|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
[ Asylum Support ] [ Rules ] |
Model: | 3A Signature |
Category: | Speakers |
Suggested Retail Price: | $3549.00 |
Description: | Floor-standing loudspeaker |
Manufacturer URL: | Vandersteen Audio |
Review by krisjan (A) on March 03, 2007 at 17:42:19 IP Address: 68.79.204.200 | Add Your Review for the 3A Signature |
I’ve been living with the Vandersteen 3A Signature loudspeakers for about 9 months now but have been holding off on writing a review until the last piece of my system was put in place (a recently acquired Cary SLP-05 preamp). The SLP-05 completes the “Cary trifecta” – 306 SACD/CD player, SLP-05 preamp and CAD-211 AE monoblocks. Now I can assemble a complete picture of the capabilities of the 3A Sigs (I opted for beige cloth with walnut end caps for my pair).My dedicated music room is small – 12 x 13 x 7.5 ft. Despite the small room, the 3A’s work very well though the room can be overloaded if I get carried away with the volume control. The dealer brought them over and did a nice job of setting them up and getting the right tilt angle for my listening position. Since their original placement, I’ve only tweaked them a bit here and there to lock in the soundstage. One very nice feature of these speakers is the inclusion of midrange and tweeter adjustment pots. These have been extremely useful in establishing just the right instrument timbres for my particular room and set-up. What sounds best in my room is with the tweeters at -1.0 dB and the mids at +1.0 dB. I love this feature and don’t know why more loudspeaker manufacturers don’t incorporate it. I suppose the purists will say that the extra circuitry adds to the complexity of the crossover network and unless handled exactly right will compromise the sound. Vandersteen has figured out how to do this with no sonic degradation and it results in the ability to really lock in the timbres.
Almost all of my listening is to classical music with an occasional jazz disc. My primary sonic criterion is that the system must reproduce acoustic instruments with a real-life timbre. My secondary criterion is realistic dynamics and third is getting the low end foundation right. Other “audiophile” criteria (like soundstage, imaging) come in much lower in my priorities. Through the 3A’s, violin sounds very true-to-life with the harmonics being properly balanced with the fundamental. There is NO listening fatigue when the violin reaches the upper register – a problem that I have heard on the majority of “HI-FI” speakers I’ve heard (and owned) over the years. Cello’s exhibit the right amount of heft in the lowest cello octave coupled with an engaging and natural sounding mid/high end.
Piano provides a good test for both timbre and dynamics (piano being classified as a percussion instrument after all). The somewhat mellow, rounded midrange tone of a Hamburg Steinway comes across very realistically while the attack of the notes on ff passages is crisp. The prodigious bottom end of a Bosendorfer is portrayed in all its full glory.
The recent Mahler 2nd on Pentatone conducted by Ivan Fischer is among the best sounding large-scale orchestral recordings I know. It is also a supreme test for a stereo system because of the wide tonal and dynamic range. My expectation when listening to an orchestral recording is to be transported to the recording venue to a good seat in the house. I think the 3A’s do a very good job of that. It’s still not quite like being there but it’s a very good facsimile of a real event. From the opening bars of the Mahler I am drawn into the performance. Just listen to the cellos and basses digging into their opening motif. The 3A’s get the orchestral foundation right and that goes a long way to creating the illusion of being in the hall with the orchestra. The brasses possess the right amount of metallic bite with none of the shrillness that is prevalent on so many “Hi-Fi” speakers. Loud percussive outbursts are thrilling to hear. When the orchestra is going full-tilt it sounds exciting. The 3A’s have a -3 dB point of 26 Hz. In my small room there is certainly no need for a subwoofer to convey the low end realistically though those in a much larger space might benefit from adding one (or two) of Vandersteen’s subs. When the chorus enters in the last movement it sends chills down my spine. The voices emerge pianissimo from behind the orchestra in one of the most sublime passages in all of music IMO. The soundstage portrayed by the 3A’s is reasonably wide and deep. I’m not one who looks for “pinpoint imaging” or “hyper-detail” because these attributes are simply not present at a live concert. Next time you attend a concert, get a good seat, close your eyes and see (hear) for yourself. The 3A’s don’t provide pinpoint imaging or hyper-detail; if that’s what you are looking for, you ought to look elsewhere.
During my time so far with the 3A Sigs I have found them to be utterly musical reproducers. The 70 class A triode watts of the Cary 211’s are more than enough power in my room (and I suspect even for a significantly larger room). I NEVER tire of listening to music on this system. You get all of this performance for a mere $3549/pair. This is one of the true audiophile bargains extent. Furthermore, Vandersteen has made these speakers to be fully upgradeable if/when Mr. Vandersteen discovers ways to make them even better. Since a system is the cumulative results of all the pieces in the chain, I know that the all-Cary front end and the interconnects/cables also contribute to the overall excellent results.
The few nits I have to pick with the 3A’s are ancillary in nature. These speakers are not beautiful to look at being tall rectangular monoliths. In my room, the beige cloth makes them a bit less conspicuous but still they are not works of art by any means. But I didn’t buy them for their looks. I bought them for their truthful and realistic sound. I wish they had more conventional connectors rather than the barrier strip with screws. I understand that Richard Vandersteen believes this to give the best connection (they must be biwired, by the way) but I still think one can use a high quality 5-way binding post without any significant loss in sonics. Other than that, I can’t think of anything to gripe about.
One last anecdote. I filled in the product registration card to secure the 5-year warranty offered by Vandersteen and returned it along with a comment that I was a bit disappointed that it took about 9 weeks to get the speakers from the time they were ordered. The dealer kept telling me that they were backed up at the factory. About a week after returning the warranty card, I got a voice mail message from Richard Vandersteen himself. He thanked me for buying the speakers and wanted to set the record straight that there was no long factory delay but rather it appeared that my dealer had dragged his feet in actually placing my order for the speakers (something the dealer conveniently never told me). It should have only taken 3-4 weeks as it turns out. This told me two things: 1) Mr. Vandersteen truly cares about his customers and 2) when its time to buy any more stereo gear, I will do so at another dealer. Happy listening!
Product Weakness: | Not pretty to look at; would prefer 5-way binding posts |
Product Strengths: | Natural, musical sound; Adjustable tweeter/mids; Excellent low end; Fantastic value |
Associated Equipment for this Review: | |
Amplifier: | Cary CAD-211 AE monoblocks |
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | Cary SLP-05 |
Sources (CDP/Turntable): | Cary CD-306 cd/sacd |
Speakers: | Vandersteen 3A Sigs |
Cables/Interconnects: | Cardas Cross; Cardas Quad-link shotgun biwire |
Music Used (Genre/Selections): | Classical |
Room Size (LxWxH): | 12 x 13 x 7.5 |
Room Comments/Treatments: | none |
Time Period/Length of Audition: | 9 months |
Other (Power Conditioner etc.): | Monster HTS-5100 |
Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Follow Ups:
.
Thanks for the great review. I heard the 3A sigs a few weeks ago. A very musical speaker and I can't think of a better speaker bargin in audio. I would have purchased but it did not pass the WAF.Didn't you have the Spendor SP100? I'd be interested in your comparisons.
For what it's worth, I owned a pair of SP 100s before I move on to Vandersteen 5s. The 5s are better than the 3As, but the latest version of the 3A Sig, especially if coupled with some 2Wq subwoofers, gets you many of the performance qualities of the 5s (I bought used 5s, not 5As). The step up from the SP 100s was considerable. I listen virtually only to classical music, and after several weeks of listening to the 5s, I re-installed the SP 100s. They sounded congested, even muffled in the lower midrange, and I had the impression that overall the sound had higher levels of distortion. I think the SP 100s are actually very nice speakers in that they do not do an injustice to the timbres of instruments and have a good octave to octave balance, but they are no match for the Vandersteens. The sound from the 5s simply seems to originate in some three-dimensional space, and I really can't tie the origin of the sound to the speakers as hard as I try. The clarity, transparity, and extremely low coloration of the sound is obviously much better than with the SP 100s, and when I had did a comparison of the SP 100s with the 3A Sigs (unfortunetely not in the same room) I had come to similar conclusions.
One more question. Does the increased clarity and transparity mean the 5's are not as forgiving of not well recorded material?
This is an oft-repeated statement. In its extreme form, people say that a really high quality system is so mercelessly revealing that poorer recordings are unpleasant to listen to. In my experience, the better the system, the better music sounds. Of course you can hear smaller departures from perfection in recordings with a higher quality system, but you also hear the high quality sound at high quality. That is, you are not using the masking effect of the poor sound of your speakers to hide imperfections in the sound of the recordings. If you think about that, you might come to the conclusion that I did; do everything you can and can afford to avoid having your speakers (and system) degrade the sound. Otherwsie, maybe you would be best off listening on a car-radio or simular low-level performer, where everything sounds equally bad- you just hear the faults of the system.I don't think I am making myself clear. A so-so recording may sound good on the Spendors, but it sounds even better on the Vandersteens. On the Spendors I hear the deficiencies of the speaker (on all recordings) added to the problems of the recording, but on the Vandersteens I am only limited by the recording. Sure I can hear the faults of the recording itself "better," or maybe I should say more clearly, because the faults of the speaker aren't in the way, but overall it just sounds better. It may take some practice, but it does help to concentrate on the music and what is good about it rather than what is not good about the sound. In this case, a better sounding speaker makes the music itself sound better regardless of the quality of the recording, unless the recording is hopelessly bad. However, I find I enjoy the old performances from the '30s of Schnabel playing the Beethoven piano sonatas more on my Vandersteens than on my Spendors, and these recordings came from some pretty marginal old 78s at times.
Hope this helps.
I thought I would add my auditioning experience. I auditioned a pair of Vandy 3ce's a year ago at the dealer with nice gear but they only had a cd player to demo with. I forget the gear but I think it was all Rogue Audio or something like that. Fairly large room with 8' ceilings.Well, yes, the speakers did sound incrediable with Nora Jones and Diana Krall. But fell flat with Dire Straights. That right there was a deal breaker for me.
I understand and appreciate what everyone is saying in this thread. I learned something here. But I wanted to chip in that these speakers don't do all kinds of music perfectly. I ended up buying a pair of Uasher CP-6371 's
_______________________________________*Analog fans may be blind-but digital fans are deaf*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82495693@N00/
In my review, I stated explicitly that my reference for judging the sound of the 3A's was reproduction of acoustic instruments. This they do extremely well. What exactly is your reference? It would appear to be a studio recorded album (Dire Straits) that I contend has no possible reference in reality unless you were the person doing the final mixing/mastering of that particular recording and listening on the actual studio monitors where that was done. I am sure you were not that person so there is now way you can know if any speaker sounds true to that recording. After all, what does an electronic keyboard really sound like? Well, that depends on what amp/speakers are used to reproduce it. Same with electric guitars - they can be made to sound like anything you want (I am a performing guitarist/singer - I know this to be fact). There is no absolute reference possible with these types of studio recordings. How do you really know that the Vandersteen's aren't reproducing the Dire Straits album just they way the producer intended? You can't possibly know this.That said, I will not argue with what you LIKE. But that's an entirely different and subjective situation. Some like their ear candy to sound detailed, some like euphonic, etc. My point in all this is that I believe the only fair way to judge a component is by how it reproduces acoustic instruments recorded in real spaces. That is hard enough to do because of the variety of microphones and techniques used to capture such instruments but at least if one is regularly exposed to live acoutic music, you have some chance of making a fair judgement over a spectrum of such recordings.
Can you see that I am passionate about this topic? OK, off of soap box.
Mark
I see what your saying. I agree that these speakers sound wonderfull with acoustic music. Probably the best speakers I have ever heard with that kind of music. I've auditioned the SPendor S8e and Sonus Faber new Domor Grand Piano's. Not side by side but they are all outstanding speakers to me. Never auditioned anything more expensive than those. Where it failed to me was the Vandersteens did not provide enough dynamics for rock studio albums. To smooth and relaxed. Not enough energy and dynamics for that kind of trash music. That wouldn't be a problem if i never listened to that kind of music.
Others over the years have mentioned this on here and my audition and the dealer confirmed this.
_______________________________________*Analog fans may be blind-but digital fans are deaf*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82495693@N00/
I really don't know. I never auditioned speakers that cost more. I compared them vs the Spendor S8e's, Sonus Faber new Domus Piano's, Dali 400, VS-v4 jr's. I couldnt afford the Sonud Fabers and the Spendors may have disappeared in my 30'x25' room. I really liked those Spendors. Stil regret not getting them.But since I have had these ushers home with me for the last year Ive been really happy with them. Filled them with lead shot and now they weight over 160lbs! each!
THey rock with pop and rock. They play smooth with Nora Jones that sends me drifting away. Really nice compared to my old Mirage 490i speakers. My problem is i am only running them with my ROtel RB985 5x100 amp and Rotel RSP 965 DTS preamp. DHLabs T-14 double run bi-wired. I want a nice 100watt tube amp so bad right now. New speaker cables like the Harmonic Tech's. Started a thread over in the amp forum for that.
_______________________________________*Analog fans may be blind-but digital fans are deaf*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82495693@N00/
You said that the Vandersteens didn't play all kinds of music perfectly. I wasn't asking you compare your speakers with others, but rather, unlike the Vandersteens, are they themselves fine for all kinds of music?
Oh well, I realize its not possible for them to play like a $8k speaker in all area's of speaker sound. Of course I wouldnt know since I never auditioned anything better than the ones I listed. One fact I do know. They sound MUCH better in every conceivable way compared to my old Mirages. In that aspect, then yes, they do play all music perfectly well. But compared to the Vandersteen 3's I do not beleive they play Nora Jones as well. I beleive the strengths of the Vandersteens do better in those area's than the Ushers. Where the ushers do everything that I know about realy well which includes rock which the Vandersteen sounded to laid back. The dealer and others on this forum suggested that the Vandersteen 3' would do well mated with a pair of subwoofers. I had to then weight the cost for what I get as a speaker based on the criteria of the music I like to listen to.But to answer more directly to your question based on my audio experience. Yes. The Usher speakers I have do play all kinds of music very well. Better than I have ever enjoyed before in my home. I suspect they may be a little too forward or bright for some of the "classical music" loving tube fans out there. That opinion based on reading their comments and complaints in the forums about speakers in general.
_______________________________________*Analog fans may be blind-but digital fans are deaf*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82495693@N00/
Sometimes it is said that a speaker is so revealing of the faults of a recording that it makes listening to the recording unpleasant. If it was more pleasant with a poorer speaker, than I would say something is wrong with these "revealing" speakers. At best, the way the poorer speakers hide the problems of the recordings is by contributing problems of their own that mask the recording's problem. And this is supposed to be an advantage? I have found that many times "very revealing" or "highly resolving" speakers get that way by being tipped up at the high end. They can make many quite respectable recordings with perhaps a bit of roughness at the high end sound terrible because they themselves are contributing to the problem by brightening the sound. They make the recording sound worse than a "poorer" speaker because, in my opinion, they are in fact the inferior speaker.
I agree with everything you have said. My first pair of speakers was a pair of KEF 104/2. Commercial pop CDs from the 80's sounded very good and audiophile recordings sounded aweseome. Never did I think, "this is a really bad recording".Then silly me, started reading reviews in mags and "upgraded" over 4 years to different speakers. I bought into the myth that better speakers just made my commercial pop CDs sound bad. Then after listening to a $100K system at some high end store that I did not particularly enjoy I dropped into Tweeter to look at TVs. I saw a pair of Sonus Faber Concerto's there so decided to get my CDs from the car. That was the most enjoyment I had in 4 years. Commercial pop CDs from the 80's sounded very good and audiophile recordings sounded aweseome. That is when I concluded that many "high-end" speakers tip the treble up to give that instant wow "more detail" effect. A lot of audiophile recordings particularly vocals don't have nearly as much treble energy as pop CDs so they still sound good. Put in a pop CD and ouch! It's not the recording that is bad it's the speaker!
Now I take reviews with a grain of salt. I trust what folks say on this forum than mags. Still, speakers are about personal preference. I use my own ears. I bring my 80's pop CDs, 70's Salsa music and audiophile CDs to speaker auditions. I have found most "high-end" speakers do not do well on the pop and Salsa music. Speakers such as Spendor and Vandersteen do well on ALL my music. The "best" speaker is one that plays all YOUR music well without punishing you.
to thine own ears be true. No speaker is perfect, but it amazes me how many highly-touted speakers really put me off, how few I could live with.Joe
Hi Joe, thanks for your comparison of these two speakers. I've stumbled onto some of your older posts when searching for Spendor/Harbeth. We must have similar ears and tastes. I too find many speaker out there to bright and "hifi" for ME. I own Spendor SP2/3 and Rel Stadium. The 3A's were definitely a step up. They didn't pass the WAF test. The 5's would though. But much more expensive...I know you liked the the Sonus Faber Amati. Have you heard the Amati since you got the 5's?
Since the Homage was discontinued about the time I got the 5s, it was hard to find anyplace to listen to them. I did find one place on a vacation, though, but the set-up wasn't ideal I realized that one of the main attractions of the Homage, its very transparent and clean sound, is also one of the hallmarks of the 5. But my impression this time around was that the Homage had more colored sound, not to an unpleasant degree, but definitely there. I suspect that if I had them both in my listening room for a while, I might ultimately go for the 5s for two reasons: the coloration of the Homage might begin to annoy my a bit, and the bass is vastly superior on the 5s. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the frequency response is a bit smoother on the 5s as well. However, the Homage was the first speaker I ever heard that passed the cello test perfectly- it reproduced the sound of a cello with no detactable flaws- and I still believe it is a superb speaker. For that price it should be. If someone wants to loan me a pair for a while, I'd be happy to do this comparison more carefully. Fat chance!
Hi R-J,
Close - I actually had the Spendor SP1/2E's prior to the Vandy's. I liked the Spendors a lot because they also have a very musical midrange and high end. The issue that caused me to change was the foundation - they don't do the bottom octave and that is important to achieve a realistic sound. I tried unsuccessfully to mate the Spendors with a subwoofer but I was never able to get them to work seamlessly together. That's what led me to the 3A's. I have no regrets - the Vandy's are a superior speaker especially in the bottom octave. Thanks for your comments.
Mark
As a 3A Sig. owner for a few years now, I'd say you characterized their sound well. They truly are an amazing value. Richard Vandersteen has taken quite a trip with the model threes. I heard the threes when they first came out over a decade ago and as a 2C owner at the time, I was stunned and disappointed by the shrillness of their treble. Richard continued to work on them and released an improved model, the 3A, with a much more balanced treble and greater dimensionality. The Signature upgrade was an even greater leap. The openness and transparency with improved balance have made the 3A Sigs. a true triumph. It should be noted that the pair you reviewed is even more refined than mine as Richard continues to introduce incremental upgrades over time.Congratulations on your fine purchase decision. You will, I'm confident, continue to discover the beauty and truth of fine recordings through these speakers. Enjoy!
.
I called him up once to apologige for slamming his rear firing tweeter on some of his speakers.
My slam was that it destroys phase.
He was unaware of my Internet comments, and said he could frankly care less!
He said IF he paid attention to all the opinions on the Internet, he would not have time to design speakers!
He did agree with me that the rear firing tweeter was a "distortion generator" and destroyed phase.
He told me he added it ONLY at the request of dealers.
Evidently, these dealers said they sold systems to some customers in highly damped rooms who previously owned planers.
The extra high frequency energy imparted by these adjustable rear firing tweeters made some customers "happier".I owned a pair of 2CI speakers, and asked him for his update recommendations.'
He told me "get rid of them".
How refreshing!I admire him for his honesty.
He said back in the 2CI days he simply could not get the better drivers he now uses.We talked about his feelings that the stupidest thing to happen in high end audio was taking by passable tone controls off of preamp!
I found him blunt, opinionated, and not a "sugar coater" of his opinions.
My kind of guy!
Sounds like your kind of a guy is a blunt, opinionated, and not a "sugar coater" guy whose opinions are the same as yours...LOL
Not necessarily.
I enjoy a good debate with blunt, outspoken people like myself.
Remember, I am a Ham Radio Operator.
KA7NIQ is my callsign.
Before the Internet, us Ham's were "Blogging" away, only we didn't use computers to do it.And, with all due respect, most of the Internet Newsgroups, etc are "Tame" in comparison to some Ham Radio "conversations".
Vandersteen actually knows a lot more about the subject at hand than you.
- This signature is two channel only -
We've been listening to the 2Ce Sigs for four years, just decided to go for it... and we love the way they look ☺
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: