Vandersteen Quatro

Which your personnal like choice.
Vandersteen Quatro Standart or Wood?
Amps SS or Tubes?

thank you.
the wood is killer but would not pay the difference would put the money in speaker and eye candy or put the difference in the cd player . prefer tube pre and i think the vandys like tubes.....i know i own cary tubes into my 2ce sign. and they love tubes....especially with the solid state on the subs.....
The wood extension on the top was added for those who like the look, not because it improves the sound. It might help with the WAF... Personally, I like it without.
The wood option is around 2k(I think). A friend just got a deal on the wood option. I suggest that you become friends with your dealer to get a break.
The standard version of the Quatro sells for $6995 not including the required high-pass filters, which are $595 (for RCA version) or $795 (for XLR version). The Wood Quatros are $10,700 not including the filters.

They are sonically the same. The Wood model is just a more attractive looking speaker.
The Quatro Woods are not sonically the same. They are, in fact, built differently inside. The Quatro Wood has a different base enclosure and the 5A tweeter housing. They also have the 5A crossover. Richard Vandersteen says that they are more sonically clear from top to bottom than the Quatros. The differences were nessessary due to the fact that a rigid cabinet, if left uncorrected or compensated for, can cause "smearing". Therefore, these speakers resemble 5A Sig. in many more ways that the Quatros do alone.
From the Vandersteen Web Site:
Bill (5/2/06): Richard, I have heard rumors that the wood Quatro's do not sound as good as the normal grille wrap version. Could you elaborate on this? I find them very elegant and am considering them but its a lot money for less performance.

The improvement's made the wood version slightly better than what it was initialy or is it slightly better than the current cloth version?
My understanding is that they're roughly equivalent with the benefit of the wood version primarily being in its appearance.
Hi !!! I personally prefer wood over standard version but refuse to pay $3000 extra for it. I own standard version & I'm happy with it. Drive them with Cyber 800
mono blocks.
My father owns the wood Quatro so I feel I can add some real experience to this thread, ANYONE AND EVERYONE who claims the Wood version is simply cosmetic is talking before hearing, yes the major improovement is coemetic and it is a beautiful speaker but it also has some trickle down benefits from the 5A wich are not in the standard version, you get between 5 and 10% improovement in sound over sock version. Is that worth it to you? I cant answer that but it sounds fantastic and is quite beautiful. Furthermore if you want insight on the Wood Quatro shoot Richard V. a call or one of his top-tier dealers, what Richard thought it was going to be to go wood vs what it actually took to achieve is an interesting story.
BTW my father drives them with Audio Research tube pre, and Classe Mono Blocked amps with near top of the line Audioquest cables.
Is 5% worth extra $3000 dollars? We could keep adding 5% here , 10% there until one of us is going to reach 100G in improvements. If your dad could afford wood version tell me why he did not stretch his budget and get 5A. That upgrade would probably given him more then 5% improvement. Isn't it what it is all about , or is it? Making choices & sacrifices isn't easy . What may be a small chunk of money to you or your father ,could be somebody's whole system. Spending money is easy ,making a wise decisions isn't. Anyway I have heard a Wood version & if it is worth a $3000 extra to you , well - good for you. Good luck & happy listening.
Richard Vandersteen's response from last year describes most of the improvements to the Quatro Wood over the standard Quatro. Here are all of the improvments:

- Improved tweeter based on the 5A tweeter/plate (the standard Quatro tweeter is based on the standard Model 5)

- Improved midrange driver based on the 5A (the standard Quatro midrange is based on the standard Model 5)

- Crossover has been redesigned for the above mentioned drivers

- Superior Epoxy composite plinth/base

- Improved cabinet bracing

- Last but not least, the improved aesthetics of the wood cabinet.

I am a Vandersteen dealer.
Davemitchell. Putting a side the fact , that you are a Vandersteen dealer. If you had to choose between wood & standard version and pay for them from your very own packet, witch one would you choose (honestly)? I have heard both versions so did you. How would you describe the sonic differences between the two (in your own words)? P.S Please don't take it as a personal attack I also love Richard Vandersteen's speakers & his philosophies by witch I stand, but I'm only trying to find justification in price vs performance in this particular example.
Jstark, you seem to imply my father has made a mistake in his purchase, or that it was foolish and not worth it, although it really isnt anyones business his choice boiled down to room size and the fact he really liked what he heard, lets not forget that there is a nearly $6000 difference in price...maybe that isnt much to you but it still is a sizeable amount to many.
At the time my father also upgraded everything except his amps so at over $40,000 you draw the mine somewhere, there is a 12 month upgrade credit program wich looks like my father may entertain as he is starting to think about building his retirement home and a larger room can be constructed.
Honestly I think the Quatro images a bit better then the 5A but I cant be certain as deperate rooms and equipment make it impossible to be sure, but the 5A is a vastly better speaker all in all.
In close 5-10% better performance is a pretty big deal, how many upgrades do Audiophiles purchase with very similar results for far more cash?............many IMO.

Putting aside which I would personally get, you raise the age old question of where the law of diminishing returns kicks in for each individual. That question really applies to everything in the audio world and beyond.

Is the Quatro Wood enough better sounding and looking to justify an extra $3K over the standard version? That answer will be different for each person.

Here is another example: I sell a Parasound Halo amplifier for $850 that is ridiculously good sounding and can drive the heck out of most modern high-end speakers. I also sell an Audio Research amp that I love at $10,000 that is actually rated for slightly less power. Is the ARC worth more than 10 times the price of the Halo? For me personally, the answer is yes. Is it going to be worth it for you? Who knows. Only you can decide that based upon your sensitivity to the differences in sound quality and your financial position.

I would argue that the difference in price for what you get with the Quatro Wood seems like an incredible bargain compared with the amplifier example I just mentioned.

Non-audio example: Is the Porsche 911 Twin Turbo worth nearly $100,000 more than the a Volkswagon Passat Turbo? What about a Ferrari F50 or a Bugatti Veyron at $1,000,000?

Is the Japanese Kobe Beef Filet worth $80 vs. the American Black Angus at $29? For me, not every night, but maybe once in a while.

Bottles of wine, single malt scotch, wrist watches, etc....
Dear Davemitchell. Comparing Porsche 911 TT to V-wagon turbo & AR Ref 210 Monoblock tube power amplifier ($9995) to Parasound Halo A 23 THX Ultra 2-Certified amp ($850) it's like compering apples to oranges(same shape , right ? but completely different taste).You have to try better then that. I do agree with you on one think. People DO HAVE different taste in music, cars, wines or women. It's completely understanable. If you want to compare cars it should look something like this (just like Vandersteen Quatro S vs. Quatro wood); Porsche 911 TT ($126,200)0-60mph - 3.7 sec. vs. Porsche 911 TT Cabriolet Design Series, custom paint, (special)natural leather seats ($150,640) 0 to 60mph - 3.7 sec. In my opinion performance of both cars is going to be very similar. Any differences ? Purely esthetics ! Now, going back to the subject. You said that there is a definitive improvements in sound quality Of "woody" over standard version without giving any specifics and in YOUR opinion worth extra $3705 increase in price from original $6995(A in-line high-pass filter extra $595 unbalance ). I stand by what I said earlier. I like the way "woodys" look , no question about it. Performance / price without a doubt Standard version. I said it before and I will say it again ; I have listened to both of these speakers in the same room with the same equipment, cables etc... and in my opinion " woodys " aren't worth the premium. I'll tell you even more, in MY OPINION original design sounds better. Small increase in extension of "woodys" ( different tweeter on "woodys")on top is not in my taste. Richard Vanderseen's box-less design was invented and implemented for a reason in his line of speakers. Today's customer driven market, force great engineers like R.Vandersteen to redesign his original ideas to please more "esthetic demanding" customers. I also want you to read this. This is a part of conversation between one person interested in purchasing Quatro and Mr.R.Vandersteen (this is from Vandersteen official website Q&A section ) pairdrian (4/5/07): Richard what are the differences on the two Quatro models (i.e. Standard vs Wood)? Are the crossover different? Do you employ the battery biased crossover on the Quatro Wood? Also on another front what would you charge to have the Quatro Wood speaker finished in Dark Cherry.

As you can see redesigning & outfitting "woodys" with new parts was absolutely necessary. Those changes weren't implemented to make them better then original version but to keep they integrity in regards to original design. To avoid degradation in sound reproduction better tweeter was install as well as special bracing was introduce , mid-driver was improve - and all this just to keep up with a standard version. Risky decision that Mr. Richard Vandersteen have made to include wood version to a Quatro line, force him to redesign and retrofit new speaker with more expensive parts. I'm sure it wasn't a easy decision on R.Vandersteen's part but a over $3000 increase in price was necessary to cover parts & manufacturing process. Now it is in dealers hands, like yourself to convince potential costumers that wooden version is better. Good luck !!!
To chadnliz. Please don't take it personal. I'm not trying to criticize you or your father's decision of purchasing Qutro Wood version speakers. I'm sure your father will enjoy these speakers for years to come. I'm also not trying to diminish importance of esthetics. I value esthetics my self but it isn't a first thing on my priority list (it's just me). So, don't feel attacked. You don't have a reason to feel so.

You are correct, and Richard has said himself, that his original experimental attempt at creating a Quatro Wood did not sound as good as the standard Quatro due to all of the diffraction from the surfaces surrounding the drivers. He expected that this would be the case. Richard then redesigned the entire front baffle/cabinet interface to minimize this interaction. He then upgraded the tweeter and midrange drivers to more closely resemble the performance of the 5A rather than the standard Model 5 that the regular Quatro is based upon. Finally, he made some of the other plinth and cabinet improvements mentioned earlier. The end result is a speaker that sounds noticeably better than the standard Quatro. How much better? Each individual can make that determination for themself. For many, the cosmetic differences may alone justify the difference in price. For others, the sonic improvements will make it a worthwhile upgrade.

Richard was obsessed with making the Wood Quatro a good value in the same way that everything else he makes has to be a good value. There are a few things you can always count on with Vandersteen: One is that each speaker's retail price will be directly tied to the specific costs of building that model- I wish that were true of every high-end manufacturer. Two, a more expensive model will not only sound better, but measure better than anything below it. Three, if you catch Richard on the phone on a busy day and ask him a stupid question that is already detailed in your owners manual, he will yell at you, but his bark is always worse than his bite. Deep down, he's a softy!
Slightly OT, but... I have happily owned 1Cs for seven years. As my system has evolved, the 1Cs have taken advantage of every source or front end upgrade. Finally, I feel like I may have reached the limits of the 1C. The natural upgrade would be to 2Ce Sigs or 2Ce SigIIs. I have a pair of 2Wq subs and VCC-1 center channel (my rig is combo 2-channel and HT), and even a second pair of 1Cs for surround L/R. However, they are just too wide for my room. Slender towers work much better. I know why most Vandys are so wide - the dowels cause refraction if too close to the drivers. The Quatros fit my room, but not my budget (~3K max for the L/R mains). What's a Vandy lover to do? I wish Richard would offer a cheaper Quatro without the powered subs, designed for use with 2Wqs. That would be perfect for me. Oh well... I intend to demo a few things - Gallo Ref 3.1s, Vienna Acoustics Mozart Grands, Spendor 8se et. al. I am so used to the minimal baffle sound from the 1Cs, though, that I can hear box colorations instantly. That's why I think the Gallos might work. As one who appreciates the Vandy "house sound," am I missing any brands to audition? Remember - I need slim towers (the 12" width of the 1Cs is actually a little too wide).

Sorry to hijack.
If a 12" wide speaker is too much for your room, I don't see how you are going to make full range speakers like Quatros or Mozart Grands work. You must have a pretty small listening room.

(((I don't see how you are going to make full range speakers like Quatros work)))
The Full range Vandersteen Quatro with built in room compensation is designed to work with most any room.
We have successfully installed and tuned many in small rooms.
Even 4 inches out from the front wall.
Cheers John
They might be more user friendly and tunable for different rooms. But to think they will perform optimally in a small room is just wishful thinking. And you might have gotten them to sound fairly good 4 inches from the wall, but I would hardly call that successful. If by success you mean that they sound pretty good, granted. If you mean they sound as good as they would well away from any room boundaries, I think that's a tall one.

Is it just me, or are the people opening these long dead threads looking to push Vandersteen speakers? The people pulling the threads out of retirement are either posting about Vandersteen speakers, reviving threads about Vandersteen speakers, or both!
((If you mean they sound as good as they would well away from any room boundaries, I think that's a tall one.))
Of course not any full range speaker will optimise's and sound best out from the wall to preference.
Some folks still want performance and have fashion police spouses to deal with.
Making the system perform without being a science project or look like an octopus with blue antennas eyeballing ya back is the goal.
One pair of Quatros was four inches out from the front wall I could barely get my adjustment tool in the back without tilting forward. At first listen it sounded heavy like any good full range speaker would against the wall.
After each speaker was properly measured, adjusted,and tuned we played Cream Live at Royal Albert hall the speakers flat out disappeared with a huge sound stage, deep solid bass and no hangover. system was a Tube Aesthetix Janus pre and a ARC 110 tube amp I promise you It looked cool and sounded amazing.
Cheers JR
>Of course not any full range speaker will optimise's and sound best out from the wall to preference<

Translation, please?

Oz I am not sure why you are taking issue with JR, if anyone knows what to do with a Vandersteen and how to do it aswell as how it will perform it is him. You have a great system and insight into audio but you are not nearly as qualified in the particular instance.
Ozzy62: Actually, the overall dimensions of my basement room are 26 X 20 X 6 (low ceiling), but the area best suited for the front wall is an alcove about 10' wide. Considering I need the front mains to clear a RPTV screen (I know, but that's what I have to work with), speaker width is critical. The 1Cs are fairly far out into the room, and I would like to place their successors far out into the room as well.

Jkalman: It's just you. Vandersteen designs are somewhat unique, and like planars or other unusual designs, they have a strong following. Besides, since I basically asked for brand suggestions other than Vandersteen, I can hardly be called a shill. Proper etiquette on this board is to post to existing threads rather than start new ones when possible, IIRC.
Bondmanp. I totally agree with you on second part of your post. We should be giving each other a helping hand & advice if needed. Acquiring Hi-Fi equipment to reproduce a music we love is a learning experience. To get a satisfactory results takes passion, time, some knowledge and a big chunk of money. I think I'm speaking for many "audiogoners" when I say that we hate to spend our hard earn money on equipment that doesn't bring desire improvement. In order to help us make right decisions we often try to reach audiophiles on this site with the experience & knowledge that can possibly answer our questions or doubts. Of-course we can have arguments or disputes over specific subject but a pointless attacks are exactly that - POINTLESS !

Now - trying to give you any meaningful advice is a little difficult knowing that you are already accustom to Vanderteen's sound characteristics. You mention that you want to addition some speakers (Galo Ref. 3.1, Vienna Acoustics Mozart Grands, Spendor 8se ).

In case of Gallo & Vienna I have addition them ones before. Nice speakers, with their own different characteristics. Gallos have a robust bass, detail but a little colored heights in my opinion.

Vienna Acoustics Mozart Grands are very nice & sweet sounding speakers but you said it your self - "minimal baffle sound" is very important to you ( Overall my favorite from the ones you mention, except Spendor witch I have not listen to in a long time).

You can also try Zu druids. Sound can be describe as "live music" or front row seats. They are not exactly Quatros and are not perfect but they do a lot of thinks right. Druids are very easy to drive (101db) and are about 11" wide.

Another suggestion is - to addition Lipinski speakers. Roman Lipinski is the only audiophile oriented manufacturer professionally active in both, recording and engineering sciences. His recording studio is well known & respected in Europe. This man is driven by perfectionism in engineering music & products of his design. I did personally meet Mr. R. Lipinski when I attended this year's AUDIO SHOW in New York & I can tell you that this guy is really, really passionate about music. We also talk about a " birth " and reasons of creating Lipinski speaker line. Problems he encounter with selecting the best parts, and his very high standards of manufacturing process & execution of is original ideas. Going back to the speakers. From what I could hear in his show room they are revelation in all departments except bass, witch they are locking. You have mention that you have 2Wq subs in witch case it may be a good solution for you. There are two models - one is about 9" wide & smaller one is about 8" wide. IT'S ONLY ONE PROBLEM L-707 is about $4500 witch is over your budget ( if you decided to go that road I could talk to him to give you my - show discount price. I think it's $500 off )(

I don't know if it help but I want to wish you luck in pursuing your dream system.

Happy listening !
Correction !!!
I Contacted Roman ( Roman is a son of Andrew - who is behind a speaker design. Roman worked on Wall Street and now is trying his strengths in audio industry with help of his brilliant father ) and find out that speakers actually sell for $2495 each. The show discount still apply but that would bring a total to $4490.
That may be way over your budget but you can a least check out his website for future references. There is also a good review from Stereophile mag.
These are only some of the informations :
One 1" (25mm) Neodymium Ring Radiator tweeter
Two 7" (18cm) Glass Fiber Mid-Woofers in MTM configuration
Frequency response: 56Hz-20kHz ±1dB (31Hz-40kHz ±3dB)
SPL: 90 dB 1W/1m
Impedance: 4 Ohms
Dimensions: 23.6" H x 9.4" W x 12.4" D (60cm x 24cm x 32.5cm)
Weight: 41 lbs (18.5 kg)
Thanks, Mrjstark. I heard the Lipinskis at HE2007. The sounded very nice, but are beyond my price range (especially since I'll need to replace my Vandy center speaker with a matching center speaker as well). I've heard the Zu speakers at several shows, HE2007 and Vacuum Tube Valley 2006, and while they sounded nice, they just didn't create magic for me. I seek a real emotional connection to the music. I very rarely get that with my 1Cs, but speakers that reliably deliver that to me cost a lot more than I can afford right now. Thanks again for your help.
In this case, your only logic option would be to go with Vandersteen 2 Sig.IIs . A lots of "audiogoners" have very positive comments about them. I think JR will probably give you a better insight to their sound characteristics & performance evaluation. He is a "Vendys" dealer - so he should know better then my self ( I personally didn't have a chance to hear 2Sig.IIs yet ).
I actually have 2 great local Vandy dealers... unfortunately, as I stated above, the 2Ce is too wide for the alcove of my room where the speakers must reside. Hence the requirement of a more narrow width profile speaker.