JBL 43xx va Harbeth 40.x

EVERYTHING you like about the JBL is EXACTLY WHY they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the Harbeth M40.2's(never heard 40.1's)..The JBL is designed to impress in a short demo.Bass has slam but tonal purity & definition are NON EXISTENT!Midrange is honky & thread bare,treble brittle/hard/sharp to extremes..They remind me of the original Sennheiser HD800...
 With a good Class A amplifier NOTHING competes with the Harbeth!

@ gte357s, The jbl is one word -GREAT. For all the things you said in your post, about the 4343. I concur. They, (exhibit) great vocal reproduction. I do not have the harbeth 40.1.. :-)

You have run into something never measured: microdynamics. British speakers are ever so slightly compressed

@ fstein, Yes, they are compressed, but not all (tannoy) will do microdynamics. Well my 15 dmt monitors did.:-)

I think what makes them so different are:
1) size of the driver
the 15” driver really can produce that slam.  I also listen to a vintage Tannoy with 15” driver and can produce the same slam.  Then I compared to my Spatial Audio X5 with a 12” mid range and 12” bass drivers, it can produce a similar slam but not as much.  But Harbeth only has a 8” mid range and a 12” woofer, it simply can’t move as much air to produce that slam.

2) speaker efficiency
in the audition, we tried driving the JBL with a 4 watt 2A3 amp and a 8 watt 300b amp, both can drive the big JBL no problem.  For Harbeth, I am driving it with a 75W McIntosh MC275.  I believe 75W is still not enough to drive the Harbeth for that type of music.

Definitely they are very different, and I didn’t spent a lot of time on the JBL.  Since they are both studio monitors, I find it interesting that they are so different.  But since they are so different, logically, one of them would sound closer to the “real” live music, or more accurate.  Which one is more accurately producing the music?