Clear difference between Harbeth 30.2 & Super HL5 Plus?

Thanks geek! Appreciated.

rja,

I listened fairly extensively to the Harbeth line before I decided at one point to get the Harbeth Super HL5plus.

I think the HL5plus is an amazing speaker (and I disagree with geek101 on this: I think they are quite neutral!  In fact, they are among the most 'even handed' speakers I've heard).

I was seeing if I could replace my big Thiel 3.7s with a smaller speaker.  I had the HL5plus for about a month of listening or more.  I only sold them because I realized I couldn't give up the scale and quality of the much bigger Thiels.  But the HL5plus was superb.

Some thoughts I've written before on the Harbeths:

When I’ve heard the smaller Harbeth Monitor 30’s I found they had a clear, rich, punchy mid-range oriented sound - the Harbeth magic. My main qualm is they didn’t go very low in the bass and they had a somewhat “darker” or shelved tonality that tended to remind me I was hearing reproduced sound (engaging as it was). Though some would just term it the mid to back concert hall sonic perspective, I guess.

The Harbeth HL Compact 7ES-3 is voiced to give a bigger sound, richer in the bass region and it satisfies in scale and drama in a way that the Monitor 30 didn’t quite match. It is both beautiful sounding, fun and could boogie. However, the added bass isn’t to my ears quite as refined as the rest of the range, a bit of bloat and overwarmth to get to that excitement at that price point.

For me the Super HL5 Plus is the “Goldilocks” of the line where everything clicks into place. There is the added bass extension and scale you don’t get from the Monitor 30, but the bass is distinctly more refined with the pitch control compared to the cheaper 7ES-3. There is also an opening up and extending of the top end - a deliberate new design choice from Shaw - making for a truly realistic “un-canned,” airy tonal balance that gives me that “this could be real” sensation. All that while keeping the Harbeth glory in the midrange.

Hi. I have heard both and decided on the 30.2
The only reason, imo, to consider the 30.2 over the SHL5+, is room size considerations. My room is small, and the 30.2 do nothing to address potential room interactions with first point reflections. They need plenty of space to sound their best. More than what I had. Hence, why I sold them for directional horns.
Anyway, I would reccomend the 30.2 if your room is under 40m3, and the SHL5+ for anything above that.
The SHL5+ is, imo, more full sounding. "Bigger" sound, better dynamics - swings in volume, etc. Better all around. But  I knew they wouldn't play nice in my small room. The 30.2 barely did play nice. I'd honestly probably recommend a smaller Harbeth over the 30.2, if your room is under 35m3.

Thanks both for your replies, very helpful.

I heard the SHL5's in a brick-walled room driven by high-end Naim components, and I was surprised to find that they sounded a bit bright to me.  This would be in line with audiothesis's comments.  The 5's certainly will go down lower than the 30.2's, but that's what the 40.2 is for.  As I said, I was really very positively surprised and impressed by the 30.2's at CAF, driven by large tubed Rogers integrated.  I think a lot of the smaller speakers at CAF were being helped by bass reinforcement courtesy of the small hotel rooms.