Revel Salon vs Vandersteen 5A

I owned the original Salons for three years. I have only heard the Vandy 5A's once at a dealer and cannot express an opinion. Comments like those of Mcreyn are common about the Salons. I likewise thought the Salons lacked life and soul the first few times I heard them. The Salons are a very low-distortion, transparent design that are revealing of upstream components. They were typically demo'd with Madrigal gear, usually Levinson 300 series amps, which use a lot of negative feedback to control the circuit - the lack of life and soul that many people complain of with that speaker/amp combination is in large part the feedback, which unfortunately comes through very clearly on the Salons (check past threads - many people have commented upon how uninvolving they found Salons to be with Madrigal gear). After ignoring Salons for two years as a result, I then heard them with a new Madrigal design and I for the first time liked what I heard - so much so, in fact, that I bought a pair. I ran my Salons mostly with VAC Renaissance 140 monoblocks, which are Class-A biased, zero-feedback, triode tube amps. I felt like Dr. Frankenstein the first time I heard the combo - "It's alive!", I wanted to shout. My closest hi-fi friend ran his Salons with, first, the CAT JL-1 Limited Edition monoblocks, which are amazing tube amps, and then the darTZeel. Rest assured that the Salons most definitely show life and soul when run with equipment that does the same.

Another issue is that in today's used market, people can buy the original Salons for $5k-$6k and are running them with less than great gear. The Salons they are very good speakers and require high-quality upstream componentry.

No Docks, I sold all of the lower range stuff to your sister (which she likes real good). You're welcome.

Irvrobinson:

With regard to amplifiers, global feedback is indeed an issue and I ask whether you have heard no global feedback amps like DarTZeel or Ayre (or no-feedback tube designs). Rowland went with a no global feedback design with his new 625 stereo amp and there's a reason for it.

Regarding my VAC monoblocks, top-flight tube amps, with stiff power supplies and high-quality output transformers, basically function like a solid-state amp into a speaker, unless the speaker features wild impedance swings. The Salons do not and in my particular case, they measured basically flat in-room from 40 Hz. to 16 khz.

PS - To me, most digital sounds pretty lifeless.

No, Irvrobinson, I don't need manufacturer ad copy to educate me about hi-fi equipment. With all due respect, you do seem to have bought what Japanese receiver manufacturers were saying back in '76 about the benefits of transistors and what Phillips and Sony have been saying about PCM digital since the early 80's.

I'll concede that digital measures better than analog by traditional measures, but I don't believe that they've figured out the right things to measure. I'll put a top-flight analog rig up against a top-flight digital rig any time.

As for my VAC amps being "voiced" to sound "different", I challenge you to find to a silicon output device that is more linear than a DHT 300B - you won't. And do you really want to put a $5,000 transistor amp up against a $28k triode tube amp? And Levinson?! Sound quality aside, why anyone would own a Madrigal amp after Harmon fired everyone in the Connecticut facility and what's become of the brand since is beyond me - the South American importer for Madrigal dropped the line after they started shipping him 336's with one channel having the 335 module and the other 334. I'm not reflexively anti-Madrigal and used to run a 37/360s, but come on.

You are not bothered by global feedback, even-order distortions, digititus, etc. - perfect sound forever. It suffices to say that we have vastly different understandings of what's important in a high-resolution two-channel system.

Not to belabor the point, but an ARC amp likely would not sound so different, as ARC uses copious amounts of global feedback in its amp circuits and pentodes for output tubes (ARC = great preamps and boring amps). The VAC Renaissance amps have a feedback dial that allows the user to select up to seven decibels of global feedback - it's amazing to hear the amp go from pristine clarity and openness (0 decibels) to ... Bryston (7 db.). I not joking - I owned a 4B ST for years and know what the thing sounds like.

Being perfectly honest, I never fully fell in love with my Salons - not to initiate another joust, but I rarely warm to speakers that use high-order crossovers. There are advantages and disadvantages to both high-order and first-order designs, but I can't get past the phase shift with a speaker that uses a fourth-order crossover. The Salons are very accomplished for what they are and I could probably live with them again if I had to, but they weren't my ideal speaker.

Irvrobinson:

Fair enough - I respect reluctance to drink the koolade, so to speak. There's so much of it in high-end audio and it's lamentable.

One doesn't need gobs of money to obtain a no-feedback amp. The VAC Renaissance 140/140 Mk. III monoblocks cost $28k at retail (the Signatures were $36k), but can now be had for $7.5k on the used market. The 65 watt 70/70 Mk. III retailed for $14k (Signature was $18k), but can now be had for less than $4k used. As for reasonably priced solid-state alternatives, some of the Sim amps don't use feedback.

Let me be clear - I'm not saying that all amps that use feedback are crap. I mentioned my old Bryston 4B ST - it's a lot of amp for the money and can bring a lot of enjoyment if used properly, but it sounds two-dimensional and moribund compared to a good amp that does not use feedback. If I was putting together a second system and was confident that I was getting an amp that was well taken care of, I might consider a ML 334, irrespective of Harmon's problems (I have a friend who can pretty much fix anything if he can get a schematic), as it is again a lot of amp for the money. But does this amp, or for the sake of argument, the 33H that regenerates power and costs a lot more money, compare to my no-feedback darTZeel (solid-state) or VAC (tube)? If a more realistic protrayal of unamplified acoustic instruments (i.e., classical, much jazz) is the goal, no, I don't believe so.

I'm not as doctrinaire as you may think (I'm not running a 2A3 amp on a single-driver speaker fed by an Edison cylinder). Simply put, assuming a good room, decent A/C supply, knowledgeable set-up, and equipment of equal parts quality and construction, I believe that a no-global-feedback amp, tube or solid-state, of roughly 100-150 watts/channel on a 92+ db. efficient speaker featuring a simple 1st order crossover and fed by a quality analog source or full DSD recording is going to reproduce unamplified acoustic instruments in a more realistic fashion than an amp with a ton of output devices, tube or solid-state, using global feedback driving an 86 db. efficient speaker with a 4th order crossover that's fed by a typical PCM source - not to be obnoxious, but that's experience, not extremism.

All the best.