2. speakers
  3. 1150429520

Vandersteen Quattro review in Stereophile

Some of you may recall the rather heated discussion that occured in this forum some months back stimulated from a "Watchdog" piece by Richard Hardesty that made it to these pages where he slammed the Wilson Maxx speakers.
Hardesty has been and still is a very avid supporter of Vandersteen designed speakers.
It was with great interest that I read Michael Fremer's review of the Quattro. It was a very positive review and he did bring up the previous thread that was generated here.
He admitted that maybe Hardesty was right about the sound of the Vandersteen's and declared the Quattro one of, if not the, best bargains in audio speakers. He also admitted that it was better in some ways{which are actually important to me} than the Wilson Maxx( a speaker I personally respect but don't particularly like for the money) and offered up a lot for much less money($44,000 vs $7500 including the required filters.)
It is not my point here to bring all this back up but to say I was glad to see that Fremer and Stereophile do honest reviews and I think he handled the previous disagreement well (after he heard for himself) with what I would consider somewhat of an admission that maybe Hardesty isn't as nuts as he was originally made out to be. I have always thought Fremer wrote excellent reviews and I had a feel for where he was coming from even though I certainly didn't agree with everything he said. I was disappointed how he responded to Hardesty but I'm truly glad to see his appreciation of what Vandersteen can do for a lot less money. Now he needs to review the 5a (or the soon to be released 5a Signature.) I think he would find, when properly set up like all Vandersteen's speakers, a real treasure for the money.
bigtee
keithr
1,306 posts
 
Tarsando-- i tend to believe there is no perfect speaker, and designers opt to voice how they see accurate reproduction. the problem is they think different of what "accurate" reproduction is. otherwise Thiels would sound like Vandys.

i've heard Vandys a zillion times, and while i think they are great speakers, they don't have the resolution i hear in other brands. that said Vandys have a natural coherancy that others don't have. pick your poison. ymmv. sounded great at HE2006 in both rooms i heard them.

i'm with Drubin---the sock look just isn't aeshetically pleasing to me and the wood cabinet version woudl be more appealing to me. then again, people think my Sophias look like silver robots, so its a very personal decision!

KeithR
undertow
1,033 posts
 
I always liked Vandersteen's approch.. and resonable pricing, as for appearence I think that I recognize that people have aesthetic issues with many devices, but I gave up on that long ago in turn for better pricing and buying something more as a "Tool" to get this audio nut job done, yeah wifes and all that can be an issue, but screw that give me another 10,000 in performance over 10,000 in an exotic finish. So I like the respect given to the little guy in the end. But thats just me:)
rolloff
129 posts
 
Interesting how different we all seem to "hear."
KiethR says " i've heard Vandys a zillion times, and while i think they are great speakers, they don't have the resolution i hear in other brands."
To me, the ability of the Vandy's to reproduce an acurate resolution lies in their ability to image. I was actually out of the audiophile treadmill for over 15 years. Then I went to the last HES in SF looking to get some ideas on upgrading my old Vandy's. When I walked into the room playing the Sophia's I knew that was the type of sound I liked in my Vandys' and that they were a potential replacement speaker because they sounded like my Vandy's. But then, to each his/her own.

Rolloff




zargon's avatar
zargon
453 posts
 
One of the characteristics of the Vandersteen time and phase accurate speakers is that the drivers work together in phase. In addition to other benefits, this means the leading edge of a transient, from each driver, reaches your ear at the same time. This reproduction is truthful to the source.

In speakers that are not time and phase accurate, the tweeter will tend to lead the midrange in time, which some hear as an apparent increase in resolution. While this apparent increase seems desirable at first, over a longer listening session, this distortion in time can really irritate and add listener discomfort.

If you spend some time listening to a Vandy and then listen to a non time and phase accurate speaker, this difference really jumps out.

Vandersteen has long advocated the "open basket" enclosure, with no sides and a very limited baffle to avoid affecting the natural dispersion of the driver. The openness of this design approach is very beneficial. So it is curious that Richard is offering the Quattro with wood sides along the drivers. I believe he is attempting to provide, as an option, a speaker that is more attractive and appealing, and has kept the sides as narrow as possible at the top to minimize baffle size. So the proportions are right for engineering reasons.

My guess is if you auditioned them side by side, the non wood version might be slightly less open, but maybe not easily detectable. If you like the additional wood, I would certainly not hesitate worring about the difference.
bigtee OP
803 posts
 
The regular "Sock" model was reviewed. In this review, MF was impressed with the resolution and openess of the speaker bettering the sound staging, etc. of the Wilson Maxx(his reference.) I think he said he had not heard better in this area.
The dealer in NC said the wood cabinet was better by what he thought 20%. I kinda find that hard to believe but I haven't actually heard the wood version and understand it is a little different cabinet(more than just the finish.) I did hear the sock version and was mighty impressed with its capabilities.
I also liked the smaller footprint with the built in subs. It is considerably smaller than the 3A Sig's and certainly the 5a's. I felt it to be an improvement over the 3A Signature and a pair of 2Wq's. It also has the 11 band equalizer of the 5a to precisely adjust the sound from below 120hz or so to the room. It also appeared to have a level control as well as a "Q" control. Lots of possibilities here with such a moderately priced speaker.
Of course it does require a little setup effort to get everything right just as all Vandy's do. Overall, I thought them to be an unbelievable bargain in todays market.
More to discover