At that price point I would be sure to check out the Dynaudio BM6's. http://www.dynaudioprofessional.com/en/bm-series/bm-mkiii-series/bm6-mkiii/
 
Rocky

Sycraft
That's just a marketing number. The actual continuous amp power is 320 watts. That's in line with what you see in most high end monitors. Those Genelecs mentioned are 320 watt.
 
As for the Genelecs, I dunno, they are twice the price ($3000 each as opposed to $1500 each). I might consider it, but I don't know that I want to double my budget.

i can understand that!
 
i simply auditioned these monitors once,
and they sounded like god.
 
LOL
 
bluzdog's nod to the Dynaudio's, is another really good choice

Lots of good things being said about the Presonus Sceptre 6 or 8 s.

I would be checking these in that price range.  Genelec's as well.
 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb13/articles/eve-sc307.htm
 
 

mudgel
Lots of good things being said about the Presonus Sceptre 6 or 8 s.

I actually tried the Sceptre 6s, sent them back. The had two issues:
 
1) Didn't sound better than my SVS speakers. I was told that I'd be blown away by the imaging of coaxial speakers but it was no better (nor worse) than the MTS-01s. Maybe the MTS speakers are exceptional or maybe coaxial is overblown. Either way, the imaging wasn't anything special and in terms of resolution and detail there was no difference I could hear.
 
2) They made noise. Even when unplugged from an audio interface, they hissed. Their amps just weren't quiet enough. Granted it was a low level hiss, but I could hear it when there was no music playing and it drove me nuts.
 
I was sad, I really wanted to like those speakers.

Sycraft

mudgel
Lots of good things being said about the Presonus Sceptre 6 or 8 s.

I actually tried the Sceptre 6s, sent them back. The had two issues:
 
1) Didn't sound better than my SVS speakers. I was told that I'd be blown away by the imaging of coaxial speakers but it was no better (nor worse) than the MTS-01s. Maybe the MTS speakers are exceptional or maybe coaxial is overblown. Either way, the imaging wasn't anything special and in terms of resolution and detail there was no difference I could hear.
 

you do realize that ANY home theater speakers are going to sound a LOT better than studio monitors, right? they're designed for different purposes.  Studio monitors are supposed to have a flat response and so they will not sound as good as home theater speakers which are designed for listening pleasure.
 
reviews with frequency response graphs:
SVS-MTS01
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/svs-mbs-01-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures#yUMsCj2kVYZj2s8g.97
Spectre S6
http://en.audiofanzine.com/active-monitor/presonus/sceptre-s6/editorial/reviews/helter-sceptre.html
 
the graph for the Spectre is actually an overlay with both the spectres and the sE Munro EGGs, but you can ignored the EGG graph and see the flat response of the Spectre.  the SVS_MTS01 has an obvious bump from 600 to 2.5k, then an abvious dip, then when it comes back up, it rolls off on the higher frequencies. 
 
studio monitors are supposed to be flat so that you can mix correctly.  if you have bumps and dips in the response of the speakers even before you take all of the other variables into consideration (the room response, your hearing response, etc) then you're already at a disadvantage before you start mixing.
 

2) They made noise. Even when unplugged from an audio interface, they hissed. Their amps just weren't quiet enough. Granted it was a low level hiss, but I could hear it when there was no music playing and it drove me nuts.
 
I was sad, I really wanted to like those speakers.

that is a problem; they shouldn't do that.  are you certain you didn't have a defective set?

Beagle
you do realize that ANY home theater speakers are going to sound a LOT better than studio monitors, right? they're designed for different purposes.  Studio monitors are supposed to have a flat response and so they will not sound as good as home theater speakers which are designed for listening pleasure.

 
I know this is something of an article of faith for many people but really, there is little evidence of it. Good speaker design is good speaker design. When speakers are designed for linear response, good controlled dispersion, low distortion, etc they sound good and are neutral and good to use for production. You find B&Ws in plenty of high end studios (like Abbey Road for instance). Comparing those graphs isn't easy since they are on different scales and using different measurement techniques (unspecified in the second one), and it isn't specified which crossoves the M series had (they changed them part way through their life and enhanced things a lot, and owners could send their back for free to have it upgraded). All that aside I have accurate graphs from SVS (I got all that before I tried them) and they are pretty flat in a measurement room, within 2dB. Not so in my room, of course.
 
The issue was that really I heard very little difference. The Scepters had much less bottom end, of course, since it was small 2-way vs tower, but other than that it was real "meh". The thing I was told would blow my pants off was imaging and that was just the same. The SVS speakers produce a wide, solid, convincing soundstage and so did the Scepters. Over all the detail and mids/highs were about on par. Slightly different sound, but not enough for me to call a winner, or to care.
 
I also decided to give them the benefit of a better room. My computer room is a small boxy spare bedroom. So I took the Scepters out in to my greatroom which is very large, has sloped ceilings, set them on stands out in the middle of the room and away from the wall and gave them a listen. They were fine, but I wasn't impressed. I mean if I didn't already have good speakers they'd be contenders, but I did.
 
So back they went.
 

that is a problem; they shouldn't do that.  are you certain you didn't have a defective set?

 
Searching online it seems to be a common complaint. The amps just aren't very quiet. They put out noise in somewhere in the realm of 15-25dBSPL. That's not a lot, but I can hear it in my room. I don't know how quiet the room is, my cheap dB meter only goes down to 28dB, but it is quieter than that.
 
Again I might have looked at a solution to the hiss had I been more impressed, but given that I wasn't I just sent them back.
 
So in general I'm thinking I need to look higher end, hence why I'm looking at a budget of around $3000. I'm hopeful that will provide an improvement, since I'd like that as well as being able to relocate the speakers on to my desk, rather than behind it.

bottom line is,
for mixing,
you want 'honest and flat'.
 
for listening pleasure,
you want tweaked.
 
don't use tweaked speakers to do mixes.
 

While I personally prefer the idea that monitors should be 'honest and flat' I feel obliged to play devil's advocate and point out that many a hit has been mixed and maybe even mastered using speakers that are anything but honest and flat.

The most obvious example being the Yamaha NS10, a pretty inexpensive speaker with little bass, not much more treble and shouty, boosted mids that never really took off in the hi-fi market it was aimed at. Perhaps they gained their status as monitors because if something sounded good in an NS10 the odds are it would sound OK in anything. Even if the owner of the 1990s "hi-fi" had set a cheap graphic eq up in a fashionable V and sucked out all the mids.

Having said that, if I was looking for nearfields/close midfields at around $3000 the lot I'd include the Genelec 8040b and the 2.1 Genelec8030.LSE system in the list to consider. But I like Genelecs while you may not.

IF you are good enough,
to learn ANY set of monitors well enough to mix hits on,
good on you.
 
 
for the rest of us,
there are nearfield monitors that are flat.
 
LOL