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

Showing 2 responses by audioconnection

(((@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?)))

The Vandersteen Model Two series has been redesigned 10 times in 38 years including 2 exterior changes. Every designation change indicated a major internal redesign. I have been selling this speaker for 26 years and noted significant sonic improvements every time especially the last one when the Model 2Ce Signature II was upgraded with the 5A woven cone mid range without any designation change at all. The science and basic development with live vs recorded research over the years has evolved the Model Two and is the basis of the Model Seven today, but with no cost restraint. For one to say the speaker has not changed could only happen if they looked at them only and not given then a serious listen.
Best,
JohnnyR
Vandersteen dealer
Johnnyb53 (((can sound "polite" because of the folded ribbon tweeter. More extended listening will reveal that all the treble, overtones, and air are there, but minus the overshoot, ringing, and harshness that often accompanies *pistonic* tweeters.)))

Dear Johnnyb53 I am not busting your balls with your wording but just wanted to clear up your mis use of the word.
*Pistonic* is an achievement of a perfect piston movement with drivers or grouping of drivers.
For example with pistonic behavior throughout the audible frequency range the speaker will be just the opposite of what you are referring to above.

Best,
JohnnyR