2. speakers
  3. 1196003497

Stereophile Review of Quatro Wood

Anyone read the review of the Vandy Quatro Wood in the latest Stereophile? With this effort, Wes Phillips has moved the bar a full notch lower, further diminishing the relevance of the major audiophile rags.

After a (too) lengthy treatment of the design specifics, he touches on a fairly narrow range of performance characteristics and then spends the rest of the review on a useless (and superficial) comparison of the Quatro Wood and the Wilson WATT/Puppy 8--which is way more than double the price. What was he thinking? Why not compare the Quatro to several other similarly priced floorstanding models? How about a comparison with the sock version Quatro or the 5A? At least the consumer could get some sense of where the Quatro Wood falls within the Vandersteen line and whether the wood or the larger 5A is worth the extra bucks.

It's not that I am disappointed--the only reason I keep my subscription to these mags is because they are dirt cheap (a consequence of the inflated subscription figures that the low rate provides) and the record reviews are somewhat helpful. It's just that this particular review has demonstrated just how useless these reviews have become.
128x128dodgealum
mrjstark
1,112 posts
 
Reviews purpose was to explain Richard's risky design decision (in my opinion) plus to find justification in almost 4G price increase over "cloth" Quatro. Not easy task. It would make sense if direct comparison was performed. Instead different approach was chosen, a silly one to. Wilson Watt Puppy 8.
No word about sound resemblance or differences between "Wood", "Cloth" and 5A. Interesting ?????
Another thing - why Wes Phillips not Fremer him self. It would be a lot more logical to have Fremer conduct follow up review of "Woodys" but I just don't think he would sign the article with his name for the obvious reasons. So patsy was chosen.
Post removed 
chadnliz
3,736 posts
 
I wonder why I am not surprised to see problems with this review.....it would be interesting to see the opinions if Wilson was not used, if it is supposed to be a benchmark speaker for performance, then why not see how the Vandy and Wilson stack up to eachother? I thought it was a nice spin on reviews and to have more direct comparisons in both same price bracket and seperate brackets can do nothing but help inform potential buyers, why is that a problem?
gs5556
1,234 posts
 
I think there's a point being missed here. From what I've read, the purpose of the speaker was to make the line more appealing at the request of dealers, not to offer up a different or lateral product to die-hard Vandy fans. As such, prospective buyers may be seeking comparisons to what's out there as opposed to the Quattro itself. A propective buyer can read Fremer's review - it is footnoted - and then see in this one that Vandersteen himself is quoted as saying it's better. Wouldn't this be enough of a verdict?

Yes, I agree that at least a cursory wave be passed at the Quattro from WP, but I do not think that being silent about it takes away from the relevance of the speakers' performance. I am in no way praising the review or disagreeing, but it's not that different from others. (Why I, too, can be a Stereophile scribe with a paragraph such as this.)

It doesn't make economic sense, IMO, to offer up a pretty-pig version unless you're trying to expand your market. Vandy fans look past the cloth and can stick with the Quattros proper - but new buyers, it appears, are not.
tabl10s's avatar
tabl10s
1,075 posts
 
The wood version SHOULD sound better as it has the 5A's head-unit and tweeter...if I remember correctly. A local dealer has the 5A's and a friend has the "Wood".
More to discover