Vanatoo Transparent Zero Speaker Review

[MZKM]

So this is recommended but Buchardt isn't.

The Buchardt is a passive speaker and (currently) $2000 USD.

I am interested if the other speaker in your pair is similarly hot on-axis, unless they only sent you 1.

I also wonder how driving it with a digital input could improve distortion or even the FR.

This speaker has a lot of controls:

As you can see, you can switch which is the speaker with the power cord, a simple feature that can be very useful in some circumstances.

Most impotently, they actually have a true subwoofer crossover, which I am not aware of any similarly priced competitor offering, there is a desk/room mode as well and I beilieve these use different crossover frequencies as well.

 

[Tks]

Not too bad for speakers meant for desktop use really.

For testing I used the above sample as you see, driving it through its 3.5mm analog input.

 

[QMuse]

Also this way the panther rating is quite inconsistent to older reviews with much better measuring loudspeakers which didn't get the "listening with EQ" option.


Fully agree, also directivity and voicing are off, so actually it fails in quite every measurement discipline.


The problem on the Vanatoo is that brightness on axis adds to the widening of the directivity at the region, giving that huge bump on the PIR that imho cannot really be corrected by EQing:

Sure, it is inconsistent with older rattings, but IMHO it is done better now.

Actually directivity looks acceptable to me, so once you apply EQ all curves start to look much better.

Corrected PIR:

Corrected LW, ER and SP:

 

[MZKM]

Hope Amir won't read it, cause the guy states som wicked personal opinion:
The Zero's don't play as low as or as loud, but they are built better and sound better than the JBL LSR305's to my ear.

With a subwoofer for both, the T0 scores slightly better in the preference rating than the 305P MKII.

 

[QMuse]

With a subwoofer for both, the T0 scores slightly better in the preference rating than the 305P MKII

Can you recalculate the score for the corrected version?

 

[hyperplanar]

@amirm was this measured in shelf mode (default) or flat mode? Looks like you get more bass in flat mode.

 

[MZKM]

@amirm was this measured in shelf mode (default) or flat mode? Looks like you get more bass in flat mode.

View attachment 66364

What is odd, is that these (and the larger brother) were at the Florida Audio Expo 2019, and this is what they showed:

I wonder if this was measured in its slated orientation (how it comes). I have no clue why they would show this then and then show that better frequency chart that's on their website now. I was impressed though that I overheard other attendees in the hallways state that the Vanatoo one was one of their favorite rooms, mainly because it is lightyears cheaper than all the other rooms and yet still sounded good (the speakers were paired with subwoofers).

As you can see, it actually has much less treble than the sample Amir got, which I am assuming is from the tweeter being physically farther away. The FR consistency of the tweeters seems not too great, here are the measurements from reviewers (note of course the measurements are not super accurate):

Joe-N-Tell:

NoAudiophile:

NoAudiophile shows a dip at 8.5kHz that also appears in both Vanatoo measurements; yet the measurements from both Joe and Amir do no show this, odd.

 

[Tks]

The Buchardt is a passive speaker and $1900.

I am interested if the other speaker in your pair is similarly hot on-axis, unless they only sent you 1.

I also wonder how driving it with a digital input could improve distortion or even the FR.

This speaker has a lot of controls:
As you can see, you can switch which is the speaker with the power cord, a simple feature that can be very useful in some circumstances.

Most impotently, they actually have a true subwoofer crossover, which I am not aware of any similarly priced competitor offering, there is a desk/room mode as well and I believe these use different crossover frequencies as well.

I looked, there really doesn't seem to be sadly any competitors. It sorta reminds me of the whole DAC field, everyone seemingly asleep as RME solely offers something besides a basic functioning DAC.

While I can't speak for these since I got the Encore, I am though thinking of getting these for desktop use since I rarely watch television these days (you can imagine how little I watch when Corona isn't around then). There's lots of settings, and one thing that should have been taken into account (though it wasn't mentioned in the review) is the Shelved DSP/Compressor Limiter settings. It defaults to Shelved and Compressor being on.

As one might imagine, measurements could suffer potentially based on settings used.

Rationale being:

 

[MZKM]

Can you recalculate the score for the corrected version?

If you export it (24/octave would be best). Either the dB change from the filter, or one of the curves (and I can apply the difference to the rest of the curves).

 

[QMuse]

If you export it (24/octave would be best). Either the dB change from the filter, or one of the curves (and I can apply the difference to the rest of the curves).

This is filter exported as text with 24PPO. I hope that is what you meant.

 

[daftcombo]

So this is recommended but Buchardt isn't.

At least this one is cheaper and includes DAC & bi-amp.

 

[MZKM]

This is filter exported as text with 24PPO. I hope that is what you meant.

EQ SCORE: 5.7
EQ SCORE w/ sub: 8.25

 

[QMuse]

EQ SCORE: 5.7
EQ SCORE w/ sub: 8.25

View attachment 66366View attachment 66367View attachment 66368

There you go, better than Buchardt S400 and Revel M16.

Elac DBR62 has similar rating (which can also be made better) and sounds better, but doesn't have all the electronic gizmos this one has.

 

[jae]

Eager to see how this compares to the Transparent One Encore.

 

[MZKM]

There you go, better than Buchardt S400 and Revel M16.

Elac DBR62 has similar rating (which can also be made better) and sounds better, but doesn't have all the electronic gizmos this one has.

I wish their tweeter variations would be brought lower (though this means spending more money as you have to discard units such as this one which are very far from the target).

I hope this sample is at the edge of the tolerated variance.

 

[taisho]

EQ SCORE: 5.7
EQ SCORE w/ sub: 8.25

Everyone thinking about whether it's a good idea to spend $100 on a measurement mic should take a look at this. An additional $100 spent on the speakers, even when buying them for bottom dollars, doesn't come close to how the sound quality can be improved with proper EQ.

These particular speakers may be relatively easier to EQ, but they don't have a good base score. The preference rating after EQ is the same as what passive DBR-62 offers at $600 a pair.

 

[QMuse]

I wish their tweeter variations would be brought lower (though this means spending more money as you have to discard units such as this one which are very far from the target).

I hope this sample is at the edge of the tolerated variance.

I don't build speakers and I'm not very familiar with the tweeter's offering but I think reasonably good tweeter which will have small inter-sample variations shouldn't be too hard to find on the market.

 

[QMuse]

These particular speakers may be relatively easier to EQ, but they don't have a good base score. The preference rating after EQ is the same as what passive DBR-62 offers at $600 a pair.

I have 20 minutes to spare now, so if @MZKM is willing to calculate the EQ-ed preference score for the Elac DBR-62 I can post simulated responses and filter in the Elac thread.

 

[MZKM]

I have 20 minutes to spare now, so if @MZKM is willing to calculate the EQ-ed preference score for the Elac DBR-62 I can post simulated responses and filter in the Elac thread.

Sure.

 

[Matias]

I have 20 minutes to spare now, so if @MZKM is willing to calculate the EQ-ed preference score for the Elac DBR-62 I can post simulated responses and filter in the Elac thread.

Mat I suggest you do that to all speakers? If possible, of course.