2. speakers
  3. 1196003497

Stereophile Review of Quatro Wood

Anyone read the review of the Vandy Quatro Wood in the latest Stereophile? With this effort, Wes Phillips has moved the bar a full notch lower, further diminishing the relevance of the major audiophile rags.

After a (too) lengthy treatment of the design specifics, he touches on a fairly narrow range of performance characteristics and then spends the rest of the review on a useless (and superficial) comparison of the Quatro Wood and the Wilson WATT/Puppy 8--which is way more than double the price. What was he thinking? Why not compare the Quatro to several other similarly priced floorstanding models? How about a comparison with the sock version Quatro or the 5A? At least the consumer could get some sense of where the Quatro Wood falls within the Vandersteen line and whether the wood or the larger 5A is worth the extra bucks.

It's not that I am disappointed--the only reason I keep my subscription to these mags is because they are dirt cheap (a consequence of the inflated subscription figures that the low rate provides) and the record reviews are somewhat helpful. It's just that this particular review has demonstrated just how useless these reviews have become.
dodgealum

Showing 4 responses by mrjstark

mrjstark
1,112 posts
 
The whole purpose of this review is clearly laid out on the first page of the article.
Read it again put 2 & 2 together (what you know, what you read here - it is not that difficult to figure out what that review supposed to accomplished.

Mariusz
mrjstark
1,112 posts
 
Reviews purpose was to explain Richard's risky design decision (in my opinion) plus to find justification in almost 4G price increase over "cloth" Quatro. Not easy task. It would make sense if direct comparison was performed. Instead different approach was chosen, a silly one to. Wilson Watt Puppy 8.
No word about sound resemblance or differences between "Wood", "Cloth" and 5A. Interesting ?????
Another thing - why Wes Phillips not Fremer him self. It would be a lot more logical to have Fremer conduct follow up review of "Woodys" but I just don't think he would sign the article with his name for the obvious reasons. So patsy was chosen.
mrjstark
1,112 posts
 
Bob, I was also wondering how involved he was in the original review. Maybe....just maybe Wes used Fremer's notes as a reference and put a little spin with Puppys.
Surely compering Woodys to Willson is a complement considering the price difference but who cares.
IF I WANTED TO BUY QUATROS, this review would not help me at all. Sound Quality and "supposed" improvements over original Quatro are still unknown and quait cloudy in my point of view.
My opinion is firm on this matter and I don't want to repeat my personal observations on this thread.
I own Quatros and Stereophile's weak review did not impress me at all.
Quait simply, my overall impression is that campaign for Quatro Wood as a superior version of the original is just as difficult as justification in $3700 price increase for potential buyer.
I still believe that original Quatro represent the best bang for the money. And it seems that Stereophile has a hard time in convincing themselves as well as their readers that Richard Vandersteen's decision was the right one.
If I am right about this - you will never see Vandersteen TOP OF THE LINE speakers in a 'WOOD' version.
mrjstark
1,112 posts
 
Steve...!!! Forget the review. Quatros are NICE, REALY NICE. And Tom is right. They are overachievers in their price range [in my opinion(sock-vers)]. A definitive step up from 2Ces/3a.
More to discover