OK, it's 09/18/2011 but...I auditioned BOTH of these products. The C4 is in a different spectrum than the 3.7. Yes, the 3.7 is good (I like the 3.7) but it is not a full size imaging speaker, doesn't go nearly as low, has no SLAM to music that calls for it, and the basic sonic signature isn't as life like and blended in texture as the C4.
If I added a sub to the 3.7, the overall price exceeds the C4, and ISTILL don't get slam when needed, the transparent texture of the C4, or the tightly integradted bass and life size sound stage. So, the C4 remaind superior overall. But, the 3.7 is killer at low SPL's and in the price range it lives in "as is" if some bass extension and image size is not important.
If someone took my Vandersteen Quatro signature woods away and said get another speaker at 10K or so, I'd head to the 3.7. But, If I COMPARED the 3.7 and the C4, I'll head to the C4.
The Vandersteen Quatro wood and the 3.7 is a tough call for most people. It could go either way and I'd understand either direction 100%. But not the C4 compared to EITHER the woods or the 3.7. The C4 wins hands down (got some BIG bucks, though?).
As far as driving the speakers, SS high curreny amps are pretty common now-a-days. So unless you listen crazy loud, I don't see that the comment about driving ANY of these speakers to be a "modern" SS issue. Sonic texture differences in amps when combined with speaker cables and the speakers? Sure. To each theeir own on that, but driving the speaker? No problem.
