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
rcprince
3,074 posts
 

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.

dlcockrum's avatar
dlcockrum
2,190 posts
 
Depth of soundstage should vary with each recording according to the venue and recording techniques of the recording itself, single mike recordings usually giving the best illusion of accurate spatial imaging of the actual performance.

Depth of individual performers and or instruments should have clearly identifiable spatial locations representing the actual spacing of each in relationship to the other, providing the recording/mastering captures this information.

If a system does so, it is not due to some frequency anomaly, but an indicator of reproduction accuracy and largely dependent on the time coherence of the speakers.

If depth and spatial information is consistent from recording to recording, then the system is creating the illusion of depth through distortions, whether engineered into the equipment intentionally or not.

Accurate reproduction of depth is as important to listener involvement as accurate lateral reproduction (stereo imaging), IMO.  

Dave
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,976 posts
 
dlcockrum
... single mike recordings usually giving the best illusion of accurate spatial imaging of the actual performance
How can you capture depth with just a single microphone? Do you actually think monophonic recordings have better "spatial imaging" than a good stereo - or binaural - recording?
jetter
3,039 posts
 

Thank you for your above discussions regarding the creation of a 3d image, as this is a subject of interest to me.



dlcockrum's avatar
dlcockrum
2,190 posts
 
Single mike recording is not the same thing as monophonic playback, which blends the lateral information into a single source of sound.

One microphone captures the spatial information (distances from the microphone) most accurately if done correctly, vs multi-mike recording where the mixing/mastering engineer (hopefully) blends multiple microphone tracks to simulate correct placement of the instruments (this is called "mixing"), too often using artificial reverb or other techniques to do so.

Try Cowboy Junkies, "The Trinity Session" to see what I mean. A single-miked live recording (using only a Calrec Ambisonic microphone and mastered but not mixed), yet anything but monaural. If your system does not demonstrate the effects of what I am describing, it is not reproducing depth and spatial information very well. How important or even whether this is important at all to an individual listener is not the subject of my posts.

Another great test is the Opus 3 Test Record 1: Depth of Image (CD 7900) and also available on LP IIRC.

Dave
More to discover