Advice on Aerius vs. Vandersteen 2Ce
Nathan Wong
: 1) Does normally the electrostatic speakers (ie Aerius) degrade
: over a period of time? Meaning humidity, dust etc. cause the panel to
: degrade and alter the quality of the sound. If so, how long will they last?
Well, I've had my Martin Logan Sequels since March, 1988 and I haven't
heard one problem yet. One even has a hole in cellophane membrane and it
still sound perfect. In fact, the front grill was dented when it fell on
the edge of a coffee table during the 1989 SF earthquake.
When I was out shopping for speakers years ago it was a choice between
the Vandersteens, the Martin Logans, and the Magneplaners. I didn't like
the Vendersteens, not because of the sounds, but because of their look.
For over a thousand or two dollars they weighed close to nothing. I know
that's a stupid thing to base the speakers on, but I did. They also
didn't impress me much (how's that?). I then tested both the Magneplaners
and Martin Logans side by side with both classical and David Lee Roth.
The Martin Logans sounded better with both, especially David Lee Roth. It
sounded faster and fuller (more bass I suppose). So, I bought the ML
Sequels and to tell you the truth, THEY WERE THE BEST PURCHASE I'VE EVER
MADE and have NEVER regretted buying them...EVER! Even when they came out
with the Sequel II's I was still happy with the originals.
I hope this helps a little. I know the Aerius aren't quite Sequel II's,
but I just wanted to point out that electrostatics are WONDERFUL. Plus it
impresses people when they walk in and think the music is being pumped up
through the grill from the speaker on the bottom. In fact, people have
wonderered what that thing was on top of the speaker and when I tell them
it's THE SPEAKER they really get miffed. It's a great conversational
piece.
Oh, and the Sequels (black wood) was in Waynes World, the movie. It was
in Alice Cooper's back stage room. However, I just saw the TV version of
the movie and it was pretty hard to see the speakers. It was cut off
because of the screen ratio. In a letterboxed version you definitely
would be able to see it though.
Good luck.
Nathan
Adour Vahe Kabakian
Nathan Wong <nath...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>When I was out shopping for speakers years ago it was a choice between
>the Vandersteens, the Martin Logans, and the Magneplaners. I didn't like
>the Vendersteens, not because of the sounds, but because of their look.
>For over a thousand or two dollars they weighed close to nothing. I know
>that's a stupid thing to base the speakers on, but I did. They also
>didn't impress me much (how's that?).
Weight nonsense:
Martin-Logan: Aerius (55lb, $2,000); Sequel II (100lb, $3,000)
Vanderstein: 2Ce (63lb, $1,300); 3 ( 97lb,~$2,500)
Looks: A chacun son gout.
You also say they didn't impress you much. In what regards? Here is
the probable explanation:
>
>...Plus it [Electrostats]
>impresses people when they walk in and think the music is being pumped up
>through the grill from the speaker on the bottom. In fact, people have
>wonderered what that thing was on top of the speaker and when I tell them
>it's THE SPEAKER they really get miffed. It's a great conversational
>piece.
It is funny. When it comes down to it, many "high-enders" are
very much concerned about looks and ability to impress. Amps with
beautiful chassis that alone cost more than the average audio system
do elicit flattery. Speakers that look like creatures from an alien
world raise quite a few eyebrows and give its owners an aura of
mystique. Some honest high-enders actually acknowledge that
impressive looks are an important factor for them, and a few even
admit that looks can be as important as sonic virtues. This is all
very natural and I see nothing wrong with it.
But I chuckle when some high-enders make fun of the "bells and
whistles" crowd. Just like the golden front panels of some very
expensive amps, those spaceship like looking receivers that have more
lights than pinball machines and more knobs than airplane cockpits are
also made to impress. They simply cater to a crowd with different
tastes ;-)
-adour
ps: I am not flaming Nathan. I am just being a little sarcastic about
high end audio in general and perhaps trying to irritate a few egos :)
Soren F Ragsdale
: George Y. Chang (gyc...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
: When I was out shopping for speakers years ago it was a choice between
: the Vandersteens, the Martin Logans, and the Magneplaners. I didn't like
: the Vendersteens, not because of the sounds, but because of their look.
: For over a thousand or two dollars they weighed close to nothing. I know
: that's a stupid thing to base the speakers on, but I did.
The speakers are about 80lbs each. How much are you expecting a speaker
to weigh for around $1400?
I guess I'm just being a bit defensive because I've got a pair of 2ce's,
and every month or so I have to lug them up and down a flight of stairs
when we have a Movie Night. They're heavy enough for me. :)
--
These opinions are not my employers'. Or the Univeristy's. Or mine.
They are, in fact, beamed directly into my computer by nefarious and
subversive forces, so I cannot take any responsibility for this content.
S0REN RAGSDALE | so...@gas.uug.arizona.edu | Prime Minister of France
Nathan Wong
: Weight nonsense:
: Martin-Logan: Aerius (55lb, $2,000); Sequel II (100lb, $3,000)
: Vanderstein: 2Ce (63lb, $1,300); 3 ( 97lb,~$2,500)
You are very correct...nonsense indeed. However, at the time I bought my
Sequels they cost...$995 a piece. Also at that time the Vandersteens were
about $700 a piece. $2000 was the maximum I wanted to spend the Sequels
actually fit in nicely.
: You also say they didn't impress you much. In what regards? Here is
Well, I liked the specs on the ML Sequals as they had a bass response of
28 Hz. People also recommended Fried and B&W speakers, but they were too
expensive.
: It is funny. When it comes down to it, many "high-enders" are
: very much concerned about looks and ability to impress. Amps with
: beautiful chassis that alone cost more than the average audio system
: do elicit flattery. Speakers that look like creatures from an alien
: world raise quite a few eyebrows and give its owners an aura of
: mystique. Some honest high-enders actually acknowledge that
: impressive looks are an important factor for them, and a few even
: admit that looks can be as important as sonic virtues. This is all
: very natural and I see nothing wrong with it.
You are very correct that looks ARE as important as sonic virtues. The
reason is that they cost a royal sum (especially compared when you can
buy speakers for $150) and they are part of many people's main living
area decor. They must look nice because they'll probably be around longer
than most speakers.
I used to laugh at the way some of all those "gee-whiz" units that cost
$500 looked, but over the years I think some have become rather
interesting with all the features for the $$$ (more bang for the buck).
: But I chuckle when some high-enders make fun of the "bells and
: whistles" crowd. Just like the golden front panels of some very
: expensive amps, those spaceship like looking receivers that have more
: lights than pinball machines and more knobs than airplane cockpits are
: also made to impress. They simply cater to a crowd with different
: tastes ;-)
Luckily I'm not one of those people who loved those GOLD front panels or
one where I was a total minimalist. I used to own one of those old
receivers that didn't have a remote control or programmable radio
stations. I actually had to turn a dial. When I upgraded my stereo I
looked around for what I needed and though it wasn't a true high-end unit
the Adcom GTP-500 fit the bill nicely. That remote control and
programmable radio stations are WONDERFUL and I'll never go back to those
manual tuner/preamps again.
: ps: I am not flaming Nathan. I am just being a little sarcastic about
: high end audio in general and perhaps trying to irritate a few egos :)
I could see why you're sarcastic. I am too, especially when I read
Stereophile and those other high end magazines. I especially laugh when I
see those prices for, basically, wire...and people pay the price. I
almost fell into that when I got started, but I stopped myself and
stepped back and analyze. Was it really worth all that money? I bought
one pair of high end interconnects for my CD player to see if there was a
difference and that cost $70 for a 3 foot pair! That was ridiculous. The
difference in sound between those cables and the standard Radio Shack
cables? Well, a slightly different sounding midrange, but not much more.
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but it was true! Oh well.
Nathan
Rick Brusuelas
> Nathan Wong (nath...@crl.com) wrote:
> : I didn't like the Vendersteens, not because of the sounds, but because
> : to nothing.
> to weigh for around $1400?
> I guess I'm just being a bit defensive because I've got a pair of 2ce's,
> and every month or so I have to lug them up and down a flight of stairs
> when we have a Movie Night. They're heavy enough for me. :)
When I first saw this comparison, I was confused as well. Even back
when I bought my 2c, the list of the 'steen was around $1300 and the
Sequels were close to $2400.
And the weight observation ("they weigh close to nothing") also
surprised me... my hernia (trying to move my 'steens) even started to
hurt. ;-)
All speakers being disussed sound great however. A tough decision...
Rick Brusuelas
Sun Library
Aengus
[stuff deleted]
> Looks: A chacun son gout.
or, as the French say, chacun a son gout [accents omitted]
[more stuff deleted]
> It is funny. When it comes down to it, many "high-enders" are
> very much concerned about looks and ability to impress. Amps with
> beautiful chassis that alone cost more than the average audio system
> do elicit flattery. Speakers that look like creatures from an alien
> world raise quite a few eyebrows and give its owners an aura of
> mystique. Some honest high-enders actually acknowledge that
> impressive looks are an important factor for them, and a few even
> admit that looks can be as important as sonic virtues. This is all
> very natural and I see nothing wrong with it.
Absolutely, looks are important. Why do you think B&O midfi sells so well
(I've almost bought it myself on occasion)? And when I bought my Linn LP12 I
was sorely tempted to buy an Oracle instead. Yep, the Linn sounded better; the
Oracle looked gorgeous, though. The real question is, why do we have to put up
with all the lame techno-twerp fantasy stuff that characterizes high-end
aesthetics?
PS--I have absolutely no technical skills in amp or other circuit design, but
would love to be involved in the visual design of a state-of-the-art component.
Any high-end designers reading this?
Aengus
amaci...@actcorp.com
MadMat9
>>>>>>>>
I could see why you're sarcastic. I am too, especially when I read
Stereophile and those other high end magazines. I especially laugh when I
see those prices for, basically, wire...and people pay the price. I
almost fell into that when I got started, but I stopped myself and
stepped back and analyze. Was it really worth all that money? I bought
one pair of high end interconnects for my CD player to see if there was a
difference and that cost $70 for a 3 foot pair! That was ridiculous. The
difference in sound between those cables and the standard Radio Shack
cables? Well, a slightly different sounding midrange, but not much more.
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but it was true! Oh well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Here we have a guy who is extolling the virtues of two high end speakers
and then he starts this crap with cables meaning nothing. Get a life (or
a pair of ears). On BOTH these speakers, you can hear differences in
cables. Maybe he doesn't have good enough stuff in the rest of the
chain..... I wasn't too impressed by these differences, either, until I
got a real preamp (Threshold FET 10). Now anyone can hear the difference,
and I think my $130 investment (Transparent cables) was worth it.
Mat