Jeff,
Just one question-why you toe-in Salon2 so much?
Salon2 is equiped as you already know with 24db/octave crossover and according to experienced Revel dealer in Germany needs only moderate toe-in(max. 15 degrees), otherwise Salon2 will sound little bit too-entusiastic in treble. When I audition Salon2 toe-in degree was much smaller then in your setup... |
If you are aware of their shortcoming, why are you posting them? The in-room measurements show how inconsequential a flat frequency response can become once the speaker is placed in an actual room. A speaker that is slightly off of flat can sometimes measure better in-room in certain areas of the frequency response than a speaker that measures perfectly flat in an anechoic chamber as long as the speaker that is slightly off the flat response is placed correctly. So a company can design a speaker for wall placement, bookshelf placement, or close to boundary placement by designing it a certain way and it will still sound correct if placed well according to its design parameters. Go figure... People design speakers for particular kinds of room placement all the time. I'm not wasting my time on this guy any longer. People can validate what I have been writing themselves by looking at the Stereophile graphs, my graphs and NRC measurements via Soundstage. Both measure very similarly in-room. The problem with people who only look at graphs to judge things is that they tend to see the music and never hear it. As I mentioned previously, those people lack balance in their approach to this hobby. Those people tend to forget that people don't listen to music in anechoic chambers, but rather in a room. So if a speaker is designed for specific placement in rooms, whether by shelving or not, there is nothing wrong with that. That is not "wrong on wrong," that is intentional design with good reasoning behind it. Unless of course you are just looking to bash a brand, which this guy admits is his goal. I'm not at all surprised, it has been obvious almost since the beginning. At least now people know to take what he says with some grains of salt. This is also a subjective hobby, so the only "wrong on wrong" is buying something you don't like listening to. There are a lot worse measuring speakers out there than either of these speakers, and both of these speakers measure good in-room with proper placement (albeit different placement) and PEQ. one of the speakers just happens to have some minor room correction and high frequency correction built into it (though not enough to deal with 200-300Hz range issues, so if you need closer wall placement you will likely still need another one anyway), while the other one does not... |
In regards to my sole intentions, yes, you are partially right, I cannot stand the fact that the most successful high-end speaker ever is a practical joke. It says something about this hobby, which I am a part of. I see it as my duty, and a service to the audiophile community, to expose the nakedness of the king. Golly gee, all us fools sure are blessed to have you here to show us the way and enlighten us. |
Jk,
Sorry for referring to your conclusions based on the in-room measurements you supplied. If you are aware of their shortcoming, why are you posting them? Anyway, back to the subject, the Ultima tweeter is not shelved. It has a rise response, starting at 10K. It is a big difference then shelving (You can also see the nice impedance of the Revel tweeter in comparison to the w/p, although, the delayed energy, seen in the cumulative spectral-decay plot is concerning). In regards to your comment on the w/p mids shelving , it is anything but useful. Remember, wrong on wrong is still not right. In regards to my sole intentions, yes, you are partially right, I cannot stand the fact that the most successful high-end speaker ever is a practical joke. It says something about this hobby, which I am a part of. I see it as my duty, and a service to the audiophile community, to expose the nakedness of the king. |
Damn would I love to get Jkalman and Dhaan together with their choice of speakers and have at it. I know I would learn something..... |
I haven't done careful comparisons yet because the Salon2s are still breaking in. It does seem like the Salon2s are more foregiving, but a little less transparent in the critical mid-range. I have heard more transparency develop during the break-in process, so I am not sure what to expect when I come back to both speakers to do more careful A/B tests in early March. There is more bass extension with the Salon2s. There is also greater bass detail with the Salon2s so far, but this is with the boundary compression turned on, not with it set to normal. I do have a lot of live "Grateful Dead" recordings that sound better with a little forgiveness in the playback. So this should be interesting. I have started a list of plusses and minuses on my AVS forum HT thread concerning both speakers in relation to each other in my room: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=748097&page=1&pp=30).The room itself is an important consideration for me. I ultimately have to choose what will work best in my room situation with a 128.5" diagonal recessed screen in the center of the room. Room placement is an issue because of this. Compromises have to be made one way or the other. I don't think there is going to be a "best" speaker so far between the two, just another situation of having to choose what will work best in a given situation. I would wager, anyone who open-mindedly demos both thoroughly will find the same thing, and a choice will have to be made on what works best in his/her listening space. I'll be sure to give my opinion on which I would choose if room constraints weren't an issue. |
Dhaan,
I'm well aware of how measurements work. I've read the Master Handbook of Acoustics, some portions more than a couple of times. I understand that in-room measurements show the room interaction with the audio output (this is very basic stuff, which makes your post seem condescending to me...). I know how to analyze the two signals and see which are room modes, which are room nulls and how they cancel out between both speakers in an overlay.
What you aren't taking into account is that the Salon2 and Studio2 are both shelved up ~2dB in areas of the treble. You can see this in the Stereophile anechoic response from this months issue. That isn't balanced, it is shelving... OTOH, the W/P 8 does roll off after 12K, which is something I mentioned previously in that other thread when some people were saying it is bright (it isn't bright, however, the Salon2 is bright in comparison... You can hear it too, which I'm hoping will fade more as it breaks-in further). I was open in the last thread about having a list of issues I've had with the W/P8. The kickdrum issue and high frequency roll-off are major ones.
Likewise you can see the extra bump between 60-80Hz of around 4-5dB on the W/P8, which is a bit heavy in the kickdrum area. This is audible and bothersome in my room. If that area of the frequency response weren't already experiencing room reinforcement it might be pleasant to have some extra kickdrum, but with my room issues in that area it is too much. That is the room though, much more than the speaker, as you can see that the Salon2 exhibits the same issues but with 4-5dB less amplitude.
Now the shelving down in the mid-range on the W/P8 is actually useful design if you want a speaker that can be placed close to walls. This shelving is what allows the speaker to be placed well in a HT or other room where it needs to be out of the way. The Salon2, even with boundary compression turned on to the fullest still has to be placed out significantly further from walls in my room or the chestiness cause by bloating in the 200-300Hz region is intolerable. The boundary compression doesn't work that high up in frequency. So if I wanted to place both speakers in the same area by the sides of the room I would still need to use PEQ, but I would have to PEQ different areas of their frequency responses (W/P8 60-80Hz, and Salon2 200-300Hz regions).
My experiments with both speakers so far have shown me that thoughtful design doesn't have to mean a flat frequency response. In some cases an intentional shelving of the response allows for closer boundary placement, as is the case with the W/P8.
I digress though, I keep forgetting that your sole intention around here seems to be to sling mud at Wilson speakers and try to sell Magicos. Perhaps you should work on balancing your own approach to things. You would likely come off a lot better on these fora if you didn't assume nobody but yourself knows anything about these topics. |
Jkalman,
You are giving your in-room measurement too much weight. These measurements below 600 Hz have little to do with the speakers and a lot to do with the room. Above, although you are measuring room reflections as well, you can tell more about the speakers behavior. The differences are not as subtle as you may think. The steady decline of the W/P trebles, starting at 4K, will dramatically change the overall balance of sound. In general, even under rough measurement like what you have here, you can see that the Salon, are smoother and better behaved overall. |
Wow, Jkalman, that's dedication!
Looking forward to further measurements and impressions. |
If you decide to sell the WP 8's let me know. If I can afford them I will buy them (unless they are some weird color or something). Enjoy. |
Hey again everyone.
I now have a pair of Salon2s to compare to my W/P8s in my listening room. We just put them in the room today. I'm giving them two weeks to break-in.
I already did in-room measurements. They aren't that different from each other in terms of in-room response. In terms of listening to the mid-range, the W/P8s image more precisely and cleanly, with more space between instruments and with the instruments better defined in space. I need to do more listening to the bass and treble between the two before I compare those, as they will require more thoughtfulness in my listening than the critical mid-range requires. This is without the Salon2s being broken in, so a lot might change in the next two weeks. This is also without the speakers in the same position the W/P8s were in. I'll have time to play around with these things as the Salon2s break in.
The two measure so much alike it is creepy. The Salons2s don't roll off as much in the high frequencies, but from the Stereophile measurements I have seen of the Studio2, it is likely because it is shelved up +2dB for a good portion of the high frequencies. That shelving in unison with natural room roll off makes their in-room high frequency response not rolled off enough IMO. As I mentioned previously, the W/P8s do have slight roll off anyway and looking at the Soundstage NRC W/P8 measurements reveals it as well. OTOH the Salon2s are rolled up, but I do have a treble control I will play with at some point as well to lower it to a flatter anechoic response for the sake of another group of ETF5 measurements.
I hope some people are willing to put their money where their mouths are (like I have), because I will be keeping whichever speaker I ultimately think sounds better. This means I will have a pair of used speakers to sell on Audiogon after my testing is finished (that is where the money where the mouth part comes in...). ;)
If anyone wants to see the preliminary measurement overlays of the two speakers I have made three overlays in ETF5. The first is of both speakers at 70dB (1/6th octave), the second of both at 80dB (1/6th octave) and the third at 80dB (1/12th) octave. I will at some point today post the 80dB measurements to my Audiogon System Equipment list. The 70dB (1/6th octave) doesn't differ from the 80dB (1/6th octave) measurement so I won't bother posting it. I'll also post a pic of them in my room, for the benefit of those who don't actually believe I am this insane!
I have to say, I am a little upset. For all the griping I have heard on fora everywhere concerning the importance of minute differences in frequency response measurements (which I bought into as a reason for making this comparison; in hopes of improving my sound quality), I am a little unenthusiastic when considering the similarities between how they both measure in my room in the critical frequencies... I expected some bass issues in my room to be resolved, but instead the speakers have revealed that those bass humps are room issues, not speaker related issues (yay... and boo...), because we know the Revels are not going to be wildly off a flat frequency response in those areas.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "best speaker," only a "best speaker for me." So any decisions I make are ultimately made on the basis of what I enjoy. |
Ive recently auditioned all of these. To my ear the Watt Puppy 8s are definitely superior. The Revels were detailed but a bit too "in your face" for my taste. Of course the associated equipment makes a difference. But in the same system (Krell EVO) I heard some Dynaudio C-4's (Stereophile 2007 co-speaker of the year). I really preferred them to the Revels, and in some ways to the Wilsons too. However if those are the two choices and you can afford it go with the Wilsons. If you don't like them send me an email and I'll buy them used from you. That's the only reason I don't own them now. |
Psacanli,
You really need to hear them both yourself. I'm still waiting to hear a pair of the Salon2s around my area, but so far no one
in NY has any to demo... There aren't many places holding demos
of them on the east coast for some reason. |
I'm not yet completely persuaded. |
I would not mind but I am not trying to start a pissing match here. There are quite a few loudspeakers I would rather listen to then the W/P. I am also more than willing to accept that some may not like what I like. |
Dhaan, if you wouldn't mind, what are you currently listening to? |
Why are you trying so hard to defend your purchase and disprove another person's opinion. You guys disagree; leave it at that as it's quite obvious neither of you are about to come over to the other side. |
I am not sure how me pointing out to what I hear as harshness and grain (Plus hollowness, lack of body, artificial upper midrange and lumpy bass) will make you hear it as well. Obviously, you purchase these speakers cause you liked the way they sound. I have said, time and again, that the WP sounds to me exactly like they measure. They always did. Way before I saw any measurements on them. I would also argue, that to an experience listener, it makes more sense for any speaker to sound more like it measure then not. Perhaps, in a way of comparison, once you hear a better implemented design, you will hear what I am talking about. Then again, perhaps not. WP8 have many audible issues that can be measured and explained. I happened to hear most of these issues when I listen to them. Telling me that all these issues, that are clearly visible in the data measured by different sources, are not audible is not a serious argument. Perhaps you do not hear them. But I sure do. Pointing it out will allow me to analyze whether or not what you heard was really due to break-up modes or something else. I am more than qualified to be able to listen for these kinds of issues. I've taken David Moulton's Golden Ears courses. I can hear the general shape of the frequency response. I know what distortion sounds like and I can hear it, as that was part of the training course as well. I know what phase issues sound like, as well as differing levels of compression (etc, etc... For a full list of things I have learned how to hear look up the Golden Ears course outline). I have excellent hearing for my age (I was tested around two years ago by an Otolaryngologist). Of course, all these other issues concerning the frequency response, aren't what our argument was about. Our argument is about whether or not the break-up mode on the W/P8 is audible; your last post was full of straw-man arguments. I have things I think are imperfect about my speakers. No speaker is perfect, and all speakers are compromises from a perfect transducer. People also experience stereophonic illusions differently, so that people will subjectively prefer some compromises to others in terms of perceived "realism." Again, these weren't what out argument was about... Our argument was about the audibility of the break-up modes on the W/P8. Where I take issue, is with people posting about hearing things that are below hearing threshold under realistic human listening conditions. You want to talk about deviations from linearity, deviations from a perfect frequency response, phase issues, and distortion issues, you will find that I won't disagree with issues that exist if they are audible under human listening conditions. All speakers suffer from issues in these measured areas in one form or another to varying degrees. Speakers compromise in some areas in order to be stronger in others. If you turn the volume up enough, every transducer starts failing miserably, it is just the nature of those kinds of physical mechanics. How can I validate your assertions if you won't show me how you arrived at them in the "real" world so that I can repeat your experiments myself to see if what you heard could be something other than the cause you are ascribing it? So far it seems to me, based on your level of cooperation and my own testing with the type of material you recommended on the W/P8, that the placebo effect can work for people that look at graphs just as easily as it can work for people who believe in other imaginary audio phenomena. Tell me how you tested and what testing methods you used to prove to yourself that you were hearing actual break-up modes, or at least admit you didn't do any controlled testing and are basing your statements on pure speculation. If you don't supply your testing criteria and material, I'm forced to assume you didn't test at all and are fabricating your statements about hearing break-up modes. Your statements aren't facts unless you back them up with valid testing data and allow others to see if they can find alternate explanations for what you heard... If no alternate explanations can be proven, then you may have proven a fact, but if alternate explanations can be proven true, then it isn't a fact. Your statements seem to suggest that you haven't done any detailed testing and have only done some casual listening, perhaps under less than desirable conditions. Why are you so resistant to being cooperative? You only stand to be proved correct or to learn something... :( Thanks. |
I am not sure how me pointing out to what I hear as harshness and grain (Plus hollowness, lack of body, artificial upper midrange and lumpy bass) will make you hear it as well. Obviously, you purchase these speakers cause you liked the way they sound. I have said, time and again, that the WP sounds to me exactly like they measure. They always did. Way before I saw any measurements on them. I would also argue, that to an experience listener, it makes more sense for any speaker to sound more like it measure then not. Perhaps, in a way of comparison, once you hear a better implemented design, you will hear what I am talking about. Then again, perhaps not. WP8 have many audible issues that can be measured and explained. I happened to hear most of these issues when I listen to them. Telling me that all these issues, that are clearly visible in the data measured by different sources, are not audible is not a serious argument. Perhaps you do not hear them. But I sure do. |
In the mean time, go listen to any decent violin or soprano recording and see how much of it you can take on your Watt. Then try the same on the Salon or even better the V3.
And yes, I know that a violin high note is only around 3.5K but its harmonics easily excites the break-up modes of the Watt. What you should hear is clear audible grain riding the entire treble. It would get worst as you increase the volume. Anyway, I am probably boring you again by now
I listen to Joshua Bell and Julia Fischer all the time among others (as well as classical music and opera occasionally with both soprano and violin!). I don't get these issues you are referring to. Both are clean sounding in my setup. I also listen to the same music on my studio monitors sometimes, which don't have the same resolution as the W/P8s (among other things). Give some exact examples please, as previously requested. Your statements about the Wilson speakers appear to be purely theoretical. So far you have not shown any evidence that you are actually hearing this problem you are pontificating about. It is likely you are hearing something that can be explained off as other issues in the recording chain. I certainly don't hear the problems you are referring to in my setup... To be sure, I just finished evaluating Joshua Bell playing the first 11 minutes of Tchaikovsky's Allegro moderato on both my Wilson setup and my studio monitor setup. The only issues I am finding are common to both setups and are likely related to echos of the timbre vibrato changes on the violin, likely from cavity resonance in the instrument of a high harmonic being picked up by the close miking, but that is a natural occurrence... The other thing it could be is the actual sound of his fingers or bow on the string muting certain harmonics. It is occurring on only the right side speakers where the violin output isn't as heavily weighted, and it is only during the heavier attacks. It occurs in both setups. Unfortunately, while I have been to many orchestral events, I am not an expert on violins and what exactly causes the sound I am hearing on this particular recording. So I can only offer those two ideas as possibilities. Yes, these two sets of speakers I am using sound different because they are different speakers, but the audio content is not changing between the two setups in any way to insinuate that distortion is occurring. There is no "grain riding the entire treble" as you declared earlier. Though the studio monitors lack the same level of resolution, involving clarity, depth of soundstage and lifelike presentation (among other things), they are still decent for music editing. On the W/P8s the recording is as clear as a Bell (sorry, I couldn't resist...). The next one I tried was a version of Mozart's Don Giovanni (Robert Norrington - EMI Classics). I used song 2 on side 3 for soprano testing. This test is the one that started to worry me, because I was hearing distortion like elements, but I believe they were due to the recording. To test the hypothesis that they were not due to tweeter break-up I tested the same area of the song over and over again at different volume levels. The issue did not get worse with increased volume (it actually seemed to dissipate with increased volume, likely because I could hear it better, though some of the volume levels I tried were obscenely loud and hurt my ears... So I only did very time limited trials at those volumes). My theory is, since these problems are happening at the loudest moments of her singing, not necessarily at the highest frequencies, that she overloaded the mikes they were using... The stability of the issue, despite changing volume levels by large amounts, would seem to support that. in any case, it isn't tweeter break-up modes, or the problem would get worse with increasing volume. Another reason I decided to do the above experiment with changing the volumes, is in case the two speakers I am using share similar qualities between their tweeters. After all, if they exhibit similar behavior in the treble, it is possible that they have similar break-up modes. I feel confident that, even if that is true, the varying volume levels eliminates any issues I've heard as being break-up mode issues. In short, I believe you are incorrect. IMO, your argument is the type that happens when someone applies theoretical ideals to a topic without making sure they are "sound" concepts of the audible world in practice. Perhaps you heard something, but it wasn't what you thought it was IMO. IMO, you should spend less time making assumptions from graphs and more time testing those assumptions in the real world. I'll be waiting for you to offer up some albums, track numbers and specific times on those albums where I can hear the issues you claim to be hearing on the Watt Puppy 8s. Have you ever done any practical listening and testing with the W/P8 personally, or are you just basing your statements on graphs alone? So far you have avoided listing specific albums with which you have tested the W/P8 in order to find these issues you are claiming exist, despite my attempts to solicit that information from you... Thanks. |
Considering the oft repeated "careful matching" when speaking of Wilson, I recently had to abolish my prejudices when I heard a demo at my local audio salon consisting of Krell evo electronics driving the new Wilson 8's. Reading the forums you would expect this combination to drill your ears from your head with laser like intensity. On the contrary. Though my experience and audio vocabulary is limited, my sensitivity to what is referred to as bright is pretty intense. What I heard was rich, smooth, dynamic and non fatiguing...now you guys quite fighting ;-) |
to others it is refreshingly free of distortion But it is not. If some prefer the sound of distortion, what exactly are we talking about? Subjective opinions with no merits behind them. And if you have to completely twist your system and room around a product with such deficiencies, why not start with something that actually work to begin with. |
while i am not a wilson fan, the w/p tweeter is not at all grainy or harsh. a violin's sound, however, WILL be sharply defined. to some people it sounds "etched", to others it is refreshingly free of distortion. as i said earlier, WITH the right room acoustics and high-caliber components properly matched, the W/P will blow alot of other speakers away. it is these very strict requirements, however, that make buying wilson's a daunting task- to acheive their maximum potential. for those looking for an easier and usually less-expensive path of putting a good system together, i can think of several other speaker designs that ALSO sound startlingly good without quite as much attention to the room and the rest of the audio system, although they will still need something well above NAD or ROTEL electronics. and as stated before, at that point, many people may not be that happy listening to recordings that USED to sound "pretty OK" and will strongly prefer better-sounding records and cd's. |
Very typical response. All open for a discussion I'm not above admitting I am wrong; I'm only human but then again, not really I'm sorry if you have bored me in the past Make up your mind. In the mean time, go listen to any decent violin or soprano recording and see how much of it you can take on your Watt. Then try the same on the Salon or even better the V3. And yes, I know that a violin high note is only around 3.5K but its harmonics easily excites the break-up modes of the Watt. What you should hear is clear audible grain riding the entire treble. It would get worst as you increase the volume. Anyway, I am probably boring you again by now
|
If the W/P 8 placed correct and match with the right component (generally with tube's amps), the sound is superb: rich but not fat, detail yet natural, control and extended.
I heard the Revel Salon 2 in the CES for a brief time, it was one of my best demos. At $22K, I think it's the best value for money together with the Magico V3.
Still, the W/P 8 is more involving than the Salon 2.
|
I am afraid it is on paper as well. Yes, and outside your hearing range, unless you are prepubescent. Considering your comments, that is a possibility I am contemplating. I invite you to point out some specific places on some specific albums where you heard this phenomenon. I admit, I am baffled by your conclusions and want the opportunity to listen to this problem myself. That shouldn't be too hard if you are basing this on an actual instances and not just prospecting via graph. Let us all learn from your experience. I'll gladly eat crow if I can't find other valid reasons for the idiosyncrasies using Adobe Audition and my alternate studio monitor setup. I'm not above admitting I am wrong; I'm only human... I also entreat you to stop confusing my writing style with condescension. Perhaps it is just a case of your kettle calling this pot black... A case of terminal hypocrisy on your part. You were right about one thing, I do leave arguments when I get bored. I'm sorry if you have bored me in the past. ;) |
While at it, you should add the Magico V3 to the list. |
You are not alone Jkalman, my experience tells me different as well; comments such as those by Dhaan do not phase me. I think what happens is, people get an idea in their heads from other people or graphs and convince themselves they are hearing things that are not in all probability audible. Sadly, it is pervasive in this hobby... :( Thanks for the support. I'll be back when I get a chance to hear the Salon2, though to be honest, unless I can put them in my room or unless the dealer's room is an adequate setup, I am loath to come to any overwhelming conclusions. I'll still be willing to give my impressions with any inherent disclaimers. I'm still trying to find an environment where the Magico Minis have been set up well in my area. The Salon2 and the Magico Mini... Two speakers I would love to hear properly. |
It is all in your head I am afraid it is on paper as well. I must be very lucky I guess that for Watt owners, hearing loss is a bliss. BTW, let it be known who started the insults trend (See Jkalman usual condescending posts above). I really do not mind it but soon you will run away crying about the Wilson bashing again. So, as they say, if you live in a glass house, you should not throw stones. |
You are not alone Jkalman, my experience tells me different as well; comments such as those by Dhaan do not phase me. |
Call me a bat but the Watt sound to me exactly like they measure. I believe that the word bright should be change to harsh. In regards to the break-ups, you need to keep in mind that when these get agitated, distortion levels of the entire tweeter rises. That is where the harshness come from. If you are hearing those things, it is all in your head IMO. That or I must be very lucky. I'm 33 years old and I'm not hearing any of these issues in my setup... :D |
Call me a bat but the Watt sound to me exactly like they measure. I believe that the word bright should be change to harsh. In regards to the break-ups, you need to keep in mind that when these get agitated, distortion levels of the entire tweeter rises. That is where the harshness come from. |
The Studio2 measures very similar to the Salon1. I had the opportunity to hear those a few times and didn't like them. Despite any awards in the objective measurements category, I thought they sounded flat dimensionally and lacked midrange transparency. When I refer to "those" in the above sentence, as in "I had the opportunity to hear those a few times," I mean the Salon1, not the Studio2. Sorry for the confusing post... |
Regarding W/P8 sounding bright... To my ears they sound little bit "hot" in lower treble(not high treble). I even personally discussed that "quality" with Peter Mcgrath on one of his presentation of W/P8s(he setup the system with W/P8s on that presentation)... So, we can asume that prominent lower treble is Wilson sonic signature. I wouldn't say you have a good rationale for making the above assumption. My measurements and my room don't reflect those qualities you describe. My guess is, it was just a bad room without adequate lower treble room treatment. I've noticed that Wilson only puts up a curtain in its demonstration rooms, which would not be adequate room treatment for anything but the highest frequencies. You aren't going to hear how great a speaker sounds unless you put it in a well treated environment. Unless the speaker is rolled-off at the higher frequencies, you will get a cacophony of high frequency sound in untreated or partially treated spaces. The exact frequency spectra being affected will be determined by the frequency ranges not being acoustically treated... I've heard demonstrations at shows, et al., as well and I know what you are referring to, but that is an issue with the room, not the speaker. I've also been to dealer demo rooms that were properly treated and the difference is stark. Not to mention listening to them in my own room... |
Dhaan,
Most people won't hear the break-up mode. Keep in mind that the average adult can only hear 12Hz to 16KHz well and the breakup occurs at ~20KHz. Also, the frequency range it occurs in is responsible for qualities of sound that are fairly ethereal in nature if not completely unnoticeable in practice. So, it is a little over the top to make an issue out of it IMO. If you were a Dolphin or a Bat, perhaps it would bother you. :)
The Studio2 measures very similar to the Salon1. I had the opportunity to hear those a few times and didn't like them. Despite any awards in the objective measurements category, I thought they sounded flat dimensionally and lacked midrange transparency. I had the opportunity to buy some Salon1s fairly cheap but was not taken with their sound. Objective measurements are a nice starting point, but they aren't everything IMO; I've noticed that in my experience there is a direct correlation between extremely flat frequency responses and a "lifeless" sound to the music they reproduce. People do hear differently when it comes to stereophonic effects, not in terms of dB levels, but in terms of the illusions certain combinations of sounds create in our brains. So it is possible that a flat frequency response won't be a great thing for everyone in terms of the perceived authenticity of the event being recreated.
I was also a little peeved to find out that Revel cherry picks its testers, teaches them to listen for their speakers in particular (by teaching the testers to listen for specific sonic traits their speakers have) then use their test results to prove that their speakers are subjectively "better" sounding. Meanwhile, Paul Barton, who also worked under Floyd Toole, said something to the effect that uninfluenced blind tests showed that most people actually prefer additional bass in their frequency response rather than a truly flat frequency response. All the Revel tests prove is that they can pick the right people, that those people can be taught to learn to hear the Revel speaker sound qualities and that those people can use what they learned to pick the Revel speakers out of a group of other speakers.
Personally, I would use my ears over a graph to decide what sounds best to me. I can't hear with a graph, and a graph can't tell me what I like to hear. I use graphs to get a generally decent confirmation that a speaker is in the ballpark, then use my ears to decide if I like how it sounds.
In short, as others have said about subjective opinions, such as Branimir, use your own ears to decide... |
BTW, regarding my post about W/P8 highs if it was not clear I didn't mean to imply that Peter McGrath had stated that the W/P8
has prominent lower treble. He actually stated that many other
speakers are deficient in that area while the W/P8 is not. |
For all people who are interested in either Salon2 or W/P8 my advice is to visit your local dealer and try to audition both speakers personally. Then make your own judgement and buy one of these great speakers. Both are excellent but, there is difference between them. Some people will like more W/P8, other will like more Salon2. That is difference in our taste and hearing. Long live the difference in opinion! |
Sorry, I meant the Revel studio 2. I would assume that the Salon would be even better. |
The brightness of the Watt comes from its tweeter's dome break-up that is too close to the audioband. It is not brightness, it is simply distortion. Some, may find it exciting.
Just got the new SP with the Revel review. Objectively, I see no comparison between the two speakers. Under JA measurements, the Salon are light years ahead of the Wilson. The rest are just subjective opinions. |
Hi Branimir,
I have the W/P8 at home for the last 3 month. Before I bought them, I was afraid from brightness, strident upper midrange and aggressiveness, but I proved false.
With an Audio Research Reference 3+ Reference 110 amplification, the sound is on the warm side. I measured my room/speakers with a DEQX 2.6. The room correction decrease only in the 70- 100Hz range (my W/P8's stand "11 from the back wall), and didn't change anything else. The measurement show a flat FR graph with a small drop from 5K- 20KHz.
|
Since I had a chance to audition both Salon2 and W/P8 I can say that both speakers are good. Honestly, I like Salon2 little bit more. For all seeking speaker in this class check out new KEF Reference 207/2 as well. It is really as good as John Atkinson said in his review.
Regarding W/P8 sounding bright... To my ears they sound little bit "hot" in lower treble(not high treble). I even personally discussed that "quality" with Peter Mcgrath on one of his presentation of W/P8s(he setup the system with W/P8s on that presentation)... So, we can asume that prominent lower treble is Wilson sonic signature.
Regarding Escalante Fremonts check out review in February issue of Stereophile... I audition Fremonts as well and was not that impressed with their sound. |
I don't understand people saying the W/P 8 is on the bright side... If anything it is rolled off gradually as it approaches 20KHz. When people say something like that, I tend to assume they haven't listened to the W/P8 in a decent environment and/or are basing their remarks on hearsay.
Now, if you truly want to hear a bright speaker, check out a B&W Diamond tweeter speaker. Personally, bright doesn't bother me, as I used to own the 802D which had excellent highs (attack and decay were extremely accurate, more so than anything else I've heard), though it was lacking in mid-bass and mid-range clarity. Those speakers were a bit bright, but I definitely wouldn't call the W/P 8 bright... If you like, you can look at my in-room response measurements in my System thread. There is an overall excellent gradual decline in the 1/6th octave in-room frequency response measurements (both in the singular measurement, which was at a lower "normal listening" volume for me, and the overlay, which was taken at a considerable increase in volume).
Given, it is a well designed room in terms of acoustic treatment (Rives Audio), but if you are spending ~$28,000+ on a speaker, you should at least be treating the 1st reflection points in your listening environment as well as randomly adding absorption and diffusion in order to kill slap echo. The only thing I can imagine that would spark a comment that the W/P8s are too bright, is listening to the W/P8s in a bad environment. In such a situation, only an excessively rolled off speaker will not sound bright... |
Jamnesta, for me it has been a wonderful pairing; this is the longest I have went without making changes. I tried a Jeff Rowland Concentra II at one point, hoping to recoup some money, but the McIntosh was far better with the Wilson's. This surprised me a bit because I used a Concentra II with B&W N803's with great success in the past. |
Brianmgrarcom, I see in your system you have McIntosh electronics with your Wilsons. That is a combination you don't usually see and I've wondered why as I imagine they do very well together. Obviously you think so, can you offer a little insight? |
at the end of the day it does come down to personal preferences, in the past I have liked, and still do like the wilsom max2s, and the wilson sofias, i think overall
they are a great speaker, but after hearing the new revels the wilsons have a much harder time justifying there existence, the revels sound much less colored from top to bottom , with much better driver intergration than any wilson I have heard, and yes I do think the wilson tweeter is voiced a little on the bright side, but your tasts may differ... I say this not to offend any wilson owner , or anyone else for that matter . I think that you can put a great sounding system together with wilsons, I also can say that for right now the revels are without question the best speaker I have heard regardless of cost, and I have
heard some very expensive speakers out there ! |
No doubt about that, if there was one right product there wouldn't be hundreds of manufacturers; I don't think any serious enthusiast would ever have the delusion that there is a best. The key is that the person is happy with their system. |
One thing is for sure, we all have our opinions and these threads are full of them, many total opposites as others. As for me, I laid my cards down already, as a Wilson owner, and I guess I'll go blindly with the press and praise Wilson. Nowhere in that statement is it stated they are the one all and for all. To each there own, there are many wonderful choices on the market and I certainly don't have near the experience as others here, but with the experience I do have, I will not be convinced my W/P speakers are not exceptional, as well they should be for the cost. |
He's probably referring to the press falling all over themselves praising Wilson speakers. At the end of the day, many people, myself included, are of the opinion that Wilson hasn't been SOTA (ever?) for some time now, particularly not with Focal's hand-me-down tweeter showing its age.
As to the revels, while their driver integration is amazing, the praise heaped on them recently is imo excessive; they're great speakers but they surely are not the end all. |
Chrissain, your post is noteworthy for sure as you like Wilsons. His post wasn't clear to me. If you like forward bright sound the wilsons might be your thing... And then.. I actually like wilson speakers in generall Leaves me puzzled. Maybe it is just my biased Wilson ownership keeping me from understanding this. Further, I have no brightness issues with my W/P's as he affirms. I just think that the days of wilson being the best speaker out there are over. Whoever said they were? |
Chrissain, your post is noteworthy for sure as you like Wilsons. It sounds like the salons are remarkable. |
