Vandersteen vs Altec

[tomlinmgt]

I've got a line on a pair of 3a Sigs and am very tempted to try them in spite of my deep appreciation for high sensitivity designs like my Nineteens. I owned 2ci's long ago but understand the 3a Sig is going to be a very different sounding speaker, so I mention that only to say I do have exposure to the brand. I also auditioned a set of 2ce Sigs some years ago and although they lifted the veil (to some degree) that I felt hampered the 2ci in terms of upper extension, they still fell far short of my Nineteens when tasked to do some of the things that are important to me (tactile dynamics bottom to top, instant transients, lively yet refined presentation, large scale to sound stage, effortless quality to reproduction at higher SPL's).

Just as the Nineteens fall in the "end game" category for many, seems the 3a Sigs have earned that distinction, as well. And that being the case, if I see an opportunity to sample a speaker of said stature for south of $2k and it's of appropriate size and design to (potentially) offer a commanding presentation in my 19'x26' dedicated listening space, I'm inclined to give it try. Additionally, I've been curious to spend time with a modern design that's celebrated for its warm-side-of-neutral-without-compromising-detail character and hear how it compares to the legendary Altec voicing. I thought I'd like to try Harbeths for this sort of comparison, but from what I've read it sounds to me like the big Vandersteens might be a suitable and much more affordable substitute to a large Harbeth model. Maybe I'm totally off target...perhaps someone who has heard both can comment.

I have a Threshold S/300 to juice the 3a Sigs, so provided the Pass voicing plays well with the speakers, supplying appropriate power and current shouldn't be an issue. I also have a White Oak Phase Linear 700B putting out nearly 500wpc@8 if I feel the need to try them with more than the 300wpc I'll get from the Threshold. In addition, I have a Pass Aleph 5 kit amp I could perhaps put into service in a biamp scenario with the Threshold, WOPL, or even a Soundcraftsmen MA5002 if I decide to explore all parameters I have to offer. Oh, and also a pair of Tube Audio Design TAD-60's and a Muzishare x7 are on the shelf if decide to try tube amplification.

Preamps are either a highly modified Acurus RL-11 or Tube Audio Design TAD-150 Signature and DAC is a Denafrips Pontus II.

Support for the first octave comes from a pair of JBL 4648 bass bins that have been modified to lower port tuning (I'm getting flat in room response down to just under 25 Hz) which, with a Soundcraftsmen MA5002, deliver clean powerful and very well mannered output at SPL's well in excess of 100db. With this capability, I'm inclined to stomp on the gas from time to time which is not an issue for designs that use large mid-bass driver and horn/waveguide loaded compression driver like the Nineteens (or my Klipsch Epic CF-4's). This is the area where I wonder if I'll find the trade off. Folks say the 3a Sigs can play loudly, but that means different things to different people. Being a drummer and semi-pro musician who's accustomed to the physical sensation of being in the same room with real instruments (both amplified and not), I think my metric for "realistic" might be a bit more demanding than most, and have certainly determined that one can't approach "real" without significant SPL. It's not my typical listening scenario, but when I want to go there, I obviously want a speaker that can deliver without sounding strained...and in this regard I've not found many cone driver equipped designs that compare...save for something like a line source.

Any comments on the 3a Sigs and my concerns from those who have experienced them would be much appreciated.

-Michael

 

[Rudy]

If you find a set, hopefully the stands will come with them. I have some of the 2CEs here and noticed that when I finally got the correct stands, the bass tightened up a bit and wasn't so wooly. And they do like clean power, so hopefully the S/300 has the cojones to give them proper juice. They will sound flat and uninspiring if there isn't some good clean power behind them. I enjoyed mine while they were in my system but I've moved on to my end game. My set was cheap, just $300, as the seller was packing up to move and needed them gone immediately (looked like a forced foreclosure move).

 

[tomlinmgt]

If you find a set, hopefully the stands will come with them. I have some of the 2CEs here and noticed that when I finally got the correct stands, the bass tightened up a bit and wasn't so wooly. And they do like clean power, so hopefully the S/300 has the cojones to give them proper juice. They will sound flat and uninspiring if there isn't some good clean power behind them. I enjoyed mine while they were in my system but I've moved on to my end game. My set was cheap, just $300, as the seller was packing up to move and needed them gone immediately (looked like a forced foreclosure move).

The 3a Sigs I'm looking at have the Sound Anchor stands (which I think I read come standard with the 3a Sig).

The s/300 has cojones...no concern there. Case in point...I have Infinity QLS-1'S that are around 82-83db sensitivity and will dip below 2 ohms. I was so impressed the first time I heard the Threshold with them that I immediately sought out a second s/300 so I could biamp. I found a second amp, biamped the big Infinities and the results were bittersweet in that I heard virtually no change in sonic presentation over using a single...a testament to how ballsy that amp is. An Emotiva XPA-2, by contrast, was sent into protect mode twice with SPL's that barely got into the low 90's.

 

[mhardy6647]

FWIW (admittedly, not much!), the Vandersteens I've heard were all too strident for my taste. YMMV, of course!

 

[tomlinmgt]

FWIW (admittedly, not much!), the Vandersteens I've heard were all too strident for my taste. YMMV, of course

Hmmm. That's interesting. What models have you heard? When folks are being critical of the brand, the most common issue I see from them is that Vandersteens tend to be too warm, recessed or relaxed on top...which for some others is a positive characteristic. I know the 2ci's I had were this way...to the point of sounding like the high frequency level control was turned all the way down when it was set at the neutral position. The only time I've heard Vandersteens sound strident was when I first got the 2ci's and set them up in a room with a highly reflective acoustic profile. It was this scenario that set me down the road to understanding small room acoustics and the methods employed to optimize a room's acoustic profile for the playback of recorded music. After I got that room's acoustic issues under control, the Vandersteens became much, much easier on the ears...perhaps to a fault I learned once the Nineteens showed up.

 

[Rudy]

Mine were never harsh on the top. In fact, it takes a bit of work to make sure they don't sound too muted or wooly. Having the proper stands helped clean up the bass--it was subtle, but got rid of a little of the mud and made it balance out the way it should.

 

[Sonance'84]

I had a pair of 3A Sig's f or a couple years, used with a Modwright 9.0 Anniversary preamp and Pass X150 amp...the combo was killer. They didn't come with the stands, but I contacted Sound Anchors and had a new pair made, wasn't cheap though. I had a fairly bright and large room...travertine floors, cathedral ceiling, barely any acoustic treatment. They sounded really good in that room, so good they delegated my beloved M&K SV-200's to the bedroom.

Bi-wiring is a MUST with Vandersteens. Your Threshold S/300 will be more than enough for them to open up and sound their best. My X150 would get mine to insane listening levels with zero distortion. I put them through their paces many times with music like Tool, Shpongle, Kraftwerk, Snarky Puppy and they wouldn't bat an eye. Drums did sound really good with the 3A's. I honestly don't remember how well they were at low-level listening, but I think I preferred them with a bit of juice going to them.

One cool thing about the Vandersteens is that you can have them upgraded by the factory with any changes they've made to that model since.

On a side note, selling my X150 has been the single biggest regret of my audio journey. Keep that S/300 as long as you can!

 

[Rudy]

On a side note, selling my X150 has been the single biggest regret of my audio journey. Keep that S/300 as long as you can!

Wise words! I really need to purge most of my belongings but that same thought keeps me hanging onto the Nak PA-7 (original version, which Nelson Pass designed). I have a feeling I would never find another. Plus, I need it as a backup amp if my main amp ever fails.

This is your place to keep those Thresholds running properly, and get them refreshed:

Vintageamprepair

Jon does the work in his off-hours and specializes in the Threshold amps (and also the Nakamichi amps that Pass designed).

 

[Thermionics]

Not really an apples-to-apples comparison, but I previously had a set of Vandersteen 2C in my home theater system and ended up replacing them with a pair of Altec 604Es. There's a sense of immediacy and effortlessness with the Altecs that the Vandersteen just couldn't match.

(Amp / preamp driving the speakers was Fisher 660A 7591 PP amp + Anthem AVM30 - so probably a bit less wattage than the Vandersteens were expecting, although I also tried it with a 60WPC PP solid state amplifier and the Vandersteens sounded pretty much the same)

 

[Rudy]

Vandys do need a clean, powerful amp to make them come to life. The 2C (any iteration) has four drivers that need power--three facing forward, and a fourth bass driver in the rear near the floor. I did try at 70w/ch with a tube amp and it was OK, but not great--the bass suffered at higher volumes. The Nak PA7 had 200 watts per side, which seemed to be a sweet spot.

They are also murky in the mid-bass unless they are on their dedicated stands. Mine were spiked down to the concrete slab, so that really solidified things. They can be fussy about placement also--they come to life when they are away from the walls.

And as someone else mentions, they prefer to be bi-wired. I don't know why that is--electrically I don't believe in bi-wiring, yet they did sound better when connected that way, so... 🤷‍♂️

 

[JohnVF]

This explanation from Vandersteen used to be on their site but now I don't see it..anyway, the first post has their logic. I had read that when I noticed that bi-wiring my Dahlquist DQ-30s made an audible improvement. Though its not the case for all speakers...on my Harbeths it makes no difference at all, though replacing the copper straps between the binding posts made a very slight improvement/change for whatever reason.

Bi-wiring advice from Vandersteen

FYI After a move, I was going through stuff to toss and I found this article on bi-wiring from the Vandersteen site. I tried it on my speakers and I...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

FWIW I would personally prefer Vandersteen 3A with high power behind them over Altecs but to each their own (I know which way the wind blows around here ). A good high power amp is a must, though. I've heard them sound very very good (also on their stands).

 

[Rudy]

The one disturbing issue I had with the 2CE was that the only connection to the speaker was a banana jack. I had to find special banana plugs that had adjustable tension so they made for a very snug fit, and I cleaned out those jacks as best I could. The speakers came with a pair of "jumper" banana plugs so only one set of wire could be used to connect them. They really should have used 5-way binding posts. Maybe the newer models do?

Upstream components make a big difference also. Someone powering these through a receiver and big box store CD player is never going to get these to sound any good. Top notch sources, clean and powerful amplification stack, proper stands, and suitable positioning are critical with these.

When I bought them, the owners were packing up the house to move (I think it was a foreclosure and/or eviction, as they need to move out within the week and needed the speakers gone). To demo it, they had a receiver and an MP3 player hooked up. Resting on a wood floor, randomly placed in the room (because, well...moving), they did not sound all that good--very "dark" for lack of a better term. But the tweeters did not sound dead, so I took the chance. Once in place and dialed in, they were much better.

though replacing the copper straps between the binding posts made a very slight improvement/change for whatever reason.

On my current speakers, they came from the factory with flat metal plates to connect the two terminals. I bought a set of proper jumpers. But, with the woofer section having its own amplifier built in, I run the jumpers from the main part of the speaker (where the speaker leads are attached) to the woofer section since they draw so little power. I could easily swap to bi-wiring given the type of cable I use, but I see no need for it, and honestly heard no difference when I first got them home and ran them bi-wired (fresh off the Vandys).

 

[Sonance'84]

The one disturbing issue I had with the 2CE was that the only connection to the speaker was a banana jack. I had to find special banana plugs that had adjustable tension so they made for a very snug fit, and I cleaned out those jacks as best I could. The speakers came with a pair of "jumper" banana plugs so only one set of wire could be used to connect them. They really should have used 5-way binding posts. Maybe the newer models do?

The 3A Sig's have heavy duty spade terminals, but a proper set of 5-ways would be even better.

 

[marantzfan]

Funny thing this thread. I started out on my HiFi journey back in High School when I saved up to buy a pair of Vandersteen 2CE. Later I owned a pair of 3A's for a period.

Fast forward about 15 years after owning the 3A's and I am now an Altec owner with no desire to go back.

Vandersteen's are very nice speakers but they cannot match the dynamics, effortlessness and midrange magic of Altec.

 

[JohnVF]

The one disturbing issue I had with the 2CE was that the only connection to the speaker was a banana jack. I had to find special banana plugs that had adjustable tension so they made for a very snug fit, and I cleaned out those jacks as best I could. The speakers came with a pair of "jumper" banana plugs so only one set of wire could be used to connect them. They really should have used 5-way binding posts. Maybe the newer models do?

Upstream components make a big difference also. Someone powering these through a receiver and big box store CD player is never going to get these to sound any good. Top notch sources, clean and powerful amplification stack, proper stands, and suitable positioning are critical with these.

When I bought them, the owners were packing up the house to move (I think it was a foreclosure and/or eviction, as they need to move out within the week and needed the speakers gone). To demo it, they had a receiver and an MP3 player hooked up. Resting on a wood floor, randomly placed in the room (because, well...moving), they did not sound all that good--very "dark" for lack of a better term. But the tweeters did not sound dead, so I took the chance. Once in place and dialed in, they were much better.


On my current speakers, they came from the factory with flat metal plates to connect the two terminals. I bought a set of proper jumpers. But, with the woofer section having its own amplifier built in, I run the jumpers from the main part of the speaker (where the speaker leads are attached) to the woofer section since they draw so little power. I could easily swap to bi-wiring given the type of cable I use, but I see no need for it, and honestly heard no difference when I first got them home and ran them bi-wired (fresh off the Vandys).

Or you could do something insane like I'm doing, and run bi-wire cable into single binding posts, doubled up because....um... well that wire was there from the previous speakers, looks cool (flat copper ribbon nordost cable), and actually sounds great despite there being absolutely no reason to have two runs of wire from one binding post to one binding post.

The scenario was... I briefly had my Harbeths in my sunroom and found some Nordost cable for super-cheap, so I biwired them. Then I got Dynaudios for that room that you can't biwire and I didn't feel like switching the cables so I tried them doubled up. And...it worked great and the ribbon-wire looks super cool. I'm shallow like that.

 

[Sonance'84]

I found a pair of 604-C in horizontal style furniture cabs years ago. They sat very low to the ground and sounded horrendous with their original crossovers. Even with tubes going to them, it was a warn and nasally sound that had no dynamics.

I understood they would need proper cabs and crossovers to sound their best, so I didn't hold anything against them, but I had no desire to go down that path at that time. I traded them to a local guy who already had some Barzilay cabs he wanted put them in, and I got a tube amp, dac and stereo rack out of it.

To this day, I still haven't had the opportunity to listen to a properly setup pair of 604's.

 

[Sonance'84]

Or you could do something insane like I'm doing, and run bi-wire cable into single binding posts, doubled up because....um... well that wire was there from the previous speakers, looks cool (flat copper ribbon nordost cable), and actually sounds great despite there being absolutely no reason to have two runs of wire from one binding post to one binding post.

The scenario was... I briefly had my Harbeths in my sunroom and found some Nordost cable for super-cheap, so I biwired them. Then I got Dynaudios for that room that you can't biwire and I didn't feel like switching the cables so I tried them doubled up. And...it worked great and the ribbon-wire looks super cool. I'm shallow like that.

Haha, I've wondered about doing that before, as I use bi-wires, but occasionally demo speakers with single posts. Well, now I know!

 

[JohnVF]

I found a pair of 604-C in horizontal style furniture cabs years ago. They sat very low to the ground and sounded horrendous with their original crossovers. Even with tubes going to them, it was a warn and nasally sound that had no dynamics.

I understood they would need proper cabs and crossovers to sound their best, so I didn't hold anything against them, but I had no desire to go down that path at that time. I traded them to a local guy who already had some Barzilay cabs he wanted put them in, and I got a tube amp, dac and stereo rack out of it.

To this day, I still haven't had the opportunity to listen to a properly setup pair of 604's.

I'm not a horn/SET guy but I have heard 604s sound excellent. I've also heard various Altecs sound exactly like you described...honky, nasally, grating. Like most things, generalizations seem to fail in describing the experience. I've never wanted to ditch what I have and switch over to them but I've heard them in a way that made me understand why some do.

 

[asilker]

Or you could do something insane like I'm doing, and run bi-wire cable into single binding posts, doubled up because....um... well that wire was there from the previous speakers, looks cool (flat copper ribbon nordost cable), and actually sounds great despite there being absolutely no reason to have two runs of wire from one binding post to one binding post.

The scenario was... I briefly had my Harbeths in my sunroom and found some Nordost cable for super-cheap, so I biwired them. Then I got Dynaudios for that room that you can't biwire and I didn't feel like switching the cables so I tried them doubled up. And...it worked great and the ribbon-wire looks super cool. I'm shallow like that.

John, have you tried -- hear me out ok -- have you tried three sets of cables to the same binding post?

Maybe some Duelund WE cloth cabling. Or some Kimber. I have some cat5 in the garage. You get my drift. Cover some bases my man.

 

[JohnVF]

John, have you tried -- hear me out ok -- have you tried three sets of cables to the same binding post?

Maybe some Duelund WE cloth cabling. Or some Kimber. I have some cat5 in the garage. You get my drift. Cover some bases my man.

I have two different shotgun bi-wire cable sets so I really could double up on the doubling up.

At some point I went back and compared just a normal single wire setup and for whatever reason the Nordost bi-wire cables were still superior... though it may just be that there's effectively a thicker gauge/more wire. I've really cut back on trying to overthink this stuff so I ...don't think about it much, other than occasionally noticing the ribbon cables and thinking they look neat. They're banana-plug so one cable is plugged in and the other is clamped in on the 5-way posts.

As for the original bi-wire discussion, on my big Dahquist DQ-30s, for whatever reason it cleaned up the midrange a bit when I biwired. And I recall it being pretty noticeable and also recall me having no explanation for why, and just kind of going with it. As I said when I later did the comparison on my Harbeths, I didn't hear any difference at all.