I see there has been no response yet, so here goes. I used Dynaudio 70 floorstanders with a Hsu VTF-3R Mark 2 for several years. I really loved that system, especially with rock. I have heard the 52s and liked them a lot. I had the sub set at 30 Hz and it added a nice bottom. I think it will be a good match. I only changed because I got a great deal on VR-4JRs. Good luck and have fun!
7 responses Add your response
thanks so much, that combo seems like an alluring possibilty. I've never used a sub with monitors and always wondered whether a low cost rig like the one you describe has sonic advantages/disadvantages over budget "full rangers" like the ones I mentioned in my first post. It seems like a lot of the more financially challenged on the gon (i used to have a sweet Apogee Minigrand but no more!) would want to see this issue broken down. thanks again!!
Regardless of cost, a sat/sub speaker system has the advantage over floorstanders in that the bass is decoupled from the mid/treble. This yields more (and likely better) placement options. I suggest high-passing the main speakers rather than the bass reinforcement approach of integrating a subwoofer.
I used to own NHT 2.9s, and while they can put out very tight bass if you have an amp that can handle them, I eventually sold mine after tiring of the overly aggressive top end. I had a solid state amp at the time that may have been a significant contributor to the problem though. Most comments that Ive read on Vandies appear to indicate that they tend to err on the warmer side (perhaps someone else can verify this).
wdi, i was always curious about NHT after reading Corey Greenberg's rave up of the 3.3s in Stereohple, but somehow I thought that might be their limitations, that perhaps it could not transcend its design and execution limitations.
I wonder, it seems that people cite sonic pros and cons to both a sat/sub versus two unit approach. Besides the convenience and room placement advantages , is there strong reason to think that unless you spend relatively more on a 2 unit floorstander (e.g., more than a pair of used Vandersteen 2ces), the sub/sat can provide more overall image stability, tightness, and mid-bass and bass presence, than a good budget combo like the one mentioned above?
Perhaps then another version of my question is whether for $800-$1200 price range cited (as well the admittedly broad sonic conditions discussed so far), on the used market is a monitor/sat a better strategy than a larger stereo pair (and if the latter, what would people recommend [i'm pretty sure if i go the first way, i'll go with an original HSU VTF 2, though my current preference as to monitor, Dynaudio Audience 52s, is more unformed.
I have to admit that my intuition tends toward sat/sub, but I can't say I have any technical reason to think so (not that I am technical anyway).
Anyway, this is really helping so thanks again!
Monitors almost always do a better job than floorstanders of "disappearing" and imaging. They also have less chance of having box resonances. The majority of floorstanders are not really full range speakers and the bass they do produce can be heavily distorted. High passing the main speakers and using a sub essentially solves the distortion issue and makes sub placement easier due to a single bass source.
Your choice of a Hsu Research sub is a good one. You can spend a lot more and probably not do any better. There are several choices for monitors. I would suggest sealed boxes. With that, consider NHT and M&K.
Here's an article on bass management that might be of interest: http://www.mkprofessional.com/bass_mgmt.htm
thank you Bob, again your excellent advice reinforces my intuition...i am much more comfortable with my decision now.
It would seem that relatively much money must be spent on a floorstander to avoid these limitations and transcend the advantages of the monitor/sub approach?
very interesting, thanks again