2. speakers
  3. 1083503802

Are Wilson speakers

I have posted under the Amp thread the fact that my Krell KMA 160s are too "mean, lean and sterile" in my sytem and have blamed everything but the speakers. I am currently deciding between a number of tube amps (Atma-sphere, VTL-450, Wolcott, etc - they must have balanced inputs and fill a 23 X 15 room with high resonance. Then I assembled a baby system in a 12X12 room - Jolida 302B (mod Underwood HiFi) and Totem Sig 1's, Naim CD 5, Nordost interconnects and Poeima! speaker wire) and it sounds magical, musical, engaging and glorious. So I blamed the amp only. Now, after listening again and again, and running upstairs and downstairs, to compare, a horrible thought struck me: Maybe it is the Wilson WP 3:2's that are not musical and engaging, rather than all the associated front end and power.........obviously, this is a reluctant conclusion, given all the positives written everywhere about the Wilson speakers and the expense in getting not only a new amp, but new speakers as well - let alone wife factor. So I will change the amp - since it seems to be a universal consensus that the Krell KMA 160s are "lean and clinical" (every dealer I speak to says so and I must have spoken to dozens this last month)and listen to the Wilsons with an Atma-sphere or VTL-450.
I cannot get a Sound Labs or Quad 989 because of wife factor and need the same/similar footprint as the Wilsons - I have seen the thread of someone looking for a pair of speakers under $15K, so will look at those 4 speakers - or try to hear them.
I dont want to bash Wilsons, as I believe they are a wonderful company (I will tell a Dave Wilson story on another thread that confirms what a great guy he is..........) but need A'goners help/input again to sort out my musical non-bliss with this expensive system so that I get the same musicality, involvement and engagement that I dont feel with it, but do with a baby system, costing a tenth or less, in my main listening room.
Thanks in advance for your comments on attaining musical improvement - this and a warm, engagement with reduction of the clinical, sterile sound is the goal.......

System:
Mark Levinson Ref 32
Esoteric DV-50
Krell KMA 160
WWP 3:2
PAD Dominus, Poiema!, PAD Venustas cables
BMI Shark, Michael Wolf PCs
PS HO/HC
springbok10

Showing 2 responses by kleech

kleech
130 posts
 
I think you have upgradeitis...not that there's anything wrong with that! In fact about 2 1/2 years ago, I felt the exact same thing having lived with WP 2/1's for about ten years. I was using them for the most part with older Rowland electronics and just couldn't get into the sound anymore. My first step was to change the amp...in this case to newer Rowlands. While this ameliorated my symptoms somewhat, a certain uneasiness with the sound persisted and in hindsight I think that move was a small but expensive mistake. To cut to the chase, I changed speakers to the Sophias and have since worked to optimize their performance. Because they present a more benign load, this allowed the use of lower powered, quality, tube amps which I think frankly is what will give you some of what you have in your smaller system without sacrificing the detail, transparency and dynamics that the Wilson's afford. This is simply the path I took and I am happy with it.

BTW, I used the KMA 160's for a short while with an ARC SP15 preamp and Martin Logan CLS II's. While this might appear to be an ear bleeder on print, it actually sounded very nice.
kleech
130 posts
 
Springbok 10, congrats on the 3.2F's. I recently had the pleasure of listening to these and they sounded wonderful indeed! But,I can't help but think that moving from Krells and W/P's to Atmas and Kharmas might not produce some kind of "audio shock" possibly in a most positive way. Please provide us with your feedback on this combo...especially if you miss anything like dynamics and bass reproduction...as I'm thinking of moving in this direction myself.
More to discover