As far as upgrades, might a carbon tweeter be a good idea? I think it's
likely important that Vandersteen keep these below the the 3K price
point, so perhaps that is out of the question.
Current retail is $2700. Pretty much zero chance of adding the carbon tweeter and staying south of $3K. RV frequently adds small updates without changing the model name. I bought "Sig IIs" in 2007 but the latest "Sig IIs" have several updates, most notably the tri-woven midrange driver. I don't think Vandersteen can substantially upgrade the model 2 without a correspondingly substantial price increase. Supposedly, RV hopes to bring pistonic-behaving drivers to a lower price point but this would still be, I think, well above $2700! |
Yeah, I kinda thought RV might be tapped out at this price point, but it's still fun to discuss the possibilities! |
I was at a recent RV seminar and he discussed his goal of bringing pistonic cones to his entire range, i.e., elevating pistonic behavior to the same importance as time/phase correct behavior. I think that is going to require a technology different from the current carbon / balsa cones, which are *very* expensive to produce. |
I was at a recent RV seminar and he discussed his goal of bringing pistonic cones to his entire range, i.e., elevating pistonic behavior to the same importance as time/phase correct behavior. I think that is going to require a technology different from the current carbon / balsa cones, which are *very* expensive to produce. Did RV give any type of ball-park time frame on this? |
elevating pistonic behavior to the same importance as time/phase correct behavior.
Some designers think that pistonic behavior is *more* important, but might as well achieve both if you can!
require a technology different from the current carbon / balsa cones
Yes, RV's carbon technology is unlikely to trickle down to affordable price points. Thiel drivers got pretty close. The CS3.7 midrange was said to have a break up point "well above" 20K cycles. This behavior is especially important with XOs using slow roll-off filters (ie, first order). I have Thiel CS2.4s. The midrange diaphragms on these are not ribbed like those of the CS3.7. Still, the aluminum is stiff enough to that the break up mode is well suppressed despite the first order filter (chart 3): https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/thiel_cs24/ |
OP, I don't recall him mentioning a time frame. I would see if you could get John Rutan's attention (@audioconnection) -- he is super knowledgeable.
@beetlemania, interesting background, thanks.....
|
pistonic not much good IF ya throw it all away with a filter that screws up phase because non pistonic is out of phase behavior...they are same thing, one is mechanical.
now having said that, obviously w very worthy goal and a reason why the CF/ Balsa drivers are a wonder.... I can tell you they are electrostatic like in purity...
but yes they are expensive....the balsa must be top grade, indeed aerospace grade, ditto the CF, CNC machining required for tapered cone - optimized for mass, stiffness, and as others aptly pointed out breakup modes far away from filter set points. Autoclave required for cobonding and oh ya, cobond to end grade balsa is a trade secret, nobody else doing it..because it is hard and requires years of R&D = ¥€¥ or $...then all that needs to be integrated into an aerodynamic ( patent expired ) driver. Think this thru you go to all the trouble and expense to design/ build a pistonic driver only to let an out of phase reflected back wave go right thru the cone....
but yes, some of us stay up late thinking about how to build that driver for less money...........
Kaizen is life
or so my sensei says, he would know......Chihiro Nakao |
non pistonic is out of phase behavior...they are same thing
I don't find the sound of a driver at break up mode the same as a speaker with a high-order filter, if that's what you're meaning. One is distortion and the other is a very subtle sonic signature. I would much rather have something like a Vivid B1 (pistonic but with out-of-phase filtering) than a Vandersteen 3 (phase coherent but not as resolved because of the non-pistonic diaphragms). You can "have it all" with the Vandersteen 7 but that product is just a bit out of my budget :) |
Beetle....maybe....but perhaps we might compare speakers a bit closer to price parity 3:1
is a stretch even for the frugal Dutchman to overcome...
but yes, i would say the KEF and B& W alumni who believed in FFT and laser inferometry of drivers would have a bent for that..
the steep slopes make it easier to get pistonic behavior in the passband....
i am spoiled, admit it.....
search utube and you can find some cool video of Vandersteen 7 drivers and another brand X undergoing the lastest laser measuring technique...out of phase in RED, sometimes 10% of output...
|
and yes I was being dramatic, I think understanding the trade ratio of pistonic vs phase and time accuracy might be interesting, especially as measured vs what we actually hear...
|
speakers a bit closer to price parity Fair enough. My non-parity example reflects the dearth of both phase coherent designs and designs with pistonic behavior. Both of these groups are very small and the overlap seems to stop at the Vandersteen 7 (maybe 5 Carbon and out-of-production Thiel CS3.7)! But I stand by my point if we compare the Vandy Quatro CT and Vivid B1, which are at the same-ish price point. the steep slopes make it easier to get pistonic behavior in the passband.... Yes, that’s what I implied earlier ("especially important with XOs using slow roll-off filters "). Even with steep filters you need a well-behaving driver. I have lived with Thiels or Vandersteens for over 15 years. So, I am very familiar with phase coherent sound. But during that time I’ve listened to many other speakers. My favorites, alphabetically, are Avalon Ascent, TAD Ref 1, Vandersteen 7, and Vivid Giya. Only the 7 is phase coherent, although the Ref 1 has a coincident midrange/tweeter. But one thing these designs have in common is pistonic behavior. IME, that one factor best corresponds to high resolution and transparency. |
yes i thought we were essentially on same page and if we use the 5a carbon it flips 2:1 ish the other way, also not fair...
not many choices IF one values both....
i am excited about some emerging technology in both materials and process that might get the rather significant cost savings needed to compete with woven prepregs, etc...
i think if we look at the real costs ( capital opportunity ) machined aluminum is pretty expensive
wish Jim T were here tho.....
i think at these levels of performance ignoring the cabinet is perilous also...
not to beat a dead horse but it is freaking amazing the value in a pair of 7’s
just try to find a used pair....candy everybody wants to quote a band I enjoy
|
Hi tomic, when you say this:
VLR with carbon tweeter coming soon !!!
What you reckon the price might be on these? (I realize you wouldn't have anything specific, but I think you might have a good ballpark idea ;) ) You think it might double the price of these $1400 speakers? And if the VLRs can have it why not the Model 2s? Surely that would justify a model 2D. I wonder if RV could implement a model 2 CT for under 4K? I think that would be a big seller, but might be encroaching on the Model 3 a tad.. |
I wonder if RV could implement a model 2 CT for under 4K?
IIRC, the price increase from Treo to Treo CT was about $1000. The XO probably also would need to be tweaked or further optimized. Is there really a market for a $4K Model 2? Maybe. It might also be that RV thinks adding the carbon tweeter is reaching a point of diminishing returns for that product. I know, for example, that he thinks the Treo cabinet is a big jump, sonically, from what he can achieve in the 2 or 3. The Sig II is a really good speaker. RV probably figures serious listeners wanting an upgrade will pony up for the Treo CT. What *I* would like is a Treo CT with a carbon midrange. But that would probably retail for >$15K and that's out of my budget! |
|
when I spoke w Jaclyn at Vandy she said: “ no release date, no price just yet” re the VLR with CT and I also believe a change in sourcing to Scanspeak....
this really is just my two cents worth, RV fights every day to build in usa and deliver exceptional value, the 2 really is high end on a beer budget, my guess is $4 k starts to push beyond that.....
|
After thinking about this, calling the next iteration of the model 2 the 2D would likely not be healthy from a marketing perspective, after all, you want to purchase speakers that throw a 3D sound stage. Calling them 2D would not create a good image in the minds of customers. That could be why he started calling his 2C's "signatures" when he did. Even if you skip 2D and go to 2E, that already sounds too much like the model 2CE and would likely confuse people. Calling it the 2F, doesn't have a good ring to it and while I think calling it the 2G sounds better, I think the 2CE Signature 3's would generate the most sales. Had to put on the marketing hat for a minute! |
If RV ever does put a carbon tweeter in the 2s (I doubt it), it would be a no-brainer to just call it the "2Carbon".
|
RV will not put a carbon tweeter in the model 2 or model 3 for that matter. While those cabinets are quite inert, they still have too much resonance for the carbon tweeter to do what it does over the standard ceramic tweeter. RV told me this over the phone a few years back. |
