Harbeth P3ESR & ATC SCM 7.

[southall-1998]

Both of these speakers have a few things in common.

For example. They both have sealed cabinets, low sensitivity and an easy impedance load for the amplifier.

For now, I'm curious to know from owners. Have some of you on here compared the two speakers, in the same system? If so, what results did you get?

S.

[DSJR]

Nothing like each other Shane. The ATC's have an NS10 upper mid 'bump-up' in the response to try to get over hideous inefficiency and easily sound small and rather 'dead.' The P3ESR is better and much sweeter in the mid and top and with clarity to match any small active monitor, but has the mid bass lifted ever so slightly to make them appear to sound bigger than they really are. They can get away with it too and the bass driver will cope with Massive Attack's 'Karmacoma' incredibly well for such a driver and to surprising volumes too I found.

In my youth, the ATC may have sounded more exciting, albeit needing a powerhouse amp up its backside. It certainly looks a bit more 'modern.' These days I have a much wider music taste and the peaky and over-dry presentation isn't to my taste any more.

[southall-1998]

Interesting, Dave, Thanks for that!

S.

[hifi_dave]

If you plan on using the Stereo 20, the ATC isn't a good match.

[southall-1998]

If you plan on using the Stereo 20, the ATC isn't a good match.


No intentions, Dave.

S.

[ludovico]

Nothing like each other Shane. The ATC's have an NS10 upper mid 'bump-up' in the response to try to get over hideous inefficiency and easily sound small and rather 'dead.' The P3ESR is better and much sweeter in the mid and top and with clarity to match any small active monitor, but has the mid bass lifted ever so slightly to make them appear to sound bigger than they really are. They can get away with it too and the bass driver will cope with Massive Attack's 'Karmacoma' incredibly well for such a driver and to surprising volumes too I found.

In my youth, the ATC may have sounded more exciting, albeit needing a powerhouse amp up its backside. It certainly looks a bit more 'modern.' These days I have a much wider music taste and the peaky and over-dry presentation isn't to my taste any more.

I quite don't agree with you, ATC produces high quality monitors and uses the same drivers in their active monitors.
The best amp I had with my ATC SCM11 was the Crimson 630 mono blocks, which cannot be considered as a powerhouse amp, and the sound was very clear, detailed and dynamic.

[petrat]

I borrowed an early version of the ATC 7. Nicely detailed, they benefitted from a good solid state amp to bring them to life. I recall that the tweeter was a bit prominent in that early version, but a solid job and good value at the time. I now use the Harbeths, and would agree with Dave's summary. I find them wholly satisfying when listening to them ... they cover their (inevitable) limitations very well. In a normal-sized room, they certainly sound 'bigger' than they are ... close your eyes and it's hard to believe you're listening to a couple of shoe-boxes :D

[petrat]

I quite don't agree with you, ATC produces high quality monitors and uses the same drivers in their active monitors.
The best amp I had with my ATC SCM11 was the Crimson 630 mono blocks, which cannot be considered as a powerhouse amp, and the sound was very clear, detailed and dynamic.

The 11 is quite benign, but I think the 7 may need more ooomph. Certainly ATC actives have meaty FET amps embedded, so most people take their lead from that, I guess. In a lottery-win world, I would probably have yet another system, with a stack of big ATC actives ...

[southall-1998]

I borrowed an early version of the ATC 7. Nicely detailed, they benefitted from a good solid state amp to bring them to life. I recall that the tweeter was a bit prominent in that early version, but a solid job and good value at the time. I now use the Harbeths, and would agree with Dave's summary. I find them wholly satisfying when listening to them ... they cover their (inevitable) limitations very well. In a normal-sized room, they certainly sound 'bigger' than they are ... close your eyes and it's hard to believe you're listening to a couple of shoe-boxes :D


Are those the ones from the 1990's? They look a little ''BBC monitor'' like.

S.

[hifi_dave]

The original SCM7 was a difficult speaker as it took a fair bit of volume to get it going but then quickly ran out of excursion and 'donked' on transients. Later models take more power.

[southall-1998]

The original SCM7 was a difficult speaker as it took a fair bit of volume to get it going but then quickly ran out of excursion and 'donked' on transients. Later models take more power.

Have you tried the newer curved SCM7? Does the new tweeter sound a touch more refined over the older ones?

S.

[hifi_dave]

Yes, I have them on demo. A "touch more refined" sums it up.

[petrat]

Are those the ones from the 1990's? They look a little ''BBC monitor'' like.

S.

No, it was early/mid 2000s, I think ... was very much a chunky box. Only borrowed it for a weekend when it was first launched, so not sure of exact model ... would likely be the 'early' one Dave mentions in post 10.

[Martyn Miles]

Coming back to this, am I correct in thinking ATC & Harbeth address different markets ?
Both companies make 'Monitor Speakers', a somewhat abused term.

Different makes will always have their followers, based on company philosophy.
I have always had a bias towards the 'BBC sound', so automatically have a bias towards
Harbeth.
Others here will see ( and hear ) things differently.
There's always room for 'a different approach.'
That's the joy of audio...

[Alex_darling]

The new SCM7 with the ATC tweeter is a very significant step forwards over the previous versions. Much smoother, more air/sparkle, far more transparency and more effortless top...