2. speakers
  3. 127554-78931

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
erik_squires
16,395 posts
 
<< 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.

deadlyvj
66 posts
 
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 ;)
dlcockrum's avatar
dlcockrum
2,190 posts
 
"Where is the Audiogon knowledge base.."

Lots of good knowledge here. Look deeper, even above on this very page, excepting one.

Dave
erik_squires
16,395 posts
 
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
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,956 posts
 

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 ;-).

More to discover