Vandersteen 5a's - an upgrade from Vienna mahlers?

Sean: I respect your opinion and trust that you heard what you have reported about the Mahler's sound, but wonder whether your comments may be a bit harsh.

Each Mahler has two 7' midwoofers, two 10" woofers and two ports, making its midbass and bass interaction with a room particularly complex. My guess is that most ported speakers having that many low-frequency sources will sound bloated and boomy if not set up properly or if used in a smallish room. You mention the Stereophile review -- Robert Deutsch reviewed the speaker in a 14 x 16 x 7.5 room -- I doubt there is a worse venue for a speaker with prodigious bass capabilities than a smallish, basically square room. If you read JA's measurements accompanying the review, he made a point of noting that "[t]ry as I might, I couldn't find any particular measured problems in the bass."

My experience is that they require a large room and careful placement in order to produce smooth bass, which I do not think is too much to ask of a speaker. They also benefit from a high-current amp and carefully selected speaker cables (I got excellent results from Rowland Model 6's and Kimber Select speaker cables, but they also sounded excellent run with my VAC Renaissance 140/140's with no feedback). They do favor bass slam over bass definition, something that was documented in Tony Cordesman's review of the speaker for Audio. I believe the emphasis on slam over definition was a design choice, however, not a design flaw, and will be anything but unpleasant to many listeners (I also have Salons, recently had Dynaudio 3.3's, and ran Dunlavys for years, so tight bass I am no stranger to).

As for comparing the Mahlers to Vandy 5A's, I never A/B'd them side to side, so I am reluctant to proclaim one better than the other. The Vandy's cost 50% more and are made in a lower-cost venue than the Austrian-made Mahlers, so they have certain advantages in any comparison. In my listening, however, I found the Vandy's to lack transparency compared to my Mahlers and my Salons, and I hated the tiny sweet spot (the bane of time-aligned speakers) which reminded me of my old Dunlavys. Then again, I heard them at an unfamiliar dealership on an unfamiliar system and only for about an hour, so I probably shouldn't be making any comments about them at all.

As for how the Mahlers ultimately compare to Vandy's, the Vandy's powered, in-room adjustable woofer will certainly give them an advantage due to versatility of set up. But if both speakers are set up properly and put head to head, I am not so sure that the Vandy's win -- not so sure at all.

I would listen to Sean. The Vandersteen 5a is one hell of a speaker and the Mahler's will never match it in the bottom or anywhere else for that matter. The 5a is one of the finest, most technically thought out speakers in existence. Vandersteen does his homework. No way ported bass will compete with the woofers in this system even under ideal conditions. Ports will not do bass as well as a sealed system (especially one as capable as the Vandersteen.)
I have heard both speakers and, sorry, it's just not there. I hope to have a pair of these in my sound room by summer.
But, what is great about audio, you can decide for yourself.
There are plenty of choices.

The very first words of my first post read "IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, a properly set up pair of Vandy 5's would be a major leap forward". I shared my opinion and then expounded on it when asked to do so. Others with different opinions and / or preferences are obviously welcome to contribute to the thread. I don't know all there is to know about any given subject and to be quite frank, i know very little about any given subject. Having said that, what i do know and what i have experienced, i am more than willing to share. At the same time, what i do know came from others that were willing to share, so i encourage open conversations.

I would only add that studying loudspeaker design would be helpful PRIOR to investing the kind of money that we are talking about on either of these models. If one does that, they will learn that driver placement, cabinet alignment, Q, room loading characteristics, etc... are all very important factors that contribute to what we hear. Once one knows the science behind how & why things work the way that they do, they'll know what to expect out of a given design, sometimes even before they hear it. As was the case with both of these designs, they lived up to their design heritage. That is, as far as i'm concerned.

I don't own either speaker and hope that those that do own one or the other are happy with their purchases. I was simply sharing some observations that i've made about them after studying both design approaches and then listening to them in different listening areas. Sean
>

PS... There is a difference between "slam" and "high output". "Slam" requires both "high output" and tremendous transient response capabilities. That tremendous transient response is what is also required for definition and articulation. In my opinion, the Vandy's are capable of all three aspects of bass reproduction i.e. high output, transient response and articulation whereas the Mahler's are only capable of the "high output" aspect of the equation. That's because using a port instantly introduces poorer transient response into the equation. This is due to a lack of internal damping and the uncontrolled oscillation with out of band leakage that the port ( Helmholtz resonator ) itself introduces into what we hear. Ports are used strictly to boost the quantity of output, but this is done at the expense of quality. The only way to increase the quantity of output without sacrificing damping / transient response ( quality ) is to use more active drivers. Anything else is strictly an engineering / design trade-off. As i've always said, one should buy & use what they like, regardless of what others think.

thanks guys, good debate going on here.

What is the difference functionally between the sweet spot produced by Vandersteens with that produced by non time aligned speakers.
I know with my Mahlers, that there is ideed a sweet spot and it is quite small, however standing up, or moving sideways does not alter the musical delivery as such, but it no longer provides that sweet spot.
After you have dialed in the right height for the Vandersteens, is the distance from the speakers flexible?.

I am looking at the vandersteens due to the fact they are flexible to adjust the bass and have a good reputation for musical sound and I would like to use a tube amp.

ps, I have a feeling that the vandersteens are better value as much of the 10 k list price for the mahlers is taken up by distributor and dealer markup. You can always buy a 5 and upgrade to the 5a later.

I'll keave sonics aside for the moment and look at practical & operational issues.
First point: Raquel notes above that the V's cost +50%. Major consideration.
Second: the Mahler are a VERY diffult load, hardly the ideal for a tube amp (mentioned in the original question). A brute SS with a ridiculously hi amp PS is more the ticket.
3rd: the V's are biamped, a very useful feature, are an easier load and may be driven by a tube amp (i.e. the main spkr).
4th: the V's engineering looks far superior to the Mahler.
5th: again, the Vs are twice the price of the Mahler...
Cheers