The $27,900 disappointment? Wilson Audio Watt Puppy 8 issues.

Well it may not be intentional but necessary given the drivers used and crossover design. 

My guess would be that the drop to almost 2 ohm at approx. 25 hz and 85 hz for all those Wilson speakers listed above will pull more current from the amp(s) and increase the bass presence. 

1)Does anyone here think Wilson isnt aware of these measurements?

2) Lets assume we all agree that they are. 

IMO if 1 and 2 are true, then its intentional, and perhaps for reasons we’ll never be privy to. But the reason could be that flattening the curve for the sake of proper engineering may completely ruin the sound. 

@audition__audio 

I was not familiar with Trilogy so I looked up the brand. Really beautiful amps. However, nothing in the published specs suggest they would excel at driving difficult loads. 

Have you looked at Accuphase? Some of their amps are stable below 1 ohm, and they have a sound that can be described as warm. Their A300 monoblocks are rated 125W into 8 ohms, 250W into 4 ohms, 500W into 2 ohms, and 1000W into 1 ohm. That's really as good as it gets. They're also beautiful and their build quality is gorgeous.

I am not a fan of Wilson speakers honestly.

Yes I agree with you. There seems to be some commonality between many of the very expensive floor standers in not only impedance but also in the material used to make the drivers. I am considering getting  250W transformer coupled tube monos to explore the possibility that I can work around some of the limiting factors with hard to drive speakers and tubes. Beating the speakers into submission with lots of tube power. I would love to explore S.S., but the only amps of this type I can listen to are all over $ 50K, except perhaps for the Trilogy amps. 

Thanks for discussing and not taking a more aggressive approach. Notice I have never said Wilson made bad speakers.

Many of you are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how most amps react to low impedance speakers. Low impedance is never a good thing.

Low impedance is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is what it is. When low impedance is present, appropriate amplification is required. This is not optional, the right amps must be chosen and I don’t disagree that many folks don’t, either because they underestimate or simply ignore their speakers’ needs, and then they’ll go and bad-mouth glorious speakers just because they sounded terrible in their inadequate system.

@audition__audio I think we are on the same page wrt the need for quality speakers to be paired with quality amplifiers, but I would argue that many amazing sounding large floorstanders out there do have unforgiving impedance curves, so to me at least, high current amps are a must-have.

Besides, very few speakers, including higher-efficiency ones, fail to benefit from an abundance of current, even when it’s a nice-to-have and not a must-have.

This is not to say that a person can’t put together a system that sounds fantastic in their room out of a single-digit-watt amp driving a single full-range coaxial driver.

It is all a matter of taste in the end.

I meant weird curve/low impedance speaker. Sorry!

So you mention a demo which you didnt hear. I guess because Dave did this demo we should assume the sound was excellent. C'mon show us a bit of respect!

Yes sarcasm from Mulv., but not very clever or applicable. 

Don't assume anything about what I understand or don't understand. I have owned Sophias and I know they need good equipment in front of them. I wasn't at the show so I don't know how the demo sounded.

I was only trying to take folks down memory lane.

Great how did the demo sound?

Absurd thought that because you can drive a $ 20K plus speaker with cheap electronics you would. As if this would be a reason to not make a speaker easy to drive.

Many of you are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how most amps react to low impedance speakers. Low impedance is never a good thing. Yes can make a good sounding weird curve/high impedance speaker which sounds good, but why would you. You seem to think that enormous thought goes into every aspect of speaker design. 

Remember that when David Wilson started building speakers, no tube options were available or at least in favor. 

Anybody else remember Dave Wilson demoing the Sophia at the 2004 CES show with a cheap Parasound amp and an iPod? Guess the equipment didn't matter much that day.

Here's a thought...,  

If you design your speakers so that anything can run them, there's going to be a lot of crappy stuff out there running them making them sound crappy and giving them a bad rep, even if undeserved.

My sarcasm detector is chirping. It probably needs new batteries.

No one with expensive high quality speakers would drive these with cheap electronics. This isnt the issue. The issue is if Wilson can achieve the same quality of sound making the speakers higher impedance with a more refined curve.

Sure. Let’s see all new Wilsons engineered for 8ohms and 90 dB minimum, so that any HT receiver can drive them. But why stop there? Let’s also spec their boxes much smaller, so it’s easy to ship and integrate into grandma’s home decor. Let’s lower all prices to $5K max, so even college students can afford a "top" Wilson. We’ll also redesign their voicing to show nice flat FR (for the ASR crowd) and stick it full of parts that (listed at full retail, of course) make it look like there’s very little room for profit atop the BOM. Wow! Now we have a Danny Richie speaker.

Why is anyone else trying to tell Wilson & its customers what they "should" care about in their design decisions? Again, good engineering starts with sorting out the "I don’t care"’s from the "I REALLY care"’s - and Wilson has clearly made an enduring name for themselves, in a crowded industry, with their choices in this matter. 

Well I think this is not surprising. Those who are attracted to this sound buy the speakers and those that arent dont. 

It’s the people who have never actually owned Wilsons who seem to criticize them the most. As an owner of the WATT/Puppy system all the way back to 1986 (Puppies came out in 1988), I found little to criticize other than an overly tight treble,  and congestion on big crescendos (Prokofiev's Scythian Suite could sound very bright on the first generation WATTs).

Otherwise, having lived with them for 12 years, I don’t seem to have heard all the "flaws" that so many others have. Funny, innit?? People who’ve heard a speaker for - perhaps - 10 hours total have more to say about them (and not positive comments!!!) than those who have owned it for decades.

I should add that Wilson has been very successful to date with some idiosyncratic performance issues so I cant blame the son for not changing much on the new designs. Thank goodness he changed the tweeter.

No one with expensive high quality speakers would drive these with cheap electronics. This isnt the issue. The issue is if Wilson can achieve the same quality of sound making the speakers higher impedance with a more refined curve. As it stands Wilson is excluding a great number of amps on the market because they cant drive lower impedance loads.

All good engineering makes certain assumptions about the intended applications and audience for a product. It’s completely valid for Wilson to take the approach they have - for the sound quality they were trying to achieve, the context of the time perdiod, their intended audience

This. Wilson makes choices with their design, they arent flaws (to them). They create their speakers to function optimally within a given system, even if it means they wont perform as well in a different system.  They’re building a product that is designed to work with high quality components because thats what their customers will have. 
As a Wilson owner, if you asked me if I would be willing to sacrifice some performance in my setup, so that my speakers would sound better in a lower end setup, I would obviously be against that. I didnt buy them so that I could connect them to a mass market amplifier and I wouldnt expect anybody else would either. 

I'm guessing the owner feels the speakers are lacking in a certain department within his room. We do not know if the owner has any treatments. For all we know the room may be four concrete walls. The speaker manufacturer cannot know every customer's listening situation. 

In my view, a company like GIK Acoustics could go into the owner's room and "fix" whatever the owner lacks. Plus that "fix" would be lasting with any speaker the owner buys. 

"An amps ability to drive lower impedance loads has no relation to the amps quality."

I can’t agree with this. The ability to drive lower impedance loads means that the power supply has to be up to the task. This would include such things as heavier gauge wiring in the transformer, and other places, and "bigger" supply caps, and that does infer a higher quality.

And more output devices, and more heatsinking...but this assumes an "equal grounds" approach via traditional A / AB topologies with linear PSU’s. There’s rail switching designs, PSU modulating, class D - all kinds of alternate approaches that can be utilized to generate more power and low-impedance handling with less cost.

Boy we are way off topic lol. All good engineering makes certain assumptions about the intended applications and audience for a product. It’s completely valid for Wilson to take the approach they have - for the sound quality they were trying to achieve, the context of the time perdiod, their intended audience (who are generaly NOT cheapskates when it comes to amps), etc. Complete hubris for DR to come in 20 years later and act superior for tearing down a Wilson against the parameters of his TOTALLY different goals and customer base. He wants to show neat "high value" BOM’s and flat FR graphs for his modest boxes (mostly focused on bookshelf form factor) and drive them with receivers, I get it.

"An amps ability to drive lower impedance loads has no relation to the amps quality."

I can’t agree with this. The ability to drive lower impedance loads means that the power supply has to be up to the task. This would include such things as heavier gauge wiring in the transformer, and other places, and "bigger" supply caps, and that does infer a higher quality.

yes, ok.  How about, for the same db, lower impedance requires more current, which equates to a bigger power supply (ie. in A, AB) which may increase the cost of the amp.  Something like that.

An amps ability to drive lower impedance loads has no relation to the amps quality. 

To simplify, based on the impedance curves above, Wilson likes to parallel two 8 inch woofers in their Puppy cab which gives you a low impedance in some specific lower frequencies.  This seems to be done in all the models throughout the decades.  Obviously, Wilson and others like the way that makes the low frequency sound.  So, saying it is wrong to do that, is maybe looking at it in the wrong context...  For example, Wilson assuming that the customer will use an amp that can drive a 2.x ohm load for some specific lower frequencies may sound better to them than using a lesser quality amp and changing the woofers wiring/crossover to achieve a higher ohm load.  The context may be to take account the quality of the amp together with the speaker crossover/wiring -- Wilson may be looking for that little additional edge in bass sound from a total system.  So, when making assumptions, we should assume both the postive and negative.   One thing I can tell you is that everybody that has heard my W/P 8 loves the bass coming out of those things.   Subwoofer not required. 

...Or, they could sound better if reducing the impedance also reduces the Q resulting in a more linear response or reducing a peak.

I think you are missing the real point when describing design flaws with certain speakers. It is not an issue of the quality of the amp or what type of load the amp can drive. The simple fact is that lower impedance speakers are harder to drive, result in more distortion and quite possibly prevent the speaker from sounding as good as it could if the impedance were higher. 

Personally when I was really listening to loudspeakers years ago I thought Wilson loudspeakers were astounding but eventually thought they were not what I wanted ultimately, but still very good. Others must feel they are wonderful based on sale; it's not all marketing you know.

And if an amp cannot handle some 2 ohm lows it must not have balls balls at all IMO. I feel sure that my relatively inexpensive Odyssey Audio Kismet monoblocks can drive anything well, and to any volume level one might desire.

It's tough hearing a speaker-basher make his name doing such reviews and ripping on everything he speaks of. Oh well, folks make money that way after all.

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.

@mulveling  Nobody is questioning EVERY Wilson owners posts, so your exaggeration is unfounded.  Apparently, Schifter was/is a very smooth operator conning multiple people.  Association by doing design work, is not proof of any wrongdoing.  Grasping at straws to level criticism at Danny, like you have done several times from behind your keyboard. 

Based on these impedance curves of speakers over 3 decades, it has to be obvious that these curves are providing exceptional sound to the people grading and buying these speakers. The objective they have set for the speakers are being met. Wilson speakers are very expensive, so, is it reasonable that they expect quality amps to drive them to get the most out of them - either a stereo amp or two mono amps ?

I see two main issues:

1. Adding a woofer planar amp to the Puppy so you can dial in any bass you want is creating a whole different speaker. It is now basically a sub-woofer type situation that is user definable. It is obviously not what Wilson was selling, and is completely changing the sound of the speaker. A more valid comparison would have been to compare his new crossover with the same amp setup.

2. The deterioraton of the old diffracton foam on old Wilson Speakers is a well known issue. Wilson sells new diffraction pads for people to update their speakers. Why not try that first to fix any diffraction issues ? When I bought my W/P 8 used, I knew that updating the diffraction pads was an additional expense that I had to factor in. Did I notice a difference when I added the new Wilson Diffraction pads ? Yes, I think I did. Maybe, I am wrong because I could not A/B the change, but, it would have been nice to measure the before and after using the Wilson recommended method for addressing this issue.

Lastly, I am not sure what to say about the whole "off axis" response issue.

There are certain amps (i have a couple) that can make any turd of a speaker sound ok. 

At what point is it the speaker's magic on its own? Or at what point is it just getting carried by a very high quality front end?

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.

fyi, Here is the Stereophile measurements of most of the Wilson Watt/Puppy and related line of speakers in order of release. Probably covers almost 3 decades of Wilson Speakers - Impedance, Phase, Frequency. It shows a pattern and trend that is obviously part of the Wilson philosophy. I do not see that the W/P 8 is any different or special from the rest of the line. If I am reading it right, it seems the only obvious change was with the Shasha DAW and Shasha V where two low freq. (15hz, 45 hz) impedance peak higher and sync up better with the phase ? is that correct ?

Low impedance is immaterial when speakers are paired with amplifiers that are right for them.

Lots of folks out there under-power their speakers.

Some speakers, especially vintage ones, will react to this indignity by either sounding like garbage or by frying the offending amp.

Other speakers will still sound pretty good, yet withhold their best. 

At the end of the day the vast majority of speakers, polite ones included, benefit sonically from high-power / high-current amplification.

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!”

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. )

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. 

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.

@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

c ) Ecstatic Customer/End User of Wilson speakers

Thanks

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...

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.

For one MC275, I found some specs:

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 ?

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. 

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.  

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 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".

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.

@hjdca Beautiful 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. 

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.

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 . 

@hjdca  Wilson claims the Watt and Puppy should be measured together.  How is that going to change the response from 200 Hz up?  Strange claim.