Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)

[Galliardist]

Did you measure it after closing the port? If not it’s just an assumption.

Just go back and look at the graphs in tbe original review. The bass output was measured with the port closed - there is still a small hump centred at a slightly lower frequency but it’s a lot less.

With the port closed, in fact, it looks a lot like most small desktop speakers in terms of FR.

 

[EXIF68]

Magico A1 has sealed bass, and bass response is very similar to "plugged" TuneTot! Another similarity is the on-axis notch around 4kHz, which is compensated by wide radiation in that range. Depression above 10khz is typical for all Magicos, sad to say.

I would choose Magico A1, because of my sympathy for sealed designs, and esthetics. But on the other hand, I would never put 10.000€ for a pair of small bookshelf speakers! One can get maximum performance for those at around 5-800/pair, eg. Monitor Audio

Monitor Audio Silver 100 Review (Speaker)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Monitor Audio Silver 100 bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and was just discontinued. It still sells for $799. As you see, the Silver 100 is a very attractive speaker. It feels substantial compared to more budget speakers...

www.audiosciencereview.com

You're right. I will stay with my fabulous Heissmann DXT-MON. This speaker is really not very expensive and sounds great with all kind of music, film tone human voice. From the cost's, compared to Wilson or Magico, it is a gift.

 

[Crosstalk]

Where do they "increase"? Their in-room is textbook sloped/flat. (I hope you are not talking about the bass bump. )

They just let in more indirect sound but at the same time reduce the direct sound on certain frequencies in the 1-3k area.

I am talking about the bass hump

 

[MrHifiTunes]

I am talking about the bass hump

I thought we were over that one already long time ago.

 

[DanielT]

Here is a reason why you need to listen to speakers to see if you are attracted by the sound.

If you have not listened to any omnidirectional speakers, how do you know if you are attracted, or not, by that sound?

[Review] Duevel Planets loudspeakers - [English]

Listening test of the Duevel Planets omnidirectional loudspeakers, on TNT-Audio - Internet HiFi magazine - www.tnt-audio.com

www.tnt-audio.com

 

[watchnerd]

Sometimes I can't tell if this thread is incredulity about the Wilson Tune Tots, specifically, or more generally about the idea of spending $10K on passive 2 way speakers.

 

[DanielT]

View attachment 174842

No, this is it.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

I want to rephrase what Im trying to bring up so many times already :

What we have here is a bad measuring speaker which sounds good.

Solution1 : listening test is not correct. biased etc....don't care which reason you give it all boils down to the same thing.

I don't want to go that easy route. I think there is something else into play here.
Our framework said we need flat FR and sloped directivity with no bumps to get a good sounding speaker. (and to make it clear I don't question the correctness of those guidelines. They ARE correct.)

But what does that mean? For me it means that at listening position we receive direct and indirect sound.
To be able to get good sound, they (direct+indirect) need to be flat/smooth with no bumps. So we hear an even sound.

This should be the final goal as textbook describes. Deviations from this leads to bad sound.

But there may be more routes to lead to this.
Flat+ Flat is obvious leading to this (as the textbook described)

But maybe wobbly FR + wobbly directivity when done properly also lead to that. Which is the case here....when we look at the in-room response. smooth and even.

If this is the case it is something unique as it not the normal route one takes to achieve this.
That makes it a good case to investigate for me and trying to learn and understand the how and why.

After all it is a science website right.

 

[Crosstalk]

I thought we were over that one already long time ago.

No. But This time I m trying to justify it

 

[Eetu]

I want to rephrase what Im trying to bring up so many times already :

What we have here is a bad measuring speaker which sounds good.

Solution1 : listening test is not correct. biased etc....don't care which reason you give it all boils down to the same thing.

I don't want to go that easy route. I think there is something else into play here.
Our framework said we need flat FR and sloped directivity with no bumps to get a good sounding speaker. (and to make it clear I don't question the correctness of those guidelines. They ARE correct.)

But what does that mean? For me it means that at listening position we receive direct and indirect sound.
To be able to get good sound, they (direct+indirect) need to be flat/smooth with no bumps. So we hear an even sound.

This should be the final goal as textbook describes. Deviations from this leads to bad sound.

But there may be more routes to lead to this.
Flat+ Flat is obvious leading to this (as the textbook described)

But maybe wobbly FR + wobbly directivity when done properly also lead to that. Which is the case here....when we look at the in-room response. smooth and even.

If this is the case it is something unique as it not the normal route one takes to achieve this.
That makes it a good case to investigate for me and trying to learn and understand the how and why.

After all it is a science website right.

Not unique and not unusual either. Read the 'worst case' scenario from this link https://heissmann-acoustics.de/en/kantendiffraktion-sekundaerschallquellen-treiberanordnun/

Usually such concepts are coordinated with a sink on the axis, which is then "filled up" again at angles. In terms of tonality, that can sound very good. In an area that is sensitive to the ear there is a depression (I like to call this "ear flatterer"), but nothing is missing energetically, as it is compensated at angles.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

No. But This time I m trying to justify it

I know good enough what a bump like that sounds likes. If you dont want it...put the foam plug.

 

[DWI]

WE might here, assuming we were fortunate enough to have ten or eleven grand available to spend on such a luxury small speaker, but it was confirmed to me by two separate dealers selling boxes at this price and above that the majority of buyers don't ever read forums, nor reviews especially. Nah, a lay person stumbling on this review will avoid the 'pretty picture plots' as they wouldn't understand them initially and if they could trawl the comments and defense, they'd go with the defense as these people (probably more mature couples actually) listen to general music in real rooms not specially treated audio rooms as enthusiasts.

Something else - are we condemning the entire brand on the compromises made in this starter model? I mean, I had a downer on Majico on costs and appearance with absolutely no idea they actually do have sota test equipment to make their bling-boxes perform as well as a passive tower type can. Not sure it's easy to measure Wilson's larger less compromised models well as they're huge and designed as much as visual statements as anything else with the multiple drivers possibly lobing vertically if you sit too close to them?

At the end of the day and with deep respect to Purite Audio's Keith here (the one objectively serious UK high end dealer I can think of judging by the speakers he stocks). For ten (£11500 in the UK) grand and for waf factor, I'd try to find a good used recent spec pair of ATC 50ASL's, as they're honest specced and good looking if 'trad' furniture, have dedicated low noise amps and carefully optimised grilles built in and don't make your trad-normal living/listening area look like Mission Control (we don't all live in rooms with acoustics like a bathroom although that seems to be a modern trend!!!)

I remember a well-known Essex Harbeth dealer (I bought three pairs from him over the years) telling me he reckoned about 1 in 100 of his customers ever went on a forum, and he’s been selling hifi for close to 50 years. Then again, a nice chap at Richer Sounds told me much the same.

I think an equally likely alternative would be Devialet Phantom. You can put it anywhere and it has a remarkable ability to fill a room with pleasing sound. My wife and kids love them. That said, it is still more likely to be a Sonos or Alexa device. The most expensive row of terraced houses in the U.K. (over £40m each) had Sonos in them.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Not unique and not unusual either. Read the 'worst case' scenario from this link https://heissmann-acoustics.de/en/kantendiffraktion-sekundaerschallquellen-treiberanordnun/

Usually such concepts are coordinated with a sink on the axis, which is then "filled up" again at angles. In terms of tonality, that can sound very good. In an area that is sensitive to the ear there is a depression (I like to call this "ear flatterer"), but nothing is missing energetically, as it is compensated at angles.

they do mention it :

Usually such concepts are coordinated with a sink on the axis, which is then "filled up" again at angles. In terms of tonality, that can sound very good. In an area that is sensitive to the ear there is a depression (I like to call this "ear flatterer"), but nothing is missing energetically, as it is compensated at angles.

Maybe it is not unique but it require special skills to make it I guess.

Is it also an explanation for the BBC dip?
But here they have 2 dips at 1k2 and 2k8. Also the 5db drop of the woofer and tweeter before and after crossover point is weird.

 

[DSJR]

We have here an expensive speaker using expensive materials which appears designed in a more 'old school' rather than 'modern tech' way to achieve a particular pleasant sound as supplied in a particular room style.

Amir only liked it with eq applied if you look back and I bet this was the result due to the pretty decent drive units used more than anything else.

Sonus Faber in their day had stout boxes, simple crossovers with poly caps rather than electrolytics (from memory) and again, good quality basic drivers. The already tall stands (so as not to upset the often iffy dispersion if heard from above were available at one time in an adjustable height form and for not stu[id high prices, the Concerto and Signum were favourites of mine (Elector Amator II had a port honk/warmth I recall). All a long time ago and the current stuff is at or just below the Wilson perceived level...

 

[DSJR]

I remember a well-known Essex Harbeth dealer (I bought three pairs from him over the years) telling me he reckoned about 1 in 100 of his customers ever went on a forum, and he’s been selling hifi for close to 50 years. Then again, a nice chap at Richer Sounds told me much the same.

Just think, you could have had a pair of SHL5+-XD's from the Essex dealer ( Gawd bless him) with a nice Luxman amp for Tunetot money,,,

I'll get me coat and shut the door quietly on the way out...

 

[MrHifiTunes]

We have here an expensive speaker using expensive materials which appears designed in a more 'old school' rather than 'modern tech' way to achieve a particular pleasant sound as supplied in a particular room style.

Amir only liked it with eq applied if you look back and I bet this was the result due to the pretty decent drive units used more than anything else.

Sonus Faber in their day had stout boxes, simple crossovers with poly caps rather than electrolytics (from memory) and again, good quality basic drivers. The already tall stands (so as not to upset the often iffy dispersion if heard from above were available at one time in an adjustable height form and for not stu[id high prices, the Concerto and Signum were favourites of mine (Elector Amator II had a port honk/warmth I recall). All a long time ago and the current stuff is at or just below the Wilson perceived level...

In old school they didnt even know the concept of directivity.
Amir didnt EQ this as he mentioned he couldn't. And like others here also mentioned. You can not EQ wobbly directivity.

 

[DWI]

I want to rephrase what Im trying to bring up so many times already :

What we have here is a bad measuring speaker which sounds good.

Solution1 : listening test is not correct. biased etc....don't care which reason you give it all boils down to the same thing.

I don't want to go that easy route. I think there is something else into play here.
Our framework said we need flat FR and sloped directivity with no bumps to get a good sounding speaker. (and to make it clear I don't question the correctness of those guidelines. They ARE correct.)

But what does that mean? For me it means that at listening position we receive direct and indirect sound.
To be able to get good sound, they (direct+indirect) need to be flat/smooth with no bumps. So we hear an even sound.

This should be the final goal as textbook describes. Deviations from this leads to bad sound.

But there may be more routes to lead to this.
Flat+ Flat is obvious leading to this (as the textbook described)

But maybe wobbly FR + wobbly directivity when done properly also lead to that. Which is the case here....when we look at the in-room response. smooth and even.

If this is the case it is something unique as it not the normal route one takes to achieve this.
That makes it a good case to investigate for me and trying to learn and understand the how and why.

After all it is a science website right.

To simplify, what we have is a speaker that sounds good, is small and discrete, and would not be out of place in designer homes owned by people who wouldn’t bat an eyelid at 10 grand. I don’t think science comes in to it.

It would be a bit like asking Kim Kardashian to choose between a puffer jacket or a mink coat based on thermal specifications.

 

[DWI]

Just think, you could have had a pair of SHL5+-XD's from the Essex dealer ( Gawd bless him) with a nice Luxman amp for Tunetot money,,,

I'll get me coat and shut the door quietly on the way out...

He wouldn’t think these sensible. I bought two pairs of SHL5+ from him, the second in a more pleasing veneer to try and persuade the wife I hadn’t dumped two ugly wooden boxes in her living room. Ultimately my scheme failed and in fact I agreed with her.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

To simplify, what we have is a speaker that sounds good, is small and discrete, and would not be out of place in designer homes owned by people who wouldn’t bat an eyelid at 10 grand. I don’t think science comes in to it.

If it does sound good for that reason I do think science comes into play and it is clever engineering.

It would be a bit like asking Kim Kardashian to choose between a puffer jacket or a mink coat based on thermal specifications.

Sure Kim Kardashian doesnt mind but still the designers can put a lot of stuff in to match their criteria/design goals.

 

[zeppzeppzepp]

To simplify, what we have is a speaker that sounds good, is small and discrete, and would not be out of place in designer homes owned by people who wouldn’t bat an eyelid at 10 grand. I don’t think science comes in to it.

It would be a bit like asking Kim Kardashian to choose between a puffer jacket or a mink coat based on thermal specifications.

Anything comes with science, if not audio science, ha.
The distortion, material, and even the decorative texture.
Why do low scored speakers still sound good? That's scaring to some, sorry.