Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)

[YSDR]

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.

Seems like a 12dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley (aka LR2) crossing attempt like other WA speakers nowadays. That downward tilted main lobe is typical with a bare dome tweeter on top and a cone (mid)woofer below with LR filtering.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Seems like a 12dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley (aka LR2) crossing attempt like other WA speakers nowadays. That downward tilted main lobe is typical with a bare dome tweeter on top and a cone (mid)woofer below with LR filtering.

You get those deep dips with basic LR2 filters?

 

[pablolie]

For those who have never considered something like Dirac, you'll be surprised to see how it shows there is always something to fix with any system/speaker as soon as you place the stuff out in a real world room (and I do have a pretty good room for audio, and live by myself so I can place stuff anywhere I dang want it :-D). But why look for something where you know you have to fix many design peculiarities if your goal is closer to an analytical, linear response? (BTW I am not saying that should be everybody's ideal.) I'd rather get something with fewer things to fix.
The only thing I find a tad strange is that these Wilsons end up in the "recommended" category, while far better measuring speakers end up being "not recommended" due to some other priority (i.e. the KEF LS50 are a clear example, I think).
In the end, I am here to learn and find all the reviews super interesting and well done, irrespective of whether I personally agree or disagree with the ticked box at the end of the test, based on my very own priorities. If a review is well done, the tests as well presented as they are here, and the priorities in the final evaluation explained, I can draw my own conclusions.

 

[YSDR]

You get those deep dips with basic LR2 filters?
View attachment 174717

Textbook LR slopes are not contains those dips of course, hence I wrote the word "attempt".
With passive filtering sometimes it's very hard or impossible to equalize driver or baffle induced irregularities, so the designer prefers to leave it as it is.
I don't think those dips are intentional, but there is a chance for it of course.
Another problem to identify the source of the dips is that, these are close range measurements, so the baffle effect (which is usually significant) are not included.

 

[thorvat]

For those who have never considered something like Dirac, you'll be surprised to see how it shows there is always something to fix with any system/speaker as soon as you place the stuff out in a real world room (and I do have a pretty good room for audio, and live by myself so I can place stuff anywhere I dang want it :-D). But why look for something where you know you have to fix many design peculiarities if your goal is closer to an analytical, linear response? (BTW I am not saying that should be everybody's ideal.) I'd rather get something with fewer things to fix.
The only thing I find a tad strange is that these Wilsons end up in the "recommended" category, while far better measuring speakers end up being "not recommended" due to some other priority (i.e. the KEF LS50 are a clear example, I think).
In the end, I am here to learn and find all the reviews super interesting and well done, irrespective of whether I personally agree or disagree with the ticked box at the end of the test, based on my very own priorities. If a review is well done, the tests as well presented as they are here, and the priorities in the final evaluation explained, I can draw my own conclusions.

There is always room influence to correct, but with $10000 speaker you shouldn't be bothering with correcting the speaker's response.

 

[Tom C]

For those who have never considered something like Dirac, you'll be surprised to see how it shows there is always something to fix with any system/speaker as soon as you place the stuff out in a real world room (and I do have a pretty good room for audio, and live by myself so I can place stuff anywhere I dang want it :-D). But why look for something where you know you have to fix many design peculiarities if your goal is closer to an analytical, linear response? (BTW I am not saying that should be everybody's ideal.) I'd rather get something with fewer things to fix.
The only thing I find a tad strange is that these Wilsons end up in the "recommended" category, while far better measuring speakers end up being "not recommended" due to some other priority (i.e. the KEF LS50 are a clear example, I think).
In the end, I am here to learn and find all the reviews super interesting and well done, irrespective of whether I personally agree or disagree with the ticked box at the end of the test, based on my very own priorities. If a review is well done, the tests as well presented as they are here, and the priorities in the final evaluation explained, I can draw my own conclusions.

It is my understanding that “recommended” or “not recommended” is NOT connected to measurements. It is only connected to listening impressions. This is because you can look at the measurements yourself, but you can’t hear the speakers. So, it seems you are using the review as intended. It is purposely set up so that you can draw your own conclusions

 

[beagleman]

You get those deep dips with basic LR2 filters?
View attachment 174717

Those can be indicative of baffle loss on the tweeter. Where the dimension of the baffle is equal to wavelength and where it causes peaks and dips. All speakers have this to some degree. The way to eliminate, is a big waveguide, or a large baffle.

As to the woofer, that could be natural to some degree/ I would have to the the drivers native response with no crossover first.

 

[NTK]

You get those deep dips with basic LR2 filters?
View attachment 174717

From the vertical directivity plots it looks like the crossover is Butterworth (with the main lobe tilting downward).

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Textbook LR slopes are not contains those dips of course, hence I wrote the word "attempt".
With passive filtering sometimes it's very hard or impossible to equalize driver or baffle induced irregularities, so the designer prefers to leave it as it is.
I don't think those dips are intentional, but there is a chance for it.
Another problem to identifiy the source of the dips os that, these are close range measurements, so the baffle effect (which is usually significant) are not included.

Thanks for clarifying.

The woofer for sure is very smooth..it doesnt drop 5db by itself...
I also never saw a tweeter like that.
I think they did it intentional but still don't understand why.
there is something not textbook in the XO imo to meet their design goals. (bookshelf/relective room)

I dont think there is much baffle effect into the XO. They said on their site from desktop/bookshelf placement. So I guess not far from the back wall. Also it is rated 86db with 86 db woofer.....

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Those can be indicative of baffle loss on the tweeter. Where the dimension of the baffle is equal to wavelength and where it causes peaks and dips. All speakers have this to some degree. The way to eliminate, is a big waveguide, or a large baffle.

As to the woofer, that could be natural to some degree/ I would have to the the drivers native response with no crossover first.

Thanks for thinking with me to find the reason behind it.

For the tweeter if that is the reason you mentioned, it is strange it is seems here so strongly? Box dimension are not so uncommon.

The SS 15W8530 is the available woofer, guess their custom version isnt far from it.

 

[YSDR]

Thanks for clarifying.

The woofer for sure is very smooth..it doesnt drop 5db by itself...
I also never say a tweeter like that.
I think they did it intentional but still don't understand why.
there is something not textbook in the XO imo to meet their design goals. (bookshelf/relective room)

I dont think there is much baffle effect into the XO. They said on their site from desktop/bookshelf placement. So I guess not far from the back wall. Also it is rated 86db with 86 db woofer.....

A few cm or mm (like surface mounting the driver vs sinking into the baffle) is enough to affect significantly a tweeter response on a baffle.

 

[DanielT]

For those who have never considered something like Dirac, you'll be surprised to see how it shows there is always something to fix with any system/speaker as soon as you place the stuff out in a real world room (and I do have a pretty good room for audio, and live by myself so I can place stuff anywhere I dang want it :-D). But why look for something where you know you have to fix many design peculiarities if your goal is closer to an analytical, linear response? (BTW I am not saying that should be everybody's ideal.) I'd rather get something with fewer things to fix.
The only thing I find a tad strange is that these Wilsons end up in the "recommended" category, while far better measuring speakers end up being "not recommended" due to some other priority (i.e. the KEF LS50 are a clear example, I think).
In the end, I am here to learn and find all the reviews super interesting and well done, irrespective of whether I personally agree or disagree with the ticked box at the end of the test, based on my very own priorities. If a review is well done, the tests as well presented as they are here, and the priorities in the final evaluation explained, I can draw my own conclusions.

And although there are benefits to designing speakers that are made to reduce problems with reflections, as well as vertical dispersion
Attached picture Snell 1 and two DIY. But then they should be placed in the combined living room, the listening room .... and well you get it. Everyone neither wants nor can not be hard core.

 

[YSDR]

Thanks for thinking with me to find the reason behind it.

For the tweeter if that is the reason you mentioned, it is strange it is seems here so strongly? Box dimension are not so uncommon.

The SS 15W8530 is the available woofer, guess their custom version isnt far from it.
View attachment 174722

As we can see, the dip about 1.5kHz is there in the raw driver response too.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

From the vertical directivity plots it looks like the crossover is Butterworth (with the main lobe tilting downward).

View attachment 174720

Thanks!
But how those 5db dips come in? they made it on purpose to compensate for the 3db bump at XO freq?

Then is butterworth not having even directivity?
Sorry many questions, trying to understand...

 

[MrHifiTunes]

As we can see, the dip about 1.5kHz is there in the raw driver response too.

Yes correct. even more. Then the directivity shows dips at those frequencies (1k5 and 3K. Is this their way to lower direct sound and bring in more reflected sound in those areas? To bring everything in balance again at the in room response?

Just seeking an answer why this design seems to do so well in a highly reflective room.

 

[Flak]

For those interested in the value proposition, I find the cost of accessories interesting...
you can change the grills of these speakers for US$600 with a pair of these:

Tune Tot Grille Set

parts.wilsonaudio.com

and change the color of the rings around the woofers for US$649 per color:

TuneTot Ring Set

parts.wilsonaudio.com

 

[NTK]

Thanks!
But how those 5db dips come in? they made it on purpose to compensate for the 3db bump at XO freq?

Then is butterworth not having even directivity?
Sorry many questions, trying to understand...

I am just guessing it is Butterworth from Rane's LR crossover primer.

RANE Commercial - Knowledge Base

Rane Commercial

www.ranecommercial.com

 

[DanielT]

Thanks!
But how those 5db dips come in? they made it on purpose to compensate for the 3db bump at XO freq?

Then is butterworth not having even directivity?
Sorry many questions, trying to understand...

Baffle step compensated incorrectly? You can enter the parameters here and drill with placement on the baffle, and everything else. If you know how the passive crossover filter is designed/schematic the values of the components.
There were some Scan Speak elements in them, right?

Home of the Edge

Edit:
What would it actually show? Of course, Wilson knows how to measure their speakers. They want it to look like that. A conscious design that is.

 

[YSDR]

I still think it's a LR2 attempt, but the end result is not textbook, this is how it turned out.
I would be curious about the xo schematic, maybe it would reveal a lot about the intention of the designer.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

A few cm or mm (like surface mounting the driver vs sinking into the baffle) is enough to affect significantly a tweeter response on a baffle.

Yes agree it is very sensitive device as it handles high freq's. Still I think they did it on purpose to meet their design approach. They paid some attention to put felt around it too.

What I come up so far is, dip woofer and tweeter down, put a butterworth XO to get 3db lift in the middle and this does the trick to balance direct and indirect sounds and given a smooth in room response.

But who am I? Just want to learn as this design seems to do well in a reflective environment which can come in handly as I have a reflective room too and can't put room insulations.
Dont know if it makes sense or not thought , there are more clever guys here then me.