Gentlemen, thank you all for setting me on the path to righteousness.
I shall clarify my position;
I think Danny is intelligent, extremely knowledgeable in his craft, and I have enjoyed more than a few of his videos. His speakers, though I’ve not heard them, are praised for the quality to price ratio. At no time ever have I insulted his craft, his honesty, or his integrity and I think it unfair to be corralled in with those here who have. This was not my intention. I was simply expressing my gratitude that he finally stopped going to his sister’s stylist. So @jim2, if you can’t distinguish my silly joke from the haters, I suggest you call Danny and see if he can wire you up a sense of humor. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to make fun of Rick Beato’s sideburns.
Oh and I see Merlin mentioned. Judd from Joule modified his personal Merlin speakers ever so slightly. I believe to tame the tweeter a bit. Compare the retail prices on the Wilsons vs the Merlins. I think it fair to expect less compromises (design flaws) with the Merlins.
I owned WATTS back in 1986 and through until Series 4. And then Puppies when they came out in 1988. I'm not sure what is "wrong" about them sonically, if one has heard them - and owned them - at length.
What's the "nightmare" aspect of the speakers? I must have missed it.
I have heard a predecessor. Absolutely the most incredible experience I have had in high end audio. Unbelievable holographic sound scape. If you have the money and like that kind of sound... simply amazing.
In the right room... with the right tastes. A friend of mine just bought a pair of Vivid Audio G3 S2's. Well... a different aesthetic from what I would go for. But he says they sound fantastic.
Looks-wise, honestly, I would welcome Vivids in my home. Wilsons, never.
Different, weird, I can rationalize and even grow to love. Offensively ugly, I can't. Wilson designers actually went to great lengths to make those speakers painful to look at. The sculpted sides look like those fiberglass kit cars they made in the 70s.
Only Wilson Audio could make $1M speakers look cheap.
But Vivids? Any time. They are said to sound fantastic, too.
Hello, I have Wilson Watt Puppy 8 powered by 2 McIntosh MC275s monoblocked with a McIntosh c2300 preamp. I think they sound fantastic. The bass is the best I have heard in my price range for tower speakers, but, I bought them used. Top end is clean and sweet. The whole 2 ohm issue seems overblown to me and I do not perceive the sound changing when I stand up. Before the Watt/Puppy 8, I ran ML Electrostats with a Sub with the same equipment except an extra SS amp for the sub. Nice setup, but, it does not compare to the W/P 8, and the sound of the MLs did change when I stood up. Overall, the W/P 8 sound, punch, & air movement just work well together. I like the bass coming out of the W/P 8 better than running a separate sub... Maybe the idea with the W/P 8 was to create a smallish tower that did not need a sub ? without bi-amping and all that complexity.... Is that worth a 2 ohm dip on a specific frequency ? Definitely worth a big listen before judging. Here is a pic of my system:
PS. Anybody that has heard my W/P 8 says they sound glorious, but, they are not audiophiles, so, it is possible that they do not have the right trained ears.
As has been mentioned the WP8 is an old model. I hope Jay can host a discussion with Wilson to get their comments, etc. Apparently Wilson did respond on Facebook. If someone has access to FB can you please post their comments here?
My first post - I just joined but I’ve been a reader of this forum.
I have Wilson Sabrina X’s with 2024 Watt Puppys ordered.
My opinion of this video and his methods of measuring speaker performance aside,
my one comment is actually about the title and premise of the video.
”$27,900 disappointment…”
First off, anyone who spent $27K on a 20 year old pair of Watt Puppys probably deserves to have issues… Maybe I didnt catch it, but did he ever mention that these speakers were released in 2006 (and discontinued in 2011)?
I ask because in the beginning of the video when discussing the Focal, he made specific mention that he used the same part “way, way back in the late 90’s” in their first speaker. So he is dating components, but conveniently seemed to leave out the date of the model he was working on.
We can argue whether or not that was intentional, but for anyone that doesnt know the Wilson line well, they’ll conveniently conclude that this speaker isnt old and costs close to $28k. This is evidenced by many of the comments based on misinformation (or maybe, lack of information.)
Maybe he did mention the age and I missed it - but if he left that out then he did Wilson a disservice, and its a convenient way to throw shade without actually spelling it out
As I mentioned in my previous post, I own the Watt Puppy 8s, which I bought used. I listened to them before I bought them and I was impressed with the sound. I like bass, imaging, and clean highs, and I believe the W/P 8s deliver that. The diffraction pad foam had deteriorated, so, I contacted Wilson and bought a new set, which seems to be some kind of wool type material. I wonder why GR research did not do the same thing. I mean why not try the updated perfect fitting diffraction pads from Wilson before making your own? I also bought new resistors from Wilson and replaced them. There is something nice to be said about a company that supports replacement parts for their speakers from 2011. It is also something I really like about McIntosh. Here is a pic of my W/P with the new perfect fitting diffraction pads from Wilson.
If you like the sounds of the Wilson's, that is the prime value. The Wilson's I have heard sounded not very good to me, when listening in a demo or showroom. But in the home where they are set up somewhat decently, they are a hard to beat speaker. Excellent sound. And that is where it really matters, in your listening space.
fyi, Here is cool pic. I have the new James Gang SACD cranked on the song "Bomber" as high as my ears can stand it. You can see the meter on the C2300. BTW, that remastered SACD sounds like it was recorded yesterday. it is outstanding, and the bass is fantastic. There is not a ripple or even the slightest movement in that glass of water. W/P 8 with GAIA I footer on a hardwood floor on top of a cement foundation. I feel lots of punch with those 2 Mc275s.
If you have the right power amp for the Wilson’s they will perform. Last year Axpona Quintessense audio were using Dan Agostino gear. First time I realize how good the Wilson’s .
I do believe two Mc275s in mono are enough to drive the W/P 8s. However, I do waffle between the 8 ohm tap and 4 ohm tap. These taps are halved when in mono mode, so, in mono mode they are supposed to be 4 ohm and 2 ohm. The 4 ohm tap produces more current and less voltage than the 8 ohm tap, and I believe you can hear and feel that in the bass. For excellent high res (SACD) recordings with good bass, the 8 ohm tap is hard to beat. For older, thin sounding CDs like Punk Rock, he 4 ohm tap sounds better fills the room much better and fixes thin sounding CDs. Also, on the 4 ohm tap, my furniture and bar vibrate more from the bass.
@hjdcaBeautiful system! You know what sounds good - ignore the noise floor from YouTube hucksters. That's a different hobby than what you (and me) are doing.
It is a very nice system, but if it were me I would pair the Wilsons with a really good S.S. (high $) amp to see what you get and what you give away. There is no way that a speaker that dips like the Wilsons can work ideally with tube amps. To me a glaring problem in a good speaker line.
Thanks for the kind words. It is much appreciated. From what I have seen, most Wilsons have that almost 2 ohm dip at around 25 hz and 80 hz or 90 hz.... It is not something particular to the W/P 8..... but, Ok, good idea to test with a SS amp.... I do not have any high dollar SS amps, but, I do have an Adcom GFA-585 LE in my home theater that I am currently having refurbished due to cap leakage. I also have a Sony STR-GX9ES receiver in another room - which I think does not qualify... The Adcom GFA-585 is hardly high $$, but, it does put out lots of current - 250 watts at 8 ohm, 400 watts at 4 ohm.. When it is done being fixed, and I am satisfied that it is again working to spec., I will try the 585 on the W/P 8s. Attached below are the specs of the Adcom 585... Do you think it is a good enough amp to make the test between two MC275s tube amps and a decent SS amp on the W/P 8s ?
Some additional quotes I found regarding this Adcom GFA-585LE amp. I am not sure if it is competitive to today’s amp technology.....:
"this is the Crown Jewel of Adcom amplifiers.It is regarded as the best Adcom has ever made. There were only 3000 of these made. This is an extremely powerful amplifier. It puts out a real 250wpc into 8 ohms and 450wpc into 4 ohms. To give you an idea of the power of this amp,you would have to put two 565 Adcom monoblocks in the same chassis to equal it.The 585 will drive any speaker. Not even the 5802 Adcom can go there with this amp.It uses Bipolar technology along with being a dual mono design. The transformer (70,000 uf storage)in this amplifier is at least half the weight of the entire amplifier. For the money this monster's hard to beat. It is perfect for electrostats, or hard to drive speakers, or if you just want a lot of headroom".
I’m not so sure I’d jump on tube amps as problematic for Wilsons because of a 2-ohm dip. Especially with mono 275’s - those 4 ohm taps actually become 2 ohm taps in mono mode (check the manual). Try those 4 / 2 ohm taps versus the 8 ohm (4 ohm mono) taps, and choose whichever sounds best. I suspect one or both of them will sound great, and you won’t hurt anything. In fact Solid State amps are the ones that you have to worry about, if they’re not truly "2-ohms stable"! Look for a solid state amp that spec’s its power ratings down to 2 ohms - otherwise, cross your fingers and good luck! And if you are bridging a SS to mono, you are REALLY playing with fire putting that on a 2-ohm dip (don’t do that unless you have something like a Krell spec’d down to 1 ohm). The way that tube amps "switch to mono" is by paralleling the OPT’s, which should actually work nicely for scenarios like this. By comparison, SS bridging is bad news here.
Some of you guys will move mountains to solve problems that don’t exist
Anyways - why not ask Wilson what they think / suggest?
Thanks for the recommendations. I actually like the 4 ohm tap on the MC275s in monoblock running the W/P 8s. The reason is additional low bass. In addition, low quality CD recordings with no bass that normally sound thin, actually sound much thicker on the 4 ohm tap. The manual says I should be running the 8 ohm tap because I am running them as monoblocks, and now the 8 ohm tap is 4 ohm, and the 4 ohm tap is now 2 ohm, but, it does not stop me from liking the 4 ohm tap better.... On recordings with decent bass, the 4 ohm tap vibrates the furniture more.. It is like I have an additional sub in the equation.
Well I have owned Adcom amps and they never were high end. Good value to be sure. There is no advantage to low impedance speakers on either S.S. or tubed amps. Sure you get more power on low impedance loads but you also get much more distortion and most likely the nasty type. I have never talked with a mfgr. of S.S. devices that didnt say their gear sounded better on higher impedance loads. It is a flaw and a flaw which isnt necessary. I wouldnt expect Wilson to admit this since this seems to be a common thing with most if not all of their speakers. Problem is the best I have ever heard the Wilsons sound is with tube gear and lower watt tube gear to be exact. Of course when they turned it up things went to hell in a hurry.
16 Ohm tap 34.6 V / 2.2 A
8 Ohm tap 24.5 V / 3.1 A
4 Ohm tap 17.3 V / 4.3 A
So, when I monoblock my two MC275s on the 4 ohm tap, I should assume the voltage stays at 17.3, but, the current doubles to 8.6 A, and the resistance changes to 2 ohms...
By the same rule, the 8 ohm tap also seems adaquate because the current doubles, and the resistance goes to 4 ohms. I guess I am wondering where is the trade off for Voltage vs Current regarding the sweet spot for the two MC275s parallel monoblock and the W/P 8s ?
I guess I am wondering where is the trade off for Voltage vs Current regarding the sweet spot for the two MC275s parallel monoblock and the W/P 8s ?
This is where the analysis ends and listening takes over - both the 4 and 8 ohms taps should be perfectly adequate, for W/P 8 in your configuration. Listen to each over a few sessions ands pick your favorite. Most tube amp manufacturers will tell you the same (e.g. VAC stresses this - and they make tube amps in the same stereo/mono switchable configuration). If Wilson Audio has extensive experience with W/P 8 on mono MC275's (or similar tube amps) they may give a more specific recommendation, but at the end of the day it's a preference.
SS amps will again give a different sonic result, but you need to be more careful there - ensuring the amp is going to handle 2 ohms without overheating or tripping fuses, protection mode, etc. As another poster mentioned - SS amps do (usually) produce more power into low impedance, but they have to work a lot harder for it, and that has ramifications. Tube amps are actually all fine here, no worries!
Thanks. I have been switching back and forth between the 8 ohm tap (now 4 ohm) and the 4 ohm tap (now 2 ohm). I even tried the 16 ohm tap (now 8 ohm), however, I did not like the 16 ohm tap at all. Overall, I like the 4 ohm tap (now 2 ohm) because it seems to emphasize the lower end of the frequencies just a little more than the 8 ohm tap (now 4 ohm). I have always gravitated to the lower frequencies, so, I believe that is why I prefer it. It also makes my older thin sounding CDs sound much thicker. On more bass heavy recordings, I just marvel how much wall shaking bass comes out of these W/P 8s. It is really impressive for a tower speaker. I can tell you that the bass is much better than my old Genesis Servo 12 Sub that I was running with my Martin Logan Electrostats...
@hjdca I noticed the following information on your profile....member since Jan 2013 (12 years) without a single post or discussion on any topic.
All of a sudden, your account has sprung to life (after 12 years of deep hibernation) in great praise of Wilson audio with 12 comments on this specific thread.
It feels a bit strange to me. Hence, could you kindly clarify which category you may fall under, for added transparency?
a) Wilson dealer
b) Manufacturer or personnel with other vested financial interests in Wilson audio
Yes, no problem. I am (c). With the same ID, I have a few posts on AudioKarma, you can see some previous iterations of my stereo, and some reallly old ones on AudioAficionado, but, my ID is not valid anymore on AudioAficionado. I am mostly on Audiogon on rare occasions to look for used equipment or learn something from the forums. I agree that it is weird that my first post on Audiogon is 12 years after I joined...
Here is my story:
This is my fourth stereo system. My first one started way back with a Marantz 2230.
It took me 13 years to get to where I am today with my 4th stereo system. I bought every piece I have used. I started in 2013 with one MC275 and one McIntosh c2300, and an old Pioneer turntable, an old Sony CD Player, an IPAD, a WD my passport server, and hand me down Martin Logan Aerius and a Genesis servo Subwoofer that my brother gave me. I bought replacement woofers and panesl from Martin Logan and very, very slowly started adding pieces. I added another MC275, then, an MT10, then a McIntosh D100 replaced later by a D150, then, a McIntosh MCT450 - and the new hobby of SACD, then, replaced later by a MCT500 where I love using the USB sticks which have all my ripped SACDs, CDs, and my Qobuz purchased songs. Last year, I noticed my old Genesis servo Subwoofer amp buzzing and the woofer would flap at high volume. So, I started wanting to replace my speakers. My brother has a pair of Wilson Sophia 2 that I did some critical listening, and I really liked them. So, I started looking around for speakers. In Audio Mart, I found a pair of W/P 8s for sale locally for a fantastic deal, so, I went and listened, liked what I heard, especially the bass, bought them, put them in my truck and brought them home. Then, I contacted Wilson and bought new resistors, and new diffraction pads and replaced them. I also added Isoacoustic GAIA I footers From there, I bought a used Shunyata DPC-12, 5 IFI Nova power cables, and an Adona Altair rack that I had built to my height requirements. I declared myself finally done, and I really liked the sound of my system. When I saw the GR Research video about the W/P 8, I was really surprised, & it really peaked my interested, so, I responded to some threads about it.
If we're gonna question every W/P owner's posting credentials, why don't we bring up Danny Richie's past association with AV123 and its convicted criminal scammer Mark Schifter? Geez. I hate YouTube personalities.
You can also hop on ASR and find plenty of hate for DR's design and parts choices. That would be akin to DR's attempted take-down of a 20 year old Wilson design. But they're no better to me - ASR also represents a VERY different perspective on this hobby versus myself and many (most?) on this forum.
@hjdca
It makes sense that the 4 / 2 ohm taps give you more perceived bass. As amp output impedance rises to be "significant" versus the bass-frequency impedance dip (2 ohms), more of the amp's generated signal is "lost" due to the resultant voltage divider (Ohm's law). E.g. 2 ohms into 2ohms loses 6 dB of signal (in theory), 0.4 ohms into 2 ohms loses only 1.6 dB, and 0.1 ohms loses only 0.4dB. Of course the full picture is much more complex than just this.
Since Wilson is probably focused on actual listening results in "typical" rooms, it stands to reason they've acoustically tuned and "voiced" their speaker to sound good with popular audiophile amplifiers, including tube amps, which will demonstrate some losses in bass region from this.
I’m new to this site - is it common practice to be skeptical of someones intentions when they defend Wilson speakers?
If thats the case then I should be suspect one. I actually joined the site just to comment on this thread 😂
I felt I had to because when youtube personalities throw out content than raises more question than it provides answers, and spawns a litany of comments (youtube comments) that are so off base and misguided that it makes my head hurt… then its the responsibility of those with actual experience to try to set the record straight (or at least provide some real world examples. )
Its funny - I’ve read time and time again about Wilson’s lack of efficiency and low impedance. Hence requiring high quality amps to drive them. And when they are driven by the proper amp most people seem to agree that they sound very good.
here’s the thing, I’ve never heard a Wilson owner complain about this. I think thats because most Wilson owners have no intention of buying anything but a high quality amp.
Would I, or any other Wilson owner, prefer they improve their design to be more efficient? Speaking for myself I say no. Because theres a possibility the sound I get from my setup is a result of the relationship between the speaker and the amp. And I would never spend the $$ on Wilsons with the intent of connecting them to an underpowered amp.
Personally this lack of efficiency in design is irrelevant, except to those who wouldnt buy or own them in the first place.
Am I unique in feeling this way - or are there Wilson owners that listen to their speakers and say “damn, yeah it sounds good… but the impedance inefficiency is driving me nuts!”
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
