Harbeth speakers

[Willem]

Yes, they are a dedicated and easy to implement solution. Connection is high level, and the low pass filter is tailored to the slope of the Harbeth P3ESR speaker, so integration should be easy and very good. The downside is that you cannot high pass the small main speakers, so you don't get some extra headroom. It is a nice solution for inexpert users with a small room and deep pockets. I am sure there is market for them, even if it is not me.
It is interesting to note that for Harbeth this is a journey into new territory, with active speakers with electronic crossovers and dsp filtering. There will be more of that in the not too far away future.

 

[Soniclife]

Harbeth came up with a new product. Sub+stand
Only 50W?
3.995€

Nelson subwoofer stand solution

The Nelson bass extender + stand solution delivers intense bass performance for mini monitors without compromising space.

harbeth.co.uk

It's the 5 inch driver that's the real eye opener for me, this isn't going to be a subwoofer, it's going to have very limited output. It might have enough output to help matching an actual subwoofer to the speakers, if your being charitable.

 

[Willem]

They simply add an octave of low frequency extension in a smallish room such as in many UK homes, and in a small form factor. For that they probably have enough power. In short, they serve a niche market. They would be out of place in my 70 sq m listening space.
In fact, I just did a little experiment with the Harbeth P3ESRs that I use as desk top speakers in my study. I connected them instead of the Quad 2805 speakers in my main system that includes three subwoofers. With the subwoofers the P3s were transformed into remarkably impressive speakers with an uncannily deep sound, but even so they could not quite fill the room. This improved with a high pass filter that gave them more headroom, but it still remained marginal in such a large room.
So yes, subwoofering such small speakers extends their frequency range and makes them a bit more suitable for larger rooms, but only up to a point. So in that sense I think the criticism that these are not real subwoofers is a bit misguided. Even with a lot more subwoofer in the system such as I did, such small speakers remain a small speaker only suitable to smallish rooms.

 

[ThoFi]

So the sub+stands and the P3 do cost > €6.000…not cheap.
Why it only has 50Watts?
Alan Shaw always prays how important a hugh amount of Watts are!?
Also Watts are totally cheap these days.
I do not understand why 50Watts are enough…?

 

[CapMan]

It is a creative product and fills a
gap in the market - I wish Alan every success.

Far too much money and far too limited in function for my taste, but I am a tinkerer and not the target audience

 

[Phorize]

So the sub+stands and the P3 do cost > €6.000…not cheap.
Why it only has 50Watts?
Alan Shaw always prays how important a hugh amount of Watts are!?
Also Watts are totally cheap these days.
I do not understand why 50Watts are enough…?

 

[mSpot]

So the sub+stands and the P3 do cost > €6.000…not cheap.
Why it only has 50Watts?
Alan Shaw always prays how important a hugh amount of Watts are!?
Also Watts are totally cheap these days.
I do not understand why 50Watts are enough…?

Shaw's explanation in the HUG forum is that the P3ESR (a shoebox size mini-monitor) is limited in how loud it can play, and 50W is sufficient for the subwoofer to match the P3's maximum output capability.

I agree that it is expensive. It might make sense as a plug-and-play upgrade for an existing P3ESR system, but for a new system using Harbeth it makes more sense to simply start with a larger speaker model with more bass.

 

[ErnieM]

I wrote of my experience comparing the P3+Nelson vs Harbeth 5 in the Fidelis room at AXPONA for 20+ hours in the Harbeth 5 thread.
Here's how I would've designed this P3/LS3/5a "extender stand".
First, the great majority of attendees agreed that the columnar body should've been rectangular. Indeed, if matching the contours of the P3 and extending to the floor, it' could house a proper 6-6.5" driver with increased total volume instead of the small 110mm (4.5") used. That might extend performance below the existing -3dB 35Hz spec a few Hz. But that's not as important as redoing the DSP so as to cross to the P3 at a much higher freq than 75Hz, which leaves a cavernous hole in the 80-300Hz low mids that was so evident at AXPONA when switched back and forth with the adjacent Harbeth 5.
Shaw's argument that the P3 can't play very loud may excuse the size of the 50w amp pushing this too-small driver, but that Harbeth couldn't get a seamless integration that provides body and scale left those P3 owners visiting the show who already use subwoofers in tandem shaking their heads in disappointment. The delta between the P3 and H5 was HUGE. Steinways became toy pianos, bassos tenors, etc.
I cannot resist comparing this scheme to my old trusted Verity Audio Parsifal Monitor cum Base two-part setup, where the passive woofer base very seamlessly integrates with the Monitor top both visually and musically with a cross at 150Hz, to create Verity's mnost popular and enduring speaker.
Given the P3 is now up at $3k, a proper powered 6.5" matching veneered woofer base/stand could be offered for $4-4.5k, let's say, and perhaps compete with the H5 at $7.8k for those for whom a narrow, more modern and SAF aspect ratio is required.
I unboxed and built up this P3+Nelson setup for the show, and was also much unimpressed with the poor quality finish paint of the base plates, cheap cardboard-like column, and thin MDF upper plinth. Only in very selected material with upper mid/treble signal supported by a naked standup bass did the P3+N somewhat acquit itself as acceptable. In 95% of the program material everyone agreed that the Super 5 was far better. (Yes, I was careful to adjust for the 3dB delta.)
I suppose applause is due Harbeth for using DSP to correct phase anomalies in the Nelson-to-P3 transition, but the huge hole in the lower mids screams an under-designed product that is way too little for way too much. But I see promise here in a bigger and prettier MkII.

 

[CapMan]

£4.5K in the UK for the 5s (plus stands) and £5.5k for P3 and Nelson - I mean that’s Kef R11, Revel 226 Be territory and the space requirement is not significantly greater.

I admire the idea and love Harbeth, but don’t understand the value proposition.

 

[Phorize]

I wrote of my experience comparing the P3+Nelson vs Harbeth 5 in the Fidelis room at AXPONA for 20+ hours in the Harbeth 5 thread.
Here's how I would've designed this P3/LS3/5a "extender stand".
First, the great majority of attendees agreed that the columnar body should've been rectangular. Indeed, if matching the contours of the P3 and extending to the floor, it' could house a proper 6-6.5" driver with increased total volume instead of the small 110mm (4.5") used. That might extend performance below the existing -3dB 35Hz spec a few Hz. But that's not as important as redoing the DSP so as to cross to the P3 at a much higher freq than 75Hz, which leaves a cavernous hole in the 80-300Hz low mids that was so evident at AXPONA when switched back and forth with the adjacent Harbeth 5.
Shaw's argument that the P3 can't play very loud may excuse the size of the 50w amp pushing this too-small driver, but that Harbeth couldn't get a seamless integration that provides body and scale left those P3 owners visiting the show who already use subwoofers in tandem shaking their heads in disappointment. The delta between the P3 and H5 was HUGE. Steinways became toy pianos, bassos tenors, etc.
I cannot resist comparing this scheme to my old trusted Verity Audio Parsifal Monitor cum Base two-part setup, where the passive woofer base very seamlessly integrates with the Monitor top both visually and musically with a cross at 150Hz, to create Verity's mnost popular and enduring speaker.
Given the P3 is now up at $3k, a proper powered 6.5" matching veneered woofer base/stand could be offered for $4-4.5k, let's say, and perhaps compete with the H5 at $7.8k for those for whom a narrow, more modern and SAF aspect ratio is required.
I unboxed and built up this P3+Nelson setup for the show, and was also much unimpressed with the poor quality finish paint of the base plates, cheap cardboard-like column, and thin MDF upper plinth. Only in very selected material with upper mid/treble signal supported by a naked standup bass did the P3+N somewhat acquit itself as acceptable. In 95% of the program material everyone agreed that the Super 5 was far better. (Yes, I was careful to adjust for the 3dB delta.)
I suppose applause is due Harbeth for using DSP to correct phase anomalies in the Nelson-to-P3 transition, but the huge hole in the lower mids screams an under-designed product that is way too little for way too much. But I see promise here in a bigger and prettier MkII.

I'm not aware of any measurements but I'm far from convinced by the marketing for the Nelson, especially when the photo of Mark Edwards' set up has the system placed against a wall which is only wise if one is using DSP to deal which the boundary gain. I hate to say it as the P3 is a nice sounding speaker but this looks like a half baked and costly solution sprinkled with technical sounding pixie dust to associate it with properly engineered solutions in the minds of the audiophile community.

 

[Phorize]

£4.5K in the UK for the 5s (plus stands) and £5.5k for P3 and Nelson - I mean that’s Kef R11, Revel 226 Be territory and the space requirement is not significantly greater.

I admire the idea and love Harbeth, but don’t understand the value proposition.

It appalling value for money. If a comparison with a small manufacturer in a country with decent working conditions and a high cost of living is needed, I can buy a Sointuva WG and a P262 (import duty included) from March Audio for the same cost as the P3 and Nelson.

 

[CapMan]

It seems to solve a problem in a very limited and specific way - ie DSP only on the subwoofer and full range on the P3s. Being sealed the P3s roll off pretty gently and with room gain will still have output well below 70Hz, albeit not loads of it.

I appreciate Harbeth wanted this to be plug and play, but you could do better with an AVR, regular subs and Dirac which would sort out bass integration in the room and give a much more pleasing outcome IMHO. It’s not rocket science to run Dirac and you can place the subs to best advantage in the room.

You’d have change from your 3.5K too