Wilson Speakers & Reviewers

I've auditioned virtually every high end speaker available in the US market over the past 20 years--and some have come close to the overall Wilson presentation for me for various reasons (Eggleston, Rockport, KEF, Revel, Vandersteen, YG, Lawrence Audio, Raidho) and others have proven superior to me (MBL) but require a much bigger investment in ancillary equipment to be driven properly.
However, I'm with other writers who utilize Wilson as their reference in addition to those mentioned above like Jacob Heilbrunn, Jason Victor Serinus, Edgar Kramer, Anthony Cordesman (one of 2 references) and manufacturers like Audio Research and Dan D'Agostino both of whom used Wilsons to voice their equipment (although ARC currently uses mainly Sonus Faber for obvious reasons ). Wilsons are by no means everyone's favorite and I understand the reasons why anyone could prefer any of the above brands and many more. BUT--they are a popular choice in the high end among audio reviewers and the buying public and like all popular choices, they will be subject to sometimes intense criticism by those who prefer other brands. That's life.  

Cordesman, for several years now, said that Legacy are the best speakers he’s heard. And never mentions his references, so we don’t know what he’s using.

Kramer is not U.S./Canadian based -the area (of reviewers) I was referring to. But we can add Serinus and Heilbrunn to the two I mentioned. So that’s 4 out of about 150.

But even here, were Wilson’s ever good ? Didn’t Fremer last year say the Alexx was "easily the best" they ever made ? That means all before were "easily the worse".

That means Heilbrunn, Serinus and Fremer suffered for years WITHOUT KNOWING until the Alexx !!

And that was my situation. As WP-6 owner, *I* didn’t know they were sub-par, in sound. Until I heard other systems (carefully) that opened my mind. Usually in high-end, if someone doesn’t own a brand you have, they say, "don’t own ’em. but they get good reports and (maybe) sounded good at a few shows", etc.

But Wilson is one of a few brands (in the history of high-end) to have detractors. Zu did early on too, with their deviances from tonal neutrality. But there aren’t many others.

Finally, things change. In the current ’buzz’, horns, waveguides and Tekton are hot right now. Any cone-speaker of the past -not just Wilson, are an endangered species, IMO.

     I had WP 8 for a couple years.  Set up was CRITICAL, when they say every 1/2" counts they mean it.  I also found that I needed "mellow" equipment and cables to counter the dynamic, forward presentation.  They could be considered bright with bad silver cables and edgy gear.  Once all of the appropriate ancillaries were in place I found that music was dynamic, detailed and fun to listen to.  They had great imaging and pretty good depth.  Music was nicely detached from the speakers.  I never tried them with tubes, but I think they would have been really nice.  I loved them for a couple years, but I came to the conclusion that they were too forward (un-natural) in the presentation.  I switched to a Magico S5M1 which resolves a little more detail, sounds more neutral (to me) and are much easier to set up, but they don't have the dynamic slam of the WP8s even with the 10" woofers vs the 8".
     

@firefightingrob - That's kind of my experience with Magico speakers as well.  My local dealer sells Mac, Wilson, Linn, Magico, Sonus Faber, Meridian, Wisdom, Maggies, Martin Logan, Totem, and MBL so comparisons are fairly easy to do (albeit in different rooms).  Magicos (I believe I've only demo'd the Q3 and Q5, no S series) IME do nothing wrong - they seem very neutral and balanced, and do most everything very well.  I think they may be too neutral for me, and seem to lack some of the excitement I get from my Wilsons, though I could live happily with them - out of my price range however.  I've listened to most if not all of the W/P iterations except the 8, so I really can't opine on that particular model, but your description pretty much agrees with what I hear from the 7s.  My Sophias are less dynamic than W/Ps, but more balanced and not *as* forward to my ears, and not quite as critical for setup.  I've lived with mine for 8 years now, and remain happy with them. 

Unlike some, I don't suffer from audiophilia nervosa, and as long as I'm happy with how my system sounds - which I am, I feel no compelling need to change it (well, after 20 years with my 802s I did feel a bit of itch...).  Nor do I worry that "I could be missing out on the Grail", that *true* audio Nirvana is just one more change, one more tweak, more _____ away.  That pathway, IME, never leads to satisfaction.  

IMO, when it comes to speakers, you can get *objectively* better speakers up to a point, but once you achieve full range performance, relatively flat frequency response, with real life SPL capability, then "different" is really what you get with different brands and technologies, and "better" becomes entirely subjective. I've never met a dipole I could live with long term, for example (even the Radialstrahler mbl 101 X-treme - though my God what dynamics!!! - for a measly $250K last time demo'd them), yet many feel only a dipole can sound realistic, while they sound unrealistic to me.  I'm right...and they are right.

I really  have no idea why some folks feel compelled to be either rampant fanboys, or haters, of specific brands (ok, well, maybe Bose), and refuse to accept that an individual's preference is inviolable, and requires no external justification.  Oh well, happy listening with your Magicos!

Wow;

it it sounds like a “Ford vs Chevy” debate, minus the beer( maybe not?)

You all have interesting perspectives 

Some more viament than others

     I do tend to agree...once you get full range and relatively flat freq........it becomes a preference
     I also think marketing is a big part of it, to

Merry christmas 
( we just a finished 8” snowstorm)