Sonus Faber Venere 3.0 Opinions?

Got them tied them thought they were good but several thing sounded better for less money  They looked great.

Yes, the higher end Sonus Fabers are stunning loudspeakers, the lower end not so much. It is cheaper to build things here in the States so you get more for your money. How ever for $1000 why not. 
Soix2 you have to be careful evaluating mid bass as it can change quite dramatically with the room and placement. There are very few speakers whose mid bass is not correctable by moving them around a bit. However, I have not played around with those speakers so I might just be FOS. Moderator, are you going to remove this post because I insulted myself? 

Yes, at that price I’d be tempted to experiment with them.
That’s not much of a commitment imho.

I had a pair of walnut 3.0s. I really liked them. Gorgeous to look at with great imaging and detail. For under $1000 they are a great value and hard to go wrong with those.

Mirage OM5 vs. SF Venere vs. Infinity RSII???  These are all vastly different speakers!  What exactly are you looking for?

I can get them for under $1000  I do not want hyper detailed and thing That is exactly what  alot of mid level gear seems to sound like today.  Pehaps i should keep my Mirage OM 5s or go for the old Infinity RSII near me  love the old stuff

IMO the Venere speakers were overhyped in the reviews.  I had the 2.5s on extended demo, and while they were decent there were significant flaws and build quality was subpar for the price.  In short, style over substance.

Sound wise there is a pronounced boost in the upper bass that I think is meant to make the speaker sound larger than it is but that resulted in bass bloat I could not get rid of regardless of placement (all Venere floorstanders seem to suffer from this -- maybe less so the monitors).  Cabinets are made of very thin panels that resonate significantly when you knock on them, which probably contributes further to the bass bloat problem.  The speakers are very light for their size, and the spikes and their respective holes are cheaply implemented (one of the poorly-drilled holes was stripped on my pair).  The bass was limited in depth and it was not hard to push the drivers to hit their stops such that dynamics were limited, which is not good for rock or some blues.  From the mids on up these sound nothing like SF's more expensive models.  Where the pricier models are more refined, laid back, and tonally rich, the 2.5s are hyper detailed and thinner sounding by comparison.  Mids have good tone and are neutral but not rich, and treble is detailed and forward but lacks the upper most frequencies to fully portray air and space.  Soundstaging is good but lacks the depth of better speakers in this price range.  Having read the 3.0 reviews and reading between the lines it sounds like they suffer the same limitations although maybe to a lesser degree. 

All this being said, although the Veneres aren't bad there are much better options at similar or lower price points IMHO.  For example, right now there's a nice pair of Joseph Audio RM22XLs available for $1370 that significantly better the 2.5s in every way and go as low as the 3.0s while being over $1000 cheaper used.  My advice would be to take the money and run -- the 22s are awesome speakers that rarely show up on the used market for good reason (you'd probably be able to turn around and sell them for a profit if for some reason they don't work for you).  If buying new I'd take the Ascend Acoustic Sierra Towers or the Silverline Prelude Plus over Veneres in a heartbeat -- and the Sierras offer an in-home trial, which is really nice.  I'd also easily take the excellent Vandys you mentioned over them too although their treble is a little more laid back, which may or may not be to your liking.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm harshing on the Veneres, but to me they seem like SF experimenting in the lower-priced speaker arena with outsourced manufacturing and a different and more exciting sound and look to try to attract younger buyers.  IME the results were mixed at best -- especially when compared to similarly priced competition.  And the fact that they're discontinuing the Venere line after a relatively short run seems to back that up.  Anyway, hope this helps and best of luck. 

I had Venere 2.0 bookshelves setup for my home theater for a couple years. I thought they worked well within a "movie" context, where a forward, somewhat punched-up colored sound would enhance the "cinematic experience". At the same time, the Veneres tended to be pretty fatiguing for music. This prompted their sale, as I wanted a more versatile speaker in my theater system. I would anticipate the Venere 3.0 towers would be a variation on that theme: forward and colored. Given that, if you have the constitution of lead-reinforced concrete, and thrive on cranking stuff like movies, death-metal, or Scottish bagpipes, they might work well for you. Naturally you should audition for yourself, but I do concur with the comment on the Olympica IIs having a substantially better sound.

Interesting  it would seem with rock and blues that would be good??  Say sound compared to Vandersteen 2CE or PSB Gold i or even Energy Vetius 1.8

I auditioned them a few years ago and honestly didn't like them too much. Initially--i.e. for the first few minutes--they can sound very impressive.  My skeptical nature makes me wonder if they're engineering that way.  But the more I listened, the more overcooked they sounded.  When I posted about them before, I said they were too technicolor--the way certain film can be oversaturated, so that the picture looks impressive but ultimately not very natural.  I believe there's a point of inflexion between the SF line-up up to and including the Venere's, and then starting with the Olympica's and going from there. If you want modern SF, I'd look for used O II's.