Can you get "bookshelf sound" from a floorstander?

9rw,

I do like some pro audio gear, but I've never owned/lived with any at home. OTOH, I have lived with Thiel (3.x, late '90s can't recall the precise designation, probably because they belonged to girlfriend's former boyfriend). I've also heard the SC-IV and Vandy 2s (Vandy 5 and Quattro, just a bit less) extensively. I'm completely unfamiliar with Von Schweikert and Totem.

IME, the Thiels would be closest in character to the Merlin, though they have greater ultimate output capability in the bass and a slightly crisper upper mid/treble. It's the latter quality that would lead me back to the VSMs - which themselves walk a fine line for me in this regard.

The SC-IV are a very different animal with a more prominent bottom octave, a tonality that many people prefer, but just ain't my cup of tea for the long run. The Vandy 2 is great - a warm, musical speaker that represents great value, but isn't IMHO in the same league as any of the others you listed for audiophile "Parlor tricks". It's probably the best value of the bunch if you're not a hobbyist.

Oddly, my associated stuff looks a lot like yours.

Primarily LS-25/VT-130SE. Sources include a Sony SCD-1, Cary 303, and QSonix server with Benchmark DAC 1 and a DacMagic for digital. Analog is via an Aesthetix Rhea fed by an Oracle/Graham/Graham and a A-Solid/Rega/Lyra.

I also use these same sources with a Joule Line Amp with TAD SS monos (previously a Krell KSA 50s and later Odyssey monos) for SS. Tube options now include Cary 300Bs and 805s, Prima Luna 7s, and a Panacor Dyna St-70 reissue. There were too many tube amps thru the system over the last 10 years to list all of them here. On occasion, I've used my Bel Canto and Pathos integrated with the VSMs as well.

Other speakers currently include the Verity Parsifal Encore, Sonus Faber Cremona, Zingali 3s, Red Rose Ribbon monitor, and a biamp set up where mains are either Ohm 100s or Maggie SMGs with digitally room corrected subs. You may have noticed that I have some sort of disorder regarding the hording of hardware.

I'm a bit surprised that you'd group Thiel, Dunlavy and Vandy since (despite the common use of first order x-overs) these speakers sound very different, one to the next, to my ear. The Vandys, in particular, come from a different place; unless you're talking Quatros or 5s, which can be adjusted to sound like a lot of different things, including - to some extent - VSMs.

As to hearing the separate drivers in the VSMs, either your friend has much better hearing than me (possible!) and everyone else who has heard the speaker with me (feels less likely), is mistaken (also possible), or there's some issue with your particular speakers. Literally, dozens of people (including many audio hobbyists) have heard the VSMs at the various homes my VSMs have resided in over the years, and none has made that particular comment. A fair number of folks have said they'd prefer a different tonal balance (read: more bass), but that matter of personal preference ALWAYS comes into play for extended bandwidth speakers. Some like vanilla, others prefer chocolate.

There are always different takes on any speaker system, and I respect those opinions. The only reason that I commented is because the issues of driver integration and system compatibility aren't the ones that I'd ever associate with Merlin VSMs. I will concede that system matching is often something of a fetish for many Merlin owners, but that's not because there's only one right answer.

I believe that the idea of "magic" system matching to optimize the VSMs' performance arises because:

A) The speaker is very revealing. This motivates listeners to comment on upstream equipment more often than a less revealing alternative (the Vandy being a prime example, IMHO) might.

and

B) Bobby has strong opinions on system matching and fans of the speakers sometimes take that to exclude alternative choices.


Feels like one of those "agree to disagree".

Marty

Marty: Thanks for the thoughtful response. My system consists of a Wadia 861SE with Steve Huntley's Statement upgrade -- about as good as it gets for anything close to the money -- an ARC VS115 amp, Acoustic Zen interconnects and speaker cables and a pair of Von Schweikert VR-4Srs. I also use a REL Stadium III crossed over at about 27 hertz and have a pair of Totem Arros and Dunlavy SC-II's as backup speakers.

Incidentally, the Dunlavy SC-IV/A was infinitely better than the SC-IV. I wish I had kept mine. There's no emphasis in the bass region, which is evident by measurement and by listening.

Finally, accuracy isn't a matter of personal taste. A system is either accurate or it isn't, and not all people are qualified to judge accuracy. Granted, no system is 100 percent accurate -- meaning true to the source -- but the degrees of deviation vary considerably. To just dismiss this all as a matter of personal opinion is fine, but that's not the goal of a true audiophile.

9rw,

I tend to agree with you re: accuracy...to an extent.

I've measured the VSMs @ +/- 4db from 120hz to 15khz in my last room, and -3db at 33hz, -10db at 25hz: which is pretty good in my book. (There was some unappetizing lumpiness between 35hz and 120hz, but it's all room related).

Unfortunately, that's a static test tone, on-axis measurement. It's the best measurement we have -IMHO- for judging accuracy, but far from dispositive. By this test, the VSMs are as good as anything I've measured (except for the room corrected subs below app 80hz). I still can't say that makes them more accurate than others which do worse on this particular test because some people may prefer room response to on-axis testing. There are also tests for dynamic behavior (which I've never tried). Are small errors in the mid-range more important than somewhat larger errors above or below the key midle octaves. Small colorations vs octave to octave imbalances? How do you prioritize?

So, to be fair, accuracy is somewhat subjective - you pick your test to reflect your priorities.

Marty

Marty: Frequency response is just half of the equation. The other half is phase- and time-coherency. Bobby's latest designs may in fact be a lot better than the speakers I owned, but I wouldn't be willing to spend $10,000 or more to find out. You're still limited by the basic design in terms of dynamic capability and coherency. Like it or not, but properly designed large speaker systems simply have greater capabilities. This may not matter if you have a small room, prefer intimacy and don't care about a sense of realism.

Guys, especially Bobby, Some this debate os fine, but please remember that OP's budget is $1K. You can start another thread which does not hijack someone's else's.