Vandersteen Treo vs 3A Sig as upgrade

thanks Johnny.  The difference isn't huge, but it's there.  A bit larger soundstage, some extra coherency and a touch more natural on the top end, but not a huge difference.  Carmenc, as I said, I'm selling my Treo's in cherry to move up to Quatro's if you have interest.  Where do you live?

It was fun rereading this whole thread.  Shows that folks all hear very differently, that's for sure.  Ask Richard the difference between the 3 sig's and the Treo's, lol.  

You know me, bought your Music Hall. Lol.  PM me if you'd like.  Spoke with John.....finally have a plan.  Take care!

When I was debating my Treo CT purchase reading the "Ask Richard" section on the Vandersteen site helped a lot.  Richard's comments about the 3A Signature vs. Treo are pretty consistent.  Finally received my 5 year warranty certificate in the mail today.

@hifiman5 ......thanks much for the advice.  After many trials and errors, Vandersteen is where I'm heading.  I think lots of it has to do with the first order crossover, etc.. ( prior Thiel owner ).  Also, I like Richards approach to design.  It just seems to me to be no nonsense genius without the idiosyncrasies.

I really like your system, having owned McCormack and CJ myself in the past.  Congrats on your certificate!  Regards........

I am following this thread with interest because I am considering both the Treo CT and the Quatro CT.  I have an older REL sub that I have been using with various stand mount monitors over the past 15 years.  I have been totally pleased with this sub setup and am considering the Treo/REL combo vs the Quatro. I know there is debate between the REL sub recommended hookup method vs Richard Vandersteen's.  I understand the merits of both approaches and that is not really the point of my post. Assuming I keep the REL sub and let the Treo run full range is it likely that the quality and amount of bass will be on a par with the Quatro and its built in sub?