Vandersteen 3A Review
For a magazine that has my utmost respect for the caliber of technical information, I have been a little dubious about a lot of the product reviews. But when I saw the unbelieveably biased review of the Vandersteen 3A Signature system in Issue 54, I had to chime in. I’m with Shane Buettner and Richard [Hardesty] that many high-end loudspeakers are more hype and price than performance, but after that, we part ways. After all, having spent a lot of time with a lot of different Vandersteens, I feel they ALSO are one of those overpriced, overhyped, underperforming speakers. I differ on a lot of points, but, although I haven’t heard the 3A Signatures, I have spent a lot of time with 3As and found them to be underwhelming, to put a nice spin on it. Unless the Signatures are DRAMATICALLY better, I can’t see how they could possibly qualify for such a “best it can be” review. The 3As sound to me to be no better than some of the better $1,000-$1,500 speakers on the market. But since I haven't heard this iteration, I’ll stick with the things I found objectionable or questionable in the review. I am most bothered by the fact that the review is mostly a regurgitation of what “Vandersteen believes” with apparently no actual verification that ANY of the hyped design and benefits actually can be measured or scientifically validated. Some of the “beliefs” that were so eagerly passed on sound highly suspect to me, especially in an industry known for its snake-oil-manship. There were at least a dozen of these references that sounded about as plausible as Dr. Amar Bose’s theories of realistic sound. In addition, Shane Buettner seemed to be spending as much time bragging about his intelligent decision to buy said speakers. A better review might have come from someone not preconvinced of how “wonderful” these speakers are. Secondly, Mr Vandersteen apparently, according to Mr. Buettner, has done the impossible. He has made three different speakers with different driver configurations and completely different enclosures and design principles sound exactly like each other. Before this review, I had no idea that was even possible. It sounds suspiciously like Bob Carver’s ability to make his amp sound like any other amp by twiddling a few controls. It makes me wonder if Mr. Buettner has ever heard a truly matched system in his life. Thirdly, he mentioned something to the effect that “naturally, the best place for a subwoofer is in a corner.” Really? He might be surprised to find out there is ample acoustical common sense to rule that out, let alone plenty of anecdotal information and the recommendation of a huge body of speaker designers and acoustical engineers. Count me as one of the people who has never heard a subwoofer sound its best in a corner. I was also surprised to find out how rational it was to buy a huge tower speaker with 26 Hz bass response and then spend $2,600 to get a few notes more. I take it that Mr. Buettner has never heard of the principle of only buying your bass once. A good 50-75 percent of the price of the towers are going to be in the bass reproduction. If the 2Wq subwoofers are so superior, why waste your money on an expensive tower with inferior quality bass when a high-end monitor would be less than half the price. Also, having heard the 3As extensively, they tend to strain at anywhere near THX approved levels and get quite brittle sounding. Could it be the magical 6 dB/octave crossovers? Why yes, yes it might be. In addition to the poorly matched center and rears, this is sufficient reason to pass on the Vandersteens as well. Mr. Buettner mentions many times that the Vandersteens outperform practically anything at any price, but didn’t seem to compare any speakers in the same room with the same electronics side-by-side, let alone mention these speakers by name. This simply adds to the suspicion that the review was heavily biased towards presenting these speakers as somehow magical and beyond the abilities of any other manufacturer. I could go on for pages about how over-the-top and propaganda-like this review was, but at one point Mr. Buettner asked what other speakers in the $6,000 price range could possibly reproduce such a wide range so well. Although I could probably name others, the one that pops to mind is the NHT VT-3 system. To my ear, it is far more accurate, throws a bigger soundstage, has more dynamic range and is FAR better matched (perfectly matched, actually) than the 3As and, I suspect, the 3A Signatures as well. If the Signatures are as much better than the 3As as the 3As are better than the 3s, I’d say they have PLENTY of competition, and Shane Buettner needs to get out a lot more and, perhaps, consider another line of work. I won't say that this is the only product review I felt to be misguided or out of touch with reality in your otherwise fantastic magazine, but it was the most eggegious I’ve read. I expect better.
John Ashman, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Former Equipment Review Editor Shane Buettner Comments:
I would first thank you for writing but your letter wasn’t one of respectful disagreement, or in the vein of spirited debate, and thus doesn’t warrant such pleasantries. It was, instead, a hostile and disrespectful missive that more or less called for my job. When someone gets this out of hand over disagreement with a subjective product review it makes me wonder what his/her motives really are, especially when the letter in question disguises (and not cleverly either) a pitch for another product in the letter. I think at best that Mr. Ashman is trying to get some free publicity for a product he owns, to score points with his buddies on Internet chat rooms, or at worst is a shill for that manufacturer (or sells that manufacturer’s products for a living). Nevertheless, since his letter so misconstrued what I actually wrote in my article, I feel I must address the issues presented. First, he calls my review biased in spite of the fact that I stated up front and center that I owned the speakers that were the subject of the review. Nevertheless, I thought that sharing the reasons I bought Vandersteen speakers with readers would be useful. Buying Vandersteens was not a decision that I reached overnight, nor was that decision made for lack of listening to many other fine high-end products. Those that read WSR know that over the last year (and some change) I have lived with speakers from Definitive Technology and Aerial Acoustics. Before that I owned two NHT speaker systems. In addition to that, I’ve listened to countless other systems at trade shows, dealer showrooms, and the homes of friends and acquaintances. I did not intend to review the speakers when I bought them, but when circumstances allowed me to do so, I thought readers would be interested in why I purchased Vandersteens with my own money instead of the countless other speakers out there I have listened to and could have bought instead. I would have considered it disingenuous to not let readers know that I did own the system that was the subject of review. People like Mr. Ashman should know that my review of the Vandersteens was definitely not the first time they’ve read a review of a product owned by the reviewer prior to writing the review—it just might be the first time the reviewer was honest and up front about it. Mr. Ashman then shows an astounding lack of ability to read and think critically. His assertion that Vandersteen speakers are not among the highest values in audio and that their performance cannot be shown as measurably accurate are both false and in ignorance of what was actually written in the review he criticized. I think I showed amply that Vandersteen’s speakers are a tremendous “bang for the buck” product due to many factors, not the least of which are the disproportionate amount of money and technology going into the drivers and crossovers instead of pretty cabinets. He also must have missed that I said that the midrange and tweeter of the $3,500 3A Signature are the same ones used in Vandersteen’s flagship Model 5 speaker, which retails for over $11,000. Vandersteen has earned a reputation for offering superbly high performance/value for nearly three decades now. Mr. Ashman’s opinion that Vandersteens are not a good value is not only in the minority, he’s the first person I’ve ever heard suggest that Vandersteens aren’t a great buy for the money. Second, and even more ignorant is his assertion that my review didn’t validate any of Vandersteen’s theories with measurements. I don’t want to re-write my review here, I’ll just refer Mr. Ashman back to my review in which I discussed how tight Vandersteen’s MEASURED tolerances are and revealed specifically that I had seen these measurements performed in real time at Vandersteen’s facilities. I should also talk about how derisively Mr. Ashman referred to my treatment of Vandersteen’s design principles and beliefs regarding audio. As I showed in the review (and above) Vandersteen’s claims about his loudspeaker’s performance can and is substantiated by measurements. They can unequivocally be shown as accurate in the frequency domain to ridiculously tight tolerances. Impulse and step responses show that Vandersteens are accurate in the time and frequency domains as well. Conventional speakers (including NHT speakers) are not physically time aligned, and the steep slope crossover networks they use induce phase shift, which means that they are inaccurate in the time and frequency domain. But few things in audio are as slippery as determining what aspects of a speaker’s measured performance contributes to its sound quality. My friend and colleague Richard Hardesty (former WSR Audio Technical Editor) believes that good measured performance can only be regarded as the “potential for accurate reproduction.” [As is the belief of John Dunlavy, other designers and myself.—Editor-In-Chief] In my review of the Vandersteen loudspeakers, I was careful to balance the information on the design principles of the Vandersteens, and Vandersteen’s own beliefs about speaker design with what I heard subjectively from the loudspeakers. I do believe that the time and phase coherence is one of the reason the Vandersteens sound as great as they do. This is based on my listening experience with Vandersteens, Thiels and Dunlavys and how they compare to conventional speaker designs. In my review I simply state why Vandersteen makes his speakers time- and phase-accurate and report what I hear. Mr. Ashman’s claims about my regurgitating Vandersteen’s beliefs are groundless and seem to be in denial of the fact that I’ve listened to the speakers for months and report extensively on how I think they sound, not on how Richard Vandersteen told me they sound. Mr. Ashman then makes the accusation that Vandersteen couldn’t possibly build a matched speaker system with different drivers and enclosure configurations. My review stated clearly that the tweeters of the 3A Signature, VCC-5, and VSM-1 use the same metal alloy dome. The Vandersteen speakers in my system are all time- and phase-accurate, as well. Once the speakers in my system are level matched at the listening position, this system is seamlessly matched in time, phase, and amplitude. Further, it’s nearly impossible for all speakers of a multi-channel system to have matched enclosures due to their placement requirements. This should not be news to Mr. Ashman as the NHT VT-3 system he lauds also uses a horizontally configured center channel and surround speakers that are smaller (and thus different) enclosures than the VT-3 towers that are the heart of that system. Mr. Ashman acknowledges that he’s never heard the 3A Signature loudspeakers I reviewed, and I’d be willing to bet he’s not heard the VCC-5 or VSM-1 surrounds either. He is not in any position to comment on how well integrated this speaker system is; I have owned these speakers for months and I can and did comment on their performance in this regard. My perception hasn’t changed in the few months that have passed since I’ve written that review. Speaking of cabinet enclosures, one of the notable aspects of the NHT speakers is their narrow baffle design, which is designed to eliminate early reflections. One of the design benefits of the Vandersteens is eliminating that baffle almost completely, which obviously goes even further toward the goal of eliminating early reflections (and, therefore, is not “hype” but a real performance benefit that contributes to open, natural sound of the Vandersteens) than the NHT cabinets do. I don’t say this to take NHT to task. I’ve owned two NHT systems, one based on VT-2 speakers and another based on 2.5i main speakers. I liked those speakers and I believe that NHT offers a lot of performance for prices that are fair and justifiable. I’ve recommended NHTs to friends many times. But the reasons I like the Vandersteens better should be obvious after reading my review in spite of the fact that NHTs aren’t named there. Next, Mr. Ashman inexplicably attributes a quote to me that I did not make: “naturally, the best place for a subwoofer is in a corner.” I think Mr. Ashman should have given a closer read to my review, especially if he was going to write and ask me to find a new line of work. What I did say in the review is that the VSM-1 surround speakers’ performance is “optimized by powered subwoofers placed in the corners of the rear of the room.” I know that the corners are not the only place a subwoofer can be placed, but I also know that corners are the place people most often place subwoofers in practice as it’s most often the only place in the room for them to go. A lot of designers know that too. Richard Vandersteen designs his woofers for corner placement because he knows that’s where the majority of people are going to put them, and because the response of his woofers are more linear and predictable there. His woofers sound good there because they are a sealed box, low “Q” design that will not sound fat and “boomy” when placed in a corner. Perhaps the systems Mr. Ashman heard in which corner-placed woofers did not perform well used high “Q” vented woofers, which are very common in home theatre systems due mostly to their ability to play louder. Mr. Ashman also did not read closely (or understand) the passage I wrote on the improvements realized in my system by using 2Wq subwoofers with my 3A Signature loudspeakers. He doesn’t think it “rational” to buy a subwoofer to use with a loudspeaker that has bass response below 30 Hz just to get a “few notes more” from the low end of my system. I don’t either—getting those last few cycles is far from being the only reason I added the 2Wq woofers to my system to augment the 3A Signatures. I explained this in my review too (at this point in Mr. Ashman’s letter I began to wonder if he was actually discussing my review or had confused it with something else he read). While I didn’t have the space for a lengthy dissertation on the matter, I did clearly describe how the use of the 2Wq subwoofers with the 3A Signatures (along with passive high pass filters) improved every aspect of the bass and midrange performance of my system—in addition to adding the lowest cycles, all the bass that was there before simply sounds that much cleaner and better defined. Also, removing the bulk of the burden of reproducing the most taxing low frequency signals from my main power amplifier improves its performance demonstrably in all frequency bands, and especially with respect to dynamic authority. This effectively bi-amplifies my system and leaves me in a situation in which I don’t have to sacrifice any other aspects of a main amplifer’s performance to get the clean, powerful bass that I have now. A final point for me to make is regarding Mr. Ashman’s own biases toward home theatre loudspeaker systems that sacrifice (in my opinion) other aspects of performance in pursuit of almighty SPL. Sometimes I make statements in which I give my readers the benefit of the doubt in their ability to understand what I mean. In Mr. Ashman’s case my confidence in the intelligence of my audience was apparently not justified. He correctly notes that Vandersteens will not play as loud as other designs (like the NHTs) that use steep slope crossover filters. In my review, it’s pretty clear that I believe that the Vandersteen’s time and phase accurate performance delivers attributes that I appreciate more than the ability to play louder than life. I state in the review that my system “will not reproduce explosions louder than they’d be in real life, as some home theatre systems do, but it plays as loud as I can stand to listen...” Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough for Mr. Ashman, but my Vandersteens don’t play as loud as the NHTs, but neither will the steep slope crossovers of the NHTs allow them to pass anything resembling a proper square wave. That being said, I consistently play movies at around 2-4 dB below THX reference level and I hear no hints of strain or congestion, whatsoever. Reference level in a reasonably sized room is just too loud for me, and that’s one of the reasons I don’t make my purchasing decisions based on that criteria. Mr. Ashman does, and more power to him. But that doesn’t mean he should criticize my subjective review of these loudspeakers or should challenge my subjective opinion that they are “the best it can be for ME,” which is all I ever meant to say.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com