Vandersteen VLR Speaker Review

[Dan M]

This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the Vandersteen VLR coaxial bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,815 a pair.
View attachment 216239
The VLR is quite dense and heavy. Construction seems nice other than bulging out driver. The cherry finish is to my liking as a woodworker:
View attachment 216240

Seemingly the design has not changed in decades given the screw terminals. The VLR like other Vandersteen speakers uses first order crossover to keep it "phase coherent." I got a kick out of this statement in the manual:
View attachment 216241
And this:
View attachment 216242

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.

Likewise listening tests comply with the latest research into proper evaluation of speakers calling for mono, instead of stereo listening:

Reference axis was that of the tweeter.

Vandersteen VLR Measurements
As usual, we start with our frequency response graphs:
View attachment 216243

Oh boy! What the heck is going on here? We have rising chewed up high frequency response. Response is much smoother down low but sensitivity drops like a rock to just 80 dB. We have variation of 10 dB between that and the peaks in treble! Did they ever bother to measure this speaker? We also have large directivity error between 2 and 5 kHz.

Paradoxically, off-axis response looks good:
View attachment 216244

This results in predicted-in room response which again, is surprisingly better than on-axis:
View attachment 216245

Slope though is almost horizontal which means the speaker will sound bright. And with sensitivity of just 80 dB, will require tons of power.

There is essentially no directivity control:
View attachment 216246

View attachment 216247

So room sensitivity will be high. Due to coaxial design, vertical directivity is similar to horizontal:
View attachment 216248

Impedance dips very low at high frequencies:
View attachment 216249

Distortion is OK at 86 dBSPL but not at 96:

View attachment 216250
View attachment 216251

Waterfall shows resonances corresponding with those peaks in response:

View attachment 216252

And here is the step response:
View attachment 216253

Vandersteen VLR Listening Tests
I started listening without seeing the measurements. The first track was a duet of a male and female. I could barely hear the male while the female came right through! This theme continued with tracks segments with lower frequencies almost producing no volume Yet high pitch sounds would come through, albeit, a bit much. It is like someone constantly changing the volume control on you depending on the spectrum. And not a little, but a lot.

Conclusions
It is clear to me that the VLR is designed based on ideology and not any objective or proper listening tests. In both domains, performance ranges from OK to dismal and does so within the same piece of music! The brand must have strong carrying power to get people to buy flawed speakers like this. I rank the Vandersteen the second most broken speaker I have ever listened to or

This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the Vandersteen VLR coaxial bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,815 a pair.
View attachment 216239
The VLR is quite dense and heavy. Construction seems nice other than bulging out driver. The cherry finish is to my liking as a woodworker:
View attachment 216240

Seemingly the design has not changed in decades given the screw terminals. The VLR like other Vandersteen speakers uses first order crossover to keep it "phase coherent." I got a kick out of this statement in the manual:
View attachment 216241
And this:
View attachment 216242

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.

Likewise listening tests comply with the latest research into proper evaluation of speakers calling for mono, instead of stereo listening:

Reference axis was that of the tweeter.

Vandersteen VLR Measurements
As usual, we start with our frequency response graphs:
View attachment 216243

Oh boy! What the heck is going on here? We have rising chewed up high frequency response. Response is much smoother down low but sensitivity drops like a rock to just 80 dB. We have variation of 10 dB between that and the peaks in treble! Did they ever bother to measure this speaker? We also have large directivity error between 2 and 5 kHz.

Paradoxically, off-axis response looks good:
View attachment 216244

This results in predicted-in room response which again, is surprisingly better than on-axis:
View attachment 216245

Slope though is almost horizontal which means the speaker will sound bright. And with sensitivity of just 80 dB, will require tons of power.

There is essentially no directivity control:
View attachment 216246

View attachment 216247

So room sensitivity will be high. Due to coaxial design, vertical directivity is similar to horizontal:
View attachment 216248

Impedance dips very low at high frequencies:
View attachment 216249

Distortion is OK at 86 dBSPL but not at 96:

View attachment 216250
View attachment 216251

Waterfall shows resonances corresponding with those peaks in response:

View attachment 216252

And here is the step response:
View attachment 216253

Vandersteen VLR Listening Tests
I started listening without seeing the measurements. The first track was a duet of a male and female. I could barely hear the male while the female came right through! This theme continued with tracks segments with lower frequencies almost producing no volume Yet high pitch sounds would come through, albeit, a bit much. It is like someone constantly changing the volume control on you depending on the spectrum. And not a little, but a lot.

Conclusions
It is clear to me that the VLR is designed based on ideology and not any objective or proper listening tests. In both domains, performance ranges from OK to dismal and does so within the same piece of music! The brand must have strong carrying power to get people to buy flawed speakers like this. I rank the Vandersteen the second most broken speaker I have ever listened to or measured.

Needless to say, I can't recommend the Vandersteen VLR. Company needs to wake up and completely retool its thoughts about speaker design. Customers deserve better.

-----------
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/

The VLR Wood is designed to be placed up against the front wall, 15 degrees or more off-axis from the listening position, and used with the grills on. If you were having issues with the way they sounded why wouldn't you contact Richard Vandersteen and get some help with setup? He's very accessible and responds to emails within a day or two. You give the impression that your intention was to trash these speakers and use RV as your whipping boy from the get go. This review reflects very poorly on your set-up ability and integrity as a reviewer. Professional reviewers try to find the very best setup of the products under review, This review makes one question the credibility of all your reviews. I use VLR Wood speakers nearfield in a desktop system setup about 30 degrees off axis horizontally and 15 vertically from my ears. They sound balanced and dynamic with holographic imaging. If they sounded as you describe I'd surely get rid of them and RV would surely redesign them. This Ralph Nader of high end audio image you try to project just doesn't work at all for me. Your followers deserve better.

 

[Bren Derlin]

If you are going to pan the VLR Wood speakers, you should at least be testing the speakers as designed to be used, with the grilles in place. As others have noted, the grilles on these speakers are not like those on most other bookshelf speakers, for which the grille is negligible to performance. The VLR (Wood and CT) have solid MDF front panels behind the black fabric grille cloth with cutouts for the bass drivers that are designed to acoustically couple with the cabinets.

I have the VLR CT version and find their listening performance much better than the review here would suggest. Of course, I use them with their grilles attached. I have one other coaxial system, the KEF LS50 wireless II (and had the Wireless I before) as well as other bookshelf systems of similar value (Amphion Argon 3s) and the Vandersteens compare well to both. I use mine on IsoAcoustics stands which may reduce some of the bass extension the speaker may have when placed against a wall and inside a bookshelf as Vandersteen recommends, but they are placed close to a wall and I use a subwoofer with these (and all the other standmounts).

I suggest that if you are going to post this review that you repeat the testing with the speakers assembled with the grilles attached. If they fail your standards and compare poorly, so be it. But fairness requires testing the product as it is designed, and not stripped of parts essential to the design, even if that was not understood and intended.

As for the cost of these units, the VLR Wood has always been listed at $1650-1800 or so for the pair. They come with a choice of basic, non-exotic finishes. The CT version is substantially more at about $3150 for base veneers, and more for upgrade veneers. Maybe there is some place a distributor is selling them for much more, but not in North America.

“I have the VLR CT version and find their listening performance much better than the review here would suggest.”

Of course. The CT is supposed to be the better speaker. I haven’t read a user review say it was the same, much less worse than the Wood version.

I agree you should measure the speaker as to how the builder intended it, otherwise you’re shoehorning an ideological method onto a product that doesn’t fit the method — creating a flawed measurement.

 

[CDMC]

The VLR Wood is designed to be placed up against the front wall, 15 degrees or more off-axis from the listening position, and used with the grills on. If you were having issues with the way they sounded why wouldn't you contact Richard Vandersteen and get some help with setup? He's very accessible and responds to emails within a day or two. You give the impression that your intention was to trash these speakers and use RV as your whipping boy from the get go. This review reflects very poorly on your set-up ability and integrity as a reviewer. Professional reviewers try to find the very best setup of the products under review, This review makes one question the credibility of all your reviews. I use VLR Wood speakers nearfield in a desktop system setup about 30 degrees off axis horizontally and 15 vertically from my ears. They sound balanced and dynamic with holographic imaging. If they sounded as you describe I'd surely get rid of them and RV would surely redesign them. This Ralph Nader of high end audio image you try to project just doesn't work at all for me. Your followers deserve better.

Measure them as setup at your listening position. A Umik is cheap.

I have had multiple sets of Vandersteens, 1c, 2c, 3a Sigs. The traditional vandersteen design ones had amazing bass, but the 2 and 3 were very power hungry (about 82 db/w) and required a huge amount of time to setup to get them to sound good. Once setup, they had a listening window that required you not move an inch.

 

[Dan M]

Measure them as setup at your listening position. A Umik is cheap.

I have had multiple sets of Vandersteens, 1c, 2c, 3a Sigs. The traditional vandersteen design ones had amazing bass, but the 2 and 3 were very power hungry (about 82 db/w) and required a huge amount of time to setup to get them to sound good. Once setup, they had a listening window that required you not move an inch.

Measure them with the grills off to intentionally skew the results?

 

[CDMC]

Measure them with the grills off to intentionally skew the results?

You said:

"I use VLR Wood speakers nearfield in a desktop system setup about 30 degrees off axis horizontally and 15 vertically from my ears. They sound balanced and dynamic with holographic imaging. If they sounded as you describe I'd surely get rid of them and RV would surely redesign them."

I suggested you measure them at your listening position. Post the results, let us see what your measurements show, as there is one thing we are all certain of, ears are very poor at measuring. Your response ironically is misconstrue my simple statement, the exact thing you accuse Amir of doing.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that Richard Vandersteen would redesign a speaker that someone else found to sound poor? Since the original model 2, Vandersteens have been much like Magnepans, there are basically two groups, those that love them, those that hate them. I am pretty sure that Richard never changed his design because someone didn't like them.

To me, Richard abandon what is company was about years ago. The 1c's were, for years, a great $800 pair of speakers, that while having sins of omission, offered better bass extension than their similarly priced competitors. The 2c series, were a good value $1,500 speaker. The 3 series were falling off the value curve, a marginal improvement over the 2 series, at twice the price.

Now Richard sells the same speakers for $1,800, $3,600, and $6,350. From there you go to $10,000, $18,000, $41,700, and $84,000. Richard will happily also sell you the same subwoofer he has built for decades, for $2,800, or a pair of his not so special Model 9 subs for $22,000. Want some amps, you can pick up a pair of his mundane 150w M5 amps for $16,800, or if not good enough, his 300 watt (doesn't give an 8 ohm rating, only 4 ohm, so halving the 4 ohm) M7 amps for $70,000 a pair. If you have any money left, Richard will sell you a pair of $10,000 granite bases for your Model 9 speakers.

If you think Richard has any care past cashing out and milking every last possible dollar from his customers at this point, you are only fooling yourself. There was a time when that was not the case, but likely because he saw there was money to be made, Richard kept coming up with more and more expensive products, and people kept buying them. Why not sell a pair of speakers for $84,000 that cost you $5,000 to build, instead of building 400 pairs of Model 2s (when sold for $1,500) that only make $200 a pair (note the numbers are just guestimates, I have no knowledge of his actual cost structure).

 

[raindance]

Talking about subwoofers, this might need a new thread, but he (Richard V) has had a unique approach to the crossover piece of the equation for years. You add a simple capacitive high pass filter to the main speakers, 6dB per octave, then the subwoofer has an EQ in it that implements a 6dB per octave boost in the opposite direction. My brain says that this approach results in increasing noise with decrease in frequency at the sub... but hey, there are many satisfied customers .

 

[PatentLawyer]

Talking about subwoofers, this might need a new thread, but he (Richard V) has had a unique approach to the crossover piece of the equation for years. You add a simple capacitive high pass filter to the main speakers, 6dB per octave, then the subwoofer has an EQ in it that implements a 6dB per octave boost in the opposite direction. My brain says that this approach results in increasing noise with decrease in frequency at the sub... but hey, there are many satisfied customers .

My dad had Vandersteen 5a Carbons which have built in subs. There is a crossover between your preamp and your amp, which your dealer tunes based on the actual input impedance of the amp. There's a test disc the dealer uses with a volt meter to confirm the crossover is right. From there you are right, the sub receives the speaker-level output of the amp and has an inverse of the low pass.

Logically you would appear to be quite right about increasing noise with lowered frequency at the sub, but I'd query the audibility of that. Was never an issue in my dad's stereo, which positively rocked the house with those big boxes.

 

[Holmz]

Talking about subwoofers, this might need a new thread, but he (Richard V) has had a unique approach to the crossover piece of the equation for years. You add a simple capacitive high pass filter to the main speakers, 6dB per octave, then the subwoofer has an EQ in it that implements a 6dB per octave boost in the opposite direction. My brain says that this approach results in increasing noise with decrease in frequency at the sub... but hey, there are many satisfied customers .

Noise is often listed in “per Hz”, and there is a not a lot of noise in the 0-200 region, compared to the 10k-20k region.
So if the tweeters are not hissing, then the subs are are not going to be hissing… and if they were hissing, it would be such a low frequency hiss than it would not likely be heard.

 

[raindance]

Noise is often listed in “per Hz”, and there is a not a lot of noise in the 0-200 region, compared to the 10k-20k region.
So if the tweeters are not hissing, then the subs are are not going to be hissing… and if they were hissing, it would be such a low frequency hiss than it would not likely be heard.

I have to disagree. When you EQ a signal and add gain to it, you will almost certainly add noise that is outside the band you are amplifying.

 

[heflys20]

I'm always confused when people accuse of Amir of having some agenda to discredit a particular product/brand, particularly when someone else sent him the speaker to review. LOL. Anyway, I always get skeptical of a product when the manufacturer recommends I burn in a speaker (let alone a pair that cost $1800+). Did they just slap the speaker together without testing the drivers/finished product, regardless of how silly burn-in is?

 

[Holmz]

I have to disagree. When you EQ a signal and add gain to it, you will almost certainly add noise that is outside the band you are amplifying.

I see what you’re saying but a subwoofer has a high inductance, and even a simple cap across the terminals would quell a lot of hiss.
And we never see even the cheapest subs hissing.
It is like 200Hz of noise bandwidth, versus 100x that that the tweeter sees.

 

[raindance]

I see what you’re saying but a subwoofer has a high inductance, and even a simple cap across the terminals would quell a lot of hiss.
And we never see even the cheapest subs hissing.
It is like 200Hz of noise bandwidth, versus 100x that that the tweeter sees.

I have a subwoofer in my attic made by Final Sound in the Netherlands that hisses quite loudly. It isn't a high frequency hiss, but it makes it fairly far into the midrange (like a shell held up to your ear) so it is audible noise that you can hear when music isn't playing (basically the amp has too much gain). Fortunately the amp blew up and it got retired.

I do suspect, however, that the Vandersteen sub has less issue because the increase in gain is over a narrow bandwidth, meaning the gain never has to get too high.

 

[Holmz]

I have a subwoofer in my attic made by Final Sound in the Netherlands that hisses quite loudly. It isn't a high frequency hiss, but it makes it fairly far into the midrange (like a shell held up to your ear) so it is audible noise that you can hear when music isn't playing (basically the amp has too much gain). Fortunately the amp blew up and it got retired.

I do suspect, however, that the Vandersteen sub has less issue because the increase in gain is over a narrow bandwidth, meaning the gain never has to get too high.

I keep thinking I want to do a 4th order bandpass and put it in the attic, or under the floor, and bring it into the room via an aero port.
But I keep thinking that the transient response is probably not ideal.
It could be an easy way to at least get the bass into a mixed use room without getting WAF bent.

So it would be “in the attic”, but… “Not in the sense that you mean.”

 

[soundtrane]

Vandersteen VLR Measurements
//

<And with sensitivity of just 80 dB, will require tons of power.>

the specs on the website read

Sensitivity

86 dB, 1 meter2.83 volt input

Maybe Mr Frankensteen has done some homework and increased the sensitivity!

---
<<Company needs to wake up and completely retool its thoughts about speaker design. Customers deserve better.>>

Hear Hear!

---
One model (5A) uses BATTERIES "that continuously biases some of the crossover components", with a five-year life. After which you need to get it changed by your dealer.

---
From the 'Ask Richard" section on the site:
THE CLOTH IS VERY THIN DOUBLE KNIT POLYESTER AND TOTALLY TRANSPARENT AND IS ALSO USED ON MANY MICROPHONES. REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU READ HOW SOME SPEAKERS SOUND BETTER WITH THE GRILLE REMOVED THEY ARE USUALLY AFTERTHOUGHTS AND WERE NOT PRESENT DURING THE DESIGN. THE FABRIC IS NOT THE PROBLEM BUT ITS FRAME WILL CAUSE LOTS OF DIFRACTION ALTERING THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE WITH SEVER REFLECTIONS. THIS IS NOT GOOD BUT IF THE FRAME IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF SMOOTHING THE BAFFEL IT WILL ELIMINATE THESE PROBLEMS AND ACTUALLY OFFER BETTER RESPONSE. [the all caps are his...]

 

[soundtrane]

at ~6 minutes into the video he talks about "dynaaamics" and "dynaaaamics"... of a rimshot...

"...when i'm speaking of dynamics here ,i'm not talking about loudness now but the difference between the quiet part of music and the maximum SPL, the transient..."

 

[soundtrane]

Another one.... Grill/cloth/whatever - with or without?

 

[fpitas]

I'm always confused when people accuse of Amir of having some agenda to discredit a particular product/brand, particularly when someone else sent him the speaker to review. LOL. Anyway, I always get skeptical of a product when the manufacturer recommends I burn in a speaker (let alone a pair that cost $1800+). Did they just slap the speaker together without testing the drivers/finished product, regardless of how silly burn-in is?

Usually it's a troll, or a disappointed fan. A lot of skepticism is appropriate in the audio field.

 

[Taiga]

I apologize if this was previously posted, but I just saw this on the Vandersteen “Ask Richard“ page:

Q. Hi Richard, I am the proud owner of 7 Vandersteen speakers - and I listen to music and movies and enjoy your products very much. I have recently been reading about the spinorama measurements that are used to design and calibrate revel and JBL products. I wonder if you have looked into that measurement methodology and what you think about it? Would you use it for your loudspeakers? Thanks, George

A. HI GEORGE,

I WOULD NEVER USE THAT TEST AS IT PUTS NO VALUE ON TIME AND PHASE PERFORMANCE AND IS MOSTLY ABOUT POLAR RESPONSE SHAPING, WHICH WILL CAUSE PLACEMENT PROBLEMS. I ASK YOU, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A REVEL OR JBL YOU WOULD WANT TO LIVE WITH, LET ALONE BUY? THIS IS NOT WHAT I NEED IN A SPEAKER, AND IF YOU LOVE YOUR SEVENS, NEITHER DO YOU.

RV

Link: https://www.vandersteen.com/support/ask-richard

 

[PatentLawyer]

Surely, no one who knows the slightest thing about RV would be surprised by that answer.

 

[CHenry]

This review should be taken down as it really doesn't measure the speaker's performance with the device set up as designed by the manufacturer or as intended for the end user. The data isn't useful as a basis for comparison against other products. As a scientific exercise, it wouldn't pass peer review unless a second test could credibly demonstrate that the results were no different with or without the solid front baffle present. As much as I appreciate the efforts made by this site's creator overall, this particular test does not meet acceptable standards for quality.