i think some of this might stem from wilsons interview of his philosphy on system design in a rencent absolute sound (ie wilson speakers with a ipod.. more $$$$ on speakers and less on source)... and ivor from linn in the other corner saying the source is the most important...( i look for balance)
in regard to "challenge" that is mentioned in this post, i dont think it is relevant...
b
wether a speaker is "better" than another is really system dependant, room dependant, personal preference, and synergy. I have heard some really $$$ systems(highly regarded gear) sound like crap because of poor matching and/or setup. in fact, some of the best systems (musicality)have been of extermely modest gear but the utmost care taken in the setup (stereo salesman systems... which means they get to try out a WIDE range of gear and find out what sounds best in that system/enviorment)
in regards to the purchase of wilson speakers, i think you are blessed to afford them. which means you have a wide range to chose from - to say they are the end all/be all is a bit newbie (neophyte) position. when it comes to cost no barred, i love the joesph pearl, the big dali's, big maggies, circes(all beyond my reach and room). the reason i like the above mentioned is the way they present music, not because some of them cost more than my $8k retail audio physic libra's ( very good speaker btw)
keep in mind wilson's are out of reach of most audiophile (the most speakers sold are vandersteens or maggies).
i think most philes that buy wilson(or at that $$$ level):
-like the wilson house sound
-very experienced(keep in mind, high end audio is a sickness ( a dog that chases it tale).. there is a lot of buying, selling, swapping of gear and cables that is endless)
