Wilson Sabrina (not X), Sonus Faber Nova 2, or Vandersteen Treo CT

op

i have no idea what you might like... if it were me, my taste, my experience, my musical taste i would pick vandersteen

When I decided to replace my Vandersteen 2ci speakers Johnny R recommended used 2012 Treo Non-CT speakers over new Vandersteen 2 speakers. In my room the Treo speakers go to 23 HZ before output declines (measured using REW and an Umik-1). In fact, the Treo speakers have a nice bass bump below 100 Hz or so. I am using an ancient 2w sub to reduce bass. The amplifier is an Aragon 8008x5.     

Not to beat a dead horse, but the attention to detail in Vandersteen as well as their performance longevity make them a real bargain compared to the Wilson's. 

B

The 2 / 3 good as they are just run out of the extra $ available to put into a much better cabinet within a cabinet design w constrained layer damping. A more inert cabinet strongly benefits midrange clarity and bass articulation. The latest Treo also benefits from the sattelite grade carbon fiber tweeter diagram made famous in the model 7.  Go to the YouTube section on the Vandy website to see a nice video about the steps needed to build / finetune in anechoic chamber the crossover w graded / matched drivers…. :-) Conformal dip on the  filter …..not many $30 k loudspeakers get that…low vibration step…

Enjoy

Jim

 

@holmz ,

The Treo was a significant upgrade from the 3a Sigs I owned before them.

Overall, a more refined sound.

Though I do agree with getting a sub or two.

His Mac 152 should have plenty of oomph to drive a pair of Treo’s, as well as just about any decently designed speaker.

B

I thought so, but now we are al sure. 😉
Thanks Sir… aka @gdnrbob

@delmatae 

From a Vandersteen Treo owner myself, congrats! Love mine. And also have 1C and 2C’s, now used for other purposes/systems.

And as @gdnrbob said, visit us at the Vandersteen Forum. Great group with a bunch of information from other experienced users, including Richard himself.

@holmz ,

The Treo was a significant upgrade from the 3a Sigs I owned before them.

Overall, a more refined sound.

Though I do agree with getting a sub or two.

His Mac 152 should have plenty of oomph to drive a pair of Treo's, as well as just about any decently designed speaker.

B

@delmatae I do not know much about that amp, but you may want to consider a sub to relieve some of the bass if that amp does not have an abundance of umphf.

Even though most everyone in this thread is rating the Vandy, it would be good to have a listen/demo, as the people rating the Vandy high, are somewhat biased. (Myself included)

In all probability it is the best choice. But I am not 100% convinced that the Treo would be better than a 2C +sub (at a fixed budget). I think it would be… but I would be calling a dealer.

If you had gotten the 2C back in 88, then I would be telling you to get 1 or 2 of the subs now.

The Treo with the sub should be a step up from a 2, which is very good. So you likely want to have some budget for a sub now or later, just in case the amp is not much of a bass slammer.

Good choice, and I know you'll be happy with your decision.

Now is a good time to invite you to the Vandy forum. Open to Vandersteen owners only. Just go to the website.

Bob

Thx for the responses, I guess the Treo is preferred by this group😉. Last time I stereo shopped in ’88 my final three choices were the KEF 104/2s, Vandersteen I think 3a but might have been the 2c, and the Dahlquist. I remember the unmatched clarity of the 3a’s and great imaging, the wonderfully strong full sound of the KEF’s and their great imaging, and the Dahlquist being similar to the Vandersteen. I ended up choosing the 104/2’s mostly because of the 92db sensitivity, I liked (and still like to some degree) listing to music very loud. The KEFs were a great choice, so happy with them for 25 years. They still sound so good that I have auditioned some pretty accomplished speakers and they do not sound any better than my old KEF’s. I also chose the Luxman R115 which I loved as well, then in the early 2000’s upgraded to Bryston 4B-ST and a BP-16. I got the Bryston for more power to listen louder, but always thought they sounded dull compared to my Luxman. A bit of regret on getting Bryston.

I have learned to pay attention to phase shift/time alignment stuff. My first introduction to that was the D’aApolito design. That is one reason I like the KEF’s, their D’Apolito uses physical placement with x-over design to improve issues at the tweeter/mid crossover. I have always been partial to non-electronic solutions, seems the less electronics the better.  Similarly learned to liked first order x-overs due to reduced phase shift. At the time I did not know Vandersteen used first order x-overs, but my ears did!

I got a chance to listen to the Wilson SabrinaX’s and they did not move me. So I am going with Vandersteen unheard, mostly based on my audition 25 years ago and listening to Mr. Vandersteen explain his approach to speaker design. Tho the love shown here certainly did not hurt. Thx again.

I have not heard Wilsons or SF.

But then again I have older Vandys, and have not been disappointed over many decades.

I too, own Treo Ct's. The time and phase alignment is very important in Vandy's as this is what gives it it's "rightness" of SQ.

@delmatae ,

Though Vandy lovers seem to be loyal customers, we all seem to know the value of a time and phase correct speaker. There is something 'right' about it that one can't put into words.

I listened to the original Vandy 2's in the '80's. Due to constrained finances, I couldn't indulge in my passion for Audiophile sound for 30+ years.

Though I listened to many great speakers at audio shows- Dahlquist 10's , Mangnepans, Shahinian (okay, I like speakers that offer wide, disperse sound), I always remembered the Vandersteens. They just seemed to get it right.

Everyone hears things differently. So, take my posts with a grain of salt.

-But,

When you hear a time/phase aligned speaker, and you are sensitive to it's sublties, then there is no going back.

B

Full disclosure, Vandersteen Treo CT and 7 Mk2 owner, so i can certainly be ( rightly so ) accused of bias. Above comments are spot on. The Treo CT is a fatigue free speaker and easy to place in room, flat to 40 hz and a very easy load. I currently run my Treo with an ancient but highly modified MC240 tube amp. Your current pre/amp will work great. You might want to surf the Vandersteen owners forum to see the wide diversity of systems w Treo.

Finally, you have narrowed to three excellent choices all of which deliver value from trusted high end companies. Enjoy the music !

Jim

I concur with @sbank, 

I think he hit the nail on the head. Vandersteen has always been a company to offer the most performance at a great price point. Though I will say the cabinetry of the Treo, Quatro, Kento and up are second to none.

I will also concur with the opinion that Vandersteen speakers allow you to relax and enjoy the music.

Though the Sabrina might have lower bass, the Treo's are no slouch. Given the dimensions, it would be hard to make a speaker that size go down below 40hz. Which is why Vandersteen offers subwoofers.

Though not as inexpensive as others, using the high pass filters allows you to run the speakers will a less powerful amp as the power demanding bass notes are transferred to the subs. As the subs are also driven by the amplifier output, their output is seamlessly integrated with the speakers.

Not that you need the subs, but when you want to 'upgrade' you will be able to do so without having to buy new speakers. Putting a sub or two with the Treo's will get you 85% of a Quatro.

B

@sbank 

Very nice synopsis.

Charles 

Personally, I rank them:

1. Vandy

2. SF

3. Wilson

This is such a personal priority decision, it really comes down to tradeoffs and priorities. My take is that the Vandy is a more natural, realistic sound that will promote longer listening sessions and craving for a wide variety of music. They will also provide a sublime combo if you ever decide to move to tube amplification.

The SFs IMHO devote too much of their cost to the lovely cabinetry vs. high quality parts that impact sonics. Every time I demo SFs, I try to talk myself into them because they look so great. Each time, something else at the price point sounder better to me. 

The Sabrina's are the first or one of the first Wilsons designed by the 2nd gen, who moved the sonic signature in the direction of less hyper-detail, more relaxed presentation...a step closer to your other contenders vs. older Wilson designs. I'd guess this bodes directionally well for their future models. I still find the experience too cool...I find myself actively analyzing every note, never relaxing and hearing the players interacting. Good for a quick demo, but not to listen all night. Just my experience, YMMV. Cheers,

Spencer 

I would take the Sabrina over the Sonus Faber. I have heard the Sabrina and the Nova 3. The bass went deeper and had more texted/impact on the Sabrina and I put a lot of value on bass. The highs are about the same. The mids are a little different. The Nova 3 has a slight dip at 3k and I feel like the wilson have a slight peak at 3k  I heard a touch of sibilants in the Wilson’s. After demoting both speakers (a few others too Kef R3, Cornwall IV, etc)I bought Revel 228be based on a demo of the 328be.

I can’t help with Vandersteen. 

+1 for the Treo's.

I have listened to the Sabrina's. They're nice, but for the money, you'll get more from Vandersteen. And, a true time and phase correct speaker.

No experience with Sonus Faber.

Bob

Vandersteen Treo CT would be my choice because I had owned Vandersteen for many years, love thei house sound and not a fan of SF or Wilson.  I also owned a MC152 for 2 years before moving up to a MC302 and found the 152 to be extremely musical with seemingly unlimited power. You can’t go wrong.