Wilson Watt 3/Puppy 2 Loudspeaker

No one left to offer a review, all Wilson Watt Puppy people arew dead or too old to care. Theres no one left on this site , mostly just clueless MP3 listeners that are fully content with there awesome bluetooth speaker. :-(

i owned both the Wp threes and fives great loudspeakers in their day however a new loudspeaker  from 56k to 9k will outperform them

@OP They are still good speakers in many respects, particularly in bass punch and articulation. However, they were always bright sounding. If buying used, be aware that the bass units used a foam surround which is prone to deterioration with age.

@audiotroy 

From 56,000.00 to 9000.00? Seriously?

If you'd slow down when you type and proof read what you wrote, you'd be much better for it. Even the for sale ads you post read like they were written by a six year old.

I wouldn't buy them. They will have great lows and quite a bit of punch but no high end articulation. Like other reviewers, I'm not dead yet and I owned a pair of fives, I would also say that a pair of 13 to $16,000 loudspeakers could easily out match them.

@yoyoyaya @mesonto Thank you for pointing out the fault of mid-treble / treble region, which corresponds well to the hum bet. 10k-20khz shown in the Stereophile measurements below.

Vertically, the WATT was perhaps best-balanced with the listener’s ears at or just above the tweeter axis; ie, some 37" from the floor. Above that, a peak in the mid-treble can be heard; sit so you are at WATT woofer level and the midrange becomes very peaky.

So, even the discounted price which I did not disclose before is below $3k, are you still not recommending it? Can the birghtness possibly be toned down using warmer sounding preamp / amp?  I am thinking biamping them using SET / lower wattage class A since WATT is relatively efficient (91dB/w-m).

@lanx0003

For 3K providing the crossover inside them is still in great condition (but these are really old) they will still have a less than stellar upper range. (there is just no way these speakers will be 'bright') 

And please remember that the chart from Stereophile is from a new pair of speakers fairly fresh off the line.

Let's be honest, the new speaker technology is just better a few decades down the road, especial with the upper range and detail. It was always fairly easy to do the mid/low ranges. 

Ozzy typo from 5k to 9k

@ozzy62 Audiotroy is still recovering from the effects of a stroke. He continues to share his extensive knowledge & experience with the audio community. Our passion for music is why we’re all here.

I apologize, I was not aware of that.

op at 3k or below that is worth however we have rebuilt wp and you will need to re-foam or replace the four woofers and will probably need to purchase new diffraction foam from Wilson so you will need to spend a decent amount of time and money to referb them 1500 would be my purchase price

also be aware that the original tweeters are discontinued and maybe impossible to source

so unless you are considering the time and expense involved and lack of replacement tweeters I would look for a pair of focal arias plus a sub for a similar but superior sounding serviceable set of loudspeakers

Dave and Troy

audio intellect NJ

If you can scoop them up for a couple grand or so for the pair, and they're in exceptional condition, yes, go for it.  Don't worry, with the right associated equipment and cabling, those babies will sing like a bird.  Happy listening.

The WP3 would make a good mailbox if didn't have the angle. The first I heard was the WP6 and remember hearing the 8 and was impressed with the major advancement at the time. 

I had a pair of Cubs that I miss dearly, one of the best nearfields I've owned. What makes Wilson a legend is the way they tune their products and construction quality, matched components, etc. Lot's of opinions but speakers are perhaps the most subjective part of a sound system.

@OP At $3k, provided all the drivers are in perfect condition, they are a bargain. but you need to listen to them properly set up to see if they are for you. Forget about trying to use SET amps with them - they need an amp with a big psu and lots of current. You can never go by a speakers' efficiency numbers without relating it to its EPDR. Wilsons and B&Ws are two examples of nominally efficient speakers that do not work with low power/low current amplifiers.

JA's measurements indicate that the speaker and its designer were incompetent in 1991. I wouldn't touch it with a 20ft pole. Let it die and buy something newer.

@deep_333,  Dave Wilson was far from incompetent.  At the time, the Watt/puppy was one of the best high end speakers available.  You should be tarred and feathered for your insult to Dave Wilson. 

@deep_333, Dave Wilson was far from incompetent. At the time, the Watt/puppy was one of the best high end speakers available. You should be tarred and feathered for your insult to Dave Wilson.

Well, the speaker’s measurement indeed looks like a guy with a zoology degree tried to engineer them. His rambunctious fans are learning some hard truths today, it appears.. thanks to John Atkinson’s measurements.

After 2 years at American River Junior College, he transferred to Brigham Young University starting in 1964, where he obtained a bachelor’s degree in zoology and chemistry. It was at BYU he would me

Wilson claims to stock replacement drivers for all their products, new and old. No clue what they would cost.  

Ditto on the amplifier comment. Need something that swings some juice. If you are going to refresh the old watt/puppies and need a corresponding price point amp, look at new or used amps by Odyssey. While solid state, they tend to be biased for a more tubelike presentation that should mate well with those tweeters, especially if you replace them. 

I am driving a pair of (admittedly much newer) Wilson’s out of their watt/puppy lineage using Odyssey monoblocks. The result is so good I have so far resisted the temptation to spend huge money on replacement amps. 
 

@yoyoyaya As you may know, the efficiency was used to be measured based off a single tone at 1khz via industrial standard. Multi-tone test based efficiency was available through individual sources though. You are right, even looking at the raw impedance chart, the impedance drops down to 1.75 ohm at approximately 2.5khz. JA also commented:

"While this will not present pedigree solid-state amplifiers with any drive problems, tube designs are best avoided given the overall low impedance above 150Hz."

@dishman442 Thank you for the Odyssey mono recommendation. I will look into it.

Older woofers can be retaped. A friend of mine bought a set of puppies that had just been retaped… they sound great. Not expensive to have done at all.

dishman442

Wilson sadly does not stock all legacy drivers. My Cubs had Focal tweeters (inverted dome) which suffered surround rot. I could not get replacements from Wilson or Focal.

I’m going to give a different spin of an answer.

I will harmonize with @deep_333 that this is not a good loudspeaker by today’s standards.  There are many modern speakers at this price point that will sound better.  It is a product of the time when time alignment using a sloped cabinet was a fad.  Designers had to make serious design compromises to make these designs work.  The measurements suggest this speaker is room and placement sensitive.

Reasons to consider it?  (Provided the drivers are in good shape)

1.  You want to own a piece of audio history.  It’s a definite conversation piece.

2.  You primarily listen to rock or metal, or otherwise like an exaggerated bass punch.  (The bump in bass output centered around 100 Hz is a known to be perceived as bass punch.)

I was referring to the 'bass punch' as the mid-bass boost for low-end extension, which is quite common in modern speaker designs. If done well, it doesn’t bother me. However, I’ve made up my mind not to pursue the W/P 3/2. With an additional $2-3k, I believe I can acquire my ideal, near end-game speakers that I want for retirement in five years.

Thank you all for offering such thoughtful opinions.