I commented a long time ago that I thought that the first Watt/Puppy SEAS/DYNAUDIO/FOCAL sounded better then the new SCANSPEAK/SCANSPEAK/FOCAL creation. The most important difference I thought was in the quality that the first one had in the mid range. From this great forum I was introduced to a great online magazine Soundstage. Soundstage uses the lab at the Canadian Research Council to do anechoic tests. This is the kind of magazine that I like. Not some idiots impression based on advertising dollars but some true independent test.
Here is the Watt/Puppy 7 response
After looking at this I can honestly say that I can now see why the new incarnation lacks something. What is all the hype about? I know beginners that strive for a better response then this. This is not the response I would expect from a $20,000+ speaker.
Here is a Thiel Audio CS1.6 $2400.00
What a difference this is.
Here is the Dynaudio Confidence $16000.00
There is more to speaker design then a flat response but at least with the other two I am getting what the creators of the cd wanted me to hear.This response tells me that Wilson is a rich hack.
Here is the Watt/Puppy 7 response
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
After looking at this I can honestly say that I can now see why the new incarnation lacks something. What is all the hype about? I know beginners that strive for a better response then this. This is not the response I would expect from a $20,000+ speaker.
Here is a Thiel Audio CS1.6 $2400.00
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
What a difference this is.
Here is the Dynaudio Confidence $16000.00
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
There is more to speaker design then a flat response but at least with the other two I am getting what the creators of the cd wanted me to hear.This response tells me that Wilson is a rich hack.
The only problem with the premise of this thread is that the old Watt/Puppy measures worse than the new one. While none of the curves are perfect, they generally stay within +/-3dB anechoic and they sound better in a real room (with floor bounce, etc.) than the anechoic curves might indicate.
catapult, I see that the response is +-9 if you consider the peak at 90 hz @95 db and the 14K frequency at around 86 db.
I am referring to the first series of the Watt. If you have seen a response for the early series please let us see it.
Here is the Sophia
You are correct that is is much better then the Watt. But still nothing that I would expect from a company asking so much money. I was a fan of the Watt for many years but this graph has really turned me off.
You people that have used the new ScanSpeak drivers, can you share with us if they are that hard to control without exaggerated smoothing of the response though.
pinkmouse fast bass from 60-100 Hz.
Is the Watt behavior a cabinet problem
or the speakers?
I am referring to the first series of the Watt. If you have seen a response for the early series please let us see it.
Here is the Sophia
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
You are correct that is is much better then the Watt. But still nothing that I would expect from a company asking so much money. I was a fan of the Watt for many years but this graph has really turned me off.
You people that have used the new ScanSpeak drivers, can you share with us if they are that hard to control without exaggerated smoothing of the response though.
pinkmouse fast bass from 60-100 Hz.
Is the Watt behavior a cabinet problem
or the speakers?B4 said:catapult, I see that the response is +-9 if you consider the peak at 90 hz @95 db and the 14K frequency at around 86 db.
I am referring to the first series of the Watt. If you have seen a response for the early series please let us see it.
Here is the Sophia
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
You are correct that is is much better then the Watt. But still nothing that I would expect from a company asking so much money. I was a fan of the Watt for many years but this graph has really turned me off.
You people that have used the new ScanSpeak drivers, can you share with us if they are that hard to control without exaggerated smoothing of the response though.
pinkmouse fast bass from 60-100 Hz.
Is the Watt behavior a cabinet problem
In-room freq. response is usually quite different than at a 1 meter distance. Additionally, freq. response is just one of many paramaters that contribute to a loudspeaker's performance. In fact its relativly easy to make a flat freq. response loudspeaker with ****-poor poly drivers.
Based on your post I suspect you would like Audio Perfectionist. Here is Richard's take on Wilson's products:
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PDF files/APJ_WD_21.pdf
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PDF files/APJ_WD_21.pdf
Mid-bass heavy, lousy mid-range, shrill top end, no low bass. For rich deaf people.
Did you read the article in TAS (call What Matters Most - last year?) where a group from TAS were unable to tell the source when played through Wilson speakers (including an Ipod)?
They play really loud though, and they are really well constructed, and they certainly win out in the "My Schwartz is bigger than your Schwartz" stakes (with apologies to Mel Brooks).
(
IMHO )
Did you read the article in TAS (call What Matters Most - last year?) where a group from TAS were unable to tell the source when played through Wilson speakers (including an Ipod)?
They play really loud though, and they are really well constructed, and they certainly win out in the "My Schwartz is bigger than your Schwartz" stakes (with apologies to Mel Brooks).
(
IMHO )
wdavis009 said:
Found that one recently, and the 2 complete issues are a good read. I'm not sure if I was searching for something new or it was just put on the web. But I gave up reading TAS (even flipping through in the local Borders) after that article that he mentions. Haven't liked Wilsons since first hearing the Watt/Puppy combination back in 1997 (or 8).
wdavis009 said:
His critique of Wilson's use of large drivers as midranges would apply straight to Linkwitz's use of W22 in Orion.
Not sure about MAXX (never heard one) but I can tell you that Orions are simply marvelous in midrange (as well as everywhere else).
Just my 2c.
Bratislav
PS I've heard few incarnations of Watt/Puppy and although not my most favourite speaker preformance/$ wise, can't really say it is as obviously flawed as stated.
Q
Something can sound marvelous, even beautiful, and still be inaccurate, no? I don't think Richard ever claims Wilson speakers can't sound beautiful (though he personally does not find them beautiful). Quite the contrary, he claims that Wilson "intentionally" designs their speakers to be inaccurate (in a pleasing way) in order to grab the attention of reviewers. Wilson himself admitted just as much in the TAS article previously mentioned when he stated his speakers would make any source sound "good". How can a speaker possibly do that if it doesn't intentionally distort the source signal, is not faithful to the source signal? Richard, on the other hand, believes high-end products should not strive to make the source sound good, but instead should strive to accurately reproduce the source signal. That, afterall, was the original goal of "high fidelity", no? The point of the article is not that Wilson speakers can't/don't sound nice; the point of the article is that Wilson speakers are not high-end speakers, i.e., high fidelity speakers, and high-end magazines do a disservice to their readers by not pointing this out (probably because their reviewers don't know the difference). YMMV
Bratislav said:
Something can sound marvelous, even beautiful, and still be inaccurate, no? I don't think Richard ever claims Wilson speakers can't sound beautiful (though he personally does not find them beautiful). Quite the contrary, he claims that Wilson "intentionally" designs their speakers to be inaccurate (in a pleasing way) in order to grab the attention of reviewers. Wilson himself admitted just as much in the TAS article previously mentioned when he stated his speakers would make any source sound "good". How can a speaker possibly do that if it doesn't intentionally distort the source signal, is not faithful to the source signal? Richard, on the other hand, believes high-end products should not strive to make the source sound good, but instead should strive to accurately reproduce the source signal. That, afterall, was the original goal of "high fidelity", no? The point of the article is not that Wilson speakers can't/don't sound nice; the point of the article is that Wilson speakers are not high-end speakers, i.e., high fidelity speakers, and high-end magazines do a disservice to their readers by not pointing this out (probably because their reviewers don't know the difference). YMMV
wdavis009, thanks for the great article.
I disagree with the ones that are saying that an anechoic response is not important. Anechoic response is extremely important for everyone. It shows us that the speaker is properly built. If you take that speaker into a poor sounding room that is your problem. They can't build a speaker for each room, that is why we have standardized tests to show us what the capability is not what it will sound like in your room. That is some elementary stuff guys.
While reading the article that wdavis009 suggested I could not help and laugh at Wilson’s speaker building capabilities. The author said it very well and pointed out that commercial magazines will just say anything to get advertising money and only a naïve person would believe what a magazine of any sort says when money is involved. High end magazines need high end (expensive) speakers to review or nobody will buy their magazine. Do they push away advertising money and speakers to review?
Look at what Soudstage wrote
I disagree with the ones that are saying that an anechoic response is not important. Anechoic response is extremely important for everyone. It shows us that the speaker is properly built. If you take that speaker into a poor sounding room that is your problem. They can't build a speaker for each room, that is why we have standardized tests to show us what the capability is not what it will sound like in your room. That is some elementary stuff guys.
While reading the article that wdavis009 suggested I could not help and laugh at Wilson’s speaker building capabilities. The author said it very well and pointed out that commercial magazines will just say anything to get advertising money and only a naïve person would believe what a magazine of any sort says when money is involved. High end magazines need high end (expensive) speakers to review or nobody will buy their magazine. Do they push away advertising money and speakers to review?
Look at what Soudstage wrote
This quote is from Soundstage. How could this guy have the guts to say this then show everyone the anechoic response. It just goes to show you that most people are not capable of interpreting a graph and to stupid to ralize that it's all about advertising.
Re: Q
Hold on. Are you saying that Orions are inaccurate ?
Beacuse they are among the most (if not THE most) accurate speakers I have heard. Large midrange (or no midrange drivers as per Richard) nonwithstanding.
Bottom line - Richard's claim that large midranges cause coloration is questionable at best, simply false at worst.
wdavis009 said:
Hold on. Are you saying that Orions are inaccurate ?
Beacuse they are among the most (if not THE most) accurate speakers I have heard. Large midrange (or no midrange drivers as per Richard) nonwithstanding.
Bottom line - Richard's claim that large midranges cause coloration is questionable at best, simply false at worst.
Re: Re: Q
No, as I have never heard of Orions until you mentioned them. I was speaking about what Richard was claiming about the Wilson speakers.
As for large midranges, do you not agree that a 7" midrange would lack the speed and accuracy of a smaller midrange driver? Seems pretty basic to me, and the full measurements of the Wilson speakers (done not only by Richard but also Stereophile) certainly support Richard's claim.
Bratislav said:
No, as I have never heard of Orions until you mentioned them. I was speaking about what Richard was claiming about the Wilson speakers.
As for large midranges, do you not agree that a 7" midrange would lack the speed and accuracy of a smaller midrange driver? Seems pretty basic to me, and the full measurements of the Wilson speakers (done not only by Richard but also Stereophile) certainly support Richard's claim.
Woofer "speed" whitepaper.
I wouldnt say that, for example, a Fostex 166 ES-R, has a "slower less accurate midrange" from it being ~6.5" driver.
I wouldnt say that, for example, a Fostex 166 ES-R, has a "slower less accurate midrange" from it being ~6.5" driver.
Re: Re: Re: Q
Have a good look at
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/
Linkwitz is one of few true groundbreaking no bull speaker designers.
And no, I do not agree that large (in fact 8" midrange in Linkwitz's case) lacks anything.
How about B&W designs ? Their "mid" is at least 6" even in the flagship 800. Yet to hear anyone complaining about lack of speed in that one ?
wdavis009 said:
Have a good look at
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/
Linkwitz is one of few true groundbreaking no bull speaker designers.
And no, I do not agree that large (in fact 8" midrange in Linkwitz's case) lacks anything.
How about B&W designs ? Their "mid" is at least 6" even in the flagship 800. Yet to hear anyone complaining about lack of speed in that one ?
Bratislav said:
I'm not complaining about 'speed', whatever that is. The problem with the larger 'midranges' is their off-axis response. It decreases from a specific frequencies, depending on the diameter of the cone. Doesn't matter what the driver is - it happens anyway.
Regarding those 'midranges' that are in the Wilson speakers, their own manufacturer (Scanspeak) calls them 'woofers' (they've got a 'W' in their name). As 7" speakers, they'll be 3dB down about 15 degrees off-axis, and 6dB at 30 degrees.
The 8" mid in the Orion is also a woofer, from Seas. But it only runs up to 1.4 kHz, so it wouldn't be affected by this.
But, as I don't like the sound of open baffle midranges and midwoofers, I still doubt I'd have much time for the Orion. Does look pretty though.
Cloth Ears said:
Hmmm... do you honestly believe Sigfried Linkwitz didn't know that ? Or John Bowers ? Or for that matter Dave Wilson ?
Problem is not decreasing off-axis, it is whether designer got the directivity he wanted from the final product in the first place or not. I assure you all of the above got EXACTLY what they wanted, for better or worse. Sigfried talks about controlled directivity a LOT on his site - have a read and see what he says.
Ha, ha ! The looks are the only problem I'm having with Orions (having immaculately finished piano palisander VAF i66 at home).
Sound wise, Orions are very bad - they make me want a pair badly !
Bratislav
PS short of Dynaudio Evidences I can't think of any other speaker that localizes instruments on the virtual soundtage better. I think whatever midrange directivity Sigfried had in mind, it works bloody well
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.