Dahlquist DQ-10..or Vandersteens 2B

[WhiteSE]

I have been reading about the wonders the DQ-10 does for imaging...as well as the Vandy's///

I wonder about them...with MKIII's,.Hmmm?

[the fatboy]

Since I am a happy DQ-10 owner, with a good friend who has a pair of 2c's I have heard the both extensively. My impressions are that the Dahlquists are much better at imaging but the Vandies have much more bottom. The DQ-10 has a much brighter sound and really benefits from a tube preamp. The Vandies are a warm sounding speaker on its own so a SS pre works very well. The DQ-10 is also a power hog and you need to bring 200 watts to the plate to get the best out of them or 75 watts of tube power. The Vandies don't need the huge power-that said however when he biamped them with a pair of 125 wpc amps the improvement was dramatic.

If I was in the market for Vandies I would start loooking at the 2ce's since the foam surrounds were done away with starting with that model.

If I was in the market for DQ-10's I would make sure they are a mirror imaged pair, these are later in the manufacturing timeline and have much better caps in the xover.

Now I am waiting for the arrival of a new Audcom 120 pre to replace my aging Dynaco PAS3 sometime next week.(I'll have up for sale here then) The Dahlquists have shown every improvement I have made in the system so I am now waiting impatiently.

I also have a copy of the DQ-10 xover schematic I will gladly pass on to any interested parties.

That said if I had the room I would happily put a pair of 2c's on my sx1250 for a second system but alas no room so this classic reciever just sits on the shelf,but I just can't bear to part with this silver beast.

John

[Charles Baird]

Dear Chester, Hello, I just came onto a pair of the DQ-10's, and I surely would appreciate (please, the secret magic word,) the crossover schematic and what not, you may have, and any tips, big time. Anyway, if you have time, thanks. I think I have enough power for these things, I will put 'em through a Rotel 1603, or a Rotel RB-5000, or a Pioneer Spec 1/4 combo, and I would appreciate your comments on that, as well. I really don't know anything about 'em, except, finally I have a pair!! It sure seems folks either love or hate the things. I have an SX-1250, as well, that EchoWars went through, and it is the magnificant beast of life. He is a Champ! Thanks, Charley Baird.

[dorokusai]

I have a pair of DQ10's as well. The upgraded caps are year dependent, not mirror image dependent. I'll have to scrounge up my notes as to the timeframe, but mine are non-mirror, and have the upgraded caps(Factory).

They have a really unique sound, and I havn't met anyone that disliked them sonically. I have no problems with the bottom end, it's just right.

If Fatboy doesn't have the schematic, I do....I think, well anyways let me know.

Both speakers are excellent.

[RuSsMaN]

Yeah, what the fatboy said.

They are amp eaters, for sure. Give them as much high current, high headroom, low-impedance stable power as you can. I plan on firing up my mirror-imaged pair this week, just put the Advent woofs back in.

Cheers,
Russ

[Billfort]

I used DQ-10's for years and loved them. As mentioned by fatboy, a tube pre is a good idea if using some SS arc welder amp but I much preferred all tubes with a 75wpc CJ amp. Sure, bass was a little light & loose without the sand amp but the tubes really did something special for the midrange and imaging.

Best I ever heard these was biamped with the Dahlquist LP1 crossover - tubes on the 10's with only a cap for 6db hi-pass filtering and sand on the Dahlquist woofers (SW1's ?) after an active 18db low pass filter - killer system.

[orthophonic]

i have owned the DQ 10s for over 25 years and still love them. I bought Vandersteens
one time thinking that they might be better, but got rid of them a month later. I also
own original Quad ESLs and Altec Carmels and as much as I like them, the DQ 10s are
the ones that get listened to daily.
That said, the other posters are right, they need lots of power and prefer tubes. I
also prefer mine biamped with a subwoofer. They also are fairly critical of room
placement to get the best out of them.
The Vandersteens are nice and musical and are not fussy, but they don't have
the magic.

[Larry]

I own a pair of Vandersteen 1c and 2ce's. I've always enjoyed the sound of Dahlquist 10's but opted for the Vandersteen's instead. I have no regrets. I would however, look at the 2ce versus the the earlier 2 versions. Each step was a discernable difference. Getting rid of the foam on the 2ce might be a factor. You need to listen to the 2ce's before you make a decision. Like the Dahlquist, the Vandersteens like power. However, I drive mine with 75 watts - good low end and wonderful mids and highs. Good luck.
Larry

[the fatboy]

Originally Posted by Charles Baird

Dear Chester, Hello, I just came onto a pair of the DQ-10's, and I surely would appreciate (please, the secret magic word,) the crossover schematic and what not, you may have, and any tips, big time. Anyway, if you have time, thanks. I think I have enough power for these things, I will put 'em through a Rotel 1603, or a Rotel RB-5000, or a Pioneer Spec 1/4 combo, and I would appreciate your comments on that, as well. I really don't know anything about 'em, except, finally I have a pair!! It sure seems folks either love or hate the things. I have an SX-1250, as well, that EchoWars went through, and it is the magnificant beast of life. He is a Champ! Thanks, Charley Baird.

Thought this thread had died long ago. I started out running mine on the SX1250 but soon went to a PL 400 it really improved the bass response have added my list of various tweaks:


As for tweaks you can do without spending ANY money, here's a few.

1. REMOVE the super-tweeter and its associated crossover stuff. On the
schematic, that's parts labeled R6 and 7, C7 and 8, and L5 (and the driver,
of course). this yields a MUCH better top end with less hash in the
frequency extremes.

2. Change the phase of the tweeter. If you find the top end becomes rather
edgy after removing the parts described in #1, then try flipping the wires
on the tweeter. Whatever gives you the most listenable treble is the right
way around!

3. (okay, this costs a bit of money and requires disassembly of the
crossover and most of the speaker system). Add bi-wire capability to the
system. as you can see on the schematic (and rather obviously!), the
crossover seems to be divided between the bass/midbass and the mid/tweeter
layouts! The lines between C2 and L1 can be split, and L1 and C2 can be set
up their own + terminals. At the bottom of the schematic, the trace between
each set of drivers (line joining the junction of L4, R5 and C6 can be sent
to the - terminal of the C2 hook up, while the junction of L2 and the
midwoofer can be sent to the - terminal next to L1's + hookup.). Got it? I
hope so! I've done this to my system, and it allows me to use a pair of amps
(top and bottom, or vertical bi-amping) when I need "crazy loud" volumes,
which is rare, but still, its nice to have...

4. Restuff the woofer enclosure with "acousta-stuff" dacron acoustic stuffing,cheap and helps the bass response.

5. Mirror imaging older non-mirrored DQ-10's.You don't nee a kit to mirror image your DQ10's. Just remove the midrange and piezo tweeter from the panel,drill out the rivets,turn the panel around,and put it back together. then swap positions of the two panels,making sure to keep everything aligned properly

A link to Frank Van Alstines news letter-magazine ,the Jan 1982 has info on damping,
Frank is an opiionated old curmudgeon but is knowledgable.

http://www.avahifi.com/root/audio_basics/index.htm

I also am a firm beleiver in tall stands for these speakers 18-24 inches

best of luck with these classic marvels
any questions email me at
jgilronan52@hotmail.com
love these free email program since I don't mind giving them out on public forums,then my main address stays private
John

[Roublard Cache]

If you are thinking about running the DQ-10s with your Mac amps, you will be dissapointed in the sound. Great speakers, need IMO at least 60 wat tube or 150 watt high current SS. I have heard the Vandy 1c and am pretty impressed. Warm, images good, but bass only goes to about 45hz. Get yourself a sub and it would be a good system. Also high WAF. The system was with a NAD 320BEE and at 50 watts , the would get good and loud. Avoid the 1b, as they have a metal tweeter, but the 1c has a nice dome.
PS. YOU NEED THE VANDY STANDS! The speakers do not sound as good without them.

[GordonW]

Um, other way around. The 1B uses a fabric dome tweeter, while the 1C has the same tweeter as the 2CE Sig and the 3A.

I wouldn't poo-poo ANY of the Vandersteen models with the metal dome. It's the famous Vifa D25 series unit, modified by Vandersteen... SWEET sounding. The only even "minor blip" this tweeter has, is a minor resonance at 26KHz... NOT audible, by any degree. It's always been one of my favorite tweeters- one of the VERY FEW metal domes I actually LIKE.

I get to listen to these speakers a lot- we're Vandersteen dealers, and we've pretty much always have 1Cs and 2CE Sig's in stock. It's a rarity, to have a speaker like the Vandersteens, which I can say, will NEVER sound harsh or strident. Quite an accomplishment!

Regards,
Gordon.

[Roublard Cache]

My bad, I thought the 1b had a metal dome. I must have heard a bad setup, because to me it did not seem as smooth as teh 1c when I heard them.
Ben