Vandersteens-- Removing M5-HPs for a Digital Xover?

No disrespect intended. I'm just going by what my ears have told me over the years.

This is like saying if i disconnect the Brakes in my car how many of you fellows will still have their family jewels left and are they still in decent working condition.

 

I try not to put my ‘alls on the line… in case they still work ;)

By the way I heard very good things about you and your shop.

Johnny - I really doubt that any "charged capacitor" internal crossover networks can compare to an active crossover using multi-amps. Vandersteen has some of the best, but JBL started this 60 - 70 years ago. Unless you’ve tried eliminating passive crossover components between the amplifier outputs and the drivers (just plain copper wire) you will not know the improvements. All the best.

I pretty much agree, but most users have big mono blocks and are wedded to the passive XOs.

But at least there are two of use in a small boat.

It would be interesting to hear both approaches with the same drivers/boxes. I have been toying with that idea for some older 2Cs.

This is like saying if i disconnect the Brakes in my car

I asked this legend race car drover once about braking technique and going fast.
He said, “Brakes do not speed one up, so it is best to stay off of them.”
(It’s sort of true once I watched closely at his technique… he would just brush them to transfer some weight.)

Well, I finally tried it last night.

To @gdnrbob 's point and last post, I do trust RV's ears and experience.  He didn't really tell me one way or another in terms of sound when I asked him, though.  I need to do more listening, but I detected a slight bump in clarity upon first impression when moving to the Theta.  Of course, I am not going to be A/Bing this back and forth because it is really hard to reach the back of my amp and switch everything with the limited space I have behind my cabinet and all the cables there.  I have to go on "muscle memory" of having heard certain things for testing over and over again.

It seemed like maybe there was a slight drop-off in bass along with the clarity bump, so that is why I want to be sure I'm not just hearing more upper frequencies and perceiving it as such.  I can adjust the bass in them, if need be, and will probably need to re-run the Vandertones.  I'm also going to be switch power cords in a couple weeks (on order) so will wait to re-calibrate them until that is in, if that's how I think I should go.

I think the takeaway would be that the difference is slight, but better is better.  Thus, I'll take whatever improvements I can find.

Second night of listening.  Definitely a little clearer and better defined.  Slight bump in midrange, which I like.  Less bass (maybe 1.5dB), but I just bumped up my levels.  Bass is crisper, too--kick drums and such--so it's wasn't just the treble tilt before I bumped the bass up.  There's a little more air and three-dimensionality.

To wax poetic about the Quatros for a minute, man, they are fabulous speakers.  The thing that I love about them is that they produce what you give them.  Every tweak/change is to your system is heard.  I've listened to a lot of high-end brands and have been impressed more recently by the revised Aerial 7T (or maybe it was 6T) and the new Revel Be line (I want to hear the Paradigm Be stuff now), but the Vandersteens just always sound so RIGHT.  So real.  I still haven't heard the CTs, but I am happy with these in a dual-use system for now.  Maybe someday if I break it apart and have an even nicer dedicated two-channel system, I would get a second pair in CTs or Kentos/5A CTs, but it would have to be a deal.  Quatros are definitely the price/performance sweet spot, IMO.

Since @holmz had brought up their surround performance, too, I will just reiterate how much I love them for surround, too.  I have a VCC-Sig for a center (want a 5.  I used to see them used all the time but now never do!) and standard VSMs for rears.  I added a VSW recently for the .1 output in addition to the Quatros running full range for the fronts and was messing with it some last night, too.  I had to reconfigure something in the Theta to make it work on the right port and finally did.  I was demoing it all again with one of the few but favorite test discs for sound that I own--Sin City (and it kicks ass), and just wow.  I don't even have the BR version, just the DTS.  Everything is so precisely placed in space.  Of course the Casablanca is doing an awesome job to help things, but the Vandersteens just again make everything seems so realistic.

Anyways...  My .02

@holmz --Congrats on the VCC-5.  I haven't been able to find one in black in some time.  Damage to the other drivers, not the sub.  It's in the manual.  Regarding the frequency and having a Xover, it's for any Vandersteen sub product (except the VSW, which is line level).  The Quatros and up with the subs built in and the separate subs.

My system is dual-use.  It's 5.1, but I do a lot of 2-channel listening on it.  I have been trying to build the best sounding surround system for 2-channel.  It does get a little confusing with the Xovers.  If using the digital Xover at 100Hz, I can't add a second (with what I have) filter to also limit it lower.  Can they ever have a HP applied, even with the M5s in place, and work correctly?  Idk.  I'm not concerned about the Quatros running frequencies too low, though.  I think they are -3 in the 20s, and stereo bass is awesome.  I did/do have to really think about the fact that they are always running full, I guess, since they build back what is taken out by the HP.  The processor is then also sending that to the LFE, though, so I'm kind of getting double the bass (at least from the front signals)?