2. speakers
  3. 1434749870

Salk HT3, SF Cremona M, Magnepan 3.7 or ML Ethos?

Help! :) I have been getting by with old Panasonic SB6's which are said to have an electrostatic sound for a piston type speaker design. Obviously they are pretty old monitors, but one thing they do well is (pinpoint) image with good width and moderate depth. But alas, I am finally ready to get some real (or at least modern) speakers.

I have heard the HT3's and liked the sound and look of them. They threw up a huge soundstage, but perhaps at the expense of the "pinpoint" imaging I am used to, and seemed exaggerated (e.g. silhouette of singers too large). However, I am not sure if I heard them in the best setup as they were very far from the rear wall (like 15ft) and in a huge room (maybe 35' square or even bigger). This may also have made the image seem entirely behind the plane of the speakers whereas I think a little closer is nicer (to me).

I have also heard the 3.7's in a dealer showroom, presumably properly setup. I felt like the big panels were "blocking" some of the sound and the soundstage was entirely between the panels, which made it compressed without much space between instruments, etc. Highly resolving and detailed, but lacked "air" (which the HT3s did very well). That room was probably 13'x18' or maybe slightly larger. I was somewhat disappointed given the stellar reviews. In fact, I felt the 1.7's (in a different room) in some respects sounded better.

I have not heard the Cremona M but did hear Olympica Monitors briefly at a different dealer. The room was probably 17' square, the Olympica's were maybe 2 feet off the rear wall. Since I only got 5-10mins with them, I barely got a sense but there was something nice about the SF sound that has me curious to hear a used model I might actually afford, hence the Cremona M.

Finally, I have not heard the Ethos but will hopefully get a chance to hear the Summit X in the next few days.

I am after speed, extension, holographic 3D soundstage with pinpoint placement of sounds/instruments/voices, refinement, low-level detail and resolution. Budget is 5K used. Does anyone have some advice? With the HT3's so far from the wall would that have distorted my impression of their imaging and image size? Are the Cremona M's in the same league as these other speakers or no? I am finding this very difficult.
zynec
jdoris
972 posts
 
I wonder if you need to listen more; that's a pretty diverse group of speakers! For example, I think the HT3 tends much more to the cool and the Cremona more to the warm; I don't see them as celebrating the same sonic virtues, though from your description of your tastes, I'd not think the Cremona runs your way as much as the HT3 (also, IMHO, SF is not great bang-fer-buck).

You don't tell us anything about *your* room, which limits the efficacy of our advice. But:

If you are after holography, the Gallo 3.6s are remarkable. The want juice (you also don't mention your electronics), and for some reason they seem to be talked about less these days, but they are very good.

I'd also try to hear Selah and Vapor, at your pricepoint. If you hear the Cremons's, and like them, Montana is worth a thought. But again, recommendations contingent on other kit and room.

John
zynec OP
22 posts
 
@John thanks, yes I should have gave a bit more info. Electronics are Macbook Pro->Halide Bridge->Metrum Octave->Jeff Rowland Capri->D.A.C. Cherry Jr. Speaker cables are Acoustic Zen Satori, but of course those are easy to change. I use balanced connections where possible. The setup is in a family room of an open floor-plan concept home, dimensions are 17' wide, 23.5' deep to stairwell, ceiling height is 9.5' at front of the room and 18' at the back.

@Zd542 it seems like the Vandy 2's or 3's are pretty old designs, not sure why I should consider them(?) Have you heard some of the speakers I have auditioned by comparison?
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
The Magnepans lacked air? Sounds like a sub-par setup to me. Even when I was auditioning the 1.7s (which I bought), the sale rep used a tape measure to set them up properly. The panels were also angled toward the listening spot. If you do that, the imaging will be tighter while the overall soundstage extends beyond the speakers.

You can get pinpoint imaging easily with mini-monitors or single drivers. If you want frequency extension at both ends you'll probably need floorstanders. Properly set up, Maggies give a very realistic presentation devoid of boxy colorations and slow transient response.

Plus, were you auditioning 3.7s or 3.7i's? They have entirely different feet, and the "i" version is freer and more open with a fuller bass.
zynec OP
22 posts
 
They were the 3.7i's. Did they have the tweeters on the outside or inside when you heard them? I could easily believe the setup was a problem - moreover I get the feeling that the room was way too small for such a large speaker. The 1.7's were better in an area roughly the same width but a bit deeper. However, neither put up the type of sound stage that the HT3's did, not even close, and the HT3's truly disappear whereas it's hard not to notice the big maggies.
mechans
3,048 posts
 
I am not a Magnepan lover but from what you describe as being important to you I would think they fit your bill. I agree that there had to be a problem with the set up. The Sonus Faber tilt towards warm and full. Your description of the Salk's sound made it sound like they are good for your wants. I don't think the Vandersteens would work for you.
You are doing the right thing by trying to audition these choices,in the end the best speaker is the one that sounds best to you. Sorry if that seems cliché and overused, but what I ended up liking (Focal Electras now old) doesn't make everyone happy, but I like them.
More to discover