How can Wilson Audio speakers sound that good if they are using OEM drivers?


How can Wilson Speaker sound that good if they are using OEM drivers made of last century materials? B&W used Kevlar and now Continuum, after a lot of R&D. Magico uses Graphane which is the new Carbon Fiber. 
Would a Wilson Speaker sound better if somehow one could put a B&W midrange Continuum driver instead of the OEM paper driver they use?
128x128gonzalo_oxenford
or in a midrnge driver frame, magnet, and structure that reflect back 70% of wave...right thru the cone.....

i recall somebodys patent expiring.....

lots of engineers talk a good. game about system engineering.....i know these things on beasts with over a million parts.....

and have been humbled....
Honestly, this is a really funny, but fascinating thread.

Not too long ago, a poster asked why do so many conversations devolve into technology, this post is all about technology, but only superficially. The OP assumes there are absolute improvements in driver performance given strictly by the materials.

So, the answer in my mind is in at least these dimensions:

  1. The goal of the designer of the speaker
  2. The complete performance envelope of a driver is far greater than merely it's material. There are good Be tweeters, and terrible Be tweeters.

So this puts me in an interesting position of answering the OP's question. I'm not a Wilson fan, and yet I am a fan of some of the components they use. The mid-woofer in general is often ScanSpeak, of which I own, and I rank them as superb components. Do I like how they go together in a Wilson? Meh. I think they are OK, but not worth the cost.

Do I think B&W (after Matrix) is all that? Not really.

So, Gonzalo, honestly, I think that you would be well served by making your own pair of speakers. Why don't you find a good kit from Meniscus or Parts Express or Madisound and build your own? I think you would learn a great deal more that way than via this forum alone.

This is actually good advice for all audiophiles: At least once in your life, build your own speakers.

Best,


E

The comparison between Wilson and Vandersteen speaker designs is an interesting one. Richard has designed and now makes some of his own unique, groundbreaking drivers (using balsa wood, a brilliant idea imo), and uses all 1st-order x/o slopes---he is a proponent of phase-coherency in speakers (whether 1st-order filters remain phase-coherent away from the x/o frequencies is an issue of some debate). Dave has drivers made to his specs---making changes to OEM models, and his drivers are, as tomic601 mentions above, wired in opposing polarity (as they are in many other, if not most, speakers). Each also has his own idea of the best way to deal with enclosure issues. (As a long-time fan of planars, I find it amusing the amount of effort is takes to get dynamic speakers to do what planars do inherently. Of course, planars are not without their inherent shortcomings.)

For years, Vandersteen offered only the Models 1, 2, and 3, priced well below Wilson’s products. There were some dealers selling both brands, Vandersteen’s to those of, shall we say, more modest means, Wilsons to the more affluent. But there were (and are) people who can afford Wilsons, but prefer Vandersteens.

With the introduction Model 5, Vandersteen was now in direct competition with Wilson in price. The two men’s designs sound very different; some find Vandersteens slightly warm, soft, and veiled, others Wilsons too bright and analytical. But a dealer selling both faces a dilemma---which does he "push". I know, I know, a product should sell itself; let the customer hear both, and decide for himself. But here’s a little secret (already known to some here): the more product of a company a dealer sells, the more of a "preferred" dealer is he by that company. If a dealer sells $500,000 of Wilsons and $500,000 of Vandersteens a year, he is less valued by each company that he would be if he sold $1,000,000 of either of them.

I had (R.I.P.) a well-known dealer friend who sold both, but told Richard he didn’t want to stock, audition, and sell the upper-priced Vandersteens, only the Models 1, 2, and 3. (The reason being he wanted to reserve the higher-priced range for Wilsons). Richard wouldn’t agree to that (I wouldn’t either), and the dealer and Vandersteen parted ways. I thought the dealer was making a huge mistake, but it was his store, and he was a very strong-headed and opinionated guy. He did sell two planars---Quads for ESL enthusiasts, Eminent Technology as his magnetic-planar choice. It was he who hipped me to the superiority of the ET push-pull driver over the single-ended Magnepan.

My 1977 JBL Century's still kick ass after 41 years.  The first 30 years were driven hard by a Pioneer SA9900.  My 1986 German made Yamaha NS200ma speakers with titanium highs and mids and carbon fiber woofers still sound fantastic.  1994 Polk LS50's are still terrific.  I think older technology is fine as long as the quality and engineering is first rate.
Loudspeakers are the sum of there parts and design not the sum of the materials used in it. Carbon nano tube research on them shows they may be carcinogenic since carbon tubes are nano sized they easily penetrate skin and cell walls. B&W is also bragging about using plywood in the new cabinets over MDF talk about modern. If modern materials were the end all be all in sound quality why do so many embrace old designs? Why are we still even using any loudspeakers with paper, wood, alnico, aluminum, F.C,. ferrites,carbon fiber or rare earths these are all so last century.