2. speakers
  3. 192666-406

Stereophile review of the new Wilson Watt/Puppy

I received my copy of the latest Stereophile yesterday and was curious to see what Martin Collums had to say about them, even though I would take it with a grain of salt, knowing that he had owned them in the past. He's still one of the reviewers that I consider to be most technically informed and balanced in his reviews.

I'm starting this thread because I want to know if others found his conclusions as confusing as I did. He says that the speakers have deep powerful bass, great detail, wonderful dynamic range, and are able to play very loud without breakup. 

However, after all of that, he concludes that they are better for jazz and orchestral and perhaps a bit reticent for pop and rock. This made no sense to me, especially for a $40.000 speaker. I am curious about the opinions of anyone else who has read the review. 

128x128roxy54
upstateaudiophile
36 posts
 

@yesiam_a_pirate I’ll have to give them a listen then. I still just cannot believe how good Wilson’s sound. To me it was a religious experience compared to what I went in set to buy (BandW 803 d4). 

gs5556
1,236 posts
 

Did the reviewer use the word "reticent"?  Because it means the speaker is restrained or holding back when it comes to pop and rock, as compared to jazz and orchestral. 

Doesn't make sense to me either as orchestral has a much wider dynamic range than pop or rock.

ritter06
39 posts
 

I listened to the V’s and WWP back to back- both sounded great. I would be happy with either but on that day the WWP’s sounded “better” (different rooms- but both nothing special btw- glass, open sided with no treatment ). 

YMMV

aewarren
664 posts
 

Too refined for rock music.

daledeee1's avatar
daledeee1
585 posts
 

I can't afford them but remember what a stir they made when they came out, and maybe $10,000.  I thought Sasha Daw was the replacement for WP. Out of the loop.

More to discover