@AllenB Applying a compensating network to any soeaker is highly risky, especially with higher phase angles to correct and unknown reactivity from the amp. Some amps will go into unexpected oscillation even if the entire circuit looks perfect in a sim. I had issues with this when deciding on capacitor type and quality with a large Conrad Johnson amp. The drift in speaker TSPs from cold to warm operation were sufficient to detune the whole thing enough that it wasn't going to work. Large cap and coil values required to make this all work was cost prohibitive. I even went to the extent of using a "cold"/"warm" compensation.
It could be someone in production s****** the pooch and forgot the series resistor in the conjugate network. I'd believe that over even Wilson being that gibberingly incompetent, because with most tube amplifiers that dip would pretty well erase an entire octave around 2 kHz and transistor amps would make horrible noises during operatic arias.
I listened to a Grand SLAMM at a show a while ago: the thing left me absolutely cold & uninterested in whatever was playing. It's not as if I cannot appreciate a good system: Martin Logan Sequels put tears in my eyes playing Tori Amos, Magneplanars brought the orchestra into the room, even Polk 10s punched well above their weight, and at BAF2008 someone's fullrange was so compelling on a small ensemble with voice I left a conversation in another room to get a closer listen.
But Wilsons, I don't know. They remind me of those dead-eyed Russian models, stunning to look at but imbued with zero emotion.
However, most companies pushing speakers which measure badly tend to fall out of the market after a few years, as one would expect from Floyd Toole's research showing people like flat. Wilsons seem to be the exception, but then again Bose also made tons of money peddling mutton dressed as lamb.
It's quite logical they decided to do so. They are considering themselves a high end manufacturer and as such
they are entitled to do the servicing exclusively. Secondly, this way it's not easily possible for anyone else to find out
x/o schematic and parts quality to make copies and sell somewhere far away.
A common constant in business of any kind is theft and stealing. And the most common places to do
that are fairs. Competition buys your products and breaks them down to pieces for evaluation.
How noble!
And then a DIYer comes along, and does the same for the same purpose.
Stressing sounds... trumpet might be the most challenging acustic instrument for loudspeakers (excluding cymbals and hihat). It's sound is mostly distortion, not only harmonics. Very high spl peaks up to 10kHz in most recordings, but fortunately short duration. Practically all recordings are dynamically compressed, but if you are a fan of big band jazz or funk, be aware! Typical hifi loudspeakers will not play these realistically.
What do you mean by absolute performance? Companies in the "ultra-fi" market sector like Wilson typically place little weight on technical performance (i.e. what customers of studio monitors would tend to value) and instead focus on providing what customers in the "ultra-fi" sector value. This can be seen in measurements and listening to them at shows and in shops.
It can be interesting to look at some of the design choices companies in this sector make but to assume they are being made to maximise technical performance is rather unwise. Crossing tweeters and small upper mids on flat baffles significantly lower than an assessment of technical performance would suggest is fairly common. It raises distortion, limits power handling and widens the radiation pattern. How might this be adding value for "ultra-fi" customers? I would suggest it might be too do with how the radiation pattern is perceived.
Other companies in the sector like B&W do the opposite and crossover to tweeters significantly higher than a consideration of maximising technical performance might suggest. I don't wholly understand why a technically competent company like B&W opts to do this (don't know Wilson's internal level of technical competence) but suspect an attractive characteristic sound rather than a more neutral(ish) one may be of value.
The confusing thing is that Wilson can make their speakers to cater to the ultra-fi market and achieve excellent measured performance too. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If one compares the midfield monitors from the established studio monitors manufacturers they tend to measure well in terms of technical performance and consequently sound fairly similar. Ultra-fi speakers on the other hand have a significant variation in sound with many measuring poorly in terms of technical performance particularly for the price. However, poorly is assuming ultra-fi speakers are seeking to have a high technical performance and sound neutral rather than to sound attractive to customers of ultra-fi with technical performance being largely irrelevant. I rather suspect that sounding attractive and distinctive trumps measuring well by a wide margin for most ultra-fi manufacturers. There are some exceptions obviously like the beolab 90 but most ultra-fi manufacturers do not seem to seek speakers that measure well in a dry technical sense. In the case of B&W I am pretty confident it is by design.
Having a small number of ultra-fi manufactures creating neutralish sounding speakers is likely not a problem but what might happen if most of the speakers in the sector sounded similar to each other? Would distinguishing on visuals, prestige, exclusiveness, etc... be enough? I suspect not but then again adding value to luxury goods in the eyes of potential consumers is not something I know much about.
I think the R&D of B&W is well aware that above 3-4kHz nothing matters very much anymore but SPL in the listening window.
In what way? Not that I take much interest in passive crossover design but given the design objectives to use a passive crossover, have a strongly uneven radiation pattern and crossing a large mid to the tweeter at a very high frequency is the crossover less than it could have been? What I find interesting is why a company that clearly has the capabilities to design and manufacture well engineered components then opts to produce speakers with what appears to be significant technical issues that are straightforward to remove with design. My guess is these issues add more value for their customers via visuals, hooks for marketing stories and a distinctive sound than is lost by a lower technical performance.
They sure have awful enclosure designs too, imho. Although I don’t have a clue about what an awful crossover looks like.
They decided to take on the approach that less is more and that high crossover frequencies to big midrange drivers is a holy grail.
You hit the nail on the head with their design choices they are BAD.
Apart from this if we were to say that the high xover frequency was something we needed to keep in the design then what could we do better in the crossover?
As far as I am aware they use single capacitors on the tweeter without anything more than a resistor to go with it. Even with the high crossover frequency this excites the tweeters fs and isn't ideal especially in a speaker that's been designed to play very loud. This actually gets back to the original theme of the thread in overloading tweeters! If you're going to go extremely shallow on your crossover then you need excellent impedance compensation to ensure that the single crossover element actually does enough when the resonance hits. As far as I recall a member posted something along the lines of it not doing enough on his 800 series a while ago.
But aside from that add in a bunch of xover components to properly equalise and flatten the frequency response. Even if the off-axis is going to be a disaster the least B&W could do is proper xover design to ensure a linear on-axis response. You generally cannot do this with single cap/inductor designs. Obviously this goes against their ethos of using one super boutique crossover component.
You hit the nail on the head with their design choices they are BAD.
Apart from this if we were to say that the high xover frequency was something we needed to keep in the design then what could we do better in the crossover?
As far as I am aware they use single capacitors on the tweeter without anything more than a resistor to go with it. Even with the high crossover frequency this excites the tweeters fs and isn't ideal especially in a speaker that's been designed to play very loud. This actually gets back to the original theme of the thread in overloading tweeters! If you're going to go extremely shallow on your crossover then you need excellent impedance compensation to ensure that the single crossover element actually does enough when the resonance hits. As far as I recall a member posted something along the lines of it not doing enough on his 800 series a while ago.
But aside from that add in a bunch of xover components to properly equalise and flatten the frequency response. Even if the off-axis is going to be a disaster the least B&W could do is proper xover design to ensure a linear on-axis response. You generally cannot do this with single cap/inductor designs. Obviously this goes against their ethos of using one super boutique crossover component.
This upgrade was great experience. The fact that most of BW speakers follow the same design features, crossover topology and FR issues was clear already before the upgrade. The possibility to measure the drivers individually revealed the real nature and magnitude of the issues. The owner told me about other two owners, and that their tweeters shattered while the speakers were playing.
Drivers alone, being considered separately, are well engineered units. Cabinets quality and robustness are also perfect. But that is where the positive features end. This BWs are great example of totally wrong implementation, the lack of system design and "house sound". It is not that BW engineers would not know what they do. I actually think this was their intention.
I knew your report on the upgrade. One of the things that came to my mind was that the developer(s) might have chosen for a correction of the floor bounce dip in the midrange. But apart from that it’s certainly ‘voicing’ instead of developing a neutral system.
Did you do measurements at the listening position before and after the mod? Might have been interesting.
The measurements in the listening spot, ~3m distance from the loudspeakers, before upgrade. I did not find the measurements after the upgrade though.
This was 9x5m listening room, 3m ceiling height. Room had very good acoustic treatment. No DRC, DSP, ....
The bump at ~500Hz correlates well with 1m measurements. Elevated 4-10kHz correlates well with the listening impression, before the upgrade.
This was 9x5m listening room, 3m ceiling height. Room had very good acoustic treatment. No DRC, DSP, ....
The bump at ~500Hz correlates well with 1m measurements. Elevated 4-10kHz correlates well with the listening impression, before the upgrade.
@PKAudio
Are you taking orders yet?
Your cabinet maker does fine woodwork, and you do fine crossovers.
Stanislav makes nice tweeters and mid-domes.
Carsten builds a cool 8" with a funky surround.
John makes nice measurement software.
Kimmosto makes nice crossover software.
If only some-one could make a top flight coaxial...
Are you taking orders yet?
Your cabinet maker does fine woodwork, and you do fine crossovers.
Stanislav makes nice tweeters and mid-domes.
Carsten builds a cool 8" with a funky surround.
John makes nice measurement software.
Kimmosto makes nice crossover software.
If only some-one could make a top flight coaxial...
Last edited:
tktran303: I started to collaborate with new carpenter, he has CNC so we started to work on new designs.
Purifi 8", M74T or B, T25B or T, smaller standmount, that would be excellent speaker. W22NY003, M74P or S, T25S would be another great combo.
Regarding top flight coaxial, something like TAD coaxial would be great. I still have in my mind the sound of Pioneer S-1EX.
Purifi 8", M74T or B, T25B or T, smaller standmount, that would be excellent speaker. W22NY003, M74P or S, T25S would be another great combo.
Regarding top flight coaxial, something like TAD coaxial would be great. I still have in my mind the sound of Pioneer S-1EX.