Sonus Faber Amati Homage versus Vandersteen 5A

1) We can all get along; no more "fighting" about engineering from my end...
2) Actual listening to systems is the best way to evaluate ultimate inter-component compatibility...but
3) One CAN make sensible choices BEFORE listening to particular component combinations, e.g., whether a particular amplifier would be well suited for driving a speaker based on a couple of specs, or whether the output impedance of a particular preamp would be suited to the input impedance of an amp. My point being that, at the very least, some incompatibilities, based on electrical parameters, can be screened out ahead of time by such methods.

Confessions:

1. I haven't heard the Vandersteen 5A, just the 5.
2. I am a Vandersteen 3A Signature owner.
3, Although generally a fan of Vandersteen, I feel myself to have enough objectivity to let my ears make the decision, not my prejudices.

I heard both the 5 and the Sonus Faber Amati Homage years
ago. It wasn't at the same time or at the same dealer.
First off, if these two speakers were pitted in a beauty contest, the Amati would win hands down. They are flat-out gorgeous. The Vandersteen 5 is large, squat, clunky-looking and, in my opinion, cannot be considered, in any sense, a decorative enhancement to a living room. The Amati looks like a piece of furniture or a musical instrument such as a harp, doubling as a speaker. It is a visual enhancement to almost any room in your home.

Sound-wise, I would give the contest to Vandersteen by a wide margin. Remember that the listening sessions were at different dealers, using different electronics, in different rooms. The Vandersteen dealer takes particular care about setups, equipment matching etc. and room placement, while I would say that the other dealer seems to have difficulty showing equipment off to its best advantage. Sonus Faber Amati is certainly not a bad speaker. I found it just slightly on the warm side and I really have nothing bad to say about it. Although I don't remember any obvious flaws, it just didn't make me sit up and take notice of anything which it did exceptionally well. I thought that $20,000.00 was a lot to pay for what I was hearing. They are deep-bass shy, which I won't call a flaw, because for many, it is not a strong need to have. It is still worth noting and although the Vandersteen 5 did not excel in my deep bass tests, it had a far more substantial low end than the Amati's. Sorry for not saying more about the Amati's, I would say more about them if I remembered more.

The Vandersteen 5 was exceptional in 2 out of the 3 auditions in which I heard them. They are neutral, open, airy and throw off a wide soundstage in which individual instruments can be precisely located. It is an extremely smooth-sounding system, but instruments operating within the midrange and treble had just enough "bite" to sound real. Many of the complaints that people have about Vandersteen systems are just unequivocally absent on the 5's. Faults of the Vandersteen: I thought that all 3 times that I heard them, the bass was less than exceptional, a surprise for a Vandersteen speaker. Dynamics were also OK, but not standout, also a surprise. I heard them with Ayre K1 preamp, and V1 amp, again with K1 preamp and Bel Canto EVo amplifier. The third time which was at the N.Y. High Fi Show, used an Aesthetix Callisto preamp and Cary V-12 tube amp. I liked that demo the least. I don't remember the electronics used with the Amati's. It could have been BAT electronics, which I have never favored.

I am not sure where this thread is going but I have learned about three more speakers now in the running at this price point in addition to the Wilson WP7, Vandersteen 5A, SF Amati Homage, and Ariel 20T now including Dali Euphonia MS5/4, The Bang & Olufson Beolab 5 and the Meridian DSP 7000. These are radically different design approaches. I believe the future of hi end audio might be speakers that can be tuned to the in-room acoustics by electronically tailoring their output through feed back. The truth is that no speaker will sound the same in our own respective home environments when compared to the showroom. Ideally we would want a speaker that would sound better that what we had heard. I have decided to make my own listening room with acoustic treatment in an attic space that is now unfinished. I plan to do this while auditioning the various speakers mentioned (a time consuming process but worth the efffort). We do need to believe our ears when the investment is substantial (40K) or more. In the end everything needs to be synergistic but the best speakers are the least influenced by electronics and room acoustics IMO.

When venturing into the $$$ territory for speakers that you are Dbk, room optimization should and ultimately will become a significant investment in both time and money. My hunch is that as best we can evaluate speaker, amp, pre amd source combinations in store environments, we will always have the ability, given resources, to exceed the performance in-home, in terms of room treatment and component placement, simply because we have time. That simple facet of the listening experience, which helps average out our very plastic and flexible sensory/emotional/physical states can only occur over time and with repeated experiences. Trial end error in some cases, along with educated decisions about optmization of the listening environment, make for the best outcomes.

Note too that many B&M stores are now focusing on system installations and room treatments as the "added value" proposition for their own survival. I have almost no experience with room treament except for a bass buster in one corner. Did it help? I think so but there are some days and some recordings when I don't think it makes a difference.

I read the latest reviews in TAS about the B&O and Meridian speakers too. With Meridian my feeling is that the user is somewhat restricted to using their source components (not necessarily a bad thing, I enjoy my 508.24 and 504). The few times I have heard their systems it was with DVD-A sources and it was hard for a vinyl junkie like me to really get the whole sonic picture of what this system would sound like at home. I fear I would end up playing with menus more than I would just sit and enjoy music.

With the B&O, it's hard for me take them seriously suddenly because for so long they only made, IMO, systems that were primarily for the eye and not for the ear. So I'm sceptical about the TAS review.

You do have a point about how the "best" speakers may be influenced the least by room acoustics, but I hope we agree that in order to get the most from such designs requires dedication to optimizing that room acoustically. My cathedral ceilings don't help all aspects of my CS6s (snapping fingers reveals that horrid pinging noise bouncing off sprayed textured walls) and I look forward to being able to hear them when we downsize our living space this year.

I'll bet that in almost every case, given good choices between the rest of the components in a system, we all have the power and ability to make any system sound better than it ever did in the showroom.

the ones least influenced by the electronics and room acoustics. They are the ones that do the best job of reproducing the signal sent to it by the amplifiers. If your speakers are poorly designed, the best room acoustics (whatever this means) and equalization in the world are not going to help you.