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

I listen to primarily rock and Wilsons never impressed me. No, I do not crank to 11 some JBL and rock is actually challenging for many speakers. Much easier to voice for high quality vocal with couple of instruments than to less than stellar recording of Zeppelin.

And they don’t seem to measure particularly well either. No matter what but $40K speaker MUST measure well.

@OP. Mr Colloms has long been a fan of Naim equipment. As you can see in the review, he started listening to the W/P with his Naim 250 but couldn't drive them with it. If you are familiar with Naim type sound it will explain why Mr Collom's was slightly critical of the W/P on rock music. Aewarren above has summed up why.

@aewarren 

Too refined for rock music? What does that actually mean? To me "too refined" means dynamically limited, amd Martin says that's not the case, hence the contradiction.

$40k loudspeaker should be able to play all music well, maybe some types better than other but should still be enjoyable with anything played on them