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
 
Thanks Wardl. Can you comment more directly on the differences between the 1.7 and HT3's? Are the HT3's in a "different league" compared to the 1.7's? In your room/setup, does the bass have impact when the music calls for it? The used pair I'm looking at is closer to 5K, I probably wouldn't hesitate at 3.5K, that is quite the find! :)
zynec OP
22 posts
 
Thanks Soix, will keep those in mind. I'm also wondering if I should check out Ohm Walshes, but I'm not sure if a single driver design will have the speed and resolutions that I crave (my "belief" is no). But they do have a nice try-out policy...
rebbi
1,326 posts
 
Zynec,
I have owned two Ohm models in my time in this hobby, the Micro Walsh Tall and the old Ohm 100. They throw an enormous soundstage, but if pinpoint imaging is your thing, I don't know if they'd do that for you. As a pseudo-omni design, their presentation is quite different than forward radiating or bi-pole speakers. You have to hear it and decide if it floats your boat or not. In my experience, they don't provide pinpoint imaging in the same way that mini-monitors or more conventional, forward firing designs do.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
Having performed in and attended many live concerts, the stable soundstage of omnis such as the Ohms and omniguide-based Mirages, plus dipoles such as the Magnepans, throw a much more realistic "live" soundstage than the pinpoint imaging of minimonitors. I'm not out to convert you, my take is that pinpoint imaging is a parlor trick of extreme point-source transducers. Fascinating, but not realistic. Some people pursue "pinpoint imaging" at the expense of overall tonal balance, soundstage, and in-room power response, which (IMO and IME) are more important and satisfying in the long run.
wardl's avatar
wardl
28 posts
 
I paid 3.5k plus shipping for the Salk HT3s which came out to around 3.8k. It was a good deal but I think 5k is a little steep for a used pair. There are a lot of options at 5k used. Note that Salk Sound has a used pair of HT3s at their factory for 4.7k that have been for sale for quite some time. I expect he would give them to you for cheaper since they have been on the market for so long. Might be worth a call to ask them. It would be less risk to you if dealing directly with Salk. The Maggies do some things better than the HT3s. The details are better. The soundstage has more "air". But the Salks put up a good soundstage too, offer great detail as well and image better. The Salks are very neutral to to bottom. They sound far more controlled on the low end. Huge tight bass with good control. I can't imagine using a sub with them for music. In fact you will likely need some room treatment if you are in a smaller room to neutralize the low frequencies from bouncing all over the place. In comparison the Maggies struggle with low end control. They just are not very good at that (even though some Maggie owners would say differently, I find they just don't have a very good low end at all). It's about trade offs in design. The Maggies are great in a larger room, far away from the walls, with decent acoustics that minimize their flaws. They really shine if you are listening to jazz or blues, etc. They are great with vocals and details in the mid range, and are very coherent in the mid and upper frequencies. But if you listen to rock, hip hop, classical and also really like the low end control on other recordings (even jazz and blues, etc), the HT3s are far, far better on those issues. The Maggies are brighter on the upper end to my ears. Far too bright for my taste. The ribbon tweeter on the Salks is smoother and more laid back in comparison. although it sacrifices some detail retrieval to the Maggies as noted above. The Salks look quite a bit better in a room also. The Maggies are well... kind of ugly. But for the price of around 1K used, the Maggie 1.7s are a great deal for what they do well and can keep improving with high end electronics many times the price. I would put the Salks up against most speakers under 6-7K new and in the right room they would hold their own. If you can get a pair for around 4K, I think it is a good deal. I wouldn't pay much more than that.
More to discover