Not Thrilled with Vandersteen 2CE Sigs - where is the first place to work on?


Trying to build up the system this year, bought some Vandy 2CE Sigs.  Have the anchors, following instructions for placement, built bass traps and a couple of acoustic panels in my medium-sized but odd-shaped basement listening area - still not thrilled.  Using laptop with Tidal and Dragonfly Red - and some stuff sounds GREAT (Steely Dan, SRV, Beck, Dire Straits, Wilco) - but disappointed in a lot of other stuff.  Some objective opinions on where my issues might lie?  Expectations too high? Hearing the truth of production variations?  Running an NAD C272 at 150WPC and an original 1979 APT Holman Pre Amp.  Not MAC, Bryston, etc - but was expecting more.  Thoughts? Rebuild/recap the APT?  Amp upgrade?  Where might the low-hanging fruit be?
gjinwi

Teo_audio

If you think a thin layer of double knit polyester fabric one can see through to protect the drivers is a problem then we are in big trouble. Our favorite recordings include protective screens on microphones, pop screens/mic filters for vocals and guitar amps etc. at the source. My experience is that removing the grille assembly does improve the sound of some speakers especially if they are the type where the supporting structure is not integrated with the speaker cabinet but just tacked onto the front. You don’t want to listen to a pair of TREO CT’s with the grille assembly removed.  

JohnnyR 
@helomech I’m surprised to hear you say that. I’m not sure the 1ci’s are necessarily better, but I’ve found they work better in my house with small rooms than the 2.
There is something magical about the 1’s though isn’t there?

I’ve encountered quite a few who prefer the 1s to the 2s. 


I owned the 1s and the 2s, and the 1s do not have the flabbiness of the 2s. Why has not the dealer shared that Richard himself used 1s with subs instead of the 2s? At least, that is what my Vandy dealer at the time told me. 

It's pathetic when as significant a shortcoming as the negative impact of a grill cannot be admitted. Instead, irrelevant illustrations, equivocations, etc. are used to downplay it. The fact is, the grill is necessary to allow for a cheaper build, and it is ALWAYS a problem sonically. This is so whether a Magnepan or Vandersteen, both of which I have used/owned, models having permanent grills. Now, I would not own either company's products with permanent grills, as it so degrades sound quality. 

What a ridiculous argument regarding thinness of grills. As though the grills of other competitors are oh, so much worse. Perhaps computer analysis of the fabric thickness in comparison to other brands was done to vest the Vandersteen grills. This is what is called an excuse, diversion. So, the thin, see through grills of the King Sound King III ESL that I reviewed for Dagogo.com and own are of little consequence? If you can see through it, the grill is to be negligible? This is horrid advice, and I counter with; one of the fundamental reasons the 2CE was not great at resolution and definition was the permanent grill. It became obvious when switching to different speakers sans grills that it was a design problem. YMMV, as the say. I suspect some will adamantly disagree. So be it. 

Remember, the goal of some here is to defend the seemingly unimpeachable sound of Vandersteen at all costs. Just like Magnepan. Allowance must be given to dismiss and diminish all claims of serious sound quality issues. No one is allowed to give hard analysis of the shortcomings of the lower end models; they are sacrosanct. Value demands a pass be given to all potential design issues and shortcomings. 

The fact is, you select these lower models and you are assured average HiFi sound. Nice, pleasant, but nowhere near upper end sound. This is to balance some of the ridiculous, fawning enthusiasm completely out of touch with reality as regards the universe of HiFi speaker performance.