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.
dodgealum
gs5556
1,241 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
1,091 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".
mrjstark
1,112 posts
 
Bob, I was also wondering how involved he was in the original review. Maybe....just maybe Wes used Fremer's notes as a reference and put a little spin with Puppys.
Surely compering Woodys to Willson is a complement considering the price difference but who cares.
IF I WANTED TO BUY QUATROS, this review would not help me at all. Sound Quality and "supposed" improvements over original Quatro are still unknown and quait cloudy in my point of view.
My opinion is firm on this matter and I don't want to repeat my personal observations on this thread.
I own Quatros and Stereophile's weak review did not impress me at all.
Quait simply, my overall impression is that campaign for Quatro Wood as a superior version of the original is just as difficult as justification in $3700 price increase for potential buyer.
I still believe that original Quatro represent the best bang for the money. And it seems that Stereophile has a hard time in convincing themselves as well as their readers that Richard Vandersteen's decision was the right one.
If I am right about this - you will never see Vandersteen TOP OF THE LINE speakers in a 'WOOD' version.
tom_hankins
928 posts
 
I saw Richard Vandersteen at a local shop about two months ago and he said the speaker is alot different than the sock version. Not just made to pretty up the Quatro. Reworked midrange and tweeter drivers, and reworked crossovers.
I can see how the bass may have been a problem for Phillips. The store I met Mr. Vandersteen at told me it took a few days work to get the bass right. they sound very, very, nice now.
Anyway, I like the Quatros so much it would have been nice to know what is gained with the wood versions.
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
Stereophile is entertainment, no more no less. I subscribe as a testament to the comedy that is the modern review.

Hey they "promised" to review the Krell KCT years ago and never did. So they "lost" me in terms of beleivability.

Do you think any of these guys has the dedication and drive to launch a speaker company, develop state of the art designs and execute on them for over 30 years?

What is it they say about reviewers? Those who can, do, those who can't review.
More to discover