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.
There is one big thing you forget, all audio shops work by trial and error.
And you base this claim on ... what? Do you sincerely believe that there is not an audio store on the planet that doesn't know how to use measurements and the scientific method?
There is one big thing you forget, all audio shops work by trial and error. With this the Monitor Audio speakers can sound good, but we can reach a much higher level.
In the last 7 years we have many Monitor Audio clients who said: when I would not have met you I think I would not bought Monitor Audio loudspeakers. But the way you work they become without any competition.
This difference is huge and brings them to another league. I never met any person who has done thousands and thousands of test to understand all the properties of each single part of an audio system.
My clients visited the Platinum Series II demos. They said; even my Platinum Series 1 is superior to this. Trial and error can only use a small level of the whole quality it owns. We can proof this by sound. I have proven this to many people in 9 years of time.
That is why I said: I love outperforming. Audio is all about creating the best sound possible. This is what we create. Each single audio system created by Tru-Fi will always outperfrom a system what was created by trial and error. I can proof this by facts.
This is what we will demonstrate and proof by Tru-Fi. This is a new approach on audio what creates a superior level in sound quality.
There is actually some truth in bo`s mantra. We have a local dealer here who carries MA line and I can confirm that PL line is capable of magical 3D stage that majority of other brands can`t touch. Despite it is not the absolute best player in all areas as it seem from bo´s postings. I personally feel that PL line from MA sounds a bit light. Nice tonality but it`s missing the energy and dynamics of Focal Utopia and Electra line that I`m also familiar with.
The drivers Monitor Audio uses in the Platinum Series II are maybe the fastest you will find in their price range and even far above it.
They use ceramic drivers reinforced with aluminum and magnesium. But they even go a lot further. The drivers are in a cylinder and is without a centre hole in the middle of the driver like most other drivers use.
This creates a superior timing. People with Electrostatic speakers said. mann this is the speed of an electrostatic speaker. When you hear you will understand how slow the drivers of the Wilson Audio speakers are.
The Sasha was not able to show us all the diversity in sound like the Platinum Pl-200 II could reveal. The AMT tweeter shows how limited and outdated dome-tweeters are. For us it is difficult to understand why they are still using dome-tweeters.
It is time for Wilson to use faster drivers and tweeters with a frequency response for Hi Res audio. The Sasha showed a lot of difficulties with the high frequencies. The AMT tweeter was laughing to us what kind of difficulties are you talking about?
I am not allowed to give details how we create it. We have a huge advantage over all our competitors, I want to keep it this way.
Until our competitors are able to think and work in propertires and understand all the parts what influeunces the sound they could compete. It needs many years to test and create a photographic memory in sound and be able to hear all the different parts each single part in an audio system owns.
It is a 100% fact that trial and error is like audiogambling. You connect parts togheter and you do not know the properties. So it is one big guess. I spoke in last year to many people who also work in audio for a long time.
When I told how I work, they became aware how limited they are. I am sorry for the huge leap I created. It is not my responsibillity that they are so limited. I did it all by myself, we will share it.
But people will have to pay for it. That is what we are doing now. For us Monitor Audio owns the properties we want and need. But when you are not able to think and work in properties you never will be able to use all the properties the speakers own.
That is why for me it is simple like 1 and 1 is 2 to explain why an audiosystem is incomplete. Almost all systems are incomplete. They miss essential parts of Tru-Fi. You can easilly hear it back in a lower level of emotion and details. It has nothing to do with personal taste. We see that all people understand that it owns a lower level of emotion. Each single person will always choose for that system what owns the highest level of emotion. That is why we work by the human emotion.
To all people I can explain it very easilly. I use my system and that of clients to make people clear what is missing. And we never had; I don’t understand what you mean.
The distributer of Esoteric said within a few seconds when we connected the Esoteric N-05; stop, this is clear. We first listend to the Lumin S1 ( modified by us) and then we listened to the last song we used with the S1 with the N-05. The difference was huge. This is based on the fact that it is incomplete.
The ditributer bought a Lumin D1 with our modifications last week from us. Even this outperfroms the Esoteric N-05 on all parts.
Tru-Fi makes it very easy to understand what is missing in an audio system.
For transparency and openness, no loudspeaker using dynamic drivers is going to equal an electrostatic or ribbon, imo. Magnetic-planars, though perhaps not as transparent as ESL’s, are also very open sounding. None of these will play as loud, go as low in frequency, or be run by as small an amp, as the Wilsons, but ya can’t have everything. Unless you can afford the new Wilson WAMM, assuming it is as good as it had better be for the price!
I have a pair of MAXX 1 and my only concern is transparency with Wilson. It lacks transparency and openness in mid and mid hi. Musicality is excellent though ! I have tried Krell, Accuphase and Tube amp ! with tube it is better but MAXX is not a good partner for tube amp.
Nah, John, just trying a new theory: when a stylus gets hung in a groove and the groove repeats itself, a gently nudge helps break it loose; so maybe that will work here.
Okay, you nailed down two brands (Monitor Audio and Rockport) of speakers that you feel do it right. Any others? What about sources, preamps, amps, cabling?
Dave
Dave, are you playing with bo? Why do you even care what bo says? bo just likes to hear himself talk.
Okay, you nailed down two brands (Monitor Audio and Rockport) of speakers that you feel do it right. Any others? What about sources, preamps, amps, cabling?
The Rockport speakers also can build a deep and wide stage. Are also good in diversity in height. They also can build the stage beside the loudspeakers.
What makes the new Platinum II unique is that they also can build a sound stage in front of the loudspeakers.
You hear it back in songs were the Rockport plays them beside the loudspeakers, but the Pl-500 showed an even higher level.
Not only is it able to bring an instrument in front of the speaker, it also gives it more a 3D form.
There are more brands who can create a good and deep stage. Audio is all about comparing. This is what I love about audio. For a perfectionist it is always about looking for the best. In my world the best is the only one who counts.
Monitor Audio gave me the freedom and options to give many people a 3-dimensional experience like I have with more expensive systems.
I want a higher level in sound quality and emotion for as many people as possible. I love music and I want other people to have a stunning level as well.
It is not based on money, but it is based on properties and understanding how sound works and what influences sound negative.
Today I spoke with a person who said that this year many audio brands were not at the CES anymore. In Europe we see the same, and I want to do something to make audio more appealing for more people.
The 2D stuff what is
sold these days will never make people happy for a long period of time. The only people who become happy are those who sell it.
I sold Avalon for over 6 years of time. I also sold it to friends of mine. But....there is a big but.
Avalon can create good stage depth and width, but is very limited in individual focus of instruments and voices. This is also an essential part for realistic tangible and intimate focus.
This I learned at my friends house were he gave classical concerts. He also owned 3 pairs of Avalon loudspeakers. When I brought a pair of Monitor Audio Pl200 version 1 to his house it blew the Avalons away on each part. Even in stage depth it outperformed the Avalon speakers.
He also plays now with the Pl-200 version 1. All Avalon speakers are not able to create a 3D form of an instrument. This is an important part of realism in sound.
Monitor Audio was the first brand I found who was able to create a stunning deep and wide stage (wider and deeper than both Wilson and Avalon) and is also able to give the same level of intimate tangible focus of instruments and voices as in real.
The new Platinum series II adds diversity in height at a stunning level we never auditioned before. The other stunning part is that the AMT also can create a sound field in front of the loudspeakers.
This is a stunning holographic stage what brings you to the space of the recording.
Each single part of Tru-Fi I can focus on and I can adapt it. Beside this I did research in electricity, smog, magenetism, diversity in sound and high-frequency noise.
Now I understand how they influence the sound and I have many options to improve the sound. All the parts influences also the sound stage.
You need to understand all different parts on which sound contains and all the different parts what influences the sound and quality of it. Most people have no idea how much quality they loose based on the fact that they don’t understand what I just told.
You can spend 1 million on audio, but you will only be able to use a very small part of the ’real’ quality. Money will not solve it or create a superior sound.
That is why I learned to understand each part. And that is why I have done thousands of tests. Perfectionism means there it no room for error. This process never stops.
There is 1 thing I can garantee to each single person overhere, a 3-dimensional physical tangible stage with a stunning diversity in sound will make listening to music so addictive. This makes you want listening to music on and on.
That is why I will never sell any kind of 2-dimensional sound again in my life. Because for each single person it will be never appealing for a long period of time. This is based on the human emotion. That is why Tru-Fi is based on the human emotion.
One thing that is and always will be an inherent limitation of past and current stereo recording/playback technology is directionality, since a MIC (thanks Todd) can’t discern the difference of direction. As a result, the clapping of the crowd on a live recording will always sound as if the crowd is behind the performers, unless the crowd is recorded with a different mic(s) and mixed/mastered correctly. I have never heard a live recording done this way.
That implies that some of the ambience information (reflections from the walls/objects of the venue) captured from the "front side" of the mic is being incorrectly reproduced as being part of the ambient information of the opposite side. Ultimately, this may be the final limitation of making our two channel systems suspend disbelief. Thus the (largely unfulfilled IMO) promise of multi-channel audio technology.
@cleeds I didn’t think it was confusing to call a single stereo mic (not mike) a single mic recording. I think maybe you had single mic and mono mic meshed in your mind.. The main point was that a single point for recording sound can lend a more accurate soundstage than multiple mics, where the soundstage is then dependent on the mastering session.
Single
mike recording is not the same thing as monophonic playback, which
blends the lateral information into a single source of sound.
One
microphone captures the spatial information (distances from the
microphone) most accurately if done correctly, vs multi-mike recording
where the mixing/mastering engineer (hopefully) blends multiple
microphone tracks to simulate correct placement of the instruments, too
often using artificial reverb or other techniques to do so. This is
called "mixing".
Try Cowboy Junkies, "The Trinity Session" to see
what I mean ...
I think this is an issue of semantics. Trinity Session was recorded with a stereo microphone, so calling it a "single mic" effort is a bit confusing.
There's nothing inherently advantageous about the Calrec mic used on Trinity Session. Proper stereo X/Y and M/S mic techniques can result in excellent imaging and stereo reproduction.
Single mike recording is not the same thing as monophonic playback, which blends the lateral information into a single source of sound.
One microphone captures the spatial information (distances from the microphone) most accurately if done correctly, vs multi-mike recording where the mixing/mastering engineer (hopefully) blends multiple microphone tracks to simulate correct placement of the instruments (this is called "mixing"), too often using artificial reverb or other techniques to do so.
Try Cowboy Junkies, "The Trinity Session" to see what I mean. A single-miked live recording (using only a Calrec Ambisonic microphone and mastered but not mixed), yet anything but monaural. If your system does not demonstrate the effects of what I am describing, it is not reproducing depth and spatial information very well. How important or even whether this is important at all to an individual listener is not the subject of my posts.
Another great test is the Opus 3 Test Record 1: Depth of Image (CD 7900) and also available on LP IIRC.
... single mike recordings
usually giving the best illusion of accurate spatial imaging of the
actual performance
How can you capture depth with just a single microphone? Do you actually think monophonic recordings have better "spatial imaging" than a good stereo - or binaural - recording?
Depth of soundstage should vary with each recording according to the venue and recording techniques of the recording itself, single mike recordings usually giving the best illusion of accurate spatial imaging of the actual performance.
Depth of individual performers and or instruments should have clearly identifiable spatial locations representing the actual spacing of each in relationship to the other, providing the recording/mastering captures this information.
If a system does so, it is not due to some frequency anomaly, but an indicator of reproduction accuracy and largely dependent on the time coherence of the speakers.
If depth and spatial information is consistent from recording to recording, then the system is creating the illusion of depth through distortions, whether engineered into the equipment intentionally or not.
Accurate reproduction of depth is as important to listener involvement as accurate lateral reproduction (stereo imaging), IMO.
Jetter: Can't add too much to that statement, but I do note that when the Avalon Ascent came out it was often paired with Rowland equipment (I heard them in Mike Hobson's then-boutique store driven by Rowland Model 7s). They has a tremendous three-dimensional soundstage, better than any speaker I had ever heard at the time. J. Gordon Holt wondered in print whether that might in part be due to a frequency dip in the Rowland/Avalon interface in the midrange.
While I do like a 3-D soundstage, there are other things (truth in timbre, reproduction of micro and macro-dynamics, rhythmic flow) that make for a realistic or satisfying listening experience. Some (apparently Bo) place more importance on one of those aspects than another. To each his/her own.
To you to understand what a 3 dimensional stage does and work.
Even for intimate recordings were the voice is put in front, you get more space beside and behind. This give the music a more intimate and tangible image. This is how a voice or instrument is being experienced in real as well.
Intimate sound is a part of Tru-Fi. And is based on how instruments and voices are being projected and formed.
A friend of mine had a concert room with a Steinway grande piano. It was a room for about 60 people. Here I learned how small and direct voices and instruments are. And also how important the space around voices and instruments are.
When you compare amps, sources and loudspeakers with eachother the differences between how the stage is being build is huge.
We are also dealer of Stillpoints and yess they create a wider and deeper soundstage. But there are many different things to create a wider and deeper stage.
Our Statement Audio Pro-measurement creates also a much wider and deeper soundstage. It creates a better phase.
Many of my clients use the word; addictive for the 3-Dimensional stage. At the end it is a part, but in highend an important part to distinguish from hifi stereo.
I visited jazz concerts with a stunning level in stage depth and diversity in height of the instruments. This made a big impression on me. This is how I want an audio system to build a stage.
When you work more accurate you will create more stage depth, width and height. These days we work at 0.5mm precision. It makes a difference!
We have ideas to use conservatorium students for audio presentations to show people what intimate sound means and does. And to show them how small and direct sound is.
fleschler, I have lost track of where and in which thread, but several persons earlier have mentioned that while we all agree that having a 3d soundstage is appealing, it is not a true representation of how the music was recorded. Rather, it was stated it is the result of having an over/under emphasis built into regions (midrange?) of the speakers. I would be interested if anyone else can add flesh to this statement?
dlcockrum’s 12-24 post concerning varying degrees of imaging and depth are what I have found to be the case of my main listening room. For several years using Legacy Focus speakers with EAR 864 pre-amp, I had lost my soundstage depth. For the last three years, I reinserted an upgraded custom pre-amp with Stillpoint SS and obtained a fair amount of soundstage depth, let’s say 10 to 15 feet when recorded that way. Then I inserted Synergistic Research black fuses in my amps and duplex outlet. Whoa Nelly!! I have a huge soundstage in both width and depth depending on the recording of course. For 20 years I owned only electrostats which had great depth. When I switched to the Focus speakers, I lost most of my depth. It just took equipment and tweaks to bring it all back. I would never trade in my dynamic speakers for electrostats and my wife wouldn’t allow a Magnapan to play her rock.
My audio engineer friend Grover Huffman and I have attended three consecutive Newport Audio shows. Its interesting to note that the first thing he notices about most rooms is the lack of depth and soundstage. Sometimes, we pop in his A/C cables and ICs in a room and the room is breathing music in depth and width where there previously was a jumbled sound. Often, the smaller monitor size speakers have very superior depth and imaging to the huge/heavy speakers. Its just the way it appears to us. I haven’t heard a Wilson or Magico speaker built pre-2016 that I would own. I did hear some impressive large speakers by von Schweigert in 2015. The Harbeth 40.2 speakers were impressive although ugly. Some high end audiophiles may scorn my Focus speakers but when set up in the right system, they play music as good as any system I’ve heard at the shows I’ve attended. Its not just the speakers but the entire system and room acoustics that determine whether one can fully immerse themselves in the music.
I think Wilsons look fine. Love the sound and will be buying Alexia's The only reason I'll be selling my mint Witt II's is due to moving into the ex's 44x20x8 room. The Witt II's sound as good as the Sophias and up to WP6 then the 7's and up start to pull away in sound, and cost. I got to hear a lot of them on a nice SS system. They really sound great with tubes. JMO.
I think it is time for Wilson Audio to create a new and better look. You see this as negative, but it is not.
In Europe there are many people who think they are ugly.
Perhaps. Obviously, Wilson customers don't agree with you or those "many people" that you cite.
You've expressed your distaste for Wilson speakers many, many times here. Why should the company try to appeal to you? You're not their customer ... or dealer!
Speaking of drivers, isn't the work done in that field by one of David Wilsons major competitors, Richard Vandersteen, impressive? Wilson drivers are merely modified versions of already available models by a couple of leading manufactures; Richard has designed his own from the ground up, and makes them himself. And then prices his products so that working-class stiffs can afford them. A down-to-Earth guy, ta boot. None of that matters if one prefers the Wilson sound to the Vandersteen, of course.
I think it is time for Wilson Audio to create a new and better look. You see this as negative, but it is not.
In Europe there are many people who think they are ugly. I think when they change the design it will create a positive vibe for their sales.
The same about using better drivers and tweeters. Speakers in this price range needs to be unique in design as well. They look bulky and that is not what you would like to see for a loudspeaker in this price range.
Nice to see @ bo1972 that you still are as empathetic as always with other peoples choices in gear. Always happy to hear what a good professional like yourself, with a completely open mind, has to say about other enthusiasts preferences. You are the BEST
Wilsons target consumer of a $650,000 speaker is not the hardcore audiophile---the type of person who would employ acoustical treatment in a room, but rather the "lifestyle" consumer. Guys like Fabio, whose Infinity IRS/Krell system was set-up in a room with marble floors and glass walls!
When I saw a picture of the $650,000 speakers in Wilson's living room without an ounce of room acoustical treatment, it told me everything I needed to know.
douglass, whew boy. upset at work or is it at home. first of all i have owned costly stereo gear in the past. meadowlark kestrals 2 , b and w's, etc. to be precise and have heard good audio. secondly i dont use the eq often, only on certain recordings and i do use a sub. my response is great down to 35 as measured with test discs. get off your horse son. i was making an observation that often posters express over the top audio faculties. if my modest set tube amp and full range drivers dont allow me to express my opinions then i guess trumpism has got to you too. obviously you are offended which in a way makes my day. cheers golden ears. fwiw, i grw up in a house with 2 grand pianos, concert harps etc. i have heard more live acoustic music in modest sized rooms than you could imagine so altho we dont all own 50K set ups we do know what music sounds like.
jmcgrogan25,564 posts01-09-2017 9:27pm@melbguy1 , shhhhhh David, this is serious stuff!! We are publicly psychoanalyzing Bo, and his obvious personality flaws. We
are right in the middle of deciding whether his overly zealous
personality more closely resembles a religious zealot or a creationist
zealot.
With no more interruptions, we should have this figured out in another few pages..... ;^)
"Hope is like the sun, which, as we journey toward it, casts the shadow of our burden behind us" - Samuel Smiles. The Umpire: the Creationists have it. Personally, I think Wilson has had too many puppies & should be put down!! :D
Ok back to Wilson. I like the Sasha’s a lot - not that they are the best speakers in the world but they are excellent hi-end speakers.
They are are much better than B&W IMHO! Sasha’s have few faults whereas B&W make some big fundamental errors as far as I am concerned.
And as for the latest and greatest - Wilson have seen countless latest and greatest fancy ceramic beryllium stuff come and go and no doubt there will be many more soon to be "has been" speakers promoted here - meanwhile Wilson will survive!
Frankly, most threads on this site have marginal usefulness in terms of practical system building. They often go off the rails, typically by someone making a religious or political derogatory comment. That diminishes the value of the discourse even more.
jmcgrogan2, correction; deciding whether he resembles a Darwinist zealot or religious/creationist zealot. :)
It's time to turn my attention to important things. Blessings to all.
@melbguy1 , shhhhhh David, this is serious stuff!! We are publicly psychoanalyzing Bo, and his obvious personality flaws. We are right in the middle of deciding whether his overly zealous personality more closely resembles a religious zealot or a creationist zealot.
With no more interruptions, we should have this figured out in another few pages..... ;^)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
