New Wilson Audio flagship speakers

[kyuu]

So here is a question for @amirm :

With a speaker like this Wilson, that have adjustable driver tilt angles, I believe they advertise for time coherency. Can the NFS accuracy measure it in near field?

Why couldn't it? Assuming you could get it into the rig, there's nothing magical that happens with the Wilson that would prevent the NFS from measuring it properly. Sound is sound, the math is the math. It would probably take a while due to the number of drivers creating a somewhat chaotic sound field that would require more samples (or at least I'm assuming so).

 

[Buckchester]

How big of a difference will this time alignment crap make anyways? Isn’t it negligible?

 

[PristineSound]

Why couldn't it? Assuming you could get it into the rig, there's nothing magical that happens with the Wilson that would prevent the NFS from measuring it properly. Sound is sound, the math is the math. It would probably take a while due to the number of drivers creating a somewhat chaotic sound field that would require more samples (or at least I'm assuming so).

Where did I there was something magical about Wilson? Heck, there's nothing magical about even about Magico

I am pointing out the science of physics and geometry. As sound frequency gets higher the sound waves are more and more directional, these Wilson's have adjustable tilts for the drivers. What does that mean? Few things
1) The speaker will sound different even at the same seating spot depending on the driver tilt adjustment. Which also means the measurement will be different even at far field depending on the tilt. So is there a reference FR by the company?
2) At the same exact driver tilts, the sound will sound different depending your distance from the speakers. The NFS measurements near field and calculates farther out.

 

[dtaylo1066]

I refuse to cheap-out on anything less than $1 million per pair. I can see them in a certain inexpensive ballroom I know is being built.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

I don't disagree with the assessments of anyone here based on testing by Stereophile, etc. of some of Wilson Audio's speakers. There doesn't seem to be any class-leading effort at resonance suppression or plain old frequency response, that's for sure. What I said was that a speaker with adequately adjustable driver positions should be able to achieve very good time domain behavior and therefore very good driver-to-driver crossover region integration, nothing more, nothing less. I haven;t even suggested that Wilson has even achieved that. Granted, that's something that Duntech and several others have been able to successfully address through less exotic means and without ending up with polarizing Steampunk-adjacent cabinet styling. However, if nothing else the feature would make such an apparatus a dandy test mule for determining exactly what the human hearing limits of those phenomena are.

Resonance suppression could definitely be thought of as contributing to improved time domain behavior, too, but that's not what I was addressing. Nor am I suggesting that the company's attention to other important performance matters don't seem to be rather cavalier, especially given the lofty claims they make and the, uh, "highly ambitious" prices of their products.

 

[EJ3]

However, if nothing else the feature would make such an apparatus a dandy test mule for determining exactly what the human hearing limits of those phenomena are.

Resonance suppression could definitely be thought of as contributing to improved time domain behavior "highly ambitious" prices of their products.

I suspect that a rig to test the human hearing limits of those phenomena may be able to be built (at some testing facility that already does a lot of sound research) for less than those pair of speakers highly ambitious price.

 

[garbulky]

You did not understand my reply correctly and it's not your fault.

Are there people, like Rick Beato's son, Dylan, who can hear specific pitches within the usual pitch ranges—doesn't have to be absolutely A = 440—sort out those pitches in a complex chord, pitch by pitch? We have documentary evidence of that. That's the consensus definition of "perfect pitch".

I always liked the joke about "perfect pitch" being able to toss a banjo into a trashcan without hitting the rim.

My point is that there are musics where the harmonic rules of standard western scales and harmonic ratios do not apply, like Harry Partch or Javanese Gamalan. I guess you might think of this as a word game, but the notion of "perfect pitch" makes the assumption that one sort of harmonic system would be more perfect than another, and I suppose I've been exposed to a lot of weird music that doesn't make that assumption.

Feel free to continue discussing this million-dollar audio Transformer, sorry for the diversion.

View attachment 528686

Oh I gotcha. For me perfect pitch means: Identify a note without a reference note (rick beato example). OR even more accurate - identify it to an even higher degree (cents).
Yes in terms of scales and harmonics, I agree there isn't one system that is "perfect". I mean our current system of equal temperament means most of the notes are all out of tune with each other, but if we try just intonation, it harmonizes a lot better but falls apart in anything but one key.
I've only been briefly exposed to microtonal music and eastern scales and I think they are fascinating as well.

 

[TehMowat]

These are statements speakers which probably need to be placed in a ballroom. The statement is something like, "Look at me, I've made it." I doubt that people who buy these really care about the sound -- they care about something that looks like it is the pinnacle of sound design. In my imagination I picture an owner who has been way too busy accumulating wealth to actually care that much about sound quality. It's cool that someone might actually like the architecture of these. To me they are incredibly distasteful and are an example of conspicuous consumption, similar to people who think that gold and gold leaf add class to rooms, offices and appliances.

The people who buy these absolutely care about sound. If they didn't they would just live with the invisible in ceiling speakers connected to Sonos that their wife and interior designer prefer. Where do you people come up with these wild delusions that people who buy expensive speakers don't care about the sound?

 

[LSPhil]

I keep reading dramatic claims that this speaker is some kind of diffraction carnival, and it’s honestly a bit amusing. The bass section doesn’t even play high enough for diffraction to matter, unless someone believes wavelengths the size of a garage door are getting tripped up by cabinet edges. The 7‑inch lower mid crosses somewhere around the usual 800 Hz region, which is still far from any meaningful edge‑interaction territory. The 2‑inch upper mid around 4 kHz isn’t suddenly exploding into chaos either; it’s a small driver in a controlled module, not a flashlight pointed at a cheese grater.
The only place where diffraction could realistically show up is the tweeter, and that’s exactly why Wilson put foam around the front plate. It’s not a mystery, not a panic move, just a simple way to kill early reflections before they show up in a measurement. Sometimes physics is less dramatic than people want it to be.
And honestly, even the millionaires buying these things aren’t paying for some mystical diffraction‑free unicorn. They’re paying for a product where the engineering, materials and execution match the price they’re willing to spend. The real magic in a system like this usually sits in the crossover topology and the way the drivers are integrated. That’s the part that actually determines whether the whole thing behaves like a coherent loudspeaker or just a stack of expensive parts. We don’t know the crossover design here, we haven’t seen the slopes, the target curves, the phase strategy, nothing. Without that, all we can do is look at the measurements and speculate a bit, but pretending we can diagnose the entire acoustic behaviour from cabinet photos is just theatre.
It's not that important to me either, but if we're going to discuss it, then at least let's do it based on what we actually know.

 

[Waxx]

So much ulgyness in one speaker, i did not know that was possible.

And you can already see how it will sound, it's a diffraction and lobbing mess by design. I don't need a kippel for dismissing this speaker on pure technical design already...

 

[dfuller]

I keep reading dramatic claims that this speaker is some kind of diffraction carnival, and it’s honestly a bit amusing. The bass section doesn’t even play high enough for diffraction to matter, unless someone believes wavelengths the size of a garage door are getting tripped up by cabinet edges. The 7‑inch lower mid crosses somewhere around the usual 800 Hz region, which is still far from any meaningful edge‑interaction territory. The 2‑inch upper mid around 4 kHz isn’t suddenly exploding into chaos either; it’s a small driver in a controlled module, not a flashlight pointed at a cheese grater.
The only place where diffraction could realistically show up is the tweeter, and that’s exactly why Wilson put foam around the front plate. It’s not a mystery, not a panic move, just a simple way to kill early reflections before they show up in a measurement. Sometimes physics is less dramatic than people want it to be.
And honestly, even the millionaires buying these things aren’t paying for some mystical diffraction‑free unicorn. They’re paying for a product where the engineering, materials and execution match the price they’re willing to spend. The real magic in a system like this usually sits in the crossover topology and the way the drivers are integrated. That’s the part that actually determines whether the whole thing behaves like a coherent loudspeaker or just a stack of expensive parts. We don’t know the crossover design here, we haven’t seen the slopes, the target curves, the phase strategy, nothing. Without that, all we can do is look at the measurements and speculate a bit, but pretending we can diagnose the entire acoustic behaviour from cabinet photos is just theatre.
It's not that important to me either, but if we're going to discuss it, then at least let's do it based on what we actually know.

Do you really think you won't get all kinds of weirdness from there being a bunch of extra edges? The dome mids aren't even flush mounted into the cabinet on top of that.

 

[Dialectic]

How big of a difference will this time alignment crap make anyways? Isn’t it negligible?

Yes. And very odd that, despite the company's focus on "time alignment," the late Mr. Wilson was unconcerned about phase shift from the rebadged Crown equalizer used with the Wilson WAMM.

They’re paying for a product where the engineering, materials and execution match the price they’re willing to spend.

Yet the engineering, materials, and execution--particularly the first and the last--are manifestly laughable in relation to the price.

 

[EJ3]

Yes. And very odd that, despite the company's focus on "time alignment," the late Mr. Wilson was unconcerned about phase shift from the rebadged Crown equalizer used with the Wilson WAMM.


Yet the engineering, materials, and execution--particularly the first and the last--are manifestly laughable in relation to the price.

George Carlin once said something to the effect off: If you take two things that have never been nailed together before and nail them together, you can take then to an arts and craft show and someone will buy it.

 

[Gregm]

I am pointing out the science of physics and geometry. As sound frequency gets higher the sound waves are more and more directional, these Wilson's have adjustable tilts for the drivers. What does that mean? Few things
1) The speaker will sound different even at the same seating spot depending on the driver tilt adjustment. Which also means the measurement will be different even at far field depending on the tilt. So is there a reference FR by the company?
2) At the same exact driver tilts, the sound will sound different depending your distance from the speakers. The NFS measurements near field and calculates farther out.

OK, let me add 3) and 4):
3) For 788g I still have to get up and micro adjust the tilts, then sit back down, reverse to what I was listening before, listen get back up, etc. You get the drift. Surely they could have a remote for this
4) If I adjust to my satisfaction (or pleasure, or my ears, ad lib...) it will be referenced to specific track, right? You can't adjust the speakers to a sweep for example. This being the case, won't I have to re-adjust for another track? Different mastering, different recording conditions, etc.

I am not bashing the speakers, I am just thinking of the added complexity. By the way, I think another manufacturer does offer remote controlled tilts, which makes more sense...
(Or, keep my current speakers and retire with the money, which would make all the sense -- of I had money )

 

[LSPhil]

Do you really think you won't get all kinds of weirdness from there being a bunch of extra edges? The dome mids aren't even flush mounted into the cabinet on top of that.

I get the concern about “extra edges”, but that only becomes relevant once the driver is actually operating in a frequency range where the wavelength is small enough to interact with those edges. A lot of people here seem to assume diffraction is some universal force that attacks every driver equally, no matter the frequency.

Take a simple example. A 14‑cm diaphragm starts to beam when the wavelength approaches its diameter, so roughly around 2.5 kHz. Below that, the radiation is still wide and the cabinet edges don’t suddenly create mysterious chaos. The physics just don’t support that idea. If the driver is crossed well below its beaming frequency, the cabinet geometry becomes far less dramatic than some comments suggest.

The same logic applies here. The lower and upper mids are crossed in regions where the wavelengths are still large compared to the baffle features people are worried about. You don’t get “all kinds of weirdness” just because there are edges; you get weirdness when the frequency and geometry line up in a way that actually produces diffraction. That’s not the case for most of the system.

The only driver that really lives in the danger zone is the tweeter, and that’s exactly why Wilson wrapped the front plate in foam. It’s a straightforward way to kill early reflections before they show up in the response. No mystery, no hidden flaw, just basic acoustics.

 

[Dialectic]

Surprisingly brutal comments about this product on WBF, which is now a private forum!

 

[EJ3]

Surprisingly brutal comments about this product on WBF, which is now a private forum!

Warning: a rambling, non automotive analogy follows:
Perhaps because many (me included) don't like the aesthetics.
And don't like the money involved for purchase.
Also because: without the measurements of the type we deem acceptable, we don't deem them acceptable.
Redundant, I know: Due to the last one we cannot justify it's value (to us).
That does not mean that others (who are likely not in our group) do not consider it valuable.
Just as diamonds are to me: personally worthless, to many others that is not the case.
In the case of diamonds, that might make them worth being an investment.
As to other things: well, maybe, maybe not.

 

[Dialectic]

Warning: a rambling, non automotive analogy follows:
Perhaps because many (me included) don't like the aesthetics.
And don't like the money involved for purchase.
Also because: without the measurements of the type we deem acceptable, we don't deem them acceptable.
Redundant, I know: Due to the last one we cannot justify it's value (to us).
That does not mean that others (who are likely not in our group) do not consider it valuable.
Just as diamonds are to me: personally worthless, to many others that is not the case.
In the case of diamonds, that might make them worth being an investment.
As to other things: well, maybe, maybe not.

Based on the criticism I saw on WBF, I would predict that David Wilson's son has killed the company. These speakers are not a major commercial product for the company, but they are so distasteful that, as a marketing piece or statement product, they devalue the rest of the product line.

Yes, there are a lot of nonsensical criticisms on WBF, such as complaints about how the speaker will demand too much juice for any commercially available tube amps, but the vast majority of members there seem not to find these loudspeakers desirable.

I'm afraid that, as a status symbol and as an audio device, this speaker is a disaster. Very sad to see.

And, on that somber note -

 

[egellings]

Warning: a rambling, non automotive analogy follows:
Perhaps because many (me included) don't like the aesthetics.
And don't like the money involved for purchase.
Also because: without the measurements of the type we deem acceptable, we don't deem them acceptable.
Redundant, I know: Due to the last one we cannot justify it's value (to us).
That does not mean that others (who are likely not in our group) do not consider it valuable.
Just as diamonds are to me: personally worthless, to many others that is not the case.
In the case of diamonds, that might make them worth being an investment.
As to other things: well, maybe, maybe not.

If you have enough wealth, then enjoy them if that's your cuppa tea. They are a bit ostentatious for me, and I am not wealthy enough to ever complain about a pair of them in my living room. I'll bet they sound fantastic if paired with an amplifier capable of driving them effortlessly.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Those have got to be the ugliest speakers I have ever seen.