Speakers on top of subwoofer

Don't do this? Wilson is doing it wrong?

@gdaddy1  You’re really missing the point in this case.  The Harbeths were not designed to be placed on top of a sub, and the sub wasn’t designed to have a speaker placed on top of it whereas the Wilsons were designed to work that way.  Also, the best place to put subs for optimal bass in a room is pretty much never where the speakers are placed and in many cases it’s a poor place to put subs — any basic research on sub placement/room measurement will tell you that.  So for these reasons putting those nice Harbeths on subs is just not a good idea and should be avoided if at all possible for the benefit of both the speakers and the subs.

I think ignoring the fact that the woofers INSIDE the Harbeths actually woof renders objections to putting them on subs ridiculous. 

“Are those the 40.3 XDs?”   Yes. Paired with an Accuphase E800.  

If you're not using 4x subs in a dsp bass-managed array, what are you even doing with your life? (I kid, but seriously, if I didn't get the science of it I'd think it was witchery.)

@soix  What exactly is the "design change' allowing the Wilsons to have the speaker on top of the sub cabinet?

Maybe as @steakster points out... Wilson uses The new V-Material, which is used where two parts of the cabinet come together, "behaves like a vibration absorber," according to Wilson.

You can add a world class 'vibration absorber' on the Harbeth/subwoofer also!  Vibration absorption is not exclusive to just Wilson audio. Easily measured also.

'the best place to put subs for optimal bass in a room is pretty much never where the speakers are placed'

Then, according to this statement, you can conclude that the Wilsons can "never" be correct. Since the speakers are always connected to the subs and according to you, they shouldn't be.