Wilson Audio Speakers: Why do people like them?

[MattHooper]

I have my audiophile ‘bingo’ card.
Keith

Didn’t think so. Buhbye. (I really should expand my ignore list).

Maybe Blockader will be more forthcoming.

 

[Sokel]

From Andrew Robinson‘s new review of the Wilson Watt puppy…

The in-room measurements are more linear than I would have guessed:

View attachment 466024


He seemed quite enthusiastic about these loudspeakers, especially talking about how locked in they were to the listening position to provide an amazing disappearing act with precise imaging and realism. I’d like to have heard them in his set up. I don’t doubt that some aspects of the performance could’ve been quite impressive.

If that measurement is at a distance more than a couple of meters (it should), these things are brighter than the sun.
I got a headache just by looking at the chart.

(Which is useless other than the specific room (and that, to some extend) by the way, I would prefer some gated measurements, at least)

 

[Blockader]

Could you elaborate? What in the post you were quoting deserves the face palm?

-The chosen target room response curve is irrelevant when it comes to actual sound quality. Speakers that measure this way in room tend to sound extremely bright and fatiguing in real world listening conditions.
-The reviewer appears to believe that this nonsensical target is what speakers should follow and proudly showcases the results.

It's concerning that people who make a living from audio reviews appear to lack such fundamental understanding of speaker measurements.

 

[MattHooper]

-The chosen target room response curve is irrelevant when it comes to actual sound quality. Speakers that measure this way in room tend to sound extremely bright and fatiguing in real world listening conditions.
-The reviewer appears to believe that this nonsensical target is what speakers should follow and proudly showcases the results.

It's concerning that people who make a living from audio reviews appear to lack such fundamental understanding of speaker measurements.

Thanks for filling out the details. Got it.

And thanks @Sokel !

 

[Arindal]

Speakers that measure this way in room tend to sound extremely bright and fatiguing in real world listening conditions.

Not necessarily. If the room is well-treated and does not show significantly increasing absorption grade towards higher frequencies, while the speaker does not show increasing directivity, this might result in a balanced tonality. It is admittingly uncommon for both, but that does not mean it always sounds bright and fatiguing.

The reviewer appears to believe that this nonsensical target is what speakers should follow and proudly showcases the results.

Would even go so far to say that before one knows the frequency-dependent properties of room as well as speaker, and has listened to the combination of both, any target curve does not make sense.

The Harman curve is as nonsensical as the completely flat in-room curve, and both should not be used as target curves. While the latter tends to boost treble in the direct sound subjectively (as an unwanted countermeasure in case of increasing directivity index), the former does sound dull, treble-overdampened and lower-midrange-heavy with constant directivity speakers.

Dr. Toole has confirmed this, calling it rather a ´result curve´, and I might want to add: result of imbalanced indirect sound.

 

[Sokel]

Not necessarily. If the room is well-treated and does not show significantly increasing absorption grade towards higher frequencies, while the speaker does not show increasing directivity, this might result in a balanced tonality. It is admittingly uncommon for both, but that does not mean it always sounds bright and fatiguing.



Would even go so far to say that before one knows the frequency-dependent properties of room as well as speaker, and has listened to the combination of both, any target curve does not make sense.

The Harman curve is as nonsensical as the completely flat in-room curve, and both should not be used as target curves. While the latter tends to boost treble in the direct sound subjectively (as an unwanted countermeasure in case of increasing directivity index), the former does sound dull, treble-overdampened and lower-midrange-heavy with constant directivity speakers.

Dr. Toole has confirmed this, calling it rather a ´result curve´, and I might want to add: result of imbalanced indirect sound.

Didn't see the video to see what they did, but if they forced a curve is dead wrong.
Both the curve and the practice.

A speaker is either made to result in such a curve or it isn't, forcing it is a no by all audio "camps", either the Harman ones or the rest.

 

[Blockader]

Not necessarily. If the room is well-treated and does not show significantly increasing absorption grade towards higher frequencies, while the speaker does not show increasing directivity, this might result in a balanced tonality. It is admittingly uncommon for both, but that does not mean it always sounds bright and fatiguing.

I disagree with this. I agree with Geddes that human hearing evolved in environments full of objects like tree leaves, bark, and grass with high absorption at high frequencies. This likely explains why a recessed treble is often preferred in in room frequency response. Yes, direct sound is perceptually more dominant in determining the perceived tonal balance, however how the combination of direct + indirect sound looks like still matters.

 

[Arindal]

I agree with Geddes that human hearing evolved in environments full of objects like tree leaves, bark, and grass with high absorption at high frequencies.

I agree with him as well.

This likely explains why a recessed treble is often preferred in in room frequency response.

That does not explain it. If recessed treble is preferred, we would find the same preferred recessed treble in the concert hall, microphones capture it, you wind it on the studio monitors of the mixing engineer, the high end loudspeakers of the mastering engineer and in their control rooms. And to a degree, we do. An orchestra or choir on a spectral analyzer looks anything but treble-rich. Not many instruments produce really excessive treble, maybe higher brass instruments, some cymbals and piccolo flute.

So if we reproduce this recording in a room with excellent on-axis tonal balance, constant off-axis tonal balance and more or less constant indirect tonality resulting to the linear in-room-curve, we should expect it to pe perceived as tonally well balanced like in the concert hall, including the reverb. It is what I found confirmed in numerous controlled listening tests.

The recessed treble might be preferred if there is a major flaw at play, like imbalanced, i.e. increasing directivity index of the speaker. I agree that it does not make sense to correct this, but I suggest to avoid such speakers under any condition, not let them define the target curve.

Yes, direct sound is perceptually more dominant in determining the perceived tonal balance, however how the combination of direct + indirect sound looks like still matters.

The question is: why should it be different regarding tonality, why should directivity and room response change dramatically over the frequency range?

 

[Blockader]

I agree with him as well.



That does not explain it. If recessed treble is preferred, we would find the same preferred recessed treble in the concert hall, microphones capture it, you wind it on the studio monitors of the mixing engineer, the high end loudspeakers of the mastering engineer and in their control rooms. And to a degree, we do. An orchestra or choir on a spectral analyzer looks anything but treble-rich. Not many instruments produce really excessive treble, maybe higher brass instruments, some cymbals and piccolo flute.

So if we reproduce this recording in a room with excellent on-axis tonal balance, constant off-axis tonal balance and more or less constant indirect tonality resulting to the linear in-room-curve, we should expect it to pe perceived as tonally well balanced like in the concert hall, including the reverb. It is what I found confirmed in numerous controlled listening tests.

The recessed treble might be preferred if there is a major flaw at play, like imbalanced, i.e. increasing directivity index of the speaker. I agree that it does not make sense to correct this, but I suggest to avoid such speakers under any condition, not let them define the target curve.



The question is: why should it be different regarding tonality, why should directivity and room response change dramatically over the frequency range?

You are talking about

flat on-axis response with gradually increasing directivity versus a consistent on-axis roll-off with constant directivity.

Without multiple rounds of research each critically building upon and challenging the findings of the previous it’s difficult to determine a definitive winner.

I would bet on constant directivity with consistent on-axis roll-off + constant directivity which challenges of findings of Toole but aligns with Geddes.(which makes this opinion very controversial)

 

[Arindal]

Without multiple rounds of research each critically building upon and challenging the findings of the previous it’s difficult to determine a definitive winner.

Not complicated. Place a D&D and a Neumann KH150 next to each other and make an A/B comparison. I support your hypothesis but would even go further that a neutral on-axis response would be preferred in case you have a balanced room and acoustic recordings, which translates exactly to the flat in-room curve mentioned.

I am by no means saying that is advisable to use as a target curve for any speaker with uneven directivity. In this case our assumption fully align.

 

[thewas]

Place a D&D and a Neumann KH150 next to each other and make an A/B comparison.

Talking about such a comparison, a friend of mine had borrowed a pair of D&D 8c to compare with his KH310+sub setup and I measured the LP responses of both (I think without the subwoofers active on the Neumann set) and they were above 500 Hz less different than someone would have thought (I know the KH310 is not the KH150 but also rathe kind of rising directivity vs the rather constant directivity of the 8C):

They sounded a bit different but both fine and from approximately a dozen of people who had visited him there was no clear preference of either so he kept his Neumann setup equalising the bass region where the biggest advantage of the 8c is that it needs less EQ there and doesn't have the 110 Hz SBIR dip which the Neumann has without subwoofers.

 

[steve59]

It’s interesting how we can compare the same speakers and have totally different outcomes. I upgraded from the F228Be to the salon2 and did a quick comparison before someone came to pickup the F228Be.

First the deep bass is obviously not a comparison since the bass capabilities are so different. But I thought the midrange of the F228Be was at least equal to the salons along with the general overall capability from a sound quality standpoint.

I sometimes wonder had I gotten the gothams and the CR-1 while I had the F228Be, if it would have upgraded.

Fair enough, I listened to both on totl Mark Levinson components, when i got the salon 2's home they sounded considerably less impressive on the electronics I used on them at home.

 

[-Jim-]

I have a Buddy with a very expensive upscale Stereo system he bought a long time ago. The "boutique" shop he bought it from (It ain't no Best Buy...) had "factory trained" technicians come out and set it all up. Everything in it was ultra expensive, and when I first heard it, very impressive.

It's got Wilson X-1-Grand-Slamm Speakers. He had Wilson come out and modify them a couple years after he bought them. (He thinks they tweaked the crossover but that's a couple decades ago.)

I was impressed that the serial number was only 177 which led me to believe these had a very limited production run. The rest of his system is similarly upscale. Cost was not a factor at all.

 

[Digital_Thor]

A speaker is either made to result in such a curve or it isn't, forcing it is a no by all audio "camps", either the Harman ones or the rest.

This is what I often say to my friends, when they take what-ever speaker and do a full frequency response correction on them - from measurements done, in the listening position

 

[PGansz]

cynicism is boring Keith. Can you provide anything else?

The 1/3 smoothing Andrew uses for select manufacturers. Sometimes he uses 1/6. I've never seen someone stand behind measurements with greater than 1/12.

He makes everything look better by default and it's messed up. There is no actual way that speaker measures +/- 3db over the 200hz - 20khz spectrum. 100% no way.

He (Andrew) is therefor posting misinformation to hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Digital_Thor]

The most problematic thing about the +/-3dB from 20-20kHz rating IMO, is that it tells us nothing about where on the curve or the width of the deviation - Q value.
So +/-3dB could just be 6dB more bass and pretty much a flat FR above. It could also be a nice flat bass-response and -4dB over 3000Hz - lets say from 1 to 4kHz, and then 2dB elevated tweeter - which actually is 6dB above the lower midrange.
No one knows without proper measurement curves.
+/-3dB loudspeakers, are often not necessarily good ones, by any means. They are just not really bad.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

The ultimate status symbol for an extremely small segment of society

 

[-Jim-]

The ultimate status symbol for an extremely small segment of society

I don't think that applies to my friend. He's a very private individual and his system is in a separate large room (with an fabulous ocean view by the way, as the house in on the water near Deep Cove) , and only has two seats in it. The room was designed for the system and I'll bet maybe only half a dozen people, outside of the techs who assembled it and his family, have ever heard it.

After it was about 10 years old I got to hear it, as he knew I was into Audio. Later on, I figured out why his Audio Research REF600 Monoblock Amplifiers kept failing after his "experts" got nowhere. Since then I don't think anyone else has heard his system.

 

[teched58]

The ultimate status symbol for an extremely small segment of society

These people don't listen to the music, they listen to their equipment. (Of course, that applies to many of us poorer ASR members as well. At least the EEs among us don't "listen" to our cables.)

 

[DMill]

These people don't listen to the music, they listen to their equipment.

We all listen to equipment playing music. So I see this statement we’ve all seen forever as being an audiophile term that should likely be banned from our vocabulary. But I appreciate its intent in implying money does not equal great sound. Unfortunately, it also implies that people looking for equipment that is SOTA don’t like music as much as their gear. Even people who have fallen victim to Audiophool marketing want the perfect music. They love music. They are just misguided. And I would add, I have a great understanding of having a badge or gear that is costly. It’s fun. I like music. Give me some Mc VU meters and a speaker that looks like a Ferrari and lets party.