Thanks for the comments, guys. I own a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq's, and can say without qualification that they are an excellent and MUSICAL subwoofer. As Sean noted, the alphabetical list I compiled has the Vandy's listed last, whereas they would have been near the top of the list had I compiled the ratings based on scores. A caveat, however: the Vandy 2Wq's are really intended for use as a stereo pair, particularly if they are going to double as LFE subs for HT. Further, they use a special crossover between the preamp and the power amp, and to perform at their best requires the main speakers to be close to full-range, providing an octave of overlap both above and below the crossover point for the subwoofer. Hence, since the crossover point for the 2Wq subwoofer is 80 HZ, the main speakers should have flat response from 160 Hz (1 octave above the 80 Hz X-over point for the sub) down to 40 Hz (1 octave below the 80 Hz X-over point for the sub). This degree of overlap is necessary if the 2Wq is to integrate to best advantage with the main speakers.
As others also noted, it would be nice to see how the REL, VMPS, and other "audiophile" subs performed in these tests, but they weren't reviewed. What I did find interesting was that some of the subs rated highly by Stereopiles were NOT rated highly by WR mag. Most, if not all, of the subwoofer reviews in WR were performed by Richard Hardesty (formerly of Havens & Hardesty, one of the leading high-end audio dealers in the LA area before the partnership disbanded). Hardesty is generally known for honest, even blunt, commentary. He recently resigned his position as Equipment Editor for WR magazine, and now publishes an interesting online audio journal called "The Audio Perfectionist".
