meadowlark nighthawk/ vandersteen 3a sig


wasn't looking for speakers but out of the blue a friend offered to buy my vandersteen 3a sigs. i enjoy the 3a's alot only wish the bass was a little tighter, and a larger front to back soundstage. how do the 3a's compare to the meadowlark nighthawks? they are really gorgeous. do they sound as good as they look? room is 14x18x9. if no direct comparison, any impressions of the nighthawk will be most helpful. going to try to arrange audition in a few weeks.

aloha keith
atagi
Keith, I did hear the Nighthawks once. They were in almost a warehouse type of room. Even so, they sounded quite good.

Just out of curiousity, is the slope responsible for the time/phase accuracy? If so, how do vertical speakers address that issue?
Hello Keith-

I may have some input for you... Your room size is actually a decent size. The Vandies are actually one of the other speaker manufacturers that I really considered, as I liked their time & phase aligned design as well. I currently own the Meadowlark Nighthawks, and have previously owned the Osprey's, so I feel I have a fairly good frame of reference as to their "new cabinet design" and sonics - compared to their older enclosures as well. It is odd you mention you wish the bass was a little tighter. This is the primary reason I chose Meadowlark over the Vandies. Don't get me wrong, if I was using the Vandies in a home theater/stereo combination, or perhaps had a much larger room I may have opted for them. However, with their larger woofer, it didn't seem to have the control available that I personally like in my bass. The Vandies I would say have more "slam" effect, however I think both the Nighthawks and the 3a's go equally deep. The Meadowlarks employ a transmission line bass using dual 7" woofers per speaker, coupled with the fact they are 91db efficient, you are greeted with very, very aticulate, tuneful, deep bass that feels more "real" to me in my auditions. I have not tried the Vandies at home, and all auditions were done using all tube amps on both speakers. Soundstaging was good on the Vandies from what I remember. The Nighthawks imaging and soundstaging is excellent. If you get a chance to look at them in person, notice the custom router work between the midrange and tweeter on the front baffle... I personally think this is partly due to the very "open & airy" soundstage presentation they give.

Impressions on the Nighthawk would be: musical, effortless presentation. they allow the music being fed them to effortlessly eminate from the speakers in their defined area in the soundstage. Extremely natural timbral accuracy and harmonics. Attack and decay are both excellent. Midbass and bass attack is tight and articulate, not even remotely loose. Listen to Keb Mo - Just Like You cd when you audition them. The stand up bass sounds extremely realistic. The fingering, the slide, the pluck, the acoustic thumping, the attack, the resonance... all very acurate and realistic. Some other speakers with larger woofers tend to smear a lot of this information to me, in which diminishes the realism for me. I want a stand up bass to sound like a stand up bass, not like a bass line in a club downtown... You also mentioned soundstaging... I would think that is dependent upon cabling and electronics, however I can assure you that the soundstaging capabilities are first rate. In my current setup they extend well outside of the speakers and quite far behind, I would say on good recordings almost seemingly through the rear wall.

If you have any other specific questions, feel free to email me.

CAUTION: if and when you audition make CERTAIN they have at least 1,200 hours of break in / play time on them. NO, I am not kidding. They sound fair at 500, decent at 800, and I honestly don't think they have that "natural, effortless" presentation until well after 1200-1300 hours on them. I know the book states 300, and I have talked to Pat about this, however he does state he does prototype with broken in drivers, and once he builds new, he doesn't know how long true break-in takes. I am sure he may not also want to scare people off stating a 1,000 hour plus break in time. Personally I am quite sure that is why you see ads for Ospreys up for sale that state "just broken in, 450 hours on them...." when they too took well over 1,000 hours, in which most that purchased them new can also confirm. The ONLY caveat I have with the speakers, but they are well worth the wait.

Good luck & your current speakers are also very good.
I really don't hear anything wrong with the Vandersteen's bass as long as a high damping factor amp is used capable of delivering high current into the relatively low impedance of the speaker. Tube amps are nice in the mids and highs but leave a little to be desired in the bottom. One of the only tube amps I have personally heard that gives a solid bottom is the ARC VT200.
Set up is of the essence. This plays a bigger part than anything into how the bottom ultimately sounds on any speaker.
As for the Meadowlark's, I would like to set the two speakers side by side with the same amp and same source, etc. and make a direct comparison. The two 7" woofers may increase speed a touch but they have their problems also.
You know, it's funny, but I was talking to Steve McCormack and guess what speaker he personally uses? Yes, the Vandersteen 3a Signatures. It seems the speaker must be accurate enough to satisfy some very discriminating listeners. Doug Blackburn on Soundstage uses them as a reference as does one of the contributors for The Absolute Sound, Shane Buettner and also, Richard Hardesty of the Audio Perfectionist Journal just to name a few. Now how many reveiwers use Meadowlark? Think there could be a reason for that?
At the price of the Meadowlark, it would be fair to compare the 3A Signature with the 2Wq subs since this combination would be still be a little less at $6500 than the Meadowlark at $7000+. This combination easily passes the Nighthawk in my opinion.
I have owned several pair of Meadowlark's and I can say without reservation that in each comparison, they have fallen short of the Vandersteen's.
My point is, don't go jumping ship just for something different. You could ultimately regret that move. Make sure you know what you're comparing and do it yourself. If you decide the Meadowlark is for you, then I wish you the best.
Atagi,
What are the chances that what you don't like about the bass in your system has a lot more to do with the room than it does the speakers?
as stated earlier, i'm sure that most if not all of the bass problem is caused by the room. i'm currently experimenting with room treatments to fix this. any suggestions to help get rid of a large peak at 40hz are appreciated. i think that i may not have been clear in my original post but i'm very pleased with the vandersteens, and nitpicking although i would really like to get a bit more soundstage depth. as bigtee suggested, i'm sure a pair of 2wq's would work great. basically, i want to use this thread as a sounding board for comparison between the meadowlarks and the 3a's, because there's not alot of info on the meadowlarks. thanks for all the input guys.

aloha keith