Anyone compare Devore and Harbeth speakers?

i heard the devore a few times in seattle area. I agree with some of the findings, that they are detailed, but a bit dry to my taste. Maybe its the electronics that it was paired with. I personally prefer the Harbeth sound over them, but again, it could just be a mismatch with the Devore and naim amplifications.

Thanks for the responses so far. It was interesting that I could not find (on the web, at least) any dealer that carried both lines. It looks like I'll have to do some traveling to really compare for myself.

Just curious, what do people mean when they say "dry"?

"Dry" to me means that the speaker is uninvolving. I had this experience when I owned a Pair of Avalon Opus. They were/are the best imaging speaker; I could pinpoint each player in a well-recorded orchestra recording or Jazz recording. But for the life of me I could not listen to them very long, despite changing the upstream components many times.
When I upgraded/downgraded to the Trenner & Friedl Ellas the sound became more involving, more 'intimate', more listenable. At the same time, the pinpoint imaging that I loved with the Avalons was no longer apparent; the Trenners, no matter how I toe them in, don't image as well. Guess one can't have everything. ;-)

FWIW, Harbeths do much better w/ solid state, they tend to be much too polite/boring w/ tubes.