Revel Salon vs Vandersteen 5A


Well... Tell me what you guys think!
Vandersteen has the advantage of its time/phase coherence. Whereas the salons MAY just have phase...
Has anyone listened to both?
Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
docks
Raquel, the negative feedback argument is so yesterday. If that were true, digital sources would always sound lifeless, because every IC op-amp circuit has negative feedback. And digital recordings don't always sound lifeless.

If there really are the audible differences you describe, it's much more likely because the tube amp produces a non-flat frequency response when confronted with the load of the speaker.
Irvrobinson:

With regard to amplifiers, global feedback is indeed an issue and I ask whether you have heard no global feedback amps like DarTZeel or Ayre (or no-feedback tube designs). Rowland went with a no global feedback design with his new 625 stereo amp and there's a reason for it.

Regarding my VAC monoblocks, top-flight tube amps, with stiff power supplies and high-quality output transformers, basically function like a solid-state amp into a speaker, unless the speaker features wild impedance swings. The Salons do not and in my particular case, they measured basically flat in-room from 40 Hz. to 16 khz.

PS - To me, most digital sounds pretty lifeless.
I think, Raquel, you've been reading too much VAC marketing hype. To read the web sites from VAC, Atmasphere, etc you would think solid state amps have no bass definition, high distortion, that you can't hear acoustic decay or detail, and that it is impossible to create a great amp with feedback in the circuit design. That is all such silliness. I especially like the discussions about higher-order distortion that are at least 80db below the fundamental in solid state amps. I don't care what the tube amp hucksters say.

As for digital recordings all being lifeless, then you must be enamored with less bass, less highs, more noise and higher distortion. I don't see how you argue it any other way. The fact that analog sources and tube amps sound different is that they are *designed* to sound different. Look at the VAC web site - they "voice" their amps.
No, Irvrobinson, I don't need manufacturer ad copy to educate me about hi-fi equipment. With all due respect, you do seem to have bought what Japanese receiver manufacturers were saying back in '76 about the benefits of transistors and what Phillips and Sony have been saying about PCM digital since the early 80's.

I'll concede that digital measures better than analog by traditional measures, but I don't believe that they've figured out the right things to measure. I'll put a top-flight analog rig up against a top-flight digital rig any time.

As for my VAC amps being "voiced" to sound "different", I challenge you to find to a silicon output device that is more linear than a DHT 300B - you won't. And do you really want to put a $5,000 transistor amp up against a $28k triode tube amp? And Levinson?! Sound quality aside, why anyone would own a Madrigal amp after Harmon fired everyone in the Connecticut facility and what's become of the brand since is beyond me - the South American importer for Madrigal dropped the line after they started shipping him 336's with one channel having the 335 module and the other 334. I'm not reflexively anti-Madrigal and used to run a 37/360s, but come on.

You are not bothered by global feedback, even-order distortions, digititus, etc. - perfect sound forever. It suffices to say that we have vastly different understandings of what's important in a high-resolution two-channel system.