2. speakers
  3. 1335799250

Wilson Sasha vs. older Watt Puppies

Years ago I owned Watt Puppy 6s, and I sold them mainly because of some etch in the vocals that I just couldn't live with (and a bit of stridency in strings). But aside from that, I really loved them, especially the 3d staging and layering and a wonderful clear natural unforced bass, and they were not bright (or boomy).

Have the vocals and strings improved on the Sashas? Are the good qualities still there? Thanks.

(I quickly heard the Sashas at the NY show, and felt the stridency/etch issues were solved, but it was a short listen, and it wasn't enough for a thorough evaluation.)
rgs92
philjolet's avatar
philjolet
2,306 posts
 
these speakers were recently discussed

check the archives a few weeks back
jfrech's avatar
jfrech
1,816 posts
 
Rgs92, while your question has likely been asked before, it is ok to ask again.

I had wp 6's, went to 8's, then maxx 3's...the 8's go a long way, the sasha's nearly are perfect in comparison. You wont be disappointed, trust what you have heard so far with your ears...
gpgr4blu
1,078 posts
 
The Sasha has a much more natural presentation than the 6s which were clinical by comparison. The etch is gone unless your source transmits it.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,633 posts
 
The older Watts did indeed tend to have a brightness unless you were careful about your amplification. They worked much better with tubes in that regard than solid state, due to the way the resonance in the tweeter was controlled.

The Sasha however is quite impressive, and a lot easier to drive with tubes than its low impedance at 80Hz (or thereabouts) would make you think :)
p59teitel
312 posts
 
I found the Sashas to be an excellent speaker when I auditioned them, and might well have bought them but for my very lively room.
More to discover