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
I was not clear - there are many models to chose from and a Soundscape 8 is "better" but a Veracity ST or HT2TL are just slightly under the HT3 performance with higher efficiencies. The HT3 will suck up any and all power you give it and want more and more. If you are okay with that, then finding a used pair would be great. The newer designs are more efficient and still very good performers.
My first pair were HT3's, now I have Exoticas. AFAIK HT3's are no longer offered new.
Best of luck in your search.
Thanks BugredMachine... power should not be a big issue for me hence my interest in HT3's as opposed to SS8 or newer models that are more efficient but also more expensive. For me the difference between the HT3 and ST was not "slight" but maybe in the right room the differences I noticed would be diminished(?)

07-08-15: Zynec
...If I see the Tritons at a nearby store I will check them out as well.
Founder Sandy Gross was previously co-founder of Polk Audio and Definitive Technology, so he has a great track record of creating extensive dealer networkds. Here's the GoldenEar Dealer Locator. You'll find that there are dealers in 46 states plus District of Columbia.


For the Ohm's and sound staging, is the idea that the soundstage is huge but the exact location of instruments, singer, etc, is "fuzzy" for lack of a better word? I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying
A really good stereo speaker setup throws a soundstage commensurate with the source. This is sometimes called scaling up or scaling down. For example, for fullscale orchestra and chorus, the soundstage *should* be big, but if it's solo voice and acoustic guitar, or solo cello, the soundstage should be smaller unless the rest of the soundstage is honestly presenting the reverberation and ambience of the recording venue.

As for imaging, in live performance you seldom get "pinpoint imaging." In concert halls, the reverberation and ambience creates a large soundstage, but it also makes the location of specific instruments and singers a bit approximate.

OTOH, a recording can be created that provides pinpoint imaging because the studio is more damped than a concert venue and from careful microphone placement and mixing to make each musician's location sound particularly finite.

I have a pair of Maggies (dipole), a pair of bipolar speakers (Mirage M5si) and have had two pairs of omnidirectional speakers using the late Mirage's Omniguide waveguide. They all create realistic soundstages and ensembles and soloists scale up and down depending on size. I also find the imaging to sound realistic, and I can sense accurate placement of instruments, stctions, soloists, choruses, etc.

Yet I read reviews that single out these speakers as "not being the ultimate in pinpoint imaging." Since I find the imaging of these speakers to be *at least* as definitive as a live concert, I am completely satisfied with their ability to image. In fact, you can get just about any speaker pair to image well if you listen to them in the near field. Even with completely omnidirectional speakers, I can get a very holographic soundstage--and therefore specific images--by scooting forward a couple of feet to widen and deepen the soundstage.

Of all the speakers I've had though, I get the most holographic and specific soundstage *and* imaging from the Magnepans. If you're not getting that from Maggies, the setup or room is off, and possibly the upstream cables or electronics.
@Johnnyb53 Thanks, that all makes perfect sense. It also makes me want to hear the Maggies again though, as what I heard doesn't correlate to your experience.

I do have some more datapoint now: today I had the pleasure of hearing the SF Olympica III, Magico S1, B&W 803, Focal Electra 1038BE and Focal Sopra (No2). The S1 was missing a lot on the lower end and the Olympica's were colored in the mid bass to me, despite all the news of the new SF's being more balanced. The Sopra was not broken in, so the bass was not there but it had extended and airy highs that were nice. Would like to hear these when they are broken in. The Electra was pretty nice, not quite as airy as the Sopra from what I could tell but extended in both directions with nice tonality and imaging. The sound stage was more forward and I found it an exciting speaker to listen to, although I worry if it may become too much of a good thing for extended listening sessions. The 803's were much more laid back in comparison while having similar levels of detail as the Electra's and good imaging again, but not nearly as exciting of a listen.

Overall I really liked the Electra's and probably would like the Sopra's when they are broken in as well, although I cannot say for sure. The B&W's are also good but didn't feel like I would fall in love with them.
Zenec: How did the Focals sound compared to the Salk HT3s? The new Focals look pretty nice! Although expensive.