Verity Parsifal or Magico V3 or Wilson Benesch ACT

PSB, Ravel, TAD, Focal and MAGICO. They are all different and skin the cat in a their own way. I have my preferences but they are all design by people who knows what they are doing.

Dhaan, what are five objectively good speakers you think we should consider?

Another famous reviewer who didn't like the Parsifals at all was J. Peter Moncrieff, of IAR.

I have no exp w/ WB but did audition a variety of models from Verity and Magico. Plus I am no tech guru so I'll leave that to others. One thing that they really differ I found was speaker positioning. For the Verity's you really need them out further in the room due to their rear firing bass. One can turn these speakers around so to speak so its front facing bass but then probably not as effective as the original design concept I would suspect. I also thought the Verity's had a more precise sound stage re location of instruments but overall size of sound stage was smaller than the magicos. Personally I also came with an impression that the Magico's are better letting a nautral beauty of tonality to come through. Having said it was via different amps and different rooms so that could explain a lot of things. Happy hunting

So if we are concluding, I take it you see no correlation between your listening experience and objective assessments like measurements. Not only that, but you are suggesting, that since I do actually hear the speakers the way they actually sound, I am the ‘outlier’. Very interesting but totally irrational. BTW, I know quite a few that do not care for the Verity and share my opinion on them. And you know quite a few that do. So what? That does not change the fact that these are ‘objectively’ poorly design speakers.

Once again,

Indeed, the Verity may have a thousand problems due to its poor design (or it may not). I have not commented either way. You heard an obvious tonal balance problem with the Parsifal. I know of no-one else who has. I merely suggested that tonal balance is not a function of a speaker, but of a speaker in a specific room and that, in the vast majority of rooms, the Verity's anechoic suck-out is either barely audible or completely inaudible. I made the statement based on my own 10 years of experience, the experience of many, many hobbyist listeners who have heard the speaker in my home(s), a survey of print reviews, and a survey of on-line reviews (including the one you linked to).

I noted that this qualifies you as an outlier in this regard and that there are many possible explanations for this - including the possibilty that your judgement has been colored by your knowledge of the speaker's design and anechoic performance. I do not believe that I have made any other claim and, if I have, it was certainly unintentional.

With that, I think I've said what I have to say.
Best luck with your on-going efforts.

Marty

And to clarify my comment re: Wilson, I was merely speculating and I believe I made that quite clear in the post.

But Marty, it is all related. The suck out in the Verity FR is due to a very poor integration between the drivers. It has nothing to do with “voicing” or room integration issues. It is simply very poor XO design.

Dhaan,

Speakers sound different - in tonal balance - in different environments and at different spls. A speaker that is absolutely perfect at high spl in a small volume room will be imperfect at either lower spls or in a larger room. Sorry, but this is true.

Room gain below 150hz will typically range from a few db to 15db, with larger rooms tending to provide less as the speakers are moved further from the boundaries. Response anomalies from reflective surfaces above 1khz are utterly impossible to predict. A speaker like the Wilson - which to many people (including, evidently, you and me) - sounds overblown in the bass area, will sound less overblown when moved further from room boundaries. Ironically, this will make the anechoic measurements more useful, though - to me - still of very limited value. I am not suggesting that this will "cure" the Wilsons. I was merely wondering how they sound in a very large space and speculating that they will likely sound better than in the smaller spaces I've previously heard them.

My point is that 2 wrongs ABSOLUTELY make a right. If every room was identical - and had the identical single anomaly (let's say a 10db rise at 100hz) - then a speaker that is 10db down at 100hz WILL sound more natural tonally! I am not suggesting that you should design for this only because every room is not identical. My point in the first place!

Sorry, but it is impossible to judge the tonal balance of a speaker in anything but the context of a specific room.

BTW, this discussion is strictly limited to tonal balance as it grew from your contention that the Verity has an obviously skewed tonal balance. It has nothing to do with THD. Or many, many other performance parameters which may make or break a speaker in the opinion of any given listener.

Marty

Marty, your “ it is the room” solution to the problem of incompetent loudspeaker design simply does not cut it. If you are designing a speaker with a particular room in mind, how would it works in other rooms. And if your room has problems, do you fix it by introducing even more problem in the speaker? So is wrong on wrong makes right? You can always treat a room, move to a different one or build one, but you can never take a 10db boost at 80Hz, or a shelved mids and flatten it. No room will correct a disasters XO integration. You can never take out the THD these design have either. Not to mention so many other flaws that simply show a lack of basic loudspeaker engendering knowledge. If you had any idea of what it is that you are doing, you will have absolutely no reason to desing a speaker like that. Sorry, but you always going to listen to your music through a pretty dirty filter. No matter what room you are in.

Well Dhaan, I agree that goosebumps can be gotten on specific recordings with specific gear, yes this is indeed true. The first time I remember hearing it was with a Single ended triode driving hi efficiency Swan speakers many years ago and was duly impressed. Understand mind you that this was with specific midrangy jazz and vocal recordings. Such a system would make one gravitate towards certain types of music to the exclusion of others since the sound can be so intoxicating.

I probably wasn't clear enough in that a system that can consistently stimulate this reaction with a variety of recordings and different music for a sustained period is what I was referring to. Recordings I am familiar with that I brought and not necessarily good recordings so much as great performances. I was speaking specifically of a system in a specific room that was seemingly doing everything right which is to say recreating the natural dynamics, timbre and subtle nuances that I hadn't ever heard before to this degree making the performance more believable, not a single-ended triode system for sure. It wasn't a matter of sound anymore, more the performance. This was with the Verity Parsifals and while I noted similar characteristics with the other Verity models the systems and rooms could not produce this same emotional response. Moon in the 7th sun Jupiter aligning with Mars....etc. Actually the room had non parallel walls and was larger than most of the others which probably helped quite a bit.

Marty when it comes to loudspeakers I am quite dismissive of the majority of them, especially most large systems. They always seems to do something wrong in their quest to overwhelm you with sound often missing the nuances that separate good sound from drawing one into the musical performance, maybe their interaction with rooms too small comes into play to a greater degree?

Actually I went to the show to hear the Merlin's with this particular system which was substituted with the Parsifals just prior to the show. Interestingly enough not everyone heard what I did which goes to show that while I may be convicted that my opinion is greater than everyone else that didn't hear it my way, maybe in reality it is that I was prejudiced because I primarily went to the show to hear a particular system. Actually there were numerous folks that did hear what I did not excluding some of the Verity folks.

the car analogy is interesting too.
many love to associate their speakers or even amps with car brands.
'this model is the Ferrari on loudspeakers'.
so what is the 'best' car then?
if measurements is the parameter and the only parameter, then laptimes would rule for the 'best' car. ie fast equals to best.
an F1 could so qualify as the car to which all other cars must be judged and compared to.
could be, but the thought of driving an F1 on the road to enjoy? the clutch action alone is a nightmare.

it is a human thing to compare and draw an analogy with whatever.
what is the best airplane? what is the best speedboat?
what is the best wristwatch?
it all depends on what you want to measure, judge or 'proof'.
another human thing is to get right over anything.
that is only fuelled by the ego and has seen even worldwars as a result.

a best car is the best car to your liking and driving needs.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
everything is subjective.
live music is very subjective too. a Cello on the street has a very different sound than as played in a small church.
and this difference can be measured absolutely.

we never listen to loudspeakers.
we listen to a whole gear put together, in a certain room which contributes or not to the experience.
roomacoustics is of such a great influence that any highend gear is a big compromise if not taken into account.
once listened in a truly dedicated room and you cannot go back.
like you have put on slick racing tires for the first time.

a truly good audiorig should reproduce and represent the biggest differences in recordings. and on absolute terms that's the only thing it can do.

we never listen to music we listen to recordings of music.

btw i really just love the BMW Z4 coup.
subjectively that is...

Al and Dhaan,

I agree that Wilson's speakers are usually voiced this way. Did you ever wonder how they sound in a 50,000 cu/ft space? I bet the bass region falls substantially back to a more "normal" balance? I don't want to overstate the room thing, but I wonder whether Wilson voices their speakers for palatial rooms - maybe appropriate for their clientele. I've had the same question about the big MBLs.

Marty

The people at Wilson Audio are not dummies and I have no doubt that for a fraction of what they charge they could produce a better behaved speaker if they so chose

I have asked myself that same question many times. You may give them too much credit. Yet, I may be be given them too little…

Well of course your right Dhaan but SF actually uses the 'transducer as a musical instrument' implicitly in their advertizing. In sense they "voice" the cabinets. The crazy thing is lots of people like this. What can you say? THEY think this is musical and THEY like it. The Wilsons elevated midbass , I think, is intentional and aimed at a consumer who thinks this is normal and indeed expects it. The people at Wilson Audio are not dummies and I have no doubt that for a fraction of what they charge they could produce a better behaved speaker if they so chose. They don't so choose and they are making a hell of alot of money not doing it. Hip hop, boom boxes, the ubiquitous poorly designed sub, even alot of R&B have conspired over time to place an unnatural emphasis on the midbass. If you don't listen to much unamplified music it's hard to unlearn this. Most people don't. - Jim

To me, listening in room with you electronics, and yes, using your ears is the only that really matters. Yes, the Merlins definitely sound best with tubes, they can work with SS, but they are not the same speaker, they are optimized for the way tubes amps work. And yes, rooms make a lot of difference. The difference between my system with room treatement and without significantly changes the perfomance (better with bass traps and side defraction panels)and in that setup, the Merlins are very coherent and balanced from top to bottom (maybe not the very bottom - but you can't have everything in a speaker - I don't think. It is interesting that Merlin lovers seem to like Verity - there is something they are both doing I right - not sure measurements would tell us why.

You are raising good points that can help advance the discussion.

Aldavis

I know very well that people buy audio for different reason. But there is a different between a warm speakers that was design properly to be voiced slightly warmer (A controlled elevated lower region), and a speaker, like some Sonus, that is generating way to much energy form its enclosure, and therefore is extremely colored. Some do mistake it for ‘warmth’ and ‘musicality’ when it is basically acting like a musical instrument that is adding lots of uncontrolled and uncalled for energy to everything played into it. Same goes for the ‘impressiveness’ of the Wilson. Elevated midbass, and grungy highs will do the trick. I am saying that you can be accurate and warm (Or cold if the recording is) and impressive yet articulated when you design and build it right. Music is all of the above if you can reproduce it accurately.

Tubegroover,

It is not difficult to get goosebumps from a design without a step correction. The elevated midrange is impressive to the ear on first listen. Especial on a tube amp that has a real easy time with the elevated impedance at that region. But you are listening to a very colored and unnatural representation of the source. I can see why some would like, and I admit that it is fun some times, but not all the time. Not to mention that these kinds of ‘effects’ work on very specific recordings only. So as an avid audiophile, you do end up listening to a very narrow band of music because of that.

Tube,

If I recall correctly, JA noted measurement issues with the Sarastro, but later in the review endorsed the sound based on subjective listening tests. My own belief is that the complex, dynamic behavior of a speaker reproducing music in-room has evaded the ability to produce a definitive test. Obviously, the same speaker sounds different in different rooms. It probably also sounds different at different spls in the same room. I suspect that it's gonna be quite a while before we see any test that allows meaningful quantitative testing of loudspeakers.

Marty

PS Notwithstanding the above, you seem to have fine taste in loudspeakers (i.e. the same as me!)

Interesting discussion. It seems Stereophile's John Atkinson had issues with a Verity design a few years back. Can't recall the model or year but remember the measurements being the least favorable part of the review.

In my brief experience with the Verity's, under show conditions I have found the Parsifals, Sarasto and Ovations exceptional in stimulating goosebumps which is a quite involuntary reaction. Can this be measured? I'm not sure but maybe someone can take a stab. All I know is that few systems I've listened to could illicit this response. The Verity's I've found are exceptional in recreating timbre and the art of the performance. This is to say they draw you into the music. Of course this may sound trite and maybe cynical to some on the other hand knowledge in the form of measurements and what should sound right based on design principles might also lead to blindness if it is the primary criteria for speaker design.

Careful listening must have a significant role in creating speakers that sound any of the following subjective characteristics; bright, dark, recessed, pleasant, accurate, tonally balanced, real. Which is to say that not every designer is looking for or maybe even hearing the same things in musical reproduction hence all the different choices, aren't we lucky! After all the discussions I've read over the years I'm sure what we hear and value in live music, let alone reproduced, varies from listener to listener so there is no clear cut winner. The losers are the ones that don't survive the marketplace. I am unaware of ONE speaker system in audio that doesn't have at least one detractor including Vandersteen, Verity and Merlin, three of my favorites the latter I own, and isn't it funny they each sound different with their own virtues.

Dhann you make a quite lucid case for why the Verity should sound offensive and I truly appreciate your input to this discussion. If only measurements could predict how a system at a given time in a given room will convey music to a given listener. Art or science, which comes first, that might be the question. After all, which component in an audio system is more a combination of the two?

But Dhann you are assuming that eveyone purchases their speakers for same reasons that you do. They do not. They purchase and enjoy them all for their own reasons. They may not want faithful recreation of the recording on the disc. They prefer 'sound creation' versus 'sound recreation'. People who enjoy Sonus Faber probably enjoy an agreeable "warm" deviation from neutrality and people who like Wilson probably enjoy " impressive" sounds. So what ? You may not understand it but the fact is that these people do gravitate towards these presentations. Who knows why ? "Accuracy" may be the only way to go for studio moniters when your mixing etc and precision is essential. I personaly like this kind of speaker. Other than that speakers are just sources of enjoyment. A "good design" is one which lots of people like the sound enough to buy it. The vast majority of people , even " audiophiles", are not used to listening to a truly flat/neutral speaker. They just don't want what YOU want and successful speaker manufacturers give them what THEY want. I once started a very illconcieved thread questiong the sanity of Wilson Audio purchasers and the motives of the manufacturer based upon MY listening and MY view of the (pretty poor) meaurements. How could anyone part with that kind of jack for what I think are vastly overpriced and underperforming ( from the viewpoint of 'accurate' sound reproduction) speakers ? Well, the fact is that they do " impressive" in spades and if people buy them then they are "properly designed' for THAT purpose. - Jim

Dhaan,

I understand your point. It would be difficult to design high performance into any product without some sense of best practices. But....

Performance of a loudspeaker is, as a practical matter, only meaningful in room. Room contributions often overwhelm the intrinsic (to the extent that this word has any meaning in this context, you can probably substitute "anechoic") character of any loudspeaker. Hard as this may be for a disciplined designer to swallow, a "poor" design may perform very well in an unanticipated environment.

I have used the P/E in 4 rooms. The last should count as two, pre room treatment and post room treatment, as the character of the room changed so drastically after treatment. In 4 of these rooms (#4 pre-treatment excepted) the Verity produced an exceptionally "natural" sounding tonal balance. Not merely my opinion, but that of literally everyone who's heard it and offered a comment (lots of folks).

I only see 3 possibilities here:

1) My speaker does not have the same performance issue as the Ovation, presumably due to differing design.

2) The speakers do sound similar and the vast majority of listeners (admittedly not tested for statistical reliability) mistakenly think they sound natural when they are obviously poor sounding.

3) The speaker - despite its design - sounds natural to most people in many real world environments, but your evaluation is different.

#1 or #2 is possible, but I suspect that #3 is at play here.

To explain this, you point to biases (owners love everything they just bought) among listeners. Certainly possible.

I'd only note that you ignore your own potential bias. You produced "Exhibit A" to support your argument: an anechoic graph that was of limited indicative value to me. "Exhibit B" was listing certain Verity design decisions that violate commonly accepted (I hope I'm characterizing your position fairly) best practices.

Clearly, you disagree with the design choices and believe that the raggedy anechoic response illustrates the cost of these decisions. (It certainly wasn't pretty, I'll give you that!.) I'm merely stating that - despite the design choices and anechoic result - I have not found a soul in my home, in print, or on-line, who shares your judgement that these speakers present an obviously and significantly flawed tonal balance.

My point is that these factors might be coloring your judgement. Or you may be right.

Marty

Marty,
There are endless viable possibilities to a ‘sensible’ design. If we take the car analogy, it can be the difference between a good sport car like the Porsche and a good luxury car like the BMW. Both are sound designs and may cater to a different personal taste. Nothing wrong with that. However, when basic design elements are not address properly (Or at all), it gets difficult to make any ‘intelligent’ comparative assessment of preferences. That is why there are so many cynical, and unfortunately, quite worthless comments on audio forum. You very seldom read an ‘intelligent’ comment about the actual merits of the issues in question.

Pubul,

Many contributors to these threads maintain that the speaker is top heavy (insufficient bass). The VSMs IME are very sensitive to room and partnered electronics. Their impedence curve probably contributes to the latter. In my home, particularly before I had the SEs upgraded, a number of people made the same comment - generally after direct comparison to the Verity, which is a bit warmer. However, the vast majority like both.

Over the years, I have wavered between them, switching them in and out of my system. Over time, I migrated more to the VSMs. Recently, I have added a couple of new speakers into the rotation, so both the P/Es and VSMs are sidelined for a while. I assure you, when they return to action both speakers will once again delight with their respective strengths and satisfy with their common lack of significant weaknesses.

Marty

Marty, I agree, I've heard someone, other than Dhaan, not like the Verities (that doesn't mean that they don't sound good to him, could be). I did not know that opinion was actually divided on Merlin, certainly not from Merlin owners. One of the most remarkable statics of seen are the from the Audioreview.com site where 121 owners of the Merlin speakers give them an overall rating of 4.97 out 5 - that is pretty overwhelming evidence that some folks really like the Merlins.

hmm pls tell us more it really get interesting now!

I will gladly tell you more but first, let’s make sure you understand the difference between creating sound from a violin and reproducing sound from stereo system.

I think we should all thank our lucky stars we have Dhaan around to point out these huge design flaws that the folks at Verity obviously missed! I’m sure that Dhaan could teach all of us a thing or two about speaker design. I’ll bet he’s read enough Time Life how to books, not to mention measurements at Stereophile, to qualify for a speaker building degree at one of the prestigious online universities.

I’d just like to thank Dhaan for letting us little people in on his expertise. I’m astonished that the CEO’s at the big companies like Revel or Wilson or Paradigm haven’t already hired Dhaan away as Chief Speaker Designer. Gosh, what are those guys waiting for?

Dhaan,

This is one of those agree to disagree things.

I have never seen any set of specs that acurately correlates to my experience of in room performance - including on-axis frequency response and power response measured at the listing position (I have done both). Certainly no manufacturer's spec comes close. I'm not suggesting magic - just that the speaker and room together are the relevant system, and no manufacturer can predict that (though some try!) unless they do room correction. Further, FOR ME no single in-room spec captures all the relevant data.

My comment about the uniformity of opinion re: Verity was not restricted to owners. (BTW, I'm an owner and, ironically, prior to you, I thought I was the most "Verity critical" voice on the forum, though mine was more "nits"). Scan the threads and you will find TONS of Wilson bashing and Sonus Faber bashing to use your 2 examples. OTOH, you are the first I've found to dismiss Verity.

I will not take issue with your comments regarding design flaws in the Parsifals, I am not qualified. OTOH, design and performance, though related, are not the same thing. You say the car will not go far, I say the bumblebee indeed does fly, even if you don't want it to! In this regard, you should acknowledge that your theory of "objectivity" puts you in an odd position:

If the performance of the Verity is obviously flawed, there should be a community of opinion pointing that out - just as there are for Wilson and Sonus Faber (not that I agree or disagree with their position). For Verity, you seem to comprise that community. Hence, my characterization "outlier". Gallileo was an outlier. You may be Gallileo or you may be wrong.

Marty

"sound reproduction is not a subjective matter"...
hmm pls tell us more it really get interesting now!
presume there actually IS an perfectly objective speaker made by the schoolbooks and it sounds horrible?

pls mister Horowitz, could you play your violin in an more objective way? my brain detects a subjective loss at 450 hertz.
Oh and could that timpany guy just hold back for 4 dB pls?
i need more objective timpany all the time.
yeah its a funny world :-)

Marty,

I appreciate your civil reply, but please understand that the points I made are not opinions, sound reproduction is not a subjective matter. Unfortunately, you do not need a license to build speakers. I always felt that, in audio, what people like have very little to do with ‘objective qualities’. I never fully understood it. Other then egos, I could not come up with any explanation. Discussing people listening impression and taste is a lost cause. God only knows how our brains are interpreting what we actually hear. Not to mention the ‘power of suggestion’. Have you ever read a negative comment from anyone here about a recent purchase of his? Everyone is totally in love with what they just bought. Yet, you can count the days before that product will be changed or upgraded etc. I do not know why people like the Veritys or the Wilsons or the Sonus Fabers, if these were cars, they will not go very far. Even if they cost a lot or have a nice finish. Audio, funny business…

Dhaan,

The reason I asked if you've heard them is because your reaction to the speaker is unique IME. Incidentally I've never heard the Ovations, so please understand that no disrespect was intended.

Over the last 10 years, I've played them for - literally - dozens of people who own high end speakers and not one has commented on problems with the tonal balance - other than to note a slight warmth (my own opinion). BTW, I also own Merlin VSMs, which lean the other way, and played back to back, most people like both. The Merlins absolutely polarize opinion more than the P/Es which are IME universally admired.

If these speakers really sound dull through the presence range to you , then it's either peculiar to the "next generation" of Verity or peculiar to your taste. Notwithstanding "speaker building 101", you are the only person I've ever heard dismiss this speaker on this basis. BTW, the review attached to the FR graph you linked was a flat out rave.

If there is a body of opinion out there more critical of Verity, I've never seen it. This doesn't make you wrong, merely (as far as I know) an outlier.

Marty

Dhaan, what handful of speakers do you like based on their measurements?

Marty,

Unfortunately, these measurements, and the Sarastro one on SP exhibits similar flaws that indicates a serious lack of some very basic loudspeakers design criteria. The reasons for the shelved upper mid and mid bass is simply a lack of Baffle Step Compensation (http://sound.westhost.com/bafflestep.htm). A very basic thing to start with. Next, is the totally wacked transition from the mid to the tweeter. It is due to a phase mismatch along the XO poles between the drivers(If the mid even have a low pass XO). This contraption will not pass speaker building 101 in middle school. So if I dismiss a speaker based on its anechoic test result, it is not because it is not flat, in fact, that is hardly what I am looking at. And yes of course I heard them, how can you not if you are in to this silly hobby.

Dhaan,

Interpreting anechoic measurements is an interesting excercise. Depending on testing technique, results may vary considerably. Assuming that the graph you cited contains no measurement artifacts in the bass (no sure thing, at all), I'd still read this graph much differently than you do.

These speakers aren't 6-8db depressed in the presence region. The full treble region is shelved down about 3 db from the bass/mid and you are seeing that transition. This downward tilt in anechoic response is almost always a good thing for in-room performance. Unless your room has a major bump above 80hz (and many do) to balance the increased presence/treble energy experienced in most rooms, flat anechoic response theough the treble will sound awfully aggressive in-room. If you employ a Hemholtz resonator to correct for this bump (bass trap, bass busters, etc), you will certainly appreciate the Verity's response pattern.

The graph looks worse than it is because there is also a troubling looking suckout in the lower treble from about 3K to 5K. (This range begins in the highest octave on a piano and extends past C7, well above what I'd call "presence".) II've never noticed this issue on my (pre-Ovation) P/Es, but it may be unique to the Ovations. It might make these sound a bit darker than mine, but again, this is tough to predict in-room. In any event, I would never dismiss a speaker based on this anechoic test result.

Marty

BTW, have you ever actually heard them?

I think I am going to wait until the Magico V2 is released to give them a listen. So far I have only heard the Verity and Magico Mini. Both sounded excellent, but they were in different systems with very different electronics.

I wish their was a dealer with the ACT's in the NY/NJ/CT area.

Here is the ultimate primer on speaker-cabinet design to deal with resonances. It is an interview with what might be the best in the industry in this regard, Andy Payor: http://ultraaudio.com/features/2007_07_01.htm

I had WB Act. Maybe I had not the right amplification (ML 27.5, ML 331 and than Aronov integrated) or cabling (top of the line Siltech and Goertz MI2 and Elrod, Nordost valhalla, Shunyata powercords), but I never was able to get them properly singing. It was a nice non-offending musical sound, but it lacked body and warmth of music. I almost exclusively played on them classical music.

I read your posts very carefully. I object to marketing slogans like "structure instantly absorbs the energy generated from the drivers". What does this mean? You know that you do want to hear the energy generated from the front of the driver right? No to mention that Sounds_real_audio was talking about drivers back waves which is different subject all together form cabinet resonance control, which I assume is what you are talking about.
What you are describing is a typical way to build light, yet stiff structures. You get the stiffness all right but Last-a-foam is a very rigid material that will do very little, if anything, to damped vibration. One more thing you do not get with these type of enclosures is the necessary mass to damped high freq vibrations. Go ahead and tap your WB, they have a high pitch sound to them, and that is not a good thing.

Dhaan,
Please, read my answer again. What I wrote before is that the WB's ACT cabinet uses a sandwich of composite materials w/ a high density foam core.
The ACT's cabinet is made of an internal layer of fiberglass, a high density foam (Last-a-foam) core material and an external layer of carbon fiber. What sounds-real-audio is trying to explain you, is that the carbon fiber will add rigidity to the enclosure while the high density foam will absorb unwanted resonances very fast. That is why you cannot use a thin metal sheet to replace the carbon fiber as you asked. The ACT cabinet is not just made of a thin rigid layer of carbon fiber, which would not absorb the sound, but layers of different materials. The overall cabinet thickness is around 13mm.

In my opinion, for such a small footprint the ACT's have, the unwanted resonances are very well controlled.

Thank you.

Dhaan, I used to be purely in the objectivist camp like you. I could never understand Wilsons appeal based on their measurments. Somewhere along the way I discovered that there are lots of things to like about listening to music that can not be measured and that what I look for in a speaker is not applicable to others. Let them have their fun. If someone gets joy from listening to a 'flawed' design then who are we to suggest that he shouldn't be joyful. Of course the stealth bomber stuff is marketing B.S. So is " revolutionary" in reference to a box speaker with dynamic drivers. As a disclaimer I own W.B. Chimera speakers and love their sound. My feelings are not hurt that you don't like their design or their sound ( if in fact you have heard them). I cant comment on a Japanese mags measurments of the ACTs. Whatever the ACT's measured harmonics the Chimeras sound extremly accurate to me. I am not a musician but my wife is and I have spent alot of time listening to live music including in the studio. I listen to music every single day. Yes, I too could be "foolish" or " over my head" or whatever else you want to call me. The tenor of this debate with you and audiofeil making personal attacks and impuning the motives of others because they disagree with you is unfortunate. Didn't we get into this because we love music ? - Jim

the goal may be to reach peace of mind on the long haul.
we see indeed many great speakers and gear in general for sale again within a relative short time.
you can see certain brands of gear at the second hand markets very soon, and in large quantity too.
there are brands who build and emphasis greatly on 'stealth bomber' and 'space shuttle' or (great one too) the US nuclear submarine technology. others dweep with 'as found in time of the cold war' i'm sure the imagination has no holds to marketing.
if YG can claim it has the "best speaker on earth period" for sure another could claim theirs is now "best in universe" or best in whole galaxy.
who are we as audiophiles that this marketing apparently works and sells? it must surely work to sell more speakers, otherwise this company would noy invest such enormous amounts on advertising.

i further believe reading reviews of actual owners that the YG speakers are very fine indeed! for me no need to 'proof' this in almost agressive advertisement.

back to topic, i do not only trust my ears when listening to great music, my heart sings too.
that is what Verity audio is about. whatever technology.
Verity has a large community of mostly dedicated long haulers.
some sell their Verity because they *think* they found *better* speakers else, only to buy a pair of Verity again within time.
that feeling of coming home is not unknow to me :-)
btw i worked some 10 years in aerospace industry, with all the exotic materials to be found. carbon fibre is great stuff, do not inhale particals, never sand dry. particals cause lung cancer absolutely.

R32nj: where are you on your choice up to now ?
keep em spinning.

Pubul57

I think that people in general trust their ears too much. I mean do you really prefer/like the sound of a recessed midrange? And if so, why? This is not a condescending question. I think that you should be interested in the reasons you like the sound of a faulty design (Parsifals). Otherwise, it is all a crap shoot. God only know what goes in someone head when he listens to stereo. 90% of it probably have nothing to do with sound. Are you in a good mood? What have you had for lunch, are you trying to feel the “Stealth bomber” effect, etc. Why do you think that blind testing usually does not work? How many times have you convinced yourself that what you have just bought, that sounds like crap, actually sounds great (only to change it few days later)? I too have my preferences but I like to be more careful in my conclusions. It is very easy to make wrong assumption by ‘trusting’ your ears only.

Dhaan, I agree that if you make claims for your technology you need to defend the rationale for the performance improvement. When I say I don't care about theory, but prefer to listen, it's because theories are indeed many times more based on marketing differentiation then anything else. I always trust my ears, and how the designer gets it done is there business. Helps from getting caught up in flavor of the month pursuits, every time a new techonology is tauted - I'm not saying there isn't some advantage to the use of carbon fibre, there might very well be. The WBs to sound good to my ears, as did the Vandersteen 5A that Audioconnection mentioned.

>>Perhaps their engineers are fools like me<<

Now you're enlightened.

Dhaan

By all means enlighten me. Tell me exactly why carbon fiber cabinets are not technologically advanced compared to most other options. I believe Marten Coltrane speakers at 60K are made of carbon fiber. Perhaps their engineers are fools like me.

>>12-01-08: Dhaan
Sounds_real_audio
You are way over your head and insist of making a fool out of yourself<<

He's just trying to sell his products here.

Again.

I would also add the Vandersteen 5A s to your list
The Five as offer a Battery Biased High pass that relives your tube amp from doing low bass and dramatically lowers the whole systems distortion improving clarity and transparency. Each speaker also has a self contained 400 watt self powered bass amp with a unique non digital
room compensation feature that's a real world solution with
each speakers in room response.
Best Johnnyr

Whatever the measurements say, if the speaker sounds good to me, I don't care.

Nothing wrong with that. Assuming you know what you are listening to. But if you are going to make some stupid claims, like the Stealth bomber bla bla bla… analogy, you better be prepare for some scrutiny. But in a sense, once you say ‘you do not care’, it opens the door to all sorts of BS.

Whatever the measurements, the WB sounded darn good at RMAF with deHavilland electronics, and for that matter so do the Parsifals when I've heard them at various shows. Whatever the measurements say, if the speaker sounds good to me, I don't care. Everyone else in the room must have been deaf too the harmonic distortions, most everyone seemed to really like them as well. I prefer the Verity speakers, but the WB are certainly worth an audition. Or you could buy my favourite speakers - Merlin VSMs, which I think actually measure well in all respects, absent the deepest bass below 28Hz.

Sounds_real_audio

You are way over your head and insist of making a fool out of yourself. I would gladly enlighten you but you do not seems to be the kind who seek knowledge. It is a lot easier just to mumble some nonsense to your clients and apparently the world. A common phenomena in this industry. What a pity.

Dhaan

You are mixing two separate but very important issues.
Number one a cabinet should be very stiff to avoid resonance. Resonance as when a violin resonates when the strings are plucked. Most speaker manufactures boast about their thick 3/4" mdf walls with some having 1 1/2" front panels, all this to avoid cabinet resonance.

In many instruments resonance is a good thing. In a speaker cabinet resonates is not so good. At what resonance to you want your speaker to "sing"?

The second issue is eliminating the rear waves of the drives which carbon fiber is also excellent at achieving. This is not the same as cabinet resonance.
Two different and very important goals that WB manages to achieve.

Tuboo
In my opinion WB will take on the sound of the upstream electronics. At our shop we emphasis that point and marry them with deHavilland electronics. If your amp/preamp are analytical then you will get that kind of sound. Any audition/purchase of WB should take that into consideration.

Vangoughear

ACTs cabinet secret is, in my opinion, not the use of layers of carbon fiber, but the use of a cabinet made of a sandwich of composite materials with a core of high density foam. This ultra-light external structure instantly absorbs the energy generated from the drivers.

Nonsense. You can’t eat the cake and have it too. It you are stiff (Carbon) you are not absorbers. You may add absorbent material inside the enclosure to deal with drivers back waves but it you depend on the Carbon skins to do so, you got a problem. It is not a surprise you do not see any WB measurements online. Unfortunately, for WB, Stereo Sound in Japan has measured these in issue 156. Quite a train rack with severe 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion through the entire frequency range. That can be a resolute of many things. Poor enclosure design can be one of them.