Hi crazyeddy,
Bet he would be happy with one of your awesome custom bikes instead.
Dave
Bet he would be happy with one of your awesome custom bikes instead.
Dave
Wilson Audio Haters
I've always wondered why there are so many people out there, that more than any other speaker manufacturer, really hate the Wilson line. I own Maxx 2's and also a pair of Watt Puppys. They are IMHO quite wonderful.
Why does Wilson get so much thrashing?
429 responses Add your response
27 a month ago when I attended Alexx demo. Also Peter McGrath said he has personally performed 20+ Alexx setup at customers home, not including dealers, so Dave Wilson is LOL all the way to the bank and GOOD FOR HIM!!! |
As several others have noted, "hate" is the wrong word. Opinions are a dime a dozen in this hobby and everyone has one. It's a simple issue of different people having different preferences. I've heard Wilsons many times and they are not my cup of tea. I don't find them all that natural sounding. They suffer from what I call the "Kodachrome" effect -- impressive, but, to me, not natural. Throw their price tag on top of that and my response is "definitely not for me." You can blame the set up, associated equipment, room acoustics or whatever, but my impression has been consistent in every encounter. That said, lots of other people love them. Not much different from the way people respond to every other category of products out there, whether cars, cameras, cooking equipment or whatever. Big deal... buy what you like and leave the rest. |
I actually heard the original WAMM's, at John Garland Audio in San Jose. I think they were priced at around $80,000, in 1980's money. Didn't think about them again for years until Brooks Berdan, shortly before his death in 2011 (seems like a lot longer ago), took a pair in trade on whatever were the biggest Wilson's at the time. Those two loudspeakers would have made for an interesting comparison! |
This is my own particular sense of it certainly, but I'd say that if you're the kind of customer that does not have a lot of specialized experience or detailed working knowledge or familiarity of the audio market (and perhaps speaker market especially) - the kind that can take many years or decades to cultivate anyway - IOW you are **not** what we'd call a "hobbyist" per se, nor do you have any kind of DIY background as well, but instead are perhaps, say, a young, or middle-aged, professional with a more limited exposure and are possibly looking to employ someone's professional help or input up front in your decision making process, then I'd say that certain companies like Wilson or B&W might have a more intriguing profile for you than some others. They tend to attract such buyers by offering well-reviewed designs (by that I mean In-House reviewed, I'm not really talking about pro or user reviews, but here I mean ee reviewed designs in-house). These guys tend to be more 'careful' in their design approach and they essentially want to "play it safe", so to speak, on behalf of their customers. That is, they don't do things in a splashy sort of way, they don't go in much for design fads or the very latest trends and they don't introduce new models or discontinue older models at anything approaching a dizzying rate...more of a steady-as-you-go, tried-but-true approach that is meant to project, along with good service, support and marketing, the reassurance of a certain measure of authority and professionalism. Say what you want about such companies, and I count myself among those who might say that, for my own tastes anyway, they might be playing things a little *too* safe generally, but they have been around a long time and seem to continue to do some business at a time when the audio market, nationally or worldwide, happens to be deader than 4 o'clock. For my own purposes, while I would likely say that Wilson does not do things quite the way I would prefer my kinds of manufacturers to do things, that may really only be because I've been around the audio neighborhood a while (45 yrs) and have since acquired the kind of audiophile background that has allowed me to 'outgrow', if you will, the need for such a company business model and that that may not be necessarily the case for others...but, I certainly don't hate them. |
dlcockrum: No offense taken.To put the matter in better context, as I listened to them from at least 15 feet away in a seated position, the sound from the speakers seemed to be noticeably even with and below me. This caused me to not feel enveloped by the sound, a feeling one should feel with any high end floor standing speakers. In many years of shows, visits with dealers, etc.in which I have heard hundreds if not thousands of speakers, I had never felt this sensation before. In fact, I had never considered image height as an element of the sound field prior to this although I was aware of its salutary presence when listening to line source or other large (6 ft+) speakers. In any event, I stood up merely to confirm for myself that the sensation was not an illusion. It clearly was not as it sounded as if the music was stuck underneath a shelf. I have never judged a speaker before or since by standing up as I have never felt that sensation again and I don’t listen to music in a standing position. bdp24: You are absolutely correct--the speakers in question were the Vandy 7s. It seems you may be attuned to this sensation. I can say that I’ve heard of Brooks Berdan’s shop and it is universally held in high regard. Nevertheless, I have not heard this problem with any WP or Sasha and certainly haven’t heard it at Innovative Audio in NYC or in my listening room where WP 7s and then Sashas have been in residence for a combined 14 years. That being said, if you favor line source and some planars, I could see why the Sashas (and probably quite a few others) don’t work for you in that regard. I wish all a happy, healthy etc. |
There is probably demand for the WAMM from the Asian market. I hope he sells them all. I have owned Watt Puppy 7’s. They were Brooks Berdan’s demo speakers from his showroom. They replaced Martin Logan Odysseys. Years later I am now retired and upgraded to Maxx 3’s I bought from Sunny's. It’s a much larger and more dynamic speaker compared to the WP/7’s. |
I hear you, why do some of our fellow audiophiles have such "strong" opinions? Hey, if a speaker "floats your boat", good for you! I bought my current speakers (Focal Sopra No2's) about a year ago. The search took me to showrooms with many a fine speaker brand, including the Wilson's, but I just like the Focal's, for my hearing, they were more pleasing. Having said that, I have friends who have Wilson's and love them. My response, "good for them". |
Ivan: I agree; you see the same thing with high end cars. People with financial means can gain entry, but whether there is any ability to extract the best or appreciate it is another matter entirely. I can think repeatedly of seeing fine high end sports cars being driven as family sedans, with no expectation of extracting an inkling of its potential. The item is itself a status, nothing more. I suspect audio is no different, and for those whom have been in audio for a while can appreciate, but not afford, the items others can afford but not appreciate. I think part of it is that the "earning of the right" to own expensive gear is often not due to years of audio experience but financial prudence (however that is attained). I think deep down a part of it is envy, but a lot of high end companies make gear explicitly for the well heeded, not necessarily the audiophile, and after a while, one develops a sense (to them) whom these companies are. |
I echo others' sentiments that if Wilson was not very successful, no one would hate them. Some people seem use Wilson as comparison to sound smarter as they "graduate" past the brand, which is social marketing issue not related to the product. The value of Wilson speakers is questionable as viewed as an opportunity cost and although there is a very distinct house sound, some models are better than others, imo. What I think the haters do not consider is that Wilson's competitors, i.e. other expensive box speakers, tend to fail in comparison in terms of dynamics and often scale and time alignment, especially Wilson's lack of dynamic compression for their sensitivity and form. |
Barfly & Ohlala, thanks for your input here. I suppose though, that my days of enjoying the 'envy of it all' in this hobby are likely behind me really, but I can certainly see your points. I was able to "graduate", if you prefer, past Wilson, et al, if, in my case, for no other reason than the fact that I was convinced that I'd never be able to afford them! And, while I did in fact end up finding my own "nirvana" (with a small "n") by learning to go a completely different sort of route, it only ended up taking me what, a few decades??...LOL! So if I were to begrudge any of it (which I don't), it would probly be that it just took me so darn long (ha,ha!), so I don't really mind other folks having more money to throw at it than me, that's just the way life is and I have certainly learned to take that sort of stuff in stride, I suppose...after all, what I've gotten from the experience in return, I have to say, has made me a happy man. Cheers! John |
Audio is one of those hobbies where simply throwing money at the hobby will get you results, whereas with fly fishing, for example, if you cannot cast a fly with practice and effort, you get nowhere, despite any amount of money. Money can get you any car, but not the experience and skill to drive them. I think (and I freely admit this) that Wilson is one of the companies out there that targets the well-heeled directly. The newest WAMM, for example, has 5 years of R+D....no new drivers, no new enclosure material, no new tweeter diaphragm material, no new crossover.....simply derivative not ground breaking. At least Magico came out with aluminum cabinets, full CNC machined parts, Beryllium tweeter, Graphene woofer cones etc.....pushing the limit, at least showing some progress. Wilson for the longest time used off the shelf Focal drivers...not original. So I can see the "hate" thing, but it will be a while before I can actually afford any of the highest gear. In fact, to me, in audio, finding the "diamonds in the rough" in terms of gear and speakers is the real thrill; the gear that is passed over or older etc that no one gives any time to or no longer has "relevance" that is superlative in sound quality and accessible, financially. That takes talent and skill that no amount of money can buy. |
Nice post, blackfly. "In fact, to me, in audio, finding the "diamonds in the rough" in terms of gear and speakers is the real thrill; the gear that is passed over or older etc that no one gives any time to or no longer has "relevance" that is superlative in sound quality and accessible, financially. That takes talent and skill that no amount of money can buy." Perhaps the most enlightened audio-related statement of 2016. Only one day to go. Welcome aboard. Happy New Year blackfly, Dave |
We don't have to "hate" a brand just because we don't like the sound of their products. I have heard B&Ws for decades and they have never warmed to me. Likewise, I heard the Wilson Alexx recently and again, it just didn't do it for me. No harm in that, and I don't hate either company. My preference in a speaker's characteristics is my own personal choice, just as it is with all of us here. |
What Sasha's can do with Roger Waters Amused to Death I found quite amazing...voices from well outside the speakers. I didn't buy them, though, for other reasons--boomy bass and appearance (WAF) chief among them. I ended up with Focal Scala Utopia v2. I haven't been able to replicate the pyrotechnics of the Sashas with them on Amused to Death, but I've been happy with them otherwise in terms of timbre and musicality. Where I've gotten the most from my system in terms of holographic imaging has come from playing native DSD, which I can do thanks to a Light Harmonic Da Vinci dual DAC. |
i am amazed at how many posters have strong opinions about sound characteristics of driver materials etc. sometimes i wonder if you guys are for real with your amazing ears. dont get me going on those of you who have extreme dislikes and likes for certain metals in your wires and cords. my hat is off i guess. someday someone will set up the perfect demo room with all the products and all of us experts will have to take blind tests and have our scores published online for all to see. |
Cone material sometimes makes subtle it can make subtle yet very very sweet difference gold ears arent required to hear sweet natural timbre of percussion. I think vocals sound most realistic on speakers with paper cones also, that I have heard. among other strengths they have. all the top line speaker manufacturers their best lines are more often paper. I like how bo thrashed on paper cones its old forgotten tech and how he eloquently puts people that favor natural material stupid in another speaker topic haha then in this topic hes praising it like that never happened. My subs have paper cones, they are some of the most natural sounding Ive heard regardless sof cost. Again I dont think golden ears are required, nothing like that, you just have to listen. |
The only thing I have against Wilson Audio speakers is that 1) they use high order crossovers (not good for time alignment at the cross over points due to phase angle shift) and that 2) they invert the polarity of some drivers, by design or necessity, relative to others, to do the least amount of "damage" to timbre and phase. But to me the bandaid will never fix a fundamental design flaw. One can only hope to do the least damage to timbre in the time domain. Human ears are very sensitive to it, and I can hear it every time. These two features combine to distort time and phase accuracy. If Wilson addressed these issues, perhaps I would give them another listen. Until they do, count me out as a fan of their products. The flashy paint jobs are excessive and unappealing to my eyes and ears. |
@stevecham I’m going to call on a couple of your claims. Several milliseconds would be equivalent to several feet offset. Very hard for any crossover designer to do. Do you have a link to a particular measurement that shows this? You may mean to say that they are not time co-incident. That is true, few speakers besides Thiel or Vandersteen or Dunlavy are or were. That loudspeaker design has not stopped and all become time co-incident is an indicator of the cost/value proposition and market acceptance. As a consumer and speaker builder, I’m not really interested in this feature, though I could make my own speakers like this. Certainly it is relatively straightforward to achieve this digitally. But even then, several milliseconds? I’ve never seen any Wilson measure with poor phase matching either. If I was going to criticize the crossovers and speakers it would b in the tonal balance, and treble smoothness. Best, Erik |
Call me on it if you will, and many have and I’m not alone. That dog won’t hunt; distort the time domain and you distort timbre, pure and simple. This is why live music sounds the way it does, because it does NOT distort in the time domain. To knowingly subtract from that while prettying up the product to create over expensive esoterica is inexcusable if one cares about preserving MUSIC! And you know something, it’s those few milliseconds time difference between our ears that allowed us to hear from which direction the saber toothed tiger approached that saved our asses! |
http://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-sophia-series-3-loudspeaker-measurements#KQDcxc4eHJR... Sasha: Fig.3 shows the Sophia's step response on its tweeter axis. The initial up/down spike is the tweeter output; the negative-going decay of the tweeter's step blends smoothly into the midrange unit's step response, the positive-going decay of which blends smoothly into the start of the woofer's step response. (The tweeter and woofer are connected in positive acoustic polarity, the midrange unit in inverted polarity.) But if you look very closely at this graph, there is a slight depression just before the tweeter's step. This is the start of the midrange unit's negative-going step, which suggests that the Sophia's optimal axis—ie, where the outputs of the three drive-units optimally sum in the frequency domain—is actually just above the tweeter axis. Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-sophia-series-3-loudspeaker-measurements#5XggM8TqXbY... Alexia: This graph reveals that, as in the Alexandria XLF, the tweeter is connected in positive acoustic polarity, the midrange driver in negative polarity. However, with the tweeter module set up by Peter McGrath, the graph also shows that the negative-going decay of the tweeter's step smoothly blends with the negative-going start of the midrange unit's step, confirming the excellent frequency-domain integration of their outputs seen in fig.4. Moving slightly above or below the intended axis destroys that smooth blending of step responses. Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-alexia-loudspeaker-measurements#YE4CzkkR... Frequency domain isn't TIME DOMAIN. |
<< sigh >> So it’s a little over 1 millisecond. That’s absolutely typical behavior for a 3 way system. If your claim is that it’s impossible to make realistic speakers without being time co-incident, then I’m afraid there are thousands of examples that say otherwise, and very little proof that it is subjectively superior. It’s fine if you like it, or feel you must have it but kind of a ridiculous claim to make that this should have the universal appeal that it has to you, or that we should all bow down to your pet spec. Like it or not, the single most important and perceptible difference between speakers is frequency domain. I’m not saying it’s the only one, but it is big for everyone. In that dimension a lot of the top speakers have really terrible, but oddly similar, responses. Current media has tried to train the audophile into believing these ragged sounding speakers are the cream of the crop, and Wilson seems to be going along with them. Having said that, here is the Monitor Audio Platinum. Look at how much smoother it's time domain performance is. By better I mean smoother, not narrower. http://www.stereophile.com/content/monitor-audio-platinum-pl300-ii-loudspeaker-measurements#bRxtFG4H... Their tweet sucks above 10kHz though, severe let down for otherwise superbly designed speaker. |
Yo "3D" Bo Most modern systems should demonstrate 3-D. There is nothing special about it, plain physics and engineering (too bad 2D audiophiles are not getting this) . There is no special characteristics/parameters of the individual equipment that can demonstrate this (in the broad sense of the term). I do understand your statement about system synergy, however ... one can do million years of research "blindly", and will not understand what lies beyond, or right in "front of them". With proper knowledge and understanding of human physchoacoustics and engineering it’s very simple as to what "will" work...... best, VJ p.s. Where is the Audiogon knowledge base ... when you need it ;) |
OK guys, since we’re talking "3-D" sound. One thing to point out is that it’s a known trick that suppressing speakers around 2.4kHz helps greatly enhance this. It’s not natural. I personally don’t hear live music or acoustic instruments this way. But again, buy what you like to hear! Not what is natural or measures well or what others like. :) Best, - E |
That you can get a dipole magnetic-planar loudspeaker than is inherently time-coherent for $600, while 5-figure multi-driver box speakers have their three drivers wired in differing polarities, I have always found quite humorous. Speakers with 1st order filters and multiple same-polarity drivers (Vandersteen for instance) produce time-coherent sound in only a relatively small vertical window. Move a little in the vertical plane and that coherency evaporates. It takes a lot of engineering knowledge and design work to make a multi-driver loudspeaker time-coherent; a planar can do it with no work. Sure, planars have their own weakness. With speakers, you have to pick your poison. I, myself, would never buy a loudspeaker with drivers that move in opposite directions in response to a musical signal. That is RIDICULOUS! What is more basic to doing things correctly than doing that? The first time I heard a drum reproduced that sounded like a real drum was through the Magneplanar Tympani T-1. It put much more expensive speakers to shame in that regard. The sound of the drumstick’s tip striking the head (plastic or calfskin), the head moving inward from the impact, sending waves of sound down the length of the drumshell and causing the bottom resonant head and the shell itself to vibrate, the timbre of the drum changing as the resonance subsided, were all audible in their percussive glory. That "percussiveness" was not apparent in any other speaker I had ever heard. For a drum to sound right, it’s fundamental (resonant frequency) and all it’s harmonic overtones have to be lined up in time. If they aren’t, the drum doesn’t sound as percussive as it should. Speakers that not time coherent can NOT reproduce a drum (or piano, or any other "struck" instrument, as opposed to one "plucked") correctly, no matter what other capabilities it may possess. Such a loudspeaker is of no interest or use to me. That may not be a universal opinion ;-). |
Veroman, seriously? Looking at your system you have a horribly compromised system which seems set up with one principle paramount, not spending much money. You are running an analogue EQ to try and save the sound. That is a 40 year old technique which causes massive degradation of the sound quality. You are screwing around with the EQ to make the home made speakers perform acceptably. You have almost nothing below 55Hz. Imo you have a crude approximation of better HiFi, and you are mocking others? Assessing your system and seeming preferences you are in no position to be critical of manufacturer's use of cone materials and audiophiles' interest in different cable conductors. I suspect you have little to no experience in actual comparisons of such things. Now, if you're budget constrains you from reaching higher, then I hold no disdain for the setup; I was a budget audiophile for many years as well. But still, I think you are blind to how little basis you have to be a critic of the matters you deride. It's one thing to be economical and make the best with your budget, but it's another to ridicule others from that position, especially if you have little to no experience in it. :( If you think more expensive gear, different cone materials and conductors in cables are a sham and you could spend more but distrust it, then I feel sorry for you as you are ripping yourself off in the experience of HiFi. You built your own speaker, which is a great accomplishment! So, instead of mocking, why don't you follow the lead of many other DIY'ers who upscaled and built some drop dead gorgeous speakers with quality drivers and super internal wiring. Moving to not much more expensive components and a big gun homemade speaker - you would be living the dream! :) Maybe some DIYers can chime in here to discuss their experiences. I suspect my thoughts as a reviewer could be discounted, but perhaps more weighting would be given to persons of similar interest in DIY. I know there are DIYers who have discovered wonderful sound through upscaling their builds such as revisiting internal wiring, conductor material, etc. |
It depends what your rules are of the level in stage depth. In my world each system with one metre of stage depth is 2 dimensional. The Pl-500 can outperform even a Wilson Audio Alexandria in stage depth, width and especially in diversity of height. These parts are essential in the world of highend. But there is more.....also in layering in the whole frequency range the Pl-500 can reveal details a Wilson Audio Alexandria cannot show. I will ask for a shootout, this is how audio should be used. |
Funny that most people that denigrate the Wilson speakers have never heard them - probably reacting to a company making speakers they can't afford? I listened to various Watt/Puppy combos over the years (never occurred to me that they looked like trash bins....) but was never enticed by them, but when I had the chance to hear some Grand Slamms I changed my view and kept an eye out - they rarely come up for grabs locally. Recently purchased a pair of Maxx 2s, very much in the same idiom. The other day when a lady friend of my wife came over, she said "OK, show me how loud they can go!" and didn't understand when I declined. Told her that if she ever needed speakers she should look at Cerwin Vega.... But I have been very happy indeed with the Maxx - I also listen to my other system which has Martin Logan CLS, a totally different sound but also very satisfying. |
wspohn, I've seen the same statement several times, "Funny that most people that denigrate the Wilson speakers have never heard them - probably reacting to a company making speakers they can't afford?" I've owned several Wilson speakers. In hindsight "I owned" them more for their name and wanting to belong to a group of Wilson Owners than their sound. I argued that Wilson's were the best and defended my choice. I will say, Wilson's are some of the most dynamic speakers that I've owned, but I would take my current speakers over any Wilson that I've heard or owned. As I have become more in tuned to the sound I prefer, I have moved further away from the Wilson sound. I don't worry about the company name, I just think about how it sounds to my ears. So, there are some people that have owned Wilson's and can afford them; however they just don't prefer them. No absolutes in Audio, just preferences! |
I often asked the question overhere: what do you want to hear? - The truth, or the thing you would like to hear. * When you test and compare like we do, you will hear that the truth is a lot different than what people write. When a highend speaker is able to create a deeper and wider stage, and also more diversity in height, this speaker is better than a speaker who build a less deep, wide and high stage. This has nothing to do with personal preference. When a speaker is able to create more layers and details of the music, it is better than a speaker who show less. When a speaker has a better timing and more control and layers in the lowest frequencies, it is better than a speakeer who show less details in this part. When a speaker has more grip on the high frequencies and reveals more details, it is better in this area. There is no discussion possible. So please stop the bullshit stories about preference. That is why is said many times; highend audio needs parameters. The way it works now , it is a free world. And you can say whatever you want to say. In my world audio is all about shootout and the truth. So arrange a shootout between Wilson Audio and a Monitor Audio Pl-500. How difficult can it be? When you can’t handle the truth, you are the one who limits yourself! |
Ricred1 is an honest man who tells his true thoughts. I had a client with the Sasha who also had the same feelings and thoughts Ricred1 has. It was a fact the Pl-200 II could reveal more details and layers. And it created a much bigger stage as well. Money covers the truth about audio. Money rules and limits consumers to get the real information you want and need. When people have no idea how music (instruments and voices) sounds in real you can sell them any kind of audio. There is no reference frame for them to compare. That is why we want to give demos with real musicians and instruments. For example; To show what intimate sound does with our emotion. We also have thoughts about using curtains. Intimate sound is a part of Tru-Fi. It influences our emotion a lot. We can proof this by sound. |
I counted myself amongst the haters, till I heard them with what I consider, good matching amps. They tend to be matched with SS Amps and with one exception, I hate the sound with that combination. The exception? D'Agostino amps, which with a pair of Alexias, produced a sound that was one of the best I have heard. Returning to reality, a combination which is at least in theory, affordable, Wilson with Tubes, particularly Audio Research, sound great, IMHO. Recently I heard Sabrina's with an ARC Ref 75/LS27 combo and it was very fine indeed. I couldn't afford it, but it is, by modern standards, affordable to some. |
My client of the Sasha played with the Ref 75SE and Momentum stereo poweramp. Both missed different parts of Tru-Fi People have to learn that diversity in sound is the most important part to create emotion during listening to music. For example a Pass labs poweramp is a lot better in diversity in sound compared to the Momentum stereo poweramp. The Momentum also misses layers in the lowest freq. range. It also is not able to double the power when you go from 8ohm to 4ohm. The Pass creates a deeper and more controlled low freq with even more layers. In the mid freq. the layering is of a whole different quality compared to the Momentum. The funny thing is that in audio magazines you will never find a shootout between Pass labs and D’ Agostino amps. This is what I would like to see. The Ref 75SE sounded more relaxt, but diversity in sound is something different than a pleasant sound. When we played the same music at my system with a Pass Labs poweramp the level of resolution and layers in the whole frequency range was superior. |
In our world audio is all about the best quality in each price range. In our world products and brands which are less good does not add anything to be there. When a new brand comes and it is better than what we sell and use, it becomes the product to replace the other one. I don't hate Wilson, if I were Wilson I would change many parts to create a superior level in performance for the price they cost. A new tweeter technique and faster drivers to start. I would make them a lot better looking as they look now. If Wilson would produce speakers which are by far the best for the money, I would be interested. It is very simple; when you want the best for yourself, I would be stuppid not to want the best for your clients. The biggest problem in audio is the low level of most products. Quality will always sell and the one to be chosen. |
I'm not a 'hater' of any loudspeaker, how can one hate a speaker or speaker company? However, although I respect there may many quality components in their speaker (board stock x,s,z etc), their claims of near perfection,when they can't even get their frequency response comparable to other high end speakers,would make me cringe-- if I was an official in the company. I would want to hide my head after seeing the smoothed and averaged response measurements provided by reputable,unbiased testers. It makes me wonder if they're smokin something that brings them closer to (audio) heaven when they're measuring and listening? |
The respect that Wilson receives from the audio press is clearly a conspiracy between writers at Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, HiFi+, HiFi News and Record Review, Analogplanet, The Audio Beat and others. I think the editors of those publications all get together at a remote location and agree that Wilson speakers of all stripes have to consistently win awards, or one of them might be "left out" and lose its audiophile publication club status. Don’t they know that the alleged composite x and s material that Dave uses are gimmicks so that he can put Ferrari paint on the enclosure and sell cheap paper (pulp composite) drivers and silk dome tweeters for outrageous prices? Doesn’t Dave know that to be considered a bespoke speaker company one has to use ceramic or aluminum drivers, beryllium tweeters or diamond encrusted versions (oh, he tested both types but they did not work for him) to be deemed great speakers? After all, those are all faster drivers with no downside. (No knock on companies that employ exotic materials in their drivers. Some of those indeed are great speakers.) But a great loudspeaker consists of infinitely more than that. It’s all in the implementation. The most important product produced by the speaker is the sound it generates. Is it natural? Is it accurate? Does it produce real sounding dynamic contrasts? etc. Many manufacturers still believe that, on balance, some of the more traditional materials still work better together than exotics. Some are bespoke speaker companies. Wilson is one of them. I believe Wilson will always be a perfect target for those who think they know how to design a great sounding speaker. (You’ve got to be kidding me, the midrange in inverted acoustic polarity and the woofer in positive?-- this just can’t be done well.) But for those of us who agree with the likes of John Atkinson who wrote that if he could retire tomorrow, he would purchase a pair of Alexias to listen to for the rest of his years --well, we just don’t understand. But Bo knows. But that’s only Bo Jackson. |
| Post removed |