• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 363 58.7%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 186 30.1%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 44 7.1%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 25 4.0%

  • Total voters
    618

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,200
Likes
11,817
Poor value for money isn't an objective criteria. Value judgments are subjective. You can rate value for money on any set of values you like. It could be performance against measured criteria, or it could be aesthetics (or something else). People often get confused because they value the former (an objective measurement) versus the latter (a subjective response) and assume that their value judgment itself also is objective. But the choice of what to value is inherently subjective, there is no escaping that.

The choice to value, say, a high Olive score based on Klippel measurement is fairly common here. Measured against that criteria the TuneTots have lower value for money that an equivalent or cheaper Genelec one series. But if you value particular visual aesthetics and/or haptics you may come up with a different result. For people who find the Genelec aesthetics unacceptable, then the value for money result is different.

These are hypothetical—albeit common—values, not mine specifically (I don't rule out Genelec one series due to aesthetics, for example). I'm simply commenting on the frequent mistake people make when invoking value for money. It always depends on what values you are comparing.

Yep! :)
 

rkt31

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
60
Likes
37
Poor value for money isn't an objective criteria. Value judgments are subjective. You can rate value for money on any set of values you like. It could be performance against measured criteria, or it could be aesthetics (or something else). People often get confused because they value the former (an objective measurement) versus the latter (a subjective response) and assume that their value judgment itself also is objective. But the choice of what to value is inherently subjective, there is no escaping that.

The choice to value, say, a high Olive score based on Klippel measurement is fairly common here. Measured against that criteria the TuneTots have lower value for money that an equivalent or cheaper Genelec one series. But if you value particular visual aesthetics and/or haptics you may come up with a different result. For people who find the Genelec aesthetics unacceptable, then the value for money result is different.

These are hypothetical—albeit common—values, not mine specifically (I don't rule out Genelec one series due to aesthetics, for example). I'm simply commenting on the frequent mistake people make when invoking value for money. It always depends on what values you are comparing.
So Wilson is known more for aesthetics than sound ? Do they advertise aesthetics more than sound ? :p Tell me a single speaker brand which boasts about aesthetics more than its sound ! No logic or reason or story or justification can make these a good speakers at this price.
 

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,844
Likes
5,787
So Wilson is known more for aesthetics than sound ? Do they advertise aesthetics more than sound ? :p Tell me a single speaker brand which boasts about aesthetics more than its sound ! No logic or reason or story or justification can make these a good speakers at this price.
Sonus Faber
 

rkt31

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
60
Likes
37
Take a look at how they advertise them and the real estate technical vs visual gets in their site.
(I still love them thought)
Exactly that's what I said. No speakers gets aesthetics advertised more than sound. They may however advertise both things together. Speakers are for sound not for show off and hobby itself is called audiophile and hi fi not audiojewel ! :p
 

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
7,539
Likes
12,008
https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/de/speakers/beoplay-a9
Screenshot_20220604-115058_Chrome.jpg
Blue is sound, Red is visual design.
I didn't calculate the area, but it looks like roughly 2:1 visuals to sound
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,820
Likes
2,816
Location
Sydney
So Wilson is known more for aesthetics than sound ? Do they advertise aesthetics more than sound ? :p Tell me a single speaker brand which boasts about aesthetics more than its sound ! No logic or reason or story or justification can make these a good speakers at this price.
Both @Sokel and @staticV3 have mentioned brands that emphasise aesthetics.

But you are barking up the wrong tree in any case. The values you consider are up to you, they may or may not relate to that brand's advertising.
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,820
Likes
2,816
Location
Sydney
For me I would not buy it even if it was the best speaker in the world and cost a hundred quid, since the name is an embarrassment. ...
That’s a good example of elevating an intangible above functional criteria in a purchasing decision.
 

rkt31

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
60
Likes
37
Both @Sokel and @staticV3 have mentioned brands that emphasise aesthetics.

But you are barking up the wrong tree in any case. The values you consider are up to you, they may or may not relate to that brand's advertising.
Where they gave more importance to aesthetics ? Sound is the first mention. No speaker brand will solely concentrate on aesthetics it is as simple as that because speakers are primarily for sound not for decor. Very very few buyers with super extra cash may have exclusively looks in mind while buying speakers. But wait what about you ? Did you buy your speakers for looks alone ? :p
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,820
Likes
2,816
Location
Sydney
Where they gave more importance to aesthetics ? Sound is the first mention. No speaker brand will solely concentrate on aesthetics it is as simple as that because speakers are primarily for sound not for decor. Very very few buyers with super extra cash may have exclusively looks in mind while buying speakers. But wait what about you ? Did you buy your speakers for looks alone ? :p
This is veering off-topic (versus TuneTots and value-for-money) but @staticV3 coloured it in for you: the area devoted to visual design for the A9 on B&O website outweighed the area devoted to sonics roughly 2:1. That isn't hard to follow and doesn't rely on the first word used.

But that's orthogonal: while you may value anything you like in a speaker, there's no requirement for you to value just one thing. So "solely/exclusively/alone" are straw men.

To get back to the topic, I think the Wilson aesthetic includes visual and haptic differentiators (see the earlier discussion of Veblen goods) that appeal to the buyer demographic: very dense cabinets, complex adjustment mechanisms serving as baroque ornamentation in the larger models, high-cost finish, "craftsmanship" etc. They remind me of very expensive watches and presumably appeal to similar sensibilities. Even the obsession with "timing" vis-à-vis those adjustment mechanisms evokes that. The TuneTots are just a bite-size version for the kitchen/office/den (or small apartment) that won't clash with your (actual or imagined) Chronosonics. My take is that even though they sound good in certain respects (see the subjective commentary in the review here) people often don't buy them just for sound. I don't have data or know anyone who owns/has considered buying a Wilson, so this is idle speculation.

Edit: thinking about people I know who have bought speakers in the last decade or so, the majority appear to purchase based on price, features and appearance. I sometimes suggest people consider KEF wireless (for example) but most see setting up a stereo pair as unnecessary/inconvenient, if they consider it at all. They buy bluetooth speakers, soundbars (with or without "subwoofers") Bose or Sonos. Sonics appear to be a given, but not a primary selection criteria. Among that majority, there is no overlap with a Wilson-buying demographic, obviously.
 
Last edited:

rkt31

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
60
Likes
37
This is veering off-topic (versus TuneTots and value-for-money) but @staticV3 coloured it in for you: the area devoted to visual design for the A9 on B&O website outweighed the area devoted to sonics roughly 2:1. That isn't hard to follow and doesn't rely on the first word used.

But that's orthogonal: while you may value anything you like in a speaker, there's no requirement for you to value just one thing. So "solely/exclusively/alone" are straw men.

To get back to the topic, I think the Wilson aesthetic includes visual and haptic differentiators (see the earlier discussion of Veblen goods) that appeal to the buyer demographic: very dense cabinets, complex adjustment mechanisms serving as baroque ornamentation in the larger models, high-cost finish, "craftsmanship" etc. They remind me of very expensive watches and presumably appeal to similar sensibilities. Even the obsession with "timing" vis-à-vis those adjustment mechanisms evokes that. The TuneTots are just a bite-size version for the kitchen/office/den (or small apartment) that won't clash with your (actual or imagined) Chronosonics. My take is that even though they sound good in certain respects (see the subjective commentary in the review here) people often don't buy them just for sound. I don't have data or know anyone who owns/has considered buying a Wilson, so this is idle speculation.

Edit: thinking about people I know who have bought speakers in the last decade or so, the majority appear to purchase based on price, features and appearance. I sometimes suggest people consider KEF wireless (for example) but most see setting up a stereo pair as unnecessary/inconvenient, if they consider it at all. They buy bluetooth speakers, soundbars (with or without "subwoofers") Bose or Sonos. Sonics appear to be a given, but not a primary selection criteria. Among that majority, there is no overlap with a Wilson-buying demographic, obviously.
See what I said. First thing they talk about sound. It doesn't matter how much they cover after that for some other features. Btw did you buy your speakers for looks or sound or on price performance basis or it was a blind purchase or you randomly picked some model or bought the most expensive yet most poorly measured speaker from asr list ?
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
B&O and Sonus Faber have always had appearance as a USP going back to when they started. In the UK years ago we had Ruark and Castle who emphasised their Guild Of Master Craftsman made cabinets and real wood veneers, to try to distinguish themselves from other brands since everyone was making similar sized two way ported and IB speakers that really didn't sound that different from one another.

Never been aware that Wilson have sold on looks, most people tend to like the look of B&O and Sonus Faber even if they wouldn't actually buy them, but many people actively dislike the aesthetics of Wilson.
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,820
Likes
2,816
Location
Sydney
See what I said. First thing they talk about sound. It doesn't matter how much they cover after that for some other features. ...
I reviewed those B&O pages to be sure I wasn’t missing something. Your contention that only the first word or phrase in an English article/publication is meaningful is complete nonsense.
 

rkt31

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
60
Likes
37
I reviewed those B&O pages to be sure I wasn’t missing something. Your contention that only the first word or phrase in an English article/publication is meaningful is complete nonsense.
Where they mentioned looks as their usp before sound ?
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
B&O and Sonus Faber have always had appearance as a USP going back to when they started. In the UK years ago we had Ruark and Castle who emphasised their Guild Of Master Craftsman made cabinets and real wood veneers, to try to distinguish themselves from other brands since everyone was making similar sized two way ported and IB speakers that really didn't sound that different from one another.

Never been aware that Wilson have sold on looks, most people tend to like the look of B&O and Sonus Faber even if they wouldn't actually buy them, but many people actively dislike the aesthetics of Wilson.
Many of the pre management-change Sonus Fabers were actually very good speakers for the period they were sold in (I made the mistake of form over function too until I looked inside one or two and actually spent time listening to them, upon which a few models won my heart). Not sure about the smaller modern models, as they seem to have gone awry and become hf sparklers as some other models catering 'for the more mature male? listener with old-man's hearing ' now also do.
 
Top Bottom