Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[tove]

One could argue a perfect measuring speaker at $50k is no great value either. I would expect those to sound very clean and sparkly on first listen. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard them once at a show but I can’t remember wanting them. That said, $50k is more than was ever in my budget when I attended shows.

I absolutely think $50k is a lot more than anyone ever should have in their speaker budget for a residential stereo system...

Actually the proposition by Wilson feels a bit offensive. As a human person on planet earth, I am offended by this egregious pseudo-fraud.

 

[MKR]

One could argue a perfect measuring speaker at $50k is no great value either. I would expect those to sound very clean and sparkly on first listen. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard them once at a show but I can’t remember wanting them. That said, $50k is more than was ever in my budget when I attended shows.

Absolutely agree, it’s just even worse when the performance is poor. In my now going on over 2yr end game speaker quest, I truly believe end game performance can be had for much lower price of entry than many would believe. IMHO, you start to hit serious diminishing returns at about the $10k’ish mark. After which quality does not increase, but quantity (SPL) may.

And yes, they are “clean and sparkly”, fully intended to impress in showrooms, close the sale. Same as B&W. As is often the case, just follow the money it will usually explain most behavior. Assuming those particular buyers actually have any HF hearing remaining (many don’t, they often have some extensive grey hair), the speakers quickly find their way into used market due to severe listener fatigue. But the Wilson’s, B&Ws, etc of the world could care less, they made the sale, laughing on way to bank as I stated prior.

 

[MattHooper]

This measured performance for $50k ? It’s an insult… no matter if they have produced worse, it’s still ridiculous … of course Wilson laughing on the way to the bank, I am sure they will sell plenty of them

Sure that view was a given on this Forum.

I was just asking a more objective question, as I believe Wilson speakers have measured even worse than this generally IIRC.

 

[Mnyb]

The main issue at hand is that you ( your brain ) can slowly get used to almost anything ( and you do even if think you have high audiophile cred ).

And most of us only have a single pair of good speakers over longer time periods , so we essentially get "recalibrated" against our only reference flawed as it migth be, maybe it eventually drives you up the walls and you sell

Knowing this I make my speaker shortlist to only include decent measuring speakers and go from there . In the end it will be more satisfying to not be so far out in the circle of confusion ? Your speaker are more neutral as are most modern studios , then some magic can happen some recordings may sometimes sound roughly as the producer intended If you buy some off the atrocities posted here , you can be 100% sure of having any recording not sounding as it should

 

[Frank Dernie]

When I was travelling around looking for "the last speakers I would need to buy" around 30 years ago of the then current Wilson range I preferred the Watt Puppy (3/2 and sold separately then iirc) the best. There were few measurements to go by back then, just auditioning.

As a student in 1970 I bought KEFkit 3 kits. Basically it was the front baffle of the then current KEF Concerto with T27 tweeter B110 mid driver and B139 bass with a DN12 crossover, port and suggestions for a cabinet volume range.
With youthful enthusiasm I built the biggest volume cabinet recommended out of chip board. Later as a fully qualified practicing noise and vibration research engineer I made the cabinets more inert. It may be expectation bias but it made a big improvement.

According to one of my friends who designs loudspeaker drive units and complete speakers for a multitude of clients, using mathematical modelling and klippel measuring systems, it is not possible to measure the influence the cabinet is having in addition to the drivers from what a microphone picks up. He adds the cabinet radiation to that of the drivers in a mathematical model and considers the cabinet design to be very important, I would imagine particularly big floorstanders with large cabinet surface area.

Given it can't be directly measured and we don't have computer modelling data on here I suspect this is an aspect of loudspeaker design which is largely neglected from consideration on this forum.

I do have the last 2 editions of Dr Toole's book...

 

[sigbergaudio]

This measured performance for $50k ? It’s an insult… no matter if they have produced worse, it’s still ridiculous … of course Wilson laughing on the way to the bank, I am sure they will sell plenty of them

Are you guys even looking at the graphs before bashing them? @Purité Audio I think you have posted a couple lately that I'm not sure deserve to be in this thread.

This looks like around +/-2.5dB from around 50hz-20khz , certainly not far from it. -6dB@40hz, -10dB@28hz or something. With room gain it's likely pretty flat to at least 30-35hz. A shelf from 4khz and up of maybe 2dB will add some air and sparkle and is unlikely to be troublesome. If the speakers aren't toed in it will also even out a bit. Looks a bit lacking in the midbass area.

I don't see how this belong in this thread.

 

[Mart68]

Are you guys even looking at the graphs before bashing them? @Purité Audio I think you have posted a couple lately that I'm not sure deserve to be in this thread.

This looks like around +/-2.5dB from around 50hz-20khz , certainly not far from it. -6dB@40hz, -10dB@28hz or something. With room gain it's likely pretty flat to at least 30-35hz. A shelf from 4khz and up of maybe 2dB will add some air and sparkle and is unlikely to be troublesome. If the speakers aren't toed in it will also even out a bit. Looks a bit lacking in the midbass area.

I don't see how this belong in this thread.

View attachment 423658

I was also thinking it doesn't look that bad. Although once you take the asking price into account, that changes.

 

[fredoamigo]

I was also thinking it doesn't look that bad. Although once you take the asking price into account, that changes.

If they are not trash like the Borresen can be, they do not, however, have the attributes of SOTA. Some time ago, I listened to Wilson full range speakers, although I don't remember the exact model. However, I don't recall being scandalized by the listening experience. They had a very pronounced 'voicing' that can appeal to some. The question is whether this is truly high fidelity in the strict sense of the term. In some cases, having too manichean a view of what a good speaker should be can be counterproductive This time, if @MattHooper became their lawyer, he could be credible

 

[thewas]

Are you guys even looking at the graphs before bashing them? @Purité Audio I think you have posted a couple lately that I'm not sure deserve to be in this thread.

This looks like around +/-2.5dB from around 50hz-20khz , certainly not far from it. -6dB@40hz, -10dB@28hz or something. With room gain it's likely pretty flat to at least 30-35hz. A shelf from 4khz and up of maybe 2dB will add some air and sparkle and is unlikely to be troublesome. If the speakers aren't toed in it will also even out a bit. Looks a bit lacking in the midbass area.

I don't see how this belong in this thread.

View attachment 423658

Exactly, same of the Vivid Audio some days ago and more important just a couple +-15° off axis plots are not enough to judge how good the very important radiation is although at this example even those few angles seem to not predict a great result there.

 

[beagleman]

Very interesting. That's the first time I've seen Paul Miller measurements in Stereophile. I know that John Atkinson is still in the mix, which is fortunate because I prefer his layout.

Hey Dennis, not to get off topic, but have you shut down your "Murphy Blaster" site for good or technical issues?

I have tried loading it a few times in the last few weeks and it appears "Down"

 

[MKR]

Are you guys even looking at the graphs before bashing them? @Purité Audio I think you have posted a couple lately that I'm not sure deserve to be in this thread.

This looks like around +/-2.5dB from around 50hz-20khz , certainly not far from it. -6dB@40hz, -10dB@28hz or something. With room gain it's likely pretty flat to at least 30-35hz. A shelf from 4khz and up of maybe 2dB will add some air and sparkle and is unlikely to be troublesome. If the speakers aren't toed in it will also even out a bit. Looks a bit lacking in the midbass area.

I don't see how this belong in this thread.

View attachment 423658

Of course I looked at the FR. Not that bad if the cost was orders of magnitude less, that is really my point, and I stated as such. Maybe read my posts a bit more carefully.

With this said, I wouldn’t pay $50k for ANY speaker, regardless of performance. It is simply not necessary, unless you need high fidelity and fill a large auditorium. Back to my diminishing returns comment.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Of course I looked at the FR. Not that bad if the cost was orders of magnitude less, that is really my point, and I stated as such. Maybe read my posts a bit more carefully.

With this said, I wouldn’t pay $50k for ANY speaker, regardless of performance. It is simply not necessary, unless you need high fidelity and fill a large auditorium. Back to my diminishing returns comment.

I think I read them okay. But we are all entitled to our opinion, so I won't push that any further. It was also more of a general comment; It sometimes feels like we are putting speakers that are perfectly fine in the same bucket as speakers that are absolutely horrible. I don't think that's fair.

 

[Ktacos]

I think I read them okay. But we are all entitled to our opinion, so I won't push that any further. It was also more of a general comment; It sometimes feels like we are putting speakers that are perfectly fine in the same bucket as speakers that are absolutely horrible. I don't think that's fair.

I personally have yet to see a speaker that didn't deserve to be in the thread.

 

[MKR]

I think I read them okay. But we are all entitled to our opinion, so I won't push that any further. It was also more of a general comment; It sometimes feels like we are putting speakers that are perfectly fine in the same bucket as speakers that are absolutely horrible. I don't think that's fair.

I would agree with you when looking at performance from a pure objective aspect. But when you have mediocre performance plus outrageous cost, that changes the equation.

Note I did audition multiple Wilson models past couple years and would agree they are a little better than they used to be. B&W on the other hand is as horrific as ever.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I personally have yet to see a speaker that didn't deserve to be in the thread.

So you think that recently shared Wilson belongs in a thread titled "worst measuring loudspeaker"? On what grounds?

 

[tove]

According to one of my friends who designs loudspeaker drive units and complete speakers for a multitude of clients, using mathematical modelling and klippel measuring systems, it is not possible to measure the influence the cabinet is having in addition to the drivers from what a microphone picks up.

How can this be? The entire speaker, cabinet and drivers, is strapped into the Klippel?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Note I did audition multiple Wilson models past couple years and would agree they are a little better than they used to be. B&W on the other hand is as horrific as ever.

Well, this is imprecise as well, B&W have had a number of well measuring speakers in the past. But it seems to be going in the wrong direction. So opposite trend as Wilson, perhaps.

Since we pride ourselves of being scientific and objective on this forum, I think we should try to be less binary when we describe both individual loudspeakers and brands as a whole.

 

[Ktacos]

So you think that recently shared Wilson belongs in a thread titled "worst measuring loudspeaker"? On what grounds?

It's 50k and measures worse than some average priced bookshelves. Hell the wilson measures worse than the majority of my own diy stuff. Your standards are slipping my friend.

In room on and off axis of some cheapo bookshelves I was working a bit ago looks infinitely better. No excuse for $50k average performing speakers in this day and age. No corrective EQ here either, just something to tilt down the highs to my liking.

 

[MKR]

Well, this is imprecise as well, B&W have had a number of well measuring speakers in the past. But it seems to be going in the wrong direction. So opposite trend as Wilson, perhaps.

Since we pride ourselves of being scientific and objective on this forum, I think we should try to be less binary when we describe both individual loudspeakers and brands as a whole.

Not at all imprecise. I am in fact referring to recent B&W designs, agree the older (much older) designs were better.

 

[sigbergaudio]

It's 50k and measures worse than some average priced bookshelves. Hell the wilson measures worse than the majority of my own diy stuff. Your standards are slipping my friend.

In room on and off axis of some cheapo bookshelves I was working a bit ago looks infinitely better. No excuse for $50k average performing speakers in this day and age. No corrective EQ here either, just something to tilt down the highs to my liking.

View attachment 423695

So now we are judging speakers based on on-axis response alone? I expect based on this you are assuming your cheapo bookshelves sound better than the Wilson in every respect as well? Currently (based on the measurements in that review alone) we do not have enough data to know how it performs.