[AJinFLA]

I think these use two amplifiers to achieve the full sound, which might mean the need for some other piece of equipment like a crossover - perhaps someone here knows more on the subject

Hi,

They are fully passive (the M1 did have a sub amp), only one amp is required. No crossover is needed ( all done internally/passive).
The 2nd amp (as you stated) is only needed if you opt to drive the rear spatial driver to enhance the soundstage per recording. If that meets the definition of "full" sound, you are correct.
I greatly appreciate the mention, but to be quite honest, given the size of the OPs suggested monitors, I really don't think the M2s are in this category, as they are significantly larger (stand mount) speakers.

cheers,

AJ

[James Romeyn]

AJ,
Your Monitor 2 looks like a unique and outstanding design!  Wish gems like that were easier to audition.  Please let us know if owner in vicinity of N. Utah offers audition. 

I suppose your source "dried up" for the M1's KEF coaxial driver? 

[R_burke]

Hi,

They are fully passive (the M1 did have a sub amp), only one amp is required. No crossover is needed ( all done internally/passive).
The 2nd amp (as you stated) is only needed if you opt to drive the rear spatial driver to enhance the soundstage per recording. If that meets the definition of "full" sound, you are correct.
I greatly appreciate the mention, but to be quite honest, given the size of the OPs suggested monitors, I really don't think the M2s are in this category, as they are significantly larger (stand mount) speakers.

cheers,

AJ

Although I don't want to hijack this thread, can you further explain what is meant by per recording for the rear spatial driver

[AJinFLA]

Please let us know if owner in vicinity of N. Utah offers audition. 

Thanks James, I may try to do RMAF this year, that might be the closest I get to Utah 

Although I don't want to hijack this thread, can you further explain what is meant by per recording for the rear spatial driver

Rear output adds to the diffuse field and increases the sense of spaciousness, to a degree. I am of the opinion that this "effect" is pleasing on some recordings, not so much on others. YMMV.
I hence opted to make it a remotely variable (or defeatable) option. If you have further questions, perhaps PM or direct email would be more appropriate. Thanks.

cheers,

AJ

[James Romeyn]

I heard the P3ESR @ CES both early pre-production and later production models.  IIRC L/R channels were inverted in the pre-production audition.  US importer Walter Swanbon and the Harbeth principal thanked me for pointing that out.  After they corrected it sounded great.  The later production model was indeed improved, and if I had to pick a widely distributed stand mount right now to listen to forever (under about $5k msrp) this is the one that jumps out at me.

Sweet, seductive (the last two not overly so, just this side of neutral exactly where I want it), good density, good pitch definition, superbly separates musical lines yet simultaneously maintains the whole, utterly musical, superb detail yet smooth, the kind of sound you'll not soon tire of...I don't know how you could go wrong with them.  There is a certain rare "elegance" and wholistic presentation.  Impeccable finish standard; somehow it is both classic and modern.  Obviously there are other great designers.  It's just that there is a certain combination of such rare qualities in that P3ESR.  To Russel's much appreciated comments about his long discontinued Harbeth model: IMO it is two good sized steps below the current model.  Much less refined by comparison.     

That said...the wife and I are due for a small-mid range road trip.  She mentioned Park City yesterday, and if we go there I will soon post comments on Clayton Shaw's Emerald Physics latest apparent masterpiece, the insanely low priced floor stander around $1500/pr.