Are Wilson speakers

I believe that the Wilson 3/2s are somewhat lean-sounding.
Back in 1992, I had mine updated from the 2/1 version, which was quite warm-sounding. When I got them back, I noticed immediately that they had a very lean profile to them. I didn't care for it myself, so I sold them.
I don't think that toeing them in will change the leanness; it is not a matter of tonal balance. The speakers are lean. When I ran into Dave at a High End show the following year, he asked me how my speakers were. I shuffled my feet, looked at the floor and told him that I had sold them. He was astonished, and asked "Why?" I replied, "Dave, they're pretty lean-sounding." He acknowledged it, and we left it at that.
I'm not suggesting anything about the dynamic makeup of the speakers. I'm simply stating the fact that that particular version IS lean. I had the first three versions of the WATTS, back when the WATTS were being marketed locally (the San Francisco Bay area; Dave's factory was in Novato, 20 miles or so north of The City).
My understanding is that later versions are less lean. And, actually, at that time, Dave used MIT speaker cable and the Spectral DMA-50 amp, along with the Rowland Coherence preamp, which is "lush" sounding from the lower midrange down. I believe these were his main components in designing the WATT. He also used a Goldmund turntable (the Studio). I remember because he did the setup on mine, too.
I see I'm wandering, but I wanted to place the WATTS into the context at that time. The MIT cables are warm-sounding, which compensated for the leanness, and the Rowland absolutely supplied the WATTS with more lower midrange energy. Remember, the Original WATTS came out in 1986. The "Puppy" came out late 1988. Dave may have changed electronics after 1991, but given the sonics, it would seem that the was still using the Rowland preamp, which he thought more accurate to the source (see: TAS, issue 47, for his comments on the Coherence 1). You'll notice that he observed that the Coherence was more accurate in the lower midrange and upper bass, the SP-11 From the midrange and upwards. That was also the same issue that the WATTS were first reviewed.
This might help explain why the earlier WATT/Puppy designs were leaner than later versions.
Hope this helps.

Albertporter:
I think people need to realize that frequently they may be hearing the system AHEAD of the speakers instead of assessing the sound of the speakers themselves. I read the Alons are "bright." Nonsense. I have several models. They're no brighter than I am (not very!). However, if a component ahead in the chain is not, say, isolated properly, it will cause the final effect to sound that way. I learned early on in my audio life not to make a conclusion about the bad stuff based on what I heard, but to definitely pay attention to the good stuff. My experience is that the good stuff can be made better, but if you "see" it immediately in a demonstration, one can rest assured that the speakers MUST be able to pass on that stuff or you wouldn't be hearing it. Therefore, the speakers' most obvious and enjoyable traits are absolutes os sorts. The bad stuff may be an (unfavorable) system interaction, and can be mitigated frequently. Not always, but frequently.