First, Vandersteen INCLUDES all those "nasty" EQ settings on the Quatro, 5A and model 7 (not much is better than product). Done right they are excellent. Two, a subs response is the ROOM it is in on. Yes, the floor standers are positioned for best imaging, not bass, so "more" EQ may be needed. But, that does NOT mean that a top flight sub should not offer some room EQ. This isn't harsh, it is what it is...a user feature to maintain a better overall response.
The feature has been built-in to all three Vandersteen models, and could be added to the subs, too. The problem is, according to Richard, that we are too cheap to understand the feature, and buy more on the price. Yes, the sub is located more consistently than the mains but still, you can only move two eighteen inch boxes around so much before the living room is the stereo and there is no place left to live! EQ helps avoid this.
Most subs roll off the bottom at 12 to 24 dB / octave to remove "junk". The top is a first order filter at 6 dB per octave...as is a high-pass filter. More than 6dB per octave would make blending real hard.
Actually, full range passive speakers are the WORST way to get quality sound. Most of the power is eaten-up in the crossover with pads to keep the little guy drivers from frying. And, each amp design is ideally very different for each driver. There is just NO WAY a "full range" speaker, even a C4, can be accurately dynamic and flat with the box size and power necessary to play flat and dynamic below 40 Hz. The C4 crosses-over at a high 730 Hz into the eight-inch drivers, so the two eight-inch drivers are playing a LOT of midrange information. Yes, the two help limit driver motion and intermodulation distortion, so they sound real nice. And I'm glad they biased the speaker this way. But, the bass is NOT as deep, flat, or dynamic as a powered sub system. The best world is with each driver using it's own amp, through an active crossover...things could be VERY different with the exact same speaker.
So, I feel that there is no way a "soft" crossover using just EQ is going to be as good as a true first-order quality hi-pass filter. You have too many things left on the table; main amp is still taxed too much, bass driver have much more intermodulation distortion than necessary, the subs "sound" doesn't take into account the main amps sound with line-level inputs and you don't have much control of what it is (with true active cross-over systems you can PICK the amps you want for sound, even all three the same). Amd. stereo is better at dynamic range and smootness all thigs the same. Things aren't the same, so is ONE SUB1 better "sounding" than TWO Velodynes that may be "smoother and more dynamic? I may never know.
Yes, I've asked Dynaudio about their newer sub 800 series (which has a high-pass). No response from the main camp yet.
I have ruled out ported subs as they have two large phase peaks in the pass band, and can't be a linear as a seal system can be. LOUDER, yes.
The market is just thrown-in the towel for true Hi-fi sound with hi-def TV. It's just that simple. Digital music is trash, and shouldn't be! 24-bit has failed to bring music to the public due to infighting over getting a square deal on production (and they should) as we all go to FREE lossless CODECS (FLAC). Something about the word FREE makes it hard to run a business. The technology should make meeting BOTH demands easier than before, but vendors are driven to distraction to make money for stockholders and not the hi-fi customer. A nickel spent the wrong way (hi-fi) is taken from the bottom line. Their eye is on the ball, it just isn't the one telling you what note to sing playing music.
Right now, the 2Wq Vandersteen sub makes the most sense design wise IF he adds the eleven band EQ feature. If Richard did this, I would RUN not walk to the nearest dealer and by two. It cost money to do this, and for what he sells to true Hi-fi enthusiasts, it just won't pay him back to do it. I'll bet he'd do it even-up! But, he may not even get there. It's a shame, too.
Look at this thread. I've spent hundreds of hours learning the ins and outs of subs. If we all really did this, and really understood what was going on Richard would have a reason to "upgrade" the 2WQ. In the old days, people worked things harder before we bought things, as stuff was not designed to be thrown out.
So, my position is do I use 2Qw's and "hope" I can use them anywhere I go with decent room response and placement and with different speaker, or go with a more flexible but technically not as "sound" a design that has EQ capability (SUB1 or Velodyne) and that sounds maybe more consistent where I want to place it? But if Richard would remove that gamble of room EQ, sign me up now!
You are all great. This has been a fun thread, and I hope we all learn from it. And, since this is hardly an easy decision, I'm glad to see people aren't condemning decisions made by others. Heck, I may have to make a decision and not even HEAR a product I buy let alone all the other! How on earth can I say negative things about a product other than off a design spec? Yep, all I can do is try to "improve" the STD deviation around a guess with a "best" design practice metric limiting my choices. Yes, the “best” product may fall out! So still, that is no guarantee. There are no dealers nearby that will loan, or have, two 120 pound subs (I weight 150 pounds...the sub wins!) to try at home, I called around, let alone even hear. One dealer told me to bring my own laptop and set up the subs myself! I guess PINKIE runs the store and the BRAIN is the customer? That’s no way to rule the world. More than likely, a dealer that wants the business, and sets up the product right will get it. I know only one store that does this, and they sell Vandersteen, so this makes it all the more harder to not reward that dealer and accept the gamble the EQ doesn't matter.
