• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

XSA Labs Vanguard Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 136 76.8%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 36 20.3%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 2 1.1%

  • Total voters
    177
Pic of crossover (from diyaudio thread linked above):

View attachment 300891
2nd order on both drivers but crossover frequencies overlap over an octave? WTF! (Extreme care in manufacturing though...)

index.php
 
2nd order on both drivers but crossover frequencies overlap over an octave? WTF! (Extreme care in manufacturing though...)

index.php
I guess there is no xover at all on the woofer, simply a baffle step corrector eq filter.
The resonances chown on the woofer side also reveal its mediocre performance (typical of cheapo paper cones) and coloured tone.
 
In this case using the name of LS3/5A is merely a kind of sexual agression... Intelectual property should be better protected...:confused:
I've not read up any makers blurb, but increase tweeter output a bit more and you have a cheaper facsimile of a typical LS3/5A curve with peaked up 1.5kHz region, another bump at 120Hz or so and a bit of a rough ride in the tweeter which was deliberate in the BBC model to emphasise hisssssss in the programme material (this from one of the original design team telling me years ago)
 
Interesting though that as such poorly engineered design the directivities are better than I would have expected, guess rather a lucky coincidence?
A small woofer 4" or 5" sacrifying bass provide a huge help.
 
I've not read up any makers blurb, but increase tweeter output a bit more and you have a cheaper facsimile of a typical LS3/5A curve with peaked up 1.5kHz region, another bump at 120Hz or so and a bit of a rough ride in the tweeter which was deliberate in the BBC model to emphasise hisssssss in the programme material (this from one of the original design team telling me years ago)
I owned a jr149 clone in these days and founded one of the best balanced speaker i ever owned. The resonance you mention in the 1,5kz was sadly an issue with Bextrene cones that the designers of the xover had do struggle with, with good results Imho.

I maintain though that the woofer used here is an absolute 5$ crap, at best...compare It with the kef b110 is total nonsense...
 
Last edited:
I guess there is no xover at all on the woofer, simply a baffle step corrector eq filter.
The resonances chown on the woofer side also reveal its mediocre performance (typical of cheapo paper cones) and coloured tone.
I doubt it. There is an extra capacitor there. It looks to me a coil and capacitor pair for each driver but naturally I may be wrong. I’m thinking in engineering terms whereas this speaker was designed with wishful thinking.

The headlines on their website tells their priorities:

Audio that excites the senses and viscerally touches the soul - eXtremely Sexy Audio​

The Vanguard Speaker - a fresh interpretation of the classic British bookshelf monitor with a bolder and sexier sound.​

 
I doubt it. There is an extra capacitor there. It looks to me a coil and capacitor pair for each driver but naturally I may be wrong. I’m thinking in engineering terms whereas this speaker was designed with wishful thinking.

The headlines on their website tells their priorities:

Audio that excites the senses and viscerally touches the soul - eXtremely Sexy Audio​

The Vanguard Speaker - a fresh interpretation of the classic British bookshelf monitor with a bolder and sexier a sound.​

Curious inspiration source, the bbc being the less sexy sound i have ever heard...
JBL sounding almost pornographic if compared...:p

Regarding the xover you are probably be right though the impedance curve is a bit strange, maybe because of the drivers overlapping
 
Last edited:
Regarding the drivers, DC130 is the cheapest Dayton s 5" midwoofer, whereas RST28 is a better looking tweeter of the same brand.
Maybe the difference between the measurements made by Amir and those made by the designer are due to the fact that the xover is not optimized for on axis response, a smoother one being obtained at 15-30° off axis
 
Regarding the drivers, DC130 is the cheapest Dayton s 5" midwoofer, whereas RST28 is a better looking tweeter of the same brand.
Maybe the difference between the measurements made by Amir and those made by the designer are due to the fact that the xover is not optimized for on axis response, a smoother one being obtained at 15-30° off axis
No, of axis doesn't look good either. I may quote Amir:

"The mid-woofer is close enough in size to the tweeter which makes for decent directivity. That makes it easier to EQ but without, it causes off-axis to be just as bad as on-axis".
 
Maybe the problem here is that Amir takes the on axis response as absolute reference for all his measurements, and if this is not the designer's one the resulting measurements are kindof a mess...

I am now a bit confused, after all maybe this speaker is no so bad...:rolleyes:
 
No, of axis doesn't look good either.
Where do you see that?

The only thing that remains clear is that the predicted in room response is still disapointing and tonal balance not sexy at all...:p
 
In most of the parameters on the first graph.
Dont agree, except 0° on axis, these are all averaged measurements around 0°, as is listenning window for example.

Where do you see the response at 15° 30° 45°, etc...?
 
Where do you see that?

The only thing that remains clear is that the predicted in room response is still disapointing and tonal balance not sexy at all...:p
And this alone is enough to make it a bad speaker. At least in my book.
 
Back
Top Bottom