Stereophile review of the new Wilson Watt/Puppy
I received my copy of the latest Stereophile yesterday and was curious to see what Martin Collums had to say about them, even though I would take it with a grain of salt, knowing that he had owned them in the past. He's still one of the reviewers that I consider to be most technically informed and balanced in his reviews.
I'm starting this thread because I want to know if others found his conclusions as confusing as I did. He says that the speakers have deep powerful bass, great detail, wonderful dynamic range, and are able to play very loud without breakup.
However, after all of that, he concludes that they are better for jazz and orchestral and perhaps a bit reticent for pop and rock. This made no sense to me, especially for a $40.000 speaker. I am curious about the opinions of anyone else who has read the review.
If you read my original post you would see that my only query was if anyone else found his opinions about the speakers overall performance was contradicted by his later opinion that it wasn’t suited to rock and pop. No one really addressed that of course. I became a thread about what members thought about the speakers and it's stablemates. |
You are so right about that @fsonicsmith , and I have been guilty of it as well. I clearly recall buying a mint set of JBL Array 1400 speakers that I thought I would like sonically (I couldn't hear them before buying) They had been well reviewed by Larry Greenhill and measured well, and I liked horns too, so it seemed like a good fit. On top of that, I loved the looks. When I received them, they were good, but to my ears not as good as my Klipsch Epic CF4's. I did sell them, but I kept them for a couple of months longer because of the way they looked. |
