Vandersteen VLR Speaker Review

[Blumlein 88]

The KEF Q350s make use of a a first order crossover.

Okay, I had forgotten that one. Even it shows a bit of choppy response that seems common to coaxial drivers. In theory 1st order crossovers and coaxial design would seem a good idea. I'd be interested in how coaxial drivers would do with 4th order crossovers. I wonder if anyone makes one like that? Anyone know what Tannoy does on their dual concentric speakers?

 

[MattHooper]

That step in front of the tweeter bothers me. I'd like to know the smoothing in the graph of response. Most 1st order speakers can do pretty good impulse, step and even square waves at some point in front of the speaker. The problem is you are guaranteed severe lobing off axis. Plus you don't get that great impulse response all over just in one area. I also don't know that such an impulse is important so that by itself isn't a negative. The off axis lobing is.

I've listened many hours to Vandy's and Thiels, and their good designs can be quite good. Both shared the characteristic of being very picky about setup. Probably due to the off axis lobing. Here is the horizontal Stereophile measure of the Vandersteen 2Ce. We now know such off axis uneven response is a problem. On axis this one does a great step, impulse and passable square wave.

Here is the vertical response.

Here is the 2Ci impulse and square wave.

For comparison horizontal and vertical response of the F208 Revel.

The F208 is much easier to get sounding good and sounds better than any of the Vandys or Thiels I've heard. They use 24/db/octave or 4th order crossovers.

I think that last Thiel speaker Jim Thiel designed, the 3.7, was his most successful in terms of trying to hue to his time/phase coherency with fewer compromises than before. I had the 3.7 but now have the 2.7, both of which use his last "corrugated" "flat" coax driver design. One of the main features I find is how coherent and consistent these speakers sound both tonally and spatially. They don't obviously change tonality when I move around the sofa, or get up or listen from different parts of the room. They are very relaxing and natural to listen to in that regard. I had the Thiel CS6 speakers long ago, and I could experience some sort of probable lobbing interference especially with vertical movement. I don't notice any with the newer models. I also had Meadowlark speakers which were first order time/phase coherent, and while I liked some aspects, there was very obvious interference going on in the design, with a hollowing out of the sound at different listening positions, especially vertical changes. (The few Vandersteens I heard did nothing for me. I remember a main impression of the sound being sort of dull and timbrally 'bland.')

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think that last Thiel speaker Jim Thiel designed, the 3.7, was his most successful in terms of trying to hue to his time/phase coherency with fewer compromises than before. I had the 3.7 but now have the 2.7, both of which use his last "corrugated" "flat" coax driver design. One of the main features I find is how coherent and consistent these speakers sound both tonally and spatially. They don't obviously change tonality when I move around the sofa, or get up or listen from different parts of the room. They are very relaxing and natural to listen to in that regard. I had the Thiel CS6 speakers long ago, and I could experience some sort of probable lobbing interference especially with vertical movement. I don't notice any with the newer models. I also had Meadowlark speakers which were first order time/phase coherent, and while I liked some aspects, there was very obvious interference going on in the design, with a hollowing out of the sound at different listening positions, especially vertical changes. (The few Vandersteens I heard did nothing for me. I remember a main impression of the sound being sort of dull and timbrally 'bland.')

I never heard the coaxial Thiels. His other designs could be good. I found them bright without careful setup and the lighter side at best. I found Vandersteens sound bland as you say and seemed lacking in fine resolution. I knew someone with the Meadowlarks they seemed inoffensive, but not satisfying and yes obvious lumpy response as you move around.

 

[jhaider]

Okay, I had forgotten that one. Even it shows a bit of choppy response that seems common to coaxial drivers. In theory 1st order crossovers and coaxial design would seem a good idea. I'd be interested in how coaxial drivers would do with 4th order crossovers. I wonder if anyone makes one like that?

KEF Reference have historically used steeper filters, though I’m not sure about the current line. TAD and Pioneer EX lines used a coax with steeper filters as well.

Anyone know what Tannoy does on their dual concentric speakers?

They’re fairly shallow. I took some measurements of the individual drivers in the XT8F model:

Tannoy Revolution XT 8F Floor-Standing Speakers Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com

Tannoy’s Revolution XT 8F introduces Tannoy’s first new Dual Concentric driver in a quarter century, the “Omnimagnet,” in a full-range 2.5-way tower

hometheaterhifi.com

(That’s IMO the sole useful purpose for buywire/buyamp terminals.)

Speaking of Tannoy, the first time I heard Vandersteen speakers was in the late 1990s. It was their 5 model with very elaborate book matched veneer along one wall. They were in the same room as a Tannoy model, D700, with a 10” coax and 10 woofer, along a different wall. The Tannoys were much cheaper. D700 are a speaker I’d like to hear again. At the time they may have been the best sound I’ve heard. When they put the Vandies on…my only remaining impression is the Tannoys were much better sounding in every way.

The other time I heard Vandies seriously was a blue painted model, at a dealer event. Paul Barton demoed his flagship in another room on NAD nCore. The Vandies had a pronounced upper bass resonance. It may have been the room but I think it sounded higher and was constant in the room. It may have also been interaction between the impedance of the speaker and the second rate amp (Audio Research) used. So at least my experience has never been that positive.

 

[ruinevil]

KEF worked on coaxial drivers for decades, and even then they sound best when only when being connected to an active crossover. Vandersteen seems to have just thrown together some drivers together half-assed.

 

[Newman]

It is clear to me that the VLR is designed based on ideology and not any objective or proper listening tests.

From the horse's mouth: "Every Vandersteen loudspeaker is designed to be as accurate and as true to the original music, voice or sound as possible. To do this, we had to abandon conventional loudspeaker engineering concepts with their inherent limitations and develop new designs with greater performance potential."

At last, free from conventional engineering, I can fly!

And with sensitivity of just 80 dB

The spec sheet boasts 86 dB

...so I added the spec sheet's claim of +- 3dB from 62 Hz to 21 kHz, to your FR plot based on their 86 dB sensitivity :-

Hmmmmm.....

Also note that the manual describes the tweeter, which proudly owns that sawtooth above the 3.5 kHz crossover, as "critically damped".

 

[Tom C]

I have seen other more expensive and bigger Vandersteens measure horribly. As far as I'm concerned all they produce is JUNK! These should get the JUNK rating from the Panther. When will people realize that these old school, high end audiophile speaker makers (not all) make junk based on 20 year old ideas and basically NO TESTING!!! My gosh Vandersteen stuff is garbage. I have yet to see anything from them that will measure better than a Polk ES20! Snake Oil Alert!! Run for your life!

Oh and yes, Amir is being VERY polite in his review of this speaker and the "Vandersteen" lack of modern engineering philosophy. That is why I'm stating it raw and unfiltered. Amir is sometimes far too kind to these old scam artists. But that is why everyone likes him. Me on the other hand, I get tomatoes thrown at me!

Please, don’t candy coat. We need to know how you really feel.

 

[wwenze]

Should have said mangosteen instead of tomatoes, what an opportunity wasted

 

[Thomas_A]

That step in front of the tweeter bothers me. I'd like to know the smoothing in the graph of response. Most 1st order speakers can do pretty good impulse, step and even square waves at some point in front of the speaker. The problem is you are guaranteed severe lobing off axis. Plus you don't get that great impulse response all over just in one area. I also don't know that such an impulse is important so that by itself isn't a negative. The off axis lobing is.

I've listened many hours to Vandy's and Thiels, and their good designs can be quite good. Both shared the characteristic of being very picky about setup. Probably due to the off axis lobing. Here is the horizontal Stereophile measure of the Vandersteen 2Ce. We now know such off axis uneven response is a problem. On axis this one does a great step, impulse and passable square wave.

Here is the vertical response.

Here is the 2Ci impulse and square wave.

For comparison horizontal and vertical response of the F208 Revel.

The F208 is much easier to get sounding good and sounds better than any of the Vandys or Thiels I've heard. They use 24/db/octave or 4th order crossovers.

I have listeened to Ino Audios bigger models and they sound and measure very good. They are probably ”Dunlavys cousins”.

And to the add the source, both Genelecs and Ino Audio were used in the project work from which the measurement was published. Only summary in English though.

Edit: The link does not appear to work so I link to the webpage:

Projektering av lyssningsrum för auralisation genom ett flerkanaligt högtalarsystem - PDF Free Download

EXAMENSARBETE 2006:277 CIV Projektering av lyssningsrum för auralisation genom ett flerkanaligt högtalarsystem PHILIP ZALYALETDINOV CIVILINGENJÖRSPROGRAMMET Medieteknik Luleå tekniska universitet Institutionen

docplayer.se

 

[Spkrdctr]

Please, don’t candy coat. We need to know how you really feel.

I just wanted the newer readers to get the picture. Amir is very polite so a newer reader might think "those speakers are not perfect, but they are ok". So to summarize the entire review you need to once in awhile (on junk) just state it as junk. It does hold the silver medal in worst speakers tested. That's at least something!

LGK 2.0 Gold medal
Vandersteen Silver medal

 

[beefkabob]

Shit in a monkey coffin.

 

[Orion76]

Seems odd that we are seeing different prices. I'm seeing $1815 / pair for the VLR Wood, yet I saw other screenshots with a higher price?

Vandersteen Audio High End Speakers | Vandersteen Audio

Vandersteen Audio High End Speakers

www.vandersteen.com

 

[amirm]

Seems odd that we are seeing different prices. I'm seeing $1815 / pair for the VLR Wood, yet I saw other screenshots with a higher price?

It is very strange. I saw that too depending on whether I went there through google search or in their site navigation. It must do some dynamic checking of where you are coming from.

 

[handler]

I used to work at a dealer who sold them... to the best of my knowledge the standard VLR Wood is $1815 and the newer, upgraded version with the Carbon tweeter found in their higher-end designs, the VLR CT, is around $3291.

 

[CDMC]

From the horse's mouth: "Every Vandersteen loudspeaker is designed to be as accurate and as true to the original music, voice or sound as possible. To do this, we had to abandon conventional loudspeaker engineering concepts with their inherent limitations and develop new designs with greater performance potential."

At last, free from conventional engineering, I can fly!


The spec sheet boasts 86 dB

...so I added the spec sheet's claim of +- 3dB from 62 Hz to 21 kHz, to your FR plot based on their 86 dB sensitivity :-

View attachment 216509


Hmmmmm.....

Also note that the manual describes the tweeter, which proudly owns that sawtooth above the 3.5 kHz crossover, as "critically damped".

The 3CE Sigs I had were supposedly 86-87 db at 2.83v, but were in reality far less efficient, about the same as my big Magneplaners. They needed a big amp to power them without clipping.

 

[CDMC]

It is very strange. I saw that too depending on whether I went there through google search or in their site navigation. It must do some dynamic checking of where you are coming from.

Looks like pricing has recently been updated. For years 1c were $900, 2CE SigII about $2,000, and 3CE Sigs $3500-3900. Current prices are showing at $1887, $3607, and $6351. Given the tooling was paid for long ago and the changes to the newer 1 and 2 (3A sig remain the same speaker) are small driver and crossover changes, the price increases are far more than inflation or investment in new technology, more like what the market will take, so charge it.

 

[Xyrium]

Looks like the LGK 2.0 just found a scapegoat.

 

[Astrozombie]

The Vandersteeeeen the Vandersteeeeeen, for those who watch Louis Rossmann on youtube (the right to repair guy) you know he likes to name drop his speakers, not sure which ones he has exactly but I always wondered how they would fare. I was not surprised to see them to be getting by on their name recognition.

 

[Mario Sanchez]

The DI curve looks workable sans the mess that is the 1-5k region, which is presumably polluted with all kinds of woofer cone breakup issues. I wonder if a sharper crossover would have helped it perform better...
As it stands though, it's just unusable.

 

[Robbo99999]

Well, check out the answer Richard Vandersteen gives (first speaker) vs Kevin Voecks (of Harman) on advancements in the last 20 years in speaker design:

One is stuck in the past, devoid of advancements in our understanding of speaker design, and the other fully takes advantage of such.

Oh no, that's a bit embarrassing!