Anyone who heard the latest itterations of both the MODEL 2 and Model 3 please describe the differeences heard between the two.
Below is from a 1990s review of the then (1990s) model 2 compared against the model 3.
Is the Model 2 still very close in performance to the model 3 today as it was then except in the bass.
Vandersteen Audio 2Ce loudspeaker
By Thomas J. Norton • Posted: Apr 18, 1995 • Published: Apr 18, 1993
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/126/index.html"
Sitting atop the bass enclosure is a separate, smaller cabinet holding the 4.5" midrange. This driver uses the same cone as the midrange driver in Vandersteen's more expensive Model 3, but not the same basket or magnetic structure. Another baffle on top of the midrange enclosure holds the 1" metal-dome tweeter—a different version of the tweeter used in the Model 3. The cabinet itself is constructed of MDF and critically braced—attested to by its net weight of 60 lbs.
But soundstage presentation, both in depth and width, was not a problem. At first I was concerned, as JA had been in the case of the Vandersteen 3, about that hard wooden top sitting just a few inches above the tweeter. This has to cause diffraction and all sorts of serious soundstage anomalies, right? Well, not really. The soundstage from the 2Ces may not have been as pinpoint-accurate or as layered in depth as, say, that of the WATT/Puppies, but that did not detract from what it could do, given the right material.
________
Comparison #2
And what of the 2Ce's big brother, the Vandersteen 3? After JA finished his review for last month's issue (March 1993), I moved them into my listening room for some head-to-head comparisons with the 2Ces. The 3s are larger, but do not look very different (the only obvious functional change is the 3's use of much more convenient—to me—screw terminals in place of the 2Ce's banana jacks).
Changing over to the 3s did not result in a dramatic shift in my impressions. They were clearly cut from the same cloth as the 2Ces. They appeared to have a bit more overall bloom and a little more ease and extension in the bass—though arguably with a bit less midbass tautness and more warmth. This slightly reduced my ability to focus on inner details with the 3s—the a cappella voices on The Fairfield Four (Warner Bros. 26945-2) or the backup singers supporting Mary Black on "Bright Blue Rose," the best-sounding cut from her Babes in the Wood (D2 77528), for example—even while resulting in a somewhat larger, more expansive soundstage. The image focus of the 3s was good but not striking, though depth was very effective. Yet the overall soundstage—in both depth and lateral placement specificity—was no better than that from the 2Ces. It was, arguably, perhaps even not quite as precise.
First impressions can be deceptive, but specific examples might serve to better pin down my relative impressions of these two loudspeakers. The Hafler 9500 amplifier was used in these auditions. With The Fairfield Four, in addition to the slight reduction in the clarity of inner detail noted above, I also noticed just a bit too much body in the midbass with the 3s—a quality also noted on a number of other male vocals. These two qualities are not unrelated; an increase in the midbass will nearly always reduce overall clarity. But it is also a quality most amenable to alteration by different listening rooms and slight changes in setup. While there was no time to further tweak the setup, I was able to subjectively open up the midbass by small changes in the midrange and high-frequency contour controls (slightly up for the highs, slightly down for the mids). This is not as strange as it seems—we're talking here about both overall balance and the relative level of overtones which are responsible for the subjective "speed" of the bass and midbass. With this change, the 3s still sounded slightly warmer than the 2Ces, but had a more expansive, more "free-breathing" quality. On balance, however, the differences were not dramatic.
Listening to Albeniz's "Festival Day in Seville" from Trittico (Reference RR-52CD) as sampled here from Reference's HDCD Sampler (RR-S3CD)—a demonstration-quality cut if ever there was one—I noted similar differences. It was not an easy call. The greater expansiveness and ease of the 3s were evident, and there was no question that the big bass drum on this piece was more profound over the bigger, more expensive Vandersteens. The 2Ce remained very impressive, however, perhaps even more "alive" overall than the 3s, if less full-bodied. The percussion—particularly a gong which adds significantly to the drama of this work—exploded out of the 2Ces with more clarity, if with a bit more obvious effort, than from the 3s. Not an easy call.
Listening to Flamenco, the 3s proved superior at reproducing the subtle low-frequency room rumble generated by the footstomps, while the 2Ce definitely excelled at relating the high-frequency reverberation reflecting off the back wall of the recording site.
So it went, recording after recording. Ultimately I preferred the 3s for their greater effortlessness and bottom-end weight, but not by much. And in some ways the 2Ce boogied in a way that the 3 did not, the smaller loudspeaker's punchier, tighter midbass moving rock selections along at a more rhythmic clip. If nothing else, the comparison convinced me of one thing: that the 2Ce has been developed to the point where significant further effort and expense in an essentially similar design will buy added refinement but not a dramatically improved sound. In short, the High End has not managed to repeal the law of diminishing returns. I would certainly advise anyone shopping for the 3s to also listen to the 2Ces, and possibly consider the option of Vandersteen's own subwoofer (which was not evaluated in this comparison) to extend the 2Ce's bottom end, if you feel the need. A pair of 2Ces plus a single Vandersteen subwoofer will cost just a bit more than a pair of 3s.
_______
Manufacturer's Comments Vandersteen 2Ce
Editor: Thank you for Thomas J. Norton's review of our Model 2Ce loudspeakers and this opportunity to comment. We agree that the differences between our Model 2Ce and Model 3 fall into the realm of diminishing returns. Since both speakers share the same basic design, the only way to create a large, "Oh my gosh" type of difference between the two would be to intentionally make one or the other less accurate. The Model 3 was developed in response to the incredible number of people using our model 2 series speakers with preamp/power amp combinations worth $10,000 or more. These faithful Vandersteen owners wanted to realize more of the electronics' potential while retaining the essential Vandersteen attributes.
The more advanced drive-units in the Model 3, including our patented midrange, give these listeners the increased resolution and dynamics to fully complement their top-line electronics. While the Model 3 is better than the Model 2Ce even in a moderate system, the improved performance becomes much more pronounced as the overall quality of the system increases.—Richard Vandersteen, Vandersteen Audio "
