Vandersteen 2CE Signature III — video review on YouTube by Steve Guttenberg (1/15/2023)

God save the generally factual !

And save me, on the generally hyperbole end…
@tomic601 you took the bait.

tomic601

God save the generally factual !

Hey, I try my best too! 😎

Bruce is also a Mac dealer and might have a 275 to demo with…

God save the generally factual !

yes, I run Treo CT in a fairly large room with a 40 WPC MC240 or 40 WPC NAIM Solid state. You can see system pictures under virtual systems:!Casa Pacifica

enjoy the music :-)

 

Thank you guys!

 

Would the Treo CT mate well with a McIntosh MC275 VI? Just looking at the sensitivity.

@tubular1 I would say no one general principle 😙, but @tomic601 runs some McIntosh and generally is pretty factual. 😁
 

Back in the 1980s both Optimal Enchantment in LA and Havens and Hardesty in Orange County frequently demoed the current Model 2 with top of the line Audio Research electronics. Some people questioned if that made sense, until they heard those systems.

@pryso I’ve been to both of those places, and was at the ballet studio almost exactly a year ago.

Thank you guys!

Would the Treo CT mate well with a McIntosh MC275 VI? Just looking at the sensitivity.

@tubular1 its worth a drive to San Diego, Stereo Unlimited demo pretty much everything Vandersteen builds. You are also welcome to hear my Treo CT w a Sub 3…. Sounds fantastic w same DNA as top of the line 7’s, which I also enjoy. Best to you on your musical journey !

jim

tubular1

I just looked and was very surprised that there isn’t a dealer near Phoenix. Maybe Tucson?

Vandersteen dealers search https://www.vandersteen.com/dealers/usa

Stereo Unlimited
3191 Sports Arena Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92110
619 223 8151
https://stereounlimitedsd.com

Optimal Enchantment (Randy and Rocco) in Santa Monica CA are excellent. I bought my first pair there.

Thanks for all the insight!

I currently have 2 REL 9i subs so either the 2CE III or the Treo CT might sound just right with them.  Wonder if I would get my moneys worth getting the Treos since I have the 2 subs to potentially mate with the 2CEs?

Also have to find a selling source.  I live in Phoenix and nothing near here at all.  

2psyop, I can't say that "Richard never intended this model to compete with other well established and more expensive brands".  But some of his successful dealers did.  Back in the 1980s both Optimal Enchantment in LA and Havens and Hardesty in Orange County frequently demoed the current Model 2 with top of the line Audio Research electronics.  Some people questioned if that made sense, until they heard those systems.

Of course that was long ago now.  But Optimal Enchantment remains open, still selling both brands.

I have always liked the sound of Vandersteen. I had seen many people sell their 2CE speakers only to regret it later and buy another pair. They are well designed and sound great within the parameters of that kind of budget. Richard never intended this model to compete with other well established and more expensive brands and models, including his own. I had listened to about 7-10 speakers around that price and settled on them. I just couldn’t let them go after years of pleasureable listening, so I opted to play with adding stereo subwoofers. What could it hurt? Now these speakers are revitalized! They are not without faults because if you don’t give them enough room or don’t place and tilt them according to the manual and your room, you will not really hear what quality sound they can give. I have had times where the upper highs have been harsh. Mostly it was the room reflections and dampening. If I had to rate these speakers from 1-10, they would get a 9.5.

After much tweaking I have integrated my Vandersteen 2CE Sig II's with a pair of Rythmik F12G-SE. The Vandersteen's were good before the subs, but now the sound went to 11. As they say in Spinal Tap "this one goes to 11"....

+1

well integrated subs will afford a step change in sonic performance of many systems, even with purported high performance full range speakers...

2psyop

NICE! I've wondered about doing that.👍

After much tweaking I have integrated my Vandersteen 2CE Sig II's with a pair of Rythmik F12G-SE. The Vandersteen's were good before the subs, but now the sound went to 11. As they say in Spinal Tap "this one goes to 11"....

tubular1 My pleasure!

holmz  does make a good point about bass

If you want more bass then you need a sub or to move north of the Treos.

My 2CEs have a lower bass extension than the Treos, but the Treo bass is BETTER. Tighter, cleaner, more accurate. Quality vs quantity, though the bass from the 2CE isn't bad at all. It can sometimes be a bit bloated or "squishy" but I listen to a lot of acoustic music and not much of that is bass-heavy.

At "my" dealer, one of the guys has Treo CTs with 2 subwoofers and loves it, saying it's as least as good as the Quatro CT, (but not much less expensive to go that route if at all, esp with Vandy subs). The beauty of that combo is you can do it in stages: get the Treos, and if you miss the extra bass then add one or two subs. You may decide you don't need it. 

The Quatro CT is in another league from several standpoints: 1) Each speaker has its own built-in powered subwoofer, with very adjustable output settings. Tuneable to the room and setup. 2) You won't need as much "horsepower" in your amp to drive the speakers, because the woofers are internally powered. So, you can drive them with a lower-powered amp.You will need the Vandy high-pass filter crossovers ("The M5 High-Pass Crossovers are ideally suited to the Quatro line of speakers as well as the SUB Three and are implemented between the preamp and the amplifier. ") BUT—I was just told that Ayre can modify both their integrated amps and their amps to have the high-pass crossover internally, meaning the external high-pass won't be necessary. I am told that other mfrs do this too, but not sure who.

The Vandy Forum is a good place to browse for info and ask questions
Vandersteen FORUM

Cheers

I have always been curious about Vandy speakers because they consistently get great reviews.  All Models it seems.

Therefore, is it worth buying any of the higher end models?  Or just buy the 2Ce sig 3 and be done?  Are the Treo TC or the Quatro worth the money?  Anyone heard all 3, or 2 of these 3 and made a comparison?

@tubular1 
It depends on what you want. If you want more bass then you need a sub or to move north of the Treos.

The Treos are way more expensive that a 2C, but the WAF ends up with them usually saying get the Treos.

There are so many factors it is not just an easy answer.

I am not a card-carrying fanboy, blindly loyal, but I have found Vandys to be speakers I can live with for a long time, and I don’t have the money to scratch every itch and jump from brand to brand. Vandys are extremely musical, for lack of a better term, and let you forget about them and just enjoy the music. For me, that is the goal. GOOD LUCK!

The pair in front of me were purchased in ‘84.
I’ve been watching the TV with them more lately as the TT is being rehabilitated.

I forget that they are there.

Thanks Patrick!

tubular1

I own the latest 2CE Sig III and auditioned the Treo CT at the time I was deciding, and since. Also the Quatro CT, and have spent time in front of the 7 with the top Vandy monoblocks (AMAZING system). All are listed as Editors’ Choices in their price brackets by Absolute Sound in their Recommended Components guide, iirc.

There is a consistency of sound, the "Vandersteen Sound", among them. I would say it comes down to budget. IMHO, the 2CE is a best buy and punches way above its weight. But, if spending $10k (vs $3500) is in the budget, the Treo CT is superb and is much better looking. I may soon get the Treos. BUT—again IMO—I think the Quatro CT is in the sweet spot of performance vs value in its price-range and in the Vandersteen lineup, when compared to the top of the line 7 (really great) or even the Kento. There is really no wrong answer. I would REALLY love a pair of Quatro CTs.

It is quite common to see Vandy owners move up from the 2 or 3 to the Treo, and then to the Quatro or Kento as/if funds allow. So, "worth the money?". Only you can decide that. There is the law of diminishing returns in high-end audio, and to some of my friends spending even $3500 on speakers is insane, but I would gladly spend the $$ on the Treo CT or Quatro CT.

There is a member here who has the Treo CT and the 7 with monoblocks (which I have heard). Maybe a 10X difference in price and I asked him specifically if he felt like the Treos come up short compared to his 7's.  "No way," he said. He said there is a consistency in the sound, and that he loves the Treos but that the 7 is just more of a great thing. 

CAVEAT: The Treo and Quatro are superbly-resolving speakers and will highlight any deficiencies elsewhere in your system. It is important that the components upstream are up to the task, including cabling. I have an Odyssey Audio Khartago+++ amp, and though it’s not super expensive I like it and it’s a Jon Valin best-buy, I think it would be adequate or fine with the Treos. A more expensive amp *might* even be better (I would like the Ayre VX-5/Twenty maybe, or mono blocks, for the Treo). Richard Vandersteen recommends "zero negative feedback" amps like Ayre, and so do many dealers. A good Vandersteen dealer will tell you about good pairings (Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica, or John Rutan at Audio Connection in NJ are two...where are you?).

I am not a card-carrying fanboy, blindly loyal, but I have found Vandys to be speakers I can live with for a long time, and I don’t have the money to scratch every itch and jump from brand to brand. Vandys are extremely musical, for lack of a better term, and let you forget about them and just enjoy the music. For me, that is the goal. GOOD LUCK!

The 2CE and Treo are on this AbSound list of 50 Greatest Bargains in High-End Audio 50 Greatest High-End Bargains List

I have always been curious about Vandy speakers because they consistently get great reviews.  All Models it seems.

Therefore, is it worth buying any of the higher end models?  Or just buy the 2Ce sig 3 and be done?  Are the Treo TC or the Quatro worth the money?  Anyone heard all 3, or 2 of these 3 and made a comparison?

durkn

Hi— I would be curious to know which Larsens you listened to and what you did and didn’t like, if you care to share. I was mostly interested in the 6.2 and the 8.2 (the latest). From the reviews, they are supposed to be quite a different listening experience than typical front-firing speakers we are mostly used to. They throw up a wall of sound, more like a live performance, it is said.

One dealer said that to me over the phone once he listened to them a lot, he decided that listening to typical front-firing speakers is more "artificial", saying that hearing individual instruments so specifically arrayed within the soundstage is artifice, not like a live performance. I think it depends on what kind of live performance, but with recorded music that artifice is certainly is created when the record is produced, by the person running the soundboard, yes?

From AbSound review of Larsen 8:

<< The Sound In General
While the Model 8s have the consistency between room sound and direct sound of an omni, at the same time they are quite directional thanks to their wall placement—they are by nature half-space radiators. So the sound has a much greater directness than one gets from omnis. And this directness leads to extraordinary definition from the lower midrange on down. Trombones, for example, have the solidity and definition of attack that they have in reality. (Hearing a real trombone after listening to a trombone on a speaker tends to be a disconcerting experience. The speaker version lacks adequate definition of the complex initial structure all too often. But not here!)

This is not easy to quantify in measurement, but it is surely easy—and rewarding—to hear. The lower brass, the cello and basses, the bottom range of the piano, all such things acquire the kind of precision and sculptured sound that they really have. There is a good reason to have bass drive up against the boundaries. This is, of course, also the reason for the development of the corner woofer systems of TacT and Lyngdorf, and much earlier for the Allison speakers, which were placed either in corners or against the wall with woofer close to the floor.

This stuff works! One really hears the lower mids on down better. Not only is the presentation more even in frequency response but better in definition. (Because minimum phase matters, these two things are related, but in listening terms they are perceived as quite distinct.)

The stereo imaging of the Model 8s is again different from an ordinary speaker. The directness makes images seem very solid, but the focus of them is of a different character from free-space speakers. The images are either more “dimensional” or less focused, depending on one’s viewpoint. This is not an obvious matter in terms of realism, since the kind of focus of image that can arise in stereo is not really a feature of real sound. One can get to like it a lot, but in a real concert environment, the extreme image focus does not actually happen. The making of recordings has to some extent responded to this by using spaced microphone techniques that blur the stereo images in the recording no matter how one plays them back. Again, life is complicated. In any case, the Model 8s sound close to reality, but not exactly like other speakers as far as imaging is concerned. Imaging is convincing and hearing into the recording venue is excellent but the imaging is different in character. The wide pattern gives unusual stability, but focus is less precise. >>

AbSound / Larsen 8 review

I have the 2ce Sig1’s. I went from Maggie’s to 2ci & up. The change from 2ce to 2ce Sig added a bit on top.

They are extremely capable speakers, as witnessed through system changes.

I have heard the Larsen’s & prefer mine.

My most recent system change was from Soundsmith Zephyr cart to the Zephyr MkIII ES cart. That alone is a significant upgrade which added a bit on the top.

Being ‘rolled off’ could be due to system…

Hi patrickdowns, being a long time critic of Vandersteens it doesn't surprise me that making the treble more accurate bothers many. Every time I listened to the older version they sounded similar to whatever I had IF you tossed a thick towel over the tweeters. Don't be bothered by the detractors, nor me. Beauty is in the ear of the listener! If your happy, it's perfect! Personally I am glad to hear that he is making them more accurate. I have always wanted to like Vandersteens, and perhaps I now would. That's me though, it's you who needs to be happy with them, don't worry about the rest of us!

Thanks, Jim @tomic601 ! I would love to.

@patrickdowns You are welcome to visit again any time…. The Treo CT with a Sub3 are sounding sweet with Kuzma CAR-40 on the front end….. even powered with an ancient but highly modified 1961 amplifier……

Fun

Enjoy the music

Jim

One great reason for a brand specific owners forum where the designer weighs in with real world experience based on setting up literally THOUSANDS of Vandersteen speakers in MANY rooms with MYRID gear is reading his comments about toe in….. something like “ toe out might even be needed in rare circumstances but listen and experiment “ my paraphrase. Tilt is much more prescriptive and is as stated based on ear height and distance from acoustic center to ear.

Good as the old 2’s were……and wow did we sell a ton of them… RV is relentless in improving…EVERYTHING… cabinet, components, drivers, wire, conformal coatings… watch the TREO build video….

I guess I am a fan boy ;-) 

And all the Vandy tweeters have no breakup below 30 K …..because it matters…

Toe-in can certainly vary depending on the room, the distance between the speakers, and the throw to the listening position. I’m using more now than I did for a long time, based on the recommendation of somebody who’s set up a lot of Vandersteen systems

"Toe-in is also important. When Vandersteens are properly set up, the performance is excellent."
That's interesting.  When my step father ran his 2Ce's, we did a fair amount of moving and testing and measuring in his listening loft, and toe in made things measurably worse.  Granted, rooms have everything to do with the need or harm from toe-in, but it was holographic with NO toe in.  He also had the flat Sound Anchor stands without the lean back.  Again, this seemed to give the best center focus and widest presentation.  Man, those speakers and that loft were something to behold.  It was like the perfect set up and experience, and super comfy!

holmz

🤣 Speakers powered by good Karma?

@patrickdowns I just sit in the cave crosslegged on the dirt like an ascetic monk.
And use more cushion thickness, if the ears are too low…

Excerpt: "Note: I know people are sticklers for positioning and a proper listening experience means time should be taken to find the ideal axis to listen at and place the speakers in the room. While I did not have the OEM stands, I did, of course, take the time to try a few positions and sitting heights to find what worked best in-room. Looking around online, I found the OEM stands have a slight tilt to them so I experimented a bit with that as I moved the speaker about the room as well. Though, I do find it odd that so much attention was put into the physical offset of the drivers to time align them via the large step-stair enclosures yet the design still uses a stand that has a physical tilt as well to time align them. Seems a bit redundant to me. One would think you’d have one or the other and not need stands to do what the actual build of the speaker seemed intent on doing"

⏩ It would help for her to have listened to a very recent pair, and also to have read the Vandersteen setup manual. The stands are very important. I have mine weighted with about 30 lb of lead shot for coupling with the floor. And the rear tilt is critical to have the tweeter aimed at the listener’s ear height, and that depends on distance to the listening chair. Toe-in is also important. When Vandersteens are properly set up, the performance is excellent.

I doubt tweeters are getting faster over time.

Cone breakup may be getting reduced, and dome resonances are likely on a general trend downwards. The carbon cones and the “CT” would be some examples why and how.

And on the motor side, motors are generally either getting more linear, or going for longer strokes… and occasionally both… mostly with woofers.
motor non linearity show up as HD and IMD.

Hence without some measurement plot of SPL vs Freq, and the harmonics thrown in there, it is difficult to figure what may be going on technically under the kimono or sock.

One of the “Darlings” on ASR is the Revel F228be.
They conveniently left out the step response, but the stereophile review has it.

Step response of F228be:

I found that the step response of the 30 year old 2c that Erin measured seems to look a bit different:

Step response of 30 year pair of Vandersteen 2C:
(Doesn’t look like it will paste in, but it almost at the bottom In the URL)

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/vandersteen_model_2/

Stereophile showed it in 1995:

Those two speakers do not look like they have similar step response.

I doubt the newer model differs much in step response, but it could differ in HD profile (Lower, I would hope/expect) and likely the FR is flatter (hope).

I sort of like to see the measurements as going to a shop with the all excitement, their room, gear, and track selection… makes it a bit of magic show. The speakers and systems should not sound bad, but most everything in a shop is set up and demoed to sound pretty good.

No matter how good a random speaker is sounding though, it would be difficult to make a speaker with poor step response become more coherent… an hour in a well treated room may not be enough to hear through with the skipping around of random tracks and salesman blather.

@jamesbgood

you may well be right

or both points may be true... more perceptibly transparent and also brighter

remember that perceived brightness is a relative balance issue and also related to relative speed of drivers and phase characteristics

no doubt better drivers are being used over time as they become available or available at a reasonable cost ....

@jjss49 I find it interesting that you discuss Vandersteens getting brighter.  One of the great databases of info is John Atkinson's measurements.  I looked through several of them and didn't see the speakers getting brighter.  I am hyper-sensitive to forward and nasal sounds.  My Quatros are certainly more revealing than older designs I have heard.  There is more harmonic information, and the speakers seem to settle faster, I assume because of better drivers and boxes (where there are boxes), but I have never heard them sound bright.  Perhaps the amp matchup or cabling was off when you heard them.  

patrickdowns

Excellent post! I concur, the newest Vandy "2 Series" is excellent. The Legacy continues.

Happy Listening!

re: "Is it possible he reviews a lot of things but politely only publishes the ones he really likes?"

Don’t know, but I would guess that manufacturers—knowing it’s a safe bet he won’t air anything too harshly critical (the closest he comes seems to be "damning with faint praise")—offer lots of gear to him for reviewing. A steady supply of new, nice gear to listen to...maybe that is his ulterior motive? I know there are some people making BIG bucks on YouTube doing those product unboxing videos (WTH?)—does anyone know if he makes a nice living from this?

Is it possible he reviews a lot of things but politely only publishes the ones he really likes?  

dayglow re: Never understood the need or interest for product validation or brand forums. Steve Guttenberg praises everything he reviews.

I’m not that familiar with him, and had a friend send me this review. It seems that is his m.o. though. Some "critics" don’t like to be actually constructively critical, and some are too critical. That said, the Vandersteens across the board have gotten consistent praise (both for sound and for being superb values) through the years/decades from respected reviewers, and having owned several pairs for 20+ years (and considering new ones) I am confident in my choice and don’t need it validated. There are other brands I would also own, were I able to have multiple systems.

As far as brand forums go, the only one I visit is Vandersteen’s own forum. It’s a good source for system, technical, and setup info. FWIW.

Steve Guttenberg praises everything he reviews. 

why is anyone surprised about this?  it is a mutually beneficial eco system...

talking bad about a product is bad business for everyone... 

Never understood the need or interest for product validation or brand forums. Steve Guttenberg praises everything he reviews. 

Owned the Vandersteen 2CE years ago.  Very good speaker, very good company.  

Also, I do not understand why they still dress them up in socks. They could look decent undressed, with a good coat of paint, black white red or blue, whatever.

I suspect you are an orthapedic surgeon or like to look at X-rays 😎

I like to peek inside a kimono as much as the next person, but I would also suspect that without the sock people would obsess over dust/etc and start poking the drivers.
Or a cat would jump in.

I currently have the Vandersteen 2ci and do agree with everyone here that they have a rolloff top end. I also read that the tend to be on the warm side but i dont know if that is true. I personally think that the older are voiced to be a balance speaker.  When I did a room response, I hve notice that it starts to roll of gradually maybe 6db/oct at about 8k. 

It was not the downward slope that I was referring to, which is somewhat minor.
It was the lumpiness of frequency response through the middle.
But probably as good as anything from the era??

In the HT AVR I entered in the PEQ values that make it a bit flatter across the middle… and the room does some of its stuff as well.

It would be pretty nice to see similar analysis of the models.
One can see near the bottom of the link, that there is step response and compression. (Most of the manufacture data for speakers with higher order crossovers leave out step function response.)
Frequency response is talked about as being more important, but it is not a crime to have textbook step function response.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/vandersteen_model_2/

@chrisr 

Also, I do not understand why they still dress them up in socks. 

keeps $$$$$$ down. ‘Socks’ are much less expensive than finished cabinets.

So, all of you are more qualified to tell us what Steve heard than he is himself? 

I have had the 2ce signature in the past and loved them!

I just thought that tilting them just right was a pain in the neck.  And they were heavy.

Also, I do not understand why they still dress them up in socks. They could look decent undressed, with a good coat of paint, black white red or blue, whatever.

its no surprise that some manufacturers of gear resort to meaningless specs like frequency response to 30khz to try to sell their wares... for tweeters, it often less about frequency extension, rather more so about the flatness of response through the audible range, managing ringing/resonances, which are usually excited during musical transients being played

that said, one man’s rolled off is another man’s natural and balanced sounding... then there is always the room effect, which generally overwhelms more minor differences in speaker frequency range output in any anechoic situation, couldn’t be farther than real world.... haven’t yet met someone who could hear a speaker without a room it sits in...

another thing to bear in mind is that what was right in terms of voicing components 10-15-20-25-30 years ago is not wrong today, it has also been about synergy through the chain using system components of the day -- shrill early cd players, screechy lean solid state amps, tipped up mc carts, rolled off classic tube gear.... optimization and balance of all such aspects has always been what it’s about in successful system building

^You might not be wrong for you, but for others, missing sound beyond the limitations of FM could be lacking. Furthermore, there something to be said for the wiggle room beyond the limitations of hearing.

I do know that MY hearing (at age 65) at high frequencies has been rolled off! I can hear maybe to 12,000 Hertz now. So I laugh when I see speakers that tout specs of 30,000 HZ frequency extension. What’s the point? Give me amazing performance between 30hz and 15,000 and I’m good. Am I wrong?

I think that some older speakers weren’t capable of true high end extension, which allowed the rising high end of many mc cartridges to gain in popularity. Later with more capable tweeters and the entrance of CD’s this was altered.

I currently have the Vandersteen 2ci and do agree with everyone here that they have a rolloff top end. I also read that the tend to be on the warm side but i dont know if that is true. I personally think that the older are voiced to be a balance speaker.  When I did a room response, I hve notice that it starts to roll of gradually maybe 6db/oct at about 8k. 

Voicing the speakers was done right with the older Vandersteen as well as having time aligned. 

I remember that some criticized Vandersteen speakers for being "rolled off" in the highs.  To me, I owned three pair of the 2s over the years, they were natural sounding.

But about that time in the '70s there was increased demand for MC cartridges, many of which had a rising high end in their response.  So I suspect that increased, sometimes false, sense of detail from a brighter high end became a popular norm.  Then any speaker which did not match that characteristic was criticized by many folks.