Are Harbeth S HL5's As Good As Reviewers Claim?

I'm a big fan of the Tannoys. have heard three different tannoy systems recently, and could live with them. But i would not sell my SHL5s to make the move to them. (as i am sure the Tannoy owners would rather keep what they have)
The SHL5 are very much tube friendly.
Mine are now just over a year old. I have compared them to many speakers and it came down to the SHL5/REL system, and the vandersteen Quatro Wood when i bought these. i prefer the SHL5.
If I can ever afford (and feel the need) i would make the move to the 40.1s.
The only speakers I have heard in recent years that I thought were better were the Wilson Sashas and Vandersteen 5As. And even these were not better throughout the freq. range.
Depending on room size, IMO the only speaker i have heard in the SHL5 price range that I think is equal would be the maggie 3.6. However they will need much more $$$$ to get them to there best.
Anyway, that my take on the SHL5 and Harbeths in general.

the beauty about the shl5s is that they can sound very good be it tubes, solid state, and hybrid amps. They are easy to get along and they sound great.
As you go higher the ancillary chain, they can reveal the strengths but not so much the weaknesses. They are forgiving. Over the last few months i wanted to upgrade them. But each time i hear what was offered, i still prefer the alluring and charming nature of the shl5s. best of luck guys.

Is anybody out there willing to criticize these things? I have enjoyed them in many ways. But the M30 is better, without the bass. I own them, too, and the 7(2). Ok. What is wrong with trying to get the most out of every piece of equipment we own? I don't know about all of you, but these are real dollars spent on real stuff for me. I am a classical pro of some actual small repute and I have been trying to solve the Harbeth 5 puzzle for 5 years.
WHERE IS THE AIR, TREBLE, HIGHS, whatever????
Anybody out there? I Have used really pretty good solid state, interesting tubes, quite good analog, very decent and different digital sources, don't ever play anything but classical music and acoustic jazz, medium/ smallish rooms, never "audiophle ear splitting" levels, but real, as I have been "right there" with excellent orchestras and chamber music. No Names. Leave it at that. But I KNOW what it is and what it sounds like from every vantage point. Enough credentials. I wish I didn't feel the need to say anything.
But, anybody out there have a problem the the Harbeth 5 (05)
treble, air, space, ETC. Come on, Mr Shawn, get into it.
A little help?
Thanks,
rt

Cellosven, I am a bit confused as why you own so many Harbeth speakers if they lack treble, air, space, etc - or are you saying that is only a problem with the 5?

Jerry Seigel at 10audio.com published a quite critical review of the Harbeth Monitor 30 a couple of years ago. I've owned several pairs of Harbeths (no longer) and I think that, for all the positive press they get, many audiophiles would react to them very much as Jerry did. IMO, it's a very fair review.