Treo CT’s to Quattro’s??

[Cosmic]

I’m wondering how much of a step up in SQ this would be.  I currently have Treo CT’s, with a line array of Rel S510’s, so bass is not an issue.  Kento’s are out of my price range.   My assumption is that improvements in bass from the Kento’s might be incremental in this system?   Is there enough of a potential (and noticeable) SQ upgrade to justify the cost?  I really like Vandersteen, and am trying to chase the next step short of the Kento’s.  Thanks for any help!

[Cosmic]

Correction:  sorry, meant say…”improvements in bass from the QUATTRO’s…”, not the Kento’s.

[ctsooner]

I made the switch and never looked back. Everything was just so much better. I’m not a fan of non Vandy subs with the steens as it takes away the major advantages of bass upgrades made with one or two Sub3’s. 
 

is it worth it for you?  Only you will know. Can you audition first?

[Richard Vandersteen]

You have added bass to your Treo CTs, but this is only a third of what a proper Sub-Woofer should contribute.  You have not increased the power supply of your main amplifier, lowered the distortion of your main amplifier, lowered the distortion of your Treo CT's or added the benefit of room EQ.  Upgrading to the Quatro CT or adding a SUB THREE to your Treo CTs will bring these benefits and improve your sound.  RV

[Cosmic]

Thanks, Richard!

[Cosmic]

2 hours ago, ctsooner said:

I made the switch and never looked back. Everything was just so much better. I’m not a fan of non Vandy subs with the steens as it takes away the major advantages of bass upgrades made with one or two Sub3’s. 
 

is it worth it for you?  Only you will know. Can you audition first?

Thanks.  Auditioning is probably not possible.  Your answer is what I was looking for, as it sounds like improvements from moving to the Quattro will be more than just in the bass.  

[ctsooner]

As Richard stated, that or a couple of Sub3's will get you part of what the Quatro's will give you, but Quatro's are still much better to my ears than 2 sub3's and Treo CT's, but again, that's just me.  

[Cosmic]

Did you install/tune the crossovers yourself, or get help from your dealer?  

[nrenter]

Assuming you are running your RELs through the high-level input (and you have a separate pre-amp / amp). You could start by adding a Vandersteen crossover between your pre-amp and amp, and attempting to compensate the roll off with the REL crossover and level controls. This approach will take some definite trial and error to dial it in, but if you are so motivated, it could be worth a try. You’re going to need the crossover if (when) you upgrade to the Quatros, anyways. 
 

Now that I think about it, it could still work if you’re running you RELs from your pre-amp. If so, you may not have to work as hard to dial-in. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by nrenter

[GdnrBob]

I bought @ctsooner's Treo's (non-CT). And, I bought a pair of Sub 3's.

IMHO, I think you would be 85-90% of a Quatro by using this method.

If I had more room, I probably would have gotten the Quatro's, but in my current state, I am quite happy and feel no need to move upward (even CT- though it is tempting😊).

As Mr. V. wrote, using the Vandy subs will allow you to relieve your amp from the nasty power grabbing lower frequencies and lower distortion.-Which is  one of the best reasons to move in that direction. And, even if you do move onto Quatro's you can still use them, as they will be more like a Distributed Bass Array.

Bob

[TomicTime]

Hi passing the main amp is massive 😉 i had to be reminded of this when i added a sub 3 to my Treo CT…. and my normal reference is the 7’s with High Pass M-7 amolifiers…..

I made a drawing of how high pass, room eq on the sub and a power factor corrected sub w high pass filter slope restoration works… I think Brad was distilling it down….

I would also add that sub3 main integration is easy and IF you watch the Vandy video..is not difficult, you can always reach out to me, i walk people thru it w facetime…..

nothing else comes close…. imo

[Holmz]

2 hours ago, GdnrBob said:

I bought @ctsooner's Treo's (non-CT). And, I bought a pair of Sub 3's.

IMHO, I think you would be 85-90% of a Quatro by using this method.

…

It is possible that it could be better, as one could move the Sub3 to say a corner, or mid wall and get a better modal place for the subs.
Maybe?

But located in the Quattro is pretty darn convenient.

[ctsooner]

It's always a value proposition. Worth is an individual thing.  There is a reason the cost difference between the two speakers is so great and it's because you get so much more with the Quatro's.  You really do.  I personally feel it's the sweet spot in the Vandy line up.  Once I get the new preamp when it comes out, I will be in 7th heaven.  If I could afford the Kento's, I'd get them, but I can't.  That said, I don't feel like I'm losing tooooo much with Quatro's as it's certainly advantages of having the internal powered sub.

Using two Sub3's with Treo's is also incredible, if you have Treo's already, but again folks need to keep in mind what else they have in the system. If you have a Vandy amp or top electronics, it may be worth taking the step up as you will realize the potential of everything else in your system too.  It's not just the speaker I feel.  YMMV.

[Cosmic]

Thanks all for your responses.  To make this more specific, here’s my system:  MSB Discrete>>McIntosh C22>>MC 611 monoblocks>>two stacks of Rel 510’s (6 total, high level input). I realize the Rel line array may be a bit unconventional, but I like what they do.   I admit that the technical analysis is beyond me, and I understand what Richard is saying, but it seems like a Sub 3 would not add a significant improvement.  I am thinking that in this system, the Quattro’s could be a step up in overall SQ, beyond what it’s built in subs will add.   I guess that’s what I’m wondering:   Are the Quattro’s more than Treo’s with built in subs?  My assumption is yes.  Do you agree?

[Cosmic]

2 minutes ago, ctsooner said:

It's always a value proposition. Worth is an individual thing.  There is a reason the cost difference between the two speakers is so great and it's because you get so much more with the Quatro's.  You really do.  I personally feel it's the sweet spot in the Vandy line up.  Once I get the new preamp when it comes out, I will be in 7th heaven.  If I could afford the Kento's, I'd get them, but I can't.  That said, I don't feel like I'm losing tooooo much with Quatro's as it's certainly advantages of having the internal powered sub.

Using two Sub3's with Treo's is also incredible, if you have Treo's already, but again folks need to keep in mind what else they have in the system. If you have a Vandy amp or top electronics, it may be worth taking the step up as you will realize the potential of everything else in your system too.  It's not just the speaker I feel.  YMMV.

CtSooner, this came in just as I posted.  Thanks!

[ctsooner]

Honestly, the difference between the Sub 3's and the REL is huge. I have a close friend who sells both and we discussed this months ago.  What the Sub3 does (reread Richards post above) takes your speakers to a new level.  Imagine freeing your amp from having to do anything from 100hz down.  Bass is the most expensive part of teh sound chain and it's also very difficult to do properly.  When you take out 100hz down from the main speaker, they just don't vibrate that much.  Richard talks about the technical stuff, but in the home it means sound that is better focused, less smeared, cleaner etc...  It just sounds better.  You lose those advantages when you are not using his subs with their crossovers.  

As for the Quatro's being more than Treo's with 2 Sub 3's....  For my money it's not close as I've stated.  I put my money where my mouth was when I made the move to Quatro's from regular Treo's. I know the CT version is better, but it's not like the older tweeter wasn't very very good.  If you can afford the Quatro's, it's easy to make that decision IMHO.  Where do you live?

[GdnrBob]

I agree with Peter ( @ctsooner). Your amps will have an easier task with the Sub 3's (Heck, even with the 2wq's).

I can understand wanting to use what you have at hand, but I/we only put these opinions out there as we know the benefits from using the Vandy Subs. And, I am sure that what you are hearing with the REL's is very pleasing, but, in the interest of pointing you to the most cost effective way to improved sound...

My 2 cents-

If you have disposable income, then get the Quatro's.

If you are limited by budget and  want to make the best of your Treo's, sell the REL's and buy a Sub 3 (two would be better, but you can start slowly).

I will assure you that you Will hear a difference for the better- especially with those nice McIntosh amps. Remember @TomicTime owns not only Treo CT's, like you, but the Sevens too. And if he hears an improvement, then there is an improvement.

Just tryin' to help

Bob

 

[Cosmic]

Bob & Peter,

Thanks for your helpful comments—exactly what I’m looking for.  Lots to think about.   Can you tune the crossovers ( for Sub 3 and Quattro’s yourself, or is it Bess done by a professional?  I’m in Maine, Peter.

[Cosmic]

*best

[Richard Vandersteen]

8 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Thanks all for your responses.  To make this more specific, here’s my system:  MSB Discrete>>McIntosh C22>>MC 611 monoblocks>>two stacks of Rel 510’s (6 total, high level input). I realize the Rel line array may be a bit unconventional, but I like what they do.   I admit that the technical analysis is beyond me, and I understand what Richard is saying, but it seems like a Sub 3 would not add a significant improvement.  I am thinking that in this system, the Quattro’s could be a step up in overall SQ, beyond what it’s built in subs will add.   I guess that’s what I’m wondering:   Are the Quattro’s more than Treo’s with built in subs?  My assumption is yes.  Do you agree?

Yes, because they are built in which allows a more linear crossover between them.  You could still use your subs by playing them (3 of them with the right and the 3 others with the left Quatro) while the Quatro CT is being dialed for fine tuning.  RV

[nrenter]

One of the benefits of the Sub 3 has little to do with the sub itself - the requirement to put a first order crossover between your preamp and your amp. This removes (dramatically decreases) the responsibility of both your amps and your speakers from reproducing sub-bass to lower bass frequencies. This is what RV means when he says “increased the power supply of your main amplifier, lowered the distortion of your main amplifier, lowered the distortion of your Treo CT's ”. 
 

Now, the Vandersteen sub line automatically compensates for this first order roll off that occurs before your amp, and the Sub3 adds an EQ to the party. 
 

You COULD insert a first order crossover between your preamp and amps AND continue to use your REL stacks, but it will take some work to seamlessly blend. You’ll have to dial in your stacks knowing the low frequency signal is being rolled off at a rate of 6 dB per octave under 100 Hz and not having a set of subs specifically designed to compensate for that roll off.

Depending on the size of your room and your listening preferences, you may want 4 subs to match what you have with a stack of 6 RELs. I would argue 4 Sub3s would be much, much better than 6 RELs as you asymmetrically position - and EQ - a swarm of subs to smooth the nodes within your room. Personally, I’d go this route with your  Treo CTs. But I’d trust RV’s recommendation over mine. 

[GdnrBob]

15 minutes ago, nrenter said:

You COULD insert a first order crossover between your preamp and amps AND continue to use your REL stacks, but it will take some work to seamlessly blend. You’ll have to dial in your stacks knowing the low frequency signal is being rolled off at a rate of 6 dB per octave under 100 Hz and not having a set of subs specifically designed to compensate for that roll off.

Depending on the size of your room and your listening preferences, you may want 4 subs to match what you have with a stack of 6 RELs. I would argue 4 Sub3s would be much, much better than 6 RELs as you asymmetrically position - and EQ - a swarm of subs to smooth the nodes within your room. Personally, I’d go this route with your  Treo CTs. But I’d trust RV’s recommendation over mine. 

Well put.

 

@Richard Vandersteen

26 minutes ago, Richard Vandersteen said:

You could still use your subs by playing them (3 of them with the right and the 3 others with the left Quatro) while the Quatro CT is being dialed for fine tuning.  RV

He has the Treo's. Can he do the same with them? Well, obviously not fine tuning the integrated bass....

Bob

[Richard Vandersteen]

2 minutes ago, GdnrBob said:

Well put.

 

@Richard Vandersteen

He has the Treo's. Can he do the same with them? Well, obviously not fine tuning the integrated bass....

Bob

He won't have the room EQ feature.  I would go with Quatro CTs and the subs he has before going with multiple SUB THREEs because of cost.  RV

[ctsooner]

12 hours ago, Richard Vandersteen said:

He won't have the room EQ feature.  I would go with Quatro CTs and the subs he has before going with multiple SUB THREEs because of cost.  RV

As Richard pointed out, it’s a cost/benefit deal. It’s quite simple, sell the 6 REL subs and the Treo’s and buy the Quatro’s . 

[GdnrBob]

21 hours ago, Richard Vandersteen said:

He won't have the room EQ feature.  I would go with Quatro CTs and the subs he has before going with multiple SUB THREEs because of cost.  RV

True, but my recommendation is based on giving the OP were to get the 'best' from his Treo's. Even if he kept the REL's, his amp would still be taxed from the lower frequencies-introducing distortion. Buying a single Sub 3 would at least eliminate that issue, as well as give him room EQ, and if time and budget allow, he could get a second Sub 3. Then, even if he moved to Quatro's, he could still use the Sub 3's and get something approaching a Distributed Bass Array.

Correct me if I am wrong. ( which I probably am).

Bob