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

@flyfish77 

+1 NHT bookshelf.  The original SuperOne was my first bookshelf speakers in my audiophile journey 20 years ago.  The bottom end is down to 56 hz so I pair it with a AR subwoofer.  With Harmon Kardon AVR 25ii, the combo gives a "quasi" full-range down to 35 hz range.  The bass notes are weighty but a bit laid back.  Then NHT came up with SB1 to replace your SuperZero and SB2 to replace my SuperOne, with a better bass extension down to 51 hz.  In 2002, NHT released the mighty SB3 with the bass extension down all the way to 39 hz.  With the hype from reviewers around that time including Stereophile, SB3 starts getting my attention but I was not on a quest for it due to the limited availability in the used market.  This year I was finally able to locate one pair from local area and, boy, I fell in love with its intoxicated midrange and mighty bass (for its size) and starts building a second system in my bedroom.  Paired it with Parasound A23, the bass from this close box digs deep, nimble and uncolored as said in Stereophile.  I even retire AR sub.

Sorry for being rambling but the point I try to make is a budget, nearly vintage pair of speakers could perform really well in a cozy or midium sized space.  With carefully matched gears and well thought out positions, they could potentially be on par with modern bookshelf speakers 10 times higher in price.  I did a 10-songs  recording of various genres of music to demonstrate that and hope you enjoy it.  The audio gain level for video recording using iPhone 13 is a bit low in the beginning.  I do apologize for that.  If you know how to adjust the gain level in iphone recording, please let me know.

I remember back in the 1980s several speakers come to mind that were very reasonable cost that sounded better than many higher priced speakers.

1. Ultralinier 100s. (El cheapo components.)

2. Advent speakers.

3. Radio Shack Minimus 7

Now. My DIY speakers. :)

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.