Vandersteen 2CE Signature III — video review on YouTube by Steve Guttenberg (1/15/2023)

Hey Patrick, nice to see someone else confirm your thoughts on the new 2CE III’s, but you already knew how good they are.

Hats off to both Steve and Johnny.

As Vandersteen ‘fan boys’, a little good press never hurts reinforcing our own choices and preferences. 3 pairs of Vandy’s and counting 😁

vandy’s classic designs certainly have an enduring degree of excellence

seems true what folks say though, as richard v has gotten older, has some high frequency hearing loss, and as he still personally voices new designs and version updates, the speakers are getting brighter with each iteration

does coincide with the overall market movement towards a more treble-forward, upfront detailed sound... certainly seems to be the case with ol’ 2ce (new in version 8) according to steve g...

I would not call Vandersteen’s bright or forward. At all.

With the 2CE III, it has more to do with incorporating the more refined drivers of his more expensive models (Treo & Quatro). Something Richard has done since the advent of the Treo. The same was true with my Vandy 2CE II’s, which I still have, but Treo’s are now the main speakers for 2 channel listening.

Yes, Richard does personally voice his speakers, but not only by ear. From the web site:

Vandersteen does not rely on listening alone to make claims of sonic excellence. Vandersteen Audio is the first loudspeaker manufacturer to use the Gen-Rad 2512 Fast Fourier Transform Computer Analyzer in research and development and remains a leader for interfacing complex loudspeaker parameters and performance computer analysis with practical design and engineering.

Yeah, I wouldn’t call a Vandersteen speaker “bright”. Street smart and savvy? Maybe. Never bright. But what do I know? I’m a Vandersteen fanboy, too. 

Whether or not you think Vandersteen models are getting brighter will depend on how far you go back with the company.  I bought my first pair in 1996 and my last pair in 2014, my 4th, and they were voiced differently to my ears. I always suspected it was finally a reaction to the reviews. 

my 3a sigs are from 2007, definitely a smooth top end, slightly rolled -- made alot of popular cd’s -- and powerful but not so subtle solid state power amps -- sound listenable

of course, there is enough resolution there that when you hook up some fine, tippity top flight power amps they certainly sound great, but treble still a little recessed, coupled lots of mid/midbass warmth... like how real music sounds in at the symphony!

IMHO, the older models were rolled off, the more recent iterations more neutral.

I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy, just resistant to change. 😎

I've heard other excellent speakers I like at hi-fi shows, and read the hi-fi magazines, but I can't afford to "scratch the itch" and make frequent changes like some people seem to be able to do. And I am lazy! When you change speakers and then have to adjust amps etc to better match the speakers, that gets expensive and complicated. The one speaker I would like to listen to before I buy Treo CTs is the Larsen 9, because it's so different than most anything (AbSound did a good review of them). I like the idea of having some Magnepans for a second system, but they have to be placed so far out from the front wall and I don't have a spot for that. The Legacy Audios seem to be a good value, and a friend's dad loves his, but they are huge. Too big. 

But no matter what else I have listened to, the Vandersteens acquit themselves very well, for my taste. The Quatro CT is imho as much a great value (in its class) as the 2CE Sig III is, even with the price increases. The Quatro CT is the sweet spot for performance vs cost. For more money (a lot more!) I'd have the Kento in a heartbeat, I think, and there are only a handful of other speakers I would audition when deciding. 

There are a dozen or more elite speakers which intrigue me, but they are all REALLY expensive, and I am not sure why I bother knowing about them. The MBL Radialstrahler 101 for $70k (the 120 is "only" $24k), the Rockports, Estelon, Joseph Audio (actually pretty competitively priced to Vandy), Magico (maybe), Wilson, Stenheim Alumine (very efficient). I'd prefer USA made, like the Vandersteen. Robert Harley loves the Rockports, but they are really expensive...so far out of my league it is silly.

Good discussion on the Vandersteen Forum about the Vandy DNA, incl the consistency of design principles among all their speakers. Richard V chimes in. TOMIC is someone who let me listen to his Vandersteen 7s (with matching Vandy monoblocks) and they were amazing, but he swears that when he listens to his Treo CTs at 1/5th the price (and with more modest amplification) he gets nearly the same satisfaction and the sound is consistent in quality.
Thread:
Vandy Forum thread

Happy listening!

Yes, the Quatro is the best 'bang for the buck' speaker, not only in the Vandy line up, but in regards to all the speakers out there.

A pair of Treo's with Sub 3's will get you to a Quatro. -Maybe even better, as you can position the Sub 3's to optimize bass output, though the graphic equalizer should minimize this.

I, too, am drawn to the MBL's like a moth to a flame. I am still waiting to find a pair of 121's at the right price. However, John Rutan told me that they don't scale well, and you might find out that the piano is way over sized in imaging.

For me, I just love the design, as well as the omni-directional concept.

B

gdnrbob

Roger that on the MBLs, though the "affordable one", which is $14k, is a bit shy on bass. I've heard the Linkwitz, which is similar, at a show and the soundstage was almost 360 degrees. Eerie! You have to bring them WAY out in the room though, and I am not able to do that. 

The Larsen 9 interests me too. It's not an MBL, but the way the drivers fire makes them much more room placement friendly, and create a wall of sound. This review is good:
LARSEN 9 review
"If I may borrow one of HP’s phrases once more, this is a speaker that should be heard by every student of the audio arts. The idea of using boundary placement to reduce the influence of the listening room on the sound has been around for a long time and tried in various ways. But it remains rather unusual. All you have to do is look through audio magazines to see that almost all contemporary speakers are really quite a lot alike in their general nature. Some are better than others, and we all have our favorites according to various theories and listening experiences. But there is a considerable sense of “déjà vu all over again.” The Larsens are members of a family, too, in some sense. But their family of boundary-placement speakers is a very much smaller one. The Larsens offer a unique sound that to my ears is unusually true to actual music, and they are unusual, too, in their ease of effective placement in the room. They offer their unique sound with a truly minimal disturbance of domestic life. Whether their unique sound is for you is something you need to experience for yourself. You will have not heard anything else much like the sound—except of course in live music."

It would be pretty nice to see some frequency response graphs.
The only ones I know of are few from Stereophile many years back, and “Erin’s Audio Corner” measured an older 2C ~ a year ago.

As for other speakers; not seeing the step function response, or a step function response which is at odds with how the sound pressure hit the microphone… just bugs me. And therefore it excludes most speakers I look at, or consider looking at.
(I kinda like them to be technically correct as an opening bid.)
^That^ excludes a lot of (on the surface) seemingly nice sounding speakers pretty quickly.

Steve gives them an excellent rating

I’d expect nothing less.
But since he rarely gives a negative review, it is a low bar for entry, and doesn’t tell us much. If he said something negative it would make people sit up like the dead in a horror film.

Whether or not you think Vandersteen models are getting brighter will depend on how far you go back with the company. I bought my first pair in 1996 and my last pair in 2014, my 4th, and they were voiced differently to my ears. I always suspected it was finally a reaction to the reviews.

I got mine a dozen year earlier… so I go back further.

I would expect that they would gradually get more neutral over time from available XO parts, an upgraded XO design, and likely drivers that have less ringing and resonances.
And it is possible that the early days they could have been a bit “toned down” for SS equipment that was overly bright. (Dunno, but it could be possible??)

So being as they were on the warm side earlier (40+ years ago), then anything more towards neutral would be viewed as brighter in comparison today. And maybe less so over a 25 year span.

"If he said something negative it would make people sit up like the dead in a horror film."

LOL!

I remember that some criticized Vandersteen speakers for being "rolled off" in the highs.  To me, I owned three pair of the 2s over the years, they were natural sounding.

But about that time in the '70s there was increased demand for MC cartridges, many of which had a rising high end in their response.  So I suspect that increased, sometimes false, sense of detail from a brighter high end became a popular norm.  Then any speaker which did not match that characteristic was criticized by many folks.

I currently have the Vandersteen 2ci and do agree with everyone here that they have a rolloff top end. I also read that the tend to be on the warm side but i dont know if that is true. I personally think that the older are voiced to be a balance speaker.  When I did a room response, I hve notice that it starts to roll of gradually maybe 6db/oct at about 8k. 

Voicing the speakers was done right with the older Vandersteen as well as having time aligned. 

I think that some older speakers weren’t capable of true high end extension, which allowed the rising high end of many mc cartridges to gain in popularity. Later with more capable tweeters and the entrance of CD’s this was altered.

I do know that MY hearing (at age 65) at high frequencies has been rolled off! I can hear maybe to 12,000 Hertz now. So I laugh when I see speakers that tout specs of 30,000 HZ frequency extension. What’s the point? Give me amazing performance between 30hz and 15,000 and I’m good. Am I wrong?

^You might not be wrong for you, but for others, missing sound beyond the limitations of FM could be lacking. Furthermore, there something to be said for the wiggle room beyond the limitations of hearing.

its no surprise that some manufacturers of gear resort to meaningless specs like frequency response to 30khz to try to sell their wares... for tweeters, it often less about frequency extension, rather more so about the flatness of response through the audible range, managing ringing/resonances, which are usually excited during musical transients being played

that said, one man’s rolled off is another man’s natural and balanced sounding... then there is always the room effect, which generally overwhelms more minor differences in speaker frequency range output in any anechoic situation, couldn’t be farther than real world.... haven’t yet met someone who could hear a speaker without a room it sits in...

another thing to bear in mind is that what was right in terms of voicing components 10-15-20-25-30 years ago is not wrong today, it has also been about synergy through the chain using system components of the day -- shrill early cd players, screechy lean solid state amps, tipped up mc carts, rolled off classic tube gear.... optimization and balance of all such aspects has always been what it’s about in successful system building

I have had the 2ce signature in the past and loved them!

I just thought that tilting them just right was a pain in the neck.  And they were heavy.

Also, I do not understand why they still dress them up in socks. They could look decent undressed, with a good coat of paint, black white red or blue, whatever.

So, all of you are more qualified to tell us what Steve heard than he is himself? 

@chrisr 

Also, I do not understand why they still dress them up in socks. 

keeps $$$$$$ down. ‘Socks’ are much less expensive than finished cabinets.

Also, I do not understand why they still dress them up in socks. They could look decent undressed, with a good coat of paint, black white red or blue, whatever.

I suspect you are an orthapedic surgeon or like to look at X-rays 😎

I like to peek inside a kimono as much as the next person, but I would also suspect that without the sock people would obsess over dust/etc and start poking the drivers.
Or a cat would jump in.

I currently have the Vandersteen 2ci and do agree with everyone here that they have a rolloff top end. I also read that the tend to be on the warm side but i dont know if that is true. I personally think that the older are voiced to be a balance speaker.  When I did a room response, I hve notice that it starts to roll of gradually maybe 6db/oct at about 8k. 

It was not the downward slope that I was referring to, which is somewhat minor.
It was the lumpiness of frequency response through the middle.
But probably as good as anything from the era??

In the HT AVR I entered in the PEQ values that make it a bit flatter across the middle… and the room does some of its stuff as well.

It would be pretty nice to see similar analysis of the models.
One can see near the bottom of the link, that there is step response and compression. (Most of the manufacture data for speakers with higher order crossovers leave out step function response.)
Frequency response is talked about as being more important, but it is not a crime to have textbook step function response.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/vandersteen_model_2/

Owned the Vandersteen 2CE years ago.  Very good speaker, very good company.  

Never understood the need or interest for product validation or brand forums. Steve Guttenberg praises everything he reviews. 

Steve Guttenberg praises everything he reviews. 

why is anyone surprised about this?  it is a mutually beneficial eco system...

talking bad about a product is bad business for everyone... 

dayglow re: Never understood the need or interest for product validation or brand forums. Steve Guttenberg praises everything he reviews.

I’m not that familiar with him, and had a friend send me this review. It seems that is his m.o. though. Some "critics" don’t like to be actually constructively critical, and some are too critical. That said, the Vandersteens across the board have gotten consistent praise (both for sound and for being superb values) through the years/decades from respected reviewers, and having owned several pairs for 20+ years (and considering new ones) I am confident in my choice and don’t need it validated. There are other brands I would also own, were I able to have multiple systems.

As far as brand forums go, the only one I visit is Vandersteen’s own forum. It’s a good source for system, technical, and setup info. FWIW.

Is it possible he reviews a lot of things but politely only publishes the ones he really likes?  

re: "Is it possible he reviews a lot of things but politely only publishes the ones he really likes?"

Don’t know, but I would guess that manufacturers—knowing it’s a safe bet he won’t air anything too harshly critical (the closest he comes seems to be "damning with faint praise")—offer lots of gear to him for reviewing. A steady supply of new, nice gear to listen to...maybe that is his ulterior motive? I know there are some people making BIG bucks on YouTube doing those product unboxing videos (WTH?)—does anyone know if he makes a nice living from this?

patrickdowns

Excellent post! I concur, the newest Vandy "2 Series" is excellent. The Legacy continues.

Happy Listening!

@jjss49 I find it interesting that you discuss Vandersteens getting brighter.  One of the great databases of info is John Atkinson's measurements.  I looked through several of them and didn't see the speakers getting brighter.  I am hyper-sensitive to forward and nasal sounds.  My Quatros are certainly more revealing than older designs I have heard.  There is more harmonic information, and the speakers seem to settle faster, I assume because of better drivers and boxes (where there are boxes), but I have never heard them sound bright.  Perhaps the amp matchup or cabling was off when you heard them.  

@jamesbgood

you may well be right

or both points may be true... more perceptibly transparent and also brighter

remember that perceived brightness is a relative balance issue and also related to relative speed of drivers and phase characteristics

no doubt better drivers are being used over time as they become available or available at a reasonable cost ....

I doubt tweeters are getting faster over time.

Cone breakup may be getting reduced, and dome resonances are likely on a general trend downwards. The carbon cones and the “CT” would be some examples why and how.

And on the motor side, motors are generally either getting more linear, or going for longer strokes… and occasionally both… mostly with woofers.
motor non linearity show up as HD and IMD.

Hence without some measurement plot of SPL vs Freq, and the harmonics thrown in there, it is difficult to figure what may be going on technically under the kimono or sock.

One of the “Darlings” on ASR is the Revel F228be.
They conveniently left out the step response, but the stereophile review has it.

Step response of F228be:

I found that the step response of the 30 year old 2c that Erin measured seems to look a bit different:

Step response of 30 year pair of Vandersteen 2C:
(Doesn’t look like it will paste in, but it almost at the bottom In the URL)

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/vandersteen_model_2/

Stereophile showed it in 1995:

Those two speakers do not look like they have similar step response.

I doubt the newer model differs much in step response, but it could differ in HD profile (Lower, I would hope/expect) and likely the FR is flatter (hope).

I sort of like to see the measurements as going to a shop with the all excitement, their room, gear, and track selection… makes it a bit of magic show. The speakers and systems should not sound bad, but most everything in a shop is set up and demoed to sound pretty good.

No matter how good a random speaker is sounding though, it would be difficult to make a speaker with poor step response become more coherent… an hour in a well treated room may not be enough to hear through with the skipping around of random tracks and salesman blather.

Excerpt: "Note: I know people are sticklers for positioning and a proper listening experience means time should be taken to find the ideal axis to listen at and place the speakers in the room. While I did not have the OEM stands, I did, of course, take the time to try a few positions and sitting heights to find what worked best in-room. Looking around online, I found the OEM stands have a slight tilt to them so I experimented a bit with that as I moved the speaker about the room as well. Though, I do find it odd that so much attention was put into the physical offset of the drivers to time align them via the large step-stair enclosures yet the design still uses a stand that has a physical tilt as well to time align them. Seems a bit redundant to me. One would think you’d have one or the other and not need stands to do what the actual build of the speaker seemed intent on doing"

⏩ It would help for her to have listened to a very recent pair, and also to have read the Vandersteen setup manual. The stands are very important. I have mine weighted with about 30 lb of lead shot for coupling with the floor. And the rear tilt is critical to have the tweeter aimed at the listener’s ear height, and that depends on distance to the listening chair. Toe-in is also important. When Vandersteens are properly set up, the performance is excellent.

@patrickdowns I just sit in the cave crosslegged on the dirt like an ascetic monk.
And use more cushion thickness, if the ears are too low…

holmz

🤣 Speakers powered by good Karma?

"Toe-in is also important. When Vandersteens are properly set up, the performance is excellent."
That's interesting.  When my step father ran his 2Ce's, we did a fair amount of moving and testing and measuring in his listening loft, and toe in made things measurably worse.  Granted, rooms have everything to do with the need or harm from toe-in, but it was holographic with NO toe in.  He also had the flat Sound Anchor stands without the lean back.  Again, this seemed to give the best center focus and widest presentation.  Man, those speakers and that loft were something to behold.  It was like the perfect set up and experience, and super comfy!

Toe-in can certainly vary depending on the room, the distance between the speakers, and the throw to the listening position. I’m using more now than I did for a long time, based on the recommendation of somebody who’s set up a lot of Vandersteen systems

One great reason for a brand specific owners forum where the designer weighs in with real world experience based on setting up literally THOUSANDS of Vandersteen speakers in MANY rooms with MYRID gear is reading his comments about toe in….. something like “ toe out might even be needed in rare circumstances but listen and experiment “ my paraphrase. Tilt is much more prescriptive and is as stated based on ear height and distance from acoustic center to ear.

Good as the old 2’s were……and wow did we sell a ton of them… RV is relentless in improving…EVERYTHING… cabinet, components, drivers, wire, conformal coatings… watch the TREO build video….

I guess I am a fan boy ;-) 

And all the Vandy tweeters have no breakup below 30 K …..because it matters…

@patrickdowns You are welcome to visit again any time…. The Treo CT with a Sub3 are sounding sweet with Kuzma CAR-40 on the front end….. even powered with an ancient but highly modified 1961 amplifier……

Fun

Enjoy the music

Jim

Thanks, Jim @tomic601 ! I would love to.

Hi patrickdowns, being a long time critic of Vandersteens it doesn't surprise me that making the treble more accurate bothers many. Every time I listened to the older version they sounded similar to whatever I had IF you tossed a thick towel over the tweeters. Don't be bothered by the detractors, nor me. Beauty is in the ear of the listener! If your happy, it's perfect! Personally I am glad to hear that he is making them more accurate. I have always wanted to like Vandersteens, and perhaps I now would. That's me though, it's you who needs to be happy with them, don't worry about the rest of us!

I have the 2ce Sig1’s. I went from Maggie’s to 2ci & up. The change from 2ce to 2ce Sig added a bit on top.

They are extremely capable speakers, as witnessed through system changes.

I have heard the Larsen’s & prefer mine.

My most recent system change was from Soundsmith Zephyr cart to the Zephyr MkIII ES cart. That alone is a significant upgrade which added a bit on the top.

Being ‘rolled off’ could be due to system…

durkn

Hi— I would be curious to know which Larsens you listened to and what you did and didn’t like, if you care to share. I was mostly interested in the 6.2 and the 8.2 (the latest). From the reviews, they are supposed to be quite a different listening experience than typical front-firing speakers we are mostly used to. They throw up a wall of sound, more like a live performance, it is said.

One dealer said that to me over the phone once he listened to them a lot, he decided that listening to typical front-firing speakers is more "artificial", saying that hearing individual instruments so specifically arrayed within the soundstage is artifice, not like a live performance. I think it depends on what kind of live performance, but with recorded music that artifice is certainly is created when the record is produced, by the person running the soundboard, yes?

From AbSound review of Larsen 8:

<< The Sound In General
While the Model 8s have the consistency between room sound and direct sound of an omni, at the same time they are quite directional thanks to their wall placement—they are by nature half-space radiators. So the sound has a much greater directness than one gets from omnis. And this directness leads to extraordinary definition from the lower midrange on down. Trombones, for example, have the solidity and definition of attack that they have in reality. (Hearing a real trombone after listening to a trombone on a speaker tends to be a disconcerting experience. The speaker version lacks adequate definition of the complex initial structure all too often. But not here!)

This is not easy to quantify in measurement, but it is surely easy—and rewarding—to hear. The lower brass, the cello and basses, the bottom range of the piano, all such things acquire the kind of precision and sculptured sound that they really have. There is a good reason to have bass drive up against the boundaries. This is, of course, also the reason for the development of the corner woofer systems of TacT and Lyngdorf, and much earlier for the Allison speakers, which were placed either in corners or against the wall with woofer close to the floor.

This stuff works! One really hears the lower mids on down better. Not only is the presentation more even in frequency response but better in definition. (Because minimum phase matters, these two things are related, but in listening terms they are perceived as quite distinct.)

The stereo imaging of the Model 8s is again different from an ordinary speaker. The directness makes images seem very solid, but the focus of them is of a different character from free-space speakers. The images are either more “dimensional” or less focused, depending on one’s viewpoint. This is not an obvious matter in terms of realism, since the kind of focus of image that can arise in stereo is not really a feature of real sound. One can get to like it a lot, but in a real concert environment, the extreme image focus does not actually happen. The making of recordings has to some extent responded to this by using spaced microphone techniques that blur the stereo images in the recording no matter how one plays them back. Again, life is complicated. In any case, the Model 8s sound close to reality, but not exactly like other speakers as far as imaging is concerned. Imaging is convincing and hearing into the recording venue is excellent but the imaging is different in character. The wide pattern gives unusual stability, but focus is less precise. >>

AbSound / Larsen 8 review

I have always been curious about Vandy speakers because they consistently get great reviews.  All Models it seems.

Therefore, is it worth buying any of the higher end models?  Or just buy the 2Ce sig 3 and be done?  Are the Treo TC or the Quatro worth the money?  Anyone heard all 3, or 2 of these 3 and made a comparison?

tubular1

I own the latest 2CE Sig III and auditioned the Treo CT at the time I was deciding, and since. Also the Quatro CT, and have spent time in front of the 7 with the top Vandy monoblocks (AMAZING system). All are listed as Editors’ Choices in their price brackets by Absolute Sound in their Recommended Components guide, iirc.

There is a consistency of sound, the "Vandersteen Sound", among them. I would say it comes down to budget. IMHO, the 2CE is a best buy and punches way above its weight. But, if spending $10k (vs $3500) is in the budget, the Treo CT is superb and is much better looking. I may soon get the Treos. BUT—again IMO—I think the Quatro CT is in the sweet spot of performance vs value in its price-range and in the Vandersteen lineup, when compared to the top of the line 7 (really great) or even the Kento. There is really no wrong answer. I would REALLY love a pair of Quatro CTs.

It is quite common to see Vandy owners move up from the 2 or 3 to the Treo, and then to the Quatro or Kento as/if funds allow. So, "worth the money?". Only you can decide that. There is the law of diminishing returns in high-end audio, and to some of my friends spending even $3500 on speakers is insane, but I would gladly spend the $$ on the Treo CT or Quatro CT.

There is a member here who has the Treo CT and the 7 with monoblocks (which I have heard). Maybe a 10X difference in price and I asked him specifically if he felt like the Treos come up short compared to his 7's.  "No way," he said. He said there is a consistency in the sound, and that he loves the Treos but that the 7 is just more of a great thing. 

CAVEAT: The Treo and Quatro are superbly-resolving speakers and will highlight any deficiencies elsewhere in your system. It is important that the components upstream are up to the task, including cabling. I have an Odyssey Audio Khartago+++ amp, and though it’s not super expensive I like it and it’s a Jon Valin best-buy, I think it would be adequate or fine with the Treos. A more expensive amp *might* even be better (I would like the Ayre VX-5/Twenty maybe, or mono blocks, for the Treo). Richard Vandersteen recommends "zero negative feedback" amps like Ayre, and so do many dealers. A good Vandersteen dealer will tell you about good pairings (Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica, or John Rutan at Audio Connection in NJ are two...where are you?).

I am not a card-carrying fanboy, blindly loyal, but I have found Vandys to be speakers I can live with for a long time, and I don’t have the money to scratch every itch and jump from brand to brand. Vandys are extremely musical, for lack of a better term, and let you forget about them and just enjoy the music. For me, that is the goal. GOOD LUCK!

The 2CE and Treo are on this AbSound list of 50 Greatest Bargains in High-End Audio 50 Greatest High-End Bargains List

Thanks Patrick!

I have always been curious about Vandy speakers because they consistently get great reviews.  All Models it seems.

Therefore, is it worth buying any of the higher end models?  Or just buy the 2Ce sig 3 and be done?  Are the Treo TC or the Quatro worth the money?  Anyone heard all 3, or 2 of these 3 and made a comparison?

@tubular1 
It depends on what you want. If you want more bass then you need a sub or to move north of the Treos.

The Treos are way more expensive that a 2C, but the WAF ends up with them usually saying get the Treos.

There are so many factors it is not just an easy answer.

I am not a card-carrying fanboy, blindly loyal, but I have found Vandys to be speakers I can live with for a long time, and I don’t have the money to scratch every itch and jump from brand to brand. Vandys are extremely musical, for lack of a better term, and let you forget about them and just enjoy the music. For me, that is the goal. GOOD LUCK!

The pair in front of me were purchased in ‘84.
I’ve been watching the TV with them more lately as the TT is being rehabilitated.

I forget that they are there.

tubular1 My pleasure!

holmz  does make a good point about bass

If you want more bass then you need a sub or to move north of the Treos.

My 2CEs have a lower bass extension than the Treos, but the Treo bass is BETTER. Tighter, cleaner, more accurate. Quality vs quantity, though the bass from the 2CE isn't bad at all. It can sometimes be a bit bloated or "squishy" but I listen to a lot of acoustic music and not much of that is bass-heavy.

At "my" dealer, one of the guys has Treo CTs with 2 subwoofers and loves it, saying it's as least as good as the Quatro CT, (but not much less expensive to go that route if at all, esp with Vandy subs). The beauty of that combo is you can do it in stages: get the Treos, and if you miss the extra bass then add one or two subs. You may decide you don't need it. 

The Quatro CT is in another league from several standpoints: 1) Each speaker has its own built-in powered subwoofer, with very adjustable output settings. Tuneable to the room and setup. 2) You won't need as much "horsepower" in your amp to drive the speakers, because the woofers are internally powered. So, you can drive them with a lower-powered amp.You will need the Vandy high-pass filter crossovers ("The M5 High-Pass Crossovers are ideally suited to the Quatro line of speakers as well as the SUB Three and are implemented between the preamp and the amplifier. ") BUT—I was just told that Ayre can modify both their integrated amps and their amps to have the high-pass crossover internally, meaning the external high-pass won't be necessary. I am told that other mfrs do this too, but not sure who.

The Vandy Forum is a good place to browse for info and ask questions
Vandersteen FORUM

Cheers

After much tweaking I have integrated my Vandersteen 2CE Sig II's with a pair of Rythmik F12G-SE. The Vandersteen's were good before the subs, but now the sound went to 11. As they say in Spinal Tap "this one goes to 11"....

2psyop

NICE! I've wondered about doing that.👍