|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.165.57.43
I've been looking lately for a good used pair of Vandersteen 3A sigs, but I've started wondering whether I might be better off with the new 2ce sig II's ... The Sig II's now have the same tweeter and midrange drivers that are in the 3A sigs, and lack only the increased bass. I listen only to classical (small group chamber music) and small group jazz. Never having owned a full range speaker with much bass, I don't really know how much my listening pleasure would be benefited by the increased bass in the 3's... and the 2's would be less expensive new, than the 3's are used....any opinions? Thanks.
Follow Ups:
based on owning a few pairs years ago but hearing various models up to the present.1. If you audition the 2CE Sig II and like them otherwise except for bass extension, you could buy them and later add (a) subwoofer(s). If bass is not a problem for your music, you're home. Richard certainly makes improvements over time so a current 2 could be better than a five-plus year old 3.
2. Some users report success in small rooms (Pax Atver) but I believe a larger room will always be better. In my experience, Vandys need to be placed well out from the front and side walls. Once located properly, they can disappear and present a wonderful soundstage illusion.
3. The most common rip on Vandys seems to be their "veiling". Again setup is critical, including vertical alignment. I've also found them to be revealing and the quality of the input cannot be ignored. Finally, many other speakers seem to me to offer an unusual brightness. Anyone who prefers these could call the Vandys veiled in comparison. Try comparing a natural recording to live music and decide for yourself.
"Once located properly, they can disappear and present a wonderful soundstage illusion."I absolutely agree. In those regards these $2K speakers are as good or better than everything else I've heard. I think these feats have alot to do with how musical they are.
People who say Vandies are warm, veiled, or rolled-off are comparing them to many (most?) of the modern speakers out there that are on the bright side. For many people, "brightness" equates with high resolution, detailed, lively sound. I find it very off-putting. I find Vandies very neutral, neither bright nor warm, and at least as detailed as any speaker in their class. A recent complaint in a magazine review of the Quatros is that perhaps they were too detailed, whatever that means. Except for the 5As, I have never heard a speaker that conveys a greater sense of clarity and transparency along with neutral, natural tonal balance than the 5s I now own.Joe
One of the things I love about the Vandy line is that I can listen for hours with no fatigue. So many speakers are great sounding, but after a couple of hours make you want to turn down the volume or off completly. I'm sure many other speakers can offer the same overall balanced sound, soundstage imaging, but probably not at the same price. I also find that they are very tolerant to room variations and placement.
The usual admonition: listen before you buy. That said, someone I know who knows the Vandersteen line very well was extremely impressed with the latest 2CE's. I think you could well be better off with new versions of those than older 3As. For the kind of music you like, I think they could be ideal, and you would be messing with used equipment. However, if it's the very latest 3As, that might be a different matter, but I suspect very few of those have made their way to the used market so far.
Well, I finally got off my butt and made the 120 mile drive down to a Vandersteen dealer and spent about an hour and a half comparing the 2ce sigII's to the 3A sigs. The 3's obviously had a bigger bass, larger image and seemed mellower, more "laid back", which I would normally prefer. But, to tell the truth, the smaller speaker had a better focus and was a bit more lively and seemed to have a tighter bass. Of course, there are so many factors involved.. I'm not sure the placement for the 3's was the best possible, although we did move them and tighthened things up, but, in the end, not enough. Also, I heard the 2's first, and maybe some listener fatigue played a part too by the time I got to the 3's. I just didn't want to have to hope that I would eventually appreciate the 3's, and was a bit concerned about my room size for them (14'X17') so I sprung for the 2's (and saved a large bit of change in the bargain).
For what it's worth, I'm sure you made the right choice. Enjoy!
After having a lot of different high end speakers and Maggies for years, i am enjoying the 3a sigs immensely, The only time I hear the veiling I see mentioned so often was when the angle was not adjusted correctly. I started with them in a 12X13 room, and they were great, very involving and musical. I now have them in a bigger room, they are 5 feet from the back wall and are image like a mother. I also think there is more difference between the 2's and 3's then increased bass. I compared them side by side when I bought the 3s's and the difference I heard was not small. It's like saying that the 3a's sound like the quatro's (except for the powered bass) since they have the same tweeter and midrange. Simply not the case. There's a lot more refinement in the crossover design according to Richard. I will say that the setup took me a while to get right, but once you do, you know it. I also use a Servo-15 sub with them, mainly because my room sucks out the bass of any speaker I've had in here. I wish someone would have told me about Vandy's a long time ago, I could have saved a lot of money and frustration.
Hi.. When you compared the 2's and 3's side by side, were you listening to the 2ce sigII's or just the 2ce sigs?... If it was before the 1st of January of this year, it was probably not the sig II's. thanks....
it was the only pair of 2's the dealer had, I had asked to hear the sig II's, but I am not comfortable saying it was the II's and not the I's. The II's actually had a fuller bass, not as accurate, but fuller sounding.
Post's like mine really don't mean that much though, Vandy's are funny, I had heard 3a sigs several times and they sounded pretty average or worse. (Same with the 2CE sigs, heard them sound like crap and heard them sound VERY good with a NAD integrated!)I decided to check into them further after hearing Quatro's set up properly. They were stunning. I already had Ayre and Audioquest and that seems to be a great match. My 3a's sound quite a bit different then other set ups I've heard. But I like them a lot.It's true what others here have said, move them a 1/2 inch and it can make a huge difference, a fact I really like. I bet if you get the 2sigII's and spent some time getting them set up with decent electronics/cables, you'll be a very happy puppy and forget all about 3's pretty quickly. The magazines always say, set them up and enjoy the music, and you forget the audiophile stuff, I didn't understand that fully until I had lived with these for a while. It's true. Best of luck to ya....
Someone asked a similar question just recently over at Vandersteen's website. RV essentially said that he frequently tweeks his products over time; thus a new 2ce Sig II will sound better than, say, a five year old 3A Sig (other than in the bass). I'm really loving my 2ce Sig IIs. I have heard deeper and slightly tighter bass (e.g., Thiel 7.2), but I have no bass complaints with the IIs. My take is that you get nearly all the 3A's sonic performance in a smaller and less expensive (and easier to drive?) package. IMO, they are the best deal in audio. They certainly aren't the "best" speakers out there, but I think they get pretty close - you gotta spend many times more to beat 'em. Their main fault, IMO, is a slightly veiled quality to some voices and acoustic instruments. I don't have them properly bi-wired yet, so take this observation with a grain of salt (I agree with the Stereophile review almost point-by-point). Despite that, they are VERY musical - I'm keeping 'em!
The Vandersteens I've heard have always struck me as sounding veiled as well. I recently auditioned an Ayre C-5xe in a high-end audio shop that used a pair of Vandersteen 5s, but was a bit disappointed. The sound was smooth, but seemed to lack detail. I suspect this was due to the speakers and not the universal player. The preamp was Audio Research; I didn't recognize the pair of amps.
What is your definition of veiled? Compared to what? Other speakers? Live music? What speakers don't sound veiled to you? I'm trying to get your point of reference. I have been listening to Vandys for over 15 years and have never found their reproduction of music veiled. And I have had the opportunity to listen to several high end and mid-fi speakers - B&W 808, Genesis, the big Maggies, Paradigms, NHTs to name a few.
Compared to Avalons and Thiels I've heard, which have the most "transparent" and "open" mid-ranges I've heard, the Vandersteens are "veiled" in that some voices and acoustic instruments lack that sense of "immediacy" wherein it takes little to no imagination to think that the performer is in your living room. Clear as mud, huh? Or let me put it this way: the Vandies make some performances sound more like they're going thru a microphone (which *is* the recording chain!) rather than a live unamplified performance. To be fair, this effect seems to be lessening as I log more time on the speakers. I'm probably at about the 500 hour mark now and I'm less bothered by this than I was the first 100 hours. Also, I'm hoping to gain more clarity when I get them properly bi-wired. I notice, however, that even diehard Vandersteen fan Shane Buettner commented on the open and clear sound of the Thiel 2.4 compared to the 3A Sig. OTOH, my Thiel 1.6s could sometimes sound "shouty" with certain female vocals, whereas the Vandies keep their balance on everything I've thrown at 'em.But let me repeat, IMO the 2ce Sig IIs are really sweet, musical speakers. I find myself sinking into the music rather than fretting over how "veiled" are.
Actually, my queries were directed more at dbphd. I have not had the opportunity to listen to the Avalons or the Thiels. I would like to someday though.
then - you probably already knew that!
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
The 1's, 2's and 3's do have tweeter level controls. I'm surprised by how few actually use the controls which can also boost the treble by a couple of dB.
Uncle,I wonder why some audiophiles vehemently object to bass and treble controls on the amp.If Vandersteen can provide level controls on the speaker, it should be OK to use tone controls on the amp.Detrimental effects on the sound due to additional circuits applicable only for amps?
How big is your room? It must be fairly large if you're thinking of either of these. I've never owned either of these, but I understand that they work best well away (three to five feet) from back and side walls.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: