Vandersteen VLR Speaker Review

[Doodski]

Thanks Amir for the test, measurement I just started by saying.

But that one seems to cost:
$ 3,200 pair. Is it the same as in Amir's test?

In which case this is what the manufacturer says about them:

Accurately reproducing the signal from the amplifier requires preserving all of the delicate time-domain relationships that comprise music. Because there is not enough physical real estate to time-align such a compact speaker, making time-and phase-coherent speakers in such a small box requires the use of coaxially-mounted drivers like the woofer / tweeter used here. The result is all the coherence and dimensional purity one expects from a classic Vandersteen in a gorgeous and versatile little speaker.

Vandersteen Audio High End Speakers | Vandersteen Audio

Vandersteen Audio High End Speakers

www.vandersteen.com

Accurately reproducing?

It's all goobledy gook rubbish potty mouth talk.

 

[tvih]

Hmm.... this is Vandersteen's own impedance curve from the product page. Or well, it's the "CT" version, but seems it and the "Wood" version both have the same tech specs:

Aside from 8ohm nominal they list 5 as minimum, which is reasonably accurate based on that. I wonder what the heck is going on with the one amirm measured? Or is it a different version after all? Price-wise, at least on Vandersteen's site the less costly "Wood" version is starting from $3200. (Edit: seems someone pointed the price out already while I was typing this. Slowpoke is me!)

 

[Geert]

Is that a Seas coax?

I was thinking the same. I once had speakers with the Seas H1353. They have a ragged top end, but they sounded nice when listening of axis (which basically means you use them without toe-in). But I guess they had a better crossover filter.

Seas H1353-08/06 T18REX/XFC:

(Note these speakers I had were 800 Euro a pair, not 1.800).

 

[phoenixdogfan]

All I can say is yikes. Didn't expect their designs would keep up with something from Kef, Revel or Genelec, but did not expect they would be this badly botched either. They have had a really, good reputation in the audiophile community for decades.

Never owned a pair, or was even tempted. Every time I heard them, they always seemed lacking in presence and left me a little bit cold. I could never understand what the buzz around them was all about.

Never auditioned them, but I understand they make some really expensive models like their Model Seven Mk II which is $62,000 pr and offered with a $53,000 matched set of monoblock amps. Have to wonder if those are just as defective.

All I can say is yikes.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

They're really keepin' it old school with those screw terminals on the back. Its like they said "Hey, like the 70's and 80's hi-fi sound and inconvenience? Well, now it'll be just like you never left."

 

[Doodski]

They're really keepin' it old school with those screw terminals on the back. Its like they said "Hey, like the 70's and 80's hi-fi sound and inconvenience? Well, now it'll be just like you never left."

Who their target market is I'll never understand.

 

[tomtoo]

I wonder if our diy corner could not build a better speaker without measurements. Only from pure simulations, and factory chassis data? Somehow i think this should be possible.

 

[heraldo_jones]

This kind of product makes me think we need another option in the poll, something like "trash" or "nonsense"

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is a good whizzer cone full range crossoverless speaker a better idea than a two way coax? I made some in a transmission line once with a RS 8 inch full range driver. On axis using warble tone measurements it was a near match for my Quad ESL63 speakers. It was very efficient. 40 watt receivers would run you out of the room on loudness. Didn't sound all that bad subjectively. Gave them to my brother. Got them back. Had foam surrounds which are starting to go.

Here is one that SEAS makes and it looks almost like the twin to my old RS driver. Even has the same 94 db efficiency rating. I don't know that this mounted in a box flush with the surface in the appropriate box would be worse. Might even like it as a passive radiator loading.

 

[Doodski]

Is a good whizzer cone full range crossoverless speaker a better idea than a two way coax? I made some in a transmission line once with a RS 8 inch full range driver. On axis using warble tone measurements it was a near match for my Quad ESL63 speakers. It was very efficient. 40 watt receivers would run you out of the room on loudness. Didn't sound all that bad subjectively. Gave them to my brother. Got them back. Had foam surrounds which are starting to go.

Here is one that SEAS makes and it looks almost like the twin to my old RS driver. Even has the same 94 db efficiency rating. I don't know that this mounted in a box flush with the surface in the appropriate box would be worse. Might even like it as a passive radiator loading.

Hmmz... intriguing for a quality basic driver.

H1597-08 FA22RCZ

THE ART OF SOUND PERFECTION BY SEAS

www.seas.no

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hmmz... intriguing for a quality basic driver.

H1597-08 FA22RCZ

THE ART OF SOUND PERFECTION BY SEAS

www.seas.no

Well my further idea from way back when is a phased array of these full range drivers if some intensive DSP could make it all work. Might end up the size of a Quad and the efficiency of a horn speaker 8 or 12 of them per side. Or even a curved line source array. Nasty comb filtering if you get it wrong however.

 

[alex-z]

Is a good whizzer cone full range crossoverless speaker a better idea than a two way coax? I made some in a transmission line once with a RS 8 inch full range driver. On axis using warble tone measurements it was a near match for my Quad ESL63 speakers. It was very efficient. 40 watt receivers would run you out of the room on loudness. Didn't sound all that bad subjectively. Gave them to my brother. Got them back. Had foam surrounds which are starting to go.

Here is one that SEAS makes and it looks almost like the twin to my old RS driver. Even has the same 94 db efficiency rating. I don't know that this mounted in a box flush with the surface in the appropriate box would be worse. Might even like it as a passive radiator loading.

Really depends on your goals. The whizzer cone extends the on-axis frequency, but the radiation pattern still narrows. I personally dislike how much the imaging changes with slight head motion, while others may praise the "pinpoint accuracy". Well implemented coaxial drivers have a fairly consistent radiation pattern, and enough width to accommodate 2-3 seats.

Full range drivers still need a crossover, most have a rising response, and audible breakup modes. A bit of baffle step compensation + 1-2 notch filters is usually required for a good end result. Speaking of which, looking at that Seas driver, it isn't 94dB efficiency. Looking at the mid-bass region, it is more like 87-88dB. They only say 94dB because the treble region is 95+, so they do a bit of deceitful averaging.

 

[Doodski]

Well my further idea from way back when is a phased array of these full range drivers if some intensive DSP could make it all work. Might end up the size of a Quad and the efficiency of a horn speaker 8 or 12 of them per side. Or even a curved line source array. Nasty comb filtering if you get it wrong however.

What would be the apprx cutoff frequency @ the high end for this driver?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Really depends on your goals. The whizzer cone extends the on-axis frequency, but the radiation pattern still narrows. I personally dislike how much the imaging changes with slight head motion, while others may praise the "pinpoint accuracy". Well implemented coaxial drivers have a fairly consistent radiation pattern, and enough width to accommodate 2-3 seats.

Full range drivers still need a crossover, most have a rising response, and audible breakup modes. A bit of baffle step compensation + 1-2 notch filters is usually required for a good end result. Speaking of which, looking at that Seas driver, it isn't 94dB efficiency. Looking at the mid-bass region, it is more like 87-88dB. They only say 94dB because the treble region is 95+, so they do a bit of deceitful averaging.

Details, details.......but yeah, can DSP make these more viable than in the past? Plus I've used panel speakers most of my adult life, so a narrow region where it sounded right back then was nothing different.

 

[Blumlein 88]

What would be the apprx cutoff frequency @ the high end for this driver?

I seem to recall the old one I built was around 11 or 12 khz really. And I didn't have ways to measure anywhere close to what we have today. I'd think for many purposes if you could do it good to 10 khz it might be a not bad speaker. There really is not that much above 10 khz on lots and lots of music. The old one I built was pretty solid down to 40 hz.

 

[Doodski]

I seem to recall the old one I built was around 11 or 12 khz really. And I didn't have ways to measure anywhere close to what we have today. I'd think for many purposes if you could do it good to 10 khz it might be a not bad speaker. There really is not that much above 10 khz on lots and lots of music. The old one I built was pretty solid down to 40 hz.

That's impressive for a 8” full range driver although I think DSP would be a req'ment for a modern sound. The freq response is pretty varied.

 

[thewas]

Edit: Adapted the price comparison to their correct, almost double price:

By the way for half the price you can get also a pair of active Seas coaxial monitors with FIR DSP from a known German manufacturer (KS Digital is the sibling company of the known Backes & Müller active home hifi loudspeakers):

https://www.thomann.de/de/prod_pdfreview_54513-mm59118_sr201706040.pdf

 

[DanTheMan]

Yeowza! My first speaker I built when I was 14 outperforms this…. I would have never guessed. I at least took the time to flush mount the drivers and used quarter round to to round over the edges. I did a first order network because it was all I could afford. What’s their excuse? I mean this is 2 grand with tax. I suppose it comes with lubrication?

 

[uwotm8]

Vandersteen most famous loudspeakers are weird floorstanders fully covered with fabric grills and equipped with a very strange mix of drivers underneath, such as

(2c, stereophile)

(not sure what model it is)

Tested coaxials seem to be a HT rear channel speakers and maybe they're either made to sound good off-axis or just badly designed because who cares of HT rears, or maybe both Not justifying this but I'd like to see how more iconic Vs perform before final judgement

P.S. While $2k is just laughable IT'S $3200/PAIR for such pair of 2-way passive coax EVEN if there was a far better FR, floorstanders prices seem way more reasonable (at least for a niche product):
https://www.vandersteen.com/products/model-1ci-plus $3k
https://www.vandersteen.com/products/model-2ce-signature-iii $5,6k (was $1,2k back in 2000, heh)

 

[DSJR]

I'm surprised by this glowing review published in Tone Audio posted on Vandersteen's website...

https://www.vandersteen.com/media/files/Tone%20Audio%20VLR%20Review%202015.pdf

"Best of all, the Vandersteens are easier to drive with any kind of amplification"

"Vandersteen speakers are known for a natural tonal balance and have always been incredibly easy to drive"

"We can go on and on with esoteric prose, but these speakers handle the musical fundamentals better than many speakers, regardless of price. You’ll find the VLR in our print annual next month as one of our Products of the Year in the small-speaker category. I can think of no small speaker more deserving."

I'm not at all surprised when no objective work is done in reviewing at all to confirm or deny what one thinks one hears This is what happens when numpties write reviews with no real experience or knowledge