|
|
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,672
Joined on 10-12-2006
|
Post #:
|
1
|
|
Post ID:
|
4214
|
|
Reply to:
|
4214
|
|
|
|
What is interesting about the design?
|
|
|
|
|
I should begin by mentioning that I actually liked Vandersteen's original 2C, within its limits, driven by a nice soft pp amp, like the CJ MV50. But to me V's designs got/get worse with every "improvement", right up to and including the last 3s I heard. For one thing, one had to get past that horrific "beryllium" (or whatever it was/is) tweeter in order to even consider the rest of the "design".
It is true, of course, that certain initially-bad-sounding speakers can be tweaked and/or "developed" to "sound good" by drawing/building on their strengths and ameliorating their faults. But I have not heard to date from the fancier Vandersteens anything that made me hanker for the 5s, reviewer prattle notwithstanding. I can say the same for any Thiels I have heard, which may put this into better perspective for you. Almost the antithesis of what I listen for, with a strong emphasis on the "parts-du-jour" and seemingly no consideration for motive, etc., generally short on lyrical expression, to my ears.
What do you want to change about your current speakers? What are you looking/listening for that you think might be realized in the Vandersteen 5s? They want LOTS of power, don't they?
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|