Wilson Audio Speakers: Why do people like them?

[MattHooper]

It is at least about both, people and speakers. More precisely, what people feel and loudspeakers. Question is, is there any connection?

In which area to find a connection, is it sonic performance? I would say clear & loud: no.

I don’t think that’s a very good answer.

Remember that because other loudspeakers exist that measure or sound better, that doesn’t mean a loudspeaker like a Wilson can’t also sound impressive.

As I mentioned, even though I had some qualms with the tonal balance, the big Wilson’s I heard we’re very impressive in various respects - the clarity, detail, image focus and density, dynamics, the sense of a large well defined acoustic space in which the players were playing… all sorts of aspects of apparent realism were quite impressive.

 

[kawauso]

I've had the opportunity to listen to a few Wilson Audio speakers, and while I know they have a dedicated following, I wanted to share my personal experience — especially with the ALEXX model.


Before any room correction, I found the sound of the ALEXX to be quite unpleasant. The tonal balance felt jagged or rough, and the overall sound made me feel fatigued — even giving me a bit of a headache. I suspect the poor off-axis response may be one of the contributing factors. The system was running through a Trinnov processor, which helped smooth things out slightly, but even after correction, the soundstage and tonal balance still didn’t feel natural or clean. I also saw a frequency response measurement before correction, and the high-frequency range showed some noticeable irregularities.


I also had a chance to hear an older Grand Slamm system elsewhere. Its Dirac measurements also showed jagged high-frequency response, but interestingly, it didn’t sound as harsh. The sound had more of a "vintage" character: not particularly transparent or crisp, but the tonality was more balanced. The highs were somewhat bright, but not piercing — I could listen without discomfort. Overall, it was much easier to enjoy compared to the ALEXX.


Of course, this is just my personal impression, but I'm curious — for those who love Wilson speakers, what draws you to their sound?

 

[Heinrich]

Remember that because other loudspeakers exist that measure or sound better, that doesn’t mean a loudspeaker like a Wilson can’t also sound impressive.

What I find quite impressive is the visual impact. Any other that you described after is something I have on a daily basis. My stuff is designed towards a more humble appearance, though. In short, coming from DIY, the Wilsons do not please me at all, leaning towards the grotesque side of the spectrum (personal feeling).

Talking about feelings, the B&W's Nautilus spark the impression (sic!) of "something interesting found by accident". The Wilson sparks every annoyance of an overwhelming artifact, that is there for - no good reason other than putting people into a vice. And the overall make is brutal in the details. You asked for it, a very personal take.

Let alone that the construction fails to follow the easiest rules, e/g short center to center distance of the drivers; hopeless.

Sorry!

 

[Lsc]

I've had the opportunity to listen to a few Wilson Audio speakers, and while I know they have a dedicated following, I wanted to share my personal experience — especially with the ALEXX model.


Before any room correction, I found the sound of the ALEXX to be quite unpleasant. The tonal balance felt jagged or rough, and the overall sound made me feel fatigued — even giving me a bit of a headache. I suspect the poor off-axis response may be one of the contributing factors. The system was running through a Trinnov processor, which helped smooth things out slightly, but even after correction, the soundstage and tonal balance still didn’t feel natural or clean. I also saw a frequency response measurement before correction, and the high-frequency range showed some noticeable irregularities.


I also had a chance to hear an older Grand Slamm system elsewhere. Its Dirac measurements also showed jagged high-frequency response, but interestingly, it didn’t sound as harsh. The sound had more of a "vintage" character: not particularly transparent or crisp, but the tonality was more balanced. The highs were somewhat bright, but not piercing — I could listen without discomfort. Overall, it was much easier to enjoy compared to the ALEXX.


Of course, this is just my personal impression, but I'm curious — for those who love Wilson speakers, what draws you to their sound?


View attachment 441365
View attachment 441366

If I could afford to buy Wilson speakers with equally fancy front end, I’d certainly shop around to see how much more performance they deliver over what I currently have. Just like if I could afford a supercar, I’d check it out to see if it’s worth buying.

But since that’s not happening in this lifetime, my positive opinion is pointless. I also heard the B&W Nautilus with Mark Levinson front end way back when - in a special room that was locked. I thought it was the greatest thing I ever heard.

I don’t need to knock things that i can’t attain…I enjoy my system every day as It’s beyond what I ever wanted. But I just have a hard time believing that they can sell $300,000 speakers that sounds like crap. I expect them to sound better than my gear but im not a potential customer so I don’t care and I’m sure Wilson doesn’t care either .

 

[dfuller]

The felt minimizes diffraction some

Assuming, of course, that the lip of the cabinet doesn't come out in front of the front baffle and cause a bunch of diffraction.

Apologies if slightly OT, but my understanding is that soffit mounting is considered best practice if possible. Genelec had their 1036A, but don't think they make it anymore and I'm unsure if there's an updated model. What's the best of the best, purpose built for soffit mounting?

Depending on how much volume you need, you could go for any variety of big 3-way ATC, some of the bigger PMC, big Genelec mains (1236 is the successor to the 1036), etc etc...

 

[FrantzM]

<snip?

I don’t need to knock things that i can’t attain…I enjoy my system every day as It’s beyond what I ever wanted. But I just have a hard time believing that they can sell $300,000 speakers that sounds like crap. I expect them to sound better than my gear but im not a potential customer so I don’t care and I’m sure Wilson doesn’t care either .

Hi

High price do not correlate with high performance. This has been demonstrated time and time again on this very site. dont "expect them to sound better than your gear"
High End Audio (HEA) bases its entire philosophy on the fallacy that, the more you pay the better it is. I like to use that grammatically incorrect form: mo'h money = mo'h better . @amirm reviewed on this very site a U$15,000 DAC that didn't perform any better than a $9.95 Apple dongle...
As for speakers there are exemple of speakers costing $100,000 and up that measures badly and sound bad.

HEA pricing and gear are all over the map, some measure well and some ... well ... are very bad products, that no amount of wordsmithing would save... As an exemple there exist one set of around $400,000 (NO typo, Four hundred Thousand USD).. That can barely deliver 100 watts at around 10% THD... Yep you read it right TEN percent of THD...

As for Wilson, I 've heard these in my past subjectivist days.. never cared for them... You will find objectively better speakers at fraction of any Wilson speakers prices. I daresay none of these superior products would be over $100,000.

Peace

 

[MediumRare]

Would anyone like to suggest an additional measurement or two to fill in what a Sprinorama is missing? How can dynamics or cu ft room capability be measured, for example? Looking for the missing ingredients to an amazing speaker that also might compensate for lack of Spinorama perfection.

 

[Audionaut]

Who makes the drivers for Wilson? Or are they made in house?

Modified Scan-Speak

 

[fragzone]

Yes this +1000 .
My in room response is far from perfect , but i only shave peaks , don't fill holes , just don't ? We need to spread this knowledge .
MY layman knowledge , most of these holes are cancelations maybe not perfect cancelations but thats what they are, pouring more energy into a cancelation just makes it cancel more and where it don't cancel ( for example outside your measured position ) it will sound even worse with a lot of boom . It's extra ordinary inefficient to try this.

Who owns speakers with 12dB headrom over your maximum desired volume at all frequencies especially in the bass where this is mostly done ?

I've seen the owner of this website state otherwise. If I recall correctly, it was in that huge thread where that YouTuber that works for headphones.com caused a shit storm concerning room treatment.

Amir's reasoning was that the cancellations are not symmetric and could be considered to reliably change spatially with an eq change within the region of question, and therefore you stand a fighting chance of at least improving the SPL somewhat even if the hole is not filled. Conversely though, you might worsen the response elsewhere (spatially as you stated, and in the FR at the MLP).

I don't have a dog in the fight just thought I'd promote some further discussion.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've seen the owner of this website state otherwise. If I recall correctly, it was in that huge thread where that YouTuber that works for headphones.com caused a shit storm concerning room treatment.

Amir's reasoning was that the cancellations are not symmetric and could be considered to reliably change spatially with an eq change within the region of question, and therefore you stand a fighting chance of at least improving the SPL somewhat even if the hole is not filled. Conversely though, you might worsen the response elsewhere (spatially as you stated, and in the FR at the MLP).

I don't have a dog in the fight just thought I'd promote some further discussion.

So what is your opinion on Wilson speakers? Have you listened to any? Yes, I know I sound like a subjective apologist.

 

[Heinrich]

Would anyone like to suggest an additional measurement or two to fill in what a Sprinorama is missing? How can dynamics or cu ft room capability be measured, for example? Looking for the missing ingredients to an amazing speaker that also might compensate for lack of Spinorama perfection.

Well, a roundup.
a) people love the speaker's mistakes like some people love a little accent in the language. It tickles a bit. Because the high enders, I personally think, listen to the speaker, not the music, which is always the same demo material. There's nothing new, so the speaker has to make itself interesting
b) you ask about the spinorama, well, some people don't understand that the prediction is approximate. If you were to measure in the room with common sense, you would see that the data changes with every position, and by more than different loudspeaker models differ in the prediction. This is not an accusation, please, but think again.
c) from a technical point of view, the Wilsons are simply cargo cult
d) they are brutalist in approach and styling
e) they force the listener to sit still with everything they have, I don't even want to know why some people think this is great
f) the preference is also promoted by the financial unattainability, there are just many who still have wishes, others fulfill the same, but only for themselves to show off - in just this ridiculous context

Happy landings!

 

[Frank Dernie]

They're also a status symbol
If own them
You made it in life

I am mystified why people claim any HiFi is a status symbol.
Car maybe, watch maybe, arm-candy maybe but pre-internet almost nobody would know what speakers anybody owned and post internet it is still only a tiny number of equally bonkers forum dwellers who know, so in what way could they ever be status symbols?

 

[Vacceo]

They're also a status symbol
If own them
You made it in life

What I see in speakers of that size is not just the speakers themselves, but the space to set them, which in the end, reinfocers the circular logic of exclusivity.

I am mystified why people claim any HiFi is a status symbol.
Car maybe, watch maybe, arm-candy maybe but pre-internet almost nobody would know what speakers anybody owned and post internet it is still only a tiny number of equally bonkers forum dwellers who know, so in what way could they ever be status symbols?

Same reason why certain obscure patches are a source of pride in biker clubs, why certain tattoos are a mark of pride or why adding "supreme hierophant" on your bussines card is important too: it is an identity marker.

 

[Heinrich]

... pre-internet almost nobody would know what speakers anybody owned and post internet it is still only ...

*g* as if people didn't have a social life before internet. I assure you, we all knew about the stereo status of each other pretty well. For internet present, they meet, as seen in the initial post.

 

[Buckchester]

People like them because before they even listen to them they are already convinced they are high end. Then, if a listening test isn't performed objectively (few are) then your first impression is likely to stick.

 

[JPA]

I don't know whether they sound good or not. But they go against the ethos of good design in many ways; most prominently in their ugliness.

The diffraction off the multiple box edges probably produces some wild frequency response variations.

 

[Vacceo]

I don't know whether they sound good or not. But they go against the ethos of good design in many ways; most prominently in their ugliness.

Would you care to elaborate a bit further? I mean, aesthetics and functionality, when combined, produce good discussions.

 

[JPA]

Detail retrieval. It's been many years since I listened to a rather wealthy friend's system of Watt Puppy's and Krell electronics - everything you were supposed to spend big money on during the 90s. This system didn't sound spectacular all the time, but there were times when it paired great with the recording and it really did shine. At the time they seemed to get everything you could out of a recording - more than other speakers that I had heard until then. That said, they could often be too analytical with pop music (most likely just high frequency boost). I remember to this day how they made my new favorite U2 CD sound like #@$^ because you could hear every flaw that the engineer never thought you would at home.

I prefer speakers with a very detailed presentation, because they usually let me identify why a poor recording sounds bad. If I know why, I can mentally compensate for the flaws and (somewhat) ignore them. If I can't figure out what it is that makes the recording sound bad I can't sit through it.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I am mystified why people claim any HiFi is a status symbol.
Car maybe, watch maybe, arm-candy maybe but pre-internet almost nobody would know what speakers anybody owned and post internet it is still only a tiny number of equally bonkers forum dwellers who know, so in what way could they ever be status symbols?

If you own speakers that cost that much people would probably know, your other audiophile friends at least
It's just like any other luxury item
If people know that you own such an expensive item they would for sure appreciate it because it's not very common

 

[dfuller]

Any nice speaker at that level should be good enough to be EQ-able anechoically (flat-ish FR, nice on and off-axis, etc, the works) so tonality is not a problem, it can be whatever you like.

If only this were true. Wilsons tend to be incredibly tweaky about placement and toe-in, largely because their off axis response is usually extremely ragged. Also their axial FR is all over the place.

Like, the TuneTot is on the better end of things, and it's pretty bad.

This kind of thing makes the PMC Result6 look good, and that thing is also a mess.