Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)

[DanielT]

Well, this is what a trained acoustician says about this with FR and measurements. It was about a few different speakers. Incidentally, what I mentioned earlier as an important parameter to weigh in, distortion is addressed.Please note that it is NOT Wilson Audio TuneTot that is addressed. See it from a general point of view

Thread title:

"Bad speakers that sound good?
---

" That frequency response could have come from any Wilson Audio creation, at least if it had also had a clear peak in the middle base.

In fact, not too broadband deviations of such +/- 4 dB on-axis sometimes do not sound at all as bad as you might think. The most important thing here is probably the room frequency response which is not a disaster, mainly with a little lack of level around 2-4 kHz and a small peak around 6 kHz. The sound will lean slightly in the more relaxed direction, which is easier to accept than the reverse. Well-recorded violins and piano will sound a bit restrained or indistinct and especially piggy guitar solos lose the last "ear bleeding pressure". It should also be remembered that Ino speakers equipped with the approximately 8 inch large base elements show a decreasing spread around 2-3 kHz, which turns out to be a small valley in the room frequency response here.

The "rasping" probably comes from the distortion peak of about 8% around 6-8 kHz at 96 dB, 1 m, something that is always clearly audible (THD of 1% usually gives the most impression that the clarity / separation is lost, provided that.
second or possibly third ton dominates). Measurement results for the Ino speakers / elements I have seen show an overall relatively mediocre distortion for the bass elements, but usually low distortion for the treble, which is in quite sharp contrast to the high treble distortion here.

Stereo system error compensation (correction of the frequency response for phantom projected sounds, i.e. the sum signal) is not possible via frequency response changes or scattering changes as these will always have an effect on the difference signal as well.

And that is exactly why equalization is always directly necessary if you have high demands on the sound quality. The designer is actually faced with completely impossible problems because he can only guess at the layout and the properties of the boundary surfaces. Broadband is perhaps about +/- 3 dB in varying sensitivity below about 300 Hz, which gives completely different results for the listeners' perception of the speaker's tonal properties.

Incidentally, one can certainly criticize Harman's test methodology, but nevertheless most people probably agree that their constructions are often of a high standard even in Swedish listening rooms, something you can definitely not say about a lot of other high-profile hi-fi manufacturers' products. Even just decent science beats voodoo every time."

faktiskt.io • Visa tråd - Dåliga högtalare som låter bra?

www.faktiskt.io

 

[teched58]

There are lots of speakers in the same size at a tenth of the price (or lower) that measure / sound better than the Audio TuneTot. What I am most fascinated about is how selling the Wilson brand itself is.

However, there are none more hideous looking than the large Wilson speakers. They look like those kids Transformers action figures. How someone can put such ugly abominations in their house is beyond me.

Oh, also, here's an expression I wonder if Mr. DWI has ever heard: "Old money whispers, new money screams."

 

[Crosstalk]

That cloth material around the holes are not even even. That’s not even acceptable on bookshelf worth 200 dollars If anyone hadn’t noticed it until now. Wait, no magnetic grill on a 10k bookshelf? !!

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Why the wrinkle at 1K2 and 2k8 are called resonances? Looking at the individual drivers they probably have a notch filter there. Phase and magintude have a wrinkle at the same Frequencies. Isnt a notch "good design"? Is this audible?

Wrinkles in impedance and phase plots are called resonances because they are resonances. They correspondence with peaks (mostly) in individual driver SPL responses. And no, they are not notch filters, because notch filters make dips in the SPL plots (and big peaks in impedance).
Resonances are audible. How much - it depends on several factors. I any case, I don't want to tolerate resonances of such magnitude in a $10,000 speakers - I surely can find other loudspeakers at the same price, but without such resonances.

 

[zeppzeppzepp]

Well, this is what a trained acoustician says about this with FR and measurements. It was about a few different speakers. Incidentally, what I mentioned earlier as an important parameter to weigh in, distortion is addressed.Please note that it is NOT Wilson Audio TuneTot that is addressed. See it from a general point of view

Thread title:

"Bad speakers that sound good?
---

" That frequency response could have come from any Wilson Audio creation, at least if it had also had a clear peak in the middle base.

In fact, not too broadband deviations of such +/- 4 dB on-axis sometimes do not sound at all as bad as you might think. The most important thing here is probably the room frequency response which is not a disaster, mainly with a little lack of level around 2-4 kHz and a small peak around 6 kHz. The sound will lean slightly in the more relaxed direction, which is easier to accept than the reverse. Well-recorded violins and piano will sound a bit restrained or indistinct and especially piggy guitar solos lose the last "ear bleeding pressure". It should also be remembered that Ino speakers equipped with the approximately 8 inch large base elements show a decreasing spread around 2-3 kHz, which turns out to be a small valley in the room frequency response here.

The "rasping" probably comes from the distortion peak of about 8% around 6-8 kHz at 96 dB, 1 m, something that is always clearly audible (THD of 1% usually gives the most impression that the clarity / separation is lost, provided that.
second or possibly third ton dominates). Measurement results for the Ino speakers / elements I have seen show an overall relatively mediocre distortion for the bass elements, but usually low distortion for the treble, which is in quite sharp contrast to the high treble distortion here.

Stereo system error compensation (correction of the frequency response for phantom projected sounds, i.e. the sum signal) is not possible via frequency response changes or scattering changes as these will always have an effect on the difference signal as well.

And that is exactly why equalization is always directly necessary if you have high demands on the sound quality. The designer is actually faced with completely impossible problems because he can only guess at the layout and the properties of the boundary surfaces. Broadband is perhaps about +/- 3 dB in varying sensitivity below about 300 Hz, which gives completely different results for the listeners' perception of the speaker's tonal properties.

Incidentally, one can certainly criticize Harman's test methodology, but nevertheless most people probably agree that their constructions are often of a high standard even in Swedish listening rooms, something you can definitely not say about a lot of other high-profile hi-fi manufacturers' products. Even just decent science beats voodoo every time."

faktiskt.io • Visa tråd - Dåliga högtalare som låter bra?

www.faktiskt.io

Right, smart people.
To trust measurements is good, but to trust the score rating is not.

 

[DanielT]

Right, smart people.
To trust measurements is good, but to trust the score rating is not.

Several aspects to weigh together for the listening experience. You can not stare blindly at just one aspect of a measurement (I'm not saying you do). For speakers, it is a combination of FR, directivity and distortion. How it interacts with the listening room, placement of the speakers. At different volumes, different types of music, amp ... and so on.

Then that annoying aspect that people have different likes and tastes.It's too damn bad.

By the way.Speaking of distortion that was addressed in the quotes I pasted.

How about speakers that do not distort (or very little) plus amplifiers that are not driven into clipping? Like this. It just gives an indication of how it sound IRL but still. I enclose a picture of the amplifiers.
(nop not mine, unfortunately)

Here are the DIY speakers (that mr DIY is very competent)

faktiskt.io • Visa tråd - SALS?A! - en väldigt lång historia

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Wrinkles in impedance and phase plots are called resonances because they are resonances. They correspondence with peaks (mostly) in individual driver SPL responses. And no, they are not notch filters, because notch filters make dips in the SPL plots (and big peaks in impedance).
Resonances are audible. How much - it depends on several factors. I any case, I don't want to tolerate resonances of such magnitude in a $10,000 speakers - I surely can find other loudspeakers at the same price, but without such resonances.

Those are dips at 1k2 and 2k8 ? The wrinkles on those frequencies dont show any peak in the waterfall plot. They are not show these peaks in the individual driver SPL responses either.

The small wrinkle at 700Hz does. That is a resonanse. It shows in the phase plot but not in th magnitute plot.
Although Im thinking it comes from the box and not the driver. It was also visual on a plot someone showed here with different BR designs.

 

[aj625]

This is the hottest thread on ASR, i bet they sold more than a few pairs because of it

No way. I think the way Amir is exposing these scams he might have already been threatened for lawsuits.

 

[aj625]

No way. I think the way Amir is exposing these scams he might have already been threatened for lawsuits.

Some of the big scams i remember are ps audio dac, totaldac, schiit R2R dacs, these Wilson speakers, abyss headphones. One thing is common that there are many supporters of these products who keep on justifying these products based on the notion that hi fi is not about hi fidelity, it's about what people like to listen. And what people want to listen is mostly what they have been trained and led to believe into over the years. " The most funny part is that these people rarely have compared their boutique product side by side with a better measuring albeit a cheap product because they were committed to inferior boutique product based on glowing subjective reviews." Since they already spent a fortune on that boutique product, their ego doesn't let them come to terms to the fact that there are cheaper and better products. And this chain reaction continues until that boutique product is measured in detail. Now you know why nobody talks about schiit yggy or ps audio ?

 

[thewas]

Amir liked seems to like it, even more then a textbook revel M106. But mentioned his reflective room so does Wilson.

People like also horns and tube amps, even more in a sighted mono test, our discussion was about the objective side, that is, measurements and engineering. Also we don't know at which distance he listens, how far the side walls are etc, reflective is not reflective.

What I get from your writing is what the textbook said, that I understand clearly.
flat FR and smooth directivity = good sound.
flat FR and wobbly directivity is bad sound.

This design isnt textbook and one need to think out of the box.
Wobbly on axis and wobbly directivity when done in the right places and amounts gives also smooth in-room and good sound. (according to the listening impression.)

You again ignore what "the textbook" says that poor directivity cannot be corrected with on-axis EQ and giving the same FR at the LP. Here once what Toole says:

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.

 

[DSJR]

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.

The 40th Anniversary and XD models do sound just a touch clearer due to the less intrusive? crossovers, but I do agree they're large (for some UK rooms including mine) lumps to fit in - delightful midrange though. Heck, depending on what we end up doing here I'll be reduced to the pencil or column type B&O actives which can be got for little money now, the column 6000's being perfect for close to corner siting, the 8000's on a long wall and the rather excellent 4000's on tall stands or a shelf (slightly larger bass driver so less eq needed).

 

[MrHifiTunes]

People like also horns and tube amps, even more in a sighted mono test, our discussion was about the objective side, that is, measurements and engineering. Also we don't know at which distance he listens, how far the side walls are etc, reflective is not reflective.

Yes, can put it in a different way. how you get smooth in-room with wobbly on axis and directivity? And how does one evaluate such sound?

As some one pointed out from Heibman acoustics :
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.

You again ignore what "the textbook" says that poor directivity cannot be corrected with on-axis EQ and giving the same FR at the LP. Here once what Toole says:

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.

Where am I talking about EQ-ing? I miss that part. I know that you can not flatten directivity with EQ. I have no intention to do so. It would ruin this design.

 

[DSJR]

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.

I quote

'The first dip should be self-explanatory to remove the extra bass boost. Doing this from anechoic measurements is tricky though as in-room response likely looks very different. So I adjusted this by ear and admittedly on some tracks I wanted slightly more of it. With this filter in place the bass was now tighter and overall sound of the speaker more open. Per above though, there was some brightness that gave me hell to deal with. Likely due to bad directivity and mismatch of on and off-axis, using an electronic filter that impacts both is very challenging.

I eventually gave up on optimizing using on-axis response and roughly used the Predicted In-Room Response (by eye) to develop the two other mild filters. I performed a number of blind tests and overall I preferred the equalized response. There is a caveat that you need to know what good and clean bass is and the overall proper tonality. Otherwise, the "showroom sound" aspect of this speaker can be seductive making you want to listen to boosted bass and slightly elevated highs.'

 

[MrHifiTunes]

I quote

'The first dip should be self-explanatory to remove the extra bass boost. Doing this from anechoic measurements is tricky though as in-room response likely looks very different. So I adjusted this by ear and admittedly on some tracks I wanted slightly more of it. With this filter in place the bass was now tighter and overall sound of the speaker more open. Per above though, there was some brightness that gave me hell to deal with. Likely due to bad directivity and mismatch of on and off-axis, using an electronic filter that impacts both is very challenging.

I eventually gave up on optimizing using on-axis response and roughly used the Predicted In-Room Response (by eye) to develop the two other mild filters. I performed a number of blind tests and overall I preferred the equalized response. There is a caveat that you need to know what good and clean bass is and the overall proper tonality. Otherwise, the "showroom sound" aspect of this speaker can be seductive making you want to listen to boosted bass and slightly elevated highs.'

Exactly what I said :
Likely due to bad directivity and mismatch of on and off-axis, using an electronic filter that impacts both is very challenging.
I eventually gave up on optimizing using on-axis response and roughly used the Predicted In-Room Response (by eye) to develop the two other mild filters

You can not EQ directivity

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Those are dips at 1k2 and 2k8 ? The wrinkles on those frequencies dont show any peak in the waterfall plot. They are not show these peaks in the individual driver SPL responses either.

The small wrinkle at 700Hz does. That is a resonanse. It shows in the phase plot but not in th magnitute plot.
Although Im thinking it comes from the box and not the driver. It was also visual on a plot someone showed here with different BR designs.

Did you overlook my writing that notch filters corresponds to big impedance peaks (if they are parallel RLC traps)? And big dips, if they are serial RLC traps? There are no such big peaks or dips in the impedance plot, just small wrinkles.
The small wrinkle is not at 700Hz, but at 600 Hz. Besides waterfall diagram, it is shown clearly in the SPL magnitude plot of the port output. It is from port/box interaction with the driver.
There are peaks in waterfall response at around 1.2kHz and (a small one) at 3kHz - exactly where the wrinkles are in the impedance plots.
You circled drivers SPL magnitudes dips above 1kHz and below 3kHz - those dips are somewhat deceptive because there is some driver output "bleeding" as a result of measuring both drivers outputs at the same time. If the drivers were measured separately, the SPL plot would be different and more true to the reality.

 

[ExUnoPlura]

Having lightly skimmed 57 pages so far of comments on the Tune Tots, if we were to classify the ideas they might look something like this: (1) audio quality purists who find the speakers lacking, with an allowance for EQ; (2) audio quality X value enthusiasts who are appalled it isn't better given the price; (3) value >> quality commentators who are just appalled; (4) luxury goods enthusiasts (@DWI) who buy based on a combination of factors, including spousal approval, cost, and aesthetic appeal.

Related to (4) and (1), I have design objections to Wilson products. The angular cases and track-mounted frames of larger models (resembling a leg brace or something) are distinct but unappealing to me. For the target audience of $10k-$100k+ speakers, I don't think the designs work in almost any interesting contemporary architecture, except perhaps a converted aircraft hangar or geodesic dome. I also object to garishly hyper-polished Sonus Fabers that are only fit for a ridicule-worthy gilded cage. Some of the industrial horns and omnidirectional speakers like Radialstrahlers can work in a converted factory loft, perhaps, but look like weird blenders otherwise.

So, what works in terms of design aesthetics? I can fit Kef's veneers (or Buchardt or Dali) into midcentury contemporary alongside JBL classics or period-looking Klipsches. Bang & Olufsen can go Danish contempo or Scandinavian minimalism, obviously. Big Focals might work there, too, or in any contemporary space. Though, for modernism, hiding everything in the walls/ceilings is probably the most appealing solution. Modern ski lodges maybe Avalons.

So I add (5) audio quality X design appropriateness to the comment taxonomy for your consideration.

 

[DSJR]

Exactly what I said :
Likely due to bad directivity and mismatch of on and off-axis, using an electronic filter that impacts both is very challenging.
I eventually gave up on optimizing using on-axis response and roughly used the Predicted In-Room Response (by eye) to develop the two other mild filters

You can not EQ directivity

But he did need to eq them (OK, he used the in-room response rather than the Klippel raw one) - that was the point I'm trying to make.

I'm well aware what less than stellar directivity does, especially in a heavily soft-furnished room. Combine that with a 3dB trough in the lower kHz region which makes it worse and the result in a room like mine is dull as ditchwater and bland as a result with 'sweet toned 'tinsel' for highs. I don't want a screech-box and neither a loudness switch 'boom - tizz' affair (I already had overdone dominant bass with a pair of passive Linn Keilidh's back in the day but the peak was at 50Hz or so I remember). The music I play has plentiful bass from 40Hz or so upwards and many modern speakers either fart these frequencies out with copious distortion, or remove it altogether. I don't mind a gently rolled off low bass, as long as it's clean and not boomy (group delay?)

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Did you overlook my writing that notch filters corresponds to big impedance peaks (if they are parallel RLC traps)? And big dips, if they are serial RLC traps? There are no such big peaks or dips in the impedance plot, just small wrinkles.
The small wrinkle is not at 700Hz, but at 600 Hz. Besides waterfall diagram, it is shown clearly in the SPL magnitude plot of the port output. It is from port/box interaction with the driver.
There are peaks in waterfall response at around 1.2kHz and (a small one) at 3kHz - exactly where the wrinkles are in the impedance plots.
You circled drivers SPL magnitudes dips above 1kHz and below 3kHz - those dips are somewhat deceptive because there is some driver output "bleeding" as a result of measuring both drivers outputs at the same time. If the drivers were measured separately, the SPL plot would be different and more true to the reality.

Sorry I might have missed it. There is so much going on here difficult to keep track.

Why the bleeding would be so much stronger here then on other designs? Many speakers have baffle like this one.

 

[Crosstalk]

The 40th Anniversary and XD models do sound just a touch clearer due to the less intrusive? crossovers, but I do agree they're large (for some UK rooms including mine) lumps to fit in - delightful midrange though. Heck, depending on what we end up doing here I'll be reduced to the pencil or column type B&O actives which can be got for little money now, the column 6000's being perfect for close to corner siting, the 8000's on a long wall and the rather excellent 4000's on tall stands or a shelf (slightly larger bass driver so less eq needed).

Imo, b and o is underrated at audiophiles by their prejudices of needing wider boxes for their feast to the eyes. Honestly if colored sound is to be accepted, then why not b and o? They do absolutely beautiful looking non intrusive sound furnitures imo.

 

[zeppzeppzepp]

Several aspects to weigh together for the listening experience. You can not stare blindly at just one aspect of a measurement (I'm not saying you do). For speakers, it is a combination of FR, directivity and distortion. How it interacts with the listening room, placement of the speakers. At different volumes, different types of music, amp ... and so on.

Then that annoying aspect that people have different likes and tastes.It's too damn bad.

By the way.Speaking of distortion that was addressed in the quotes I pasted.

How about speakers that do not distort (or very little) plus amplifiers that are not driven into clipping? Like this. It just gives an indication of how it sound IRL but still. I enclose a picture of the amplifiers.
(nop not mine, unfortunately)

Here are the DIY speakers (that mr DIY is very competent)

faktiskt.io • Visa tråd - SALS?A! - en väldigt lång historia

Yes, then how to weigh different aspects?
Do yo have no rating system of your own?
I have mine, that's not science anyway.
Why anyone need to follow one rating score? What does it come from? By analyzing brains? Brain scan or something? ha.
I don't against statistics that can predict the speaker performance to some extent, that's fine.
I'm just more open to the exception.