Thomas J. Norton
Stereophile
A REPRINT FROM APRIL I993, VOL. I6 NO. 4
Three-way, floor-standing, dynamic
loudspeaker. Drivers: 8" woofer with polycone, 10"
Active Acoustic Coupler, 4.5" polycone midrange, 1 "
metal-dome tweeter. Frequency response: 29Hz-29kHz +/-3dB.
Nominal impedance: 7 ohms (4 ohms minimum). Sensitivity: 88dB/Wm.
Dimensions: 39.75" H + 16" W by 10.25" D. Net
weight: 60 Ibs each. Serial numbers of samples tested: 58620Ce
58621Ce. Price: $1295 (optional stands, $125). Approximate number
of dealers: 119.
Manufacturer: Vandersteen Audio, 116 West Fourth St., Hanford, CA
93230. Tel: (209) 582-0324.
Eighty thousand pairs. According to Vandersteen Audio, that's the number of Vandersteen 2s of various generations which have been sold since the loudspeaker and company first saw the light of day in 1977. The 2 has been continually refined along the way, a new driver here, a new crossover change there, heavy-duty stands. More changes, in fact, than the occasional changes in model designation would indicate. The 2 's main calling card has always been a high perceived value for money. If anything, this calling card has only been enhanced over the years as its price remained remarkably stable while the cost of high-end audio in general was perceived rightly or wrongly as being on a dazzling upward spiral.
While not all critics fell in love with the Vandersteen 2, none could deny that it was a must-audition in its price range. In a market segment dominated by mini-monitors long on refinement and imaging finesse but often short of convincing dynamics and low-end heft, the Vandersteens could always be counted on to remind the listener that full-bodied sound does not have to mean a lean wallet. ' When a non-audiophile friend of mine from the San Francisco area came to Stereophile's 1989 High End Hi-Fi Show and asked me to recommend a pair of loudspeakers, the Vandersteens were the first to come to mind.
In 1991 the 2C underwent its most extensive metamorphosis to date, the first real change in the loudspeaker's external appearance since its inception. It grew several inches taller. A taller cabinet is a larger cabinet, making possible a small but worth-while extension in low-frequency response. The small resulting increase in cost was largely countered by the fact that a full stand was no longer required. While the 2Ce can be used without any stand, the small vestigial stand (more of a bracket than a stand, really) is a strongly recommended option. Stand and loudspeaker together retail for $1420. For my friend from the Hi-Fi show [and most other non-audiophiles with comfortable but not outrageous incomes] this makes an expensive though not out-of-reach loudspeaker. In the High End, however, it would be considered almost entry-level. It is also, arguably, close to the point at which design compromises [facts of life in any piece of audio gear] become less onerous for both the designer and the eventual owner.
While subtly different in appearance from its predecessor, the 2Ci, the 2Ce remains much the same basic design. It is actually composed of a stack of separate cabinets. The largest holds an 8" woofer and a rear-facing 10" Active Acoustic Coupler. The function of the latter appears to be to both control the bass loading of the system and, below 45Hz, extend its bottom-end response. It is actively driven, and the loading is said to perform as a sealed box. It is not, however, nor is it claimed to be, an integral subwoofer.
Sitting atop the bass enclosure is a separate, smaller cabinet holding the 4.5" midrange. This driver uses the same cone as the midrange driver in Vandersteen's more expensive Model 3, but not the same basket or magnetic structure. Another baffle on top of the midrange enclosure holds the 1" metal-dome tweeter ,a different version of the tweeter used in the Model 3. The cabinet itself is constructed of MDF and critically braced, attested to by its net weight of 60 Ibs.
In their promotional material, Vandersteen makes a special point of their time-coherent design. It begins with proper physical alignment of the drivers, made simpler by the use of separate baffles as described above. First-order crossover networks, which have lower phase error than higher-order crossovers, are used at 600Hz and 5kHz. (The effective operating region of the active acoustic coupler is said to be 26Hz to 35Hz.) First-order networks are by no means considered ideal by all manufacturers. They do have good phase performance, but their use demands that the drivers chosen have good performance well beyond their passband, and the vertical listening axis is more critical with a first-order design. More about this later.
None of this elaborate internal structure is visible to the user. All that can be seen are the grille-cloth front, back, and sides and wood bottom and top. The latter is covered in wood veneer and has a large sunroof opening also covered by grille cloth to minimize reflections from the tweeter off of the underside of this otherwise solid top plate. As in the Vandersteen 3, this is the one obvious compromise in an otherwise low-diffraction design. The dowel posts at the four corners, which connect the bottom and top and around which the grille-cloth is wrapped, are also potential diffraction sources, but are further away from the drivers and do not form flat, reflective surfaces.
That does not mean they will have no effects, only that those effects are lessened. On the rear panel are two sets of inputs, and contour controls for the midrange and tweeter. The inputs may be used only with banana plugs and are configured for bi-wiring strongly recommended by the manufacturer. Bi-amping is also possible. The owner's manual clearly explains how to make either type of hookup (or single-wiring, if you must). The contour controls are flush-mounted and calibrated in dB, with a maximum indicated range of +2dB to -3d B.
SETUP
Setting up a pair of 2Ces is more complex than setting up an
ordinary pair of floor-standing loudspeakers, but not difficult
enough to confuse anyone conversant with the replacement of a
light bulb. I strongly recommend that the owner's manual be
followed closely on this. It is very thorough, especially in the
important matter of tilt-back of the loudspeaker to attain the
proper vertical listening axis. You will really need the optional
base in order to do this correctly and retain good stability for
the cabinet.!
The 2Ce owner's manual also provides detailed recommendations for loudspeaker placement. For my listening, the placement I have found optimum for most direct radiating loudspeakers well out into the listening room and away from the side walls worked out fine.
SYSTEM DU JOUR
Associated equipment used with the 2Ce included the Rowland
Consummate preamp, C.E.C. CD transport and PS Audio Ultralink D/A
processor, and Aragon 4004 power amplifier. The Hafler 9500 power
amplifier was also used extensively. The loudspeaker cables were
Symo (bi-wiring was used exclusively). The preamp-to-power-amp
interconnect was Cardas Hexlink, the processor-to-preamp
interconnect was TARA Labs RSC Master. The source material was
primarily CD.
LISTENING
I had my first listen to the Vandersteen 2Ce some months back
in conjunction with my reviewing the PS Audio 100 and Aragon 4004
Mk. II power amplifiers. At the time, I found it to be a fine
performer, though perhaps a bit lacking in overall transparency
and richer than life in overall balance. The report on the
Vandersteen itself was delayed due to other review priorities;
when I was ready to return to them we learned that the 2Ces we
had in-house were no longer current. Several months after the
loudspeaker's introduction, two primary alterations had been
made: a revision in the bass loading, primarily to the active
acoustic coupler, and a change in the size of the tweeter from
0.75" to 1.0'". We returned our samples for an update.
The delay was a fortunate one. While it's always risky comparing listening impressions separated by weeks or even months with other changes to the reference system also occurring in the interim, it is my definite feeling that the modifications have made the 2Ce a much better loudspeaker. All of the listening impressions which follow relate to the latest design.
"Hey, these are good," is the first line in my listening notes, a conclusion which never changed. If anything, the sound of the Vandersteens grew on me as I logged more and more time with them. Unlike the early 2Ce, I found the revised version to sound in no way over-warm. It had an open, extended, but not in any way overdone top end, very low midrange coloration, and an amazingly solid, deep bass when the occasion called for it. It also played at levels that give mini-monitors fits; we're not talking knock-down-the-walls, rock-concert levels , but if you plan to get yourself evicted, the Vandersteen 2Ces can help.
The 2Ce will not make you forget your lust for a bass response that will have you making regular Pampers runs, but bass drum, organ pedal, double bass, etc. were satisfyingly deep and solid. The bottom end may not have been the last word in tautness (though it did occasionally surprise here), but it was in no way overripe or overdone. On pipe organ, where definition is important but low-end transient response is not, the Vandersteens were striking.
You'll certainly get more in the way of ultimate extension and sheer volume capability at the lowest frequencies from larger, more expensive loudspeakers, but the bottom octaves from the 2Ces did much more than merely suggest that a pipe organ may have passed this way but once.
Their way with Jean Guillou's organ transcription of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition Dorian DOR-90117) should satisfy all but the most bass-starved pipe organ freak. True, getting the best from this recording requires a careful hand on the volume control. Turning it up too high made the low treble glare long before the bass ran out of steam, but I've found that to be true of loudspeakers with far higher pretensions than the Vandersteens.
Nor was bass drum slighted. The percussive pyrotechnics on "Dies Irae" from Britten's Sinfoniade Requiem (Chandos 8983-4) were fully satisfying over the 2Ces. The bottom-end impact on this recording is terrific, with great whacking bass drum strokes, sharply defined. While I've heard these strokes deeper and slightly tighter, the 2Ces handled them with ease, you're unlikely to feel that anything is missing. And while there was a degree of warmth to the overall sound, I never found it excessive.
Rock fans shouldn't be disappointed in the Vandersteens' low end performance. The 2Ce told me what was on the recording, from the rather billowy low end of Jennifer Warnes's The Hunter (Primate Music 0100582089-2) - an otherwise excellent recording - to the punchy kick drum on "Don Quichotte" from the Northern Exposure soundtrack (MCA MCAD-10685). If anything, the midbass on the Jennifer Warnes album was less overcooked here than I've heard it on a number of other loudspeakers with much more ambitious pretensions.
At the other end of the spectrum, the 2Ces lacked the ultimate sense of unlimited HF extension and air offered by the very best loudspeakers, but the loss was hardly missed. What did stand out was its sense of ease. The top end was simply there, rarely calling attention to itself unless forced to by the program material. On `The Hunter', many loudspeakers emphasize the vocal sibilance. The Vandersteens didn't. Although its reproduction of sibilance was not artificially restrained, it did not intrude or, worse, sizzle back at me. On this and other recordings the 2Ces were not "airy" in the sense that most of us understand that term, but neither did they sound in any way closed-in or dark.
Once or twice I attempted to goose the very top end a bit by boosting the tweeter level a dB or so and cutting the midrange by an equivalent amount, but I invariably ended up with the contour controls set back on flat.
There was no obvious shortage of air and space on `The Mighty Wurlitzer' (New World NW 227-2), a recording with an inherent abundance of these qualities. The Vandersteens didn't quite get it all - not in the way that, say, the WATT/Puppies or Thiel CS3.6s do - but the illusion conveyed by the 2Ces was still convincing. If the reed-like buzz of the high pipes was a bit shortchanged, it was still effective. Upper-octave details from a wide range of other recordings, from the delicate fingering of acoustic guitar to inner resolution on chorus, gave me no cause for complaint.
It's in the midrange, of course, where a loudspeaker earns its rights to house room. I listened for all the usual suspects with the Vandersteens: boxiness, nasality or vowel like colorations, glare, and grain. I had a hard time pinning any of them down in the Vandersteens. Glare? Yes, if you push them too hard, but any loudspeaker can be made to misbehave in this way. I found the 2Ces' performance in the upper midrange more naturally restrained than that of the 2Cis when I last spent time with the latter. Boxiness and nasality? Very hard to spot. The 2Ces may not have been as open through the midband as the best panel radiators, but they were close.
Very close. I listen to a bit of vocal recordings - it's nearly impossible to conceal midrange colorations from the reproduction of the human voice and the Vandersteens sailed through this type of material with ease.
And midrange grain? Not really. Yet I suppose that some might interpret a certain lack of transparency at higher levels as a form of grain. This was the only problem I had with the Vandersteen's midrange. It was very low in obvious congestion, yet the spaces between the notes, as it were, began to fill in as the complexity of the program and its playback level advanced. This is the hardest test for any loudspeaker to pass, and it's usually not limited to the midrange. The 2Ce's slight warmth, never intrusive in and of itself, may have contributed to this. The problem was not a major one certainly not in the context of the Vandersteens' price but I'd have to name a certain lack of transparency, particularly at higher levels, as the 2Ce's most significant short-coming.
But soundstage presentation, both in depth and width, was not a problem. At first I was concerned, as JA had been in the case of the Vandersteen 3, about that hard wooden top sitting just a few inches above the tweeter. This has to cause diffraction and all sorts of serious soundstage anomalies, right? Well, not really. The soundstage from the 2Ces may not have been as pinpoint accurate or as layered in depth as, say, that of the WATT/ Puppies, but that did not detract from what it could do, given the right material. Well recorded choral material could be stunning. I found no obvious constriction of depth on "Hostias" from Berlioz's Requiem (Telarc CD-80109), or in the show-stopping layering of the chorus and soloists (the latter rather too far forward) in the best parts of Alberto Franchetti's Cristoforo Colombo (Koch Schwann CD 3-1030-2). In a totally different musical category, I could almost hear little Joey, third from the left and second row back (almost, but not quite), in `Away in a Manger' from Christmas Time with the Judds (RCA 6422-2-R). (The highs on this recordings are also open, airy, and detailed - what I've said about the former two qualities in the Vandersteens notwithstanding - and the Judds' voices clear and low in coloration. Barry Willis was right about this recording in his 'Records to Die For' picks in February '93. Do all the Judds' albums sound this good?) And on `Flamenco' (Philips 422 069-2), Paco Romero danced up a storm between and around the 2Ces and nearly stomped on my toes.
While most of my listening to the 2Ces for this review was done with the Aragon 4004 Mk.II amplifier, I also auditioned them with both the Hafler 9500 and the Sonic Frontiers SFS-80. The Hafler worked well, but displayed a different set of strengths and weaknesses. I discuss this in more detail in my review of the Hater (in Stereophile, April 1993, Vol. 16 No.4), but suffice it to say here that I strongly recommend either amplifier for use with the Vandersteens.
The Sonic Frontiers was an interesting case. The overall sound here was definitely softer and more laid-back than with either solid-state amp, particularly the more up-front Hafler. with the SFS-80 there was less obvious detail and immediacy. The overall focus was less sharp, with a reduction of air and sparkle at the top. There was also less punch at the bottom. The midrange of the Sonic Frontiers was, however, first-rate and with excellent depth. With the tube amp, there was no mud or muck, no cushy warmth or obstruction, but the sound was just a bit slower, easier, and less punchy overall. The solid-state amps, while less sweet and forgiving, easily surpassed the SFS-80 in overall transient speed and in extension and clarity at the frequency extremes.
COMPARISON #1
It's no secret that at least two of our reviewers are big
fans of the Spica Angelus, a loudspeaker which, in price, is a
very close competitor of the Vandersteen 2Ce. I had the
opportunity to compare the two in the course of this review, and
formed a few impressions of my own. Leaving aside the matter of
appearance [the `Ming the Merciless' look of the Angelus inspires
more extreme reactions than the more conventional appearance of
the 2Ce] there are significant sonic differences between the two
loudspeakers.
The Spica is far leaner, almost anemic, in the low end compared to the Vandersteen. Subjectively speaking, this opens up the soundstage and gives the impression of greater transparency and clarity, but it comes at the expense of bottom-end weight and power handling. Low-frequency passages which the Vandersteen sailed through without a hiccup caused the woofers of the Spica, at equivalent levels, to bottom with a nasty crack . Backing off on the volume with the Spicas is the only solution; they simply do not have the same dynamic capabilities as the Vandersteens.
At the top, the Spicas are subjectively brighter, almost analytical especially with the solid-state Aragon and Hafler amplifiers. The Aragon was a little more restrained in the low treble with the Angelus, the Hafler more lively but at the same time less obviously crisp higher up. The Sonic Frontiers SFS-80, a tube amplifier, turned down the treble heat but at some sacrifice in overall detail.
Later, when we measured the Spicas, I was surprised to find that they are actually very smooth at the top end on the listening axis. They would appear to sound brighter than the Vandersteens largely because of their leaner balance, perhaps combined with their more tipped-up on-axis response (the listening axis of the sofa, because of its sloped baffle, is actually significantly below the tweeter axis).
In contrast to the Spicas, however, there did appear to be a certain reticence about the Vandersteens. They never offended, they went deep into the bass, were notably uncolored in the midrange, and produced a fine, convincing soundstage, but listening to the Spicas told me that the 2Ces did lack a certain spark. The Spicas may go a bit too far in the other direction but they have a certain fire which made the Vandersteens appear a bit veiled and restrained in comparison. The sound of the Spicas is more immediate and open, with sharper image outlines, but also has a tendency to be more outgoing . The Vandersteens did not lack for detail, depth, or image specificity, but were a bit less hyper about everything, not as immediately grabbing. And they clearly had that stronger, deeper, less wimp-out-prone bass response. The Spicas have the more focused soundstage, yet careful listening revealed that nothing is really missing with the Vandersteens, it was just more subtly rendered. I believe that at least some of the immediacy of the Spicas' soundstage is due to their lean bass and midbass. This will tend to open up the sonic fabric, especially in rooms prone to bass problems in the region where the Vandersteen is clearly capable of more output. Such rooms also tend to be smaller, which will help mitigate the Spicas' limited output capability.
COMPARISON #2
And what of the 2Ce's big brother, the Vandersteen 3? After
JA finished his review for the March 1993 issue, I moved them
into my listening room for some head-to-head comparisons with the
2Ces.
The 3s are larger, but do not look very different (the only obvious functional change is the 3's use of much more convenient-to-me screw terminals in place of the 2Ce's banana jacks). Changing over to the 3s did not result in a dramatic shift in my impressions. They were clearly cut from the same cloth as the 2Ces. They appeared to have a bit more overall bloom and a little more ease and extension in the bass though arguably with a bit less midbass tautness and more warmth.
This slightly reduced my ability to focus on inner details with the 3s - the a cappella voices on `The Fairfield Four' (Warner Bros. 26945-2) or the backup singers supporting Mary Black on `Bright Blue Rose,' the best sounding cut from her `Babes in the Wood' (D2 77528), for example even while resulting in a somewhat larger, more expansive soundstage. The image focus of the 3s was good but not striking, though depth was very effective. Yet the overall soundstage in both depth and lateral placement specificity was no better than that from the 2Ces. It was, arguably, perhaps even not quite as precise.
First impressions can be deceptive, but specific examples might serve to better pin down my relative impressions of these two loudspeakers. The Hafler 9500 amplifier was used in these auditions. With `The Fairfield Four', in addition to the slight reduction in the clarity of inner detail noted above, I also noticed just a bit too much body in the midbass with the 3s, a quality also noted on a number of other male vocals. These two qualities are not unrelated; an increase in the midbass will nearly always reduce overall clarity. But it is also a quality most amenable to alteration by different listening rooms and slight changes in setup. While there was no time to further tweak the setup, I was able to subjectively open up the midbass by small changes in the midrange and high-frequency contour controls (slightly up for the highs, slightly down for the mids). This is not as strange as it seems; we're talking here about both overall balance and the relative level of overtones which are responsible for the subjective `speed' of the bass and midbass. With this change, the 3s still sounded slightly warmer than the 2Ces, but had a more expansive, more free breathing quality. On balance, however, the differences were not dramatic.
Listening to Albeniz's `Festival Day' in Seville from Trittico (Reference RR-52CD) as sampled here from Reference's HDCD Sampler (RR-S3CD) [a demonstration quality cut if ever there was one] I noted similar differences. It was not an easy call! The greater expansiveness and ease of the 3s were evident, and there was no question that the big bass drum on this piece was more profound over the bigger, more expensive Vandersteens. The 2Ces remained very impressive, however, perhaps even more "alive" overall than the 3s, if less full-bodied. The percussion [particularly a gong which adds significantly to the drama of this work] exploded out of the 2Ces with more clarity, if with a bit more obvious effort, than from the 3s. Not an easy call.
Listening to `Flamenco', the 3s proved superior at reproducing the subtle low frequency room rumble generated by the footstomps, while the 2Ces definitely excelled at relating the high-frequency reverberation reflecting off the back wall of the recording site.
So it went, recording after recording. Ultimately I preferred the 3s for their greater effortlessness and bottom-end weight, but not by much. And in some ways the 2Ce boogied in a way that the 3 did not, the smaller loudspeaker's punchier, tighter midbass moving rock selections along at a more rhythmic clip. If nothing else, the comparison convinced me of one thing: that the 2Ce has been developed to the point where significant further effort and expense in an essentially similar design will buy added refinement but not a dramatically improved sound. In short, the High End has not managed to repeal the law of diminishing returns. I would certainly advise anyone shopping for the 3s to also listen to the 2Ces, and possibly consider the option of Vandersteen's own subwoofer (which was not evaluated in this comparison) to extend the 2Ce 's bottom end, if you feel the need. A pair of 2Ces plus a single Vandersteen subwoofer will cost just a be more than a pair of 3s.
MEASUREMENTS
The Vandersteen 2Ce's impedance curve in fig. 1 indicates a
load which should be easy to drive. The magnitude of the
impedance never drops below 4 ohms. Though the 2Ce is said to
function as a sealed box, the low frequency impedance is
reminiscent of the double peak response typical of reflex
enclosures.
But the upper peak is heavily damped. The box tuning appears to be about 41.3Hz. the minimum between the two peaks. The magnitude of the impedance at mid and high frequencies differs only slightly with the setting of the contour controls (the upper curve shows both controls set at minimum, the center at the 12 o'clock position, and the lower with both controls set at maximum). The sensitivity of the 2Ce, with 2.83V in, was low at around 82dB at 1 meter.
The impulse response of the Vandersteen. taken on the tweeter axis, is shown in Fig.2. The pulse has good symmetry, largely due to the first-order filters employed. The slow rise in the first fraction of a millisecond is from the midrange driver; the tweeter's contribution comes in almost immediately thereafter, increasing the steepness of the response; the midrange and tweeter have excellent time coherence. The small ripple in the response visible between about 6ms and 7ms is a room reflection.
The latter is exaggerated in the step response (fig.3) because of the effective U boost. The shape of this step response also shows the good time coherency, but with a sharp initial spike indicative of at least some high-frequency emphasis.
The anechoic response of the 2Ce averaged across a 30 window on the tweeter axis is shown in fig.4. The response below 200Hz is the complex sum of the woofer and acoustic coupler outputs.
The response is virtually flat to 40Hz, with a -6dB point of about 30Hz a little worse than the specified -3dB at 29Hz, but still very good. There is some elevation in the upper bass and lower midrange which is probably responsible for the slight warmth noted in the listening tests, followed by a broad but shallow depression in the upper midrange/low treble, the latter likely contributing to the somewhat laid-back quality of the sound. A boost of 1 dB in the midrange contour and a cut of 1 or 2dB in the high-frequency contour controls should help to flatten the response though I felt no compulsion to make such a correction in my listening tests (I was not aware of the measurement results at the time). The tweeter's resonance is mild and at a high 24.7kHz.
Fig.5 breaks out the nearfield responses of the acoustic coupler, woofer, and midrange-tweeter. The coupler's response (the far left curve) is centered on 39Hz and shows some low-level roughness possibly due to cabinet resonances in its rolloff region between about 90 and 250Hz. The nominal crossover between coupler and woofer is about 60Hz; the rapid, highly damped rolloff of the woofer (the middle curve) below this is evident. The midrange takes over from the woofer at a nominal 700Hz-800Hz. There is, of course, considerable overlap in their responses. The upper end of the woofer's response begins to drop off rapidly just above crossover, but the low end of the midrange begins to roll off gradually at about 6dB/ octave. It increases to a much steeper final rate about an octave below the nominal crossover frequency.
The lateral response family of the 2Ce is shown in fig.6, normalized to the on-axis response. (That is, the on-axis response deviations are subtracted from all the curves, therefore showing onto the changes which result from a (hypothetically) flat on-axis response as we move off axis.) The rolloff is quite smooth, the response holding up very well to at least 30 off-axis. The vertical response. on the other hand, as shown in fight (again non-correlated to the on-tweeter-axis response, shown as the straight line in the center), shows a considerable deviation above and below the optimum axis - reason enough to take Vandersteen's setup instructions (particularly tilt-back) seriously.
The waterfall plot in fig.8 is very good, with a few mild resonances evident but also a notably clean and rapid decay in the bass region compared with many of the loudspeakers we have tested. Fig.9 shows the effect of the midrange and treble contour controls, the overall response again normalized to flat so we may show only the contour effects. The responses are a little erratic - again note that these are the maximum positions of the controls and the action of the high-frequency contour is closer to a shelving response which engages fairly abruptly at about 7kHz. Some "crossing over" of the effects of the controls are evident between their maximum boost and maximum cut positions, but there is little overlap in the operating regions of the midrange and high frequency controls. The maximum effect of the controls is greater than implied by their +3, -2dB markings, closer to 6dB.
Altogether, the Vandersteen 2Ce 's measurements would be more than acceptable in a much more expensive loudspeaker. That they belong to a modestly priced one indicates what is possible with refinement and competent design work.
CONCLUSIONS
The Vandersteen 2Ce is not a perfect loudspeaker. There are
loudspeakers which will go deeper in the low end, create a more
vividly alive soundstage with more precisely transparent inner
detail, play at lunatic-fringe volume levels with less sense of
strain, and present a more spacious, open sound. Many of them are
in Class A and B of our "Recommended Components," and
all are considerably more expensive than the Vandersteens. Eighty
thousand pairs of various generations of Vandersteen 2s were
clearly not sold to people with mush between their ears. The
2Ce's strength is in the fact that it does not concentrate its
compromises in any one area - it spreads those inevitable
compromises around to the point where you're not seriously
distracted by any of them. Not to put too fine a point on it, the
newest revision of the Vandersteen 2 remains, like its
predecessors, one of the best buys in high-end audio.
MANUFACTURES COMMENTS
Editor:
Thank you for Thomas J. Norton's review of our Model 2Ce loudspeakers and this opportunity to comment.
We agree that the differences between our Model 2Ce and Model 3 fall into the realm of diminishing returns. Since both speakers share the same basic design, the only way to create a large, "Oh my gosh" type of difference between the two would be to intentionally make one or the other less accurate. The Model 3 was developed in response to the incredible number of people using our model 2 series speakers with preamp/power amp combinations worth $10,000 or more. These faithful Vandersteen owners wanted to realize more of the electronics' potential while retaining the essential Vandersteen attributes. The more advanced drive-units in the Model 3, including our patented midrange, give these listeners the increased resolution and dynamics to fully complement their top-line electronics. While the Model 3 is better than the Model 2Ce even in a moderate system, the improved performance becomes much more pronounced as the overall quality of the system increases.
RICHARD VANDERSTEEN
Vandersteen Audio