry, i have to laugh and roll my eyes

While I've only heard the SHL5+ in stores (e.g. in Seattle), it always struck me as cut from another cloth, and aiming to do something rather different.  Just look at the drivers that it uses.  I heard the 30.1's at CAF and thought them excellent when driven with a high-powered tube amp.  It was the 40.2 iteration that sought to deal with the bass issues, over the 40.1, and are indeed much more domestic-friendly.  I don't understand the comment about 40's being too loud--there is a volume control, after all.  The 40's are large, awkward-shaped, and heavy, but that's what you pay not only to get the bass extension but also the wave-launch from the wider baffle that provides a more realistic impression of real instruments in real space.

I spent the evening yesterday at my friend's house listening to his 40.2s.  His room is fairly small (less than 20 feet on a side?  I didn't ask the dimensions).  Electronics were his Line Magnetic 805ia integrated, fed mainly by a Schiit Bifrost.  We also spun some records on his Pro-Ject Xtension 10 Evolution turntable with a Manley Chinook phono stage.  His room is heavily treated - absorption panels and diffusers on the front and side walls, diffusers on the ceiling, bass traps in the front left and back right corner.  There's a subwoofer in each corner where the bass traps are.

I first heard the Super HL5 Plus and the P3ESR at his house.  The 40.2s are much bigger, and they're beautiful.  He was running them with the grills off.  When we started listening, I don't remember what track he played first, but what first caught my attention was the imaging.  The center image was incredibly rock solid.  I felt like if I wanted to, I could stand up and walk up to the singer.  Her voice was coming from a spot right between the speakers and at the height of someone standing there. 

The 40.2s have more presence than the Super HL5 Plus, we listened at moderate volumes for the most part and the detail and texture of the voices and instruments was fantastic at low to moderate volumes.  When played loud, the music had a visceral impact, you could feel it as well as hear it, no doubt in part due to the subs. 

The 40.2s have a warmer presentation than the Super HL5 Plus, but don't give anything up in terms of detail.  The imaging and soundstage was almost holographic.  The one word that kept coming to mind while listening, was "texture".  They did the midrange so well and voices, guitars, and strings were rendered with a palpable sense of intimacy, as if they were there in the room with you, very "organic". 

If there was a downside to the 40.2s, the bass seemed less controlled and dynamic than when I heard the Super HL5 Plus speakers in his system.  I asked about the subs, and he said he had to lower the gain settings to integrate them with the bass output of the 40.2s (which I expected).  With the Super HL5 Plus and his subwoofer setup, the bass in his listening space was very dynamic, going from not noticeable to prominent in a super fast and controlled way.  It was the best I've heard bass sound in any system when he had the Super HL5 Plus.  It was more present and less dynamic with the 40.2s.  Had I not experienced the setup he had with the Super HL5 Plus, I would have loved the bass in his current setup and don't think there was anything "bad" about it, but the overall presentation was much different.

While I enjoyed them, I didn't leave wanting to replace my Super HL5 Plus speakers with the 40.2's.  The 40.2s are better in many ways, but I really enjoy my Super HL5 Plus and think the bass of the 40.2s might be too much for my listening space.  They are definitely too big physically for the space I have available, but they are beautiful and sound incredible.  If I had the space and the budget for them, they would be wonderful.

big_greg,

Good write-up. Thanks.

I think we could predict that there might be more subwoofer integration issues with the 40.2s. I would have imagined that they’d barely need one.

So maybe there’s still room for improvements in the sub integration settings.

So I guess that’s a qualified yes to the 40.2s.

It's a definite yes, space and budget permitting. 

I didn't want to imply that the subs weren't integrated well, they were, but it was just a different experience than when I listened to his setup with the Super SHL5 Plus.  With the 40.2's the bass had more presence and was closer to what you would experience with live music.  With the Super SHL5 Plus, the bass was tighter, more dynamic, and punchier, but maybe less "organic" sounding.  Neither were bad, quite the opposite, just different.

Big Harbeth fan. Heard them all and owned the C-7s for many years. the M40 is an amazing full range speaker--one of my favorites of all time. IMHO, too big for your room--you won't get the best from them--they like room to breath like all Harbeth models. M30 is my least favorite Harbeth--by far. It does not have the same magic that their other models possess. For your space the HL-5 or C-7 would be my recommendation. In that room you won't need a sub and in my experience one is not the preferred way to go anyway. Both speakers are readily available used so pick up a pair and try them out! 

@dodgealum 

i am with you -- can lead horse to water but it may not drink lol

@big_greg 

like your report - i would only add that all but the tiniest harbeths do benefit from strong amp control of the woofer(s) - therefore hegels are so good a match as many have found

yes there is great nuance and magic to using tube amplification, but therein lies the trade... bass control is sacrificed and bass impact lessened in exchange for midrange magic ... this particularly key for 40 and hl5 - where with the wrong/weak amp the bass can bloat and slow to a crawl

Once again, thank you for all the opinions.  Even though logically I think I should wait for the M3 to come up, But gosh, I can’t get the 40.1 out of my head!  I keep coming back to read all the comments.  I read them all three times now.  One of the reason is that the M40.1 is a local sale, and I know these speakers can be rare to come up locally.  My emotion keep telling me that if I don’t buy them now, I may not have a second chance.  
The C7 and SHL5 plus suggestions come up a couple times.  I researched on them, for some reason, they don’t speak to me.  Firstly, I don’t like their look.  Then I listen to all the sound clips I can find on the internet, and none of them speaks to me like the M30.1, and M40.1.

And the M40.2 is way out of my budget.
My speaker journey now is rather short:
B&W CDM 7 NT -> Zu Omen Def -> Spatial Audio X5

I remember the B&W sounds dull no matter how much power I throw at it, it seems I like more life-like, holographic sound.  This is why I choose Spatial with OB design.  
One more question, I hope the Harbeth, even they are not efficient, they sound different from B&Ws.  Although I can’t generalized the CDM7nt as the B&W sound, but I got similar feeling after auditorium many box, not so efficient speakers at different shops.  

Just to add, I audition the B&W 802 with high Classe amp at the dealer many years ago, and I got the same feeling, full and nothing exciting.  Then I hear a big Maggie, and I got goose bumps.  The singer seems to just floating in front of me.  So ... just to give a sense of my listening taste.  Do you think the I will be happy with the M40.1?  If it is like the B&W, then I will avoid them, although they don’t seem like the case.

Sorry, a typo. I mean the B&W is dull, not full.