Are Harbeths really "all that?"

Shadorne--thanks for the warning. That's why I hedged. I've only heard them once and that was at a show so who knows? Just didn't get it. BTW, Bob Neill was hosting the demo.

Oh oh, so much for good ol bob....
A friend said that Peter Q of AN would play bad metal really really loud. Well, Artie likes them anyway...I have yet to hear em. The corner thing doesn't bother me, I'm sure they have great centerfill. They do get a little pricey as you keep adding quality goods in the cabinets. My friend suspects I wouldn't stick with them, same as the harbeths, same as the sockoverthespeaker spendors.

boston A100's , a marantz receiver, a systemdek....the blue collar audio note system....sounds good.

AN has not always impressed me, but the couple of times it has, it REALLY has.

i bought a pair of HL-5 a couple of months ago, and my assessment is: they are close to perfection. The most natural speaker I've listened to. My view is that the goal of a speaker is to reproduce music in the most natural way possible, and this is what these guys are about. They don't aim to unnatural levels of detail, which is what lots of audiophiles seek. They aim to reproduce the experience of listening to live music. Also, compared to excessively detailed speakers, they are less fatiguing, and they are more forgiving: if you have a bad record, it will still sound like a bad record, but you can generally listen to it. I also own a pair of ESL-57, which is a wonderful speaker. The HL-5 are in my opinion better. And I find myself listening to more music than with the Quads.