Vandersteen 5a or Eggleston Andra II

Everyone,

I have decided on purchasing a used pair of Andra II's.

Thanks to all for your help.

Please consider this thread closed.

Thanks for your responses, Ozzy and Dev.

The room I described is not a dedicated listening room. It is the family room.

I spoke to Eggleston back in May about the Savoy and was cautioned about my room dimension. They felt the Savoy would work, but said the Andra would better fit the room....

...But I am looking to move into a larger house next year....

If I get the Andra II's, I will stick with the Krell FPB 300 for a while as I read the match sounded good in an old review. I can always audition a new amp later, and more easily than speakers.

If the Savoy isn't as musical as the Andra, that is another strike against that purchase. First its size, the cost and possibly not as musical. Sounds like I'm close to making my decision.

I can put the money I saved into the new Pioneer 60" "Deep Black Cell" plasma when it is released next month.

Rknight, is this a designated room? For me this is a second rig and my Andra's are not set-up in my designated room but in a large living room environment, open concept situation with ceilings 9ft, 10ft, 18ft and 28ft. I have had the same thoughts as you regarding the Savoy's but the input that I have gotten back from individuals who have heard both and of whom I trust their ears say the Savoy's are not "musical" like the Andra's. This really concerned me because this is one area that I really enjoy about them and makes then special. So if I was you I would do some serious listening prior to buying. If you are wanting a big speaker then there are allot of others to look at, one coming to mind that intrigues me is MM3 or you could even go with the MM2 smaller version of the two, gear Dartzeel pre & amp for both set-ups and you are done. The bass can be dialed in which has built-in amps, you can do a search and see what others are doing that already have them.

I have not personally heard the Savoy's so I can not comment but I will say they are big, heavy, need lots of power, did I say "very heavy" and I believe a hard re-sale item as are most big speakers. I will say though the Andra's are real winners and you will have allot of fun with them. You can try all types of gear with them to find out what your flavour is and they will really amaze you.

I'm getting the itch to try some different amps, Lamm, Vac Phi 300.1 but mono blocks, Butler Monad mono blocks, new Dodd mono blocks.

To my ears I prefer the Andra's over the Vandy 5A's also.

Ozzy are you enjoying your Andra's? you need to get those Sistrum platforms underneith your Andra's, nice improvment.

I just recently purchased the Andra 2's. I also visted the Eggleston Factory where they are made. I believe they had the Savoy there under construction they also had there $100,000 speaker under construction ( I forget the name )none to listen to though, darn.
I was able to hear there new Nine speaker. It was nice but the Andra 2 is much better with clear defined bass as it should be.
Looks like a lot of drivers in the Savoy probably best to run Mono Amps. I am using a Pass Labs X350.5 on my Andra's perhaps try the Pass X600.5.

I am back!

I apologize for not posting sooner, but I've been in Mississippi since late June helping an insurance company settle hurricane claims.

I see a lot of information was typed during my absence. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and recommendations.

I had an opportunity to audition both the Andra II and the 5as again. Both are great, but the sound of the Andra II better suits my tastes.

The wife and I also auditioned the 5as at a local shop. She does not like looks of the 5a and dreads cleaning the cloth grill.

So, I have decided on the Eggleston Andra II.

But...

Before I purchase a pair, another choice is now in my mind: The Eggleston Savoy.

Since I have not located the Savoy to audition, five questions come to mind:

1. Is my listening room too small (29 by 19 with a 8 foot ceiling)?

2. How is the sound compared to the Andra II?

3. What should I expect out of the bass? The sound? Compared to the Andra II? The 5a? The room?

4. I expect the Krell FPB 300 will be too small. Is a used Krell FPB 600 a good match? With 600 WPC and at appx $4200, this is the amp I am looking to match the Savoy to.

5. At appx $20K-$25k used, is it that much better than a $8k-$9k Andra II?

I will start a separate thread for my Savoy questions.

Thanks again for your prior posts, and in advance for posts on the Savoy.

4Syanks, thanks for the comments. -I too own Virtual dynamics bi-wi re revalation 2m -t is like hooking rerod, only worse. The andra 2 were no problem. Also, bass performance is outstanding. Someone said it was weak,perhaps that was the original andra not the Andra 2. Sorry for poor spelling my blackberry is still new

Dev,

Shadorne, you mentioned in your thread the Andra's are "a bit bass light".

Actually that was supposed to be paraphrasing Mothra ( my fault as I was not clear). I never actually said anything about the Vandy's (I think they are great too) or intended to imply anything about the bass of the Eggleston Andra II's for that matter. My only comment was to throw out that Bob Ludwig had chosen Andra II's for his surround system and Eggleston Ivy's for his main studio two channel monitors - so they must be darn good!!

I guess I respected Bob's choice even if he made the tragic terrible mistake of ditching his ATC 100's after only 7 years of mastering use, how could he possibly do such a thing!!!(LOL, just making fun here)

However, my respect has turned to a slight bit of concern when I dug deeper, partly because of Mothra's "weird" comments. I guess I felt there was something Mothra knew but was not comfortable saying in these forums ("weird" is a pretty strong comment in my book)

Further research (today) indicates that Bob Ludwig's choice of Ivy's may have been unduely influenced by the "attention" that he received from William Eggleston - see this report. As you can see other creditors to Eggleston were not very happy about time and money being devoted to such an esoteric project (a speaker with 23 drivers costing $100,000, partly designed by an a mastering engineer who does not make speakers for a living and apparently, like most Eggleston projects until that point, likely running at a loss) Interestingly, you will also see that a favorable "Stereophile review" was believed to have made a huge impact on sales of a previously not so well known speaker manufacturer. I leave readers to make your own judgement whether Bob should have ditched his ATC's ( again just joking...it is OK by me to hate ATC's!!).

As for PMC's, indeed yes they have a great reputation too. Generally less forward in mid range and a lot more bass is how I would describe them versus ATC; they are an excellent choice and I would highly recomend them too (to those finding ATC's make their ears bleed but want something dynamic...LOL).

Now I think that this thread has well and truely become a drunken diatribe....I think I'll stop there. Apologies to all those who found this boring and a waste of time - fortunately you can simply ignore it, as the originator of this thread appears to have done ;-)

Shadorne, you mentioned in your thread the Andra's are "a bit bass light". The original Andras were but the Andra 2's aren't, bass has allot to do with placement and associated gear. I have had some speakers where the stage was great but the bass was not visa versa but I am not having any problems with my Andra's.

If you compare the Andra's to say the Wilson Maxx 2's then yes. The Maxx 2's move allot more air, is this correct I'm not sure but I do like the effect but there are other issues with the MAXX 2's. A step up would most likely be to go to the Savoy's, trying to integrate subs is very difficult. I have had a few speakers in the past with big bass but it was unrealistic and did not integrate well with the rest of the drivers or over loaded the room. I have tried sub satellite set-ups in the past, highly regarded Entec SW-2 subs stacked along with Artimis speakers, allot of work and money.

If you like ATC then you should also look at PMC BB5-XBD-A speakers.

Regarding speaker cable hook-up, wow! to have slice the spades so to fit onto the Vandy's not for me. No problems with the Andra's, I have Virtual Dynamics Genesis top of the line bi-wire speaker cables hooked with out any cutting and they are beast to hook-up.

Going back to the bass, I really noticed putting my Andra's on top of Systrum platforms improved over all along with even improving the already excellent bass. I have passed this info. onto many with different speakers and all have come back with great results. A friend has JM-LAB Nova BE's and recently put them on and is just over whelmed with the results.

Just so you are aware I new you had Vandy's all along, they are great speakers also.

dev, I would call it in another league, if i really heard that. But the system and the room, source material and the time even have a lot to do with it. Duntechs are in another league than quad 57's technically , but if you like quad 57's musically, then I guess they are not. that's all I'm saying. Having not heard the vandy's I cannot comment empirically.

The grain of salt thing applies to all arguemnts about gear i think. I mean this discussion is fairly civilized compared to some of the cable discussions I have heard!

i never minded doug's system, i just can;t tell what;s going on. the room seems to have real phase issues depending on where you sit.

I'll post some pics sometime. You guys would laugh. I don't have a listening room, i just have a bunch of junk all in one place!
Thanmks for the kind words. I like mt speakers but there are many other great speakers out there.

Mothra, your "salt" suggestion is right on the beam, and well taken. Funny how those who should be in an asylum are the first to suggest "meds" to others.

Oz, what you have read is correct, at least in some instances. The "slots" for spades on the 5's I had were such that I had to slice just a sliver off the silver spades on my Ridge Street Audio cables (it was easy with those). Other spades will fit fine but, for instance, the Kimber spades on a set I run in a vintage system would NEVER fit. So it is a consideration in that if you have exisitng cables with wide spades, you'd have to get them reterminated (which could be a real issue with some cables). Someone told me that Richard had addressed this in newer models, but not from what I've seen - maybe on the newer Quatros. (?) As a side note, your sytem has come a good long way on a couple of years thee, Oz. ;-0

MOthra,

Dunlavy sc-IV's (with upgraded tweeter), B&W 801 series 2 limited editions with north creeks crossovers, spendor sc-100's, quad esl-57's, B&W matrix 805's.

Awesome I am very impressed by your choices. You have some classics. Perhaps one day you will post a few pics....I will be drooling!!!. Youu are in another league from me.

I agree with you that second hand Dunlavy's are great value rather than chasing the latest and greatest.

I agree on your Wilson comments (although I am reticent to criticse the bass response because they are so successful - obviously people like them!) On the Andras ( a bit bass light ) I can understand that you might want a sub with these. (I use a 15" sub with my ATC100s as they roll off in the lowermost octave below 35Hz and it seems you can never have too much clean tight bass power at elevated listening levels -provided it is all critically damped - I dislike mushy boominess in the bass but love it when I can clearly discern a bass guitar riff from behind a close-miked kick drum)

I suspect you may not like ATC as you mentioned Doug Sax has a system you don't understand (or is it his brother's designed tube based EQ setup that you struggle with?). No problem, some people say ATC's make their ears bleed and I have no problem with that as they are quite forward sounding in the mid range and certainly play so loud the music can always be made to eventually sound harsh (at extremes), furthermore, everyone is entitled to their personal preference. Frankly, I could live with your preferences/taste too but then again who is "Shadorne"...I am a complete nobody in audio compared to someone like Bob Ludwig. (Sorry but I respect many of these engineers - even the weird ones!)

Mothra regarding "different league" depends on the context and how it is used.

In my thread, I gave my experience of listening to two different systems, one being superior over the other.

If you heard a system that was great but then heard another system with the same music listening to both male and female voices and one left you in awe what would you call it?

You listen to a variety of music including all kinds of musical instrumentals including the piano and one system is alright but the other is just more realistic what would you call it?

You then listen to pieces that show off stage presence, pieces included such as Phantom of the Opera, Oliver, My Favorite Year and the stage presence was just so unbelievable scary real what would you call it?

When you put on other music like Tchaikovsky 1812 and when the canon shots go off they startle you like it was the first time you ever heard it. You then put on Dafos and Kodo Drums and it's all so real sounding what would you call it?

Ending the evaluation listening to Fiesta! Dallas Wind Symphony "Prelude and Axtec Dance" and there is just no comparison then what would you call it.

I call it in "another league"

Well 4yanx you seem to really going over board and off the deep end, get a grip it's only audio have you had your meds today?

Extra consderation...I purchased the andra2 and I am really impressed.I considered the Vandys but I read somewhere that they have very limited space for speaker spades so I scrathed them off my audition list.

Shad,

I am by no means an expert. I am an audio engineer and i do love music and "hi-fi" so i have heard some systems, but i don;t go around to CES or anything.

My personal speakers are as follows:

Dunlavy sc-IV's (with upgraded tweeter), B&W 801 series 2 limited editions with north creeks crossovers, spendor sc-100's, quad esl-57's, B&W matrix 805's.

Among these the dunlavy's are by far the most accurate and dunlavy's in general are among the most accurate speakers I have heard. The B&W's are pretty reliable too. I have heard seen many classical music engineers using them. they have a little low mid bloom and are not as razor sharp as the dunlavy's but really in terms of that kind of imaging and detail, I dont think even Revel Salons are (though they are great speakers). A lot of people find the dunlavy's clinical as they have no realy midrange "glue" that so many speakers have. My favorite mastering engineer has duntech soverigns. I feel they translate well to other systems and are brutally honest.

The quad esl 57 or the spendor/rogers ls-35a speakers are examples of great musical speakers which are not terribly neutral.

i think the B&W's of the earlier generation and the duntchs and dunlavy's represent quite a value at this point depending on what you look for. Coming from the pro audio world, I am more used to less "colored" speakers and enjoy the feeling of flat response as something that jumps out and hits you in a piece of audio equipment, generally i find to be abrasive later. Pro-ac's, in my limited experience with them seem to be in the more "neutral" category as well.

really, one should listen to anything one enjoys. While i used solid state amps in the studio, I use tubes amps in my stereo. I do not consider the tube amps to be less neutral but they are more euphonic and subject to heat and current changes.

As far as this argument goes, my experience with the Andrea speaker is all i can offer. I haven;t heard those Vandy's.

There is no best stereo or best speaker, so the "different league" talk should be taken with a grain of salt.

Unless we are talking about Bose of course!

Chad, get in line at the end of the drive. My boys are home from college.

I don't care what you believe, Dev? Anyone who actually knows me and doesn't wildly guess and speculate knows that I don't say that I've heard something when I haven't. I've likely heard more pieces of audio equipment than you'll ever see. You saying you don't belive me is equivalent to calling me a liar, which I wholly resent. Funny how people will say something online they wouldn't have the guts to say in person. Further, I am lost as to how a review of a McCormack upgrade would reflect an agenda about Vandersteen speakers or against Egglestons, which I've said I've liked (outside of the McCormack and the K&K phono, it is the only pieces still left in my system).

Talk about nonsense - check your mirror. Oy.

Go ahead, you can have the last word - continued nonsense, most likely.

Thank you 4yanx, now go wash my car :)

I skimmed over your McCormack thread please, where would you like me to start? but I won't.

I don't believe you have actually even heard both set-up properly but instead only have a hidden agenda.

Stick to answering the original post instead of high jacking it with nonsense.

That's not exactly correct, I don't believe it's drunks in a bar argument but a healthy discussion being worked out. If you read my posts it has been about my experience regarding Vandy and Eggleston set-up.

There are allot of individuals out there that seem to have a hidden agenda and high jack threads, nit picking over the use of words used etc. when it's the individuals own opinion.

There isn't much more one can do but actually offer to hear both system's is there? and at no time have I ever said that I don't like Vandy's.

Mothra,

Ok. I accept that everyone has different tastes and reknown mastering engineers may have odd taste too. Good point. Folllowing one engineer or another may not lead to satisfaction. What do you think is a great speaker then? What is actually in another league? It definitely sounds like you have benefited from hearing many different setups and may be in good position to comment...what was the best or most neutral (or to your liking)?

I take it you don't like Wilsons because you prefer neutral sounding speakers and I agree again with you that they often have a bit of a boost in the bass, which many people like (meaning I don't necessarily see it as a weakness - they are still great speakers).

I bow to your ultimate moral superiority and keen insight Chad, and in all my sobriety, too. hic... I happen to like both speakers, as I noted.

I could not care less what surprises you, Dev. I am only surprised that you continue to insist in your "another league" fallacy. My original "offer", if you want to cal lit that, was the idea of assembling 20 folks for a fair trail comparing the Egglestons and the Vandys and my assertion that few to none would find the Egglestons in "another league" as you continue to asserted. I am game for that at ANY time though, as I thought I made clear above, I am not going to waste my time responding to your fully erroneous assumptions regarding how I and where I heard those speakers. Am I surprised that you didn't understand? no

Once again this thread melted into a useless arguement, we get it....some of you love a certain speaker, and some dont agree and love another one......this always turns into a "drunks in a bar" arguemant.
The original poster hasnt been back to post in this thread for nearly 3 weeks, I wonder why?

That's too bad that you aren't willing to take me up on the offer that you originally initiated but does it surprise me? no.

Virtually all of your assumptions regarding my listening experiences are wrong, but I don't have the time, energy, or desire to go into it further, this being the last I will comment on this matter. I did, do, and will take issue with your "different league" statement and that is that, in my opinion, but I still believe that very few others, if any, will agree that these two speaker sets are in different leagues.

"However, are you suggesting that you don't trust/respect the choices of successful mastering engineers that are demanded by top artists and top producers for their critical listening/mastering skills?"

I am saying they shouyld listen to whatever they like, but that doesn't mean you should own the same speakers they do just because they like them.

"Are you suggesting that when they master CD's/SACD's on these speakers that you can dramatically improve on the sound they produce by using another speaker at home?"

they will sound different, but you dont buy speakers because stuff is mastered on them. records were mixed on jbl's in the 70's a lot and ns10's a lot in the 80's but most people I know wouldn't listen on those.

it's not just speakers either, they have particular rooms, crossovers and amps.

"If you say that their taste is for too detailed and precise of a presentation and that you prefer a laid back warm colored sound ....then I understand completely and you have a good point."

no, i like as neutral as possible for work and usually for pleasure. Nothing is really neutral though. I haven;t heard the Ivy's just the Andrea's. I liked them fine but they lack in the lower bass region because of their physical size.

I never heard a wilson that i thought had accurate bass. But, there have been many iterations of wilsons and they are room dependent as well.

My point basically is that you should use what you like. People mix or master or listen to what they are used to. I would take the duntechs over the wilson's any day for phase coherency and flat reponse, but that's my taste too.

I have been in a lot of mastering studios and I just think the systems there, like ours at home, are very personal. O mentioned doug sax, because I am not the only person I know that can't make sense out of his system. The fact that he can is all that really matters.

What does your actual system consist of? you are so gracious but you don't have to give me your system it's okay but lets get those 20 folks together you speak of it will be fun. It's so obvious between these two set-ups using Red Book cds that you won't have to do a blind test, not needed.

Just so you know there is no agenda it's only an opinion, this is not my main designated system but a second one and only a hobby for me so I have no agenda in which sounds better but between these two set-ups hands down Eggleston set-up wins.

I don't know how one can make statement's saying "I have heard the Egglestons and the Vandys in THE SAME SYSTEM" and "I have heard the Egglestons take the edge in one system while the Vandys were clearly superior in another."
Sounds like store settings to me which is not ideal especially with all that other gear and speakers interacting.

First of all I don't agree in ABing speakers this way, firstly if you actually have the speakers in the same room their woofers will interact moving etc. which is not a good thing. Moving speaker cables, from my experience they need to settle in for a few days to sound their best. Set-ups, you just don't plunk speakers down trying different ones, you play with their set-up for some time trying different locations to get their sweet spot. My friend has had his for over two years now, I have had my Eggleston's since last year and prior I had Wilson W/P 7's, I still am currently trying different locations.

I just want Vandy owners to know that there are is no agenda here, Vandy's are really really great speakers and I like them but between these two systems hands down I prefer the Eggleston set-up.

Mothra,

I was intrigued by you "weird" and Wilsons comment and tried to find out what other weird speakers Bob Ludwig might have used. I found nothing on Wilsons, although it is hardly suprising that he would indeed like high end Wilsons. Why not?

Here is what I did find;

Bob Ludwig Nov 25 1997, 3:00 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: "Bob Ludwig" - Find messages by this author
Date: 1997/11/25
Subject: Re: Opinions Wanted Re: ATC20 & ATC50 Active Monitors
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Dear Gregory,

I use the ATC50s at home and I like them a lot.
At our studio we use the ATC100s (a larger more rugged version) in
our editing/CD preparation room. We use a sub-woofer with the ATC
100s in the studio, at home I haven't felt the need for one.
Generally, I found the ATC 50s a more perfectly balanced speaker, but
the 100's have withstood hour after hour of use in a professional
edit room with no component replacement needed in almost 5 years.
Clients like them a lot, too.

Bob Ludwig
President
Gateway Mastering Studios, Inc

Note that this is an old thread before he switched to Eggleston Ivy's at Gateway Mastering. I think he has also used DunTech Sovereigns in the past but I am not sure.

Anyway, hardly suprising that Bob has used a lot of well known respected speakers after all he must use speakers nearly 8 hours a day five days a week. On Artists Direct website Bob has over two thousands credits as audio engineer.

Does it mean that Bob's Ivys are the absolute best or his Andra II surround system is the ultimate, in another league. No I don't think so...but these systems would be damn good choices for anyone and obviously, if not in another league at least up there with the very best; I suspect that all Bob's choices past and present are pretty solid.

I would. He used to use wilson's. very different.

What is so wrong with Wilson's are they weird too?

mastering peopole have some weird systems. Doug sax has a system I can;t make any sense out of.

I agree that the audio industry has it's share of eccentrics.

However, are you suggesting that you don't trust/respect the choices of successful mastering engineers that are demanded by top artists and top producers for their critical listening/mastering skills?

Are you suggesting that when they master CD's/SACD's on these speakers that you can dramatically improve on the sound they produce by using another speaker at home?

What would you recommend that is so much better than Bob Ludwig's tailored $100,000 Eggelston Ivy's?

If you say that their taste is for too detailed and precise of a presentation and that you prefer a laid back warm colored sound ....then I understand completely and you have a good point.

Just for the record, I didn't send any emails on this subject. I have heard the Egglestons and the Vandys in THE SAME SYSTEM and their respective "leagues" were definitely the same. Now, given matches and/or mismatches of components, one of these pairs may sound better than the other in that particular system to a particular set of ears. In fact, I have heard the Egglestons take the edge in one system while the Vandys were clearly superior in another. All I am saying is that this comes down to preferences and sage component matching.

Offering the "different league" statement, one would expect to find one speaker besting the other in all settings and by a significant margin. And, I'll wager my system that if you assembled 20 folks without an agenda and did a blind test, this would not be the case, at all. Fine that you like the Egglestons, but I still say that claiming them to be in a different league than the Vandys is just plain silly. But, whatever, I mostly responded again such that others would not think that your claim of receiving emails from unnamed sources did not include me.

Referring to the the words used in my thread " in another league". I went over the other day to listen again to the Vandy set-up and my opinion is the same. I do like the Vandy set-up but when I listen to the Eggleston set-up over all find it to be superior and can say it is in another league.

Possibly the Vandy set-up is not at it's best, gear, room etc. but I'm sure the owner would debate with you differing in opinion, he has had this gear for two years now.

or

Possibly the Eggleston set-up is superior.

Listening to these two set-ups it is very obvious, other individuals who have heard the two set-ups also agree along with the actual owner of the Vandy's and that is why they will be replaced shortly.

I do agree people do have their own opinions along with preference, personal taste and that is what makes the world go around.

I had a few emails directed personally to me, one being a little upset obviously a Vandy die hard. Vandy owners need not to take it personally it's only my opinion, I would love to hear your Vandy set-up and then you can hear the Eggleston set-up. Email me personally and then the out come can be posted at a later time.

Eggleston set-up;

Eggleston Andra 2's (On Sistrum platforms)
McIntosh 501 mono blocks
Audio Research Ref3 pre(currently comparing Supratek Sauv.)
Accustic Arts Dac MK4
Oracle 2000 transport
Stealth Sextet Digital AES connection, dac and transport.
Stealth Indra XLR, dac and pre.
Virtual Dynamics Rev. 2.0 XLR interconnect, pre and amps.
Virtual Dynamics Genesis 6 ft bi-wire speaker cables

"I would not hesitate to take a page out of Bob Ludwig's book and follow his choice."

I would. He used to use wilson's. very different. mastering peopole have some weird systems. Doug sax has a system I can;t make any sense out of.

As long as he can, it doesn't matter, of course.

There would have to be something very wrong with the Vandy system for the Eggleston's to be in "another league". With these two excellent speaker, it just has to come down to the type of sound you like, they do have different signatures, and both are valid and each will appeal to a different audience. I do think Shadorne does make a reall good point regarding Ludwig anf if you like the recording he produces, his recordings and the EQs and miking would certainly reflect what he is hearing in playback.

A good friend has the Vandy 5's with Dartzeel gear along with EMM source, really nice system. In my opinion I prefer the Eggleston's and feel that they are just in another league over all, more musical and over all more convincing.

Please. This is either yet another overuse of the term "another league", or there is something wrong, somewhere, in the system with the Vandys. I have no issue with someone saying that they prefer the Egglestons, but to claim they are in another league is just plain silly.

Firstly, as others have mentioned, I would not choose a speaker for the tweeter. Mid range is much more important. Secondly, Bob Ludwig currently uses the Andra II's - do a google on him and you will probably find that he has mastered a great deal of the music you listen to (one of the highly respected sound engineers in the industry). Speakers that are highly regarded for use in prestigious mastering studios tend to be neutral, transparent, non-fatiguing, yet dynamic and natural sounding. I do not have listening experience comparing either of these speakers but I would not hesitate to take a page out of Bob Ludwig's book and follow his choice.

As much as like the Vandersteen, and they are excellent, the clarity and neutrality of Eggleston appeal to me more. Another speaker you may want to consider is the Merlin VSM-MXe which also uses the same Esotar tweeter. The speaker is much smaller than the Andra 2 and much easier to drive which may give you some more flexibilty in choosing an amplfier - 30 tube watts should be enough. Since you mention the subwoofer capabailities of the VS, the Merlin may not be able to provide the kind of bass you desire, but it does go to 33Hz -2db, and is exceptionally balance throughout the frequency range, but it is ideally suited to a small to medium size listening room, it won't move air like the two you are considering.

I purchased the Andara II's about 3 months ago and there is no doubt that the first thing about the speaker that strikes you is its overall tonal balance followed by how natural the tweeter sounds (although I would have to believe that an excellent crossover comes into play here as well). With solid electronics in front, cymbals sound like cymbals (not irritating metal hash).

I came off of Quad ESL-2805's (just couldn't live without deep bass response and extended highs that I was used to, even after adding a sub - which creates integration problems) which are midrange killers. The Quads are simply at the top of the list when it comes to midrange performance (especially vocals).

Eggleston has done an excellent job at integrating the 6" drivers with the Esotar tweeter to create a high level of transparency and midrange clarity (maybe not to the level of a Quad but I much prefer the overall presentation of the Andra II). I do not find the woofer to get in the way at all and in some ways I wish it was a bit more pronounced in the presentation - however if they did that I think it would have a greater likelihood of making things muddy, which is currently not the case.

I am always looking for weaknesses in my system but for now I am focused on electronics and cables as I find the Andra II's to be simply outstanding speakers.

I have heard the Vandy 5A once but not long enough to give you a good evaluation.

Hope it helps

I own Andra IIs which replaced my Wilson WP7's that I owned for 2 years and prior to that Revel Salon's in this system set-up. Both of the speakers you are referring to are world class contenders and you really can't go wrong with either. A good friend has the Vandy 5's with Dartzeel gear along with EMM source, really nice system. In my opinion I prefer the Eggleston's and feel that they are just in another league over all, more musical and over all more convincing. Regarding set-up, I have not had any issues and found them to be very easy. Regarding the Vandy's and their built in amp does not impress me, I have Mac 501's driving the Andra's and feel the bass bettering the Vandy's. I have recently put the Andra's on Sistrum platforms and found positive changes in the sound characteristics along with presentation, I will leave them on the platforms for a few more months and then remove to finalize my over all thoughts. Other associated gear, Audio Research Ref 3 pre (I have a Supratek Sauv. pre. that I'm comparing right now) I have a Oracle 2000 transport connected via Stealth Sextet AES digital cable to a Accustic Arts Dac MK4 which is just a amazing combo. Connection from the dac to pre is XLR Stealth Indra, from the pre to amps XLR Virtual Dynamics Rev. 2.0 and speaker cables Virtual Dynamics Genesis 6ft bi-wire.

I have Andra IIs in a 22' X 13.5' X 9' living room, no sound treatment but about 40 framed prints on the wall which breaks up a lot of wall reflection. I have never been a big fan of what seems to be called tight bass by audiophiles, because that isn't what you hear in a hall, either large like Carnegie or even in a small recital hall, since there is so much reflected sound at most points in the hall. When the AIIs are teamed with amps which can control the woofers (I use Mac 501s) they put out what sounds to me remarkably like what I hear live. As to setting them up, my experience is that they present such a wide soundstage with so much center fill, that as long as they are 2-3' from the back wall, 7-9' from each other, on some sort of device (I use Aurios Pros on a rug) to isolate them from the floor, and not too sharply angled in, moving them around (which isn't easy, anyway) didn't change the sound too much. I'm not challenging anyone else's experience, I'm just saying that I have found them about the easiest speakers to live with I have ever owned. (Now the original Andras--they weren't so easy....)

I own Andra IIs and I admit they take time and effort to set up perfectly. It was a long haul to get them sounding their best but once I got them set up right they sounded/sound fantastic. They image extremely well, have deep, tight bass and the soundstage they produce is very deep and very wide.

They sound damn accurate to me throughout most of the freq. spectrum but getting tight bass from them was a big challenge.

In my 14 by 18 foot room they produced too much boom so I invested in a great stack of bass traps. These lowered the boom substantially. My less than expert measurements (and my ears)show the room to be pretty flat - not perfect but close enough.

I have heard the 5As and I like them. But the 5As ,in my opinion, sound more colored than the Andras - the Andras sound very transparent to me while the 5As sounded like they were a major ingredient of the flavor of their system rather than a window to the gear upstream. This is how I view the Andras, as a clear window to the electronics and the source feeding them. Any change I make in my system has VERY obvious effects at the speakers.

I assume the 5a's adjustments would make them a snap to set up in most rooms. I never had a problem loading my listening room with traps to sort out the Andra's bass but I know not everyone can do this.

I was fascinated by the isobaric woofers when I first heard about them too. I haven't read anything really negative about this configuration. Can you post a link to the info you've read? It won't change my mind about the speakers though. I had them for a few months before I even knew they had two woofers in there!

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

I live in So Cal and I can't find an Eggleston dealer nearby to audition the Andras, which is why I'd like to hear from those of you who have auditioned/purchased them.

My research generated another question regarding the Andra II: I read the Isobaric cabinet design and driver loading method is not as desireable as other speaker designs.

Can anyone with knowledge on this give more information on this?

Thanks in advance.

I agree with TVAD.
I have the Fontaines (the top 3/4 of the Andras) and have come to a conclusion in my search for a full-range speaker, as I audition more and more speakers I always end up preferring the overall presentation of the Fontaines over all others (Daedalus, Orions, Sonus Faber, Salk, Vandersteen 2Ce, Tannoy, etc. - all excellent speakers). The deciding factor for me keeps coming down to its tweeter, which sets it apart from all others. It has a very taught and tunefull bass, as most of these other speakers do, but that tweeter, combined with the taught bass and solid as a rock (because it is rock) cabinet structure has yet to be matched in my listening experiences for enjoying music. It presents, to me, the perfect combination of being engagingly warm, yet still clear and detailed, unlike any other speaker I've heard.
I finally realized that what I have is best for me and have suspended my search for a different speaker, unless I come upon an Andra I can afford. Until then I have decided to pursue a poor man's alternative to the Andra: Fontaines with stereo subs.
As TVAD stated, go with the speaker that possesses the tonality you prefer. I did, and am ever glad for it.
Good luck, and trust your ears and soul.

Coming from an Energy Veritas you might find the Vandy sounded too polite. I haven't heard the Andra II but I suspect that is the reason you like its tweeter. But the most important aspect of any speaker is the mid-range, not the tweeter nor the sub. I suggest you go back listen to them again and buy the one with the mid-range that you like.

Both are great speakers and I am sure you would be happy with either, I am a huge 5A fan (just so you know) but what is really great with the 5A is the bass tuning to suit your room, you also have adjustment for tweeter and such, the Egglestons are fantastic but the Vandy has so much to offer with adjustments you cant go wrong. Think of it this way, with the 5A tuned to your room that could be a huge financial and space savings having less or no need for large traps and treatments.