Wilson Watt 3/Puppy 2 Loudspeaker

@audiotroy 

From 56,000.00 to 9000.00? Seriously?

If you'd slow down when you type and proof read what you wrote, you'd be much better for it. Even the for sale ads you post read like they were written by a six year old.

I wouldn't buy them. They will have great lows and quite a bit of punch but no high end articulation. Like other reviewers, I'm not dead yet and I owned a pair of fives, I would also say that a pair of 13 to $16,000 loudspeakers could easily out match them.

@yoyoyaya @mesonto Thank you for pointing out the fault of mid-treble / treble region, which corresponds well to the hum bet. 10k-20khz shown in the Stereophile measurements below.

Vertically, the WATT was perhaps best-balanced with the listener’s ears at or just above the tweeter axis; ie, some 37" from the floor. Above that, a peak in the mid-treble can be heard; sit so you are at WATT woofer level and the midrange becomes very peaky.

So, even the discounted price which I did not disclose before is below $3k, are you still not recommending it? Can the birghtness possibly be toned down using warmer sounding preamp / amp?  I am thinking biamping them using SET / lower wattage class A since WATT is relatively efficient (91dB/w-m).

@lanx0003

For 3K providing the crossover inside them is still in great condition (but these are really old) they will still have a less than stellar upper range. (there is just no way these speakers will be 'bright') 

And please remember that the chart from Stereophile is from a new pair of speakers fairly fresh off the line.

Let's be honest, the new speaker technology is just better a few decades down the road, especial with the upper range and detail. It was always fairly easy to do the mid/low ranges. 

Ozzy typo from 5k to 9k