Vandersteen Model II's

Discussion in 'Speakers' started by ARguy, Apr 5, 2007.

  1. ARguy

    ARguy AR Collector

    Messages:
    1,075
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I stumbled into a pair of Vandersteen Model II's and was wondering if anybody out there have a pair and would mind sharing their thoughts on them. Right now they are in my audio storage room waiting to be checked out. I've been on the Vandersteen web site and pulled some info from them but if anyone can shed some more light on the model two's I would appreciate hearing from you. Thanks!:thmbsp:
     
  2. JimJ[VT]

    JimJ[VT] Super Member

    Messages:
    3,090
    Location:
    Hillsborough, NC
    The guy I got my ARC preamp from had a pair of 2CE's that I got to hear when I bought it, he was running them off a big BAT amp.

    Listened to some Floyd, some jazz...loved them. Threw a wide soundstage, and even though he didn't have a subwoofer they dug down decently into the bottom octaves. Personally, I would run a small sub but that's a matter of taste.

    Considering what they go for on the used market, they're a steal :D Too bad my amps would pitch a fit with their impedance load and sensitivity.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  3. thedelihaus

    thedelihaus Nocturnal transmissions

    Messages:
    29,614
    Location:
    Boston Area, Massachusetts
    The Vandersteen makes it into my top 10 list on what it's merits are.

    Time aligned, wide soundstage, great bass down to 30 hz (although reviews say it's deep bass, they claim it's not "powerful", this due to the purely "relatively" smallish enclosure it's in), quality craftsmenship, warmish sound compared to another delightful speaker, the Thiels. Apartment-friendly, size-wise. bi-ampable. Very revealing.

    Negatives- folks claim the speakers can be power-hungry, and are inefficient. Occasionally the "passive" radiator, which is actually mechanical in nature, and called a sub-bass "Acoustic Coupler", can develop issues. Sometimes the woofer surround separates from the 8" woofer's plastic cone- some have said the plastic cone can develop issues too- but I cannot verify. Kittycats love to shred the cloth covering. Very revealing.

    Here's a good review on them...

    http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/914/
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  4. GordonW

    GordonW Speakerfixer Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,309
    Location:
    Marietta/Moultrie GA USA
    Original Vandersteen 2s have paper cone woofers, with foam surrounds. If they've never been refoamed, they WILL need it now. Same for the 10" 'active couplers'.

    On some Vandersteen 2 models (2B, 2C, etc), there is also a paper-cone Peerless 4" mid... that will also need to be refoamed. Original first-gen Vandersteen 2s had a dome mid, which is fine unless you blow it up. :D Shouldn't be a problem, IOW...

    So, if the Vandersteens were purchased before 1987, look to be refoaming things...

    Regards,
    Gordon.
     
  5. BobK101

    BobK101 Active Member

    Messages:
    110
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    I have Vandersteen II's, I think they may be C's. There is a C at the end of the serial Number... Anyone know if that indicates they are C's?
    I love them...They are the best speakers I own. I have them Bi-Wired to a Parasound HCA1200, 200wpc @ 8ohms, 300 @ 6 ohms. Very detailed, open, airy sounding. Personally, I wouldnt think of using a sub with them for 2 channel music.
    I opened mine up, checked all the speakers... mids may have a plastic cone... I removed the Active Couplers, as i write this, they are off to Vandersteen for rebuilding. They can go bad, make a strange noise. I think they will be about 80.00 usd each to recondition. Well worth it!
     
  6. drdetroit55

    drdetroit55 New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Genesee, Michigan
    I have to take issue with some of the "cons" mentioned. I owned a pair of 2ce's which I was relieve of by someone who thoght he needed them more than me. I replaced them with the then current 2ce Signatures (I) and I am using them still. I drive them with a Fisher X202 (1960) integrated amplifier about 18 watts RMS per channel or a Fisher 400 receiver @ 25 watts a channel. I use the 8 ohm tap on both and have no problems. The people complaining about power hungry must be used to horns because that hasn't been my experience at all. My room is 14' X 18' and open to the kitchen which is 14' X 16'. I have no problem filling the space with more volume than my wife is comfortable with. I had a pair of Klipsch Tangent 30's I bought to use with the X202. They worked reasonably well but couldn't compare to the Vandersteens. Admittedly not a fair comparison the Heresy's would be a more valid comparison. But regardless I'm just not a big fan of horns. In the 70's I had Electro-Voice SP15TRX mkII's 15" woofer with a modified T350 horn tweeter mounted coaxially. Electro-Voice sourced the tweeters and midrange horns in most Klipsch products. Never ha a lick of trouble with either of my Vandy's with solid state or vintage tubes, but I highly recommend tubes.
     
  7. darkblue94

    darkblue94 It wasn't me. Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Beaverton, Oregon
    You do realize that this thread has been dormant for ten years now, don't you?:)
     
  8. hjames

    hjames Nabbed ... Subscriber

    Messages:
    10,305
    Location:
    VA near DC
    I had a couple of JBL based horn speakers and always knew them to be very efficient and not needing a lot of power to play beautifully.

    On the other hand, I have owned 2CIs, 2CEs and 3As and all seemed happier with a good doses of powerful amps.
    I did not play them loud, but they were happiest with +200w/ch amps that had sufficient reserve for occasional peaks.

    The Vandys were nice, but are all sold now - we're currently happier with JBL L212s, Von Schweikert VR-4s, and UREI 809A monitors, the first 2 as options with a 60-85w/ch tube amp.

     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    cratz2 likes this.
  9. Audiofreak71

    Audiofreak71 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    958
    I have to agree. It's not that the Vandersteens are power hungry per se on the contrary they can be driven with low watts as long as there quality watts, however the higher the quality watts the better vandersteens will sing, I started with 100wpc and am now up to 300wpc and with each increase in wattage they sounded better.

    Audiofreak71
     
  10. drdetroit55

    drdetroit55 New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Genesee, Michigan
    So no time like the present to stoke it up again! Peace!
     
    ranch 22b likes this.
  11. darkblue94

    darkblue94 It wasn't me. Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Beaverton, Oregon
    No. There's absolutely no point in doing it. Start a new thread.
     
  12. bimasta

    bimasta Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    918
    How many of those watts do you use? Are you saying it's having all those watts in reserve that makes the difference? Thanks for the info — I have the Vandersteen 2C.
     
  13. Audiofreak71

    Audiofreak71 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    958
    Yes I'm saying that when listening at lower levels, they have the same slam detail depth imaging whatever you want to call it lol than when I had less power going to them in where listening at lower levels while still sounding good did not behave the same as with more power. I don't know what it is nor why vandersteens sound better with more clean watts but they just do. Maybe if you call Richard Vandersteen and ask him he could give you a better definition as to why, I just know it's better to my ears.

    To add to that, there not the most efficient speakers and do dip down to the 3ohm level so that may have something to do with providing more clean watts adds to them sounding better. I could be wrong but just a thought.

    Audiofreak71
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  14. RobRob

    RobRob New Member

    Messages:
    5
    When people search for info on these speakers they don't care if there was a time gap between posts. The more info in this excellent post the better.
     
  15. bimasta

    bimasta Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    918
    I never understood the "taboo" against revisiting old threads. They can be invaluable references; dictionaries and encyclopedias are always updating. If all the info is spread around in a dozen threads, it's that much harder to find. And sometimes a thread stops on an unanswered question — who cares if the answer comes a few months later? I think the "ban" on "bumping" old thread is a stupid internet meme someone started and nobody had the nerve to knock it down. But some people treat it as a holy commandment. I don't care, let them, but I won't.
     
  16. superdog

    superdog AK Member

    Messages:
    8,925
    Location:
    Southern Colo.
    I have some Vandersteen 2c (restored not recapped) auditioned with a B&K 507 and Marantz Sr6200.Their in a different vein of speakers I am used to but can say they are one of the best speakers I have owned.I find my room to be the limiting factor.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2017
  17. leftfielder

    leftfielder New Member

    Messages:
    36
    I was also interested in a set of 2s.These were on C/L for under 5 bills and knew of the surround issue and called vandersteen out in Hawthorn Cali. I was told the early model 2s had foam surrounds and by now would be shot and need replacing.The last run of 2s they changed to butyl surrounds. I spoke to Richard V.himself and the way to tell w/o removing the socks is to shine a flashlight on to the surround and if white or grayish they are foam. The story doesn't end there I kinda insulted the seller about the surrounds and he said the better question I should have asked is that I pulled off the socks and re did the surrounds w/ butyl rubber. I heard 3a SIGS in a store and sounded fantastic.. As the review said they do everything right.
     

Share This Page