Vandersteens and subwoofers other than the 2Wq?

Maxgain, you are quite correct about the phase benefits of first-order crossovers. It is one of the prime factors in the "Vandersteen magic" that I dearly love. But not all of us can optimally position our speakers for their best performance. I have doorways, heat ducts, windows, WAF, and other restrictions to contend with that compromise almost everything.

The fact is that the Vandersteen 2WQ did not work nearly as well as the Titan II LE in my room with the placement restrictions that I have. That gradual crossover slope allowed more bass frequencies in the directional range to emanate from the 2WQ, which made it stand out more sonicly for me than the Titan II LE (I must place the subwoofer in front and to the right of my 1C's). Both the 2WQ and Titan II LE would certainly perform better if I could place them somewhere between my main speakers or in a front corner, but, alas, I cannot.

Maxgain, I don't understand why you continue to doubt the veracity of what I say. I speak on this topic from my direct experience and have done the research on the Vandersteen line, mining the superb resources on the Vandersteen site and the many helpful posts by Sdcampbell and others here and on other audio sites.

Judit, I would be able to relieve more of the bass congestion and open up the mids of my 1C's while running them full-range, if I were able to position them further into the room. They are currently a little over 2 feet from the back wall; when I've moved them much further into the room, I've jeopardized the WAF (and the 1C's spikes in carpet do make them exceedingly difficult to continually move back and forth, plus I must readjust the Vandystands' alignment each time I reposition the speakers on my uneven floor). I think that the 65 Hz highpass filters do help me place my 1C's closer to the wall.

Sek, I just found it dificult to understand the statement about the first order crossover not allowing the woofer to make a seamless transition. It was from that statement that I made the assumption that you had not tried it in your system before making this judgment.I supose that if you had qualified your statement a bit more it would have made it more useful to Matchstickman. I only hope to clarify the information so as not to confuse the author of this thread and would like to thank you for what you have added in order to do the same.

I do usderstand that some rooms are less than ideal places for a music system and we all need to do the best we can with what we have. I am happy that you have found a suitable solution in your given situation. I just thought that some clarification was in order, as that was sort of a blanket statement, and as you know I tend to question statements of that nature. The impression you gave was that one of the outstanding features of the 2W woofers, the crossover design, was in fact a hinderance to it's performance. I do DISAGREE strongly with that! Hence my questioning of your direct experience with the unit.I do this only because it directly conflicts with my own findings on this topic and I do feel strongly that it would be difficult to find a better choice than the 2Wq for a system with Vandersteens as the main speakers, at least in a music(read,not home theater)system. Sek,please try not to take it as a personal attack, as it is not intended in that way.I have people question what I say here all the time. It is the nature of the forum. No one has to beleive a word I say here. It does not affect the sound of MY system if they don't like what I say. Which by the way is better than ever!

I am confident that both Bigtee and Sdcampell will agree with me that when the circumstances allow for proper set up that the woofer calls NO attention to itself. My mains/sub integration is nearly flawless after what I admit was some considerable but very worthwhile work in this area(with some help, consultation, and advice from both of the Agon members I mentioned). Thanks guys!

I agree, concerning the Vandersteen 2WQ, when the circumstances allow for proper set up that the woofer calls NO attention to itself. I first heard a 2WQ set up quite optimally in a friend's system. His huge Kendalls integrate flawlessly with his single 2WQ (crossed over at 75 Hz., BTW) that is clearly visible to the eyes in the left front corner of his dedicated listening room yet is sonicly invisible in operation.

The 2WQ's crossover design *was* a hindrance to its performance *in my setup* *in my room* (while the 1C's which also use a first-order crossover are quite flexible in the same specific context: apples and oranges). Apparently, with an ACI or a Rel subwoofer, one may trade off some forms of distortion for others, but what's most important is what combination of components sounds better overall, given one's very specific circumstances.

Sek, how does he acomplish this cross at 75Hz? Perhaps you mean he has 75K fixed X-2 filters(their is no 75K setting on the switchable unit that comes with the woofer).

Bigtee and Scott, I have a question my self. It is my understanding that the low pass portion of the X-0ver built into the 2W's is fixed at 80 cycles, and that the feed forward correction does nothing to compensate for input impedance variations and theirfore lowered or raised High pass starting points. i.e. a 75K fixed filter into a 100K amp gives a high pass value at roughly 63Hz and thus an overlap of frequencies being produced by the woofer with its low pass x-over point at 80HZ. Or is their some mechanism that I am unaware of built into "Dick's" feed forward correction set up to compensate for this?

He started with the variable crossover that came with the 2WQ and from there, after consulting our local Vandersteen dealer, determined the proper value for the higher quality fixed Vandersteen crossover for which he paid an additional charge. 75 Hz. is my best recollection.