I keep my subscription also because of low price. They offered me 2 year for $18.00. I figure it will cost that much just to buy the paper so I pretty much get the reviews for free. Well, there is also an old saying: you get what you paid for.
I hear you. What I wondered about was why they even bothered to review this speaker since Fremer had reviewed the sock Quatro a while back. Is it that different?
I suppose he compared it to the Wilsons because that is his reference. But the reviewers today often avoid making comparisons that are appropriate and, therefore, useful.
However, reading between the lines, my take is that both Fremer in the earlier review and Phillips in this one admire the Quatros but don't really like them. Would you agree?
I wonder why they never review any of the Von Schweikert line of speakers seems they have a loyalty to some makers while others are totally ignored.
I have a 3 year S'phile subscription, makes good bathroom reading.
The whole purpose of this review is clearly laid out on the first page of the article.
Read it again put 2 & 2 together (what you know, what you read here - it is not that difficult to figure out what that review supposed to accomplished.
The only comparison I wanted to hear was going to be with the Quatro sock. I am very familiar with the Quatro, and like it alot. I want to know what the wood version offers over the sock version.
As far as the reviewers it seemed to me like Fremer liked the original more than Phillips liked his.
Has anyone checked the Hi-Fi+ reviews lately? They've been doing a lot of comparisons. It's pretty cool to see, for instance in the latest issue, an affordable CD+Integrated amp comparison across three different brands, or several reviewers writing about different bookshelves, etc.
I'm sure the highest dollar stuff won't get compared to other highest dollar stuff because, well, that would just be bad for business, but it's still good to see some legitimate comparisons.
I do not read these anymore....after you had some gear at home you get pretty good idea, what to look for and what to expect. The only serious question is the budget.
Why not stack it up against a much more expensive model? I see no reason to not compare what a lower dollar amount can get you compared to a much more expensive model. I did think when reading it that Wilson may write a letter of displeasure about the direct comparison...especially when it appears to outperform the Wilson on a few direct comparisons. My father owns the Wood Quatro and it is an amazing speaker, with the trickle down technology I would say it betters the sock Quatro by upwards of 10% but a majority of the upgrde cost is cosmetic.
Reviews purpose was to explain Richard's risky design decision (in my opinion) plus to find justification in almost 4G price increase over "cloth" Quatro. Not easy task. It would make sense if direct comparison was performed. Instead different approach was chosen, a silly one to. Wilson Watt Puppy 8.
No word about sound resemblance or differences between "Wood", "Cloth" and 5A. Interesting ?????
Another thing - why Wes Phillips not Fremer him self. It would be a lot more logical to have Fremer conduct follow up review of "Woodys" but I just don't think he would sign the article with his name for the obvious reasons. So patsy was chosen.
I think the comparison with the sock version would have been useful since the Quatro underwent some significant reengineering in order to provide a fully wood veneered cabinet. The wood version looks much better and will blend into the room more easily--the question then becomes--do you give anything up soundwise to get a more attractive speaker AND is it worth paying the $4K premium. As far as comparing with another speaker as a reference point, this makes no sense. I thought live music was the reference, not another pair of transducers--no matter how "good". All in all a useless review of what is a well designed speaker.
This review is typical of all subjective reviews -- mildly entertaining, but of no practical value.
However, JA's measurements showed some serious issues with the Quatro's in room bass response (which he said was also in the "sock" version; I didn't bother to check the archives). For an $11K speaker, I'd expect much much better. The thing even has a multiband equalizer and it was still that bad.
I wonder why I am not surprised to see problems with this review.....it would be interesting to see the opinions if Wilson was not used, if it is supposed to be a benchmark speaker for performance, then why not see how the Vandy and Wilson stack up to eachother? I thought it was a nice spin on reviews and to have more direct comparisons in both same price bracket and seperate brackets can do nothing but help inform potential buyers, why is that a problem?
The wood version SHOULD sound better as it has the 5A's head-unit and tweeter...if I remember correctly. A local dealer has the 5A's and a friend has the "Wood".
Bob, I was also wondering how involved he was in the original review. Maybe....just maybe Wes used Fremer's notes as a reference and put a little spin with Puppys.
Surely compering Woodys to Willson is a complement considering the price difference but who cares.
IF I WANTED TO BUY QUATROS, this review would not help me at all. Sound Quality and "supposed" improvements over original Quatro are still unknown and quait cloudy in my point of view.
My opinion is firm on this matter and I don't want to repeat my personal observations on this thread.
I own Quatros and Stereophile's weak review did not impress me at all.
Quait simply, my overall impression is that campaign for Quatro Wood as a superior version of the original is just as difficult as justification in $3700 price increase for potential buyer.
I still believe that original Quatro represent the best bang for the money. And it seems that Stereophile has a hard time in convincing themselves as well as their readers that Richard Vandersteen's decision was the right one.
If I am right about this - you will never see Vandersteen TOP OF THE LINE speakers in a 'WOOD' version.
I think there's a point being missed here. From what I've read, the purpose of the speaker was to make the line more appealing at the request of dealers, not to offer up a different or lateral product to die-hard Vandy fans. As such, prospective buyers may be seeking comparisons to what's out there as opposed to the Quattro itself. A propective buyer can read Fremer's review - it is footnoted - and then see in this one that Vandersteen himself is quoted as saying it's better. Wouldn't this be enough of a verdict?
Yes, I agree that at least a cursory wave be passed at the Quattro from WP, but I do not think that being silent about it takes away from the relevance of the speakers' performance. I am in no way praising the review or disagreeing, but it's not that different from others. (Why I, too, can be a Stereophile scribe with a paragraph such as this.)
It doesn't make economic sense, IMO, to offer up a pretty-pig version unless you're trying to expand your market. Vandy fans look past the cloth and can stick with the Quattros proper - but new buyers, it appears, are not.
I saw Richard Vandersteen at a local shop about two months ago and he said the speaker is alot different than the sock version. Not just made to pretty up the Quatro. Reworked midrange and tweeter drivers, and reworked crossovers.
I can see how the bass may have been a problem for Phillips. The store I met Mr. Vandersteen at told me it took a few days work to get the bass right. they sound very, very, nice now.
Anyway, I like the Quatros so much it would have been nice to know what is gained with the wood versions.
I always find Stereophile's reviews of interesting/exotic gear a fun read - but I'm more interested in learning about design rather than the reviewer's opinion. It's rare to learn anything useful from the conclusions.
As to the Quatro Wood, I've heard all three powered bass Vandies on several ocassions - and they always impress (although set-up clearly impacts just how much they impress). Despite the Vandy set-up protocol (designed, I thought, to provide consistent in-room bass response), I've heard large differences in bass response from these speakers at different auditions. I find it hard to believe that room specific issues made it impossible to find more consistent overall bass levels from one set-up to the next. Go figure.
BTW - Robert Baird's music reviews alone justify the subscription price IMHO.
Stereophile is entertainment, no more no less. I subscribe as a testament to the comedy that is the modern review.
Hey they "promised" to review the Krell KCT years ago and never did. So they "lost" me in terms of beleivability.
Do you think any of these guys has the dedication and drive to launch a speaker company, develop state of the art designs and execute on them for over 30 years?
What is it they say about reviewers? Those who can, do, those who can't review.
The one thing I was hoping to get from this, and of course didn't, was that as an owner of either 2Ces or 3As, if I were thinking of upgrading to the Quatro, would this be a good overall choice? And how much would I gain and would it be cost effective relative to what I could sell my used Vandy's on the market? And would I have to upgrade other parts of my system to get the most from them etc. What I want and expect from these ragmags is real world stuff, not glitz and voodoo.
I have heard the Quatros sound beautiful in a fairly modest system. Ayre CX-7E CDP, Ayre K-5XE preamp, Ayre V-5XE amp. I heard alot of systems that cost alot more that weekend and thought this was one of the best.
Steve...!!! Forget the review. Quatros are NICE, REALY NICE. And Tom is right. They are overachievers in their price range [in my opinion(sock-vers)]. A definitive step up from 2Ces/3a.
The sock version is a super speaker, but the Wood is in a different league but wont be worth the premium to many audiophiles, my dad picked the wood and couldnt be happier, they are so good he is debating the 5A upgrade.