• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

vandersteen VCC-5 Review (Center Speaker)

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 108 48.6%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 102 45.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 10 4.5%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 2 0.9%

  • Total voters
    222

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
37,451
Likes
156,728
Location
Seattle Area
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Vandersteen VCC-5 center home theater speaker. It was kindly purchased used by a member and sent to me for testing. Despite the fact that it came out around 2003 (?), it is still on sale for US $2,700.

The VCC-5 is by far the deepest and heaviest center speaker I have tested:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Review Center Speaker.jpg


It weighs nearly 70 pounds requiring help from my wife to test it. It is hard to see from the picture but there are two woofers on each side inside some kind of enclosure and then a coaxial (?) driver in the center. Despite being used, this is a very clean specimen.

I got a kick out of the old school screw terminals in the back and a paper manual having a $5 cost written on it! :) There is lengthy discussion of placement around rear projection TVs and magnetic interference. The old terrible days of back pictures....

I did not think the grill is removable so did not attempt to do so. All testing is as you see.

Here are the specs from the company. Note the use of first order, 6 dB/octave crossover:


Vandersteen VCC-5 specs Center Speaker.png


Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I opted for a higher resolution scan than normal to the tune of 1,500 measurement points in 3-D space. Despite this, the sound field became complex 4 and 9 kHz, pushing the error up to 2%. Elsewhere it is comfortably below 1%.

Reference axis for measurements was roughly the center of the driver (I could not see it through the grill so went by dimension of it).

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

Vandersteen VCC5 Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Frequency Response Center Speaker.png


I must say, I did not expect the wavy response in bass. I think the little "transmission" line they have for the dual woofers must be causing ringing. I was disappointed to see overall levels not matching and changing in different regions. It just isn't a pretty sight to have errors across the entire audible frequency band in one form or other.

Early window response shows somewhat the same story:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement early window Frequency Response Center Speaker.png


Putting the two together we get:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Predicted in-room Frequency Response Center Speaker.png


Since I could not see the drivers, I only took a shot of measuring the central two-way driver in near-field:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement near-field Frequency Response Center Speaker.png


I was impressed with how nice and flat the response of that driver is in low frequencies. Yet when combined with the woofers, it loses that. That deep notch at 5 kHz could be an artifact of near-field measurement of the coaxial driver.

In center speaker you want wide and smooth directivity. Sadly we don't have that here:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Horizontal Beam width Center Speaker.png


Directivity narrows as the midrange driver beams. This goes on to 5 kHz when it suddenly widens as the tweeter takes over. So I expect the tonality to be different for listeners outside of sweet spot in the 2 to 5 kHz.

Contour plot shows the same:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Horizontal directivity Center Speaker.png


Note that I have switched to 3 meter distance vs the default 10 meter I have been reporting until now. It doesn't make much difference but it is more typical of far-field listening distance in home situations.

Here is our vertical where the coaxial driver shines, producing similar response to horizontal and better than many 2-way solutions:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Vertical directivity Center Speaker.png


I took three snapshot of the entire 3-D directivity:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement 3-D directivity Center Speaker.png


Very well controlled but you clearly see the shrinking directivity in the third globe.

Impedance plot shows a prominent resonance:

Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Impedance and phase Response Center Speaker.png


3.7 ohm minimum impedance is very low but fortunately the company tells you it could drop to "4 ohm."

A benefit of low order crossover filters is supposed to be better "timing" response. So for those of you who cheer such measurements, here is the impulse response at 1/3 meter:
Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Impulse Response Center Speaker.png


I could not draw a lot of conclusions from distortion measurements other than not liking the mid-frequency rise at higher SPLs:


Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement THD Distortion Center Speaker.png


And too high in bass relative to output we are getting:
Vandersteen VCC-5 Measurement Relative Distortion Center Speaker.png


Vandersteen VCC5 Listening Tests
Listening to the VCC-5 was not that great. I didn't like any of the tracks I was playing. Both the lows and highs were unpleasant. I brought out the EQ tool but it was very challenging to hand create parametric filters to correct the shelving errors in its frequency response. Still, I put together a set and listened to it. I thought it made some difference but was not positive about the benefit. So I performed a few blind tests of the EQ vs not. At the end, it was not conclusive. Sometimes I liked my EQ better, sometimes the default. In other case, I was not enjoying the sound.

I realized I had spent some time outside so my ears were plugged again. To see the impact that, I moved the speaker wire to my Revel Salon 2 and I could believe the transformation. Wow, every one of my reference tracks were once again beautiful, with great tonality and of course plenty more bass. Thinking is is unfair, I swapped out the Salon 2 for Revel M16. I lost two thirds of that joy but still, the overall tonality and clarity was so much better than Vandersteen. I switched back to my salon 2 and enjoyed my music for the next hour. :)

I did test for directivity. You do lose some brilliance in music as you move over one seat but it is not dramatic at that distance. Closer to the speaker it was however.

The VCC-5 can play loud but it doesn't have much deep bass. You must have a sub as otherwise it won't be satisfying at all.

Conclusions
I watched a streaming video of company founder, Richard Vandersteen on a speaker panel at one of the other shows a while back. Towards the end, the moderator asked each panelist to comment on advancements in speaker design. Kevin Voecks from Revel answered first by saying there was huge advancement in distortion measurements with Klippel system. Mic moved to Richard who said: "nothing!" That old rules hold and there is nothing new. Well, given the performance of VCC-5, I say he is firmly mistaken. This speaker could certainly benefit from proper measurement and optimization of crossover to say the least.

In fairness, the build quality and power handling is excellent here -- things you get robbed on with modern budget speakers optimized for cost. The finish is furniture grade (although old-school) and you get the feeling you are paying for something substantial.

I can't recommend the Vandersteen VCC-5.

Edit: I added a poll. Please vote what you think of its performance based on this test.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
 

Attachments

  • Vandersteen VCC-5 Frequency response.zip
    61 KB · Views: 37
Last edited:

Billy Budapest

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,184
Likes
1,656
How the mighty have fallen—again. I remember in the early 1990’s when a friend’s father bought a pair of the Vandersteen speakers that were covered 360 degrees with a sock instead of a grill. They sounded great back then, but speaker technology has marched on in the past 30 years.
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
351
Likes
296
Location
Adelaide, Australia
I voted headless panther because while performance is not terrible, it is worse than expected at the asking price. It is a fine piece of furniture, for sure, but if I own it (and know these measurements) I would be very uneasy that speakers that are 1/10 of the price can measure (and sound) better and still be a point source.

The addition of the woofers leads to a cost, size and weight hike that, for the average home theatre buff using 1 or more subs, is wasted.
 

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,694
Likes
1,613
I suppose if you insert the center speaker in a home theater setup and can hear crystal clear vocals, I mean if this holds true "The voiced speech of a typical adult male will have a fundamental frequency from 85 to 155 Hz, and that of a typical adult female from 165 to 255 Hz." then you've got a good center speaker? The musical part can then be handled by the 2 front speakers and the low bass by the subwoofer.
 
Last edited:

GXAlan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
739
Likes
1,023
Revel C52 is 4.75
Elac UCR52 is 4.0

So it’s not horrible performance.

Made in USA is a 2x price premium, especially when made in California. How much would you spend for a Made in USA version of the C52 or the Elac UCR52? For many people, nothing. For some people, they would pay something extra like buying a t-shirt with your favorite sport team on it and paying more than a plain t-shirt.

But driver optimization and crossover optimization could take the VCC-5 Mark II to a step up in performance where it might become a better product.

On the used market, the pricing is different. Presumably Vandersteen dealers will give good discounts.

13C4D063-DFA3-4179-B9A3-F7290E969C4F.jpeg
 

JSmith

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
2,196
Likes
4,472
Location
Algol Perseus
I voted headless panther because while performance is not terrible, it is worse than expected at the asking price.
Agree... I was going to give it "not terrible" until I saw the asking price. All well and good to have good power handling and build, but if the performance isn't there then this is a fail.



JSmith
 

phoenixsong

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
792
Likes
595
That rise in 3rd harmonic distortion between 1-3kHz though...
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
351
Likes
296
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Revel C52 is 4.75
Elac UCR52 is 4.0

So it’s not horrible performance.

Made in USA is a 2x price premium, especially when made in California. How much would you spend for a Made in USA version of the C52 or the Elac UCR52? For many people, nothing. For some people, they would pay something extra like buying a t-shirt with your favorite sport team on it and paying more than a plain t-shirt.

But driver optimization and crossover optimization could take the VCC-5 Mark II to a step up in performance where it might become a better product.

On the used market, the pricing is different. Presumably Vandersteen dealers will give good discounts.

View attachment 162930

KEF Q350 has a 5.6 reference score w/o EQ, is one of the better coax designs, and will likely EQ better than this speaker, at about USD300 per speaker when not on sale...

On the subject of "Made in USA", we have at least one local boutique speaker manufacturer here in Adelaide, Australia that offers better product at a lower price than the imported competition. I would not blindly accept that a speaker made in a "western" country should be 2x more expensive, just because labour costs more.
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
331
Likes
2,518
Location
French, leaving in China
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Vandersteen VCC-5 center home theater speaker. It was kindly purchased used by a member and sent to me for testing. Despite the fact that it came out around 2003 (?), it is still on sale for US $2,700.

The VCC-5 is by far the deepest and heaviest center speaker I have tested:

View attachment 162872

It weighs nearly 70 pounds requiring help from my wife to test it. It is hard to see from the picture but there are two woofers on each side inside some kind of enclosure and then a coaxial (?) driver in the center. Despite being used, this is a very clean specimen.

I got a kick out of the old school screw terminals in the back and a paper manual having a $5 cost written on it! :) There is lengthy discussion of placement around rear projection TVs and magnetic interference. The old terrible days of back pictures....

I did not think the grill is removable so did not attempt to do so. All testing is as you see.

Here are the specs from the company. Note the use of first order, 6 dB/octave crossover:


View attachment 162873

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I opted for a higher resolution scan than normal to the tune of 1,500 measurement points in 3-D space. Despite this, the sound field became complex 4 and 9 kHz, pushing the error up to 2%. Elsewhere it is comfortably below 1%.

Reference axis for measurements was roughly the center of the driver (I could not see it through the grill so went by dimension of it).

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

Vandersteen VCC5 Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 162874

I must say, I did not expect the wavy response in bass. I think the little "transmission" line they have for the dual woofers must be causing ringing. I was disappointed to see overall levels not matching and changing in different regions. It just isn't a pretty sight to have errors across the entire audible frequency band in one form or other.

Early window response shows somewhat the same story:

View attachment 162875

Putting the two together we get:

View attachment 162876

Since I could not see the drivers, I only took a shot of measuring the central two-way driver in near-field:

View attachment 162877

I was impressed with how nice and flat the response of that driver is in low frequencies. Yet when combined with the woofers, it loses that. That deep notch at 5 kHz could be an artifact of near-field measurement of the coaxial driver.

In center speaker you want wide and smooth directivity. Sadly we don't have that here:

View attachment 162878

Directivity narrows as the midrange driver beams. This goes on to 5 kHz when it suddenly widens as the tweeter takes over. So I expect the tonality to be different for listeners outside of sweet spot in the 2 to 5 kHz.

Contour plot shows the same:

View attachment 162880

Note that I have switched to 3 meter distance vs the default 10 meter I have been reporting until now. It doesn't make much difference but it is more typical of far-field listening distance in home situations.

Here is our vertical where the coaxial driver shines, producing similar response to horizontal and better than many 2-way solutions:

View attachment 162881

I took three snapshot of the entire 3-D directivity:

View attachment 162882

Very well controlled but you clearly see the shrinking directivity in the third globe.

Impedance plot shows a prominent resonance:

View attachment 162883

3.7 ohm minimum impedance is very low but fortunately the company tells you it could drop to "4 ohm."

A benefit of low order crossover filters is supposed to be better "timing" response. So for those of you who cheer such measurements, here is the impulse response at 1/3 meter:
View attachment 162884

I could not draw a lot of conclusions from distortion measurements other than not liking the mid-frequency rise at higher SPLs:


View attachment 162885

And too high in bass relative to output we are getting:
View attachment 162886

Vandersteen VCC5 Listening Tests
Listening to the VCC-5 was not that great. I didn't like any of the tracks I was playing. Both the lows and highs were unpleasant. I brought out the EQ tool but it was very challenging to hand create parametric filters to correct the shelving errors in its frequency response. Still, I put together a set and listened to it. I thought it made some difference but was not positive about the benefit. So I performed a few blind tests of the EQ vs not. At the end, it was not conclusive. Sometimes I liked my EQ better, sometimes the default. In other case, I was not enjoying the sound.

I realized I had spent some time outside so my ears were plugged again. To see the impact that, I moved the speaker wire to my Revel Salon 2 and I could believe the transformation. Wow, every one of my reference tracks were once again beautiful, with great tonality and of course plenty more bass. Thinking is is unfair, I swapped out the Salon 2 for Revel M16. I lost two thirds of that joy but still, the overall tonality and clarity was so much better than Vandersteen. I switched back to my salon 2 and enjoyed my music for the next hour. :)

I did test for directivity. You do lose some brilliance in music as you move over one seat but it is not dramatic at that distance. Closer to the speaker it was however.

The VCC-5 can play loud but it doesn't have much deep bass. You must have a sub as otherwise it won't be satisfying at all.

Conclusions
I watched a streaming video of company founder, Richard Vandersteen on a speaker panel at one of the other shows a while back. Towards the end, the moderator asked each panelist to comment on advancements in speaker design. Kevin Voecks from Revel answered first by saying there was huge advancement in distortion measurements with Klippel system. Mic moved to Richard who said: "nothing!" That old rules hold and there is nothing new. Well, given the performance of VCC-5, I say he is firmly mistaken. This speaker could certainly benefit from proper measurement and optimization of crossover to say the least.

In fairness, the build quality and power handling is excellent here -- things you get robbed on with modern budget speakers optimized for cost. The finish is furniture grade (although old-school) and you get the feeling you are paying for something substantial.

I can't recommend the Vandersteen VCC-5.

Edit: I added a poll. Please vote what you think of its performance based on this test.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Hi,


Here is my take on the EQ.


These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:


Score no EQ: 3.9
With Sub: 6.1

Spinorama with no EQ:

Vandersteen VCC-5 No EQ Spinorama.png


Directivity:

Better stay at tweeter height

Vandersteen VCC-5 2D surface Directivity Contour Only Data.png
Vandersteen VCC-5 LW Better data.png




EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 4.7
with sub: 6.9

Score EQ Score: 5.3
with sub: 7.4

Code:
Vandersteen VCC-5 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
November032021-112113

Preamp: -1.6 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 64.13,    -3.34,    4.17
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 118.36,    -1.62,    4.24
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 531.83,    -2.99,    2.08
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 993.57,    -2.21,    2.16
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2067.04,    1.80,    3.31
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4837.86,    -1.85,    3.47

Vandersteen VCC-5 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
November032021-111208

Preamp: -1.5 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 64.38,    -3.59,    5.88
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 119.51,    -1.64,    5.36
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 511.41,    -2.99,    1.76
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 998.13,    -2.45,    1.44
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2030.90,    2.30,    4.80
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4752.18,    -1.69,    5.12
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 11254.55,    -2.20,    0.47
Vandersteen VCC-5 EQ Design.png


Spinorama EQ LW
Vandersteen VCC-5 LW EQ Spinorama.png


Spinorama EQ Score
Vandersteen VCC-5 Score EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
Vandersteen VCC-5 Zoom.png


Regression - Tonal
Vandersteen VCC-5 Regression - Tonal.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements
Vandersteen VCC-5 Radar.png


The rest of the plots is attached.
 

Attachments

  • Vandersteen VCC-5 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    Vandersteen VCC-5 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    429.6 KB · Views: 18
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 LW data.png
    Vandersteen VCC-5 LW data.png
    164.1 KB · Views: 24
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 Reflexion data.png
    Vandersteen VCC-5 Reflexion data.png
    145 KB · Views: 20
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 Raw Directivity data.png
    Vandersteen VCC-5 Raw Directivity data.png
    505.4 KB · Views: 19
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 Normalized Directivity data.png
    Vandersteen VCC-5 Normalized Directivity data.png
    364.9 KB · Views: 24
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    Vandersteen VCC-5 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    425.6 KB · Views: 23
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    Vandersteen VCC-5 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    328.3 KB · Views: 23
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 APO EQ Score 96000Hz.txt
    396 bytes · Views: 19
  • Vandersteen VCC-5 APO EQ LW 96000Hz.txt
    346 bytes · Views: 25

pierre

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
708
Likes
1,740
Location
Switzerland
Center speakers are often not that great but this one is not that bad. Let's see if some EQ will help:

I generated some eqs:

1. One that improve the bass response but cost you 13dB of gain. The score goes from 4.0 to 5.9 with EQ1.
2. Less drastic, cost you 3dB of gain. The score goes from 4.0 to 5.4 with EQ2.
3. Optimise only above 200 Hz. The score goes from 4.0 to 5.3 with EQ3. That's the one I would use.

Here is the first one:
filters_eq.png


which results in

filters_spin.png


EQ is:
Code:
EQ for Vandersteen VCC-5 computed from ASR data
Preference Score 4.0 with EQ 5.9
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.13
Dated: 2021-11-03-06:29:24

Preamp: -12.8 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  4797 Hz Gain -3.13 dB Q 0.05
Filter  2: ON PK Fc    67 Hz Gain -1.81 dB Q 3.00
Filter  3: ON PK Fc   124 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 3.00
Filter  4: ON PK Fc    66 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 3.00
Filter  5: ON PK Fc    33 Hz Gain +8.00 dB Q 1.77
Filter  6: ON PK Fc    61 Hz Gain -2.25 dB Q 3.00
Filter  7: ON PK Fc    30 Hz Gain +5.96 dB Q 2.59
Filter  8: ON PK Fc  2126 Hz Gain +3.05 dB Q 2.51
Filter  9: ON PK Fc  8284 Hz Gain -1.56 dB Q 1.22

The second EQ without the bass control is:

filters_eq.png


the spinorama change accordingly to:
filters_spin.png


And the EQ is

Code:
EQ for Vandersteen VCC-5 computed from ASR data
Preference Score 4.0 with EQ 5.4
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.13
Dated: 2021-11-03-06:34:54

Preamp: -2.7 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  4631 Hz Gain -3.00 dB Q 0.05
Filter  2: ON PK Fc    65 Hz Gain -2.63 dB Q 4.00
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  8818 Hz Gain -1.68 dB Q 1.36
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  2150 Hz Gain +2.90 dB Q 2.39
Filter  5: ON PK Fc  3508 Hz Gain +1.20 dB Q 4.00
Filter  6: ON PK Fc    35 Hz Gain +3.00 dB Q 1.15
Filter  7: ON PK Fc    62 Hz Gain -1.92 dB Q 4.00
Filter  8: ON PK Fc   589 Hz Gain -1.78 dB Q 1.89
Filter  9: ON PK Fc   120 Hz Gain -0.71 dB Q 4.00

The third EQ is:
filters_eq.png


filters_spin.png


Code:
EQ for Vandersteen VCC-5 computed from ASR data
Preference Score 4.0 with EQ 5.3
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.13
Dated: 2021-11-03-06:38:26

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  7055 Hz Gain -2.52 dB Q 0.05
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  9248 Hz Gain -1.83 dB Q 1.36
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  2149 Hz Gain +3.00 dB Q 2.12
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  3511 Hz Gain +1.15 dB Q 4.00
Filter  5: ON PK Fc   240 Hz Gain +1.85 dB Q 4.00
Filter  6: ON PK Fc   571 Hz Gain -1.63 dB Q 1.98
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  5263 Hz Gain -1.05 dB Q 2.77
Filter  8: ON PK Fc 11620 Hz Gain -0.58 dB Q 4.00
Filter  9: ON PK Fc  7260 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 4.00

Note that you get almost the same result with only 3 filters:
Code:
EQ for Vandersteen VCC-5 computed from ASR data
Preference Score 4.0 with EQ 5.0
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.13
Dated: 2021-11-03-06:42:28

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  7640 Hz Gain -2.54 dB Q 0.05
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  9244 Hz Gain -1.81 dB Q 1.37
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  2152 Hz Gain +3.00 dB Q 2.11
 

GWolfman

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
467
Likes
608
Meh. I deducted a point for the price for lackluster performance.
 

Holmz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 3, 2021
Messages
900
Likes
534
Location
Australia
KEF Q350 has a 5.6 reference score w/o EQ, is one of the better coax designs, and will likely EQ better than this speaker, at about USD300 per speaker when not on sale...
...

But someone with a vandersteen or Thiel with a step function response probably would not be able to use a Q350 and have it integrate with the stereo pair?

So if the Q350 is inverted for the MR band, then it would cancel relative to L / R ... if they playing.
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
351
Likes
296
Location
Adelaide, Australia
But someone with a vandersteen or Thiel with a step function response probably would not be able to use a Q350 and have it integrate with the stereo pair?

So if the Q350 is inverted for the MR band, then it would cancel relative to L / R ... if they playing.

Sure, if one has already invested in a brand and a "sound", they can stay with that.

I suspect that much of that "Thiel step response" sound colouration goes away once you apply a capable DRC doing both FR and phase/timing optimisation, such as DIRAC or one of the other DRC paths. That is only good for those who believe in DRC, of course, there are still plenty of people who see DRC as "unnecessary distortion in the signal path that prevents them from hearing the music the way that the artist and engineer had intended". o_O
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
1,703
Likes
2,660
I find this one hard to judge. The frequency response is is not nice and smooth, but it also doesn't suffer from some extreme peaks we have seen in other speakers. I guess the response just being jagged like this creates a result that isn't very pleasing in the end.

The directivity issue sucks though for a center speaker.
 
Top Bottom