My apologies_Upgrade path from Wilson WattPuppy 7's?

Sorry Cap for your always shilling could it be after looking at Gerry's long laundry list of issues with the Wilson's that he has been looking at that someone should offer other advice rather then pounding the same dead cat.

Look at his observations:

1. Vandersteen Quatro CT's: Tremendously great speakers, especially for rock and jazz - not as good for strings (orchestral) - this could be related to improper placement and setup;
   
2. Wilson Yvettes: Great speakers, greater frequency range but less analytical than my WPs. Seem too expensive for what they provide, even at a demo price;
3. Wilson Audio MAXX3: Spectacular speakers, too much for my room;
4. Wilson Sasha 1: Actually sound somewhat better for violin, viola, and cello than my WP7's, even if they still contain the $7 tweeter!
5. Wilson Sabrina: Lack proper reproduction of cello in the low midrange - good speakers, but not for me;
6. Wilson Audio Alexia 1: Great, but I do not believe in this theory of time domain compensation or whatever it is called. Not as good in my room as either the MAXX3's, Sasha 1's or WP7's;
7. Wilson Audio Alexia 2: Fantastic. Not as good in my room as either the Sasha 1's or the Yvette.

If you read that does it seem that Gerry is convinced and totally in love with everything that he is hearing?

Cap, way too many audiophiles have the same experience that they are fiercely loyal to a brand and the product that they purchased, instead of looking at this objectively, we all want to love the products we purchased, but with that being said these are all tools, if you find a better one you move  out the old and in with the new and the market is always in flux.

When Wilson started Magico, Radiho, Rockport, Magico and YG as well as many others didn't exist. Wilson and to some extent Focal and then Avalon were the best speakers on the market.

If you noticed we did say the Wilsons sound good and are well constructed. The issue with many Wilson products is there ever increasing upward movement in cost and always coming out with a new model. 

You might actually find that  a disenting voice teaches you way more than another voice that agrees with what you allready like. 

Next time you are at an audio show, and Legacy is showing, listen to the Aeris and then see for yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ

http://pbnaudio.com/speakers/m2-5-loudspeaker


From its maker

Good Listening


Peter

I concurr - clearly Wilson is not going to take the OP to the next level of enjoyment. I would try Focal - similar bass heavy sound but better driver integration, IMHO. Alternatively, ATC are good at low mid range - in fact most speakers with a critically damped bass will do better at low mids than Wilson, Focal or B&W or any of the ported bass extended designs which all tend to "hum" in the deep LF and mask the lower mid range details.

Regarding the degree to which the OP’s MC275 VI may be a less than optimal match for Wilson speakers, while I have no directly relevant experience I suspect the reason some consider that to be a significant issue is in most cases NOT related to the current or drive capability of the amp. Rather, I suspect that in many cases people simply prefer the sonics of other amplifiers to those of the 275, when used with Wilson speakers.

The reason I say that is that the 275 has a much lower effective output impedance than the great majority of other high quality tube amps, and hence it will come closer than most tube amps to behaving like a comparably powerful solid state amp when driving a speaker having difficult impedance characteristics, and/or impedances which vary significantly over the frequency range.

Specifically, Stereophile measured the output impedance of the MC275 V as being only 0.33 ohms from its 4 ohm tap. And I suspect that the corresponding figure for the OP’s MC275 VI is even lower, as the damping factor of the V was specified as ">14," while being ">22" for the VI. (Damping factor and output impedance are inversely proportional). Consequently, the amp will come very close to doubling power delivery into halved load impedances, as long as its maximum power capability is not exceeded.

That all seems consistent, btw, with what the OP seemed to be alluding to when he referred to the measurements his EE friend had made.

Regards,
-- Al

Ken Kantor of NHT designed Stereophile’s "simulated loudspeaker load" network for them to use for their tests, as a copy of what NHT’s speakers load an amp like.

This (the grey trace) is the McIntosh 275’s effective frequency response into that "simulated speaker load) load, (it’s acting like a tone control)
https://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1010Macfig03.jpg

Now everyone here who knows their speakers, knows that the Wilson 7’s would be a far worse load than the simulated "NHT" load, have a look at any floor standing NHT load graph compared to the Wilson 7's. 
So it’s safe to say that the Mac 275’s frequency response into a "Wilson 7’s simulated load" would look even more awful than the NHT’s

Sorry Gerry, but it should be clear to most here now, that the Mac 275 is far from the ideal amp for the Wilson 7’s, unless you like listening to a tone control as an amp.

Cheers George