My JBLs have slam and definition, =realism. My $.02. And at any volume level.
Vandersteen Speakers.. Are All Other Speaker Makers Doing It Wrong ?
Never listened to Vandersteen speakers but I will go listen to them now
45 responses Add your response
They have been around for ~45 years, so I suspect you could find a place to have a listen. I would suggest bringing an LP or CD of what you like and are familiar with, and then you can compare them with the Textons. The room will be different, but at least you will know. Plus I don’t believe that I have a Texton dealer near by… so it would be good to see. |
Nope. My speakers are the bestest. Seriously though. I had a pair of Tekton DIs and a Lyngdorf 2170 with room correction. One thing it does it correct timing in the DSP. The DIs sounded downright messy with the DSP off comparatively. Never heard Vandys but would like to. They do however need to be convincing with rock music or your out! |
Yes he is from an engineering standpoint and if you want to hear an exact reproduction of the sound. Now if you can hear the difference that's another story. Most of this information I learned was from the link below and listening to them. Phase correct (crossovers and setback tweeter from midrange and woofer), minimal baffles, individual enclosures, single order crossovers, minimizing the speaker structures distortion, and the cabinets distortion are all things Vandersteen did first, most in the 1970's. Others are adopting his approach, individual enclosures, minimal baffles, setback tweet, midrange, to woofer to create better phase correctness, and still enclosures to reduce distortion. All these Vandersteen has been doing for 1-2 decades before others. Only thing others haven't agreed to completely is phase correctness and "perfect piston". Though most speaker designers have agreed a stiff cone is important to prevent distortion; this would be accepting "prefect piston" as true. Sounds like they are agreeing with Vandersteen. No, I don't work for the company, got most of my information from the below link and I listened to them, Vandersteen Quattro Wood CT. I consider these to be on similar price range and performance to that of the Wilson WATT Puppies (some thing I've loved and wanted for years). However, Vandersteen puts more into their speakers. I checked out the technical evaluation criteria and there test level performance is as good or better. I heard them and though what many would consider dark I thought was more realistic. Many designers make bright speakers because that's what draws us in; it did for me have a pair of B&W 802's and have wanted Wilson WATT Puppies for decades. It's always impressive to hear the symbol's, chimes, or other highs but in real life without electronics can you really hear that stuff? No. And with it, at a concert, do you hear that? Not often if at all. It's all subjective but for me my next will be a pair of Vandersteen's. |
One more thing, they are only perfectly time aligned at a particular distance. Greater or lesser distances distort that, and they should be such at a frequency in the midrange of each driver. IOW, the highest and lowest frequencies of a particular driver will not be perfectly aligned as different frequencies travel at different speeds, and so it goes. This is less critical than it sounds because of this issue. |
Look, I am not up to speed on Vandersteen speakers, but I owned them. Generally speaking there are 2 primary camps which further divide from their primary camps into vast nbers of camps. You have I want pleasing types, who no matter how poorly something was mastered, they want to be able to enjoy it. Then there is the I want what it sounds like camp. Neither is wrong, music is subjective! Generally speaking, and historically speaking Vandersteen has been at the pinnacle of the it should all sound pleasent camp, IMO. They have always made fine speakers. They sound much like my speakers were I to toss a quilt over the tweeters and midrange drivers, I don’t know if this is still the case.. I have done modifications to their speakers, but it took driver substitution to make impressive differences, IME, of reportedly defunct speakers. I am told that they have radically changed, and now no longer Barry the details. That would require a paradigm shift, and on the face of it seems unlikely.
KEF was the first company that I am aware of to design phase and time aligned speakers. B&W, Thiel, and Vandersteen followed suit. Of course there are others too, but these were the big players a few years ago Of these, Vandersteen alone dampened the sound. B&W 801Ms with the redesigned crossover and critical capacitors bypassed is an awesome speaker. Thiels were pretty well respected, but with bright gear can be ear bleaders, the downside of accuracy is that all your gear must be neutral or you’re going to have issues, which wasn’t an issue with Vandersteens, hence many loved the no muss no fuss that was Vandersteens. I don’t know what it the case today, though I suspect it is more of the same.
Best bet, listen for yourself! If you like it, enjoy it, listening is a personal experience. |
Wilson Benesch also do a great job of attending to “distortion, compression, cabinet resonances and diffraction…” in addition to time and phase coherence. They manufacture in-house virtually all of their speaker components so there is virtually no need to compromise on integration and matching. It clearly shows since their imaging is literally three-dimensional.
|
Loudspeaker time alignmentRemember Ed Long, In 1975 Ed Long[1] in cooperation with Ronald J. Wickersham invented the first technique to Time-Align a loudspeaker systems. In 1976 Long presented "A Time-Align Technique for Loudspeakers System Design"[2] at the 54th AES convention demonstrating the use of the Time-Align generator to design improved crossover networks for multi-way loudspeakers systems. This technique relied on subjective evaluation of various square pulses swept through the crossover frequencies. The Time-Align Generator locked the pulse on an oscilloscope so that it could be viewed. The Time-Align technique was employed by Long on the UREI 813 Studio monitor[3] introduced in 1977. Long also manufactured near field studio monitors from the late 1970s through the 90's utilizing the Time-Align technique. In 1977 Long trademarked Time-Align and later trademarked its derivatives, Time-Aligned and Time-Alignment. (Must include the dash). Long Licensed the Time-Align trademark to UREI, Bag End Loudspeakers and others. |
To my understanding Dahlquist was the first with that type of speaker design. I owned them many moons ago! Dahlquist DQ‑10 One should always be wary of pronouncing “firsts,” but, appearing in the early seventies, Jon Dahlquist’s DQ‑10 was to my knowledge the first dynamic speaker to employ multiple drivers in an open-baffle configuration (except the acoustic‑suspension woofer, which was enclosed) staggered for proper time‑alignment and phase coherence, in an attempt to realize the openness and freedom from boxiness that Dahlquist prized in his beloved Quad ESL-57s—with the added advantages of deeper bass and dynamic extension well beyond the Quad. (The physical resemblance to the Quad was both mandated by the design and an intentional homage.) Far from flawless (including conceptually), the DQ-10 was nevertheless a ground-breaking design that preceded dozens of subsequent speakers (perhaps most prominent among them models from KEF, B&W, Spica, Thiel, Vandersteen, and Wilson) continuing up to the present day. Few large, full-range dynamic speakers before or for some time afterward equaled its openness. Paul Seydor
|
I have a a lot of respect for Vandersteen. Driver/frequency integration is fantastic. The bass EQ is an enticing feature, although certainly not full proof in the case of acoustic phase issues. Every audiophile should hear them. Since they are so well marketed, finding a demo is relatively easy. While some may be sensitive to and able to tease out their step response I am tuned off by the muffled note attacks and to a lesser degrees their limited dynamics. I have auditioned them many times but found something else that has its own pros and cons. |
@ovinewar1 +1 |
I have Thiel CS5s and Vandy 2CES, 3As, and 2CE Sigs. I also have a variety of other speakers including some from Klipsch. I would struggle to say any speaker company has an exclusive on “right”, because everyone of us would define that word differently. I most likely am not an audiophile because I want the music to sound stunning, whether “right”or not. I want the chord pluck to give me shivers. |
"i have both vandies and thiels, the babies of each family. the vandies, even the smallest models, NEED a LARGE listening room, the dealer’s listening room was about 20’ by 40’, they sounded as designed in that large space [holographic imaging, on the mellow side of neutral]. but if you are in a small room, they lose their imaging magic and become boxy and very shouty around the crossover point." While I think the Vandies could benefit from larger spaces, I don’t think they lose their imaging ability in small spaces. I’ve had/ have Vandy 1ci’s and Treos in my small 11’ x 13’ room and both image QUITE well. After taking out half of my room treatments and the huge rug on the floor, my Treos are now doing that magical disappearing act. I really think that Richard V. is correct when he states that most people over treat their room. We need some of those reflections to provide our ears with the cues that give us information about the space we are listening in. Now back to our regularly scheduled program. |
^Nice effort^ We could list the ones that have it right. I saw a JBL job that had a stunning step function response, and knowing which are flipped and not text book is rare to see advertised by the manufacturer. So when they do not show it, then we must assume it could be dire.
@ditusa did you drive to Alabama recently? |
i have both vandies and thiels, the babies of each family. the vandies, even the smallest models, NEED a LARGE listening room, the dealer's listening room was about 20' by 40', they sounded as designed in that large space [holographic imaging, on the mellow side of neutral]. but if you are in a small room, they lose their imaging magic and become boxy and very shouty around the crossover point. the Thiel's, OTOH, work just fine in my little listening room [14' wide and a bit deeper than that], they throw a stereo image almost totally independent of of the speakers' apparent locations, also on the mellow side of neutral but with no shoutiness whatsoever. i sit about 7 feet from the Thiel's but the vandies didn't sound ok until i sat at almost twice that distance from them. |
I have had several Vandersteen speakers ,they used to be a great value , not by todays standards , the Xovers inside always average at best , Maybe the $30 k speaker they are good , and drivers ,not even sure who makes them . look at Dynaudio for a great example of excellent engineering and a excellent value in all ranges, when he started going from gtratvalue to $50 k Way over priced. i dissected the trios onetime fora friend rebuilding theXover and the drivers were not That robust imo, and X over most certainly didnot have good quality parts. i am critical since I do my own rebuilds in most speakers the Xovers which is the heart of the speaker are average at best , I look at Magico ,annd Marten 2 great example the A5 Magico uses the mid grade Mundorf Evo caps those are a bit above average quality for $25 k youshould get at least their Supreme line ,Marten has exactly the same and they get 50% off on parts go figure.
|
The question is of course in reference to loudspeakers with multiple dynamic drivers and crossovers. Electrostatic, magnetic-planar, and ribbon designs can be a different kettle of fish. For instance: - The QUAD 63 gained notoriety for---amongst other attributes---the ability to recreate a square wave, which requires extremely good---close to perfect---time coherency. - The Eminent Technology LFT-8b features inventor/designer/builder Bruce Thigpen’s Linear Field Transducer, a push-pull magnetic-planar driver which he employs to reproduce all frequencies from 180Hz to 10kHz, with NO crossover! The midrange (LFT) to tweeter (a ribbon) crossover at 10kHZ is symmetrical 1st-order, as is the 180Hz LFT to dynamic woofer. On the other hand, Magnepan’s crossovers flip the polarity (180 degree opposite each other) of the various drivers in most of its’ models. Few Magnepan owners have heard---or are even aware---of the ET LFT-8b, but it is considerably superior---imo---to the MG1.7i, and about the same price ($2499/pr). |
I don't think Mr. Vandersteen even remotely implied his speakers are the only ones "correctly" done. He knew late Jim Thiel and John Dunlavy also designed speakers with the same philosophy. When I started this hobby, I auditioned Vandersteen 2Ce and Thiel CS 2 2 among several other brands. Frankly, I didn't have to pull my hair off to settle on Thiel 2 2 and I could have easily chosen 2Ce as well. Tie breaker was Thiels has a cabinet and I didn't feel comfortable handling a speaker without a cabinet. I like to take this moment to Thank my local dealers in Denver area including Soundings, Listen Up, etc. I was also fortunate to visit Dunlavy Audio Labs in Colorado Springs and those speakers were really well done and way out of my price range 🤣. Again, the late John Dunlavy followed a similar philosophy as Richard Vandersteen and he was also into measurements. He emphasized that a speaker should meet all the measurements first and rest follows afterwards. Time/phase corrected speakers are not easy to design and needs careful balance of science and art and in this case music.
I couldn't have said it any better.
|
A lot of people think so. It just depends on what is important to you. I'm never selling my Thiels. I can't be sure that I like them because of the time/phase coherence but I have no interest in changing. There's a lot of discussion of this on the Thiel thread. The theory is that when the wave gets to you in its correct form your brain doesn't have to do a bunch of work to fix the distorted signal, and you can just relax and enjoy. |
^nice^ - Theil , Dunlavy, Spika ?
It is hard to claim objective superiority with a speaker that is not able to get the output signal to look like the input. First order XOs also help to smoothly blend directivity.` distortion, compression, cabinet resonances and diffraction still need to be addressed… but most of the time/phase correct speakers are keeping as keen eye on things. |
