JA Pulsars vs Harbeth 30.2

I concur with Soix.

I haven't heard the JA's but owned 30.2 XDs for 2 years. They are not thin but they do not rock-out. I don't listen to a lot of classical music but I don't think the small Harbeth's excel when there is a lot going on. Jazz, blues, vocals, acoustic, well recorded stuff like Steely Dan sound great and not fatiguing.

I bought them because I heard them and could not get the sound of the midrange / vocal reproduction out of my head. I'd listen to both if I were you you'll probably be drawn to one or the other and it will be an easy call unless you hate them both!

btw I also bought 2 REL T/9x subs at the same time as the 30's - I have a large non-dedicated room - I think you'll need a pair of subs to be really happy, maybe with either choice. 

Having said all that, I now have the 40.3's and I sold the RELs. Much happier. As someone else pointed out, in your room why not go full size?

Lastly, FWIW Harbeth shows with Hegel and while the 30's worked well with Tubes for me, they really are best with beefy SS.

@soix @rsf507 @bigkidz @macg19 ​@rlb61 @arafiq 

Thanks for your input. I really had no idea what the Harbeth’s sounded like and nowhere to listen to them. So your input is greatly appreciated . @2tuby you scared me a little concerned with the magnesium cone. I believe I will stay away from the Harbeth line.

Thanks, 

Tom

There has been no reviews or forum discussion that are not highly positive on the JA Pulsars.

@tjraubacher - some of the Harbeth have such a beautiful mid-range you can easily simply fall in love with the music.  The speakers I mention a way less expensive and top to bottom are just impressive.  For $5K hard to believe but that's what we heard and we have heard more than most.  Driven by Line Magnetic integrated amp was just magical.

Happy Listening.