As some know, I bypassed 3 caps in the crossover of some Vandersteen 2CE Signatures, and initially reported that I had found the cure for Vanersteen's lack luster detail. I used some material with the Vandersteens initially that I generally use to test for brightness in speakers. I checked them out with Harry James's "Commin' From A Good Place", Ronstadt's works with Riddle, etc. They sounded awesome. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon on SACD, not a major fan of this, but it's interesting to listen to once a decade or so, Aja SACD, etc, all was well. Then I put in some Sinatra, I used the usual US discs, then the EMI English discs, same thing, BRIGHT, BRIGHT, BRIGHT. Perhaps it's an issue with the source material, but I suspect not. I am more and more thinking that you either get bright, or dull from metal dome tweeters, that is, if you let them be themselves, you get detail, but they are bright, if you pad them so that they are not bright, you lose detail. If you play Clapton's unplugged CD and bind the negative terminals as Jon Risch described here:http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/13441.html
The sound is AMAZING, but on other materials, your ears are bleeding.
Now I am wondering however if some of the muddy detail came not just from the crossover, but also from biwiring without the Jon Risch fix... I was experiencing imaging issues after the cap bypass, and while I had detail, it was not focused, it was a mess. I was not at all happy with them. After I shorted the negative terminals, I had some awesome sounding speakers, until I introduced them to Sinatra...
Any ideas? I am not a crossover guru, but I am really thinking that if these sound this good, they are worth saving, but to me saving may mean soft dome tweeters, and crossover work. Any alternative suggestions? I know, some are going to suggest sell them and buying X, and perhaps they are right, but these darn speakers are doing 98% of everything perfectly now, it's just annoying me! I want my 2%. :-)
Best Regards,
Lou
Edits: 11/22/14
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 06:17:27 11/22/14 (47)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - noway 06:52:31 11/24/14 (7)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 07:57:52 11/24/14 (6)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - SgreenP@MSN.com 11:51:48 11/29/14 (4)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 12:33:15 11/29/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - SgreenP@MSN.com 11:58:51 11/29/14 (1)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - fantja 13:47:53 11/29/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 11:56:16 11/29/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - fantja 16:38:18 11/24/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - RGA 19:21:33 11/23/14 (9)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 19:58:56 11/23/14 (8)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - SgreenP@MSN.com 22:05:07 11/28/14 (7)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 00:23:03 11/29/14 (6)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - fantja 06:22:24 11/29/14 (5)
- I should point out - Lou S 11:33:55 11/29/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 07:45:08 11/29/14 (3)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - fantja 13:44:38 11/29/14 (2)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 14:10:59 11/29/14 (1)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - fantja 06:36:51 11/30/14 (0)
- Brightness was not a Vandersteen problem - Lou S 19:54:15 11/22/14 (2)
- RE: Brightness was not a Vandersteen problem - SgreenP@MSN.com 11:20:21 11/23/14 (1)
- RE: Brightness was not a Vandersteen problem - Lou S 11:41:38 11/23/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - SgreenP@MSN.com 19:45:37 11/22/14 (3)
- You nailed it! - Lou S 19:59:09 11/22/14 (2)
- RE: You nailed it! - fantja 05:34:56 11/23/14 (1)
- RE: You nailed it! - Lou S 11:43:22 11/23/14 (0)
- Perhaps we are onto something? - Lou S 10:27:56 11/22/14 (8)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - genungo 12:08:16 11/23/14 (7)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - Lou S 13:14:42 11/23/14 (6)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - genungo 00:29:39 11/24/14 (5)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - Lou S 07:50:43 11/24/14 (4)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - ctsooner 10:52:32 11/28/14 (3)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - Lou S 19:43:46 11/28/14 (0)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - fantja 11:24:29 11/28/14 (1)
- RE: Perhaps we are onto something? - ctsooner 12:35:31 11/28/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - John Elison 09:21:24 11/22/14 (5)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 09:55:27 11/22/14 (4)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - John Elison 11:12:20 11/22/14 (3)
- Least yea forget! - Lou S 11:18:53 11/22/14 (2)
- Well, I'm glad you're retired. ;-) /nt\ - John Elison 12:25:12 11/22/14 (1)
- This is painful, but that that was good! Very good! ;-) /nt\ - Lou S 12:28:15 11/22/14 (0)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - stereo5 07:47:30 11/22/14 (6)
- RE: Vandersteens fixed, well maybe not! - Lou S 07:59:20 11/22/14 (5)
- RE: Vandersteens ARE - kavakidd 12:17:32 11/22/14 (4)
- RE: Vandersteens ARE - Lou S 12:19:57 11/22/14 (3)
- read some.of the RMAF reports - unclestu 18:12:07 11/22/14 (2)
- RE: read some.of the RMAF reports - Lou S 19:25:24 11/22/14 (0)
- RE: read some.of the RMAF reports - Lou S 18:47:52 11/22/14 (0)