I owned the Harbeth 40.1's for almost ten years and sold them for the Treo CT's. I've since moved on to the Vandy Kento's. Both Harbeth and Vandersteen have loyal fan bases and both are great product lines, but with very different objectives. The Harbeth's were warm, smooth, rolled off in the treble, somewhat overly ripe in the bass, with a very liquid midrange. They were really suited to close field listening, maybe 4-5 feet from the speakers. The 40.2's may be somewhat more flexible as a result of a crossover change, but the key problem, for me, is that they are not time and phase coherent, which affects transient response and ultimate realism. If you listen at low volume and drink several glasses of wine, they'll be fine.
The Vandersteen's are built around time and phase coherence using superb drivers and minimum cabinetry. I had the Treo's, but the Quatro's would add a separately amplified bass module with analogue equalization to smooth out the impact of room nodes. The midrange is superb, and the frequency range is extended top and bottom, but without either edginess or excess bloom. I think both the Treo's and Quatro's are bargains in today's speaker market. What you get with properly set up Vandersteen's and a great recording is the feeling that you could reach out and touch the performers.
The Vandersteen's are built around time and phase coherence using superb drivers and minimum cabinetry. I had the Treo's, but the Quatro's would add a separately amplified bass module with analogue equalization to smooth out the impact of room nodes. The midrange is superb, and the frequency range is extended top and bottom, but without either edginess or excess bloom. I think both the Treo's and Quatro's are bargains in today's speaker market. What you get with properly set up Vandersteen's and a great recording is the feeling that you could reach out and touch the performers.