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
zynec OP
22 posts
 
@Wardl I think both setups were too compromised to make a definitive statement. The HT3s were in a huge room way out from the wall while the 1038BE's were in a room too small for them in my opinion. The HT3's seemed to have more air and a bigger soundstage, but unrealistic image size (room/placement effect?), the 1038BE's were superior in the bass and had more depth. The HT3's were more laid back, closer to the B&W type of presentation that I heard while the 1038BE's were more forward, but these differences might (at least partially) be down to room characteristics and electronics which were obviously different. The 1038BE's were being driven by a Plinius amp (no idea which one) while the HT3's were driven by AVA (no idea which one here either!). The 1038BE's had more impact in bass transients when it was called for while the HT3's didn't do that very well, but again that may be due to their placement far away from the back wall and in a very large room.

There was a tonality difference between the two, both have very nice tonality it is just a different interpretation I suppose... or perhaps a function of the 1038BE's being more extended in the bass region compared to the HT3's.
But I liked both in this regard. The image of the 1038BE's was more definitive, HT3's more diffuse (I keep saying this, but I am assuming much of what I heard of the HT3's is due to room/placement). I feel the 1038BE's were more detailed but it is hard to recall this aspect of the HT3's performance so take that with a grain of salt.

It is too bad that I heard the HT3's over a month ago now, but I would have to say I really liked the 1038BE's. To put it another way, after hearing the HT3's I left thinking 'yeah, those are pretty nice'. When I left after hearing the 1038BE's, I was thinking 'holy sheets, that was awesome'

If anyone else has heard these two, it would be great to hear their opinions as well! I expect I will also have some more datapoints to add to this conversation very soon... :)
wardl
28 posts
 
Yeah with very different rooms and electronics it is hard to tell much. I expect the large room had a big negative impact on the HT3 bass. They really slam with a big amp. Both the Focal 1038s and HT3s are flat down to 33/34 per their mfg specs. But I expect the Focals sound better given how good they are at making drivers etc. and the evolution of the technology. Of course they should - the price is twice as much retail and there aren't many used Focal 1038s out there. I want to hear them sometime. I figure the best case price for admission for the Focals will be around 10k.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
Did you change your budget considerations? This last round of speakers you auditioned (Magico, SF Olympica, Focal 1038be and Sopra, etc.) are at least two to three times as much as your originally stated budget of "5K used," and since some of these models are new or recent releases (e.g., Sopra and 1038be) you're not likely to find used ones at half retail for some time.

Your experience with the Maggie 3.7i's, and how they had no imaging to speak of reminds me of something when I was selling audio in the mid-'70s. We had a large mid-fi front room (receivers, integrated amps, bookshelf speakers, cassette decks) and a small high end room in the back (Accuphase, Crown, USA-made Marantz Pro separates, Dahlquist, Ohm, ESS AMT floorstanderrs, and floorstanding JBLs). We were an Advent dealer. When I suggested we set up an "Advent Stack" in the high end room (2 pairs of Larger Advents in stacked pairs) to the manager, he said "No, because if we set those up we won't sell anything else." An Advent Stack would cost half or less than a pair of anything else in the back room.

Given my experience with my Magneplanar 1.7s, vs. Wilsons, Sonus Fabers, Focal, Wharfedale, GoldenEar, and Gallo as recent auditions, I can't help wondering if your local dealer sets up the Magneplanars in a way that keeps the "you get what you pay for" hierarchy intact.

I remember absolutely *melting* a few years ago when I heard some Cremona M's, and I had nowhere near the money to buy them. Not quite 2 yrs ago--after extensive auditioning--I brought home my 1.7s. After letting them settle in and tweaking placement, angle, and subwoofer integration, I am absolutely astounded at how these things make music and I have no desire or temptation to want anything "better."

And I listen to a lot of challenging material on them--fullscale orchestra, opera, oratorios, big band, a capella vocal, baroque brass ensemble with pipe organ, vocals w/big band such as Sinatra and Tony Bennett w/Count Basie, Quincy Jones, etc. It doesn't matter if it features vocal harmony, acoustic instruments, drum solos, brass, vocal solo, 9' grand piano--whatever--it delivers on everything I throw at them, and always with a realistic sized-soundstage that stays put, even when I'm to the left of the left speaker.
wardl
28 posts
 
+1 on the 1.7's, Johnnyb53. They are an incredible bargain. They are very room sensitive, however. I have a pair that are in perfect condition that I will be selling for around 1.2K because they just won't work in my new small house. In the right room with good clean power, the used 1.7's have to be up there with the very best in price/performance.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
Wardl: How big's your new listening room? Any chance you could put the 1.7s up against the wall and then bring them out for listening? If your new listening room is significantly smaller, maybe you could replace the 1.7s with some MMGs. At 20 lbs. per panel, they'd be easy to move to the wall and back for storage vs. listening periods.
More to discover