Vandersteen Quatro

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.

Mrjstark,

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....

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.

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.

Answer: HELLO ADRIAN, MANY PARTS ARE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TWO IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE WOOD VERSION SOUND AT LEAST AS GOOD AS THE FABRIC VERSION. THE WOOD CABINET COMPROMISED THE SOUND OF THE BASIC QUATRO SO WE UPGRADED COMPONENTS ON THE WOOD VERSION TO OFF SET THE DIFFERENCE IN SOUND. THIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE IS ONE REASON OUR FLAGSHIP WILL NEVER HAVE FINE VENEERS NEAR THE DRIVERS.
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 !!!

Mrjstark,

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!