Von Schweikert VR-3
John Lockwood
I understand that the VR-3 is now being shipped to dealers.
Just wondering if anyone has had a chance to listen to them and how they might
compare to other speakers in their price range.
Soundstage!
I've heard them on a couple occasions. Excellent and outstanding value
for the price.
Doug Schneider
Dana Bunner
> John Lockwood wrote:
> > I understand that the VR-3 is now being shipped to dealers.
> >
> > Just wondering if anyone has had a chance to listen to them and how they might
> > compare to other speakers in their price range.
I accessed the Von Schweikert web page and couldn't find any information
about the VR-3. Perhaps it is there somewhere and I missed it.
Seems odd that something as simple to update as a web page, and given a
company that has only two products, can't be complete.
Dana
Eric Sune
>I've heard them on a couuple occasions. Excellent and outstanding vlaue
for the >price.
>Doug Schneider
Could you please tell me a little more about your listening experience?
I'm a VR-4 owner and have several friends who love them, but can't swing
$3450. Do you think the VR-3s deliver the goods at $1850? Our dealer
should be getting them any day now, but my pal's got money burning a hole
in his pocket and I'd like to convince him to wait for them.
Thanks,
Robert L.
Jack W. Hart
While updating a web page may not be a "big deal," when you've got a
small closely-owned company (relative to GM, etc) your priorities are
generally such that it falls pretty far down on the list.
If you do a DejaNews search, I believe someone posted something recently
which gave the basic details on the VR-3's.
Cheers!
Jack
Eric Sune
To Jack and other VR-4 owners,
My friend Robert and I share a house and we each have our own system. The
only thing our systems have in common is that we both now own VR-4s.
Although we have different sources and amplifiers, since Bob also bought
VR-4s, our systems now sound very similar. I guess that's a vote for
loudspeakers having the biggest overall effect on system sound.
What I'm curious about is the use of different cones, damping material,
etc., between the two modules. Bob is now using Black Diamond cones under
his and it sounds very different, and he thinks better. I borrowed them
and also noticed an obvious increase in resolution, but a lack of midrange
body that I found objectionable. Are you using anything different, or
have you heard of any other cones, etc. that I might try?
Thanks,
Eric
Jack W. Hart
I'm still using them in "stock" configuration. We did try the BDR cones
between the modules at a friend's, who also has VR-4's and since his
speakers were not broken in yet and didn't have the threaded spike feet
installed (with carpet floors), which we did later that evening, I can't
tell you definitively what the effects were.
I was hoping that either Stu McCreary or Albert would share their
findings with the group after they've exhausted their experimentation
with different damping materials.
Cheers!
Jack
Eric Sune
In article <3242B0...@premier.net>, "Jack W. Hart"
<jwh...@premier.net> writes:
>Eric:
>
>I'm still using them in "stock" configuration. We did try the BDR cones
>between the modules at a friend's, who also has VR-4's and since his
>speakers were not broken in yet and didn't have the threaded spike feet
>installed (with carpet floors), which we did later that evening, I can't
>tell you definitively what the effects were.
>
>I was hoping that either Stu McCreary or Albert would share their
>findings with the group after they've exhausted their experimentation
>with different damping materials.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Jack
Thanks for the reply Jack. I tried some damping feet made of navcom-like
material under the M/T modules and that has given me more upper bass and
low midrange warmth; however, I lost a little resolution in the process.
I'm trying to find something that will keep the fine focus *and* give me
the warmth I like. I'm going to call VR about this to see if they have
heard of any good candidates.
Bye the way, have you heard the new VR-3s? I did this weekend and whoa!
they're Killer! Time to buy some stock in VR I'd say.
Eric
Richard Brkich
Eric Sune wrote:
>
> In article <3242B0...@premier.net>, "Jack W. Hart"
> <jwh...@premier.net> writes:
>
> >Eric:
> >
> >I'm still using them in "stock" configuration. We did try the BDR cones
> >between the modules at a friend's, who also has VR-4's and since his
> >speakers were not broken in yet and didn't have the threaded spike feet
> >installed (with carpet floors), which we did later that evening, I can't
> >tell you definitively what the effects were.
> >
> >I was hoping that either Stu McCreary or Albert would share their
> >findings with the group after they've exhausted their experimentation
> >with different damping materials.
>
> material under the M/T modules and that has given me more upper bass and
> low midrange warmth; however, I lost a little resolution in the process.
> I'm trying to find something that will keep the fine focus *and* give me
> the warmth I like. I'm going to call VR about this to see if they have
> heard of any good candidates.
Well, I am using a protype carbon shelf from Black Diamond Racing in combination
with a damping material that they provided. This shelf is thin enough that it
does not jack up the mid/tweet module too high. I was using 2" squares of Deflex
energy absorbing material which helped but did help in the midrange (which seemed
to be clearer and still had good resolution), but did not do much for the upper
midrange/lower treble area. The Balck Diamong boards with two squares of the
thin Black Diamond damping material used to couple to the bass and mid/tweet
module gave me a uniform inprovement from the mids on up through the treble.
Feel free to give me a call if you or other VR-4 owners care to hear more about
this tweek. Though I like the results this gives, I'm worried that it may be
a bit pricey for this VR-4 coupling shelf.
> Bye the way, have you heard the new VR-3s? I did this weekend and whoa!
> they're Killer! Time to buy some stock in VR I'd say.
Did you hear them at the Canadian HiFi show or at one of the many demos Albert
has been doing lately? I have my pair!
--
Richard Brkich
Owner, Signature Sound
http://www.point2.com/davny02.htm
PH: 315-622-4137 FX:315-622-4137
Jim Cate
In <324708...@Syra.NET> Richard Brkich <rbr...@Syra.NET> writes:
>
>E
>> >Eric:
>> >
>> >I'm still using them in "stock" configuration. We did try the BDR
cones
>> >between the modules at a friend's, who also has VR-4's and since
his
Has anyone heard the VR-4.5, VR-5, or VR-10?
What drivers does the VR-5 have, and how much does it cost?
Jim Cate
Richard Brkich
There is no such thing (except for some thoughts in Albert VonSchwiekert's
mind maybe) as a VR-5. I have heard all the differing VR models. In particular
the VR-4.5 is a VR-4 with a real wood veneer on the bass module, silver wiring
interntally, Hovaland caps in the crossover, and solo CFAC copper foil
inductors in the crossover. This substantial and rather expensive parts
upgrade (the VR-4.5 retial is $5,950) is a significant improvement over the
plain VR-4 model. The VR-4.5 betters the VR-4 in clarity, bass performance,
and dynamics.
JBRACCO
The VR3 is a three way single box unit. It has the same tweeter & midrange
as
the VR4 but one 10" woofer. It has the same terrific Von Schweikert
"family"
sound & goes down to 26hz. It also has an option to add sand for loading-
highly recommended by AVS.
Jeff Adams
On 19 Sep 1996 13:24:00 -0400, eric...@aol.com (Eric Sune) wrote:
>Could you please tell me a little more about your listening experience?
>I'm a VR-4 owner and have several friends who love them, but can't swing
>$3450. Do you think the VR-3s deliver the goods at $1850? Our dealer
>should be getting them any day now, but my pal's got money burning a hole
>in his pocket and I'd like to convince him to wait for them.
Did you ever get any response to this post? I'm going to go hear the
VR-3s tommorrow, so I'll post on Monday.
Anyone who has heard the VR-3: I posted a couple of weeks ago about a
lack of lower-mid bass impact/weight (kick drum and bass guitar on pop
jazz/rock albums). Based on previous posts, I would have thought the
VR-4s were perfect (well, not really, there is no such thing). After
my post, a few others came forward to say that they too noticed this
lack of lower-mid bass. I am going to listen to the VR-4s in a smaller
room tommorow as well (original listening room was 35x18x10) and see
if that increases the apparent impact. Also will try moving them a
little closer to the boundaries. Understand that I'm not saying I
think this is a fatal flaw or anything like that. Just that people
should be aware of this. Given the choice between lean low-mid bass
and fat, thick, muddy low-mid bass, I'll take the first any day.
Has anyone who has heard the VR-3's compare them to the VR-4's in the
bass department? Not just how low they go, but, how does the bass
sound? Does it have more impact? Is it more articulate? Please
describe it.
Also, what would anyone who has listened to the VR-3 compare them to?
(i.e., other brands and models)?
Thanks,
===============================================================================
| Jeff Adams (jeff....@mtv.gtegsc.com)| GTE Government Systems Corporation |
| 415-966-2122 (Voice) | 100 Ferguson Drive, MS 6G05 |
| 415-966-3401 (FAX) | Mountain View, CA 94039 U.S.A. |
===============================================================================
| Statements made here are mine and only mine and do not reflect the opinions |
| of my employer or the organization through which Internet was accessed. |
===============================================================================
Eric Sune
>Rich Brkich:
>Did you hear them at the Canadian HiFi show or at one of the many demos
>Albert has been doing lately? I have my pair!
No I heard them in the main room of a local dealer who just got them too.
I did hear from one of my friends who went to the Canadian show, that the
VR/Blue Circle room had one of the best sounds of the show. I now own a
pair of the 3s along with the 4s in my main system. I think the VR-3s are
going to cause even more of a stir than the VR-4s, based mainly on their
affordability. I have a lot of freinds who love my 4s, but just couldn't
spring for a loudspeaker over $2,000. They now have a no-brainer choice.
Eric
Eric Sune
>After my post, a few others came forward to say that they too noticed
this
>lack of lower-mid bass. I am going to listen to the VR-4s in a smaller
>room tommorow as well (original listening room was 35x18x10) and see
>if that increases the apparent impact. Also will try moving them a
>little closer to the boundaries. Understand that I'm not saying I
>think this is a fatal flaw or anything like that. Just that people
>and fat, thick, muddy low-mid bass, I'll take the first any day.
It must be room that is causing this bass leaness. In my setup the sound
borders on being too full in this same region. My friend Robert s system
is nearly perfect with the VR-4s. With an Audio control analyser he s
getting 20hz-20khz +/-3db at the listening position. That s pretty darn
good in a room that was not custom built for audio.
I don t think Mr. Von Schweikert, or any competent designer, designs in
any deviation from flat response. The speaker no doubt is very close to
flat for the full range when you look at it with a MLSSA time window, or
when you test it in an anechoic chamber or custom designed listening room.
The problem is that everyone s room is different, as is their equipment.
I m pleased with the results I m getting in a somewhat difficult room.
The VR-4s are outperforming any other speaker I ve tried.
>Has anyone who has heard the VR-3's compare them to the VR-4's in the
>ass department? Not just how low they go, but, how does the bass
>sound? Does it have more impact? Is it more articulate? Please
>describe it.
I ve got a pair of VR-3s now and I m very impressed with their
performance. After a few days of hard breakin, they re really singing.
Definitely a family resemblance to my VR-4s. I think the midrange on up
is every bit as good as the VR-4s. The VR-3s don t have quite the bass
extension or power of the VR-4s and miss a bit of the low end resolution,
but hey, for nearly half the price, it is awfully good. Actually, in the
smaller room I have them set up in and being forced to place them closer
to the rear wall, they may work better than the VR-4s.
Sand filling the midrange/treble enclosure is a must! More depth, more
ease and a better tonal balance. It s not a subtle tweak.
Happy hunting,
Eric
Doug Schneider
> Anyone who has heard the VR-3: I posted a couple of weeks ago about a
> lack of lower-mid bass impact/weight (kick drum and bass guitar on pop
> jazz/rock albums). Based on previous posts, I would have thought the
> my post, a few others came forward to say that they too noticed this
> lack of lower-mid bass. I am going to listen to the VR-4s in a smaller
> room tommorow as well (original listening room was 35x18x10) and see
> if that increases the apparent impact. Also will try moving them a
> little closer to the boundaries. Understand that I'm not saying I
> think this is a fatal flaw or anything like that. Just that people
> and fat, thick, muddy low-mid bass, I'll take the first any day.
>
> sound? Does it have more impact? Is it more articulate? Please
> describe it.
>
The VR-3 has less bass output than the VR-4. The 3's
reportedly start rolling off at about 26 hz where the 4 is flat
to 20 (that's what the specs say). The 3 has noticeably less
bass than the 4, although this may not be a bad thing. By ANY
standards the 3 is excellent and with a smaller sized room may
work much better than the 4. I know people who simply cannot
use the 4 in their room.
What should be known about the 3's bass is that there are no
'humps' or exagerated regions to make the bass seem more than it
is. Some people may attribute this to being lean sounding, I do
not. It's flat, smooth, and quite articulate.
As well, a photograph of the VR-3 without it's grill cloth will
be up on Soundstage! tommorow (Oct1), check us out then and you
can get an under the covers look.
http://www.magi.com/~das/sstage.html
Doug Schneider
ae...@flight.els
>I ve got a pair of VR-3s now and I m very impressed with their
>performance. After a few days of hard breakin, they re really singing.
>Definitely a family resemblance to my VR-4s.
Has anyone compared the VR-3 to the Aerial 10T. They seem to have the
same compliment of drivers, sans the rear firing tweeter in the VR-3.
This would be an interesting comparison being that the VR-3 is
one-third the price of the 10T.
Has anyone made this comparison?
Jeff Adams
I have not heard them in the same room with the same equipment, but,
my initial assessment is that, as nice as the VR-3 is, the Aerial 10T
is a much better speaker. I heard the 10Ts with Threshold SA/2
monoblocks (my amps, actually, and they are for sale!) and I was VERY
impressed! Man, the 10Ts are just natural, natural, natural! So well
balanced!!! And incredible bass!!! This is one of those speakers that
you'd swear you were listening to live music. I was very impressed
indeed, and would be looking to buy these, but I can't afford them.
Anyone want to sell me 10Ts for a great price??
Doug Schneider
Eric Sune
>
>This would be an interesting comparison being that the VR-3 is
>one-third the price of the 10T.
>
>Has anyone made this comparison?
I have not heard them in the same room with the same equipment, but,
my initial assessment is that, as nice as the VR-3 is, the Aerial 10T
is a much better speaker. I heard the 10Ts with Threshold SA/2
monoblocks (my amps, actually, and they are for sale!) and I was VERY
impressed! Man, the 10Ts are just natural, natural, natural! So well
balanced!!! And incredible bass!!! This is one of those speakers that
you'd swear you were listening to live music. I was very impressed
indeed, and would be looking to buy these, but I can't afford them.
Anyone want to sell me 10Ts for a great price??
I made the VR-4/ 10T comparison when initially shopping for a new speaker.
I preferred the 10T over the Dunlavy SCIV, but it was the VR-4 that
ultimately one me over. It had a larger stage and a wider sweet spot than
the 10T, and the bass extension was notably superior with the VR-4. When
I figured in price, it was an easy decision.
Now I also own a pair of VR-3s. Although I haven't made a direct VR-3/10T
comparison, from my memeory of my last listening session with the 10Ts,
I'd say that the VR-3s run a close second, a surprisingly close second.
Hey, at one third the price, that in itself is pretty amazing.
I wouldn't have made this conclusion had I just heard the VR-3s at the
dealers. According to Ambrosia, none of the VR dealers have had these
speakers for more than two weeks and most have only had them one week. VR
was apparently a little late in getting them out, so none of the speakers
delivered had any appreciable break-in. They sounded good, but not great
at the dealers. I could listen past the breakin and decided to get them
anyway. They were not the equal of my VR-4s in the mids and treble when I
first set them up at home. The midrange was a little too forward, a bit
congested and the lower bass lacked the fullness that I like. I put a
Purist Audio breakin disc on them and let them wail away for 48 hours and
then played some Celtic tunes on them for a few hours to settle in before
I sat down for a serious listen. Then...Ahhhhh.....it all came together.
I stand by my opinion that the VR-3s are almost a dead heat with the VR-4
from the midrange on up (personal taste will come into play here). As you
noted Jeff, they do have a slightly more forward presentation and not
quite as billowy a soundstage, and a little bit smaller sweet spot, but
its awfully close to the standard set by the VR-4. They don't compete as
well with the VR-4 in bottom octave performance or way down deep
resolution, but unless you're playing deep synth or organ pieces, you may
not miss it.
Unless your dealer has pounded the crap out of them for several days, the
VR-3s are not going to compare as well to the VR-4s. Most of these
dealers have had the VR-4 demo pairs playing for weeks, if not months and
they are thoroughly broken in. All the VR-3s are green.
Cheers,
Eric
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Jeff Adams wrote:
> In previous posts I've described (and others have concurred) a
> "problem" with the VR-4 in the lower-mid bass region manifested as a
> lack of bass drum/bass guitar "weight", "impact", or "slam" (that
> feeling of the bass drum hitting you in the chest and the bass guitar
> having power or punch) on pop jazz/rock (probably other styles too,
> but that's what I was using).
>
> To review, the preamp being used was a melos sha gold, the amp a Pass
> Aleph 5, the CD transport a Marantz 63se, and the D/A a Wadi 25. I
> forget what the wire was. The room is HUGE at 35x18x10. The speakers
> were about 4-5 feet from the rear wall (I said 7 feet in a previous
> post - I was wrong). They were about 3-5 feet from the side walls, or
> about 9 feet apart.
BINGO!!! Here is your problem. I guaranty that your dealer was using
the Melos SHA Gold in the passive position. Couple this to the PASS
amplifier's relatively low input impedence (10K in the rca inputs) and
you have a recipe for missing bass impact. My friend has a Melos - it
didn't sound to good with his PASS Aleph O's in passive mode. Same
problem!
Zip
Richard Brkich
Eric Sune wrote:
> I could listen past the breakin and decided to get them
> anyway. They were not the equal of my VR-4s in the mids and treble when I
> first set them up at home. The midrange was a little too forward, a bit
> congested and the lower bass lacked the fullness that I like. I put a
> Purist Audio breakin disc on them and let them wail away for 48 hours and
> then played some Celtic tunes on them for a few hours to settle in before
> I sat down for a serious listen. Then...Ahhhhh.....it all came together.
> I stand by my opinion that the VR-3s are almost a dead heat with the VR-4
> from the midrange on up (personal taste will come into play here). As you
> Unless your dealer has pounded the crap out of them for several days, the
> VR-3s are not going to compare as well to the VR-4s. Most of these
> dealers have had the VR-4 demo pairs playing for weeks, if not months and
> they are thoroughly broken in. All the VR-3s are green.
You also need to mention the effect that sand loading the chamber behind
the midrange and tweeter drivers has. The midrange becomes clearer and less
forward, bass seems better too. Before I ever fully set-up the speakers at
my place, I hit them hard with the XLO test & burn in CD for about five days
and then loaded each of them up with about 40 lbs of dry fine grain sand. With
this done the speakers sound darn good, though i do need a hand truck to move
them around!
--
Richard Brkich
Owner, Signature Sound
http://www.point2.com/davny02.htm
PH: 315-622-4137 FX: 315-622-2993
Jeff Adams
Since no one has responded to this post under the subject line "VR-3
vs VR-4...", I will post it in this thread... here it is:
In previous posts I've described (and others have concurred) a
"problem" with the VR-4 in the lower-mid bass region manifested as a
lack of bass drum/bass guitar "weight", "impact", or "slam" (that
feeling of the bass drum hitting you in the chest and the bass guitar
having power or punch) on pop jazz/rock (probably other styles too,
but that's what I was using).
To review, the preamp being used was a melos sha gold, the amp a Pass
Aleph 5, the CD transport a Marantz 63se, and the D/A a Wadi 25. I
forget what the wire was. The room is HUGE at 35x18x10. The speakers
were about 4-5 feet from the rear wall (I said 7 feet in a previous
post - I was wrong). They were about 3-5 feet from the side walls, or
about 9 feet apart.
For this listening session, I asked that we move the VR-3s and VR-4s
to about 2" from the rear wall, and the speakers about 8 feet apart.
Everything else was the same. Oh, the VR-3's did have a full load of
sand (yes, you fill the tops with sand - the top wood piece comes in a
separate box. Before you snap it on, you should fill the tube in each
VR-3 with sand) as per the instructions.
The new VR-3 does in fact sound quite good. In comparison to the VR-4,
it's similar but different (yeah, weird thing to say, I know). The
bass is totally different (a single 10" driver). It is much more like
every other speaker I've heard; it goes low (but doesn't rumble the
room like the VR-4) and has the "bass impact/slam" I keep talking
about. It's plenty speedy and not at all muddy or bloated or thick.
The VR-4 goes WAY deep (VERY obvious on some pop vocal tracks with
synthesized bass - literally rumbles. With the VR-3 I don't know I'm
missing anything until I listen to the same tracks with the VR-4. But
the VR-4 STILL lacks bass slam/impact, even in their new positions.
The bass character is just plain different between these two speakers.
The VR-4s in this large room just aren't for rockers that want their
bass (recall that I'm NOT a rocker, I just want the sense of the full
weight of the bass guitar/bass drum). Now, others have emailed and
posted that in their particular rooms, they don't have any lack of
lower-mid bass. So, maybe in my room (18x14x8), I won't have any
problem. But, the bass characteristics of the two speakers would still
be different (I assume) in my room, with the VR-4 still being a little
lean.
The VR-3 midrange/treble certainly resembles the VR-4, but doesn't
achieve that lush, smooth, beautiful, spacious soundstage (I'm an
electrostatic lover, and the VR-4 doesn't give up anything to my
Acoutstats) to the same degree that the VR-4's do. They are good, but
the VR-4 is obviously better (not subtle - they are what I would call
"seductive" in this area - REALLY GOOD!!!). Also, I think that the
VR-3 is more "forward" (I wouldn't accuse them of being "bright") to
the degree that a couple of my CDs were not particularly pleasant to
listen to. This may be perfectly accurate, but beware if you have a
lot of old or tipped up in the treble CDs. Out of two dozen, only two
had a problem, so, it's not like it's going to ruin your collection or
anything. This is all very interesting given that the same tweeter,
rear tweeter, and midrange drivers are used (but a different enclosure
for them - sure makes a difference).
Overall, the VR-3 is very well balanced. And physically, while it's
not particularly remarkable, it's certainly less overwhelming looking
than the VR-4. The only visible wood are the solid top and bottom
pieces.
So, in conclusion, I still need to hear the VR-4 in a reasonably sized
room (anyone in the South San Francisco Bay Area own VR-4s and want to
invite me over?? :-)). I will probably end up having to try them in my
home (recommended for any speaker and all buyers). If the bass problem
can be resolved, then the VR-4 is the speaker for me. The VR-3 is
certainly a good speaker, but I haven't listened to it side-by-side
with other $2000 speakers. My sense is it's a pretty darn good value,
but, it's not a VR-4 for half the price! It's a VR-3.
Other thoughts and opinions?
Richard Brkich
Jeff Adams wrote:
> The VR-4 goes WAY deep (VERY obvious on some pop vocal tracks with
> synthesized bass - literally rumbles. With the VR-3 I don't know I'm
> missing anything until I listen to the same tracks with the VR-4. But
> the VR-4 STILL lacks bass slam/impact, even in their new positions.
> The bass character is just plain different between these two speakers.
> The VR-4s in this large room just aren't for rockers that want their
> bass (recall that I'm NOT a rocker, I just want the sense of the full
> weight of the bass guitar/bass drum). Now, others have emailed and
> posted that in their particular rooms, they don't have any lack of
> lower-mid bass. So, maybe in my room (18x14x8), I won't have any
> problem. But, the bass characteristics of the two speakers would still
> be different (I assume) in my room, with the VR-4 still being a little
> lean.
I can assure Jeff that as long as his room does not have any cavernous
openings to huge spaces and is more like my 11' x 20' with 8' ceiling
main demo room (in my house) that the VR-4s will have PLENTY of energy
in the lower mid-bass. In my room (even with the little Pass Alpeh 3),
the VR-4s generate plenty of bass. Jeez, the foot stomping in Eric Clapton's
uplugged disc almost makes me nausous. Be prepared to get the VR-4s
out into the room to prevent them from exciting room modes excessively!
--
Richard Brkich
Owner, Signature Sound
http://www.point2.com/davny02.htm
PH: 315-622-4127 FX: 315-622-2993
Firth of Fifth
Doug Schneider wrote:
>
> See a picture of a VR-3 with it's pants down at
> http://www.magi.com/~das/sstage.html
I thought placing the woofer near the floor was a no-no!
--
*********************************************************************
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ Brian E. Gabel
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) Pennsylvania State University
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' Management Science and
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Information Systems
( ( ),-'' ( ( ),' ((!.-'
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP - 1996? http://www.personal.psu.edu/beg103
*********************************************************************
Jeff Adams
On Tue, 01 Oct 1996 23:32:30 -0400, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo,
Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>Jeff Adams wrote:
>> To review, the preamp being used was a melos sha gold, the amp a Pass
>> Aleph 5, the CD transport a Marantz 63se, and the D/A a Wadi 25. I
>> forget what the wire was. The room is HUGE at 35x18x10. The speakers
>> were about 4-5 feet from the rear wall (I said 7 feet in a previous
>> post - I was wrong). They were about 3-5 feet from the side walls, or
>> about 9 feet apart.
>
>BINGO!!! Here is your problem. I guaranty that your dealer was using
>the Melos SHA Gold in the passive position. Couple this to the PASS
>amplifier's relatively low input impedence (10K in the rca inputs) and
>you have a recipe for missing bass impact. My friend has a Melos - it
>didn't sound to good with his PASS Aleph O's in passive mode. Same
>problem!
Thanks for the insight. I will definitely check this out on my next
visit. Here is an interesting question: This dealer has the Aleph
preamp (probably not the newest remote version... in fact I may have
just answered my own question), but chooses to use the Melos... I
would think that the VR-4s would sound noticeably better with the Pass
preamp, but, maybe the dealer is looking for some sort of softening
effect by combining the SHA Gold with the Aleph 5... Or, maybe, as I
said a few sentences ago, it's a simple matter of wanting to give his
customers the ability to control volume from the listening seat...
Steve (or anyone else reading for that matter), have you played at all
with different preamps on the Aleph 5? Oh, and as a side note, the
Aleph 5 really is very nice indeed. AND, from what I understand, they
are in stock and available.
Thanks,
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Jeff Adams wrote:
> Thanks for the insight. I will definitely check this out on my next
> visit. Here is an interesting question: This dealer has the Aleph
> preamp (probably not the newest remote version... in fact I may have
> just answered my own question), but chooses to use the Melos.
Give him some Q-Tips! He needs them badly!
> I would think that the VR-4s would sound noticeably better with the Pass
> preamp, but, maybe the dealer is looking for some sort of softening
> effect by combining the SHA Gold with the Aleph 5... Or, maybe, as I
> said a few sentences ago, it's a simple matter of wanting to give his
> customers the ability to control volume from the listening seat...
The PASS Aleph P has remote volume also. It is built better. It sounds
better. It is more reliable. It has balanced & s/e ins & outs.
> Steve (or anyone else reading for that matter), have you played at all
> with different preamps on the Aleph 5?
We've used the Aleph P, The Aleph L, The CODA Continuum, The Chiro
C-800, The Audible Illusions Modulus 3A (breat combo) and the
Quicksilver preamp. Oh yeah, we can't forget the Audio Alchemy DLC!
> Oh, and as a side note, the
> Aleph 5 really is very nice indeed. AND, from what I understand, they
> are in stock and available.
Yes, we got 'em
Zip
> Thanks,
Anthony Genovese
> Doug Schneider wrote:
> >
> > See a picture of a VR-3 with it's pants down at
> > http://www.magi.com/~das/sstage.html
>
> I thought placing the woofer near the floor was a no-no!
No more of a no-no than mating $3500 VR-4s with a $200 NAD integrated : )!
Regards,
Tony
Robert Laisdell
Well, a few more weeks of break in and fooling with room placement
and I've got the VR-3s dialed in. My spectrum analyzer tells me
that this is one of the flattest speakers I have ever owned. In
my smaller room, it measures even flatter than the VR-4s. This is
a high-end speaker folks! Don't let the $1850 price fool you.
I had to put well over 100 hours of hard play on them before
they really blossomed. The VR-4s didn't require this much breakin,
but I guess that may be partially because the lengths of wire to
the drivers is much shorter in the VR-4s and because the 8"
woofers break in quicker than the 10" in the VR-3s.
My impression now is that the VR-3s may be too good. What I
mean by this is that VSR may loose some VR-4 sales to the VR-3,
particularly to those folks with smaller rooms who must place the
speakers closer to the rear and side walls. I've got both speakers
and in some respects, I actually prefer the VR-3s.
The 3s do not go as low as the 4s and sacrifice just a smidge
of resolution way down there, but in a smaller room that won't
support 20Hz bass, you're really not going to miss it. The 3s
also have a slightly more forward presentation, that to my ears
yields even better front to back layering. The soundstage may not
be quite as expansive with the VR-3, but the image focus may be
just a bit better. Bottom line, these 3s are killer!
Thought I should share this to return the favor of those who
posted here and got me interested in VSR speakers in the first
place.
--
Robert Laisdell
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Dana Bunner wrote:
> I have no arguments whatsoever with driver breakin, but wire
> breakin is still just a myth, IMHO.
The key words are, in your opinion. I don't think this has ever been
proven or disproven. We know capacitors take a while to form, and some
cables act as capacitors. Note - I'm not pro or con here, just
remarking that there is conceivably some substance to the arguement.
> A few months ago on RAHE, John Dunlavy, the designer of the
> Dunlavy line of speakers, stated that he had never observed
> any effect of speaker cable or interconnect breakin. Given
> Dunlavy's decades of experience in building some of the
> finest speakers in the world, I have to put a good deal of
> weight in his worlds.
Is he more of an authority on cables and wires than a Bruce Brisson,
David Saltz, Bill Lowe, etc? He is a terrific speaker designer, but I
find some of his wire pronouncements a little tough to swallow.
> If he has never observed any effects
> of wire breakin within his own speakers and makes no effort
> to accomodate the effects of wire breakin in his speaker
> design, plus considering that he is well-grounded in audio
> engineering and a perfectionist when it comes to his
> products, then his opinion carries far more weight than the
> typical participant in these forums.
John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
> > My impression now is that the VR-3s may be too good. What I
> > mean by this is that VSR may loose some VR-4 sales to the VR-3,
> > particularly to those folks with smaller rooms who must place the
> > speakers closer to the rear and side walls. I've got both speakers
> > and in some respects, I actually prefer the VR-3s.
>
> Hmmm, interesting. I have an immediate opportunity to purchase
> a near mint, less than 1 yr old pair of VR-4s for the same price
> as a new pair of VR-3s.
Then get the VR-4's.
> > Thought I should share this to return the favor of those who
Cheers
Zip
Bob Myers
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) (z...@netrunner.net) wrote:
> Is he more of an authority on cables and wires than a Bruce Brisson,
> David Saltz, Bill Lowe, etc? He is a terrific speaker designer, but I
> find some of his wire pronouncements a little tough to swallow.
Let's see - he's an authority in those areas in which he agrees with your
biases, but in others you will turn to other "authorities". Right?
Yes, I would say that John IS more of an authority on cables and wires than
any mentioned above.
> John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
> designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
Well, why don't you ask him about that? Ever heard of giving the market
what it wants?
Bob Myers | "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even
myersfc.hp.com | know what you're talking about."
O- | - John von Neumann
Dana Bunner
Robert Laisdell wrote:
>
> Well, a few more weeks of break in and fooling with room placement
> and I've got the VR-3s dialed in.
> I had to put well over 100 hours of hard play on them before
> they really blossomed. The VR-4s didn't require this much breakin,
> but I guess that may be partially because the lengths of wire to
> the drivers is much shorter in the VR-4s and because the 8"
> woofers break in quicker than the 10" in the VR-3s.
I have no arguments whatsoever with driver breakin, but wire
breakin is still just a myth, IMHO.
A few months ago on RAHE, John Dunlavy, the designer of the
Dunlavy line of speakers, stated that he had never observed
any effect of speaker cable or interconnect breakin. Given
Dunlavy's decades of experience in building some of the
finest speakers in the world, I have to put a good deal of
weight in his worlds. If he has never observed any effects
of wire breakin within his own speakers and makes no effort
to accomodate the effects of wire breakin in his speaker
design, plus considering that he is well-grounded in audio
engineering and a perfectionist when it comes to his
products, then his opinion carries far more weight than the
typical participant in these forums.
> My impression now is that the VR-3s may be too good. What I
> mean by this is that VSR may loose some VR-4 sales to the VR-3,
> particularly to those folks with smaller rooms who must place the
> speakers closer to the rear and side walls. I've got both speakers
> and in some respects, I actually prefer the VR-3s.
Hmmm, interesting. I have an immediate opportunity to purchase
a near mint, less than 1 yr old pair of VR-4s for the same price
as a new pair of VR-3s.
> Thought I should share this to return the favor of those who
> posted here and got me interested in VSR speakers in the first
> place.
Yes, thank you for sharing your observations.
Dana
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Bob Myers wrote:
>
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) (z...@netrunner.net) wrote:
>
> > Is he more of an authority on cables and wires than a Bruce Brisson,
> > David Saltz, Bill Lowe, etc? He is a terrific speaker designer, but I
> > find some of his wire pronouncements a little tough to swallow.
>
> Let's see - he's an authority in those areas in which he agrees with your
> biases, but in others you will turn to other "authorities". Right?
I do NOT agree with everything he says about speakers, Mr Meyers. You
put words in my mouth, that I never said. I simply stated he is an
expert speaker designer. What hifi components have you successfeully
designed, Bob. Go pound your abacus. Mr. Dunlavy has hawked some cables
from time to time that I didn't think were particularly good, and I did
not buy into his technical explanation. Others did. You weren't even
around for that exchange, dude.
> Yes, I would say that John IS more of an authority on cables and wires than
> any mentioned above.
We didn't ask you. Oh, and now that you mention it, you are wrong.
> > John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
> > designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
>
> Well, why don't you ask him about that? Ever heard of giving the market
> what it wants?
Its called do as I do, not as I say.
Zip
Richard Brkich
Robert Laisdell wrote:
> I had to put well over 100 hours of hard play on them before
> they really blossomed. The VR-4s didn't require this much breakin,
> but I guess that may be partially because the lengths of wire to
> the drivers is much shorter in the VR-4s and because the 8"
> woofers break in quicker than the 10" in the VR-3s.
> My impression now is that the VR-3s may be too good. What I
> mean by this is that VSR may loose some VR-4 sales to the VR-3,
> particularly to those folks with smaller rooms who must place the
> speakers closer to the rear and side walls. I've got both speakers
> and in some respects, I actually prefer the VR-3s.
Wow Robert. Glad to hear you're really digging the VR-3s. I'll be
sure to pass your comments onto the folks at VR. Your right about
break in on these guys. I hit our demo pair hard for several days
(in our "break-in" basement :-) and loaded them up with sand after
hearing what an unbroken in pair sounded like at the factory. They
do a great job a filling our main listening room with sound and
generate a huge soundstage with the SE-40 that is driving them right
now (I got the Comboy Junkies latest album playing right now and Margo
Timmins vocals sound great). My impression so far is that the VR-3s
sound the best with them toed in so they are firing straight at the
listening position.
BTW, VSR is looking into what they can do to speed the break in process
of the 10" woofer used in the VR-3. Now that you have them dialed in
position wise, have you filled the sand chamber? Doing so improves the
midrange performance a few notches.
Happy Listening,
--
Rich Brkich PH: 315-622-4137 FX: 315-622-2993
Owner, Signature Sound http://www.point2.com/sigsound.htm
Located in the Syracuse, New York area. Visit our "no frills" web page!
Dana Bunner
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>
> Dana Bunner wrote:
> > I have no arguments whatsoever with driver breakin, but wire
> > breakin is still just a myth, IMHO.
>
> proven or disproven. We know capacitors take a while to form, and some
> cables act as capacitors. Note - I'm not pro or con here, just
> remarking that there is conceivably some substance to the arguement.
>
> > Dunlavy line of speakers, stated that he had never observed
> > any effect of speaker cable or interconnect breakin. Given
> > Dunlavy's decades of experience in building some of the
> > finest speakers in the world, I have to put a good deal of
> > weight in his worlds.
>
> David Saltz, Bill Lowe, etc? He is a terrific speaker designer, but I
> find some of his wire pronouncements a little tough to swallow.
Actually I would trust the observations of a topflight speaker
designer far more than anyone who designs or sells cables and
wires. In the end Dunlavy's primary goal is to sell the best
speaker in a particular price range. If he feels that certain
speaker cables or internal wiring will give his speakers a
competitive edge, then I would expect him to take advantage of
that edge. And to know the characteristics of those cables
quite intimately.
Note that I did not say Dunlavy could not hear any difference
between different cables or interconnects, just that he had
never heard any difference between them being new out of the
box vs being used for several hundred hours. This is not a
discussion about whether cables can sound different, just
an admission by Dunlavy that cable breakin is a bunch of
hooey. And Dunlavy certainly does not stand alone in that
opinion.
Frankly if I were in the wire selling business, I would be
heavily promoting the idea that my wires sound better after
an extended breakin. This would tremendous lower the number
of returns if people took them home and didn't like them,
and would give my customers time to grow fond of how neat
my cables look and show them off to others. This is a
tremendous marketing ploy.
> John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
> designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
John probably knows that it would be next to impossible to sell
high-end speakers without bi-wirable connectors. The cost is
extremely minimal to add this feature.
If I designed and sold a $5000 pair of speakers, you'd better
believe that I would incorporate bi-wirable connectors and some
name-brand internal wiring. And that I would include the
information in my product brochures. That sells speakers.
It also avoids the risk of being downrated in some product review
by an audio publication for lacking bi-wiring and using cheaper
internal wiring, whether or not that makes any difference in
the final sound.
Sounds like this is a candidate for your next ABX test Zip.
You should be able to use the Wire Comparator on this one,
just pick the wire/cable of your choice and put a new one
on one side and a well-used but identical one on the other
side and see if you can consistently tell a difference.
Dana
Stewart Pinkerton
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Dana Bunner wrote:
>> I have no arguments whatsoever with driver breakin, but wire
>> breakin is still just a myth, IMHO.
>The key words are, in your opinion. I don't think this has ever been
>proven or disproven. We know capacitors take a while to form, and some
>cables act as capacitors. Note - I'm not pro or con here, just
>remarking that there is conceivably some substance to the arguement.
Let's be clear about this one. ELECTROLYTIC capacitors take a while to
'form' when new or after a period of disuse, but film capacitors do not,
hence there is no reason to suppose that a long thin film capacitor
(i.e. a cable) will require to form. Further, if the insulation is
non-polar such as Teflon, polyethylene or polypropylene, the cable
capacitance will have no 'dielectric memory' either, and will be the
simple lump of R,L and C that it ought to be. This is why I use Naim
NACA5, it's the cheapest cable I could find with a decent gauge of
copper and polypropylene insulation.
>> A few months ago on RAHE, John Dunlavy, the designer of the
>> Dunlavy line of speakers, stated that he had never observed
>> any effect of speaker cable or interconnect breakin. Given
>> Dunlavy's decades of experience in building some of the
>> finest speakers in the world, I have to put a good deal of
>> weight in his worlds.
>Is he more of an authority on cables and wires than a Bruce Brisson,
>David Saltz, Bill Lowe, etc? He is a terrific speaker designer, but I
>find some of his wire pronouncements a little tough to swallow.
I think he probably is more of an authority on cable than the others, he
is certainly as good, since a knowledge of how wires function is
essential to a full understanding of speaker drive units. Electrical
cables aren't exactly rocket science, after all!
>> If he has never observed any effects
>> of wire breakin within his own speakers and makes no effort
>> to accomodate the effects of wire breakin in his speaker
>> design, plus considering that he is well-grounded in audio
>> engineering and a perfectionist when it comes to his
>> products, then his opinion carries far more weight than the
>> typical participant in these forums.
>John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
>designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
Billy Woodman of ATC gets VERY rude when bi-wiring is mentioned, but
even he's had to give in to market forces. He is very forceful in his
opinion that the best way to bi-wire is to run identical cables to each
of the bi-wire terminals and then strap the terminals together! As he
says, "this halves the inductance and the resistance of the cable and
avoids f***ing with the crossover I spent months designing"! I would
imagine John Dunlavys opinion is pretty similar, bi-wiring doesn't add
much to the cost so why not, if the customers demand it? I believe
Wilson and Thiel are the only remaining holdouts for common sense in the
high-end!
>> > My impression now is that the VR-3s may be too good. What I
>> > mean by this is that VSR may loose some VR-4 sales to the VR-3,
>> > particularly to those folks with smaller rooms who must place the
>> > speakers closer to the rear and side walls. I've got both speakers
>> > and in some respects, I actually prefer the VR-3s.
>>
>> Hmmm, interesting. I have an immediate opportunity to purchase
>> a near mint, less than 1 yr old pair of VR-4s for the same price
>> as a new pair of VR-3s.
>Then get the VR-4's.
Seems like good advice if you have the space for them.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |
"I canna change the laws o' physics" - the other Scotty
Anthony Genovese
In article <32666E...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo,
Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
> John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
> designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
Marketing pressures. I think some of the new NHT's are biwireable and KK
is of like mind re biwiring as John Dunlavy.
Regards,
Tony
Dennis Galion
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>
>John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
>designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
How about this; in this context, bi-wirable is the same as bi-ampable,
right? So the speakers can be said to be bi-ampable instead of being
called bi-wirable. Poof! All the talk regarding the speaker
designers' throught on bi-wiring go away. I think almost everybody
agrees that bi-amping makes SOME difference, no?
Dennis Galion
Stewart Pinkerton
pav...@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg Pavlov) writes:
>: Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>: >
>: >John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
>: >designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
>:
> Just out of curiosity, what is the theoretical basis for bi-wiring ?
There isn't one.
There ARE claims that the bass and treble frequencies somehow benefit
from being carried on different wires, and the truly tweako would argue
for the use of different cable construction in the treble and bass
sections, but it's basically all bunk.
Before anyone dives in with a 'gotcha', I do bi-wire my own speakers,
but that is to bypass an internal switch and resistor normally in
circuit with the treble ribbon. I'm not really sure if it makes any
difference, but it does makes me feel better! :-)
adam...@deesoft.wa.com
Greg Pavlov wrote:
>
> : Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
> : >
> : >John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
> : >designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
> :
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is the theoretical basis for bi-wiring ?
>
>
> greg pavlov
They think that you'll get better sound if you have separate wires
running for the woofer and tweeter, like keeping the signals separate or
something like that. The only real advantage is that there is more wire
there. Heavier wire is always better, so long as it fits in the speaker
terminals. =)
Stewart Pinkerton
lowd...@enteract.com (Dennis Galion) writes:
>Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>>
>>John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
>>designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
>How about this; in this context, bi-wirable is the same as bi-ampable,
>right? So the speakers can be said to be bi-ampable instead of being
>called bi-wirable. Poof! All the talk regarding the speaker
>designers' throught on bi-wiring go away. I think almost everybody
>agrees that bi-amping makes SOME difference, no?
No! Well, only if you use an active crossover or your amp has very wimpy
power supplies, but a pair of good monoblocs would be a superior
solution to the 'problem'.
Anthony Genovese
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
> >
> >John also claims that bi-wiring has no effect ot advantage, yet ALL his
> >designs are bi-wirable. Hmmmmm?
>
> How about this; in this context, bi-wirable is the same as bi-ampable,
> right? So the speakers can be said to be bi-ampable instead of being
> called bi-wirable.
Well, not quite. Biamping usually means crossing over electronically
before the speakers, so that the speakers _only_ receive the bandwidth
limited output from the amp. For example, using an electronic crossover
at 100hz to a sub, the amp would only provide 100hz and below to the sub.
A second amp would provide only 101hz and above to the satellite. In the
method you describe, all the frequencies are transmitted from the amp to
each driver, which is not technically considered biamping.
Regards,
Tony
Armand
In article <tonyg-20109...@news.ziplink.net>, to...@ziplink.net says...
>
>Well, not quite. Biamping usually means crossing over electronically
>before the speakers, so that the speakers _only_ receive the bandwidth
>limited output from the amp. For example, using an electronic crossover
>at 100hz to a sub, the amp would only provide 100hz and below to the sub.
>A second amp would provide only 101hz and above to the satellite. In the
>method you describe, all the frequencies are transmitted from the amp to
>each driver, which is not technically considered biamping.
>Regards,
>Tony
Not quite. There has to be some sort of gradual rolloff. Unless,of course, you
are using an "infinite slope" x-over, in which case you can expect Mr.
Jeff Joseph's lawyer to pay you a visit very soon.
Armand
Anthony Genovese
I thought of that just as I hit the send button (re overlap) but I think
he got the point.
Regards,
Tony
SGurevich
Hi
I know that new review of VR-3 will be on one of the internet magazines.
Do you what magazine ore site is that, address, anything ??
Let me know.
Thanks
Sergey
Doug Schneider
MUSICMAN67
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>
> >
> > Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) (z...@netrunner.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Is he more of an authority on cables and wires than a Bruce Brisson,
> > > David Saltz, Bill Lowe, etc? He is a terrific speaker designer, but I
> > > find some of his wire pronouncements a little tough to swallow.
> >
> > biases, but in others you will turn to other "authorities". Right?
>
>
>>>>>???How about George Cardas?
>>>>> Talk about cables, not about exiled speaker designers who don't know shit about cable design. I've heard John's cables and they suck...
Bad value, bad cable!
If you guys would listen, instead of bitch, you might find this
truth out for yourselves. John Dunlavy makes an OK speaker, not as
involving as I would like, but his cable is shit!!!
If you don't agree, just audition a pair of Cardas Golden Cross
speaker cables at the same price point.
Michael Langley
sgur...@aol.com
Hi gays!
I`m wondering if you could help me a litle.
I`m looking for a full range pair of speakers for approx. 2k. and VR-3 so
far seems to be a winer, but:
first time i heard them (VR-3) they did not sounded too good, i think the
breakin time was too short
second time, after month of constant playing, they sounded very good,
neutral, opened, but imaging i thought
was not as good as it could be and sound was a litle forward, on
aggressive side.May be that was
a amplification problem( CAT preamp and ARONOV amp) or not, i don`t know.
Others speaker i auditioned was Hales consept 2- very good but not enough
air.
I heard NEAR 50me is good spkr for $ 2250 but never auditioned it.
Please responde if you would.
I would like to hear about yours exerience with VR-3 and yours comments
about imaging, clarity of midrange,
what amps do you use?
Thank you
sergey