Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)

[Crosstalk]

A bit late no to start asking these questions after all the post you made no?

A sealed box is a sealed box. The bump is there because of the port as shown in the measurements.
The slope will follow the line of the sealed box. Why you expect it to be different? All speaker software work like that and make that prediction. Or did you find something new? But like I said I do thinkn it needs some attention or it is leaking.

I dont think i am any late.. its a valid question and you dont have a graph to prove your point. So you are just going back with your stickmans argument . before discarding it with a foam plug. show a graph where its solved.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

The research behind it is sound, it's the interpretations that seem to be the problem.

I'm not pointing out anything about how this loudspeaker may sound, but I knew when I saw this review 5 minutes after it was uploaded that it would cause a ****storm due to the subjective impression

Yes a storm is it for sure What I find interesting is that most shoot it down without even trying to understand it.

The movie "12 angry men" is an interesting one (and good movie as well) where it was very evident at first to condemn someone...but at second view ????

12 Angry Men (TV Movie 1997) ⭐ 7.8 | Crime, Drama

1h 57m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

Do you raise a good question though...But look at my other post about the sciense behind this speaker. Their XO isnt a standard type we know...(i think from seeing the graph)
Still it generate the right balance between on and off axis to sound right. And specially in a reflective room which was their design goal. Many good sounding speakers (read flat on and off axis) sound harsh in a high reflective room.
But this combination seems to hit the right spot.

But seems no one is interested in analysing/ dissecting that one.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

I dont think i am any late.. its a valid question and you dont have a graph to prove your point. So you are just going back with your stickmans argument . before discarding it with a foam plug. show a graph where its solved.

the bump is there from the port.

Can we move on and talk about the rest of the spectrum please.

 

[DSJR]

Despite what myself and others have said - with port closed off, shelf or near-back wall mounting and firing straight out and not toed in so the severe crossover dip isn't as noticeable (as in the 'room' response), maybe they'd make a good speaker for second systems in wealthy owner's homes. The high end audio salons I suspect this maker sells into internationally just wouldn't be interested in the pro models we're now familiar with, let alone the competitive sub £/$1000 speaker market or even the highly priced but fiercely competitive sub £/$6000 area (two cuoic foot passive boxes, some with 'BBC' heritage).

I think the drivers and basic box design is good, so it appears to be a crossover choice and maybe extending the port internally might have been difficult with a letter-box shape and materials used?

 

[Crosstalk]

the bump is there from the port.

Can we move on and talk about the rest of the spectrum please.

And one for the scientist here.
I mentioned it before but no one goes deeper into it. So I will try to rephrase my wobbly on-off axis question.

Looking at the graph of the individual drivers. This doesnt look like a standard linkwitz riley, butterworth or bessel filter.
Seems they just have a notch on the woofer and tweeter at 1k2 and 2k8 Hz.
Still they manage to get a smooth in room response and good directivity for a 2-way design without waveguide.

What do think is going on here? It intrigues me as it is different from what i saw before from any design. And it seems to better then standard XO topology in a reflective room.

where is it solved here? it still shows a massive bump, and there is no graph with it solved after closing the port. Close the port, measure it, and post it here to show it gets solved.

 

[thewas]

What do you suggest? through away this graph all together? Will they not taken into account what Toole describes?
Sure it is not "every room" but it is a reference we use to evaluate different designs?
What is your proposal to make it better?
If the science behind it isn't right it is good to make it better so we can make better judgements.
If this speaker didn't had this graph with this result will you be pointing it out as evidence why it would sound bad?

The PIR is just one of several important plots and unfortunately does not tell much on its own as above the transition frequency we mainly perceive the direct sound. Science / Toole say that you need both a flat on-axis response and a smooth directivity so the reflected sound is similar to the direct one. This also can be seen on what Toole says about just EQing the response to get such a smooth PIR, here some quotes from him from the first link in my signature:

Equalization can address frequency response issues, but cannot fix directivity issues. Consider getting better loudspeakers. Equalizing flawed loudspeakers to match this room curve does not guarantee anything in terms of sound quality.
...
Conclusion: the evidence we need to assess potential sound quality is in comprehensive anechoic data, not in a steady-state room curve. It's in the book.
...
The simple fact is that a steady-state room curve is not accurately descriptive of sound quality - comprehensive anechoic data are remarkably capable, but such data are rare.
...
The Harman curve is not a "target" in the sense that any flawed loudspeaker can be equalized to match it and superb sound will be the reward. The most common flaws in loudspeakers are resonances (which frequently are not visible in room curves) and irregular directivity (which cannot be corrected by equalization). The only solution to both problems is better loudspeakers, the evidence of which is in comprehensive anechoic data.

That's also why Harman score does not only take into consideration the smoothness of PIR but also of the direct sound, because when both are smooth, the directivity is too.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Despite what myself and others have said - with port closed off, shelf or near-back wall mounting and firing straight out and not toed in so the severe crossover dip isn't as noticeable (as in the 'room' response), maybe they'd make a good speaker for second systems in wealthy owner's homes. The high end audio salons I suspect this maker sells into internationally just wouldn't be interested in the pro models we're now familiar with, let alone the competitive sub £/$1000 speaker market or even the highly priced but fiercely competitive sub £/$6000 area (two cuoic foot passive boxes, some with 'BBC' heritage).

I think the drivers and basic box design is good, so it appears to be a crossover choice and maybe extending the port internally might have been difficult with a letter-box shape and materials used?

It for sure is a niche product and looking at there portfolio it's probably intended for a second system. But also a harsh environment.

 

[Crosstalk]

It for sure is a niche product and looking at there portfolio it's probably intended for a second system. But also a harsh environment.

that bump means its not any enviroment friendly. Thats a cheapo bass tube territory.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

where is it solved here? it still shows a massive bump, and there is no graph with it solved after closing the port. Close the port, measure it, and post it here to show it gets solved.

Come on guy...do you take yourself seriously?

How you going to make a 10db bump in a closed box with the right volume? speaker has SPL of 86db, woofer has 86db? How can you bring it to 96db in a box with the right volume? I like to learn it.

Can you please say something constructive about the rest of the spectrum?

 

[thorvat]

That's not true for the entire spectrum. Modal region, yes. Above that what we hear, to quote Toole himself: "With reverberation times of the order of 0.2 to 0.4 s what we hear from loudspeakers is the direct sound, a few early reflections, and not much else."

The estimated in-room response is simply a calculation.

Well, yes. In typical rooms it's more around 0.4s while in studios and professionally treated rooms it's more around 0.2 and those reflections will add to direct sound so they better be smooth as well.

And yes, estimated in-room response is a calculation designed to correlate very well with what you will measure in room from 2-3 meters distance using spatially averaged method (MMM or average of multipoint sweeps).

It is still worth to remember that, above say 900Hz (above which room doesn't play anymore even slightly) smooth linear direct on-axis response measured from close distance (say 1m or less) will always translate into smooth falling curve measured from LP.

In the case of this particualr speaker region above 900Hz generally looks well, excpet for the area slightly below and around 3kHz. Now this doesn't look that problematic, but when you take into account price of the speaker, it definitely is.

If this would be $100 speaker measurement like this would be considered exceptional. For a $500-$1000 it would be considered very good to excellent. For $2000 speaker it would be considered good, but for as $10000 speaker I can only consider it poor, because IMHO such high price tag doesn't leave any matrgin for designer errors like that one around XO area.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Well, yes. In typical rooms it's more around 0.4s while in studios and professionally treated rooms it's more around 0.2 and those reflections will add to direct sound so they better be smooth as well.

And yes, estimated in-room response is a calculation designed to correlate very well with what you will measure in room from 2-3 meters distance using spatially averaged method (MMM or average of multipoint sweeps).

It is still worth to remember that, above say 900Hz (above which room doesn't play anymore even slightly) smooth linear direct on-axis response measured from close distance (say 1m or less) will always translate into smooth falling curve measured from LP.

In the case of this particualr speaker region above 900Hz generally looks well, excpet for the area slightly below and around 3kHz. Now this doesn't look that problematic, but when you take into account price of the speaker, it definitely is.

If this would be $100 speaker measurement like this would be considered exceptional. For a $500-$1000 it would be considered very good to excellent. For $2000 speaker it would be considered good, but for as $10000 speaker I can only consider it poor, because IMHO such high price tag doesn't leave any matrgin for designer errors like that one around XO area.

I do think they had made some different design trade-offs. Their goal was to design a speaker in a harsh, reflective environement and didnt use a standard XO approach to achieve that.
Amir seems to prefer it over the Revel M106 and also mention his reflective room.

The variation around the 3K region can also be a house sound signature. It is only mild in my opinion to color the sound.
We are talking about taste here I think.
We can strive for perfect measurements but what is still audible? When Amir test a DAC and the noise floor is down to 130db one said it isnt audible anymore.
What is the variation we can have on speaker curves? From which moment it is considered not good anymore?

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Despite what myself and others have said - with port closed off, shelf or near-back wall mounting and firing straight out and not toed in so the severe crossover dip isn't as noticeable (as in the 'room' response), maybe they'd make a good speaker for second systems in wealthy owner's homes. The high end audio salons I suspect this maker sells into internationally just wouldn't be interested in the pro models we're now familiar with, let alone the competitive sub £/$1000 speaker market or even the highly priced but fiercely competitive sub £/$6000 area (two cuoic foot passive boxes, some with 'BBC' heritage).

I think the drivers and basic box design is good, so it appears to be a crossover choice and maybe extending the port internally might have been difficult with a letter-box shape and materials used?

Do you need it to be close to the back-wall? I guess the "in-room"response is what it is no? Or can you tell it to make a near back-wall version?
I think the on-axis dips are not noticeable due to their design with wobbly on and off axis which even it out.

But like i put in a previous post, Im intrigued how they accomplish that. It dont look like they use a standard LR, BW or besssel filter here...
But no one seems to care about such design approach. Not much science going on here.... a missed opportunity in my view.

 

[Purité Audio]

In summation, overpriced crap.
Keith

 

[Frgirard]

In summation, overpriced crap.
Keith

How much paint?
It was a time Wilson used focal drivers.
Of course if Armir has used a Goldmund power amp the measures would be better.

 

[KSTR]

But like i put in a previous post, Im intrigued how they accomplish that. It dont look like they use a standard LR, BW or besssel filter here..

To know the acoustic filter targets and the summation Amir would need to measure the individual driver IR's in isolation but with a common timing reference. Not practicable.

From the vertical directivity we can infer that the drivers are not running in phase at/around the XO point, the main lobe tilting downward by about 20 degrees, eyeballing from the hole pattern at ~2kHz. The reasoning could have been to make the floor bounce reflection more similar to the on-axis response which is a good thing as that is ususally the dominating reflection.

 

[KSTR]

Still it is something personal....I want to talk about facts....what is not good about the in-room response? What can be done to improve it?

I didn't question the estimated(!) in-room response.

 

[Bob from Florida]

+1

While I do have an acre of land in the Seattle area, my "big rig" listening room is also our living room. Replace books with LPs and you get something like this:

Standmount speakers with dual subs adding up to a total cost about the same as the Tune Tots:

View attachment 174637

Nice setup!

El gato is on your new amp!!!

 

[MrHifiTunes]

To know the acoustic filter targets and the summation Amir would need to measure the individual driver IR's in isolation but with a common timing reference. Not practicable.

From the vertical directivity we can infer that the drivers are not running in phase and no /around the XO point, the main lobe tilting downward by about 20 degrees, eyeballing from the hole pattern at ~2kHz. The reasoning could have been to make the floor bounce reflection more similar to the on-axis response which is a good thing as that is ususally the dominating reflection.

Yes I can understand it is difficult to get the full picture with the measurements we have.
Still in my view (I dont have no way near as much background and knowledge as some here, hence my question seeking for answers) there is something strange going on the way woofer and tweeter slopes are. But seems they got it right according to Amir listening observations and even putting it higher then the revel M106.

 

[Frgirard]

Proof that sound doesn't matter for audiofools as long as the ego is flattered.
It is expensive in carpentry.

 

[thorvat]

I do think they had made some different design trade-offs. Their goal was to design a speaker in a harsh, reflective environement and didnt use a standard XO approach to achieve that.
Amir seems to prefer it over the Revel M106 and also mention his reflective room.

The variation around the 3K region can also be a house sound signature. It is only mild in my opinion to color the sound.
We are talking about taste here I think.
We can strive for perfect measurements but what is still audible? When Amir test a DAC and the noise floor is down to 130db one said it isnt audible anymore.
What is the variation we can have on speaker curves? From which moment it is considered not good anymore?

"Variation" around 3K is directivity error and as such it cannot be considered as "house sound signature". It is relatively narrow thus it won't be "finger in the eye" audible, but considering the price tag I see absolutely no reason to tolerate it.