Wow, thanks for the great comments and discussion. In answer to a few queries, I do love the Harbeth "sound" - the natural midrange and overall true timbre. (I'm a musician, and timbre is my #1 concern in any speaker and system.) That said, I have found the Wilsons to be less analytical and clinical that some have suggested, and similarly natural and timbral-accurate. I don't necessarily think they're a complete dichotomy, but perhaps I'll reflect on that a little more.
To address what I don't like about the Harbeths, that would cause an upgrade "itch" to be scratched? It's hard to say - they do from time to time sound a bit "boxy" on big, orchestral stuff. But overall I have no complaints, just... an itch for something different, maybe? Complacency = first world problems! :)
And I think my room is probably a limiting factor for the big Harbeth 40s, though with the overwhelming consensus on those, I may do look at those calculations again. Moving up the Harbeth line does make sense, I just think that's too much speaker for this room, but perhaps it could work? Hmmm...
To address what I don't like about the Harbeths, that would cause an upgrade "itch" to be scratched? It's hard to say - they do from time to time sound a bit "boxy" on big, orchestral stuff. But overall I have no complaints, just... an itch for something different, maybe? Complacency = first world problems! :)
And I think my room is probably a limiting factor for the big Harbeth 40s, though with the overwhelming consensus on those, I may do look at those calculations again. Moving up the Harbeth line does make sense, I just think that's too much speaker for this room, but perhaps it could work? Hmmm...