Maineiac, much appreciated.
|
Legacy Focus SE 18Hz +/- 2db
Vandersteen Quatro 24 Hz +/- 2 dB
I reviewed the Focus SE for Dagogo.com |
The Quatro is side-firing and would make a mess of the low end if it were not tuned. I'm not particularly impressed with the bass of speakers which side-fire their low end drivers. A significant amount of nuance in the lower frequencies is lost.
For those who say it doesn't matter which direction the woofer points, I'm not buying it. I have used side, down, rear and forward firing woofers in speakers and all alternative directions to front firing are not as pleasing to my ear. The bass simply sounds flabbier, less distinct and uncecessarily involves the room more. So, yes, it's a good idea for Vandersteen to work to control the drivers blasting the bass toward a side wall.
|
Chad, I have owned the Vandy 1B, 2CE and 2W subs, prior to reviewing. I have heard the Quatro at dealers and shows. I have also heard the 5 at dealer and shows, and the 7 at shows. I have more than a glancing familiarity with Vandersteen sound. When it first came out I was interested in the Quatro and reviewing it. However, hearing it a few times I've not been motivated to pursue it. There likely would be a couple of reviewers at Dagogo.com who would love to do so.
A primary reason I pursued multiple reviews with the Legacy line is that I love panel sound - have for decades. I also am loathe to give up one technology for another; I have hated the idea that I should pursue "the One" reference speaker, dynamic or panel as an example. Legacy is one of the very few speaker makers who design hybrid full range dynamic/panel speakers. I really enjoy that sound, as is evidenced by my other reference speaker, the Kingsound King ESL. I heard something very good in the Legacy HD, and felt that it would be worthwhile to pursue a reference speaker with those qualities only refined further. I found a technology/sound I like and pursued it as far as I can afford. Reviewers are supposed to have a reference, and over the years I've worked to establish mine.
Bill Dudleston has built into the Whisper's bass driver complement an electronic "brake" system implemented via the crossover, to limit backward excursion of the rear driver, thus limiting the amount of rear-directed energy toward the headwall. The paired bass drivers also create a null at 90 degrees - toward the wall, so there is little interaction with the room there as well.
One thing's for sure, we can all get passionate about our speakers! :) |
Pubul57, yes, I should have indicated it was in response to Chad's comment regarding the bass. He and I have gone round and round about the Vandy's and Legacy's before. I think he over-dramatizes and he thinks I'm out to lunch, so it's a perfect sparring match! All in good fun - I think! ;)
We all know that the quality in terms of clarity/detail of the low end is important. I included the specs to show that there is a sizable difference in low end output between the Quatro and the Focus SE. For me this is one critical component of the quality of the bass. While it may seem on paper not so critical, in listening for things like impact, slam, etc. those additional -6 dB are extremely important. The extra 6 dB down were what convinced me to let go of the Vandy subs when I bought the Legacy Focus HD. Despite the V2W having 3 of the powered 8" drivers, the adjustable sensitivity and phase, I preferred the low end of the HD.
Obviously, opinions will vary. :) |
I said I had a problem with the direction some bass drivers fire. The Whisper's bass drivers fire in parallel in a forward direction. If they fired in a different direction I likely would not own Legacy speakers as a refrence; that's how important I think the issue of driver directionality is. I would suggest that stacking two drivers in tandem facing forward is a far cry from turning one 90 degrees and firing it toward a side wall. Feel free to disagree! ;)
The bottom line is that it seems to me you do not trust what I'm saying is motivated by a debate of technical aspects of speaker design/construction. So be it; the community can decide for themselves.
You said, "...in a roundabout way is exactly..." It's that kind of logic which precludes a straightforward discussion. As always, enjoyable arguing with you, Chad! I'm leaving the debate here. :) |
Johnny, thank you for the correction, and shows why one can't trust memory 100%! The Quatro would operate in terms of the bass similar to the Vandersteen subs, then, correct? The phrase, "downward firing slot loaded system," sounds familiar. So, it has sealed top, slotted sub.
Could you clarify your comment in the above conversation with Mitch4t, where you said, "Some say front firing woofers have greater impact.
This is evidence that the woofers are radiating spurious energies because impact from a woofer is normally in the mid-range."
Thanks.
|
Ironic; I used the design of the coaxial driver to explain the superiority of the positioning of the drivers on the front baffle of the Legacy DSW.
Preferences like forward vs. downward firing woofers show that people hear things very differently. It's great that everyone can find a type of speaker to suit them. :) |
Pubul57, I know what you mean; however, we should clarify for semantic purposes.
I think we'd agree that a superior rig/speakers should allow the perception of the most natural/accurate/non-editorialized playback of the recording, whether good or poor.
I believe that superior systems/speakers will always make poor recordings sound better than on average systems. The better the system/speakers, the better the recording will sound. Now, perhaps we may not like the improved sound, due to being used to hearing it played back more poorly! We can have nostalgia, preconcieved notions about how it should sound, etc. That can color our perspective about the higher end playback. There have been many times I have had to adjust my expectations as I have heard an older/poorer recording played back far better, but it has sounded so dramatically different than I expected. That it was being played back at a higher fidelity level was incontrovertible; I had to get used to the fact that the music was different than I had imagined. One hears more of the flaws, but also more of the nature of the instruments, voices, venue, etc. If that is not the case, then I suggest there is a serious problem with the establishment of the rig. A poor recording is a poor recording, but an outstanding rig will make all music sound better, including poor recordings. A superior system is the tide which lifts all boats (recordings).
In that sense, then, I seek a speaker system/speaker which allows poor recordings to sound holisitically better. So, I think perhaps we are in agreement.
Disagreement over speakers is partly a function of the editorializing we all conduct when we establish our rigs, setting them up to suit our preferences. |
It's a tricky topic in one respect since no speaker operates without attending components. Those components may be complimentary or difficult. To further complicate issues, one may guess the sound of a certain rig as it appears to the eye, but unless there is familiarity with the components and speakers the actual sound may be quite different than anticipated. When a person has familiarity with a speaker or component which has been used by them with a larger number of other pieces then perhaps a good baseline can be built regarding that speaker/component's global performance. But even then there can still be surprises!
Case in point, I think I described the Cambridge Audio Azur 840W and the Pathos Classic One MkIII accurately in my reviews, however when they were put into a situation in which they were feeding an actively crossed speaker their character changed (for the positive) profoundly. The use of a different technology leveraged their performance capabilities. Truthfully, I would not have recognized their sonic signature, the difference was so vast between the former (passive x-over) and latter (active x-over) implementation. The bottom line is that it becomes impossible to say definitively the component will sound ONLY thus. The best we can hope for is a fairly narrow set of descriptors to learn its basic parameters.
Knowing a component or speaker well is not simply a matter of, "I built this system and the speaker sounds thus..." - at least not to gain a holistic understanding of what the speaker is capable of. One needs to see how it reacts to 4, 5, 6, 7 or even more different components. Good speakers can definitely be made to sound poorer when used with a non-complimentary assemblage of gear. This is one reason I typically set up three or four systems when reviewing speakers, to gain a more thorough understanding of its character. Naturally, ultimately that determination is left to the owner.
There is an authentic excitement to the discovery of how a new system will sound; the electronic equivalent of having a first listen to a new piece of music. What's great is that when you have finally settled on your "house" sound, your ear's favorite combo of gear every new piece of music is savory, intoxicating, simply breathtaking. As my system has reached a point where it speaks to my ears the way I hoped it could it plays back all music more beautifully than when there was a deficiency that needed to be addressed over time. Hopefully many in our hobby share that experience.
The key to settling down and accepting our rigs as devices for enjoyment while not giving up a search for improvement is to accept that we will never arrive. There will always be improvements possible; there are levels of sound quality that await - this is assured by the ongoing improvements in technological change. I have gone from having to get my "ultimate" rig to being more content to establish excellent rigs, knowing that there are literally hundreds of variants to them. I have had the bar raised in terms of what I will accept as an excellent rig, but also see there is more latitude in which components and speakers are used to achieve that level of sound. For sure, not all components/speakers can do so, but with patience and experimentation an awful lot of gear can reach that point in a system where the gear plays to each others' strengths.
|
