Vandersteen 2CE Signature II

[AcuDefTechGuy]

802d is probably for mostly everyone but me then
I just can't like the 802d, they don't fully trick me to believe I listen to music but they provide an artificial recording....
perhaps it's just the dealers over here that never managed to demo them properly but I never liked them at all, it's just my opinion

It would actually be very interesting to audition 802D with other amplifiers than what they do here, perhaps it's the Classe amps the dealer use around here that don't get the best out of the speakers

Happy for you that you like them so much
Which amps are you using with them?

B&W may be more challenging since their off-axis are not as smooth as some other speakers like Harman/Revel/JBL, KEF, TAD, etc.

I think the main purpose of the measurements is to give us some clues on their sound. I don't think the speakers will be guaranteed to sound great or terrible based solely on the measurements.

Perhaps with speakers like B&W, Vandersteen, Martin Logan, Magnepan, etc, getting them to sound great is a bigger challenge than some of the previously mentioned brands. But it doesn't mean they won't sound great. You may need to the right setup.

That's why some people think they sound bad or mediocre, while others think they sound great. These speakers may be more dependent on the room, placement, and setup than others.

My B&W, KEF, and Revel are powered by the ATI AT3005 amp.

The key may be the dual Funk TSAD18 subs, which are powered by the AT3002 amp.

Having great subs help a lot with the overall SQ IMO.

 

[Nuance AH]

As a former fan of Dunlavy speakers, and a current owner of Salon 2s, I think these two graphs present an extremely interesting question. That question is, can the human brain differentiate between arrivals less than 3ms different in time? If you were to compress the x-axis on that graph it would show that the Studio 2 probably produces a more effective triangle than the 2CE does.

I never convinced myself to buy the Dunlavy SC-V, so I haven't directly compared the V to the Salon 2, my listening tests were in different rooms, and I'll be the first to admit that making audition comparisons, what, seven years apart, is lunacy. I spent well over eight hours listening to the SC-V (mostly because I couldn't really afford them at the time, so the decision process was quite lengthy), and I still use the same CDs for speaker auditioning. Lunacy aside...

I can say without any doubt in my mind that there's *nothing* an SC-V could do, realism-wise, that a Salon 2 can't. IMHO the SC-V was - is - a remarkable speaker and a remarkable accomplishment, but I'm at a loss to attribute any advantage to the time-coherent nature of the design. If John had stayed in business and lived I sincerely wonder what he could have accomplished with modern drivers like those from Seas, but time incoherent designs can produce absolutely enveloping imaging, and highs so realistic (like when reproducing cymbals) that I'm not sure I could choose the real thing blind-folded.

So if it isn't imaging and sounding "live", what are these supposed advantages that only time coherent designs can provide?

(I should also mention that I have heard the 2CE and thought it was very good, especially for the price. I'm just not convinced it is good due to time coherence.)

This is a great post.

I think what haraldo failed to emphasize is the reason Dunlavy, Vandersteen, Thiel, etc disputed the measurement techniques of Stereophile is because that measurement style is "inaccurate" for that type of design (first order crossover, sloped baffle for time and phase accuracy), or so they say. I don't know if it's the first order crossover or the time and phase part, but all of those manufacturers confidently claim that 1.5 meters is too close and doesn't allow the drivers to sum properly. Whether that is true or not I honestly can't say, but it would make sense based on the thousands of owner and listener comments.

In the end you really need to listen for yourself to decide if you can hear the claimed FR deviations from the Stereophile measurements or the benefits of time and phase accuracy. I'd bet many people couldn't hear either (assuming the FR deviations are legit), as most people haven't been trained or trained themselves to do so.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The problem is that what you think sounds great at a point in time can change as the way you perceive sound changes over time.

Relativity. That's why we have to compare speakers. We might not know what's great until we have heard the "great ones".

Sure, as we age, our auditory acuity may slip a few kHz.

But, like a live unamplified symphony, concerto, or concert, what we like now will be the same 30 years from now.

What changes is how we weigh the "quality". I mean some people think Bose sound just as good as Revel Salon2. They obviously don't weigh SQ like we do. They just don't care.

If that makes sense.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

all of those manufacturers confidently claim that 1.5 meters is too close and doesn't allow the drivers to sum properly.

Why can't somebody just measure these speakers from 5 meters out?

Then there would be no more excuses.

Hey, B&W uses a 1st order XO. Maybe I can say their off-axis are measured too closely. They need to be measured from 5 meters out.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Why can't somebody just measure these speakers from 5 meters out?

Anybody with an anechoic chamber that big can...

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Anybody with an anechoic chamber that big can...

What about outdoors ?

Or in a really large room or building ?

 

[haraldo]

This is a great post.

I think what haraldo failed to emphasize is the reason Dunlavy, Vandersteen, Thiel, etc disputed the measurement techniques of Stereophile is because that measurement style is "inaccurate" for that type of design (first order crossover, sloped baffle for time and phase accuracy), or so they say. I don't know if it's the first order crossover or the time and phase part, but all of those manufacturers confidently claim that 1.5 meters is too close and doesn't allow the drivers to sum properly. Whether that is true or not I honestly can't say, but it would make sense based on the thousands of owner and listener comments.

In the end you really need to listen for yourself to decide if you can hear the claimed FR deviations from the Stereophile measurements or the benefits of time and phase accuracy. I'd bet many people couldn't hear either (assuming the FR deviations are legit), as most people haven't been trained or trained themselves to do so.

The geometrical distance relative between drivers change quite a lot if you look at these big arrays, so when you're at only 50" the relative distance is not correct, so it's quite logical that measurements at 50" and 10' will be significantly different.

I don't see why it should make a difference to measurement whether the speaker uses 1st or 4th order x-over, the geometrical properties should be the same