Vandersteen 3A Sig vs. Meadowlark Osprey

No disrespect intended toward Narrod, but in comparing the Vandy 3A Sig to most other speakers, some listeners may tend to think that the "other speaker" has better transparency and/or high-frequency extension than the Vandy.

Listen carefully during speaker auditions and I think you will find that the Vandy 3A Sig has excellent transparency and high-frequency response. The 3A Sig has very flat frequency response from about 30Hz to 20kHz, and is only down about 3db at 25kHz. The tweeter in the 3A Sig is the same one used in the Vandy Model 5, and is one of the best tweeters available. Further, the mid-range in the 3A Sig is identical to the one used in the Model 5, and it is a patented, proprietary design that has superb soundstaging and timbral accuracy.

In comparison to the Vandy 3A Sig, many other speaker manufacturers design their speakers with a "tilted-up" high frequency response, which tends to make listeners think the speaker has better extension. This can be attractive at first listening, but tends to become wearing during extended listening sessions. Alternatively, some speakers are designed to have a very slight depression in the upper-midrange, which gives the psycho-acoustic impression of more extended highs.

The current issue of TAS has their annual "Golden Ear" awards, and reviewer Shane Buettner nominates the Vandy 3A Sig (with 2Wq subwoofers) as his "Golden Ear" choice (see page 67 of the Dec 2002 issue).

I personally regard speakers as THE most important single choice in one's audio system, for the simple reason that speakers are transducers (devices which convert electrical energy to mechanical energy, or vice-versa). As such, transducers are the most subject to non-linearities of any component in your system (unless you have an analog front end, which also involves a transducer).

The best suggestion that can be made is to extensively audition the speakers that interest you, using music that you know very well. If possible, try to audition speakers in your home, since your room will substantially impact the sound you hear.

There have been a lot of threads about Vandy 3A and 3A Sig speakers here on Audiogon over the past year, and I suggest you look in the archives for those commentaries.

I don't know anything about the Meadowlark but as a owner of Vandy 5, I can tell you that the Vandy 3A Sig + W2q sub will be a much better buy than the Vandy 5. You will get at least 80% performance for 50% of the cost. In some situations they will out perform model 5 because 3A Sig + W2q will be far more flexible in terms of positioning. Yes having an equalizer in the sub is a good idea but its effectiveness is limited and it is very difficult to adjust correctly. Equalizer simply cannot substitute for good speaker positioning. If I knew what I know now, I would have bought the 3A Sig + 2Wq instead of the 5.

Sdcampbell: I can tell you've talked to Richard Vandersteen. Actually, so have I (and 99 percent of audiophiles), and I've owned the 2Ci and 3A -- along with about a dozen other high-end speakers, so I'm not new to this game. I'm also a fan of phase- and time-aligned speakers. I prefer Dunlavys to Vandersteens, but both are obviously well-designed speakers. I just think the Dunlavys do a better job in the area of transparency and realism. And the Vandersteens do indeed add some warmth in the mid-bass and lower midrange. Still, they're very easy to listen to for long periods.

For this discussion, though, I wondered about the Meadowlark Osprey because it, too, is supposed to be phase and time coherent and is priced at $2,995 -- $500 less than the Vandy 3A Signature. It's also using high-end drivers, according to the manufacturer's hype. And Meadowlark speakers have drawn a lot of praise from the audio rags, too. Thanks.

Having listened to the entire Meadowlark line at some point, I bought the 3A Signatures. The Meadowlark's didn't seem to get the midrange right and the "Transparency" was a little off. If you listen to very familiar recordings on both speakers, you will hear this. I think the Meadowlark's are good speakers but to my ears, are not up to the level of refinement you hear with the Vandersteen's. For comparison purposes, I am using a 4-ch Theta Dreadnaught to biamp, an Audible Illusions L-1 and a Meridian 508-24 ( I also use a pair of 2WQ's) but for comparison, turned them off.. Make sure, if possible, you compare both speakers in the same enviroment with the same equipment. Room acoustics can make the best speaker stink. Be careful with transparency. As Sdcampbell says, speakers are tilted up in frequency. The Meadowlark's are not as flat as the Vandersteen's. Accurate speakers usually sound dull compared to inaccurate ones. It doesn't take much to give false impressions. However, over time, it will show itself.
I have had a lot of speakers over the years and I have found that over the long hall, Vandersteen's just sound right to me. It is a combination of a lot of things.
Another good comparison, although off the subject, was the Meadowlark Kestrel Hotrod. It got a lot of good press but having had access to it for 6 months, it is not as good a speaker as the Vandersteen 2CE Signature for the same money. I think this follows up both lines with the same ultimate result.

Bigtee: The Osprey is a brand new speaker. I'm thinking it might be better than the previous Meadowlark speakers, which didn't impress me all that much.

As for listening to speakers in the same environment, that's very rarely possible. Almost never, in fact, unless you're fortunate enough to live in one of the major markets.

As for accuracy, as noted already, I'm used to accurate speakers -- Quad 988, Dunlavy SC-IV/A, Dunlavy SC-II, etc. I'm not talking about JBLs and the like with tizzy highs meant to impress people new to the hobby . Thanks.