Picked up a used pair of Vandersteen Model 2Ce speakers just to play around with. Holy Shi*. I was not expecting this. They almost sound holographic in HT and for two channel music they are nothing short of superb. :eek:

I gotta wonder why they don't get more notice here.

Unless the speakers are mail order or internet only brands, there aren't many supporters on AVS. There is propably more talk about White Van speakers than on Vandersteen.

I have been preaching for Vandersteen for a 6 months now, but not many people listen because they are "ugly." I also have a pair of 2CE signatures and they are better sounding than the Wilson MAXX or Sophia speakers that I heard. Richard Vandersteen truly knows how to make a transparent speaker (accurate). If you love music you will love the Vandersteen line of speakers. If I had the money, I would have the Quatro Sigs for two channel! :D

count me among those who love Vandersteens. And I agree, it's a shame that more people don't know how good they are. They were definitely on my short list when I was in the market for my speaker upgrade.

Actually I don't find them ugly at all. They look just fine and blend well. This is the exact reason I buy stuff just to buy stuff. I have had a chance to own and listen to Dunlavy and Triangle, both brands that are not hugely popular with SVS. I don't think I will ever part with these though. I have had two weeks of playing with them, pushing them, experimenting with them. On all types of music and movies and connected to my Sherbourn amp and my Denon 3806 as a preprocessor must say that these speakers sound as good as anything I have ever heard at any price range. I was unprepared for the beauty of this speaker's sound.

Picked up a used pair of Vandersteen Model 2Ce speakers just to play around with. Holy Shi*. I was not expecting this. They almost sound holographic in HT and for two channel music they are nothing short of superb. :eek:

I gotta wonder why they don't get more notice here.
For home theater, they can get a tad pricey as the recommended center goes for $2000 (the VCC-5). The VCC-1 by all accounts can only keep up with the 1c (that from the horse's mouth, ie. Richard Vandersteen).

For two channel, in the sweet spot, they are a revelation.

I gotta wonder why they don't get more notice here.

That they only seem to have ~46 dealers in the United States, a big chunk of which are in California, doesn't seem to help :)

Nuance you are bang on about Mr Vandersteen. Although I quite like the look of all their models except maybe the Quatro, but I would expect it to sound very good.

This is exactly why forums like this are so valuable. I understand how a lot of people who may be new to this hobby want to stick with some of the more 'known' manufacturers, but there are so many great smaller companies out there with some really good products. Vandersteen is obviously not on par with something like Paradigm or Klipsch with regard to name recognition, but I consider their speakers superior to both. My preferred speaker company - DeVore Fidelity - is less known about than Vandersteen, yet their speakers are among the best I have ever heard.

There's nothing wrong with going with a better-known company, cause they typically offer very strong value. But for those willing to do their homework and take a little more time to look around, you can really find some gems like Vandersteen and DeVore Fidelity.

For home theater, they can get a tad pricey as the recommended center goes for $2000 (the VCC-5). The VCC-1 by all accounts can only keep up with the 1c (that from the horse's mouth, ie. Richard Vandersteen).

For two channel, in the sweet spot, they are a revelation.

You are right, the center is pretty darn expensive, but is among the best I have every heard. Heck, it *is* the best I have heard :DA

Although the *good* center is more than the 2CE Sigs, the price of the 2CE Sigs more than compensates for the price of the center. Seriously, these speakers could (and probably should) be sold for $4000 a pair, but Vandersteen knows the game. He practically gives them away but knows that they will sell. He also knows how much joy they will bring to those looking to reproduce symphonies in their own homes (accuracy baby)! Some dealers also allow customers to trade up after a year. So if you want to trade your 2CE Sigs in to the dealer you purchased them from after 364 days, you can if they allow it, and they will put the full price you paid towards the model up (the 3A Sigs, Quatre Sigs or the 5A's). I can't imagine paying 50K for speakers like some do when the Vandersteen Quatros are around $8000 for everything; no offense to those who paid that much. Audio is subjective, so...

I have a Vandersteen dealer in my area and have listened extensively to several of their speakers. They are by a pretty good margin, the best speakers I have ever heard. there is definitely something to this "time and phase correct" thinking that makes for an amazing realistic soundstage. If any of you ever have a chance to hear Vandersteens, you will probably agree that they are certainly in a class by themselves. I think the most amazing thing about them is that his best speaker (which some experts believe are the best speakers on the planet) is less than $20,000 a pair! Dennis

I've been considering buying the Vandersteen home theater package. Can any of you recommend a receivers that would match well with the 1C, VCC-1 and VSM surrounds?

atdamico,

I think you don't hear much from Vandersteen fans because there are not many speaker models. Richard Vandersteen does not release new models very often, unlike more prolific designers and manufacturers out there. Just because they're not popular on avsforum or wherever does not make them lesser products.

Glad to hear you enjoy your 2CEs. I have found with my Vandersteens in my room that loudspeaker placement is very important. You can really dial in a great sweetspot if you follow the placement guide and from there, make small 1-2" adjustments. So good in fact that I go with phantom center for movies.

I would never go far as to say that 2CE or 3A Signatures sound the same as, or better than Wilson MAXXs or Sophias. Maybe the 5 or 5A Vandersteens...

Consider getting a single or pair of 2W/2WQ subwoofers. I did after owning my 3A Signatures for a little over a year. They provide a seamless, unobtrusive bass extension which is very enjoyable.

- Steve O.

I've been considering buying the Vandersteen home theater package. Can any of you recommend a receivers that would match well with the 1C, VCC-1 and VSM surrounds?

Make sure the receiver can provide at least 150 W, if not 200+ for those speakers. Also, having bass management control would be good in case you go for a dedicated subwoofer. I've run the VCC-1 and VSMs in "small" mode, and 3A Signatures full-range.

- Steve O.

Scorch, how do you think those vsm's would mate with another brand of mains? I'm not sure when DeVore Fidelity will be coming out with their on-walls, and if it's going to be a while yet I may go in another direction. Those VSMs look pretty interesting, and I have a sneaking suspicion that they would be sonically compatible with my Gibbon Super 8s. I don't expect a perfect match, but since I'm not running much multi-channel audio, I can get away with a different manufacturer's product in back.

Thoughts?

As I really bought the Vandersteen's to play with, I hadn't given much thought about a center. Right now I'm still using my Triangle Nabis 222 center. (set me back around $1,600 2 years ago) and actually it's a pretty darn good match. I will replace it eventually, but I am surprised how well they blend together. I will be keeping the Vandersteen's permanently.

Yeah, the 2Ce are friggin' fantastic. The dealer a few blocks from me (Audio Connection) usually has them set up on tubes (I've heard them on various Quicksilver monoblocks) and they're truly seductive when so juiced. Forget all the audiophile crap, they sound like instruments in front of you.

Atdamico.
Which of the 2Ce you bought? The signatures or the non signatures?

Picked up a used pair of Vandersteen Model 2Ce speakers just to play around with. Holy Shi*. I was not expecting this. They almost sound holographic in HT and for two channel music they are nothing short of superb. :eek:

I gotta wonder why they don't get more notice here.


Just curious, how much would a 5 channel HT Vandersteen speaker set cost?

Scorch, how do you think those vsm's would mate with another brand of mains? I'm not sure when DeVore Fidelity will be coming out with their on-walls, and if it's going to be a while yet I may go in another direction. Those VSMs look pretty interesting, and I have a sneaking suspicion that they would be sonically compatible with my Gibbon Super 8s. I don't expect a perfect match, but since I'm not running much multi-channel audio, I can get away with a different manufacturer's product in back.

Thoughts?

Summa,

Make sure the VSM design type loudspeaker is what you want. It is a coaxial arrangement, not bipolar, like some surround speakers. I would make sure the sensitivity rating and frequency response is compatible with your fronts. I do not fool myself into thinking these are full range speakers! I do like them quite a bit for movie effects - sounds like breaking glass, metal clanging - sound pretty darn realistic.

Another plus for me is that they have a small footprint, and can be easily mounted vertically or horizontally on a wall. I use small bookshelf stands from Target (the store, not the specialized component rack folks) to keep my VSM-1s at a good rear surround angle.

If you happened to live near Phoenix, AZ, I welcome you to bring your gear over :)

- Steve O.

Just curious, how much would a 5 channel HT Vandersteen speaker set cost?

Reginald,

It ain't cheap - unless you happen to be a lucky fellow who supposedly finds used Vandersteens at the local Salvation Army or Goodwill.

I bought mine used, in stages (all prices are used, 2nd maybe 3rd hand)

Front mains (3A Signature) for about $2000 a pair
Center (VCC-1) for about $300
Rears (VSM-1) for about $650 a pair
Subwoofer (2W) got lucky - normally around 500-600, I think

I think this approach was good because it forced me to plan ahead and be patient. Nearly all of the used speakers were found on audiogon, and the sub off eBay. Depending on your room size and listening preferences, you might consider a similar approach. Many folks are very happy with the 2CE/2CE Signature as front mains, saving $$$ in the process.

In hindsight, I would have not bought a VCC-1, and instead gotten a VCC-5, but those don't show up used very often.

Ideally, I would have saved up for a LONG time and just gotten the 5As and been done with it for good.

- Steve O.

Summa,

Make sure the VSM design type loudspeaker is what you want. It is a coaxial arrangement, not bipolar, like some surround speakers. I would make sure the sensitivity rating and frequency response is compatible with your fronts. I do not fool myself into thinking these are full range speakers! I do like them quite a bit for movie effects - sounds like breaking glass, metal clanging - sound pretty darn realistic.

Another plus for me is that they have a small footprint, and can be easily mounted vertically or horizontally on a wall. I use small bookshelf stands from Target (the store, not the specialized component rack folks) to keep my VSM-1s at a good rear surround angle.

If you happened to live near Phoenix, AZ, I welcome you to bring your gear over :)

- Steve O.


Thanks, Steve....I wish I was a bit closer, I'd take you up on that offer! My mains are tonally balanced and very transparent. Last time I heard the Vandies, I remember them having similar qualities. I may try and do as you did and pick up a used pair of off Audiogon or something, that way if they dn't work out for me I can just toss 'em back up for sale.

Hopefully John DeVore will have his on-walls out in the not-too-distant future and it will be a moot issue, but I'm going to keep the vandies on my short list.

I'm sure your system sounds pretty damn good!!

atdamico,

I would never go far as to say that 2CE or 3A Signatures sound the same as, or better than Wilson MAXXs or Sophias. Maybe the 5 or 5A Vandersteens...

- Steve O.

Have you ever spent a day listening to the Wilson stuff? I did, and at the end of the day I was so confused; they were horrible sounding which is why I spent the whole day there in confusion. I also listened to them at another shop a few weeks later in case that dealer had them setup incorrectly. Again, they were awful! What the heck? Then I looked at the measurements…”ahh, I see now” is what I thought to myself. The Vandersteen 2CE sigs or 3A sigs mated with two 2wq subs destroy the Wilson’s for music and HT in my opinion.

Reginald,

It ain't cheap - unless you happen to be a lucky fellow who supposedly finds used Vandersteens at the local Salvation Army or Goodwill.

I bought mine used, in stages (all prices are used, 2nd maybe 3rd hand)

Front mains (3A Signature) for about $2000 a pair
Center (VCC-1) for about $300
Rears (VSM-1) for about $650 a pair
Subwoofer (2W) got lucky - normally around 500-600, I think

I think this approach was good because it forced me to plan ahead and be patient. Nearly all of the used speakers were found on audiogon, and the sub off eBay. Depending on your room size and listening preferences, you might consider a similar approach. Many folks are very happy with the 2CE/2CE Signature as front mains, saving $$$ in the process.

In hindsight, I would have not bought a VCC-1, and instead gotten a VCC-5, but those don't show up used very often.

Ideally, I would have saved up for a LONG time and just gotten the 5As and been done with it for good.

- Steve O.


Mosy people probably consider $3000 is a lot of money for a used 5 channel setup. Which begs the question, how much would a new 5 channel setup cost?

Mosy people probably consider $3000 is a lot of money for a used 5 channel setup. Which begs the question, how much would a new 5 channel setup cost?

The 2CE Sigs are typically $1650 a pair with the stands. I advise you to pop for the VCC5 center which is $2000 (it’s the best center I have ever heard). And the rears (VSM-1's) are $800-$1000 I believe. If you listen to music then I highly recommend getting *two* 2WQ subs which are about $1250 each. They are designed more for music than movies. If you want their movie sub, check out the V2W (I don’t remember what it costs). Otherwise Axiom, HSU and SVS make killer home theater subs.

If you pop for the whole shebang (with the two 2WQ subs), it brings the total to $7150. It seems expensive, but their Quatro Signature speakers (which are probably the best speaker I have ever heard next to the model 12A) are about $1000 more than that just for the pair. $7150 is cheap when you consider how much happiness it could bring you (*if* you like that Vandersteen sound…can’t imagine why you wouldn’t :D )

When I am all said and done I will have purchased 4 of their 2WQ subs, one or two of the V2W subs, the 3A signatures (or the Quatros *IF* I can afford them), the VCC5 Center and the VSM-1 on wall rears. I will wait to do this until I move into a house in a few years, but when it is complete I may never leave that dedicated HT/Music room. I hope my wife doesn't get jealous! :eek:

What does a nice little pair of 5A's sell for in the US?

Have you ever spent a day listening to the Wilson stuff? I did, and at the end of the day I was so confused; they were horrible sounding which is why I spent the whole day there in confusion. I also listened to them at another shop a few weeks later in case that dealer had them setup incorrectly. Again, they were awful! What the heck? Then I looked at the measurements…”ahh, I see now” is what I thought to myself. The Vandersteen 2CE sigs or 3A sigs mated with two 2wq subs destroy the Wilson’s for music and HT in my opinion.

Hi Nuance,

I think I see what you're getting at - speaker measurements should correlate with speaker sound. It's a hotly debated topic - best arguments I've seen against Wilson's are R. Hardesty's essays. Interestingly enough, he's a big proponent of Vandersteens...

- Steve O.

What does a nice little pair of 5A's sell for in the US?

The Model 5A price can vary due to the different wood veneer finishes available. US suggested retail price is listed on Vandersteen's webpage.

They don't show up used often - and I have a hunch that because there isn't a higher model currently offered, and it's a true high-end loudspeaker. Switching from one brand to another can end up quite expensive, depending on the rest of your system.

If you don't have a local shop, I would search out high volume Vandersteen dealers if you're serious about making a new purchase and see if you can find a discount.

- Steve O.

Hi Nuance,

I think I see what you're getting at - speaker measurements should correlate with speaker sound. It's a hotly debated topic - best arguments I've seen against Wilson's are R. Hardesty's essays. Interestingly enough, he's a big proponent of Vandersteens...

- Steve O.

Hardesty as in Richard? I haven't read what he says about Wilson but have read his views on Vandersteen. It's funny; I never paid much attention to what he said about them until after I listened to them (years later). Then I went back and re-read his views and ended up pretty much completely agreeing with what he said. I also agree with his time and phase theories.

What does he have to say about Wilson? Speaker measurements don't make a good speaker, but it helps.

I believe the model 5A’s are around 15K give or take. They are very nice!

Nuance,

You should be able to find excerpt journal PDFs on Hardesty's website where he makes his case against Wilson audio's loudspeaker design. It really stirred up a lot of controversy back when it came out.

- Steve O.

I like to see someone say what they truthfully feel about products. That's what attracted me to his writings (Richard Hardesty) and reviews (when he wrote for Widescreen Review) and Shane Buettners' as well.

Nice to see all the good words on Vandersteen. I have heard them several times at CES and they will be my next up grade. I would like the Quatros with the VCC5 center, it all depends on how much I can save. The 3A sig's woluld also be very nice. It all depends on $$

Nuance,

You should be able to find excerpt journal PDFs on Hardesty's website where he makes his case against Wilson audio's loudspeaker design. It really stirred up a lot of controversy back when it came out.

- Steve O.

I downloaded the first two free ones, but he doesn't mention anything about Wilson in it. I must be looking in the wrong spot. :confused:

I like to see someone say what they truthfully feel about products. That's what attracted me to his writings (Richard Hardesty) and reviews (when he wrote for Widescreen Review) and Shane Buettners' as well.

I agree. His writings can be very controversial, but I agree with him on everything for the most part. It's a refreshing read compared the the advertising money biased magazines.

Nuance
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html
Check out watch dog #21 and #22 for "thoughts" on Wilson. #21 is the scathing Maxx review. There is also some responses from Wilson's John Giolas. #22 also seems to be some sort of reply to the original article.

I like to see someone say what they truthfully feel about products. That's what attracted me to his writings (Richard Hardesty) and reviews (when he wrote for Widescreen Review) and Shane Buettners' as well.

I just got turned off Hardesty's work because he is quite opinionated about gear, and to me, it just seemed like he a personal agenda to push along with his writings. I was able to read more issues that a friend had loaned to me, and my feelings about his writing style were further validated.

Obviously, as an owner of Vandersteen loudspeakers, it gives me a warm & fuzzy feeling to read Hardesty articles - but that doesn't cause me to run out an buy Wadia, ARC, and Theta Digital gear too, to feel more warm & fuzzy...

By the way - I never read anything from those guys saying anything negative about those product manufacturers.

Just because a writer doesn't accept advertising money does not make him or her unbiased.

- Steve O.

The 2CE Sigs are typically $1650 a pair with the stands. I advise you to pop for the VCC5 center which is $2000 (it’s the best center I have ever heard). And the rears (VSM-1's) are $800-$1000 I believe. If you listen to music then I highly recommend getting *two* 2WQ subs which are about $1250 each. They are designed more for music than movies. If you want their movie sub, check out the V2W (I don’t remember what it costs). Otherwise Axiom, HSU and SVS make killer home theater subs.

If you pop for the whole shebang (with the two 2WQ subs), it brings the total to $7150. It seems expensive, but their Quatro Signature speakers (which are probably the best speaker I have ever heard next to the model 12A) are about $1000 more than that just for the pair. $7150 is cheap when you consider how much happiness it could bring you (*if* you like that Vandersteen sound…can’t imagine why you wouldn’t :D )

When I am all said and done I will have purchased 4 of their 2WQ subs, one or two of the V2W subs, the 3A signatures (or the Quatros *IF* I can afford them), the VCC5 Center and the VSM-1 on wall rears. I will wait to do this until I move into a house in a few years, but when it is complete I may never leave that dedicated HT/Music room. I hope my wife doesn't get jealous! :eek:


I'm sure most people would think $7,200 is a lot of money to spend on just 5 speakers in a HT setup. Which is probably why they don't get as much notice here to answer the original poster's question.

I just got turned off Hardesty's work because he is quite opinionated about gear, and to me, it just seemed like he a personal agenda to push along with his writings. I was able to read more issues that a friend had loaned to me, and my feelings about his writing style were further validated.

Obviously, as an owner of Vandersteen loudspeakers, it gives me a warm & fuzzy feeling to read Hardesty articles - but that doesn't cause me to run out an buy Wadia, ARC, and Theta Digital gear too, to feel more warm & fuzzy...

By the way - I never read anything from those guys saying anything negative about those product manufacturers.

Just because a writer doesn't accept advertising money does not make him or her unbiased.

- Steve O.

I have subscribed to his magazine but I have to agree with you. I feel they are being honest but I think they really show a little too much audiophile pedigree of the type such as that records are better than CD's etc. They certainly have their fair share of favorite products and it bothers me just a tad that Richard apparently started out as a high end dealer.

That being said, interesting to read and like a bad accident, how can you take your eyes off the Wilson, Fremer, battles over there.

I'm sure most people would think $7,200 is a lot of money to spend on just 5 speakers in a HT setup. Which is probably why they don't get as much notice here to answer the original poster's question.

True, but as much as I agree with Nuance that their subs are very good, you could just pick up an SVS PB-10 for four bills and knock $2k off the overall price if need be. I'm not saying that would be better than having the dual vandersteens, it's just a way to get into the meat of that system for less money.

True, but as much as I agree with Nuance that their subs are very good, you could just pick up an SVS PB-10 for four bills and knock $2k off the overall price if need be. I'm not saying that would be better than having the dual vandersteens, it's just a way to get into the meat of that system for less money.


My $7200.00 calculation does not include a sub its just for the 5 full range channels.

My $7200.00 calculation does not include a sub its just for the 5 full range channels.

?? Nuance figured the 5.2 set up to be $7200, with the two subs accounting for $2400 of that figure, right? I'm saying spend $400 on the svs, and forget the vandy subs, and that will save you $2k off the $7200 figure, bringing it down to ~$5200

Or better yet, have some patience, buy used. Also, $7K for a complete setup including sub isn't really all that much money. I'd say it's pretty much in the middle of what I read and hear people spending.

Or better yet, have some patience, buy used. Also, $7K for a complete setup including sub isn't really all that much money. I'd say it's pretty much in the middle of what I read and hear people spending.

Agreed.....and $7k will typically get you some very nice audio quality if you do your homework.

Just giving more praise to the Vandy 2CE's and Sigs and the entire Vandy line. Always have liked them and honestly if not for their bland looks (IMO) I would own a pair and may still in the future.

I thought I remember reading that the Vandy 2CE (revisions included) was the best selling speaker of all time.

I thought I remember reading that the Vandy 2CE (revisions included) was the best selling speaker of all time.
Yes, because it has been on the market since 1977!

Yes, because it has been on the market since 1977!

If it ain't broke... :)

A good speaker design never goes out of style.

If it ain't broke... :)

A good speaker design never goes out of style.
Absolutely ! They have just continued to refine it.

Nuance
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html
Check out watch dog #21 and #22 for "thoughts" on Wilson. #21 is the scathing Maxx review. There is also some responses from Wilson's John Giolas. #22 also seems to be some sort of reply to the original article.

Thanks Mike. That was a humorous read! He really upset Wilson :D

I just got turned off Hardesty's work because he is quite opinionated about gear, and to me, it just seemed like he a personal agenda to push along with his writings. I was able to read more issues that a friend had loaned to me, and my feelings about his writing style were further validated.

Obviously, as an owner of Vandersteen loudspeakers, it gives me a warm & fuzzy feeling to read Hardesty articles - but that doesn't cause me to run out an buy Wadia, ARC, and Theta Digital gear too, to feel more warm & fuzzy...

By the way - I never read anything from those guys saying anything negative about those product manufacturers.

Just because a writer doesn't accept advertising money does not make him or her unbiased.

- Steve O.

How is it possible to NOT be opinionated about *anything*? Of course he is opinionated, just as you and I are. Why would that turn you off to his writings?
I got my hands on some journals today and have been reading them most of the night (in between caring for my daughter). I recall reading Richard mention that the Theda Dreadnaught II was much nicer than anything else that Theda made. He proceeded to explain that their previous model was pretty bad and went into detail about it. I would say that was definitely a negative comment about a brand he likes.

I do agree that no one is truly unbiased. People will brag about what they like; plain and simple. I do it, you do it. For instance, I LOVE my wife's breasts! OOPS, that is for another forum :p

I'm sure most people would think $7,200 is a lot of money to spend on just 5 speakers in a HT setup. Which is probably why they don't get as much notice here to answer the original poster's question.

As has already been touched on by others, $7200 for the whole shebang is not even considered expensive by many people’s standards. *I* think it is, but I don’t make 6 figures so…

True, but as much as I agree with Nuance that their subs are very good, you could just pick up an SVS PB-10 for four bills and knock $2k off the overall price if need be. I'm not saying that would be better than having the dual vandersteens, it's just a way to get into the meat of that system for less money.

The Vandersteen subs are more for music than HT. I would probably pick up a SVS, HSU or Axiom for my HT apps but would use dual 2WQ’s for 2-channel and 4 2WQs for multichannel. Yes, I did get that idea from Richard’s 2nd journal when I first read it two years ago, but he was dead on as far as those subs go. But for HT, I don’t think they will go low enough or give you that “boom” to the chest like the other offerings I mentioned. Also, you will have to spend more than $400 on a SVS sub to get better quality bass than the 2WQ or V2W (my opinion of course).

If it ain't broke... :)

A good speaker design never goes out of style.


Right on buddy!

Audiogon has some cool stuff from Vandersteen for sale right now.

- 2CE sigs for $1100: http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1156694396

- Dual 2WQ's in a high quality finish (more expensive than the black finish that I quoted) for $2700:
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?homesubw&1156054053

- 3A sigs for $2250
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1154893721

Add the $2000 center (or $1000 for the VCC1 sig) and the $1000 (or are they $800?) rears and you are done.

The Vandersteen subs are more for music than HT. I would probably pick up a SVS, HSU or Axiom for my HT apps but would use dual 2WQ’s for 2-channel and 4 2WQs for multichannel. Yes, I did get that idea from Richard’s 2nd journal when I first read it two years ago, but he was dead on as far as those subs go. But for HT, I don’t think they will go low enough or give you that “boom” to the chest like the other offerings I mentioned. Also, you will have to spend more than $400 on a SVS sub to get better quality bass than the 2WQ or V2W (my opinion of course).







Oh, I totally agree....I'm just saying, if that extra $2k is an issue, doesn't mean someone has to abandon the idea of a Vandy 5.1 system.....

Oh, I totally agree....I'm just saying, if that extra $2k is an issue, doesn't mean someone has to abandon the idea of a Vandy 5.1 system.....

Right on. For HT, I would use probably just one Axiom EP500 subwoofer and be done with it (unless my room was huge, in which case the EP600 would be *killer*).

I didn't get a chance to hear the 2CEs but did hear the 1A and funny, it sounded much better to my ears than the flagship 5As that cost about 15 times as much in the other room!

Thanks Mike. That was a humorous read! He really upset Wilson :D

How is it possible to NOT be opinionated about *anything*? Of course he is opinionated, just as you and I are. Why would that turn you off to his writings?
I got my hands on some journals today and have been reading them most of the night (in between caring for my daughter). I recall reading Richard mention that the Theda Dreadnaught II was much nicer than anything else that Theda made. He proceeded to explain that their previous model was pretty bad and went into detail about it. I would say that was definitely a negative comment about a brand he likes.



Nuance,

The 2W/2WQ subwoofer was designed to make the non-powered loudspeakers full-range. The V2W is strictly designed as a dedicated LFE sub. You can get house-rumbling bass (ala War of the Worlds) with a single 2W in-line with your fronts - I can vouch for that in my own setup. I think saying a 2W/2WQ is good for music (only), and the V2W is good for movies (only) is incorrect.

*

My beef with Hardesty is style vs. substance in his writing.

I think truly neutral reviewer/writer would emphasize more on audio theory, design, acoustics fundamentals, and psychoacoustics. Hardesty succeeded at this with his first journals, and then launches into his favorite products. His writing style is also very redundant, fluffing up the length of each journal. Is it to drive home key points? Or is it to make the journals appear larger, so people considering a subscription feel like they are getting more words/dollar?

I got more of an audio education from Siegfried Linkwitz's writings. Not so much product pushing (even though he has loudspeaker designs for sale), and certainly much less brand controversial statements.

*

I can be opinionated and passionate about A/V. And I have no problem with you and other Vandersteen proponents touting the many innovations of that loudspeaker line. I only have disagreements with blanket statements like "Vandersteen speaker X sounds better than any other high-end speaker", or "all subs by Vandersteen are good for music only". I just can't sit back and let those statements go by unchallenged.

- Steve O.

Nuance,

The 2W/2WQ subwoofer was designed to make the non-powered loudspeakers full-range. The V2W is strictly designed as a dedicated LFE sub. You can get house-rumbling bass (ala War of the Worlds) with a single 2W in-line with your fronts - I can vouch for that in my own setup. I think saying a 2W/2WQ is good for music (only), and the V2W is good for movies (only) is incorrect.

It’s my opinion man. I have a 2WQ and it is better with music than HT. Sure it gets the job done for HT, but not like a ported SVS sub or the V2W. Look at Vandersteen’s website man; even he says the V2W is mainly for home theater (There is a topic heading that says “Dedicated to Home Theater” and that is where the V2W is talked about. So if you don’t agree with me, you aren’t agreeing with Richard either. ;)

My beef with Hardesty is style vs. substance in his writing.

I think truly neutral reviewer/writer would emphasize more on audio theory, design, acoustics fundamentals, and psychoacoustics. Hardesty succeeded at this with his first journals, and then launches into his favorite products. His writing style is also very redundant, fluffing up the length of each journal. Is it to drive home key points? Or is it to make the journals appear larger, so people considering a subscription feel like they are getting more words/dollar?

I got more of an audio education from Siegfried Linkwitz's writings. Not so much product pushing (even though he has loudspeaker designs for sale), and certainly much less brand controversial statements.

To each his own. I have no problem with opinions, though it seems you do (at least with mine).

*

I can be opinionated and passionate about A/V. And I have no problem with you and other Vandersteen proponents touting the many innovations of that loudspeaker line. I only have disagreements with blanket statements like "Vandersteen speaker X sounds better than any other high-end speaker", or "all subs by Vandersteen are good for music only". I just can't sit back and let those statements go by unchallenged.

- Steve O.

I said Vandersteen’s sound better than anything *I* have heard. I also said “to me.” Again, this is my opinion so I will express it freely whenever I want to. I have listened to dozens of speakers and nothing has bested the 3A’s (unless it was another Vandersteen product). I have directly compared speakers at level matched volumes. I have experimented with electronics, room placement, room treatments, etc. I have even been allowed to take some speakers home for an in-home audition. The Vandersteen’s still stand strong and have beaten everything they have faced off with. I have no problem letting people know that, especially if they ask or make a thread about my favorite speaker line. Apparently you have an issue with that, but that doesn’t mean I will stop giving props to a speaker manufacturer that I feel is the best bang for the buck. Again, this is my opinion based on the experiences I have had. So, you don’t have to sit back and watch any statements go by unchallenged, but you cannot prove me wrong because it is my opinion. It kind of seems like you are just mad at Richard and are taking it out on me. You are just trying to start a fight aren’t you? :D

I didn't get a chance to hear the 2CEs but did hear the 1A and funny, it sounded much better to my ears than the flagship 5As that cost about 15 times as much in the other room!


Cool, then you can save $14000 and just get those :D

Cool, then you can save $14000 and just get those :D

Yep, and then with all the money he'll save he can go out and buy some damn hearing aids! :D

[QUOTE=Randybes]I have subscribed to his magazine but I have to agree with you. I feel they are being honest but I think they really show a little too much audiophile pedigree of the type such as that records are better than CD's etc. They certainly have their fair share of favorite products and it bothers me just a tad that Richard apparently started out as a high end dealer.

I subscribe to Hardesty's APJ. I have taken a lot of good info from his journals. One point I have to make is that vinyl records do indeed sound better that CD's.

When I built my room the two product up grades I made were the VTL 5.5 and a modest new turn table VPI Scout. I purposely have some of the same albums and CD's and SACD's simply to show friends that records played through a dedicated two ch preamp with phono stage in a dedicated room, do sound better than CD's.

My next up grade will be without question Vandersteen speakers. It will likely take me a while to save the $$ but in the long run well worth the wait. I have been lucky and have been able to get to CES the past few years and have yet to hear anything that can compare to Vandersteen's at the given price points.

I wonder if I could hijack this thread a little bit by asking if there's any Vandy 5A owner in Houston TX, that wouldn't mind letting me auditioning your set-up.

The last time I checked out the 5A at a local dealership, they failed to impressed me. The setup sounded worse than my $1000 Orbs system. But judging from so many positive reviews, I am convinced that something must be terribly wrong with the dealer setup.

Yep, and then with all the money he'll save he can go out and buy some damn hearing aids! :D

LMAO :D

I wonder if I could hijack this thread a little bit by asking if there's any Vandy 5A owner in Houston TX, that wouldn't mind letting me auditioning your set-up.

The last time I checked out the 5A at a local dealership, they failed to impressed me. The setup sounded worse than my $1000 Orbs system. But judging from so many positive reviews, I am convinced that something must be terribly wrong with the dealer setup.

There could be a number a reasons why they didn’t sound good, but it could just be that you didn’t like them. They are a very neutral and transparent speaker and if you aren’t used to that you may think they are laid back. Most people are used to hearing bright speakers, but these are far from that. They are accurate and may sound strange to those who aren’t accustomed to it. However, I do recommend that you give them another shot, but at a different dealership. If Vandersteen’s aren't correctly set up, they won’t sound as good as they should and can.

Cool, then you can save $14000 and just get those :D

Nah, I'd get some Martin Logans and save $10-11K instead. :D

The last time I checked out the 5A at a local dealership, they failed to impressed me. The setup sounded worse than my $1000 Orbs system. But judging from so many positive reviews, I am convinced that something must be terribly wrong with the dealer setup.

You probably heard them at the same place I went to. As I remember they had some extremely expensive Bel Canto gear running them.

Voices were nice but otherwise I found the 5As to be kind of thick, dull and gooey. The 1CEs were much more dynamic.

Yep, and then with all the money he'll save he can go out and buy some damn hearing aids! :D

Or some ear plugs, that would help me enjoy the 5As even more...LOL!

I wonder if I could hijack this thread a little bit by asking if there's any Vandy 5A owner in Houston TX, that wouldn't mind letting me auditioning your set-up.

The last time I checked out the 5A at a local dealership, they failed to impressed me. The setup sounded worse than my $1000 Orbs system. But judging from so many positive reviews, I am convinced that something must be terribly wrong with the dealer setup.

I am wondering... did you hear them at Audio Concepts by any chance. I have heard the Five's there and to be honest, I was a bit dissappointed with the way they have them set up there. I honestly preferred the sound of the Threes he had set up in the larger room. I am a big fan of 'steens (I have an old pair of 2's) and the Three's he had set up in the larger room sounded way better than any other speaker he had in that room. Don't know why the 5's sounded the way they did, perhaps due to the equipment, perhaps due to the size and construction of the room. If I was in any way serious (or able) to consider the 5's I would ask them to move them into a different room and hook up to different equipment before writing them off though.

It’s my opinion man. I have a 2WQ and it is better with music than HT. Sure it gets the job done for HT, but not like a ported SVS sub or the V2W. Look at Vandersteen’s website man; even he says the V2W is mainly for home theater (There is a topic heading that says “Dedicated to Home Theater” and that is where the V2W is talked about. So if you don’t agree with me, you aren’t agreeing with Richard either. ;)


I won't disagree with you about pitting a V2W against an equivalently priced SVS sub ;)

*

So, you don’t have to sit back and watch any statements go by unchallenged, but you cannot prove me wrong because it is my opinion. It kind of seems like you are just mad at Richard and are taking it out on me. You are just trying to start a fight aren’t you? :D

Nuance - you're taking this the wrong way. I'm only trying to provide another point of view, not outright say "You are wrong." I am not mad at Richard (Hardesty) or Vandersteen, and I have no agenda of countering everything you say. Keep spreading the word, and enjoy the music :)

- Steve O.

[QUOTE=Gary Sedlack][One point I have to make is that vinyl records do indeed sound better that CD's.

/QUOTE]Not to me, and I heard some really high end speakers and turntables at the Rocky Mtn Audio show, but well mastered CD's still sounded better to me. Just my opinion though.

I won't disagree with you about pitting a V2W against an equivalently priced SVS sub ;)

*


Nuance - you're taking this the wrong way. I'm only trying to provide another point of view, not outright say "You are wrong." I am not mad at Richard (Hardesty) or Vandersteen, and I have no agenda of countering everything you say. Keep spreading the word, and enjoy the music :)

- Steve O.

Okay, I hear ya. The way it came across initially was misleading. It's all good. :D

Fellas, just because you didn't like the 12A's doesn't mean you are morons or anything. It's your preference/opinion. I do wonder about setup issues, but oh well. Check out the Quatros if you get a chance. They take even more effort to set up, but when done correctly and when you are sitting in the sweet spot...lets just says WOW!

Just wanted to add my 2 cents with regards to the Vandersteen subs. Here's my current setup:

Front: 3A Signatures with a Pair of 2Wq subs
Center: VCC-5
Rears: 2 pairs of VSM-1 (7.1 channel)
LFE Sub: SVS PC-Ultra

The 2Wq is an awesome sub. It is fast, articulate, and extends low enough to hit 20Hz. An example - on the Titanic soundtrack the Celine Dion song has some really low pedal-tone bass notes throughout. In most systems you would never even know they were there, but with the 2Wq they are present and well produced without distortion or breakup.

But (yes there is a but) with high energy, high SPL movie soundtracks the 2Wq does not have enough output to keep up. With music, I would typically listen at 50-55 dB continuous. At that level, the demands of the subwoofer are not so challenging, and the 2Wq has plenty of ooomph to produce the lower octave and provide plenty of bass energy (and articulate bass, not the one-note boom-boom of other subs).

With movies, I typically listen at 60-65 dB. When you have a soundtrack that has occasional, but high impact, bass (like Master and Commander) at that listening level, the 2Wq does a "decent" job but does not have the reserves to give you that "in the chest" feel (at least in my 3500 ft3 room). If you have a much smaller room where you would listen to movies at a lower level, then the 2Wq may be enough.

I have never used a V2W sub, nor have I ever heard one (local dealer does not stock Vandersteen anymore). Based on my experiences I did not think that adding a passive radiator to the 2Wq would make enough of a difference for my size room.

Previously I had a Sunfire Signature for my LFE. It had enough impact 90% of the time, but was not very articulate in its presentation. The SVS PC-Ultra is a monster and has the speed and weight that matches well with the Vandersteens. In fact, I may still add a second PC-Ultra just to have all my bases covered.

By the way, you'll still have to pry my 2Wq's from my cold dead hands. For music, there is no competition - these subs are the bees knees.

You only listen to movies at 60 - 65 dB? Wow. I am going have hearing loss WAY sooner than you! You are smarter than I :D

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4632/hometheaterfrontsmall7xi.jpg

For you Vandersteen Lovers!

This is my amazing setup!

SOWK, that is a beautiful system.....I'm sure it sounds even better than it looks, too!

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4632/hometheaterfrontsmall7xi.jpg

For you Vandersteen Lovers!

This is my amazing setup!


Very nice SOWK. Are those the 2CE Sigs or the 3A Sigs? Man, even I think the speakers are a tad on the ugly side, but in your setup they look hot! :D

I believe the model 5A’s are around 15K give or take. They are very nice!

Nuance, I am close to buying you tickets out here so you can hear a real speaker :)

Hardesty has a point about accuracy, but time/phase is dramatically less audible than distortion or other speaker issues, something Hardesty doesn't understand or admit. He is, like many radicals in audio, only half right and very much half *wrong*.

Nuance, I am close to buying you tickets out here so you can hear a real speaker :)

Hardesty has a point about accuracy, but time/phase is dramatically less audible than distortion or other speaker issues, something Hardesty doesn't understand or admit. He is, like many radicals in audio, only half right and very much half *wrong*.

Send some xd's my way man; I would have no issue with that. However, I know what I hear and what I hear through my Vandersteen's sounds good. I am always open to pitting them against the competition, however. ;)

Nuance,

I haven’t heard Vandy’s first hand (hard in Oz) but have read all the reviews and been attracted to the thread as an informative read. All I know that as I get better at discerning differences in speakers and other equipment etc (still have a long way to go though), I am leaning more and more towards neutrality, accuracy and resolution.

As an outside observer then that has not yet heard any of the benefits of time/phase coherence, I would have though from looking at the enclosure construction and driver specs alone would seem to indicate a pretty good low distortion system in any case. The Vifa, Seas and Scanspeak drivers I have heard have been pretty special. I will always listen to equipment before I purchase and I take all reviewers with a grain of salt, but whilst I might find PH rather enthusiastic for his own conclusions, they did seem pretty well derived to me.

Are they as refined as PH indicates? Also, what speakers did you have before and why wouldn’t you go back or move on to something else now?

Nuance,

I haven’t heard Vandy’s first hand (hard in Oz) but have read all the reviews and been attracted to the thread as an informative read. All I know that as I get better at discerning differences in speakers and other equipment etc (still have a long way to go though), I am leaning more and more towards neutrality, accuracy and resolution.

As an outside observer then that has not yet heard any of the benefits of time/phase coherence, I would have though from looking at the enclosure construction and driver specs alone would seem to indicate a pretty good low distortion system in any case. The Vifa, Seas and Scanspeak drivers I have heard have been pretty special. I will always listen to equipment before I purchase and I take all reviewers with a grain of salt, but whilst I might find PH rather enthusiastic for his own conclusions, they did seem pretty well derived to me.

Are they as refined as PH indicates? Also, what speakers did you have before and why wouldn’t you go back or move on to something else now?

First of all, what is PH?

I previously owned some canton Ergos, Onix Rocket 750 sigs and Rocket 550MKII’s (these are the most recent). I audition speakers probably once or twice every few months just to keep up on things. I have heard dozens of speakers and none compare for the price. So are they refined? Yes. They are very neutral and even have tweeter and midrange adjustment knobs on the back in case dead neutral isn’t your thing. They do have a small sweet spot and take some time to set up, but when done correctly the really sing!

Why wouldn’t I move onto something else or go back? Well, without getting into a detailed comparison, the Vandersteens make me feel as if I am sitting dead center in the 12th row listening to the Madison Symphony Orchestra. In other words, I feel like I am there listening to the music rather than in my own living room listening to speakers. They are very accurate and the realism is ridiculous! They allow me to connect emotionally with the music, something that could once only be achieved when I was attending a live show. Are there better speakers out there? Perhaps. However, in the price range of the 2CEsigs, you will find nothing better (my opinion of course). Also, I have never heard anything better than Vandersteen’s 12A’s or Quarto’s.

On a side note, after subscribing to Hadesty’s first 12 journals and reading through them avidly, I went and re-auditioned some Thiel speakers. They are definitely brighter than the Vandersteen’s which may come in handy for HT, but which I didn’t much care for while listening to music. I like Thiel quite bit, so don’t get me wrong. Also, after reading his journals I do agree that he can come across as pushy towards which brands he likes. However, I find it no coincidence that he likes Ayre electronics (I have been using them for a while now). The guy knows his stuff but cannot be called “un-bias.” I have not yet found *anyone* who IS un-bias. We like what we like and we stick to our conclusions and theories like glue. We just have to be careful *who* it is we listen to and who we ignore. ;)

They are very accurate and the realism is ridiculous! They allow me to connect emotionally with the music, something that could once only be achieved when I was attending a live show.

Thanks Nuance. Connection is what I'm now looking for.
Sorry, PH was meant to be short for Richard Hardesty - I was just being lazy since his name had featured a few times in recent posts but got my P and R mixed. Teach me to abbreviate when I'm half asleep. :)

Vandersteens are a hidden gem - its a shame.

I've been trying to sell an older pair of Vandersteen 2c speakers with stands (serial # 19xxx) for the last few weeks and I've gotten virtually no response. This is in the Los Angeles area too, which you would think is where Vandersteen has some market presence.

At their retail of around $1200 they are considered a bargain, let along the $450 I am asking. I think they present a great value for the person in the know.

I must admit, and its the reason for their sale, they are fairly large and bland looking. But, once the music flows with my Outlaw 990/7125 combo, I forget they are there.

I must admit, and its the reason for their sale, they are fairly large and bland looking. But, once the music flows with my Outlaw 990/7125 combo, I forget they are there.
I'm a huge fan of Outlaw gear (I own or owned all sorts of it), but in all honesty a speaker like a Vandersteen deserves better than that 7125. It sounds like you've already moved on to something else, but I guarantee you that if you went with a nicer amp you'd clearly hear the benefit. I love the Outlaw amps for HT, but I've since seen the light with regard to music.

I have not yet found *anyone* who IS un-bias.

I'm completely unbiased.... :D

I'm completely unbiased.... :D

Well, I am. I don't give a poo if I worked long and hard for what I have, And I am super anal about setup, and quaility. But If I find any flaw, and I mean any flaw, I'm rip apart any product. Including my own.

The only speakers I think that i have heard that are close to the Vandersteens, are the B & W 803's. I like the 803's better then the 802/801/800 series.

And I have listened to a bunch of things! But... None of them were setup by me, and the Vandersteen's if they weren't setup properly would suck too.

Well, I am. I don't give a poo if I worked long and hard for what I have, And I am super anal about setup, and quaility. But If I find any flaw, and I mean any flaw, I'm rip apart any product. Including my own.

.


I was being facetious, but I totally agree with you. If I find a product that I think is just exceptional, I'm happy to sing it's praises whether I own it or not. But there is no company or brand that I am so loyal to that I won't kick it to the curb if I end up liking something else better. I absolutely LOVE Magnepans.....I recommend them all the time, but as much as I love them it wasn't enough to keep me from going with my current speakers.

Last fall I went to demo some Von Schweikert VR-4 jrs. I had done all sorts of research to compile a short list of stuff I wanted to hear, and I was really excited about this particular model. I LOVED the contemporary look, they supposedly threw a HUGE soundstage, and they hit down into the 20 Hz area. Well, I went to give them a listen and was really disappointed. As much as I WANTED to like them, they just didn't do it for me. They were being run with $20k Oasis monoblock amps and some boutique $30k preamp, great cables, room treatments, etc.

I have to be true to my ears, and even though I may love some of the peripheral qualities of a product, that's not even close to being enough. Maybe that's why I can't stand Bose, lol.....

Thanks Nuance. Connection is what I'm now looking for.
Sorry, PH was meant to be short for Richard Hardesty - I was just being lazy since his name had featured a few times in recent posts but got my P and R mixed. Teach me to abbreviate when I'm half asleep. :)

I wondered if you meant to abbreviate Richard Hardesty, but then I thought nah. :D

Vandersteen's do it for me, but they may not for you. As long as you follow the general rule, "listen before you buy" you should be good to go. As always, I recommend you listen first. You may or may not like them, but I have a feeling you will. ;)

I'm completely unbiased.... :D

LOL. :D



The only speakers I think that i have heard that are close to the Vandersteens, are the B & W 803's. I like the 803's better then the 802/801/800 series.

And I have listened to a bunch of things! But... None of them were setup by me, and the Vandersteen's if they weren't setup properly would suck too.

The Diamond series or the Nautilus? I am just curious.

I agree completely about speaker setup. If it's not done right, it won't sound right (good).



Last fall I went to demo some Von Schweikert VR-4 jrs. I had done all sorts of research to compile a short list of stuff I wanted to hear, and I was really excited about this particular model. I LOVED the contemporary look, they supposedly threw a HUGE soundstage, and they hit down into the 20 Hz area. Well, I went to give them a listen and was really disappointed. As much as I WANTED to like them, they just didn't do it for me. They were being run with $20k Oasis monoblock amps and some boutique $30k preamp, great cables, room treatments, etc.



Wow, we are two for two.

One: We both like the Vandersteen sound.
Two: We were both disappointed with the VR-4jrs. Too weird, but I also was let down. I don't know if it was the room acoustics though because they VR-4jrs have a rear firing driver don't they? Hmm...Makes me wonder now...

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4632/hometheaterfrontsmall7xi.jpg

For you Vandersteen Lovers!

This is my amazing setup!

SOWK,

Nice picture! Looks like a fun room to watch a movie :)

Couple of questions:

1) What are the two black boxes on the floor on either side of the center channel?
2) What is the material on the wall that makes the dark band? Is it gaffer's tape?
3) Are those three floor tiles directly in front of the center channel and component stack? What do you use them for?

Thanks,

- Steve O.

I am not him, so I cannot accurately answer, but I will guess.

1) They are for looks and to hide the cabling.
2) I think the material is room treatments or it's just there to make the area look nicer
3) I would guess they are also for looks. Hell, they look cool ;)

I have 2ce sigs and have been hooked on the vandy's since 1999 - I recently
changed my amp to a Rotel 1070 which is 130wpc. The dealer will let me trade up to the Rotel 180 at 200 WPC. Does this make any sense ? Is the difference in wpc too small to make a difference? On the other hand, is more better? I Listen to mostly classical, opera in a room 19 x 20.

I have 2ce sigs and have been hooked on the vandy's since 1999 - I recently
changed my amp to a Rotel 1070 which is 130wpc. The dealer will let me trade up to the Rotel 180 at 200 WPC. Does this make any sense ? Is the difference in wpc too small to make a difference? On the other hand, is more better? I Listen to mostly classical, opera in a room 19 x 20.

Amps in general have very little to do with what you hear in your listening room. SQ is all about speaker choice and room acoustics. Treating your room can yield hugh gains in the SQ. As the power of your amp goes up, usually so does the placebo effect, so in a way the more powerful amp may "sound better" if you get my drift.

Nick

I have 2ce sigs and have been hooked on the vandy's since 1999 - I recently
changed my amp to a Rotel 1070 which is 130wpc. The dealer will let me trade up to the Rotel 180 at 200 WPC. Does this make any sense ? Is the difference in wpc too small to make a difference? On the other hand, is more better? I Listen to mostly classical, opera in a room 19 x 20.

John,

Amps are part of the playback chain, they can make a significant difference in sound quality. I recently borrowed a high-end amp from a friend and swapped it into my system - a very noticeable difference with bass (audibly lower extension, and more controlled and musical). I could argue that a Pass Labs X250 sounded better in my room than a Crown XLS 402B pro amp PLUS Vandersteen 2W subwoofer - no kidding.

Will you hear that kind of difference between the two Rotels? Why don't you ask the dealer to allow you to do an in-home trial for several weeks so you can decide for yourself?

- Steve O.

I've always liked Vandersteens but I decided they weren't quite dynamic enough for me. Definitely excellent speakers though.

I am not him, so I cannot accurately answer, but I will guess.

1) They are for looks and to hide the cabling.
2) I think the material is room treatments or it's just there to make the area look nicer
3) I would guess they are also for looks. Hell, they look cool ;)

WOW... you good.

You are right on every answer!

But... for the 1 question.

left box is for hiding Cabling, Power Cords, Power Conditioner.

Right Box is for hiding the Benchmark DAC 1. Amazing product.

I really don't want to hide my Main Speaker cords, and they are not hidden, but I would have had to shown a shot at a different angle.

I am using The Kimber Kable Bifocal XL's / WBT connectors ~ $3000.00 just for the 2 front channels.



For question 2

They are for room treatments, and are curtins for my HT Front Projector.
But they allowed me to kill alot of sound reflections.

-SOWK

How are Vandys with rock/metal? Are they just not that type of speaker?

Scot, I would think for metal/ rock you would want something more foward and more efficient to play louder- If you want to hear the complete line of vandys , and bring your fav discs to listen to, the place to go in our area is audio lab in fairless hills They are great no pressure guys up there. I am not aware of a dealer closer to you.

How are Vandys with rock/metal? Are they just not that type of speaker?

They don't go insanely loud like it would be at a metal concert, but they play back Dream Theater, Children of Bodom and In Flames very well.

I've always liked Vandersteens but I decided they weren't quite dynamic enough for me. Definitely excellent speakers though.

As far as loud, no they don't crank like some speakers. But as far as the dynamics of the separation of instruments and how loud and or soft they are on the represented soundstage in time, they are phenomenal.

Nuance stated exactly what I heard when auditioning the Vandersteens. I don't think it is a matter of dynamics, I think it is a matter of perceived sound. When the phase and timing of the sound are correct, we don't perceive the sound as loud, but, clean. There was a distinct difference between soft and loud passages as I heard them. If you will attend a live concert with few amplified instruments, you will notice the same effect.
However, if your style of music falls in the amplified, distorted, fusion of jazz and funk (called junk!), you will probably be directed toward the more- in your face- speakers. Dennis

One of the things that's impressed me with the Vandersteens is their dynamic nature. I've been struck by that even when in another room. They can't get as loud as others with steeper crossovers, perhaps, but within their capabilites they're great.

I have to chime in also, I wandered into a local store many years ago and this gorgeous music - jazz with a female vocalist was coming from the back. I asked what kind of speakers they were and the salesman said "Vandy 5As". They were being driven by McIntosh gear. I've listened to many systems since then but I've never heard better sound. As many of the previous posters have mentioned, the dynamics, phase and timing were so realistic I felt as if I was "there". Hopefully I'll get a pair one of these days, sigh...

As far as loud, no they don't crank like some speakers.

Maybe this is why I didn't like the 5As when I auditioned them, I had the volume probably around 85-90db and they started to get really muddy.

At around 70-75db they probably would've been fine. Weird thing is that the Model 1 I heard didn't have this problem with high volumes.

Wonder if, as a general rule, "warm" speakers tend to sound better at moderate rather than loud volumes? I had the same experience with some Polk LSi9s, when pushed past a certain point their midrange just started to cave in.

Maybe this is why I didn't like the 5As when I auditioned them, I had the volume probably around 85-90db and they started to get really muddy.

At around 70-75db they probably would've been fine. Weird thing is that the Model 1 I heard didn't have this problem with high volumes.

Wonder if, as a general rule, "warm" speakers tend to sound better at moderate rather than loud volumes? I had the same experience with some Polk LSi9s, when pushed past a certain point their midrange just started to cave in.

It has nothing to do with "warm speakers" (and they aren't warm speakers, they measure pretty flat, so they are considered neutral, not warm). I have heard warm speakers and they don't sound better at moderate nor higher volumes. Warm is warm, but the 5A's surely are not warm (to my ears anyway). I think the Vandersteen's are rated at 88dB efficiency. I don't remember to be honest, though. Why would you want to listen louder than 85dB anyway? :p

Regardless of loudspeaker, there's no excuse for listening to music at such high crankin'/rockin' levels. Hearing loss from this kind of self-abuse is cumulative. Be smart, folks...

- Steve O.

Why would you want to listen louder than 85dB anyway? :p

well I didn't have an SPL meter on hand, those decibel numbers are just guesses.

At home I usually listen around 75-80db tops.

Wonder if, as a general rule, "warm" speakers tend to sound better at moderate rather than loud volumes? I had the same experience with some Polk LSi9s, when pushed past a certain point their midrange just started to cave in.

I had the opportunity to audition the LSi9 in two different occasions. The mids on the polks sounded beautiful even on the moderate to high volumes. Never felt that the midrange caved in at any particular time during my listening session. I have not had the chance to listen to a Vandersteen speaker yet. I'm really curious about the 2Ce sigs.
I need to look for a dealer around my area.

well I didn't have an SPL meter on hand, those decibel numbers are just guesses.

At home I usually listen around 75-80db tops.

What? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! HAHA, just kidding.

I don't listen much above 85 dB anymore. All those concerts took a toll on me already so I don't need to add to it. But you are right, the Vandersteen's aren't a speaker that you will crank. The are too sophisticated for something like that. haha :D

Here is a review of the
Quatro. It seems like a good one.
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/706vandersteen/

Here is a review of the
Quatro. It seems like a good one.
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/706vandersteen/

whoa cool. Well, that pretty much describes how I feel about it. It's a sweet sweet speaker! Anyone located in northern IL or WI, head over to Ultra HiFidelis in Milwaukee and check it out; you won't be sorry!

whoa cool. Well, that pretty much describes how I feel about it. It's a sweet sweet speaker! Anyone located in northern IL or WI, head over to Ultra HiFidelis in Milwaukee and check it out; you won't be sorry!


Nuance? Where do you live?

I live in Wauwatosa, WI.

You close to that area?

Here is a review of the
Quatro. It seems like a good one.
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/706vandersteen/



Quote from MF:
"I got involved in an online tiff with a Vandersteen Audio enthusiast/reviewer who basically dismissed the MAXX2, and Wilson designs in general, with what seemed a doctrinaire diatribe that I found alternately amusing and disturbing. You can bet the folks at Wilson Audio were not amused.

Now that I've had a chance to spend some serious time with the Quatro, I can agree with the Vandersteen protagonist that, overall, the Quatro at $6995/pair does image and soundstage better than the MAXX2 at $44,900/pair, and better than just about any other speaker I've heard at any price."

I have done the musical speakers thing.....for many years.....
I've had 10,000.00 "used" electrostats in my listening room,
the likes of KEF, Von Schweikert, Dunlavy and Spica.......

I bought a used pair of traded in 2CE's about 6 years ago
and then traded up to a pair of 2CE Signatures about 3 years
ago.....mostly because my wife wanted beige cloth to go
with our walls.....

My journey ended there.....I plan to keep these for 20 plus years
and maybe longer.....

The thing people might want to consider in re: to Vandersteen
not being very well known.....

The Vandersteen 2 and it's successors represent the best selling
high end loudspeaker in history. The 2, 2C, 2Ci, 2Ce, and the 2Ce Signature
have sold well over 120,000 pair to date, and is still basically the
same design! That may not sound
so amazing by some folk's standards, but with less than a dealer
per state, and more than they've ever had, that's quite a number
of speakers sold to music lovers......who don't have mush between
their ears.......

I could have saved myself 25K over the years at least if I had known that
I would "end up" with a pair of 1500.00 loudspeakers.....

With the tube amp warmed up and the lights off, you can melt in these......

HOWEVER:

They are not in my opinion the "best" ever made!

That vote goes to the QUAD ESL57. That electrostatic still has the best
midrange EVER from a loudspeaker in it's very small sweet spot....
and that loudspeaker was introduced during the Eisenhour administration.....
it's not a full range loudspeaker, but in that mid band, it is still the reference
for a LOT of audiophiles.......

If I ever get a chance to find a restored pair, I will have "two" favorite loudspeakers in my house......and then my journey to nirvana will be
truly complete...

Nuance? Where do you live?

I live in Wauwatosa, WI.

You close to that area?

Yes I do. funny thing, I am in Tosa right now on 124th and Capitol for a job today (fixing a network at a store). Have you heard the Vandersteens at Ultra HiFidelis? If so, what did you think?

Yes I do. funny thing, I am in Tosa right now on 124th and Capitol for a job today (fixing a network at a store). Have you heard the Vandersteens at Ultra HiFidelis? If so, what did you think?


I think his setup is good, but not great.

I like his Vandy 4a's

I think he has the bass to loud on the 5a's

Great for movies, not for music.

- I have a few other audiophile friends that love them. But they and I still prefer my setup.

I have a very good Vandersteen setup.

But I have taken the extra time to make sure everything is measured, angled, positioned perfectly within my room.

I think his setup is good, but not great.

I like his Vandy 4a's

I think he has the bass to loud on the 5a's

Great for movies, not for music.

- I have a few other audiophile friends that love them. But they and I still prefer my setup.

I have a very good Vandersteen setup.

But I have taken the extra time to make sure everything is measured, angled, positioned perfectly within my room.

4a's? They don't have a model 4A that I am aware of. Do you mean the quatros?

The setup over there is definitely not ideal, though I don't think I have ever been to a B&M that has an ideal setup. Which Vandersteen's do you own?

I agree, setup and dialing everything is key. But once its finished there is nothing like it!

A good friend of mine (who I'm beginning to hate due to his constant habit of falling into insane deals because of his his right place/right time tendencies) found a mint pair of Vandy Model 1's at the local Goodwill store for $140/pair.
Was up at his place & we hooked them up. Had never heard Vandersteen's before,
but I got glued between them for like 3 hours, playing disc after disc & really enjoying what I was hearing! Very musical, lovely "pace", you felt the music, & amazing soundstaging in his room.
I told him he better damn not stick these on Ebay someday. They will belong to me!! :D

A good friend of mine (who I'm beginning to hate due to his constant habit of falling into insane deals because of his his right place/right time tendencies) found a mint pair of Vandy Model 1's at the local Goodwill store for $140/pair.
Was up at his place & we hooked them up. Had never heard Vandersteen's before,
but I got glued between them for like 3 hours, playing disc after disc & really enjoying what I was hearing! Very musical, lovely "pace", you felt the music, & amazing soundstaging in his room.
I told him he better damn not stick these on Ebay someday. They will belong to me!! :D

wow! That is one crazy deal he got there! You are right, I am beginning to hate him already too! :p

4a's? They don't have a model 4A that I am aware of. Do you mean the quatros?

The setup over there is definitely not ideal, though I don't think I have ever been to a B&M that has an ideal setup. Which Vandersteen's do you own?

I agree, setup and dialing everything is key. But once its finished there is nothing like it!

Opps, sorry, I've been following Vandersteens to long.

There use to be Vandersteen Model 4's

I knew they were the Quatros, but my mind just jumped to say the 4a's

LOL

-SOWK

I have the Vandersteen 2ce Sigs

What do you have?

I might want to schedual a meet someday.

Nuance or anyone that cares to comment.

Back in post 73 after a number of USA posts noting limited dealer numbers, I commented that I had not heard Vandy’s and being in Oz, it might be difficult. Well amazingly enough, I have just discovered that I have been driving past a dealer on my way to and from work each day, for years. He has models 1, 2 and 3 (plus other brands such as Quad and Naim) set up so anticipating a good listen ASAP. Have no clue yet as to what he is like as a dealer and we may or may not hit it off :) like I have with my current one.

Anyway, based on the fact that budget may interfere with a dream solution, what would existing owners say about the relative sound characteristics and perhaps value for money of the 3 models mentioned. It would be for moderately loud but non cranking stereo only duty in a medium sized room. What differences should I listen for between models or should I just concentrate on listening to one only such as the 2ce signature and use that to judge the overall Vandersteen sound? Having said that, I doubt if I could stretch to the 3s as I have sources, amp, cable etc to get as well as a separate existing HT system to support :) but would like to know the differences anyway. Thoughts?

Nuance or anyone that cares to comment.

Back in post 73 after a number of USA posts noting limited dealer numbers, I commented that I had not heard Vandy’s and being in Oz, it might be difficult. Well amazingly enough, I have just discovered that I have been driving past a dealer on my way to and from work each day, for years. He has models 1, 2 and 3 (plus other brands such as Quad and Naim) set up so anticipating a good listen ASAP. Have no clue yet as to what he is like as a dealer and we may or may not hit it off :) like I have with my current one.

Anyway, based on the fact that budget may interfere with a dream solution, what would existing owners say about the relative sound characteristics and perhaps value for money of the 3 models mentioned. It would be for moderately loud but non cranking stereo only duty in a medium sized room. What differences should I listen for between models or should I just concentrate on listening to one only such as the 2ce signature and use that to judge the overall Vandersteen sound? Having said that, I doubt if I could stretch to the 3s as I have sources, amp, cable etc to get as well as a separate existing HT system to support :) but would like to know the differences anyway. Thoughts?

lpm,

If you get 2CE Signatures or 3A Signatures, you'll never have to worry about upgrading them. They'll also have the benefit of highest resale value in case you switch from Vandersteen. If you choose not to commit to your local dealer, then online A/V for sale forums will definitely have those speakers for sale, nearly all the time.

Build your system to fall within your budget. If you don't, you'll constantly be upgrading and your setup will be in a state of flux. Spend your time and money instead of proper loudspeaker placement and related tweaks, and music/listening.

- Steve O.

My first post here and noticed this thread..Let you know when I lived in the Central Valley (Visalia) I was fortunate enough to be at a store called California Audio. Richard Vandersteen came into the store one day with a mockup of his speakers. It was of course looked very rough without any finish and a lot a glue and nails showing. The store owner was very skeptical of course because of the fact that he only had highend products in the store and was a Linn dealer..so he had a reputation to uphold to his customers. But since he knew Richard he let him bring in the product. Needless to say it sounded amazing..especially as he continuely tweaked the speakers to it's final prototype. I was fortunate enough to own a pair of Vandy 1b's and later 2c's when they first came out and to this day..I haven't hear a better set of speakers for it dynamics and overall warmth. Granted at the time CD's were just starting out and LP's were still popular. But music from my Linn Sondek LP-12 really brought out the music the way it should be recorded and it was night and day vs a CD which sounded cold and compressed. After Cal Audio moved on the only other place that had Vandy's was Musical Images in Fresno. And even though Vandersteen was really small compared to the giants I would always recommend Vandys to be used as a reference speaker when purchasing your home theater system. Not bad from a guy from Hanford.

Opps, sorry, I've been following Vandersteens to long.

There use to be Vandersteen Model 4's

I knew they were the Quatros, but my mind just jumped to say the 4a's

LOL

-SOWK

I have the Vandersteen 2ce Sigs

What do you have?

I might want to schedual a meet someday.

I currently have the 2CE sigs as well. I got a sweet deal on them. I love them to death but my wife thinks they are ugly as sin. She wants me to sell the Vandersteen center and rears and just use the 2CE sigs for 2-channel. She suggests using the cash from the sale(s) to purchase "prettier" looking home theater speakers. Women... :p

Sure, we can get together sometime.

Nuance or anyone that cares to comment.

Back in post 73 after a number of USA posts noting limited dealer numbers, I commented that I had not heard Vandy’s and being in Oz, it might be difficult. Well amazingly enough, I have just discovered that I have been driving past a dealer on my way to and from work each day, for years. He has models 1, 2 and 3 (plus other brands such as Quad and Naim) set up so anticipating a good listen ASAP. Have no clue yet as to what he is like as a dealer and we may or may not hit it off :) like I have with my current one.

Anyway, based on the fact that budget may interfere with a dream solution, what would existing owners say about the relative sound characteristics and perhaps value for money of the 3 models mentioned. It would be for moderately loud but non cranking stereo only duty in a medium sized room. What differences should I listen for between models or should I just concentrate on listening to one only such as the 2ce signature and use that to judge the overall Vandersteen sound? Having said that, I doubt if I could stretch to the 3s as I have sources, amp, cable etc to get as well as a separate existing HT system to support :) but would like to know the differences anyway. Thoughts?

Like already mentioned, stay within your budget if you must. The 3A’s are quite a bit more than the 2CE sigs. With the 3A’s you will get better bass response and a nicer tweeter (I believe it has the model five tweeter). You also get a slightly fatter FR.

I was reading Richard Hardesty’s journals and he thinks that the 3A sig sounds like the model 5 when paired with dual Vandersteen subs. I haven’t gone back and listened to the 12A’s or 3A’s since then so I can’t back this up, but they do sound sweet. I don’t know if it matters to you, but I plan to trade my 2CE sigs in for the 3A’s before December (hopefully) and eventually trade those in for the Quattos (if I can afford it). I think you certainly do gain quality when you upgrade, but you will have to determine whether the performance increase warrants the price increase.

Carylee, cool story man. That’s sweet that you had such a good experience. Richard Vandersteen is a cool dude (from what it seems anyway).

Nuance stated exactly what I heard when auditioning the Vandersteens. I don't think it is a matter of dynamics, I think it is a matter of perceived sound. When the phase and timing of the sound are correct, we don't perceive the sound as loud, but, clean. There was a distinct difference between soft and loud passages as I heard them. If you will attend a live concert with few amplified instruments, you will notice the same effect.
However, if your style of music falls in the amplified, distorted, fusion of jazz and funk (called junk!), you will probably be directed toward the more- in your face- speakers. Dennis


I agree perceived loudness and actual loudness are 2 different things but Vandys are low 80s efficiency speakers and have slightly below average power handling. That just isn't loud enough for some types of music. The Vandersteen 2c was one of the very first audiophile speakers I listened to when I was searching for speakers My impression was it did everything well but nothing great. More importantly it never did anything badly, you never heard anything that was far enough "off" that made you realize you were listening to speakers and not a band. (I believe I have read some reviews since then that came to almost the same conclusion) In the end I went with VMPS which are even harder to find than Vandys and so far I've been happy with my decision.

I agree perceived loudness and actual loudness are 2 different things but Vandys are low 80s efficiency speakers and have slightly below average power handling. That just isn't loud enough for some types of music. The Vandersteen 2c was one of the very first audiophile speakers I listened to when I was searching for speakers My impression was it did everything well but nothing great. More importantly it never did anything badly, you never heard anything that was far enough "off" that made you realize you were listening to speakers and not a band. (I believe I have read some reviews since then that came to almost the same conclusion) In the end I went with VMPS which are even harder to find than Vandys and so far I've been happy with my decision.

The Vandersteens are rated in the mid to high 80's. The use first order cross overs so that's all you will get with 'em. Who listens above 85 dB anyway (unless you want to blow your ears out sooner than later)?

You are right, the Vandersteen's don't do anything badly. That is why they are accurate. You are also right when you say they make you think you are listening to the band rather than speakers. But when you say they don't do anything great, what do you mean? If a speaker does nothing bad but nothing great...? It just doesn't make sense. However, an accurate speaker ISN'T suppose to do anything great, else it would be inaccurate. If it has fantastic treble but a muffled midrange, it is inaccurate and vice versa. Speakers aren't suppose to jump out at you and do one or two things great; they are suppose to disappear in the room just like you hinted that they do. An accurate speaker is usually described by someone who isn't used to accuracy as "They didn't jump out at me," or "They are dull because they don't do anything bad or well."

It's too bad that most people have gotten used to inaccurate and now prefer that instead of accuracy (not that I am implying you are one of those people Grond). No one has a reference to compare to anymore (like live performances by artists that don't use distortion in their music; a Symphony for example).

Hi,

Accuracy == phase/time correct. The first order crossovers, stiff/acoustically damped cabinet design, and nearly baffle-less mounting of tweeter & midrange drivers help make that happen.

I think with Vandersteens, sound and music can be surprising and "jump out at you". Well recorded sound effects and music can give you that "you are there" ambience.

- Steve O.

Nuance -

Tell me about your entire setup!

Source Material, Amps, Pre-amps, Center channel, and Surrounds. and/Or post a pic if you have one.

-Sowk

Scorch and Nuance,

Thanks. Hear what you say about getting the best I can afford and if that makes even better sense if they minimise the ‘upgraditis’ itch. I may even be able to grab a first listen this Saturday. To say I am intrigued in anticipation would be understating it.

Hello Everybody
I'm looking to buy Vanderdteen 3A, But before I buy I need some advice.

1. Did anybody compared A/B - model 2Ce Sign with 3A Sign ?
2. Did anybody compared A/B - model 2Ce Sign or 3A Sign with Anthony Gallo Reference 3.1

I auditioned 3A's and Gallo 3's, but in different dealerships (45 miles apart)
I liked both speakers, and I think the Gallo's have fantastic three dimensional sound, and there was a surprising speaker disappearing...
As far as 3A's everything sound just great.

Need more time...

any advice?

9 yrs ago when I went to audition Vandersteens I compared the 2 ce and 3A, with expectation to buy whichever I liked better. Same room, same orchestral material. I went with the 2ce because it sounded to me, more suited to what I liked to hear- a lighter approach. More transparent to my ears- This month I upgraded my system and decided to go audition the 2ce SIG and 3 A sig, again being open to the 3's and willing to indulge. Same dealer, same room, same orch material - I went with the 2CE Signatures, for the same reason- so keep an open mind and listen to both. And use the best source equipment you can afford- it really makes a big difference-

Nuance -

Tell me about your entire setup!

Source Material, Amps, Pre-amps, Center channel, and Surrounds. and/Or post a pic if you have one.

-Sowk

I'll have to take some pictures for you. I am gone in Sandusky, OH this weekend but after that I will get some posted.

-I have a Ayre pre amp with the matching power amp.
-I have the Vandersteen 2CE sigs, the VCC5 Center (I got it used…sweet) and the vsm-1’s for the rears. I also have two 2wq subs.
-For the source player I have a crappy pioneer DVD player for now. I had a Rotel but I sold it because I just wasn’t thinking.
-I use blue jeans cable all the way around.

Scorch and Nuance,

Thanks. Hear what you say about getting the best I can afford and if that makes even better sense if they minimise the ‘upgraditis’ itch. I may even be able to grab a first listen this Saturday. To say I am intrigued in anticipation would be understating it.

I hope you have an enjoyable experience. Be sure that you sit directly in the sweet spot and make sure the salesmen has them properly set up. A poorly set up pair of speakers will sound like arse no matter what brand they are or how good the electronics paired with them are.

Hello Everybody
I'm looking to buy Vanderdteen 3A, But before I buy I need some advice.

1. Did anybody compared A/B - model 2Ce Sign with 3A Sign ?
2. Did anybody compared A/B - model 2Ce Sign or 3A Sign with Anthony Gallo Reference 3.1

I auditioned 3A's and Gallo 3's, but in different dealerships (45 miles apart)
I liked both speakers, and I think the Gallo's have fantastic three dimensional sound, and there was a surprising speaker disappearing...
As far as 3A's everything sound just great.

Need more time...

any advice?

I have compared the 3A sig with the 2CE sig. The 3A has better treble extension and more bass, but it’s tighter and sweet. I believe the 3A has the model 12’s tweeter, so that explains the treble difference.

I have not compared the Vandersteen’s with the Gallo Ref 3.1’s.

If you are on a budget, the 2CE sigs will perform wonderfully so you need not worry.

9 yrs ago when I went to audition Vandersteens I compared the 2 ce and 3A, with expectation to buy whichever I liked better. Same room, same orchestral material. I went with the 2ce because it sounded to me, more suited to what I liked to hear- a lighter approach. More transparent to my ears- This month I upgraded my system and decided to go audition the 2ce SIG and 3 A sig, again being open to the 3's and willing to indulge. Same dealer, same room, same orch material - I went with the 2CE Signatures, for the same reason- so keep an open mind and listen to both. And use the best source equipment you can afford- it really makes a big difference-

2's are more suited for smaller rooms. Because of the 3's woofers, they need to have more space to deal with room modes. Perhaps you had a more enjoyable low-end bass response from the 2CEs for that very reason.

It took me a long time to understand how sensitive my 3A Signatures are to positioning, and toe-in. You can read comments here and on audiogon from other Vandersteen owners, and you'll find a common theme.

If anyone is serious about multi-channel or even a "Trifield" style playback, then make sure your center channel is up to muster. 2CE Sigs + VCC-5... very nice. 3A Sigs + VCC-1... not the same experience, in my opinion. My system is currently phantom center :)

- Steve O.

I went and auditioned the 2Ce's today and I must say that I'm impress. The imaging and the soundstage were incredible. I wanted to hear them play a little louder perhaps but they were not pushed hard enough.
My question is if these speakers commonly sell for MSRP or can they be had for less? They even had a used pair but I have no idea how much these are going for on the used market.
Another thing is the electronics. They were using McCormack but for me thats out of my budget. Any recommendations? I was looking at a NAD C372 integrated amp.

I went and auditioned the 2Ce's today and I must say that I'm impress. The imaging and the soundstage were incredible. I wanted to hear them play a little louder perhaps but they were not pushed hard enough.
My question is if these speakers commonly sell for MSRP or can they be had for less? They even had a used pair but I have no idea how much these are going for on the used market.
Another thing is the electronics. They were using McCormack but for me thats out of my budget. Any recommendations? I was looking at a NAD C372 integrated amp.

Samaritano,

If you want to save money, buy used. 2CE Signatures pop up often on audiogon & ebay (highest I'd go would be $1k) I would try to find a seller locally or within driving distance and not leave it to a shipping service - the speakers are heavy, and a severe drop will damage the drivers. If you find speakers that must be shipped, insist upon the original packing boxes; they can be re-ordered from Vandersteen.

I have heard Vandersteens paired only with solid state amps and preamps in my setup (my profile lists my gear). Hopefully you can get more opinions on building system synergy.

If you decide to augment your mains with the 2W/2WQ subwoofer(s), make sure you can insert the inline capacitor crossover (X2/WX2) between the preamp out and amp input. You will need to know the input impedance of your amp to get the proper cap value.

Glad to hear your first impression was enjoyable. Good luck in your search :)

- Steve O.

Steve

Eventually I will like to add the 2Wq subwoofer. If I go with NAD their websites states that the input impedance is 20k ohms. Will this work with the 2Wq? I noticed that you are using Crown amps and I was considering this aswell but I will have to look for a preamp that can match this.

The salesman told me that he has a pair of 2Ce and 2Ce signatures for 790 and 1199 respectively. How different do the 2Ce's sound from the signatures, I don't know. But I sure like the price difference.

Finally got to listen to the Vandy’s on Saturday morning for the first time ever. Listened mainly to the 2ce sigs but also for a shorter time, the 1c’s. I also listened to some quality conventional speakers (Audio Vector 3m supers) as a general comparison.

It was a fascinating experience but a slow start as my first impression playing an initial track from known material was of a bit of a let down. The 2ce sigs seemed somehow a little more laid back and lacklustre than I was expecting. By about track 3 or 4 I was much happier and realising that the Vandy’s were presenting the sound differently to anything I had heard before and now I was becoming familiar with it, I liked them more and more with each track. After an hour or more, I was wrapt. System warm up? Probably not, he had them on warming up well before I got there. My ears warming up, probably – or else my previous learned expectations of what speakers should sound like needed updating.

Listened to the 1c’s next. What can I say other than for inexpensive speakers (though Oz has a big disadvantage here due import costs), they were a truly great listen. Did not suffer very much at all in comparison with the 2’s except in sheer base extension so what a great sound for the price. Based on the law of diminishing returns, all bar the most fastidious could live happily with these. Certainly shared the majority of the family sound with the 2’s. Overall, I preferred the 2’s at this stage but not a huge lot in it.

Then came the final comparison to give me a perspective on the Vandy’s in the same listening room and with the same equipment. Normally the Audiovector 3Mi supers that I listened to would slot in to a price between the 2’s and 3’s but for the moment are well discounted and competing for my budget. Magnificent furniture pieces, lovely to look at and beautifully made and quality drivers etc. and well reported sound wise. Make the Vandy’s look very humble indeed.

Listening to the AV’s brought me back to conventional speaker reality. They sound very, very good and much like my current floorstanders overall (though better) and whilst not overly forward, much more in your face than the 2’s. They had good localisation but a smaller not quite as open and airy soundstage. Here I find it very difficult to express in words the true nature of the differences I was hearing but the Vandy’s just seemed a bit more believable somehow. I think if I’d listened to the AV's first, I would have thought wow! But in the end, though very detailed and punchy, they were just a touch more aggressive than the 2ce sigs and not quite as clear and open and I had the personal impression that I could well find them a little less relaxing in comparison over long listening sessions.

So after 2 hours or so of listening, where do I stand? Very impressed certainly and more listening is in order with my wife next time but in retrospect I was amazed at how much my impressions changed over the session and I am unusually excited about going back and listening to them again in the next few weeks. I feel that I’m still on a learning curve as to what truly sounds good and I probably had some baggage. There is that special something in what I heard that I would like to listen to again and see if I can better understand. I don’t know if it’s to do with the time/phase coherence and minimal baffles etc but they are darned fine speakers by any standards. The only negative is cost over here that carries a premium beyond exchange conversion rates. However, that’s a discussion I need to have with the dealer.

Steve

Eventually I will like to add the 2Wq subwoofer. If I go with NAD their websites states that the input impedance is 20k ohms. Will this work with the 2Wq? I noticed that you are using Crown amps and I was considering this aswell but I will have to look for a preamp that can match this.

The salesman told me that he has a pair of 2Ce and 2Ce signatures for 790 and 1199 respectively. How different do the 2Ce's sound from the signatures, I don't know. But I sure like the price difference.

Samaritano,

Vandersteen makes the WX-2 variable crossover, or the X-2 inline RCA crossover units which are matched for the amp's input impedance. It doesn't force you to use 20kOhm amps...

Pro amps can handle your NAD preamp. You'll have decide if you like the pro amp... they have plusses/minuses of their own.

Regarding the 2CE vs 2CE Signature - the updates are detailed on Vandersteen's website. Strongly recommended that you have the salesperson arrange an A/B demo of the speakers, if you intend to buy from him. I think it would be unfair to first demo at the store (if you give the salesperson the impression you will buy from him), but then turn around and buy a pair used. If you're up-front about your audition intentions (demo, then buy used from somewhere else), and he's willing to demo them anyways, go for it!

- Steve O.

The only negative is cost over here that carries a premium beyond exchange conversion rates. However, that’s a discussion I need to have with the dealer.

lpm,

If you're willing to wait, see if your local dealer would be willing to sell you a customer trade-in.

- Steve O.

Scorch123,

I hear you, waiting for a bit is acceptable. Would you believe they had a pair of used 2ce sigs listed but sold. Good thing though is that they happily accept Vandy trade ins as apparently people do trade up over time.

The problem with the cost is simply that I know the stateside price and the $1680US SRP for the 2ce sigs would equate to about $2300A. Asking is close to $3800A (or about $2600US) and that jacks up second hand prices as well. I don’t mind a reasonable premium for the international transport costs etc. and I have always felt that someone that puts up the costs of running a dealership so I can sit down for 2 hours and compare speakers should be fairly rewarded, but that’s a little rich.

Valuing the great sound alone defeats my argument as any item can be worth what you are prepared to pay for it. In all fairness though, I have not yet asked for a best price. :) Problem is that at the end of the day, my budget is limited and I have to consider value for money and that equation is different here. It would be a pity if I have to compromise with something else but let’s not be that negative yet. Problem is that the dealer has now seen me walk out with a big grin on my face so I’ll have to work on that one (hope he’s not reading this).

lpm,

So what if the salesperson knows you like the speakers, or even if the salesperson is a member on avsforum reading this thread? You're in control of your wallet. If not, well, the A/V hobby will make you broke.

You can post a "wanted to buy" ad on popular forums and see if any sellers are willing to help you out. If there is that much markup on a used pair of 2CE Signatures, you'll get a better deal intercepting the seller before he/she brings the pair back to the dealer. Find out if your dealer sends the speakers back to Vandersteen for a checkup when they take trade-ins.

If I were buying used Vandersteens, I would insist on all original packaging - those shipping boxes are useful. Also, make sure included accessories like Sound Anchor stands are included (depending on speaker model). If the speakers are local, also make sure you either can get an audition, or agree upon a money back arrangement.

I've got plenty more to tell you about how used gear deals can go wrong...

- Steve O.

scorch,

Thanks for your offer. First thing I need to do though is gain consensus by having my wife listen hopefully next weekend. When she gets on side, it’s all downhill and we get serious and wallet control is part of this. Actually the dealer thing was a bit tongue in cheek. I sort of hope he is looking cause by now he would realise SRP won’t cut it.

Is anyone useing 2ce's or 3a's with non-Vandersteen subs? I have an SVS PC Ultra, and was wondering what would be the best way to cross over....using Vandersteen passive filters or using the bass management in my receiver.

Thanks
Dave

Is anyone useing 2ce's or 3a's with non-Vandersteen subs? I have an SVS PC Ultra, and was wondering what would be the best way to cross over....using Vandersteen passive filters or using the bass management in my receiver.

Thanks
DaveI'd go bass management from your receiver for the best blend. Passive filters will only give you 6db per octave rolloff which will allow too much of the SVS to bleed into the Vandersteens. I'd probably start off with 60 is the crossover point and experiment up and down from there.

Thanks. The 3A Sig's are "wow" with my PC-Ultra.
I think the 3A Sigs are a speaker I can keep for a long time.

P.S. My dealer didn't have the 3A manual when I bought his demo pair. Can any 3A owners out there send me a pdf version?

David, they don't have the manual at vandersteen.com?

Actually no. It is not published online. I called them and they said to mail in the request and they would charge me $5 US. Just thought if anyone had an electronic version, they could email it to me.

WOW, that sucks about the charge. That is very unlike their customer service. Perhaps you could e-mail Richard himself? He usually takes care of his customers very well.

WOW, that sucks about the charge. That is very unlike their customer service. Perhaps you could e-mail Richard himself? He usually takes care of his customers very well.

Actually I talked to Richard about this awhile ago. He stated eventually he will do this on the website, but not yet. So he does need the $5 for shipping of the manual.

If I dident own Apogee's, Vandies would be on my list. Very good speakers.

Actually I talked to Richard about this awhile ago. He stated eventually he will do this on the website, but not yet. So he does need the $5 for shipping of the manual.

It's not like I lost the manual, I never got one so I think it would be very for easy Vandersteen to scan a couple pages and email it to me. Not alot to ask IMO. They actually have a 3A brochure on the website in pdf that can be downloaded.

If you never got one then definitely get ahold of Richard. He should hook you up.

I've been considering buying the Vandersteen home theater package. Can any of you recommend a receivers that would match well with the 1C, VCC-1 and VSM surrounds?
I have been using a pair or Vandersteen 2C's (purchased 1983), a VCC-1 (from Ebay) with my Harman Kardon AVR-635. It sounds great. I am using Harman Kardon HKTS-14 surround speakers and sub for the moment. For music I like my old Audionics CC-3 amp (and Audionics preamp), but the HK is great for a receiver.

I have been using a pair or Vandersteen 2C's (purchased 1983), a VCC-1 (from Ebay) with my Harman Kardon AVR-635. It sounds great. I am using Harman Kardon HKTS-14 surround speakers and sub for the moment. For music I like my old Audionics CC-3 amp (and Audionics preamp), but the HK is great for a receiver.

Thanks for the reply, I have a very small room (and budget) and will start with the 1C and VCC-1. I'm coming from Paradigm Titans in a 5.1 setup. I love music more than movies, so I want a good music first system that is accurate. I may eventually upgrade to a 5.1 system but I have to build over time. The room is tiny, only 11'x 9', so how far from the walls would the 1Cs need to be?

En Sabur Nur, just be sure your receiver/amp has plenty of power.

It would be ideal to have the speakers at least 2 feet from the side and back walls, but play with the positioning and leave things where it sounds best. Remember, Vandersteen's are very placement sensitive, but when done properly they sound phenomenal.

Thanks for the reply, I have a very small room (and budget) and will start with the 1C and VCC-1. I'm coming from Paradigm Titans in a 5.1 setup. I love music more than movies, so I want a good music first system that is accurate. I may eventually upgrade to a 5.1 system but I have to build over time. The room is tiny, only 11'x 9', so how far from the walls would the 1Cs need to be?

En Sabur Nur,

Is the seating for a small number of people? If so, I would not get a VCC-1 center channel and instead get 2-series mains. Phantom center that way should be fine, and your 2-channel listening will be improved over the 1-series.

- Steve O.

Thanks, Nuance and Scorch123. Yes the seating is for two (a love seat). Actally the listening area is 11' x 9'. The room itself is L-shaped. I'll try going with the phantom center since the 1Cs will be flanking a 72 inch screen. I can't wait to here these speakers!

Nuance, or anyone, for that matter, what home theater receivers do you recommend with the 1C? I eventually want to get the whole Vandersteen home theater setup and I've heard these speakers really "tell the truth" about the equipment (and recording) in the playback chain.

Nuance, or anyone, for that matter, what home theater receivers do you recommend with the 1C? I eventually want to get the whole Vandersteen home theater setup and I've heard these speakers really "tell the truth" about the equipment (and recording) in the playback chain.

Do you need to go with a receiver? The Vandersteen line of speakers will reveal flaws in your other components and from poorly record CD's as you have mentioned, but only if you put the proper power into them. If you absolutely need a receiver, what is your budget? If you can swing $1000-$2000 I recommend getting separates instead of a receiver. A third option would be to get a receiver like the Pioneer 1015TX (lots of features and sells for $500 or less) and then purchase a separate amp for the 1C's. Finally, once you decide if you want a receiver or separates, check out audiogon.com for used components. You can find some sweet deals on that site!

Do you need to go with a receiver? The Vandersteen line of speakers will reveal flaws in your other components and from poorly record CD's as you have mentioned, but only if you put the proper power into them.

Now, c'mon Nuance, don't make me bust that myth. The 1Cs are very easy to drive with a 90dB efficiency and reasonable impedance. MUCH easier to drive than an NHT, for instance, literally less than half the power required. What people hear when they believe the speaker is "revealing" flaws in the other components or CDs is actually cone resonances and motor distortion. This is especially the case with 1st order designs as they are very much prone to both, far more than a 2nd-4th order speaker. A good receiver will drive the Vandies just fine. They even say so on the website:



Increased efficiency and improved dynamic range.

A stable impedance, assuring complete compatibility with any amplifier or receiver.

So, you can be assured that, if the sound is strained, it's the speaker causing it, it is nor revealing any "flaws" per se. Just revealing its own limitations.

As I say, "speakers don't reveal the flaws in the electronics, the electronics reveal the flaws in the speaker" (or more accurately, "the speaker reveals the flaws in itself")

Do you need to go with a receiver? The Vandersteen line of speakers will reveal flaws in your other components and from poorly record CD's as you have mentioned, but only if you put the proper power into them. If you absolutely need a receiver, what is your budget? If you can swing $1000-$2000 I recommend getting separates instead of a receiver. A third option would be to get a receiver like the Pioneer 1015TX (lots of features and sells for $500 or less) and then purchase a separate amp for the 1C's. Finally, once you decide if you want a receiver or separates, check out audiogon.com for used components. You can find some sweet deals on that site!

Wow, I just purchased that receiver. I'm going to have to find out about the amps available today, to see what I can afford.

Thanks for the advice.

I would wait until you have a bigger room! As I understand it, you lose 6dB of volume per meter (less some stabilizing room gain). So, if you're 9' away from the speakers instead of 12', you would need less than half as much power, as little as 1/4 for the same apparent volume. Save your money and wait til you actually need the power. Your room is just too damned small to need a separate amp for a 90dB efficient speaker that simply can't take all that much power without obvious distortion! Man, I feel like I'm talking to myself sometimes.

Now, c'mon Nuance, don't make me bust that myth. The 1Cs are very easy to drive with a 90dB efficiency and reasonable impedance. MUCH easier to drive than an NHT, for instance, literally less than half the power required. What people hear when they believe the speaker is "revealing" flaws in the other components or CDs is actually cone resonances and motor distortion. This is especially the case with 1st order designs as they are very much prone to both, far more than a 2nd-4th order speaker. A good receiver will drive the Vandies just fine. They even say so on the website:



So, you can be assured that, if the sound is strained, it's the speaker causing it, it is nor revealing any "flaws" per se. Just revealing its own limitations.

As I say, "speakers don't reveal the flaws in the electronics, the electronics reveal the flaws in the speaker" (or more accurately, "the speaker reveals the flaws in itself")

I take you don't like the Vandersteen sound?

Actually, I generally like the Vandersteen sound, but they do have audible flaws as all speakers do. I'd generally say they're understated with a good midrange but lack dynamics and imaging compared to my favorite speakers. IOW, very competent, but not exceptional at anything in particular or particularly "wow" as in the title of the thread. My own biases as I typically don't like the sound of 1st order speakers as much as higher order designs.

Basically, what I'm saying is that ANY time someone says that a speaker is particularly revealing, especially "ruthlessly revealing" or that they "tell the truth" about the gear, they really mean that the speaker has audible issues, generally in the lower treble/upper mids that make it seem as though the amp is straining or the electronics aren't that good, but it's the speakers 99% of the time. I apply that to any speaker, not just Vandies. There are far worse culprits, actually. The Vandies sound very good within the limits of their dynamic range which will generally be lower than high-order speakers.

For those who are interested and would like an audition, we have a 5 channel setup in a front projection dedicated theater with: 5A's Front R & L, VCC-5 Center, and 5's Left & Right Rear. It is capable of a 360 degree sound field including the side walls between the Front & Rear

tyree91,

I wish you were in the Phoenix metro area...

What is the name of your store? Have any pictures of this setup?

- Steve O.

tyree91,

I wish you were in the Phoenix metro area...

What is the name of your store? Have any pictures of this setup?

- Steve O.
Malibu Audio Vision. We speialiaze in high end HT & Audiophile systems. I'll try to post some photos tomorrow. System configuration for the asking.

Now, c'mon Nuance, don't make me bust that myth. The 1Cs are very easy to drive with a 90dB efficiency and reasonable impedance. MUCH easier to drive than an NHT, for instance, literally less than half the power required. What people hear when they believe the speaker is "revealing" flaws in the other components or CDs is actually cone resonances and motor distortion. This is especially the case with 1st order designs as they are very much prone to both, far more than a 2nd-4th order speaker. A good receiver will drive the Vandies just fine. They even say so on the website:
Can you prove any of this or is this just YOUR opinion? It sounds like you are just looking for a good debate! :p

The Vandersteen's don't have issues with cone resonance and/or motor distortion. It is common knowledge that an accurate speaker will reveal flaws found on an audio recording; this is what I am talking about. The Vandersteen's do this very well. If you put in crap, crap will come out, however this isn't the case with a poorly designed speaker. A poorly designed speaker will have an inaccurate FR and this can make a poor sounding recording sound better than it would on an accurate speaker. As many people say, the one flaw with a well made and accurate speaker is that it will reveal the flaws on your recordings. However, if you put a well recorded source disc through those speakers it will sound amazing. This is why "audiophiles" try to stick to purchasing well recorded discs.
So, you can be assured that, if the sound is strained, it's the speaker causing it, it is nor revealing any "flaws" per se. Just revealing its own limitations.
It depends. If you aren't feeding it enough power, the limitations are not within the speaker. If you feed it too much power or overdrive it past its rated sensitivity, sure it will buckle; this is common knowledge and all speaker do it.
As I say, "speakers don't reveal the flaws in the electronics, the electronics reveal the flaws in the speaker" (or more accurately, "the speaker reveals the flaws in itself")
Again, a speaker CAN and WILL reveal the flaws in the electronics if:
- They are being fed with inadequate power (thus revealing that your amps are not up to the task).
- The receiver or preamp is coloring the sound (thus revealing that the signal has been flawed).
- The amplifier is giving off audible distortion or and/or measures poorly (again revealing that the signal has been flawed).
- The source disc is poorly recorded (pretty self explanatory).

You need to fix all the weak components in your system. If you don't fix the source recordings or the electronics, the speakers will surely tell the tale because everything will sound like arse!

Also John, you don’t need to listen at ear bleeding levels to appreciate the music. 90dB is surely a high enough sensitivity. Sure, 4th order crossovers can get louder, but they don’t sound as good IMHO. So when you say dynamics I will assume you mean how loud they go. Because when we are talking about the dynamics of instrument placement and how loud and soft they are with pinpoint accuracy in the soundstage, the Vandersteen’s are phenomenal. And lets not forget about the impedance ratings. They may be rated above 4ohms, but they frequently dabble into the 4ohm territory. An amp with reserve power will surely be the smart way to go in this case.

They lack imaging, especially when compared to your favorite speaker eh? Hmm…have you ever listened to a pair that was PROPERLY set up? I am guessing no. In fact, you are one of the only people I have heard say that they don’t image well. :p Also, let’s not forget that your “favorite speakers (or at least the ones you push the most)” sell for $5000/pair. The current speakesr we were speaking about were the 1C’s which cost less than $1000. Let me post a quote from an audio publication ("professional review") for you:

"The very first thing you'll notice about the Vandersteens' sound is that it's remarkably open, and, dare I say, it approaches the purity of some high-end electrostatic speakers. The Vandersteens' soundstage depth is positively addictive; the spacious image isn't just wide and deep, it's also taller than average, which adds to the sound's believability."

Either way, John’s opinion goes to show you two things.
1) Everyone prefers a different sound.
2) A perfect speaker does not exist. All speaker will have to compromise something somewhere (In the Vandersteen’s case it’s generally a low sensitivity and impedance paired with a slightly difficult setup process).

Malibu Audio Vision. We speialiaze in high end HT & Audiophile systems. I'll try to post some photos tomorrow. System configuration for the asking.

That would be sweet. Thanks.

Can you prove any of this or is this just YOUR opinion? It sounds like you are just looking for a good debate! :p

You're the master! :D

The Vandersteen's don't have issues with cone resonance and/or motor distortion.

Really? So, Vandersteen, using common drivers have avoided problems that no other company has been able to escape? Back to reality Nuance, ALL cones resonate. ALL cones have motor distortion. But 1st order speakers, all things being equal, have *far* more problems with this than higher order speakers. They require softer, more forgiving cones with good damping, but still have issues which dramatically increase at higher and higher volumes because softer cones resonate *in* the used bandwidth, not outside it as a rigid cone might.

It is common knowledge that an accurate speaker will reveal flaws found on an audio recording; this is what I am talking about. The Vandersteen's do this very well. If you put in crap, crap will come out, however this isn't the case with a poorly designed speaker.

I'm not disputing this, many recordings suck. BUT, a really good speaker has 500-1000 times as much distortion as a well designed electronic component. Said electronic component may influence the sound, but unless it *really* sucks, it won't make or break the sound. The speaker won't "reveal" the limitations of the electronics. Most "revealing" speakers are, in fact, speakers with a lot of cone resonance and motor distortion.

It depends. If you aren't feeding it enough power, the limitations are not within the speaker. If you feed it too much power or overdrive it past its rated sensitivity, sure it will buckle; this is common knowledge and all speaker do it.

Well, how much does a Vandersteen 1C need? Let's *assume* that a mediocre receiver can put out a legitimate 10W continuous and 50W peak without audible distortion. 90dB is actually a fairly high continuous volume, especially if peaks are at 100dB! That means the 1Cs need 1W continuous and 10W peak power for 90dB w/100dB peaks. But, if you have a true 10W you can run at 100dB with about 105dB peaks. I hate to tell you this, but the 1C will begin to audibly distort by 105dB. And very much measurably, while the low grade amp is loafing along not noticing anything is amiss.

Again, a speaker CAN and WILL reveal the flaws in the electronics if:
- They are being fed with inadequate power (thus revealing that your amps are not up to the task).
- The receiver or preamp is coloring the sound (thus revealing that the signal has been flawed).
- The amplifier is giving off audible distortion or and/or measures poorly (again revealing that the signal has been flawed).
- The source disc is poorly recorded (pretty self explanatory).

Sure, but these actually are very unusual situations. If you *actually* have hard to drive speakers *or* you have a tube amp, *or* a really cheap IC based amp or low grade A/D convertors, etc.

You need to fix all the weak components in your system. If you don't fix the source recordings or the electronics, the speakers will surely tell the tale because everything will sound like arse!

Well, we can't do much about the recordings, but your speakers suck 1000 times as much as your CD player and amplifier. I could just as easily argue (and with science on my side) that if you don't fix your speakers and drop the distortion by at least 2 orders of magnitude, you couldn't possibly hear your electronics through the haze!!!

Also John, you don’t need to listen at ear bleeding levels to appreciate the music. 90dB is surely a high enough sensitivity. Sure, 4th order crossovers can get louder, but they don’t sound as good IMHO. So when you say dynamics I will assume you mean how loud they go.

I also mean actual audible dynamic range, low to high. I find many speakers don't have good resolution even at low volume levels. I disagree about high order. I find that they have lower distortion and better sound at every volume level. As much as I can hear some good things in well done first order designs, ultimately, I find them far too flawed because of the relatively high distortion and poor off axis behavior. Listen to my favorite speakers and you'll understand ;)

Because when we are talking about the dynamics of instrument placement and how loud and soft they are with pinpoint accuracy in the soundstage, the Vandersteen’s are phenomenal.

I'd say they're "okay". I have a different vantage point and have heard much better in these things. Old Spica TC 50s will kill them in soundstaging and imaging for instance.

And lets not forget about the impedance ratings. They may be rated above 4ohms, but they frequently dabble into the 4ohm territory. An amp with reserve power will surely be the smart way to go in this case.

Sure, but if you're only using 10-25W peaks, then most any amp will have plenty of reserve power. The 1C won't even challenge anything less powerful than a Sony receiver, really. Ask Mr Vandersteen if you don't believe me. You're disagreeing with him as much as me!

They lack imaging, especially when compared to your favorite speaker eh? Hmm…have you ever listened to a pair that was PROPERLY set up? I am guessing no. In fact, you are one of the only people I have heard say that they don’t image well. :p

You'd be wrong, I've heard them set up well and with very expensive gear. And I've heard pretty much all of them. And traded in pretty much all of them. If you hear said speakers in the *same* room with another speaker that images better, *then* you'll understand. Most people think they image well because they are time/phase coherent, but that has little do with imaging or soundstaging. If you imagine they image well, than they will, such is the human mind.

Also, let’s not forget that your “favorite speakers (or at least the ones you push the most)” sell for $5000/pair. The current speakesr we were speaking about were the 1C’s which cost less than $1000.

As I said, I can find an old pair of $550/pr speakers that image better. Or even a new pair of $400 speakers. It's not *hard* you know!

Let me post a quote from an audio publication ("professional review") for you:

Ah, c'mon Nuance, you know what disdain I have for "professional reviewers"!!! I couldn't care less what they say. I listen with my own ears. There are "professionals" that say they've been abducted by aliens too, ya know.

2) A perfect speaker does not exist. All speaker will have to compromise something somewhere (In the Vandersteen’s case it’s generally a low sensitivity and impedance paired with a slightly difficult setup process).

And poor off axis performance, high cone resonances, high motor distortion, lots of edge diffraction, non pistonic drivers and...... :D

Not to bust on Vandersteen, but hey, let's get back to reality. The "advantages" of 1st order design are not and never will be outweighed by the disadvantages except in your mind. It's been proven in many scientific studies that show we're just not sensitive to time/phase subjectively, but we are *very* sensitive to distortion, spectral decay, etc. A crossover master could drop a 4th order crossover design into any first order speaker and it will sound better, play louder, image better. They're selling the *belief*, not reality.

Your a big meany head Alimentall.

:P

But anyhow, I have shown my setup on this forum, and have never heard better, so thats all that matters.

And I am completely unbiased

-SOWK

BTW, Nuance, I actually *did* drop a DEQX high order crossover on a pair of Thiels, replacing the 1st order crossover and the performance gain was absolutely amazing. If Jim Thiel were to switch to 4th order design on his crossovers to 4th order, I think he'd keep much of his current flock and draw a whole new crowd. If Thiel did that, I'd definitely become a dealer! The things I don't like about Thiels are *directly* attributable to the 1st order crossovers.

Your a big meany head Alimentall.

:)

BTW, Nuance, I actually *did* drop a DEQX high order crossover on a pair of Thiels, replacing the 1st order crossover and the performance gain was absolutely amazing. If Jim Thiel were to switch to 4th order design on his crossovers to 4th order, I think he'd keep much of his current flock and draw a whole new crowd. If Thiel did that, I'd definitely become a dealer! The things I don't like about Thiels are *directly* attributable to the 1st order crossovers.

John,

Your experiment sounds interesting. How exactly did you replace the Thiel crossover network with a DEQX? How did you calculate the xover parameters? What kind of measurements did you do before/after? This could be a thread in of itself...

- Steve O.

You're the master! :D

That’s what I thought. :rolleyes:

Really? So, Vandersteen, using common drivers have avoided problems that no other company has been able to escape? Back to reality Nuance, ALL cones resonate. ALL cones have motor distortion. But 1st order speakers, all things being equal, have *far* more problems with this than higher order speakers. They require softer, more forgiving cones with good damping, but still have issues which dramatically increase at higher and higher volumes because softer cones resonate *in* the used bandwidth, not outside it as a rigid cone might.

I never said they don’t have motor distortion or resonance, I said they don’t have issues meaning there are no negative audible effects within the given sensitivity range ;) Perhaps it is because they advise using their filter.

I'm not disputing this, many recordings suck. BUT, a really good speaker has 500-1000 times as much distortion as a well designed electronic component. Said electronic component may influence the sound, but unless it *really* sucks, it won't make or break the sound. The speaker won't "reveal" the limitations of the electronics. Most "revealing" speakers are, in fact, speakers with a lot of cone resonance and motor distortion.

It may not make or break the sound for you, but it may for me or others. I have heard cone resonance and motor distortion; it doesn’t sound revealing.

Well, how much does a Vandersteen 1C need? Let's *assume* that a mediocre receiver can put out a legitimate 10W continuous and 50W peak without audible distortion. 90dB is actually a fairly high continuous volume, especially if peaks are at 100dB! That means the 1Cs need 1W continuous and 10W peak power for 90dB w/100dB peaks. But, if you have a true 10W you can run at 100dB with about 105dB peaks. I hate to tell you this, but the 1C will begin to audibly distort by 105dB. And very much measurably, while the low grade amp is loafing along not noticing anything is amiss.

Okay, well, you go ahead and run the speakers with a 10W tube amp. The rest of us with common sense will get something with reserve power. I have listened to the Vandersteen’s on a variety of different amps; they like being fed more power than you suggest (10W), and they, in fact, sound better just as many speaker do when fed the *correct* amount of power.

Sure, but these actually are very unusual situations. If you *actually* have hard to drive speakers *or* you have a tube amp, *or* a really cheap IC based amp or low grade A/D convertors, etc.

N they aren’t; they are very common. What planet are you from?

Well, we can't do much about the recordings, but your speakers suck 1000 times as much as your CD player and amplifier. I could just as easily argue (and with science on my side) that if you don't fix your speakers and drop the distortion by at least 2 orders of magnitude, you couldn't possibly hear your electronics through the haze!!!

Okay, so…what does that have to do with what I stated? The fact is that I am correct.

I also mean actual audible dynamic range, low to high. I find many speakers don't have good resolution even at low volume levels. I disagree about high order. I find that they have lower distortion and better sound at every volume level. As much as I can hear some good things in well done first order designs, ultimately, I find them far too flawed because of the relatively high distortion and poor off axis behavior. Listen to my favorite speakers and you'll understand ;)

We can agree to disagree about high order; it’s all subjective anyway.

The Vandersteen’s do not exhibit this audible high distortion you speak of.

I still haven’t been able to locate an NHT dealer. Care to find me one in WI?


I'd say they're "okay". I have a different vantage point and have heard much better in these things. Old Spica TC 50s will kill them in soundstaging and imaging for instance.
Again, this is subjective, and coming NHT’s biggest fanboy, this is why your opinion is 100% bias and usually gets ignored (when giving speaker impressions or advice that is).

Sure, but if you're only using 10-25W peaks, then most any amp will have plenty of reserve power. The 1C won't even challenge anything less powerful than a Sony receiver, really. Ask Mr Vandersteen if you don't believe me. You're disagreeing with him as much as me!

Most people buy amps in the 5-7 channel format so they can run surround sound. If they want a two channel system and feel 10-25W is enough, good for them. I prefer to not take the chance of my amp(s) clipping (which could cause driver damage) and would get something with reserve power. Again, I have heard Vandersteen’s on low wattage tube amps and they sound good, but not as good as something with more power. YMMV


You'd be wrong, I've heard them set up well and with very expensive gear. And I've heard pretty much all of them. And traded in pretty much all of them. If you hear said speakers in the *same* room with another speaker that images better, *then* you'll understand. Most people think they image well because they are time/phase coherent, but that has little do with imaging or soundstaging. If you imagine they image well, than they will, such is the human mind.

Again, this is just your opinion. Who would have thought the man who worships NHT would bash Vandersteen just like he bashes everything else that isn’t NHT or anything else that someone else enjoys. You sure do know how to ruin threads. ;) Is this the kind of sale tactics that you employ at the dealership? Bombard them, be forceful, down talk anything else they like and ram NHT down their throats! By the time I am done with them the will buy what I tell them to because they will be sick of my bantering! YES; that will get me a sale! :p

You are really reaching with your last comment, though the mind does play tricks on people. However, I could say that about any given speaker; you are just being ridiculous.



As I said, I can find an old pair of $550/pr speakers that image better. Or even a new pair of $400 speakers. It's not *hard* you know!

I am starting to get bored with your bias and unbacked opinions. Prove this to me please. You are the only one in this 6 page thread that has down talked Vandersteen. And considering who you are, what you do and your mannerism on this forum, no one cares to listen. This really won’t help you make a sale you know. ;)

Ah, c'mon Nuance, you know what disdain I have for "professional reviewers"!!! I couldn't care less what they say. I listen with my own ears. There are "professionals" that say they've been abducted by aliens too, ya know.

Agreed. I threw it in there for fun to get a rise out of you! :D

And poor off axis performance, high cone resonances, high motor distortion, lots of edge diffraction, non pistonic drivers and...... :D

And yet they sound fantastic to someone who knows what good sound is. They sound fantastic to someone who actually has a reference to compare to (live performances). They sound fantastic to 6 pages of forum members and counting. They sound fantastic to many well respected professionals in this field. Hmm, once again, the NHT guy is bashing another brand even though none of the above mentioned issues are commonly noted as audible negativities when describing the sound of Vandersteen speakers I think someone is just jealous that the Model 2 from Vandersteen is the top selling speaker of all time. You should call Richard and insist that he buy some of your NHT’s. Tell him they are much nicer than his stuff and to believe you simply because you said so. LOL


Not to bust on Vandersteen, but hey, let's get back to reality. The "advantages" of 1st order design are not and never will be outweighed by the disadvantages except in your mind. It's been proven in many scientific studies that show we're just not sensitive to time/phase subjectively, but we are *very* sensitive to distortion, spectral decay, etc. A crossover master could drop a 4th order crossover design into any first order speaker and it will sound better, play louder, image better. They're selling the *belief*, not reality.

You are already well onto the “bust on Vanderesteen” path.

Please show me these studies you speak of.

You went from liking the Vandersteen sound to naming as many flaws as you can think of by the end of your post. This just shows what your underlying efforts are. You contradicted yourself a number of times. You obviously have a vendetta against any other brand besides NHT that gets some good publicity. There are better sounding speakers than NHT’s, and Vandersteen’s are them. You don’t have to agree, but to try to degrade a company because you like NHT better is downright foolish. I guess we will just let our ears and the sales numbers determine if Vandersteen or NHT makes a better speaker…oh wait, we already know who has the top selling model of all time! I guess all those thousands of people just must not know good sound like you do. :rolleyes:


Edit: As always I enjoy a good debate, but you are just being slanderous now. It's all subjective, just remember that before you bash a speaker simply because it's not a NHT.

Your a big meany head Alimentall.

:P

But anyhow, I have shown my setup on this forum, and have never heard better, so thats all that matters.

And I am completely unbiased

-SOWK

I agree, that is all that matters. But you don't see us bashing other people's systems. That is just a quality that John exhibits. :p

BTW, Nuance, I actually *did* drop a DEQX high order crossover on a pair of Thiels, replacing the 1st order crossover and the performance gain was absolutely amazing. If Jim Thiel were to switch to 4th order design on his crossovers to 4th order, I think he'd keep much of his current flock and draw a whole new crowd. If Thiel did that, I'd definitely become a dealer! The things I don't like about Thiels are *directly* attributable to the 1st order crossovers.

I thought we were talking about Vandersteen? Now you want to bash Thiel? Lets see, who else has first order crossovers? Lets bash their brains in too! :p

Just add him to your ignore list- that's what everyone over at the Ultra High End forum did. :D

Your experiment sounds interesting. How exactly did you replace the Thiel crossover network with a DEQX? How did you calculate the xover parameters? What kind of measurements did you do before/after? This could be a thread in of itself...

You have to take out the crossovers and tri-amp, but here's the cool thing. You can insert different crossovers and try them at the touch of a button. But the system measures the response of each driver unequalized and raw. So you can see exactly what they're doing where. Then you can choose the crossover point that cuts out the sections that would cause audible problems. It's amazing how you can look at the driver responses and how they overlap and pick a better crossover point. Generally lower and steeper and then the soundstage improves, the clarity improves, the coherence, everything just plain gets better. I love that system, too bad it's something that most people won't do because they can't imagine gutting their speakers to get the higher performance. I lowered the crossover points on the Thiels and got a much better mid/bass transition and the sound also got much cleaner and focused with the steeper slopes. But when you experiment with such a system, it really does show the limitations of 1st order design very clearly. The Thiels just got crazy good. And they were a very much ideal candidates for the procedure. In the end, I dropped in Morel tweeters and NHT woofers and they got that much better.

I never said they don’t have motor distortion or resonance, I said they don’t have issues meaning there are no negative audible effects within the given sensitivity range ;) Perhaps it is because they advise using their filter.

Ah, but there are! You always can hear it. It may be relatively benign, but it's there. Otherwise, there would be no use for more exotic, more expensive speakers!

It may not make or break the sound for you, but it may for me or others. I have heard cone resonance and motor distortion; it doesn’t sound revealing.

Depends on the type. I don't consider the Vandersteen sound to be overly "analytical". More smooth and relatively well-behaved with errors of subtraction. I don't agree with the sentiment that they are "revealing of the electronics" that much, no matter how you define that term. They tend to have a softer, lusher sound as long as you don't push them to where the tweeter starts to get strained or the mids start cloud a bit. I heard 5As and thought they had a great midrange over all, if not the most detailed I've heard. The bass was a little disappointing but that could be room. Funny thing is, Vandersteen himself had them set up *very* poorly with the speakers about 1' away from side walls, a major no-no, so they didn't image well at all.

Okay, well, you go ahead and run the speakers with a 10W tube amp. The rest of us with common sense will get something with reserve power. I have listened to the Vandersteen’s on a variety of different amps; they like being fed more power than you suggest (10W), and they, in fact, sound better just as many speaker do when fed the *correct* amount of power.

What the heck is the "correct" amount of power?!? You say 90dB is loud and efficient and so 10W will certainly drive them to audible distortion. 10W is enough to drive most affordable speakers to 50% distortion in the bass! Then people say "gee, I need an amp with more "control", but you can't "control" distortion, short of using servo-control

N they aren’t; they are very common. What planet are you from?

Animal Planet :D

We can agree to disagree about high order; it’s all subjective anyway.

Ah, no, it's not! "it's all subjective" is the refrain of those that are on the losing side of science (and generally with gear that needs excuses)! Much of this stuff is very much objective and measurable and can be correlated to subjectivity in controlled experimentation. Unfortunately, we don't just "hear" with our ears, we hear with our preconceptions, our eyes, our desires and, our pocket book

The Vandersteen’s do not exhibit this audible high distortion you speak of.

Of course they do! Most speakers do, it's a matter of degree. And, if you take a digital crossover like DEQX and set it to a low order, then to a high order and switch back and forth, you can hear the distortion lower and the clarity improve. I've seen a few big speakers that have massively low distortion, like PSB T8s or something where it is mostly FR, spectral decay, dispersion that effect the sound. But all first order speakers, unless will have audible side effects because you can't eliminate the unavoidable bad parts of the drivers.

I still haven’t been able to locate an NHT dealer. Care to find me one in WI?

I'll work on it. But this isn't an NHT vs... thing. Nor do I want it to be.

Again, this is subjective, and coming NHT’s biggest fanboy, this is why your opinion is 100% bias and usually gets ignored (when giving speaker impressions or advice that is).

Ummm, there's *some* bias I'm sure, but for instance, I can tell you the downsides of all the speakers I sell. None of them are perfect, though some get very much closer than others. There are some speakers that I bring in and don't like and close them out at a low price and never bring them back. And, you can ask Jack at NHT, I'm always "complaining" about how I think products could and should be improved. Probably to the point of annoying the crap out of him. I'm just very critical of speakers, far more than I am of electronics because the deviation from perfection is hundreds of times greater.

Most people buy amps in the 5-7 channel format so they can run surround sound. If they want a two channel system and feel 10-25W is enough, good for them. I prefer to not take the chance of my amp(s) clipping (which could cause driver damage) and would get something with reserve power. Again, I have heard Vandersteen’s on low wattage tube amps and they sound good, but not as good as something with more power. YMMV

That's different. Surround sound has much more dynamic range and has louder peaks than you would use with music. Probably by 10dB or more. That's why 1st order can be an issue in surround sound systems more than with music. And, of course, it's hard, if not impossible, to make a 1st order rear or center that matches acoustically with the mains because there are all kinds of design issues that are essentially unavoidable. And if you do something like the VCC, which makes sense, it's an entirely different design from the mains. Lose-lose situation for HT.

Again, this is just your opinion. Who would have thought the man who worships NHT would bash Vandersteen just like he bashes everything else that isn’t NHT or anything else that someone else enjoys. You sure do know how to ruin threads. ;)

I am the master ruiner! Look, seriously, I'm not trying to "bash" anything, just that I really find the statement that "these speakers are revealing of poor electronics" to be problematic *no matter* to who's speaker the statement is attached! It used to be said about NHTs. Then I realized that the older NHT just had some grunginess in the sound that made them a bit fatiguing. And that the newer products lowered that grunge and yet were more resolving at the same time. And it got me thinking.

Is this the kind of sale tactics that you employ at the dealership? Bombard them, be forceful, down talk anything else they like and ram NHT down their throats! By the time I am done with them the will buy what I tell them to because they will be sick of my bantering! YES; that will get me a sale! :p

No, but I do talk a lot about speaker design. What kind of design produces what kind of result, etc. That way, people can come to their own conclusions. You shouldn't be defensive about what I'm saying. It's mostly to completely true.

You are really reaching with your last comment, though the mind does play tricks on people. However, I could say that about any given speaker; you are just being ridiculous.

I don't think so. Hey, I probably look at *my* speakers and think "man, I bet these sound great" before even turning them on. That being said, I offered comments for improvement on all the new models I just got in. [/quote]

I am starting to get bored with your bias and unbacked opinions. Prove this to me please. You are the only one in this 6 page thread that has down talked Vandersteen. And considering who you are, what you do and your mannerism on this forum, no one cares to listen. This really won’t help you make a sale you know. ;)[/quote]

It's not bias. 1st order vs high order is well "backed" opinion. The advantages in dispersion and distortion and simplification of the crossover are pretty well known. And I'm not trying to "talk down" Vandersteen, just had major issues with the recommendation that you need a separate power amplifier to drive 90dB efficient speakers in a 10'x15' room. I'm also *not* trying to sell *anything*. I couldn't care less. I'm posting as an enthusiast, just like everyone else. As far as mannerisms, hey, you know, the truth isn't always a plate of quiche! :D

And yet they sound fantastic to someone who knows what good sound is. They sound fantastic to someone who actually has a reference to compare to (live performances). They sound fantastic to 6 pages of forum members and counting. They sound fantastic to many well respected professionals in this field.

Well, most speakers these days sound "fantastic" in many ways. But I'm pickier than most and have very high expectations. And lest we forget, reviewers aren't really "professionals", they're part time amateurs who know just enough to be dangerous most of the time, well-meaning though they might be. I think Vandersteens are fine. I think they could be better. But that wasn't the point. The point was, they're not going to make the guy's receiver sound bad. As a matter of fact, they'll probably sound just fine.

Hmm, once again, the NHT guy is bashing another brand even though none of the above mentioned issues are commonly noted as audible negativities when describing the sound of Vandersteen speakers I think someone is just jealous that the Model 2 from Vandersteen is the top selling speaker of all time. You should call Richard and insist that he buy some of your NHT’s. Tell him they are much nicer than his stuff and to believe you simply because you said so. LOL

I don't think I "said so". I prefer them, but I also prefer Revel, for instance. BTW, the Model 2 Vandersteen isn't even close to being the top selling speaker of all time. Where did you get *that?!? It may be the best selling speaker with a 1st order crossover and a wrap around grill cloth!

You are already well onto the “bust on Vanderesteen” path.

Only because you're making me defend my previous statements. And it's more an indictment of 1st order design than Vandersteen. Vandersteen has its place at the table. The more paths to nirvana, the better.

Please show me these studies you speak of.

Please look them up, there are plenty. www.google.com Learn it, use it.

You went from liking the Vandersteen sound to naming as many flaws as you can think of by the end of your post. This just shows what your underlying efforts are. You contradicted yourself a number of times. You obviously have a vendetta against any other brand besides NHT that gets some good publicity.

Ummm, nope. Though I admit to not being a fan of first order design. I think Vandersteens sound pretty good for a first order speaker, though I'd probably take the Thiels first, warts and all.

There are better sounding speakers than NHT’s, and Vandersteen’s are them. You don’t have to agree, but to try to degrade a company because you like NHT better is downright foolish.

All I'm trying to do is point out why the previous poster doesn't need a big power amp to get good sound out of 1Cs. Pointing out the issues with 1st order design is only to your benefit because you apparently weren't aware of it.

I guess we will just let our ears and the sales numbers determine if Vandersteen or NHT makes a better speaker…oh wait, we already know who has the top selling model of all time! I guess all those thousands of people just must not know good sound like you do. :rolleyes:

I shouldn't have to point how ridiculous that statement is, but here goes. The Bose 901, 601, 501, 301, 201, AM5, AM3, etc, etc, etc ALL sold well more than Vandersteen 2s. Therefore, I guess they must be the best speakers of all time. I know you can't back up the "best selling speakers of all time" thing because it's patently untrue.

Edit: As always I enjoy a good debate, but you are just being slanderous now. It's all subjective, just remember that before you bash a speaker simply because it's not a NHT.

No, I'm being truthful. You're ascribing to Vandersteen powers that don't exist. I simply added some reality into the mix. 1st order crossovers are pitched at the public but no effort is made by companies doing the pitching to say "oh, but expect these warts as well". So then people start to say "oh, they must be hard to drive" or "oh, they must be 'revealing' the sound of my 'bad' electronics." But that's just not the case.

Vandersteen 2s came to prominence because Stereophile felt they did everything reasonably well without doing anything obviously bad. IOW, a "competent" performer. That doesn't make them exceptional and you'll note that Stereophile doesn't often review them. The same basic review followed in 2000. Competent, but not all that great at any one thing. Of course, those types of reviews happen all the time and I don't often agree, but in this case I do. You can read the review if you like on their website. You can tell Richard wasn't all that pleased by it, but I thought it was one of the more honest reviews I've seen in awhile. I've heard almost every Vandersteen ever made and although I think they are good all around speakers with pretty good midrange, the one word that never popped into my head was "wow". I mean, if you must hammer away at it.

Interesting thread that kind of comes down to-Is Richard Hardesty (and I read his newsletter) right and 1st order crossovers are the "holy grail" or is it just another tool for speaker designers with tradeoffs. My feelling after visiting Madisound and reading the DIY'ers over there is the latter since there is no holy grail, just good designs based on the tradeoffs using various drivers etc. Just an IMO.

Ah, but there are! You always can hear it. It may be relatively benign, but it's there. Otherwise, there would be no use for more exotic, more expensive speakers!

Whatever John. Maybe your “golden ears” can hear it.

What the heck is the "correct" amount of power?!? You say 90dB is loud and efficient and so 10W will certainly drive them to audible distortion. 10W is enough to drive most affordable speakers to 50% distortion in the bass! Then people say "gee, I need an amp with more "control", but you can't "control" distortion, short of using servo-control

Enough to not only power the fronts, but also the center, rears and back speakers. If the average shopper is like me, he purchases amps with reserve power because he will probably use it for more than one round of speakers.

Animal Planet :D

No arguments there. :D

Ah, no, it's not! "it's all subjective" is the refrain of those that are on the losing side of science (and generally with gear that needs excuses)! Much of this stuff is very much objective and measurable and can be correlated to subjectivity in controlled experimentation. Unfortunately, we don't just "hear" with our ears, we hear with our preconceptions, our eyes, our desires and, our pocket book

I am not on the losing end of science. Science has nothing to do with which crossover sound a person prefers. Quit digging, else you may fall in. ;)

Of course they do! Most speakers do, it's a matter of degree. And, if you take a digital crossover like DEQX and set it to a low order, then to a high order and switch back and forth, you can hear the distortion lower and the clarity improve. I've seen a few big speakers that have massively low distortion, like PSB T8s or something where it is mostly FR, spectral decay, dispersion that effect the sound. But all first order speakers, unless will have audible side effects because you can't eliminate the unavoidable bad parts of the drivers.

Again, you must be using those “golden ears” of yours.

But this isn't an NHT vs... thing. Nor do I want it to be.
Don’t patronize me. It is too a NHT vs… thing. It’s what you turn almost every thread that you post in into. You aren’t fooling anyone John. :rolleyes:


Ummm, there's *some* bias I'm sure, but for instance, I can tell you the downsides of all the speakers I sell. None of them are perfect, though some get very much closer than others. There are some speakers that I bring in and don't like and close them out at a low price and never bring them back. And, you can ask Jack at NHT, I'm always "complaining" about how I think products could and should be improved. Probably to the point of annoying the crap out of him. I'm just very critical of speakers, far more than I am of electronics because the deviation from perfection is hundreds of times greater.
I too am very critical, but why spoil someone else’s treasure? There are six pages of posts from people who love Vandersteen, then you come in and trash them. What gives? Is that really necessary? Do I come into your NHT threads and trash them? No, in fact, I helped stick up for you and NHT when that nutjob (NHTkiller) started a thread just to piss you off. Well you know what; you are coming too close to doing what he did.


That's different. Surround sound has much more dynamic range and has louder peaks than you would use with music. Probably by 10dB or more. That's why 1st order can be an issue in surround sound systems more than with music. And, of course, it's hard, if not impossible, to make a 1st order rear or center that matches acoustically with the mains because there are all kinds of design issues that are essentially unavoidable. And if you do something like the VCC, which makes sense, it's an entirely different design from the mains. Lose-lose situation for HT.

I have no problems with my Vandersteen HT which has 1st order crossovers. The VCC5 center does an admirable job. It’s not a lose-lose situation for me or anyone else with a properly configured Vandersteen HT system. If it was an issue you would see more complaints from actual owners. But low and behold, all I see is your complaints.

I am the master ruiner! Look, seriously, I'm not trying to "bash" anything, just that I really find the statement that "these speakers are revealing of poor electronics" to be problematic *no matter* to who's speaker the statement is attached! It used to be said about NHTs. Then I realized that the older NHT just had some grunginess in the sound that made them a bit fatiguing. And that the newer products lowered that grunge and yet were more resolving at the same time. And it got me thinking.

Sure are. I was mainly speaking about recordings and not electronics, but again, if the electronics are bad the speakers will tell the tale.

No, but I do talk a lot about speaker design. What kind of design produces what kind of result, etc. That way, people can come to their own conclusions. You shouldn't be defensive about what I'm saying. It's mostly to completely true.

Its not that I disagree with some of your theories; I disagree with the approach. You can be annoying as hell sometimes. :p



It's not bias. 1st order vs high order is well "backed" opinion. The advantages in dispersion and distortion and simplification of the crossover are pretty well known. And I'm not trying to "talk down" Vandersteen, just had major issues with the recommendation that you need a separate power amplifier to drive 90dB efficient speakers in a 10'x15' room. I'm also *not* trying to sell *anything*. I couldn't care less. I'm posting as an enthusiast, just like everyone else. As far as mannerisms, hey, you know, the truth isn't always a plate of quiche! :D

I don’t know about well backed, but it’s definitely an OPINION, and only that.

I never pushed an separate amp on anyone. I recommended he get on because I assumed he will be using the system for HT as well. It’s a no brainer John.

Well, most speakers these days sound "fantastic" in many ways. But I'm pickier than most and have very high expectations. And lest we forget, reviewers aren't really "professionals", they're part time amateurs who know just enough to be dangerous most of the time, well-meaning though they might be. I think Vandersteens are fine. I think they could be better. But that wasn't the point. The point was, they're not going to make the guy's receiver sound bad. As a matter of fact, they'll probably sound just fine.

I agree about the reviewers thing. I think reviews are only good for measurements.
You are right, Vandersteen’s could be better; all speakesr could. But the consumer doesn’t have the money to pay for all the man hours it would take to make that near perfect speaker. You chose based on price and IMHO, the 2CE sigs kill anything in their price category. They are more natural and accurate sounding than anything I have heard in that range. You yourself said you think classical is boring, so how would you know what accurate is anyway? What is your means of reference? Mine is live orchestral performances which the Vandersteens come damn close to reproducing perfectly. Again, what is your reference? Wait…I don’t even want to know. I am tired of responding. Perhaps we should just PM each other instead of ruining this thread?!


Only because you're making me defend my previous statements. And it's more an indictment of 1st order design than Vandersteen. Vandersteen has its place at the table. The more paths to nirvana, the better.

I am not “making” you do anything. You chose to ruin threads.

Please look them up, there are plenty. www.google.com Learn it, use it.

Looks like someone doesn’t have the links and used the above google comment as an excuse. :p


All I'm trying to do is point out why the previous poster doesn't need a big power amp to get good sound out of 1Cs. Pointing out the issues with 1st order design is only to your benefit because you apparently weren't aware of it.
Well you made your point a while back about the power issue, as I made mine. Pointing out these so called “issues” is just something you couldn’t help doing. You do it in every speaker comparison thread; I think it’s in your blood to be so bull headed.

I shouldn't have to point how ridiculous that statement is, but here goes. The Bose 901, 601, 501, 301, 201, AM5, AM3, etc, etc, etc ALL sold well more than Vandersteen 2s. Therefore, I guess they must be the best speakers of all time. I know you can't back up the "best selling speakers of all time" thing because it's patently untrue.

Do you have the numbers to back that up?

No, I'm being truthful. You're ascribing to Vandersteen powers that don't exist. I simply added some reality into the mix. 1st order crossovers are pitched at the public but no effort is made by companies doing the pitching to say "oh, but expect these warts as well". So then people start to say "oh, they must be hard to drive" or "oh, they must be 'revealing' the sound of my 'bad' electronics." But that's just not the case.

More bias opinions. Does it ever stop? Where is the proof?

Vandersteen 2s came to prominence because Stereophile felt they did everything reasonably well without doing anything obviously bad. IOW, a "competent" performer. That doesn't make them exceptional and you'll note that Stereophile doesn't often review them. The same basic review followed in 2000. Competent, but not all that great at any one thing. Of course, those types of reviews happen all the time and I don't often agree, but in this case I do. You can read the review if you like on their website. You can tell Richard wasn't all that pleased by it, but I thought it was one of the more honest reviews I've seen in awhile. I've heard almost every Vandersteen ever made and although I think they are good all around speakers with pretty good midrange, the one word that never popped into my head was "wow". I mean, if you must hammer away at it.

I thought you didn’t pay attention to “professional reviews?” Again, you contradict yourself. Even so, I will bite. Stereophile said your NHT’s didn’t image well at all. So should I just believe what they say and hang on their every word? Hmm…there goes your argument…whoosh. :D

Again, if you want to debate this, cool. Start a new thread or something, though. Quit ruining yet another thread ( you just can’t help yourself can you?)

Edit: I found the crossover debate thread. I knew I argued with someone about it once before; of course it was you.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=631241&page=1&pp=30

I'll just try to deal with correcting your facts rather than the sarcasm:

I am not on the losing end of science. Science has nothing to do with which crossover sound a person prefers. Quit digging, else you may fall in.

Well, the fact is that 2nd, 3rd, 4th order crossovers give you lower cone resonances, lower motor distortion, dramatically better vertical dispersion, better horizontal dispersion, simplified crossovers (in most cases), the ability to choose more transparent drivers. Other than that, I guess there's not much "there" there. Subjectively, you can like what you want, but there are objective advantages to high order design. The one theoretical advantage to 1st order gets tossed out because we simply don't hear time/phase the way a microphone measures it. So there are *subjective* advantages. Unless you've heard the different crossover slopes in the *exact same speaker* as I have, you have no idea if you like Vandersteen for the 1st order design or just because of the flavor they have.

Don’t patronize me. It is too a NHT vs… thing. It’s what you turn almost every thread that you post in into. You aren’t fooling anyone John. :rolleyes:

I didn't bring up NHT, you did. In fact, I specifically tried to avoid it.

I too am very critical, but why spoil someone else’s treasure? There are six pages of posts from people who love Vandersteen, then you come in and trash them. What gives? Is that really necessary? Do I come into your NHT threads and trash them? No, in fact, I helped stick up for you and NHT when that nutjob (NHTkiller) started a thread just to piss you off. Well you know what; you are coming too close to doing what he did.

I didn't trash them, in fact, I think I said quite a few nice things about them while trying to help one of the posters from spending unnecessary money. But you didn't want to leave it and wanted to tussle about it and I have no problem with it, but in any "war" there are going to be bystanders that get hurt. You could just drop it if you wanted. The more you argue, the more facts I'll bring to bear. As for NHTkiller, sure, he had his agenda, but he wasn't as nutty as his name suggests and it made for an interesting thread and *some* of his points had some validity.

I have no problems with my Vandersteen HT which has 1st order crossovers. The VCC5 center does an admirable job. It’s not a lose-lose situation for me or anything else with a properly configured Vandersteen HT system. If it was an issue you would see more complaints from actual owners. But low and behold, all I see is your complaints.

Well, Vandersteen has a religious "first order is the true path" component to it. So it's not that surprising. And as has been said often, they really are competent speakers with no major failings. So they tend to have many fans. I think many speaker companies have done very well taking a flawed idea and working it until it is subjectively quite good. Kind of like taking an old car chassis and working it until it performs.

Sure are. I was mainly speaker about recordings and not electronics, but again, if the electronics are bad the speakers will tell the tale.

Yes, *if* the electronics are bad. But most electronics that are that bad are basically broken. Again, electronics may influence the overall sound a bit, but it won't take a bad speaker and make it good or a good speaker and make it bad. When that happens, it's called "imagination" (with very rare exception).

Its not that I disagree with some of your theories; I disagree with the approach. You can be annoying as hell sometimes. :p

That is very true! On that we can agree

I don’t know about well backed, but it’s definitely an OPINION, and only that.

There's plenty of science there. You only have to look for it. 1st order vs 4th order is like creationism vs evolution. In fact, the parallels are rather striking.

You chose based on price and IMHO, the 2CE sigs kill anything in their price category. They are more natural and accurate sounding than anything I have heard in that range.

Sure, that's fine but of course I disagree :)

You yourself said you think classical is boring, so how would you know what accurate is anyway? What is your means of reference? Mine is live orchestral performances which the Vandersteens come damn close to reproducing perfectly. Again, what is your reference?

That I used to play classical music as a percussionist in high school and continued on with it. Just because I'm bored with classical music doesn't mean I don't know what it sounds like! Although I think Vandies are pretty good at most pop, jazz and reasonably well recorded rock (too raucous and the cones get to resonating), wow, they'd be one of my last choices for classical. They don't sound right to me at all with classical. IMO, of course.

I am not “making” you do anything. You chose to ruin threads.

Well, fine, I'm a "last word" kinda guy, sorry :D

Looks like someone doesn’t have the links and used the above google comment as an excuse. :p

I can get them, but I don't do other people's home work. Try "phase" "time" "audibility" "1st order" and look for actual scientific articles rather than promotional literature. If you believe what Richard says, I've got a special pamphlet called the Watchtower I'd like to give you :D

Well you made your point a while back about the power issue, as I made mine. Pointing out these so called “issues” is just something you couldn’t help doing. You do it in every speaker comparison thread; I think it’s in your blood to be so bull headed.

Snort, mooooo, snort;)

Do you have the numbers to back that up?

I could get them. Get the Vandersteen sales numbers, I'll call Bose.

I thought you didn’t pay attention to “professional reviews?” Again, you contradict yourself. Even so, I will bite. Stereophile said your NHT’s didn’t image well at all. So should I just believe what they say and hang on their every word? Hmm…there goes your argument…whoosh.

I'm not aware of any quote that says any NHT "didn't image well at all". Even so, there's generally *some* truth in every review, you just have to remove the biases and code talking going on and understand what they are actually trying to say. BTW, how many Vandersteens are in Class A? Probably "more than any other brand in the world", huh? :D

You know John or whatever your name is, well ** done mate. I was about to post on my recent experiences and pose some more questions about the subject speakers but to be perfectly frank, I can’t be bothered trying to fit in and keep track/continuity between the squabbles. Maybe it’s an AVS policy to let things go this way, I’ve seen it far too often in other threads, but if I wanted to find out about NHT or fourth order crossovers or whatever else, I would go to an appropriate thread topic.

how do you guys feel about the older vandersteens?

i.e. if i have an opportunity to purchase a pair at 200 dollars that are around 15 yrs old, should i get em? "Model 2" is the model number, I will be picking them up tonight if you guys say it's a good buy. Also, I have confirmation that they are in good working condition.

Alimentall (John) & Nuance,

Both of you with your long quoted technical disagreements are making this thread more difficult to read. Please continue your debate with private messages.

p.s. I really hope you're not the same person ;)

Thanks,

- Steve O.

how do you guys feel about the older vandersteens?

i.e. if i have an opportunity to purchase a pair at 200 dollars that are around 15 yrs old, should i get em? "Model 2" is the model number, I will be picking them up tonight if you guys say it's a good buy. Also, I have confirmation that they are in good working condition.

zkaudio,

Strictly from a resale value perspective, Model 2s on average sell for around $300. If they are indeed in good working order, and cosmetically in good shape, that might not be too bad. If you can get the original packing boxes - even better!

- Steve O.

Thanks Steve,

Can I expect the same (or at least close to) the same performance as the speakers being spoken of throughout this thread? Or are the older ones not as well engineered

Thanks Steve,

Can I expect the same (or at least close to) the same performance as the speakers being spoken of throughout this thread? Or are the older ones not as well engineered

zkaudio,

There is info on Vandersteen's website (FAQ section, I believe) describing the various upgrades between Model 2 up until 2CE Signature made over several decades. I think if you can wait and save up for a newer model 2, you'll be happier in the long run.

- Steve O.

Interesting thread that kind of comes down to-Is Richard Hardesty (and I read his newsletter) right and 1st order crossovers are the "holy grail" or is it just another tool for speaker designers with tradeoffs. My feelling after visiting Madisound and reading the DIY'ers over there is the latter since there is no holy grail, just good designs based on the tradeoffs using various drivers etc. Just an IMO.
The reason DIY'ers have to use steeper filters is they don't have access to the proprietary drivers that the great speaker designers use. 1st order filters put great demands on drivers and only ones which are able to handle a wide frequency spread will work with them. Richard Vandersteen's drivers are patented and they are designed to work in his time aligned, 6db/oct x-overs. Standard off the shelf drivers would not work in his design. If the drivers are capable of working in a time aligned, 1st order filter design, such a design images much better because the wave front from each driver is in phase and arrives at the ear at the same time. In so doing the speaker recreates the arrival time of the wave front at the microphone, and therefor portrays a more accurate 3D image in the listening room.

The reason DIY'ers have to use steeper filters is they don't have access to the proprietary drivers that the great speaker designers use.

Really..

http://ldsg.snippets.org/sect-14.php3

You know John or whatever your name is, well ** done mate. I was about to post on my recent experiences and pose some more questions about the subject speakers but to be perfectly frank, I can’t be bothered trying to fit in and keep track/continuity between the squabbles. Maybe it’s an AVS policy to let things go this way, I’ve seen it far too often in other threads, but if I wanted to find out about NHT or fourth order crossovers or whatever else, I would go to an appropriate thread topic.

Thanks for the ** sarcasm :) But, c'mon, that's just plain stupid. You want to get the thread back on track, post what you want. Or, you can participate in the squabbling by adding in some sarcasm and whining. I didn't think Aussies were whiners. I mean, for goodness sake, stop being a victim.

The reason DIY'ers have to use steeper filters is they don't have access to the proprietary drivers that the great speaker designers use.

That's just patently false as Eric points out. Most "proprietary" drivers have very tiny modifications to the voice coil or motor design, but I mean tiny. And probably most of them are done that way simply so they can claim "proprietary" status!!!

1st order filters put great demands on drivers and only ones which are able to handle a wide frequency spread will work with them. Richard Vandersteen's drivers are patented and they are designed to work in his time aligned, 6db/oct x-overs.

Do you have a patent number on that? I'd kinda like to read up on the basis for the patent! Most drivers can handle a wide FR spectrum *but* if they aren't well damped (aka lossy), they will resonate and add more than a little coloration. Paper and poly are well damped, but lossy in terms of resolution. The thing is, 1st order designs *have* to use drivers like this, generally, if they want to avoid a shrill sound, something for which the new metal driver'd Thiels are known. And, if they were truly that good to work with 1st order crossovers, you would only need a cap and an inductor, not the complex series of filters and compensation networks used in most 1st order designs. I believe most Vandersteen drivers are simply Vifas that are pair matched at the factory, actually. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Standard off the shelf drivers would not work in his design. If the drivers are capable of working in a time aligned, 1st order filter design, such a design images much better because the wave front from each driver is in phase and arrives at the ear at the same time. In so doing the speaker recreates the arrival time of the wave front at the microphone, and therefor portrays a more accurate 3D image in the listening room.

Not only are you simply regurgitating propaganda, you seem to be making up a whole bunch more on top of it. There's so much wrong with that paragraph, it would take too long to correct it. But let's just say that imaging/soundstaging has a lot less to do with time/phase than just about every other aspect of speaker design.

I've had many many different 2nd and 4th order type speakers in my room over the years. I just brought home Vandersteen 3A Signatures for demo.
I am completely unbiased, but I tell you there is something so right about the Vandersteen sound that I may just keep these for a long time. In my room at least, I have not heard a better speaker in this price range period.
Imaging and sound stage is breathtaking, and midrange clarity and detail is well...wow!

Hearing Vandersteens is the only way to appreciate how carefully they are designed to do one thing-produce as accurately as possible the signal presented them. In my listening experiences with them, I come away with a very large and realistic sound stage, and uncanny accuracy when fed a good signal. The bottom line is sound quality per dollar spent. They are a rare speaker when classified this way. Dennis

Thanks for the ** sarcasm But, c'mon, that's just plain stupid. You want to get the thread back on track, post what you want. Or, you can participate in the squabbling by adding in some sarcasm and whining. I didn't think Aussies were whiners. I mean, for goodness sake, stop being a victim.

Now you’re making my really annoyed. We Aussies aren’t winers, we’re whingers thank you very much – please show a little respect and get our national characteristics right. As to stupid, yeah a lot of people are of that opinion about me but as one of your Nationals once said, ‘Stupid is as stupid does’.

By the way, I'm a bit confused. I thought I was contributing some sarcasm. So were you really thanking me or was that just sarcasm :)

Equal and opposite sarcasm doesn't cancel?!? :D

I'll just try to deal with correcting your facts rather than the sarcasm:



Well, the fact is that 2nd, 3rd, 4th order crossovers give you lower cone resonances, lower motor distortion, dramatically better vertical dispersion, better horizontal dispersion, simplified crossovers (in most cases), the ability to choose more transparent drivers. Other than that, I guess there's not much "there" there. Subjectively, you can like what you want, but there are objective advantages to high order design. The one theoretical advantage to 1st order gets tossed out because we simply don't hear time/phase the way a microphone measures it. So there are *subjective* advantages. Unless you've heard the different crossover slopes in the *exact same speaker* as I have, you have no idea if you like Vandersteen for the 1st order design or just because of the flavor they have.

I didn't bring up NHT, you did. In fact, I specifically tried to avoid it.

I didn't trash them, in fact, I think I said quite a few nice things about them while trying to help one of the posters from spending unnecessary money. But you didn't want to leave it and wanted to tussle about it and I have no problem with it, but in any "war" there are going to be bystanders that get hurt. You could just drop it if you wanted. The more you argue, the more facts I'll bring to bear. As for NHTkiller, sure, he had his agenda, but he wasn't as nutty as his name suggests and it made for an interesting thread and *some* of his points had some validity.

Well, Vandersteen has a religious "first order is the true path" component to it. So it's not that surprising. And as has been said often, they really are competent speakers with no major failings. So they tend to have many fans. I think many speaker companies have done very well taking a flawed idea and working it until it is subjectively quite good. Kind of like taking an old car chassis and working it until it performs.

Yes, *if* the electronics are bad. But most electronics that are that bad are basically broken. Again, electronics may influence the overall sound a bit, but it won't take a bad speaker and make it good or a good speaker and make it bad. When that happens, it's called "imagination" (with very rare exception).

That is very true! On that we can agree

There's plenty of science there. You only have to look for it. 1st order vs 4th order is like creationism vs evolution. In fact, the parallels are rather striking.

Sure, that's fine but of course I disagree :)

That I used to play classical music as a percussionist in high school and continued on with it. Just because I'm bored with classical music doesn't mean I don't know what it sounds like! Although I think Vandies are pretty good at most pop, jazz and reasonably well recorded rock (too raucous and the cones get to resonating), wow, they'd be one of my last choices for classical. They don't sound right to me at all with classical. IMO, of course.

Well, fine, I'm a "last word" kinda guy, sorry :D

I can get them, but I don't do other people's home work. Try "phase" "time" "audibility" "1st order" and look for actual scientific articles rather than promotional literature. If you believe what Richard says, I've got a special pamphlet called the Watchtower I'd like to give you :D

Snort, mooooo, snort;)

I could get them. Get the Vandersteen sales numbers, I'll call Bose.

I'm not aware of any quote that says any NHT "didn't image well at all". Even so, there's generally *some* truth in every review, you just have to remove the biases and code talking going on and understand what they are actually trying to say. BTW, how many Vandersteens are in Class A? Probably "more than any other brand in the world", huh? :D

I didn't even read what I quoted from you because it isn't worth it. To me, Vandersteens rock and that is all that matters. They are well designed and therefore do no exhibit any of these audible issues you speak of.

It was entertaining at first, but you went overboard. John, please try to keep things civil next time and not ruin a thread by pushing your NHT and 4th order crossover bias like always. Thanks. :cool:

how do you guys feel about the older vandersteens?

i.e. if i have an opportunity to purchase a pair at 200 dollars that are around 15 yrs old, should i get em? "Model 2" is the model number, I will be picking them up tonight if you guys say it's a good buy. Also, I have confirmation that they are in good working condition.

Yes, for $200 you can't go wrong if they are in good shape. Of course, listen to them before you buy, but I am sure you already know that. Let us know what you think of them if you get them. :)

Alimentall (John) & Nuance,

Both of you with your long quoted technical disagreements are making this thread more difficult to read. Please continue your debate with private messages.

p.s. I really hope you're not the same person ;)

Thanks,

- Steve O.

No, you are right. I am done. And we are NOT the same person? Why on earth would you think that? :confused:

Thanks Steve,

Can I expect the same (or at least close to) the same performance as the speakers being spoken of throughout this thread? Or are the older ones not as well engineered

The newer models have had some "upgrades," but the same design method applies.

I've had many many different 2nd and 4th order type speakers in my room over the years. I just brought home Vandersteen 3A Signatures for demo.
I am completely unbiased, but I tell you there is something so right about the Vandersteen sound that I may just keep these for a long time. In my room at least, I have not heard a better speaker in this price range period.
Imaging and sound stage is breathtaking, and midrange clarity and detail is well...wow!
I am happy they bring you as much joy as they do me. Cool!

Vandersteen used to use (80's early 90's)Vifa tweeters and woofers and Vifa or Peerless midrange drivers that at least resembled off the shelf models.They may have had slight mod's done. But in the more recent versions of all his speakers I believe the drivers are built specifically to his spec. Certainly his midrange is a custom unit that only he uses.

Vandersteen used to use (80's early 90's)Vifa tweeters and woofers and Vifa or Peerless midrange drivers that at least resembled off the shelf models.They may have had slight mod's done. But in the more recent versions of all his seakers I believe the drivers are built specifically to his spec. Certainly his midrange is a custom unit that only he uses.

Habs4life,

The passive woofer in the 3A Signature is by ScanSpeak. I haven't gotten curious enough to check out the other components.

- Steve O.

The the front facing woofer in the 5a looks like an SS as well.Scan Speak and Vifa and Peerless are all one company now.

Really..

http://ldsg.snippets.org/sect-14.php3
Do you see a Vandersteen driver on this list. The only way to get one is to take a Vandy apart or be a registered owner and get repair parts.
Signature Models and Quatro's and 5A's all have R & L drivers hand matched by Richard Vandersteen for all response parameters.

Gents, interesting thread. I have met Richard Vandersteen several times, and he is the most approachable, unassuming, and truly humble guy in audio. He is also a genius on the same level as Peter Walker and Jon Dahlquist........even David Wilson will admit it. He understands dynamic speaker design AND multi-channel audio better than anyone in the business today, (except, maybe, the great John Dunleavy). And, surprise, surprise, Richard's favorite speaker of all time is the Quad ESL-57.

I think he is right-on using first order crossovers, because they are time-domain optimized, (just like a Wadia DAC reconstruction filter). First order crossovers don't "ring" like higher order crossovers. That is why his speakers easily reproduce so much more inner detail without any trace of hardness or brightness, (which, I contend, is a symptom of crossover ringing).

If you don't believe it, listen to the new B&W 802D's and compare them to ANY previous B&W 800 series speaker. The difference in inner detail and imaging is striking and has much less to do with the diamond tweeter, than with the fact that B&W switched to a 1st order crossover between the midrange and the tweeter, (allowable because the diamond tweeter has so much better bandwidth !) The new B&W's finally sound as good as they look, and will give the 5A's a run for their money. (BTW - Vandersteen ceramic coats their tweeters for the same reason.)

I use Vandersteen 3A Signatures with a VCC-1 and two VSM-1's in a 5.1 set-up. A single V2W subwoofer handles all the bass. This works as well as a V2W and a 2WQ, IF you use an Outlaw ICBM between the preamp / processor and the amps, (Hafler 9505 Transnovas in my case). I cross the 3A's over at 40 hz, the VSM's over at 60 hz, and the VCC-1 at 80 hz. A single V2W can output as much bass as two 2WQ's, handles low frequency effects much better, and takes up a LOT less floorspace.

The ICBM is the best electronic crossover since the Dahlquist DQ-LP1, and provides the flexibility you need to really set a 5.1 system up properly. Unfortunately, I understand that Outlaw stop selling them, which is a real shame. Somebody needs to put together a pure discrete analog 5.1 preamp that combines the circuitry of the Outlaw ICBM and the Sony TA-P9000ES 5.1 channel preamp in one box, because without this, true 5.1 sound (SACD / DVD-A / HD DVD / etc.) will remain a frustrating experience for too many audiophiles.

tyree91,

I wish you were in the Phoenix metro area...

What is the name of your store? Have any pictures of this setup?

- Steve O.
Here are some

Gents, interesting thread. I have met Richard Vandersteen several times, and he is the most approachable, unassuming, and truly humble guy in audio. He is also a genius on the same level as Peter Walker and Jon Dahlquist........even David Wilson will admit it. He understands dynamic speaker design AND multi-channel audio better than anyone in the business today, (except, maybe, the great John Dunleavy). And, surprise, surprise, Richard's favorite speaker of all time is the Quad ESL-57.

I think he is right-on using first order crossovers, because they are time-domain optimized, (just like a Wadia DAC reconstruction filter). First order crossovers don't "ring" like higher order crossovers. That is why his speakers easily reproduce so much more inner detail without any trace of hardness or brightness, (which, I contend, is a symptom of crossover ringing).

If you don't believe it, listen to the new B&W 802D's and compare them to ANY previous B&W 800 series speaker. The difference in inner detail and imaging is striking and has much less to do with the diamond tweeter, than with the fact that B&W switched to a 1st order crossover between the midrange and the tweeter, (allowable because the diamond tweeter has so much better bandwidth !) The new B&W's finally sound as good as they look, and will give the 5A's a run for their money. (BTW - Vandersteen ceramic coats their tweeters for the same reason.)

I use Vandersteen 3A Signatures with a VCC-1 and two VSM-1's in a 5.1 set-up. A single V2W subwoofer handles all the bass. This works as well as a V2W and a 2WQ, IF you use an Outlaw ICBM between the preamp / processor and the amps, (Hafler 9505 Transnovas in my case). I cross the 3A's over at 40 hz, the VSM's over at 60 hz, and the VCC-1 at 80 hz. A single V2W can output as much bass as two 2WQ's, handles low frequency effects much better, and takes up a LOT less floorspace.

The ICBM is the best electronic crossover since the Dahlquist DQ-LP1, and provides the flexibility you need to really set a 5.1 system up properly. Unfortunately, I understand that Outlaw stop selling them, which is a real shame. Somebody needs to put together a pure discrete analog 5.1 preamp that combines the circuitry of the Outlaw ICBM and the Sony TA-P9000ES 5.1 channel preamp in one box, because without this, true 5.1 sound (SACD / DVD-A / HD DVD / etc.) will remain a frustrating experience for too many audiophiles.
Nice system you have there :) I agree about the 5.1 preamp it would be great Idea. A few years ago there were a couple on the market (MacCormack and Bel Canto I think) but I don't think either had bass management.Dont know if they are still being produced but the market for such a product is probably fairly small.

Nice system you have there :) I agree about the 5.1 preamp it would be great Idea. A few years ago there were a couple on the market (MacCormack and Bel Canto I think) but I don't think either had bass management.Dont know if they are still being produced but the market for such a product is probably fairly small.
Look at the ARC MP1 & Theta's Six-Shooter which goes with their CasaBlanca III.
http://www.audioresearch.com/MP1.html

Look at the ARC MP1 & Theta's Six-Shooter which goes with their CasaBlanca III.
http://www.audioresearch.com/MP1.html
Wow didn't know these existed. Leave it to good old ARC to fill a little niche in the market.

Look at the ARC MP1 & Theta's Six-Shooter which goes with their CasaBlanca III.
http://www.audioresearch.com/MP1.html

The EMMlabs Switchman is also a 6-channel multi-source preamp. However, no bass management built-in. Not as flashy as the ARC, but quite capable.

- Steve O.

Here are some

Pretty nice! Having four 5-series Vandersteens must bring some serious shoppers in. I'm curious - what multi-channel material do you demo to "show off" this room?

Would you agree that there is a 5-10% improvement of the 5A over the 5? I've read that from various postings online, but I don't think I'll have a chance to compare the two anytime soon.

- Steve O.

Pretty nice! Having four 5-series Vandersteens must bring some serious shoppers in. I'm curious - what multi-channel material do you demo to "show off" this room?

Would you agree that there is a 5-10% improvement of the 5A over the 5? I've read that from various postings online, but I don't think I'll have a chance to compare the two anytime soon.
- Steve O.
We use DVD on a Theta Compli to a Theta CasaBlanca III w/ Extreme Dacs, and DVD-A and SACD from the Compli through the Theta Six-Shooter analogue pre-amp. I probably have as much success impressing people playing a 2 channel source and letting the 5A's cast their incredible 3 dimensional image. I use Joni Mitchell - "Both Sides Now" 2nd cut - "At Last." It creates an absolutely holographic image out of her voice. I then get them to go up to the center speaker, and they are blown away that the is no sound coming from it.

I'd say it's more like 20%. The 5A is more refined in every way. Better, tighter bottom, more inner detail, more dynamic, and better imaging. That's not to say that the 5 is amazing in it's own right.
This is my home system not a store so it shows people what can be done in a true HT environment.

Do you see a Vandersteen driver on this list. The only way to get one is to take a Vandy apart or be a registered owner and get repair parts.
Signature Models and Quatro's and 5A's all have R & L drivers hand matched by Richard Vandersteen for all response parameters.

*SIGH*

"There is none so blind as he who will not see"

EDIT: Oh, you sell Vandies, ah.

He is also a genius on the same level as Peter Walker and Jon Dahlquist........even David Wilson will admit it. He understands dynamic speaker design AND multi-channel audio better than anyone in the business today, (except, maybe, the great John Dunleavy).

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? I think he's got his idea of how a speaker should be done and has honed it with his unyielding commitment to it, but I don't think he understand multi-channel that well. Or, if he does, his commitment to 1st order design keeps his designs from showing it. I mean, he's got talent, but holy cow!

I think he is right-on using first order crossovers, because they are time-domain optimized, (just like a Wadia DAC reconstruction filter). First order crossovers don't "ring" like higher order crossovers. That is why his speakers easily reproduce so much more inner detail without any trace of hardness or brightness, (which, I contend, is a symptom of crossover ringing).

A real, pure first order system with no need for compensation networks might have those kind of attributes, but have you ever seen a Vandersteen crossover? There's more than a 4 capacitors and 4 inductors in there. I'd challenge you to find an audible difference with higher order vs first order in ringing. Again, we're getting into the realm of creationism here with the belief systems.

If you don't believe it, listen to the new B&W 802D's and compare them to ANY previous B&W 800 series speaker. The difference in inner detail and imaging is striking and has much less to do with the diamond tweeter, than with the fact that B&W switched to a 1st order crossover between the midrange and the tweeter, (allowable because the diamond tweeter has so much better bandwidth !)

Actually that's not true. The diamond tweeter has the *exact* same lower bandwidth at the bottom end. Therefore, the diamond tweeter didn't make it "allowable". They just decided to do it. It actually was done because, IMO, the diamond tweeter shows off the coarseness of the kevlar midrange and they decided to blend them over a wider range. Besides, it allows them to imply the tweeter/mid is time aligned and phase coherent when it is not. Still, I can hear the roughness in the mid and would take the 5As over the 802s, actually.

Don't tie 1st order crossover with the ability to image. It has very little to do with it. I think B&W was able to lower some of the cone issues in the speaker which has caused uneven off axis response. Imaging still has more to do with the design of the cabinet and the chosen drivers than the crossover slope.

I'll agree that great imaging isn't exclusive to speakers with first order crossovers.I have heard excellent sound staging from speakers with 3rd order BW, 4th order LR and series xovers.
But I'll add that it takes great designers like Theil and Vandersteen to get excellent results from the 1st order designs. I can think of a couple of examples of atempts by lesser designers thinking they can just throw a cap on the tweeter and coil on the woofer and bingo! we have a true minimum phase speaker.But the resulting measured response was brutal.

I have seen pictures of some of Theils crossovers (older models)and the parts count was staggering but the the speaker also sounded very good.

how do you guys feel about the older vandersteens?

i.e. if i have an opportunity to purchase a pair at 200 dollars that are around 15 yrs old, should i get em? "Model 2" is the model number, I will be picking them up tonight if you guys say it's a good buy. Also, I have confirmation that they are in good working condition.

Did you pick up these speakers yet? Interestingly, when I bought my pair of Vandersteen 2 speakers, I looked at the serial number and it ended with 2ce. So I called Vandersteen and sure enough, the person selling them to me thought they were just model 2's when in fact they were 2Ce's. Make sure you check the serial number, you might be getting an even better speaker than you originally thought.

To Alimentall (John)

When I started this thread it was simply because I picked up a pair of Vandersteens to play around with. I wasn't looking to replace any of my other speakers, I was just buying them as a toy. Got a good price, didn't know anything about them, and "wow" I just fell in love with their sound. You know, sometimes that's enough. But when you come in and just start trashing them, and you did, don't play games and deny it. You picked them into pieces, pointing out evey single damn imperfection, with science and reason as your coach, well I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but you know why step on somebody's buzz? Really. Why can't you just let people enjoy what they want without having to go into infinate detail on why they are wrong or stupid or whatever your point is. If all you really wanted to do was originally tell somebody that they really didn't need a sperate power amp, just say so, give a few reasons about power and room size, etc. and let it go? But no, you have to insult the speaker, it's design, it's compnents, it's sound, and on and on and on and on. Why don't you simply start a thread something on the order of:

"every speaker in the world sucks but the ones that I like"

And then you will have forum to do what it is that you really want, spread the NHT relegion.

Problem is you really know so much, that you just can't keep from rubbing it in everyone's face. You must have been the little kid in school that got picked on as it comes across as if you have one huge frigging chip on your shoulder, have educated yourself in one particular area, and now you are out for payback by ramming down anyones and everyones thread whenever you get the chance.

Lighten up, go away, and let those of us who like these speakers say so without you trying to kick our teeth down our throats.

The reason DIY'ers have to use steeper filters is they don't have access to the proprietary drivers that the great speaker designers use. 1st order filters put great demands on drivers and only ones which are able to handle a wide frequency spread will work with them. Richard Vandersteen's drivers are patented and they are designed to work in his time aligned, 6db/oct x-overs. Standard off the shelf drivers would not work in his design. If the drivers are capable of working in a time aligned, 1st order filter design, such a design images much better because the wave front from each driver is in phase and arrives at the ear at the same time. In so doing the speaker recreates the arrival time of the wave front at the microphone, and therefor portrays a more accurate 3D image in the listening room.
Dennis Murphy uses whatever crossover fits the drivers including 1st order crossovers so they don't always use steeper filters. They seem to have access to some pretty good drivers. If you doubt that, you might contact Ken Kantor (original NHT guy) over at Typhany's. I know the debate on phase and imaging. Needless to say, there are those that disagree (even among speaker designers as I am sure to are aware). Also, many recordings are not recorded in real time space and the image is largely an illusion. While, imaging is important, it is not the only design criteria in my opinion.

When I started this thread it was simply because I picked up a pair of Vandersteens to play around with. I wasn't looking to replace any of my other speakers, I was just buying them as a toy. Got a good price, didn't know anything about them, and "wow" I just fell in love with their sound. You know, sometimes that's enough.

That IS enough. And I'm *glad* you love them. That's what it's all about.

But when you come in and just start trashing them, and you did, don't play games and deny it. You picked them into pieces, pointing out evey single damn imperfection, with science and reason as your coach, well I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but you know why step on somebody's buzz? Really. Why can't you just let people enjoy what they want without having to go into infinate detail on why they are wrong or stupid or whatever your point is.

Well, my point is simply that speakers aren't perfect, they all have issues and it's important to be aware of them, especially if that's about to trigger an unnecessary expense. Of course, sometimes I kill my own buzz by being overly analytical ;) But, seriously, there *is* a time to understand these things so you can make good decisions and then you let it go and start enjoying music.

If all you really wanted to do was originally tell somebody that they really didn't need a sperate power amp, just say so, give a few reasons about power and room size, etc. and let it go? But no, you have to insult the speaker, it's design, it's compnents, it's sound, and on and on and on and on.

Well, I think I did that. It was only when I was pushed to defend the statement that I added in more detail. I thought the 90dB efficiency and 6ohm rating combined with Vandersteen's *own* product information was self-explanatory, but it wasn't.

And then you will have forum to do what it is that you really want, spread the NHT relegion.

My only "religion" is good speaker design (as I define it of course!). Yeah, I'm a bit obsessive about it, sorry.

Problem is you really know so much, that you just can't keep from rubbing it in everyone's face. You must have been the little kid in school that got picked on as it comes across as if you have one huge frigging chip on your shoulder, have educated yourself in one particular area, and now you are out for payback by ramming down anyones and everyones thread whenever you get the chance.

No, not really. I was one of those kids that got along with everyone (and generally do). But all I hear all day is people regurgitating stuff they they "believe" based on product literature and hype, so my tolerance for it is a bit low.

Lighten up, go away, and let those of us who like these speakers say so without you trying to kick our teeth down our throats.

Probably a good idea. Didn't meant to have my foot so far down your throat! :(

Also, many recordings are not recorded in real time space and the image is largely an illusion. While, imaging is important, it is not the only design criteria in my opinion.

I wonder if there is such a thing as a truly phase correct/time aligned recording at all. We may be getting there now because of digital recordings and more advanced DSP, but I bet most recordings are thousands of degrees out of phase by the time they are put on a CD.

Do you have a patent number on that? I'd kinda like to read up on the basis for the patent!
A quick patent search shows two Richard Vandersteen patents:

Midrange loudspeaker driver #5073948 (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5073948.html)
Coincident source stereo speaker #7046816 (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7046816.html)

I presume the '89 patent on Midrange drivers would be the more intersting of the two, given the original request.

You guys remember that episode of the Simpson's where the billboards, signs and advertisements came alive and started terrorizing the city? If so, do you remember what they had to do to get them to die? That's right, they just ignored them and they lost energy and fell apart and died. Well, the same thing applies to John (alimental). Just ignore him and he will go away...or maybe he will just talk to himself. LOL, I wouldn't put it past him.

Anyway, Vandersteen makes a great speaker and there is nothing John can do to prove otherwise. His feeble 1st order crossover arguments holds no merit, especially since Richard's design negates all of these "flaws." John just can't help but whore NHT all over the interenet. It's too bad for John that NHT doesn't have the reputation that Vandersteen does. Perhaps he would make more sales then (no John, not the imaginary ones). :D

Oh, and congratulations for ruining yet another thread. What is it, 1,479 ruined threads now?

Should I really be using Vandesteens subs with passive filters or will any sub work?

That's right, they just ignored them and they lost energy and fell apart and died. Well, the same thing applies to John (alimental). Just ignore him and he will go away...

That is you ignoring me? Good job Nuance! :D

Anyway, Vandersteen makes a great speaker and there is nothing John can do to prove otherwise. His feeble 1st order crossover arguments holds no merit, especially since Richard's design negates all of these "flaws."

Hardly feeble. Very well grounded in physics, thank you. They hold a ton of merit and are easily proven. Vandersteen can't "negate" flaws, only calculate them in and attempt to minimize them or hide them. He does a good job of doing that, but to pretend they don't exist just because you want to worship a speaker designer is just silly.

John just can't help but whore NHT all over the interenet. It's too bad for John that NHT doesn't have the reputation that Vandersteen does. Perhaps he would make more sales then (no John, not the imaginary ones). :D

Ummm, you're the one that continues to bring up NHT. I don't recall bringing it up at all. If you want to try to divert attention from your inability to counter reality by continuously bringing up NHT, that's fine.

Oh, and congratulations for ruining yet another thread. What is it, 1,479 ruined threads now?

I don't ruin threads, people who can't handle the truth ruin threads.

I presume the '89 patent on Midrange drivers would be the more intersting of the two, given the original request.

Perhaps. I wonder if any of the drivers being used use either patent. There are lots of patents filed that never are actually used for a variety of reasons. I've not ever heard of Vandersteen using patented designs in their drivers and a google search on the subject revealed nothing. But I don't know either way. Thanks for the info though! Now I'm curious :)

Should I really be using Vandesteens subs with passive filters or will any sub work?

David,

Nothing requires you to use Vandersteen subs with their loudspeakers.

I wouldn't go as far as putting ANY sub in your system ;)

I am happy the way a single 2W in my setup right now gives me nicely integrated, musical bass extension.

- Steve O.

Perhaps. I wonder if any of the drivers being used use either patent. There are lots of patents filed that never are actually used for a variety of reasons. I've not ever heard of Vandersteen using patented designs in their drivers and a google search on the subject revealed nothing. But I don't know either way. Thanks for the info though! Now I'm curious :)

John - just give Richard Vandersteen a call directly, and I'm sure he'll let you know about his patents and how they are currently used in the products.

- Steve O.

Looks like they do use that midrange patent:

A newly designed 6.5" woven-fiber cone unit produces midbass and lower-midrange frequencies (100–900Hz); Vandersteen's patented drive-unit design, a transmission-line–loaded, curvilinear, mineral-filled polycone unit handles the upper midrange and the low treble (900Hz–5kHz). Richard Vandersteen explained that the design of this unit eliminates backwave reflections caused by its magnet structure, which can smear transients and diffuse images..

It's not entirely unique, but it probably is a good idea. Can't hurt, at least. B&W seems to use something similar. It sounds like it is used on the 3, 4 and 5. I took apart a 3 to get the midrange fixed and it seemed to be a conventional Vifa driver as I recall.

Perhaps. I wonder if any of the drivers being used use either patent. There are lots of patents filed that never are actually used for a variety of reasons. I've not ever heard of Vandersteen using patented designs in their drivers and a google search on the subject revealed nothing. But I don't know either way. Thanks for the info though! Now I'm curious :)

Like I mentioned in post #195 the midrange he is using is a custom design and it would appear to be the one described in the patent .It is used in the 3A and 5A and likely the Quatro also.

oops you just beat me to the punch.

The thing, of course, is that patented doesn't make it better, better makes it better, generally speaking. Bose Acoustimass is patented. IOW, patented doesn't make an idea or technology better or worse, though using the term seems to convince people that it is better, just like a high price does. Some of the best ideas in audio aren't patented. And probably a few of the worst ones are.

The main issue for Vandersteen in the midrange would be to keep a smooth and accurate cone performance over the entire range of a driver. At 6dB/octave, it's essentially receiving a full range signal, down only 12-18dB at the fringes. That's why plastics and paper tend to be used, they're fairly well behaved. But they will still have coloration. Fortunately, 1st order designs blend such coloration over a wider range so you can still get a relatively seamless sound and any coloration tends to be masked pretty well. Thiel does the opposite with rigid cones and so you hear more detail, but also the cone resonances tend to stick out more and you'll see high peaks of distortion at certain frequencies.

But the alteration in the frame/magnet shape may actually help reduce some colorations at some frequencies that might be cut off and therefore non problematic in higher order designs. Of course, all these little details are why all speakers sound so amazingly different, even if the goals are the same.

From what I recall John, you have your own field of “psychics”, most of which is totally without merit. This was proved time and time again by Morbius over in the High End Forum. I guess you hang out here now so your drabble can go unchallenged and you can keep on promoting NHT. Shouldn't you be setting up all those NHT systems you sell, instead of constantly posting on AVS? Have a nice night. :rolleyes:

From what I recall John, you have your own field of “psychics”, most of which is totally without merit. This was proved time and time again by Morbius over in the High End Forum.

Morbius is an idiot. He thinks he knows everything about everything because he has a doctorate in math. If you think Morbius knows much about speaker design or speaker setup, I guess that makes you an apprentice idiot :D

I guess you hang out here now so your drabble can go unchallenged and you can keep on promoting NHT. Shouldn't you be setting up all those NHT systems you sell, instead of constantly posting on AVS? Have a nice night. :rolleyes:

Actually, I hang out there all the time too, but I guess Morbius has gotten tired of getting his butt kicked. I don't recall promoting NHT here. You and Nuance seem to be interested in promoting it, however. And, besides, I have someone to set up all those systems I sell, though I will be noticeably absent on Sunday for that very reason.

Now, do you have anything to *add* to the thread or do you want to must make personal attacks?

Huummm! As I read through this thread I get the feeling I am watching current events on CNN.

"Call me Israel......." :)

"Call me Israel......." :)
Oh,I thought you were the BIG MEANY HEAD :D

Ali-babble.....if your ears don't convince you, perhaps your eyes will. Compare pulse response traces using a good ribbon mic on a good electrostatic speaker, a Vandersteen, and an NHT or other, higher-order crossover-equipped loudspeaker. The measured output, (amplitude vs. time), once properly scaled, of the electrostat and the Vandersteen will match the input waveform, with little or no negative overshoot. The NHT will turn it into a set of positive and negative lightly damped ripples. That my friend, is RINGING. Vandersteen is the only speaker manufacturer that I know of with the Cajones to publish these curves. When NHT publishes theirs, then we can talk about accuracy, imaging and all the rest.

You CANNOT decode the interference pattern formed by a set of Blumlein stereo microphones (Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, etc.), to get a proper image if your speakers cannot properly form a pulse. The physics are pretty clear cut.

That's all fine and good *except* that we don't hear the same way a microphone hears. That's the difference between acoustics and psychoacoustics. We're more atuned to distortion and dispersion issues which are notably less problematic in higher order designs. It's nice and convenient to ignore psychoacoustics when it suits the agenda, but the reality is our brains don't interpret things the way some speaker companies would like you to believe. Not that there isn't a grain of truth there. But taking a grain of truth and turning it into a religion doesn't make much sense, especially when it comes at the expense of virtually ever other parameter of performance.

That is you ignoring me? Good job Nuance! :D

I am not doing so well with the ignore thing, mainly because you keep saying dumb things that you can't actually prove.
Hardly feeble. Very well grounded in physics, thank you. They hold a ton of merit and are easily proven. Vandersteen can't "negate" flaws, only calculate them in and attempt to minimize them or hide them. He does a good job of doing that, but to pretend they don't exist just because you want to worship a speaker designer is just silly.

I never said they didn't have these "flaws," I said they engineer the speaker so the consumer doesn't hear them. Quit taking what I said out of context; you aren't fooling anyone. Here is why the Vandersteen speakers don't have these audible flaws you speak of: it's the single pole high pass filer that they provide. It connects at the input of the amplifier dramatically decreases intermodulation distortion, cone excursion, harmonic distortion, cabinet resonance and distortion of the midrange and high frequencies (all things you say 1st order crossovers suffer from). This high pass filer will reduce woofer cone excursion which will reduce bass distortion and midrange and treble distortion. This filer will thus improve definition, imaging, dynamic range and will provide tighter control and a better presentation of the rhythm and pace of the music. The passive high pass filter can also help prevent your amps from clipping by removing that giant low frequency demand off the amps, by reducing the level of the input signal at the low frequencies (like I said earlier, Vandersteen provides these for their speakers).

As for the ability or inability to hear time and phase issues in speakers, you still haven't proven it ISN'T audible. Many people in fact do hear it; it is just harder for an inexperienced listener to hear it. I don't care what babble you spew; speakers which scramble the phase of fundamentals and harmonics (as all speakers with steep-slope crossovers do) change the tonal character and perceived pitch of music and scrambling phase also has a negative impact on image focus. Once you become accustomed to time- and phase-accurate speakers (true accuracy), you can never go back.

Ummm, you're the one that continues to bring up NHT. I don't recall bringing it up at all. If you want to try to divert attention from your inability to counter reality by continuously bringing up NHT, that's fine.

My inability to counter? LOL. You are high aren't you? My point has already been proven. Your points are just opinions with very little merit or backing. Sure, your forth order crossover is suppose to have lower distortion and blah blah, but it has nothing to do with the Vandersteens sounding awesome, hence these issues are not audible (pretty much making them a NON issue).

I don't ruin threads, people who can't handle the truth ruin threads.

LOL. That is the comeback from a feeble minded man who thinks he is someone special. Too bad the majority disagrees. You think you are a god don't you? :rolleyes:

Morbius is an idiot. He thinks he knows everything about everything because he has a doctorate in math. If you think Morbius knows much about speaker design or speaker setup, I guess that makes you an apprentice idiot

Resorting to personal insults now? Wow, someone is flexing under the pressure (of being wrong...AGAIN). ;)

Now, do you have anything to *add* to the thread or do you want to must make personal attacks?

Could you be a bigger hypocrite? You call the guy an idiot and then accuse him of personal attacks? LOL. You are as crazy as that guy NHTKiller. All you have done is persoanlly attack Vandersteen and their crossover networks since you got in this thread. Get a clue John, you are coo coo!

How do you add someone to your ignore list? Debates with John were fun in the past, but he is getting delusional and has no proof to back it up (these imaginary tests and studies still haven't been posted).

Edit: nevermind, I figured it out. Congratulations Dr. (LOL) John, you are on my ignore list.

Here is why the Vandersteen speakers don't have these audible flaws you speak of: it's the single pole high pass filer that they provide. It connects at the input of the amplifier dramatically decreases intermodulation distortion, cone excursion, harmonic distortion, cabinet resonance and distortion of the midrange and high frequencies (all things you say 1st order crossovers suffer from). This high pass filer will reduce woofer cone excursion which will reduce bass distortion and midrange and treble distortion. This filer will thus improve definition, imaging, dynamic range and will provide tighter control and a better presentation of the rhythm and pace of the music. The passive high pass filter can also help prevent your amps from clipping by removing that giant low frequency demand off the amps, by reducing the level of the input signal at the low frequencies (like I said earlier, Vandersteen provides these for their speakers).

Oh boy, this is about to get interesting. Please explain to me how it would do this. Or does it "just do it"?!? Sounds like a subsonic filter to me. But please, do explain how it has all these magical properties to reduce cabinet resonances and intermodulation distortion and all that. Maybe atdamico should change the thread name to "Vandersteen - pass the joint!" :)

As for the ability or inability to hear time and phase issues in speakers, you still haven't proven it ISN'T audible. Many people in fact do hear it; it is just harder for an inexperienced listener to hear it. I don't care what babble you spew; speakers which scramble the phase of fundamentals and harmonics (as all speakers with steep-slope crossovers do) change the tonal character and perceived pitch of music and scrambling phase also has a negative impact on image focus. Once you become accustomed to time- and phase-accurate speakers (true accuracy), you can never go back.

I don't have to prove it, real scientists already have. People claim they can hear *everything* but then can't in DBTs. UNLESS you have heard the *same* speaker with different slopes applied as I have, with every other variable the same, you simply have NO idea what you're hearing and how it relates to being phase correct or not. You simply have no idea.

Edit: nevermind, I figured it out. Congratulations Dr. (LOL) John, you are on my ignore list.

I'm honored :D

PS - here's one "proof" - http://www.linkwitzlab.com/phs-dist.htm

But all you have to do is type in "audibility" and "phase" and google will bring up all you need. Measureable? Certainly. Audible? Not really. It's just not how we hear. IOW, for people that like 1st order speakers, they're liking the sound of the speaker, not the sound of time/phase coherence. Yes, you like Vandersteens because of the sound that Vandersteen has. Not because it has special time/phase properties absent in other speakers. Just like some people like Wilson or some people like Linn or some people like Revel, etc. Nothing at all wrong with that, Vandersteen makes some very good speakers.

John of Nuevo, sorry for the Ali-babble crack......after the 24-ounce Margarita last nite, I couldn't help myself. (BTW, I haven't had a lot of dingle-berries since my last trim...).

You are certainly right that what we can measure with a microphone and integrate with a PC or frequency analyzer is not exactly the same with the more mysterious process of hearing. In fact, some audiologists believe that the ear acts more as a differentiator than an integrator....the integration occurs in the cerebral cortex using a neural net and hundreds of "weight functions" that can be varied by what we THINK. Hence everyone hears differently because they think differently.

We can all agree that some measured phenomena, such as uniform and extended frequency response, is integral to good sound. Smooth phase response is also probably a good thing. The importance of very accurate time-domain response remains controversial, probably because not all listeners are sensitive to its effects. Beyond that, it is hard to make generalities.

Vandersteen and NHT both make fine loudspeakers that satisfy thousands of music lovers everyday. Those music lovers are not wrong for liking what they own, or for hearing the way they hear. Hopefully this discussion has help those of you who are looking for a new set of loudspeakers to enhance your "weight functions" a little bit, and gotten you to think about why you like what you like. The important thing is to LISTEN. If you enjoy the sound you have achieved with your rig, than the rest of this is all academic.

Peace.

PS - here's one "proof" - http://www.linkwitzlab.com/phs-dist.htm

But all you have to do is type in "audibility" and "phase" and google will bring up all you need. Measureable? Certainly. Audible? Not really. It's just not how we hear. IOW, for people that like 1st order speakers, they're liking the sound of the speaker, not the sound of time/phase coherence. Yes, you like Vandersteens because of the sound that Vandersteen has. Not because it has special time/phase properties absent in other speakers. Just like some people like Wilson or some people like Linn or some people like Revel, etc. Nothing at all wrong with that, Vandersteen makes some very good speakers.
I agree with the post above.

The great sound quality of Vandies is a result of excellence in xover design that seemlesslessly blends the drivers together.Measurements of Vandies generally show very smooth frequency response and this is a bigger reason for their good sound than the time and phase accuracy.

John of Nuevo, sorry for the Ali-babble crack......after the 24-ounce Margarita last nite, I couldn't help myself. (BTW, I haven't had a lot of dingle-berries since my last trim...).

I've had those moments with a few R&Cs!!! Then I think "darn, that was a bit over the top" ;)

You are certainly right that what we can measure with a microphone and integrate with a PC or frequency analyzer is not exactly the same with the more mysterious process of hearing. In fact, some audiologists believe that the ear acts more as a differentiator than an integrator....the integration occurs in the cerebral cortex using a neural net and hundreds of "weight functions" that can be varied by what we THINK. Hence everyone hears differently because they think differently.

Definitely. Our mind is *so* interactive that it affects our hearing with what we see, what we think, how our day is going, everything. And I'm firmly convinced that our brain can't concentrate on the entire sound of the music at once, so our brain is moving its focus around as we hear, so we could hear the same music twice and hear different things different times. Sometimes I think "why didn't I notice that instrument before?!?" One of my competitors uses this trick. He plays a piece of music on a lesser amp. Then he switches the amps and says "now listen to the imnprovement in the cymbals, listen to the added bass response". Well, the people hadn't specifically paid attention the first time around, but *now* they do. Some "hear it" because they focus on it. Others are afraid to say "ummmm, I don't know, could you do that again?" I had a friend who had some DCMs and if I was stone sober, they sounded okay. But after a few beers at his place, they *really* started to get on my nerves!

Vandersteen and NHT both make fine loudspeakers that satisfy thousands of music lovers everyday. Those music lovers are not wrong for liking what they own, or for hearing the way they hear. Hopefully this discussion has help those of you who are looking for a new set of loudspeakers to enhance your "weight functions" a little bit, and gotten you to think about why you like what you like. The important thing is to LISTEN. If you enjoy the sound you have achieved with your rig, than the rest of this is all academic..

Very true. I think we "hear" the same because we're all referencing reality. I may see pink where you see orange, but when I look at a TV, I make sure I'm seeing pink and you make sure you're seeing orange. If the TV is good, we'll both see what we want to see. BUT, we all have different priorities. And, because we listen to different music in different rooms for different reasons, we have different desired outcomes. That's why there will always be lots of different philosophies and brands. I had an interesting philisophical discussion with a customer this morning about exactly this as we were trying to sort out what kind of speaker he wants to go to next. I think Vandersteen would make a great sounding speaker if he had to use 2nd order or 4th order crossovers. Some might like them less, but others would like them more.

Just add him to your ignore list- that's what everyone over at the Ultra High End forum did. :D

Good advice! Done and done. This forum is already a sweeter place! :D

Should I really be using Vandesteens subs with passive filters or will any sub work?

Yes, I would use them. As explained in a above post:
The passive high pass filter can also help prevent your amps from clipping by removing that giant low frequency demand off the amps, by reducing the level of the input signal at the low frequencies (like I said earlier, Vandersteen provides these for their speakers).



Wait, were you asking if you should use the filers or asking if you should use a Vandersteen sub or another brand of subwoofer? Well, either way, a well made sub will perform wonderful with Vandersteen speakers.

Good advice! Done and done. This forum is already a sweeter place! :D.

Ah, the sound of a mind slamming shut....... :rolleyes:

Good advice! Done and done. This forum is already a sweeter place! :D



Yes, I would use them. As explained in a above post:


Wait, were you asking if you should use the filers or asking if you should use a Vandersteen sub or another brand of subwoofer? Well, either way, a well made sub will perform wonderful with Vandersteen speakers.

I have a PC-ultra. I was concerned using the processor's crossover at 80hz (2nd order I believe). would this mismatch with the 3A's not having a 2nd order rolloff.
If I run 3A's full range and get the processor's crossover out of the way and use the passive filters with any sub (one for each channel) and use the Ultra for LFE, would that be a better way to go?

I have a PC-ultra. I was concerned using the processor's crossover at 80hz (2nd order I believe). would this mismatch with the 3A's not having a 2nd order rolloff.
If I run 3A's full range and get the processor's crossover out of the way and use the passive filters with any sub (one for each channel) and use the Ultra for LFE, would that be a better way to go?
Vandersteen's passive line level x-over is 80 hz, 6db/oct. It subtracts the bass from the input of the amp and the subwoofer amp adds the cut back in as a gain. This creates a seamless blend between the mains & sub and puts much less strain on the mains and of course your amplifier. It is used in the 5, 5A, Quatro or any of his other designs with a 2WQ sub connected in parallel with your amplifier output. The input impedance of the sub amp is >100k ohms so while in parallel with the mains of 6-8 ohms it puts no load on the amp. A very elegant design to get a full range speaker and put a light load on the amp. Oh, by the way using this type of hookup also gives you the flavor of your amp on the sub because your amps output stage is providing the signal to the sub input.
Use your Ultra for your LFE. It' excellent for that.

Also, done & done.

atdaminco, thanks for starting this thread. What a great thing the ignore option is, first time I've used it.

nuance and scorch (and others), thanks for your advice and interest.

Well, last weekend I had my second session listening to the 2ce sigs through a variety of amps and ancillary equipment and they are everything you all suggested. Interestingly though. I think I now know why I was a little cool on first listen. In my opinion, these speakers far more than any I have heard in the past, pass on the qualities of the supporting equipment to the listener. And my first listen I now realise had multiple valves in the train in pre amp, CD player and amp. I thought is was SS equipment but it appears that was the second session. And the AudioVector's I listened to were also SS fed. The valve equipment, as sweet as it is in the midrange, is not my first choice personally. Anyway, I love them now.

Even more exciting to me was that last monday, I called into my old dealer and found he had some pristine Vandy 1s in his second hand area. Model 1s note, not C's or B's by some miracle. Anyway he said that they were c**p speakers but they sounded fine to me when he powered them up (No his name's not John but he might be a cousin) so offered him a few hundred and took them home. Thought a long term trial might finally let me see if I liked the Vandy sound in my own home.

Well I feel like I have won the lottery. I have some very good ancillary equipment and an amp in particular that has phenomenal drive and control and these things rock (and jazz and classic). If these things are old (about 1985 I think) budget items, heaven help me when I get home some modern 1s or 2s. I just can't believe something so old can sound so good. When I've had time to really compose my thoughts, I might add a bit of detail but in the meantime, thanks guys.

Anyway he said that they were c**p speakers but they sounded fine to me when he powered them up (No his name's not John but he might be a cousin) so offered him a few hundred and took them home.

I don't think I've ever said they were crap speakers ever, nor have any of my cousins, to my knowledge.

However, on an interesting note, the originals were not time/phase correct, nor, I think, even 1st order speakers, so I guess you probably don't like them now :) It was in the next generation that they went down the time/phase/1st order path. I also think they're closer to 1980, even late 70s than they are to 1985, according to my bluebook.

And my first listen I now realise had multiple valves in the train in pre amp, CD player and amp. I thought is was SS equipment but it appears that was the second session. And the AudioVector's I listened to were also SS fed. The valve equipment, as sweet as it is in the midrange, is not my first choice personally. Anyway, I love them now.


Take it with a grain of salt if you wish, but the few high-end demos I've heard with Vandersteens used tube amps, and they sounded fine. I currently use pro audio SS amps, which satisfy me.


Well I feel like I have won the lottery. I have some very good ancillary equipment and an amp in particular that has phenomenal drive and control and these things rock (and jazz and classic).


That's great that you are happy with your first pair of Vandersteens at home. I felt similarly when I got mine. I found after the first couple of months, playing around with the speaker positioning, and my seating location, also improved the sound dramatically. You should eventually experiment with placement from the front/side walls for better bass response, as well as toe-in for image focus. You can start with Vandersteen's simple placement guide in the manual, and work from there.

Have fun!

- Steve O.

atdaminco, thanks for starting this thread. What a great thing the ignore option is, first time I've used it.

LOL, it is nice isn't it!?

nuance and scorch (and others), thanks for your advice and interest.

You are welcome; I am happy to help.

Well, last weekend I had my second session listening to the 2ce sigs through a variety of amps and ancillary equipment and they are everything you all suggested. Interestingly though. I think I now know why I was a little cool on first listen. In my opinion, these speakers far more than any I have heard in the past, pass on the qualities of the supporting equipment to the listener. And my first listen I now realise had multiple valves in the train in pre amp, CD player and amp. I thought is was SS equipment but it appears that was the second session. And the AudioVector's I listened to were also SS fed. The valve equipment, as sweet as it is in the midrange, is not my first choice personally. Anyway, I love them now.

Even more exciting to me was that last monday, I called into my old dealer and found he had some pristine Vandy 1s in his second hand area. Model 1s note, not C's or B's by some miracle. Anyway he said that they were c**p speakers but they sounded fine to me when he powered them up (No his name's not John but he might be a cousin) so offered him a few hundred and took them home. Thought a long term trial might finally let me see if I liked the Vandy sound in my own home.

Well I feel like I have won the lottery. I have some very good ancillary equipment and an amp in particular that has phenomenal drive and control and these things rock (and jazz and classic). If these things are old (about 1985 I think) budget items, heaven help me when I get home some modern 1s or 2s. I just can't believe something so old can sound so good. When I've had time to really compose my thoughts, I might add a bit of detail but in the meantime, thanks guys.

Good for you buddy! I am glad you found something that makes you happy; that is all that matters. I am looking forward to your impressions after putting some time in with the Vandersteen’s.

I found after the first couple of months, playing around with the speaker positioning, and my seating location, also improved the sound dramatically. You should eventually experiment with placement from the front/side walls for better bass response, as well as toe-in for image focus. You can start with Vandersteen's simple placement guide in the manual, and work from there.

Have fun!

- Steve O.

Agreed. Once you get them locked in, its musical nirvana!

Enjoyed reading this thread. I started with 2c's for music almost 20 years ago. A few years ago I was luck enough to replace them with 5As and just a few days ago added the HT speakers. I have been a musician for 20 years and find these speakers to produce a very realistic sound. They also appear to be very well made for the cost. I'd recommend them highly unless you are into ear-splitting volume levels (and you can even do that with a big 5ch system).

I am considering buying some Vandersteen speakers and wanted know if anyone had experience with them in a very lively room. My room is two stories high w/hard wood floors and lots of windows.

I recently purchased a pair of Monitor Audio RS8s and returned them because they gave me a headache in the aforementioned room.

I would like to buy the vandersteens used. Is there a huge difference between the Signature version and regular 2ce?

thanks for any help in advance.

I am considering buying some Vandersteen speakers and wanted know if anyone had experience with them in a very lively room. My room is two stories high w/hard wood floors and lots of windows.

I recently purchased a pair of Monitor Audio RS8s and returned them because they gave me a headache in the aforementioned room.

I would like to buy the vandersteens used. Is there a huge difference between the Signature version and regular 2ce?

thanks for any help in advance.

ifrt431,

You will probably get more help from acoustic treatments to improve the sound in your room. How width/deep is your listening area? At what levels do you listen to music?

Also, it would be helpful to know the rest of your audio chain to see if 2CE/2CE Signatures is even a good match.

It's a good idea to try to audition the speakers in your room before committing to a purchase (new or used). I got my 3A Signatures before ever listening to them, and was lucky they worked well in my room. If you think your room is challenging, then an audition may save the extra hassle of buying/selling/buying. I do strongly suggest buying used. Vandersteens hold their resale value pretty well.

Richard Vandersteen describes the differences between 2CE and 2CE Signature best on his webpage. I think the Q&A section has that very question answered...

- Steve O.

I am considering buying some Vandersteen speakers and wanted know if anyone had experience with them in a very lively room. My room is two stories high w/hard wood floors and lots of windows.

I recently purchased a pair of Monitor Audio RS8s and returned them because they gave me a headache in the aforementioned room.

I would like to buy the vandersteens used. Is there a huge difference between the Signature version and regular 2ce?

thanks for any help in advance.

I agree that room treatments will greatly help in your situation. You could purchase a "perfect" set of speakers and they will still sound NOT perfect in your room, especially if it is "lively."

I previously had my 2CE sigs in a room with cathedral ceilings and a room that has a slight echo do to the size and ceiling height. The Vandersteens sounded good, but even better after I put up some acoustic panels. You don't have to do anything crazy. Just place some panels in a few places to help with the first reflection points and the sound bounced off the back wall. Also, bass traps may help you a great deal.

Either way, no speaker will sound near its prime in a room with poor acoustics.