When a budget speaker is preferred to a high end one...

Sometimes i wonder that when buying speakers, we should leave our eyes at home and just bring our ears.The biggest mistake I've seen is too large a speaker for a given space to operate. A quality 2-way stand mount in a smaller room will almost always outperform a larger full range speaker.they will not overpower the room and image way better.Great imaging is the most important quality of a great sound IMO.

@tmaker - A smaller speaker offer better placement flexibility. Often large speakers work just fine, unless they are relying on distance for integration of drivers (I am looking at your Wilson). If you are overpowering a room at low frequencies, that is what EQ is for.

Yes other speakers sound anemic because I think you like all of the information being added by the Harbeth. Again this is what I hear which is precisely what I expect given Shaw's design decisions. As you say to each his own and it should be no other way. 

Well it seems to me that Shaw has said that all amps sound the same through his speakers. To me this statement diminishes the obvious importance of other components and elevates the speaker in terms of significance. This also runs contrary to my experience. 

I think Shaw is dead wrong about thin walled cabinets and energy dissipation. Sure the energy is removed but by the vibration of the cabinet which adds audible colorations. 

His crossover designs run contrary to my belief that first order crossovers are the best compromise and that complexity in this arena is a really poor idea.

I think it is also interesting that much of what Shaw proposes also reduces the cost of his product significantly which, considering the sum of its parts, I find very expensive. 

@pcrhkr Your reference to the Ultralinear 100s brings back memories.

It was said that if you removed them from the carton and set them next to it and a big gust of wind came up, the speakers would blow away and the cartons would remain in place.

Industry Nickname: Ultrasloppy 100s

My own story:

I worked for a dealer and had a pair of these sitting on the highest shelf. We had a mishap and one of them fell off the edge of a shelf and landed squarely on top of a Pioneer HPM200. Being quite upset (it was my fault) I rushed over to check out the damage and discovered a totally disenintegrated Ultralinear 100 and a PIoneer HPM200 without a scratch. True story.

@audition__audio 

I think Shaw is dead wrong about thin walled cabinets and energy dissipation. Sure the energy is removed but by the vibration of the cabinet which adds audible colorations. 

The entire thin-walled concept as devised by the BBC research department in the 1970s seeks to remove audible resonances from the all important midrange.

Harbeth claims that their lossy cabinets help to lower these resonances into the bass regions and below the threshold of hearing.

It is a particularly audacious claim given that so many others seek to do the opposite, namely increase stiffness and mass to their cabinets in order to attempt to physically suppress these resonances.

Yet it's also a claim that's never been refuted in almost half a century.

Can 2 diametrically opposed ways of trying to do the same thing both be right?

In  this case I would guess it depends upon whatever priority the designer deigns is the most important - the purest midrange or the hardest bass slam?