Vandersteen 2ce Signature, I don't get it!

[heywood]

Just got a used pair, excellent condition. But here goes, These are in my 24 year audio experience the worst speakers I've ever owned. I hear bass, treble, no midrange presence. Midrange suckout galore. I hear a smoothness I guess, but lacking transparency, inner detail, slow, veiled. Everything upstream equipment wise is fine. I just got rid of my Dynaudio monitors and boy what I wouldn't give to get them back.

I've tried every speaker position short of hanging them from the ceiling with fishing line.

I know I'm stepping on sacred toe ground here, but when is the last time Vandersteen 2ce owners that rave about this speaker went to hear live music. Cause I'm not hearing anything close to it.

Sorry Vandy guys following, just my opinion here!

Ok, fire away.

[RGA]

About 7 years ago a dealer I bought my Cambridge Audio CD player from carried Vandersteens and something about the same height and dimensions as the 2ce retailing for around $2000.00Cdn around $1600.00US was playing and I was totally unimpressed. It sound veiled and dark. Now at the time I had 95 db sensitive horn speakers with impressive dynamics and a more in your face kind of sound. (I still own them).

I have really never been a fan of speakers that require big power - This does not mean 4 ohm speakers - plenty of 4ohm speakers are stable at 4 ohms and many Quad stats were happy with 10 watts. I heard the ESL 63 and it too has a huge following - by itslef IMO it's atrocious there is NO bass no dynamics a muted treble no life - what the hell is the following for - yeah it's clean in the midrange but man if you listen to anything with a beat it's puzzling how one could find that acceptable - I understand the idea is to stack them and get some subwoofers. I dunno.

The Vandersteens get great reviews - what doesn't - I understand people like them and of course it is oibvious that people hear things differently - let's just say you and I are a couple of people who are missing the hubub over them. You should be able to sell them as they are popular but before you immediately go back to Dynaudio - double check why you got rid of them - you must have had a reason.

Though I would take the Danes over most of what I hear. I would try higher sensitivity and more dynamically impressive speakers - to me microdnamics is critical to creating acceptable sound - and it starts from the moment of silence to the quietest signal - if it doesn;t get that right it's game over. If a speaker needs to be turned up to sound good it's(I mean the system not necessarily the speaker) has some problems.

Interestingly the Danes are about the only lower sensitivity speaker I like.

[Jimmy C]

Just got a used pair, excellent condition. But here goes, These are in my 24 year audio experience the worst speakers I've ever owned. I hear bass, treble, no midrange presence. Midrange suckout galore. I hear a smoothness I guess, but lacking transparency, inner detail, slow, veiled. Everything upstream equipment wise is fine. I just got rid of my Dynaudio monitors and boy what I wouldn't give to get them back.

I've tried every speaker position short of hanging them from the ceiling with fishing line.

I know I'm stepping on sacred toe ground here, but when is the last time Vandersteen 2ce owners that rave about this speaker went to hear live music. Cause I'm not hearing anything close to it.

Sorry Vandy guys following, just my opinion here!

Ok, fire away.

...that made you buy them? What's the difference now? Did you <gasp> buy them blind? (Err... "deaf"?)

I'll agree the mids, in relation to the LF, are shelved-back. Maybe this is why they appear smooth - less glaring. The tweeter also seemed padded down a bit to me.

Hopefully, it's a matter of readjusting... I can remember buying a pair of Klipshes 20 or so years ago that I never warmed up to. Maybe it'll be different for you...

[topspeed]

Vandy is a love it or leave it type of speaker. Of all the brands out there, I can't think of one that is more polarizing. Vandy owners will preach the gospel of Richard Vandersteen to anyone within earshot and are as loyal as Maggie owners, which is saying a lot.

Of course, I disagree...

Someone on this board once described the sound as the speaker having a wool blanket thrown over it. Hmmm...yep, that's about right. They are the epitome of laid back; supremely smooth, not fatiguing in the least, and about as involving as watching the grass grow. Even my wife, who could care less about this stuff, couldn't stand them upon audition.

Jimmy brings up an excellent point; you did listen to these first, right? Either way, you may just need to recalibrate your brain and give your old Danes a chance to fade into the past. Who knows, after a month of listening you may actually like the things? If not, no worries. The 2ce's are legendary speakers (don't ask me why) and should be easy to unload on audiogon for what you paid for them.

Consider it a life lesson and move on.

[heywood]

Like most everyone who buys used on Audiogon we do not get the opportunity to audition most products, it would be nice. That's exactly where audioreview would give someone aid in buying, right? to give opinions from the customer user. No, no one made me buy the speakers, but the opinions were so overwhelmingly positive for this particular speaker, I was to say the least, very surprised at the immediate apparent mediocre sound from these.

That's the discussion I'm trying to generate here. The question begs to be asked, Is this a matter of taste and sound preferences? or does it cross the line into not even knowing what constitutes a relative accurate sound of the instrument and performance.

I apologize if I sound elitist and like ''mister I know real sound" but I almost feel that there is a need for master classes on this subject.

Everyone has individual taste and preferences, but this speaker( in my opinion) crosses the line into fantasy sound. I admit to buyer's remorse big time, but I think there's something wrong going on out there in "audiophelia'' land.

RGA is absolutely correct when he points out that microdynamics are critical and I would say essential and necessary to the music. If a speaker so to say. ''smoooothsss'' over that and goes for a ''pleasing'' audio experience, then how could anyone have a clue abut what the artist is conveying?

Therefore the music would put one to sleep, boring, etc...

I have leaned a valuable lesson. That the good ole days of driving down the street to your local dealer and auditioning a speaker are long gone. Maybe it's less risky to buy electronics of good calibre but speakers, and believe me I knew in my bones I was taking a chance, need a good audition, never again.

Many thanks to all.

Heywood

[RGA]

I bought my Wharfedale Vanguards in 1991 - I had not graduated high school and they retailed for 2kCdn = they were Wharfedale's flagship floorstanding speakers - big rock speakers but not shouty a more reigned in smooth treble than what Klipsh was offerring at the time - most spekaers looked like the short and fat variety at the time and it was fun to listen to - polite and refined? No? But Polite and Refined can also mean laid back and boring with another set of ears so be careful. The Wharfedales were a touch on the boom and sizzle side as were the Klisph's - two traits i don;t care for - but the TRADE for a smoother midrange from some of the competitors was crap dynamics and a funnelly nasal sounding vocal band - imaging was better and you could sit farther away from dead center to get the same general sound(ie improved off axis response) - many still had the sizzly treble though. So the makers per usual look at the trees and not the forest. They hacked off several things that many spekaers were in fact doing very nicely on dynamics pace timing envolvement and look basically at imaging and the soundstage - most of which ow sounds homogeneous and compressed more than it ever was - but boy do voices come from the middle more now than before(even when they shouldn't).

The reviews have a tough time because to stay in business they need makers to keep sending them stuff and advertising - If we did have a "perfect" attainable sound then how on earth can one publication positvely review completely different sounding speakers from Horns, stats, line arrays and whatever the heck Vanderstten is all about. They are not reviewing against correctness but reviewing what they THINK some people might like.

I do the same thing - I recommend you listen to X speaker for an audition - some I would actually want to own and listen to for the rest of my days but many I think someone else might like and I think they're good at what they do but not really my cup of tea.

Everything gets good reviews - not everything is very good. IMO a good 90% of the stuff that gets good reviews to me isn't very good. 5% of the reamaining I would not want to own myself but understand why people like it the other 5% I would want to listen to music on. And it took 10+ years to find the good 10% and figure out between that what I wanted.

[Woochifer]

Just got a used pair, excellent condition. But here goes, These are in my 24 year audio experience the worst speakers I've ever owned. I hear bass, treble, no midrange presence. Midrange suckout galore. I hear a smoothness I guess, but lacking transparency, inner detail, slow, veiled. Everything upstream equipment wise is fine. I just got rid of my Dynaudio monitors and boy what I wouldn't give to get them back.

I've tried every speaker position short of hanging them from the ceiling with fishing line.

I know I'm stepping on sacred toe ground here, but when is the last time Vandersteen 2ce owners that rave about this speaker went to hear live music. Cause I'm not hearing anything close to it.

Sorry Vandy guys following, just my opinion here!

Ok, fire away.

The Vandys are different than what you're used to because they are designed around a very different set of design parameters than other speakers. I'm not a fan of the Vandys either, but I've heard them enough to note that they are near the top of the class in some very specific areas, namely their imaging coherency and how well they fare in a multichannel alignment. Out of the 5.1 setups that I've heard, the Vandersteen setup is probably the best imaging multichannel speaker setup I've tried, with a masterfully designed center speaker that blends in with the mains better than any other center speaker I've heard.

Fans of Vandersteen swear by them, and a lot of magazine reviewers use them in their reference rigs. It really is a love it or hate it type of speaker. The Vandersteen adherents will tell you that the timing and phase accuracy of the Vandys creates a truer sound reproduction.

To me, they were a frustrating speaker to listen to because their tonal characteristics to my ears sounded bizarre, yet I could tell how exceptionally well they "disappear" and create stereo images. Overall, they did some things better than just about any speaker I've heard, and did other things in such a way that I eliminated them from consideration fairly early.

Sorry to hear that you tried 'em and left 'em. But, as someone else mentioned, they hold their resale value very well and you should have no shortage of takers if you want to unload them.

[Woochifer]

They hacked off several things that many spekaers were in fact doing very nicely on dynamics pace timing envolvement and look basically at imaging and the soundstage - most of which ow sounds homogeneous and compressed more than it ever was - but boy do voices come from the middle more now than before(even when they shouldn't).

So, I guess that a "dynamic" sound that seems to beam out of two point boxes, and forces you to practically wear a restraint that locks your head into that small sweet spot to get any kind of stereo image is preferable?

And how would you know when a voice should not come out of the middle? You mean a "homogenous and compressed" speaker will magically shift a sound mixed into the left channel into the phantom center mix? That would be quite a feat! Let me know of an example where you've observed this phenomenon, and I'll verify it on my "homogenous and compressed" system.


The reviews have a tough time because to stay in business they need makers to keep sending them stuff and advertising - If we did have a "perfect" attainable sound then how on earth can one publication positvely review completely different sounding speakers from Horns, stats, line arrays and whatever the heck Vanderstten is all about. They are not reviewing against correctness but reviewing what they THINK some people might like.

Quite the contrary, Vandersteens are often cited in the reference rigs that reviewers use at home. At least two of the reviewers at The Absolute Sound, one at Stereophile, and one on Soundstage (or Hometheaterhifi.com) have noted that they OWN a set of Vandersteens for their reference system. And Widescreen Review uses Vandersteens in two of their three reference theater installations (the ones that they use for their DVD and equipment reviews). So, they're not reviewing based on what they "THINK some people might like," they are basing it on what they feel is best reference system.

[RGA]

The reviewers who own vandersteen and only vandersteen - ever in your life see them review something positively that wasn't a Vandersteen? Ahh.

My comment about this was never intended to be solely about Vandersteen but a generalized comment. And like I said there is a big following - a reviewer can of course be part of that following - nothing at all wrong with liking Vandersteen - and there is nothing at all wrong with not liking them - indeed, it helps me know that the reviewers who do probably don't hear things the way I hear them so I don't need to really pay attention to their reviews.

[theaudiohobby]

Just got a used pair, excellent condition. But here goes, These are in my 24 year audio experience the worst speakers I've ever owned. I hear bass, treble, no midrange presence. Midrange suckout galore. I hear a smoothness I guess, but lacking transparency, inner detail, slow, veiled. Everything upstream equipment wise is fine. I just got rid of my Dynaudio monitors and boy what I wouldn't give to get them back.

I've tried every speaker position short of hanging them from the ceiling with fishing line.

I know I'm stepping on sacred toe ground here, but when is the last time Vandersteen 2ce owners that rave about this speaker went to hear live music. Cause I'm not hearing anything close to it.
.

I was looking at the impedance plots (http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Vanfig1.jpg) of the Vandy 2CE, I think that it is amplifier that is at fault here because it seems the vandy is a low sensitivity speaker as well as a demanding load in the treble. That midrange suckout seems to be as result of the speaker dipping from 8 ohms at 80Hz to about 4 ohms just above 40Hz, For most of the upper midrange and lower treble the it hovers around 4ohms and dips to 3ohm in the lower treble. I get a feeling that your amplifier does not like 4 ohm loads and will prefer a flatter impedance curve.
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Vanfig1.jpg

[46minaudio]

The Vandersteens get great reviews.The reviews have a tough time because to stay in business they need makers to keep sending them stuff and advertising.You say this...

The reviewers who own vandersteen and only vandersteen - ever in your life see them review something positively that wasn't a Vandersteen? Ahh. .
And now this...You state this as fact.Please provide proof.Its funny when a reviewer owns AN all is good in the world.When they own somthing else ther must be a flaw..Yes I happen to own the 3sigs powered by a Aragon 8008st with a Lexicon prepro.They do have more paddind in the tweeter than the 100v2s I own..I really enjoy both systems for music and HT.More thay likley its the room but I prefer the Vandys for HT...

[RGA]

You say this...

And now this...You state this as fact.Please provide proof.Its funny when a reviewer owns AN all is good in the world.When they own somthing else ther must be a flaw..Yes I happen to own the 3sigs powered by a Aragon 8008st with a Lexicon prepro.They do have more paddind in the tweeter than the 100v2s I own..I really enjoy both systems for music and HT.More thay likley its the room but I prefer the Vandys for HT...

Well A) just because a reviewer owns Audio Note or Vandersteen doesn't mean you are going to like them and that was my main point which I suppose could have been read as an attack on Vandersteen but was not the intent. And this illustrations shows that since the two sound completely different that reviewers have their own taste. Vandersteen is much more widely known and I would bet way more people have heard Vandersteen than Audio Note - we all pick the best we have heard up to a certain point in our lives. The B&W N805 was the best standmount I had ever heard and now it's steadily dropped out of my top 5. Simply because I have heard better since then - the N805 didn't get worse by any stretch but my reference point changed.

Consider that UHF Magazine has been in the reviewing business since 1982 and just this year heard their first Audio Note product (A discontinued cd transport and DAC). These guys go to the shows - there are so many brands you can;t give them all justice - listening to something for 10 minutes in some room someplace ain't it. It stands to reason that even reviewers can't listen to everything. Indeed, reviewers are no different than myself or anyone that goes out and listens to gear. I have plenty of live references, and over 10 years with gear too and if I ever bothered to proofread what I write - an English minor.

And like everyone has said Vandersteen has a kind of sound that I suppose has somehting people adore - the Quad ESL 63 Commercial electronics had in their used section for example has a staggerring following and many reviewers hold it as a reference speaker - I sure would not - I get why people like stats - I like what they like - but I want more from a speaker. Other people will trade the weaknesses in for the unboxed presentation.

And reviewers/store owners also have budgets to work within just like the rest of us. A number of them don't own incredibly high end gear - they get into money troubles or feel that hey they get to try new stuff out for months anyway so why spend big bucks. Steven Rochlin the editor of enjoythemusic had to sell his ONGAKU amplifier($80,000.00US) and downscaled big time due to financial issues.

Like I said in my original reply - this poster and I are not fans of the speaker - and I noted that others are - and that's why there's no one speaker out there. And it's also a reason I'm not trying to convert fans - I haccve said many times that people who go by my recommendations(To audition never to BUY) NEED and SHOULD be hearing it the same way I hear it.

If Roger Ebert reviews ten movies let's say and you agree with his view all ten times and Roeper reviews 10 movies and you wholeheartedly disagree with him strongly on all ten movies - then chances are when the new movie opens you will be more inclined to go to the movie Ebert recommends(and doubly so if Roeper saysthumbs down). You of course may still be dissapointed but you played the odds. That is why I say to people - if you don't like and i repeat this if you DON'T like what I generally don;t like for the same reasons I don't like it - then maybe you'll want to try something I do like. I have had people say yes I didn't like X speaker and noticed exactly the problems I have indicated with it - they have gone to Soundhounds and did what I suggested which was not to buy anything but to listen and tell me if they heard what I heard - generally they have agreed with me.

Obviously someone like yourself - and I'm not saying you're in any way wrong or that I'm right - really doesn't need my advice becuase you're happy with X brands that I would not be - so we hear things differently and thus the speakers I like may very well not be to your liking.

Like Michael Moore my preaching, as it were, is to the choir. People who hear it the way I do will agree with me and those that don't will call Moore a nutty lying shill for the democrats.

There is of course bound to be a crossover too that we both will like the same thing, just as the critics will agree on the same movie.

There are people in this world - many of them - who for some reason think Jim Carey is funny. I don't get it. Other people think the Lord of the Rings is the greatest series of films in history and hey they even got nominations so the "reviewers" must be right eh - we should not put all are eggs behind what the reviewers think. I'm sure if you look you'll find at least one film that won best picture since 1990 that you didn't like or found at least 15 films that year you would have picked over it. I can think of only 2 films since 1990 that I would say deserved best picture. Schindler's List and American Beauty(and this one was close).

And don't think speakers are any different - go to rottentomatoes.com (I used to post a LOT there on the film forums) and you'd be amazed how many long arguements you can get into over the very subjective issue of films - speakers? Man talk about almost as subjective - throw in an element of science(a small one filled with very little information) and boom arguments galore.

I suppose I should make it clearer that it's an opinion or stress more often that one should be looking more at what I said above about the corresponding agreemant factor - If I don;t like speakers A, B, F, and G and you don't either - then perhaps you will like L, R, X, and Y that I do like.

[Woochifer]

The reviewers who own vandersteen and only vandersteen - ever in your life see them review something positively that wasn't a Vandersteen? Ahh.

Negative reviews? I thought in your world, those didn't exist, so therefore reviews are worthless (well, unless they're praising Audio Note, then they're words of wisdom). Those reviewers that use Vandys in their rigs are perfectly capable of praising or criticizing another speaker as they see fit. Just because they prefer a certain type of speaker does not mean that they automatically equate every other design to crap or dungheaps or donkey balls or what not. Some people are just open minded enough to see merit in a wide range of approaches to speaker design. I'm sure that even those reviewers that you claim own Audio Notes don't hate on 90% of the speakers out there just because they prefer the ANs.


My comment about this was never intended to be solely about Vandersteen but a generalized comment. And like I said there is a big following - a reviewer can of course be part of that following - nothing at all wrong with liking Vandersteen - and there is nothing at all wrong with not liking them - indeed, it helps me know that the reviewers who do probably don't hear things the way I hear them so I don't need to really pay attention to their reviews.

Cults don't like it when their members absorb different points of view either.

[RGA]

Ahh Woochifer

Lots of speakers I recommend from all sorts of designs - just like pro reviewers. There is a difference though between me and a pro reviewer - There is no influence on me. You are the one who said a while back that one Wilson reviewed was pulled back and another review put in its place to be favorable to a major advertiser - Wilson.

I review positively a lot of speakers I would not want to own - but at a given price point versus what else I've heard I'll say hey this is a good speaker for the money. That is not condescending in any way either because most live in a budget and if someone has a max of $300.00 then here are X and Y which I felt stood out from the pack. Here's the best buy tag.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes with a lot of pro-review organizations and it's tough for it not to happen - if you make friends with Paul Barton say and you review his stuff -you are more inclined to word things a certain way if you're not really on board with it and you may very well be inclined to be dazzled with the thank-you gifts and smoozing that Musical Fidelity has been known for. The same is found in the film industry - they have given holidays to film reviewers all expenses paid for a viewing of movies to gain a favourable review - heck Sony bypassed all that and reviewed their own films with a fictitious critic. Now that's stacking the deck.

I post reviews of stuff I back because some people HAVE to have the security blaket of seeing a review. And most times I still note that you should not go by the reviews that everything gets a good review blah blah. But some people just have to read it other than some unknown guy named RGA on some forum.

There are plenty of speakers I review very warmly all over the price spectrum - and every shopper probably does that at least subconsciously. And presumably people buy the one they felt was the "BEST" given their criteria - I'm no different than anyone else - speaker A is best to me - speaker B was something else. And I may like a lot of speaker B and not much care for speaker H and despise speaker Z.

Now I'm sorry if you happen to like a speaker I despise - and it must be nice for you not to despise any speaker in the history of loudspeaker design. I wish I could like everything but oh well.

[Woochifer]

Ahh Woochifer

Lots of speakers I recommend from all sorts of designs - just like pro reviewers. There is a difference though between me and a pro reviewer - There is no influence on me. You are the one who said a while back that one Wilson reviewed was pulled back and another review put in its place to be favorable to a major advertiser - Wilson.

Yeah, and I don't see pro reviewers using terminology like "donkey balls" and "dungheaps" or claiming that they can't stand 90% of the speakers on the market either. And they don't resort to making false generalizations to state their case, for example about how speakers now funnel voices to the center, even if it wasn't recorded that way.

Yup, that's different alright.


I post reviews of stuff I back because some people HAVE to have the security blaket of seeing a review. And most times I still note that you should not go by the reviews that everything gets a good review blah blah. But some people just have to read it other than some unknown guy named RGA on some forum.

And that's why people flag you on it, because you don't see how contradictory that is. One minute you're berating reviewers and magazines for giving nothing but positives for everything that they review and practically accusing them of accepting bribes, and the next you're citing them whenever the reviews support your point of view.


Now I'm sorry if you happen to like a speaker I despise - and it must be nice for you not to despise any speaker in the history of loudspeaker design. I wish I could like everything but oh well.

Never said that I liked the Vandys, only that I've noted specific things they do exceptionally well. Overall, I would not want them, but that does not stop me from acknowledging their strengths. Plenty of speakers that are not my favorites, but I've always noted that nowadays there are far fewer truly awful speakers on the market now than there were 15 years ago. Considering how you glorify the good old days, you very well might have enjoyed some of those pieces.

[46minaudio]

Well A) just because a reviewer owns Audio Note or Vandersteen doesn't mean you are going to like them and that was my main point which I suppose could have been read as an attack on Vandersteen but was not the intent. And this illustrations shows that since the two sound completely different that reviewers have their own taste. Vandersteen is much more widely known and I would bet way more people have heard Vandersteen than Audio Note - we all pick the best we have heard up to a certain point in our lives. The B&W N805 was the best standmount I had ever heard and now it's steadily dropped out of my top 5. Simply because I have heard better since then - the N805 didn't get worse by any stretch but my reference point changed.

Consider that UHF Magazine has been in the reviewing business since 1982 and just this year heard their first Audio Note product (A discontinued cd transport and DAC). These guys go to the shows - there are so many brands you can;t give them all justice - listening to something for 10 minutes in some room someplace ain't it. It stands to reason that even reviewers can't listen to everything. Indeed, reviewers are no different than myself or anyone that goes out and listens to gear. I have plenty of live references, and over 10 years with gear too and if I ever bothered to proofread what I write - an English minor.

And like everyone has said Vandersteen has a kind of sound that I suppose has somehting people adore - the Quad ESL 63 Commercial electronics had in their used section for example has a staggerring following and many reviewers hold it as a reference speaker - I sure would not - I get why people like stats - I like what they like - but I want more from a speaker. Other people will trade the weaknesses in for the unboxed presentation.

And reviewers/store owners also have budgets to work within just like the rest of us. A number of them don't own incredibly high end gear - they get into money troubles or feel that hey they get to try new stuff out for months anyway so why spend big bucks. Steven Rochlin the editor of enjoythemusic had to sell his ONGAKU amplifier($80,000.00US) and downscaled big time due to financial issues.

Like I said in my original reply - this poster and I are not fans of the speaker - and I noted that others are - and that's why there's no one speaker out there. And it's also a reason I'm not trying to convert fans - I haccve said many times that people who go by my recommendations(To audition never to BUY) NEED and SHOULD be hearing it the same way I hear it.

If Roger Ebert reviews ten movies let's say and you agree with his view all ten times and Roeper reviews 10 movies and you wholeheartedly disagree with him strongly on all ten movies - then chances are when the new movie opens you will be more inclined to go to the movie Ebert recommends(and doubly so if Roeper saysthumbs down). You of course may still be dissapointed but you played the odds. That is why I say to people - if you don't like and i repeat this if you DON'T like what I generally don;t like for the same reasons I don't like it - then maybe you'll want to try something I do like. I have had people say yes I didn't like X speaker and noticed exactly the problems I have indicated with it - they have gone to Soundhounds and did what I suggested which was not to buy anything but to listen and tell me if they heard what I heard - generally they have agreed with me.

Obviously someone like yourself - and I'm not saying you're in any way wrong or that I'm right - really doesn't need my advice becuase you're happy with X brands that I would not be - so we hear things differently and thus the speakers I like may very well not be to your liking.

Like Michael Moore my preaching, as it were, is to the choir. People who hear it the way I do will agree with me and those that don't will call Moore a nutty lying shill for the democrats.

There is of course bound to be a crossover too that we both will like the same thing, just as the critics will agree on the same movie.

There are people in this world - many of them - who for some reason think Jim Carey is funny. I don't get it. Other people think the Lord of the Rings is the greatest series of films in history and hey they even got nominations so the "reviewers" must be right eh - we should not put all are eggs behind what the reviewers think. I'm sure if you look you'll find at least one film that won best picture since 1990 that you didn't like or found at least 15 films that year you would have picked over it. I can think of only 2 films since 1990 that I would say deserved best picture. Schindler's List and American Beauty(and this one was close).

And don't think speakers are any different - go to rottentomatoes.com (I used to post a LOT there on the film forums) and you'd be amazed how many long arguements you can get into over the very subjective issue of films - speakers? Man talk about almost as subjective - throw in an element of science(a small one filled with very little information) and boom arguments galore.

I suppose I should make it clearer that it's an opinion or stress more often that one should be looking more at what I said above about the corresponding agreemant factor - If I don;t like speakers A, B, F, and G and you don't either - then perhaps you will like L, R, X, and Y that I do like.

RGA no need for the book...I will try to be as nice as I can.You have posted more than once how some reviewer from streophile(I think)owns audio note.You do this as to brag about how good the ANs are.Yet when wooch post about another brand owned by reviewers there seems to be some huge misjustice...Again please peovide the proof about reviewers who own Vandys giving only positive reviews to Vandys ..If not just shut the **** up..

[RGA]

46 min please state where I said that Vandy owners only say good things about Vandersteen - I didn't even imply that. What I said was that reviewers are in the business to review - and they review for who? The reader. The reviewers who own Audio Note or Vandersteen or whoever has chosen a speaker for themselves they felt was best for them out of the speakers they have heard. Just like you did and just like I did.

The reviewers in the review industry have more tact than I do when it comes to giving reviews. And one can learn to read a bit between the lines as to what they really think as opposed to what it seems like they said. What I am saying is that they are reviewing a lot of very different speakers positively - and yet they don't own them.

If I worked for major magazine - and had a gag order on me then I would be WAY WAY more tactful in review and word it in such platitutes of I enjoyed my time with the speaker (Ie; because I appreciate even more the speakers I actually own), or you may need to work on the positioning (Ie; it's got problems and can't be fixed), Or it gives a very analytical presentation that really shows off the detail (Cold and bright and will drive you bats in month 2). The difference is I don't work for the magazines and have to hide behind double speak.

Film Critics we want bluntness from to save us from wasting our $9.00 at the movie theater but for some reaosn we want "all is good" with things that could cost us $10,000.00 or more. I don't really understand that.

The other issue with Vandy in particular is that I didn't know they had on board adjustments - so that may very well have yielded a much better result indeed.

Hi-fi choice "With the preset levels at 'flat', the treble sounds very restrained, even dull, and I much preferred the overall balance with the treble set to +2dB. Voices still sound a shade 'hooded', but the extra sparkle is well worthwhile. At the other end of the spectrum, the bass has good extension, weight and power." (They recommended them and awarded the 5 stars for sound).

The speaker may very well be excellent and I shall revisit them again sometime down the line. In fact this was the 2CE which probably not the one I heard anyway. Indeed, I would probably be more interested in trying this design than the by the numbers stuff I keep hearing.

[LVMF]

Ok, I'd love to hear you guys debate the merits of George W.!!! :p

How does their bookshelf speaker sound to you?

As I have re-entered with great interest Stereo and music recordings, it does amaze me the difference in what reviewers hear and what I hear, especially with speakers. I had the B&W 805 N's to demo, and at the same time the Monitor Audio Gold 10's, and in my listening room, driving them with Musical Fidelity's X-150, the 805's didn't compare to the 10's...now a month later, I've decided the 10's are way too sterile and am looking for an alternative in this price range...any ideas are greatly welcome.

Thanks

[Woochifer]

46 min please state where I said that Vandy owners only say good things about Vandersteen - I didn't even imply that.

The reviewers who own vandersteen and only vandersteen - ever in your life see them review something positively that wasn't a Vandersteen? Ahh.


If I worked for major magazine - and had a gag order on me then I would be WAY WAY more tactful in review and word it in such platitutes of I enjoyed my time with the speaker (Ie; because I appreciate even more the speakers I actually own), or you may need to work on the positioning (Ie; it's got problems and can't be fixed), Or it gives a very analytical presentation that really shows off the detail (Cold and bright and will drive you bats in month 2). The difference is I don't work for the magazines and have to hide behind double speak.

In other words, if you worked for a major magazine (and based that very well might be wishful thinking), you would be just another one of the hacks that you always take shots at?


Film Critics we want bluntness from to save us from wasting our $9.00 at the movie theater but for some reaosn we want "all is good" with things that could cost us $10,000.00 or more. I don't really understand that.

Bluntness is one thing, making false exaggerations and using commentaries about speakers as a soapbox to make unrelated generalizations is quite another. You still haven't cited any examples of where a "homogenous and compressed" speaker will shift the voices to the center even if it was not mixed that way. If you really interpret imaging and soundstage as collapsing everything into the middle, then you're in no position to compare yourself to the many published reviewers that do understand how those attributes actually contribute to the enjoyment of an audio system.


Hi-fi choice "With the preset levels at 'flat', the treble sounds very restrained, even dull, and I much preferred the overall balance with the treble set to +2dB. Voices still sound a shade 'hooded', but the extra sparkle is well worthwhile. At the other end of the spectrum, the bass has good extension, weight and power." (They recommended them and awarded the 5 stars for sound).

The speaker may very well be excellent and I shall revisit them again sometime down the line. In fact this was the 2CE which probably not the one I heard anyway. Indeed, I would probably be more interested in trying this design than the by the numbers stuff I keep hearing.

Once again citing the very reviews that you repeatedly berate as useless and overly positive.

Please tell me which reviews of the Vandys or people's praise of those speakers relies on "the numbers stuff" that you "keep hearing". I certainly didn't mention any figures or measurements when I noted the strong suits of the Vandys. "Trying the design" -- how about simply LISTENING to the speaker, rather than focusing on all these externalities.

[theaudiohobby]

As I have re-entered with great interest Stereo and music recordings, it does amaze me the difference in what reviewers hear and what I hear, especially with speakers. I had the B&W 805 N's to demo, and at the same time the Monitor Audio Gold 10's, and in my listening room, driving them with Musical Fidelity's X-150, the 805's didn't compare to the 10's...now a month later, I've decided the 10's are way too sterile and am looking for an alternative in this price range...any ideas are greatly welcome.

Thanks

Why not just try the 805N again, saying that you might also try the Audio Notes and Sonus Faber (apart from the Cremona Auditor), neither brand can termed as sterile, warm is closer to it, saying that you will have to trade off some transparency but it seems you are willing to pay that price judging by your assessment of the MAs..

[Geoffcin]

Just got a used pair, excellent condition. But here goes, These are in my 24 year audio experience the worst speakers I've ever owned. I hear bass, treble, no midrange presence. Midrange suckout galore. I hear a smoothness I guess, but lacking transparency, inner detail, slow, veiled. Everything upstream equipment wise is fine. I just got rid of my Dynaudio monitors and boy what I wouldn't give to get them back.

I've tried every speaker position short of hanging them from the ceiling with fishing line.

I know I'm stepping on sacred toe ground here, but when is the last time Vandersteen 2ce owners that rave about this speaker went to hear live music. Cause I'm not hearing anything close to it.

Sorry Vandy guys following, just my opinion here!

Ok, fire away.

My father has a set of big vandys. I'm OK with them, but the real thing is they work well for him, and that's all that really matters. I like my Maggie 3.6's better. Some people prefer another sound and that's OK, heck, I even have a totally different rig for HT and I love it too. If you've got issues with your speakers, especially ones as easily sold as the vandys, but all means SELL them.

Oh. I didn't find ANY suckout in the midrange with the vandys, perhaps you have a defective set?

[RGA]

Wooch

"The reviewers who own vandersteen and only vandersteen - ever in your life see them review something positively that wasn't a Vandersteen? Ahh."

And? Have you? Your answer should be YES so what's your point. They positevely review spekaers they personally wouldn't want to own. Ahh yet again. I positvely reviewed the Paradigm Atom and Wharfedale 8.2 - but I would not want them.

[Buzz Roll]

The tough thing with Vandys is set up (the listening window is rather small). I've heard that they have to sit on the stands just right (tilt), otherwise the sound goes out the window. When they are set right, they do perform very well.

I didn't notice a suck-out in the mids either.

[Woochifer]

"The reviewers who own vandersteen and only vandersteen - ever in your life see them review something positively that wasn't a Vandersteen? Ahh."

And? Have you? Your answer should be YES so what's your point. They positevely review spekaers they personally wouldn't want to own. Ahh yet again. I positvely reviewed the Paradigm Atom and Wharfedale 8.2 - but I would not want them.

The point is that you're writing in riddles. If you intended to make a point, why not just state it, rather than talk in these self-aggrandizing circles just so you can insert your little "Ahh" at the end? As such, it's quite easy to interpret your sentence the way that 46min did. Sometimes your excesses are your own worst enemy.

[Woochifer]

The tough thing with Vandys is set up (the listening window is rather small). I've heard that they have to sit on the stands just right (tilt), otherwise the sound goes out the window. When they are set right, they do perform very well.

I didn't notice a suck-out in the mids either.

I heard a set of the 2ce Sigs in a 5.1 setup with the speakers aligned to the ITU reference placement, and in that arrangement, they sounded amazing. Still had the bizarre tonal characteristics that I'd noted earlier, but the imaging was about as spot on as I've ever heard in a multichannel system. I also heard the 1c in a different room, and they needed some tweaking to get the imaging right. But, I didn't think that they were nearly as fussy as some of the panel speakers that I've tried.

[Garrardman]

I'd never heard Vandersteen's until the Bristol (UK) hi-fi show last February, when Exposure were using a pair of 2CE's.

I thought they were bl**dy fantastic, and the people I went with hated them!

Guess they do polarise opinion.............................

Adam.

[heywood]

My father has a set of big vandys. I'm OK with them, but the real thing is they work well for him, and that's all that really matters. I like my Maggie 3.6's better. Some people prefer another sound and that's OK, heck, I even have a totally different rig for HT and I love it too. If you've got issues with your speakers, especially ones as easily sold as the vandys, but all means SELL them.

Oh. I didn't find ANY suckout in the midrange with the vandys, perhaps you have a defective set?

Maybe I used to strong of language in regards to ''midrange suckout". I notice some speakers present the sound up front, sort of an ''in your face'' sound more like live music up close. That's in all fairness to the Vandy's, a preference I've cultivated over the years. I think a few years back I might have actually preferred the Vandersteens sound, I would call it more of a studio presentation quality ( for lack of a better phrase). Again please forgive my verbage. It's hard to find analogies to describe something that in the end is so subjective.

The 2ce's display in general a laid back perspective( Relatively Speaking!) to the music ''Presentation'' in contrast to the speakers I've grown accustomed to as of late. That's a big thing with me these days is how the music is so to speak ''laid out'' even with warts and all before you. as opposed to pleasing sounds and laid back.

Granted the systems I've heard lately are very efficient Horn loaded and single driver based speakers with small powered single ended tube amps. The sound is to the extreme almost very forward to the unaccustomed ear. It was hard to get used to a first. My Dynaudio's were foward too!

But I started noticing that it felt more like the excitement of a live performance. Fast! Stand up and take notice! Macrodynamics Galore! I now realize that the ''live sound'' sound is definitely not to everyone's liking like I assumed.

The Vandersteen 2ce Signatures just surprised me to say the least, because it has such a huge following. And it was just simply hard to fathom how so many people preferred that type of presentation.

My Sky Cam has pulled back since last week when I was so emotional about my purchase.

I'm sorry my topic generated such a semi-heated discussion on the reviewer topic. I tried to stay out of that since I didn't have much knowledge on the subject. I sensed there was a ''history'' there if you know what I mean.

Also just an FYI here; My amp that everyone questioned might be the culprit? It's an amp that Richard Vandersteen is very familiar with according to a few dealers I've talked to. It's an Audio Research VT100 MK.II- powerful- trust me.

This amp dove the Stew! out of my 86 db efficient 4 ohm load Dynaudio Contour 1.3 MKII's. where the Odyssey Stratos ( I can hear the faint rumblings in the distance of a new heated discussion) became unstable. 150 WPC 40 amps High Damping Factor!!!
Go Figure!

Oh yes, I almost forgot, I owned the Vandersteens for a week and sold them in a day.

Thanks, Let the Show begin- and I agree- let's have some fun- not so serious- it's just audio. Yea I know, I've got room to talk. huh?