I thought if I jump into a thread entitled "Wilson Audio Haters", by page 4 it would diverge into something very weird & convoluted, and the first post I read was about Darwinism and morphing DNA, lol!! :D
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
Shadorne, as you might guess I differ in my assessment of the purported success of Darwinism. Of course, jumping DNA doesn't work when there is no DNA to work with; there is not even close to a reasonable hypothesis of how DNA got here! The jumping DNA does nothing to resolve the problem of information and Origins. It's a sideshow, a distraction from admitting the failure of the theory. I do not intend on drawing out my discussion of this; I respect your and Randy's positions. My primary point is as that made by dlcockrum, what does this have to do with Wilson Speakers? I find that often threads are hijacked for purposes of getting some licks in on one's ideological opponents. |
Douglas, Darwin clearly has it mostly right. However there is more to it. I can’t explain here but in essence Darwin does explain much of what we see however there are surprising things we have only recently leaned about with viruses and DNA causing DNA to jump species. The extra element goes a long way in addressing the obvious short comings of Darwin. just like Newtons laws worked well for most cases, Einstein fleshed out the theory further. I am not sure who will be credited with new evolutionary theories that extend Darwinism but I came up with novel concepts about 40 years ago to flesh out Darwinism and so far my hypotheses have been correct! |
Randy, as a religious person I see bo1972's behavior and character as being more in line with Darwinists who attempt to dictate what "reality" is based on low confidence science subject to assumptions and bias. If you would like to read more about the distinction between low confidence and high confidence evidence for Darwinism, take a look at the book The Science of Evolution by Rob Stadler. Like a paleontologist putting bones together bo1972 is putting some systems together and making sweeping declarations as though he has technological Truth. That is why he sounds like a zealot; he is convinced that from his observations he has Truth, so he figures he can dictate to others - purportedly for their own benefit, of course (It certainly could not be that he might benefit as a dealer!) reality as he sees it. No religious element needed just belief in his low level of "scientific" approach to audio! That supposed knowledge, or "Truth", of a quasi-scientific nature can make non-religious people as pompous and arrogant, dismissive of others as any religious person. So, there you have it, we see things quite differently, but I strongly agree with you that bo1972's intolerance of others' methods and relentless self-promotion as a dealer are offensive and uncalled for. |
| Post removed |
"People over here don’t know me".....You are correct. All we know about you is what we can glean from your posts. You come across as pompous and arrogant. You remind me of so many religious types I have met in my life. They/you have found religious truth but you think YOUR way of finding truth is the ONLY way. You are intolerant and dismissive of others who have found the "truth" through different methods....or who don’t see the "truth" exactly as you define it. You would do better to sound less like a zealot preacher. You are welcome to share your opinions and tastes but once you start trying to impose them on others and denigrating others who don’t share your beliefs, you lose credibility and start to be annoying. |
| Post removed |
People overhere don’t know me. It is always funny to see what systems people own. This says it all; when they would have been able to think in properties they would have known that their system is not the best combination. I have to laugh a lot when I see the pictures, people think they understand how to create an audio system. They really don’t understand how to create it. Because their system has been created by trial and error. This way it is a fact that their system is based on audiogambling. And again I write something you don’t want to read or believe. There it is again:) What do you want to believe; the truth or the thing you would like to hear? For you all audio is a hobby. For me it is a part of who I am. It is my second nature en I can proof by sound that I can see 3-4 steps further than any other person can. I can create emotion at the highest level. You will know soon, then you may talk:) |
I think a lot of people want to believe that they chose the "BEST" because of how much they spent for it and want to feel justified in the decision. People also like to complete and want to own the very best of everything. The wonderful news is that there is a ton of BEST equipment out there and we all like something just a bit different. Would be a boring world if we all liked the exact same thing. That said I think people start quoting FACTS to support their own opinions believing that their opinions = facts so that's where things usually get out of control. Hopefully we can all realize we are ALL right and just have fun with our hobby listening to music and sharing our experiences with each other. |
It is very simple; in my world audio is all about the best products in each price range and it is all about creating the best sound possible. I love outperforming and I always want to win. 2nd best is for losers. I don't like people who have no respect for their clients. And in audio this is what you see these days a lot. We have done a lot of research in creating new systems and modifications. But also is working at a much higher level of precision. I can garantee that this brings audio to a level you even don't know at this moment Now you see it as words, but soon you will know Dave that what I wrote is exactly where I was taking about. And then we will talk again..... |
I don't hate Wilson or any other brand. As a perfectionist and music lover I want brands to work harder and to create better quality for their clients. Wilson could use better drivers, tweeters, materials and techniques. This will make the level of their speakers better. Even the people who don't like them now could like them at the end. When you really want the best for the people who buy your products, you will give them more value for money. Each single person can make this decision.........when he (or she) wants to. |
You are right, people don't want to see the truth. Life is all about personal needs. When it influences the people who create this forum they will delete it. So again; what do you want to hear? The truth or the thing you would like to hear? The great thing about audio is that the best quality is shown by the best sound. Any kind of review cannot change this. |
| Post removed |
I don't hate Wilson speakers, I just don't like them. They don't make their own drivers, they don't design the crossover as they hire an engineer to do it, the outside of the speaker looks like the side of a car and they sound very dry. They are also extremely over priced for a company that can't even make their own drivers. Yes, I have heard them all over the place, at shows, dealers, and before I even know what they are I'm already walking away. So much better out there for a lot less money. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Advertising is no problem, because this is a free choice for each company to use or not. But.....the problems occurs when personal benefit colours the real truth about a review. The magazines know they do it like the manufacturers who pay for it know it. They both need to look further. I know this is not the easiest way. But I can garantee that this is the only way when you want the audio market to be healty and still interested for customers over 10 years and later. Personal benefit is based on greed. This is short time policy and cost the least energy. There is still time to learn and do it better. Each single person can change it when they want to. So it is up to you! |
In the end, if I was a speaker manufacturer I would so whatever possible, legally, to make it as successful as possible. Doesn't seem unusual in any way, including Stereophile being bias (assumption) towards those that provide the most towards their own livelihood. What would be unusual would be any other outcome. |
Erik, Heavy advertising is true for most of the big names in hi-fi gear - Wilson is just normal. Very few companies refuse to advertise (ATC for example). For sure if you don’t advertise in magazines then you will not be reviewed as often and sales are by word of mouth. After all the audio rags are in business to make a profit by promoting stuff. Few companies have products that are so good that they don't need to run ads and even those that don't run ads need to demo their latest products at the big Audio product shows (which is self promotion). |
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Place full page ads every month and who knows what other benefits you give the reviewers and it's easy to imagine that all the reviews turn one way. The last time I picked up a TAS it had a review for the Wilson bookshelf and it looked and read like a glossy brochure. Multilple full-page, full-color pictures did not come cheaply. But like anything else, buy what you like. If you like Wilson then that's the place you should spend your money. Best, E |
| Post removed |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 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! |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 ;-). |
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 |
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 ;) |
<< 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. |
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. |
