Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site olivee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!oliveb!olivee!greg
From: greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: speakers and cables i have known
Message-ID: <358@olivee.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-May-85 20:58:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: olivee.358
Posted: Fri May 17 20:58:34 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 02:01:54 EDT
References: <1368@watdcsu.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 94

Comment on part of Herb Chong's article:

> tonight's topics:
> 
> i listened to vandersteen 2c's
	...
> 
> however, on flamenco guitar, with rapid shifts in range from bass to
> treble, the vandersteen's suffered from sudden vertical shifts in
> image.  this is probably caused by the spacing of drivers and cannot be
> corrected without physical re-design of the speakers.
> 
> the soundstage suffered from "hole-in-the-middle" effect where the
> sound seemed to be coming from the two speakers and not from the center
> even though the material was clearly miked and mixed that way.  in my
> experience, this is an amplifier effect rather than speaker, though
> aiming the speakers so that their axis is toward the listener reduces
> this.  (i have no explanation of why amplifiers differ in this regard,
> and the effect is poorly correlated with price above the $1000 range.)

I own Vandersteen 2C's and the system used for Herb's demo was much like my
home system, except that I use an Audioquest 404 mc cartridge and
Magnavox 3040 CD player.

Although I don't buy the Julian Hirsch idea that all amplifiers with
comparable power output sound alike, I find it hard to believe that
the amp would be responsible for the "hole-in-the-middle".  Although
the speakers may have been "carefully" placed for the demo, the placement
still might not have been right.  I've been able to move mine about
a fair amount in my living room without having this problem, regardless
of whether they are "toed in" toward the listener.  In fact, the width
of the field in which a good listening perspective can be had from
these speakers is one of their points of superiority to some of the
better British speakers (notably Kef and B&W), which suffer from a
very narrow listening window.

> under the conditions that i heard them, i feel that my speakers (B&W
> DM7 Mk2, no longer made) provide superior imaging, but less bass
> output.  this could be because of poorer coupling of my speakers to the
> room.  at $2100 CAN, the vandersteen's deserve serious consideration
> for the less budget restricted audiophile and are comparable in price
> to the B&W DM3000's which i am more familiar with.  i think that the
> B&W's provide superior imaging so i personally would go for them,
> although for me, i am looking a better speakers yet (unfortunately also
> more $$$$).
> 

Before I bought my Vandersteen's, I listened very carefully to the
B&W DM7 Mk2 and found it difficult to choose (this was end of 1983).
The Vandersteen's were cheaper (list price at the time US $960), but
I felt they offered three major points of superiority:

	1. The naturalness of their tonal balance. I attend a 
 	   large number of live concerts and opera performances and
	   try to use what I hear as a reference for home audio gear.
	   Compared to the B&W, the treble seemed rather subdued at
	   first on the Vandersteens, but I found that it more closely
	   approximated what I heard live.  The B&W seemed
	   exaggerated by comparison.  Although by no means unpleasant
	   or harsh, I perceived their sound as a falsification of the
	   actual timbres of voices and certain instruments.

	2. Their ability to reproduce the spatial perspectives
	   in a good classical recording.   One of the best tests
	   for this is an oldie-but-goodie, the 1959 John Culshaw
	   production (on London records or imported Decca) of
	   Verdi's "Aida", conducted by Herbert von Karajan.  The
	   recording attempted far more than more recent versions to
	   reproduce the various planes of sound called for in the
	   score, so that in the Act 2 Triumphal Scene you can,
	   if the equipment is good enough, hear the orchestra in
	   front, as it would be in an opera house (other than
	   Bayreuth), solo singers behind it on stage, the chorus
	   divided between "onstage" voices behind the soloists
	   and "offstage" voices.  Trumpets are also divided into
	   "onstage" and "offstage" groups right and left.
	   Another good example is another Culshaw production - the
	   1963 recording of Britten's "War Requiem", also on London.

	3. The extended bass response.  Whereas I found the B&W
	   marvelous for early music and smaller scaled works, they
	   simply didn't have the necessary impact for Wagner,
	   Berlioz, or, particularly, the kettledrums in the Verdi
	   "Requiem".

I certainly don't mean to dismiss the B&W's - they are excellent
speakers and it took me a long time and a number of extended listening
sessions to come to these conclusions.   There will be people who
want to hear more detail when listening at home than they would in
a concert hall, who may well prefer the B&W.  I would maintain, though,
that the Vandersteens offer a greater neutrality of sound and are,
therefore, suitable for a wider range of musical applications.

	- Greg Paley