mb1audio02, your comments mirror the perceptions of a good number of audiophiles. Any speaker will leap to impressive performance levels when placed with very fine gear and set up well. One method of system building which is "tried and true" is to find what one considers an outperforming affordable speaker and jack up the components ahead of it. Of course, the opposite method is just as supported, using what are considered outperforming affordable electronics with a perceived more high end speaker. As might be expected there are proponents of each method. I have tried both and one can get desirable results either way, but typically not SOTA.
So, it's not surprising that you achieved far better results than average by complementing the Vandy's with the most suitable gear. My point was not to diminish Vandersteens, but simply to point out why some would not prefer the sound. A system which has been optimized for one speaker will not typically serve all speakers with equal benefit. One notable exception is the Exogal Comet DAC and Ion PowerDAC together, which I reviewed for Dagogo.com and own. It was the only set of pre/DAC/power electronics to take five speaker systems (including panel, dynamic, hybrid dynamic, omni) to their best performance ever, something which had never occurred in all my years of reviewing. I was deeply impressed by that result. It should be expected that normally a rig that is set up to maximize the sound of a dynamic speaker would not be forgiving to a panel speaker.
However...
In regards to your comment about the Maggies sounding "broken" in comparison, I will share a brief story. At one point I had a pair of MMGs in my office. Some friends who are huge Vandy fans were interested, having never heard them. I carted them over to their house and used their system to compare the Vandy 3's (I forget which version) to the humble MMG. We simply dropped the MMGs in and did no optimization for them. They guffawed at the sound quality level achievable when this cheap $600 speaker was put into their big gun system. No "broken" sounding result that time! Obviously a radically different result as would be expected.
I knew it would not be a cakewalk for the Vandy 3, but even I was surprised at how competitive the MMG was considering two Vandy Subs were in use but not tweaked for the MMGs (They were also in use with the 3s).
I consider the term "broken" as largely a dismissal of the panel sound. There seem to be nearly as many fans of Magnepan as Vandersteen - they are both premier audiophile speaker sellers in North America. Maggie fans would be as able to describe the sound of a Vandy, or any dynamic speaker, as sounding "broken". Technological preference plays a large part in your comparison.
As for myself I find both have something terrific to offer and specific limitations, which is why I work with both panel and dynamic speakers. The Vandys and Maggies are perhaps the most adored of these two competing technologies, and for good reason. :)
Finally, I suggest that for people who have the perception of the OP, they might wish to try a class D amp with very high power, like 500-1,000wpc, with the Vandy 2 or 3 as this should tighten up the speaker quite a bit. Tonally the outcome is not guaranteed to be acceptable (I put the odds at 50/50, but such things are part of the exploration.
So, it's not surprising that you achieved far better results than average by complementing the Vandy's with the most suitable gear. My point was not to diminish Vandersteens, but simply to point out why some would not prefer the sound. A system which has been optimized for one speaker will not typically serve all speakers with equal benefit. One notable exception is the Exogal Comet DAC and Ion PowerDAC together, which I reviewed for Dagogo.com and own. It was the only set of pre/DAC/power electronics to take five speaker systems (including panel, dynamic, hybrid dynamic, omni) to their best performance ever, something which had never occurred in all my years of reviewing. I was deeply impressed by that result. It should be expected that normally a rig that is set up to maximize the sound of a dynamic speaker would not be forgiving to a panel speaker.
However...
In regards to your comment about the Maggies sounding "broken" in comparison, I will share a brief story. At one point I had a pair of MMGs in my office. Some friends who are huge Vandy fans were interested, having never heard them. I carted them over to their house and used their system to compare the Vandy 3's (I forget which version) to the humble MMG. We simply dropped the MMGs in and did no optimization for them. They guffawed at the sound quality level achievable when this cheap $600 speaker was put into their big gun system. No "broken" sounding result that time! Obviously a radically different result as would be expected.
I knew it would not be a cakewalk for the Vandy 3, but even I was surprised at how competitive the MMG was considering two Vandy Subs were in use but not tweaked for the MMGs (They were also in use with the 3s).
I consider the term "broken" as largely a dismissal of the panel sound. There seem to be nearly as many fans of Magnepan as Vandersteen - they are both premier audiophile speaker sellers in North America. Maggie fans would be as able to describe the sound of a Vandy, or any dynamic speaker, as sounding "broken". Technological preference plays a large part in your comparison.
As for myself I find both have something terrific to offer and specific limitations, which is why I work with both panel and dynamic speakers. The Vandys and Maggies are perhaps the most adored of these two competing technologies, and for good reason. :)
Finally, I suggest that for people who have the perception of the OP, they might wish to try a class D amp with very high power, like 500-1,000wpc, with the Vandy 2 or 3 as this should tighten up the speaker quite a bit. Tonally the outcome is not guaranteed to be acceptable (I put the odds at 50/50, but such things are part of the exploration.