Vandersteen 2WQ vs 2W

2W you can even get for $300 used if you try harder.
there's no substantial audiable difference between these you've mentioned.

Go to the Vandersteen web sight and read up on the difference and there is a difference. The 2wq is designed for music rather than home theater. The 2w is for home theater. It has a greater output and a somewhat loose bass(relatively speaking) to be used for the LFE channel or whatever. The "Q" control on the 2wq lets you dial in the bass the way you want it from extremely tight to relatively loose.
The 2wq is an excellent sub for the money or even compared to much more expensive subs. Even the REL sub guy mentioned what a good design it was.
It is not for people who want the artificially elevated type of bass sound. It is very neutral and only rumbles when rumbles are actually present. You can use the 2wq for home theater by setting the "Q" control up to about 1. It will then rumble on those soundtracks.

I have a large room (23x22x10) I ended up needing two 2w's to enjoy movies.

Thanks for the responses.

I will use it for audio. I don't have my system setup for HT. I didn't realize the 2W was for HT - I thought the V2W was the only one specifically made for HT (with the passive radiator). In that case - I will look for the 2WQ on Audiogon. Any other good sites for used equipment besides Ebay?

I am looking for a sub that will match well with my MMG's. A lot of people on Audiogon and Audioasylum forums recommend a Vandersteen or REL sub with Maggies. I am leaning toward the Vandersteen since the REL subs seem to cost much more. I am currently using a JBL (PSW D112 - 12 inch woofer with 250 watts) sub, but it seems like a better sub for HT than for music.

I will have to disagree this time with my good friend Bigtee. The 2W is not an HT sub (that's the V2W) and it has an low-intermediate Q, which IMO is pretty damn good and can't be beat at the price.