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?

128x128crazyeddy
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.
Post removed 
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?
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.

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.