Thanks for the kind words 
Overall I would say it's a very neutral speaker that's able to resolve alot of detail (probably due to the tweeter), I'm not sure if the midrange is a bit recessed since I sometimes get the impression that voices are a little quiet compared to what I remember with my old speakers (Kefs) - then again it could be that just that the Kefs had a very forward midrange. When I run the Top half (Watt) full range and disconnect the bottom half (Puppy) they seem to be a bit bass shy which points to the mids needing a bit more running in. When the whole system is connected, the bass is pretty good, it's quite punchy with very little overhang. I'm not sure about the ultimate depth though, sometimes it seems to be very deep and other times (especially during movies) I seem to remember the Kefs going deeper which is suprising since there's now so much more real estate dedicated to the bass. Some quick measurements I've made with my SPL meter show useful bass down to 40-35hz so maybe it's just my imagination.
Getting away from Hi-Fi-Magazine-Babble-Speak (tm) I'd have to say I'm very happy with the way they sound and I think once I've put a few more hours on them they'll sound even better.
Any chance of seeing some photos of yours?
Mac.
Overall I would say it's a very neutral speaker that's able to resolve alot of detail (probably due to the tweeter), I'm not sure if the midrange is a bit recessed since I sometimes get the impression that voices are a little quiet compared to what I remember with my old speakers (Kefs) - then again it could be that just that the Kefs had a very forward midrange. When I run the Top half (Watt) full range and disconnect the bottom half (Puppy) they seem to be a bit bass shy which points to the mids needing a bit more running in. When the whole system is connected, the bass is pretty good, it's quite punchy with very little overhang. I'm not sure about the ultimate depth though, sometimes it seems to be very deep and other times (especially during movies) I seem to remember the Kefs going deeper which is suprising since there's now so much more real estate dedicated to the bass. Some quick measurements I've made with my SPL meter show useful bass down to 40-35hz so maybe it's just my imagination.
Getting away from Hi-Fi-Magazine-Babble-Speak (tm) I'd have to say I'm very happy with the way they sound and I think once I've put a few more hours on them they'll sound even better.
Any chance of seeing some photos of yours?
Mac.
In case anyone cares.......
Dave modifies the tweeter, and plays games with the phase response in the 2-4 kHz range. Look at the impedance curve of one sometime.........
They were designed as a tool to gain insight into his mic and recording techniques. Until he discovered there is much more $$$$$$ in selling speakers than recordings.
Jocko
Dave modifies the tweeter, and plays games with the phase response in the 2-4 kHz range. Look at the impedance curve of one sometime.........
They were designed as a tool to gain insight into his mic and recording techniques. Until he discovered there is much more $$$$$$ in selling speakers than recordings.
Jocko
Same here Luke.
I am trying to decide between a 2.5 clone and a watt / puppy combo.
If i go the 2.5 route i need the 8535 drivers About £200 and if a i go the WATT/ puppy route i need 4 peerless 850136 drivers about £200.
I have the Seas H571 for the Watts and intend to use a SS9500 for the tweeter.............not a clone i know but i like the sytle of the Wilson and i know this combo works well but lacks bass (An H571 traite it would appear), i have a standmount using this pairing already.
hhmmmm really down to sound then, Does anyone have any comparisions / point of of view on these two??
M
I am trying to decide between a 2.5 clone and a watt / puppy combo.
If i go the 2.5 route i need the 8535 drivers About £200 and if a i go the WATT/ puppy route i need 4 peerless 850136 drivers about £200.
I have the Seas H571 for the Watts and intend to use a SS9500 for the tweeter.............not a clone i know but i like the sytle of the Wilson and i know this combo works well but lacks bass (An H571 traite it would appear), i have a standmount using this pairing already.
hhmmmm really down to sound then, Does anyone have any comparisions / point of of view on these two??
M
Not saying that......
But if you want it to really sound like a WATT, be prepared to do some funny stuff in that region. That is how he gets the imaging to sound the way that it does.
Hey, if he can do it, so can others. Just be prepared to jack with it for a long time if you want that sound.
Jocko
But if you want it to really sound like a WATT, be prepared to do some funny stuff in that region. That is how he gets the imaging to sound the way that it does.
Hey, if he can do it, so can others. Just be prepared to jack with it for a long time if you want that sound.
Jocko
thanks Jocko,
sad thing is I dont know what that sound is, never seen them round here. Thats the thing about expensive drivers, dont know how they will sound.
Thanks for the offer 5th element, from what I have read i think I would prefer the sofia, it supposedly has a smoother midrange, warmer sound which I prefer. However I dont have the knowledge to clone them.
Interesting that one review I read said that they sounded harsh untill the guy used an aleph then all was well. I have hd3p Audax(KLS10 kits) which is bit bright sometimes, since I started using alephs they sound much better, just a bit smoother but still have the detail.
ab
sad thing is I dont know what that sound is, never seen them round here. Thats the thing about expensive drivers, dont know how they will sound.
Thanks for the offer 5th element, from what I have read i think I would prefer the sofia, it supposedly has a smoother midrange, warmer sound which I prefer. However I dont have the knowledge to clone them.
Interesting that one review I read said that they sounded harsh untill the guy used an aleph then all was well. I have hd3p Audax(KLS10 kits) which is bit bright sometimes, since I started using alephs they sound much better, just a bit smoother but still have the detail.
ab
dont build them...
Hi i build them with the watt made of extremeley komplex case of stone, used the best parts for crossover.
they have a big boom in teh bass region ( i messured it in two different rooms with the same result)
my mesured curve does not look like Thorstens one.
And the speaker has no live in it.
I would never build this one , again.
A friend of mine buid them too an he has the same opinion about hat cheap clone...
greets,
Ralf
Hi i build them with the watt made of extremeley komplex case of stone, used the best parts for crossover.
they have a big boom in teh bass region ( i messured it in two different rooms with the same result)
my mesured curve does not look like Thorstens one.
And the speaker has no live in it.
I would never build this one , again.
A friend of mine buid them too an he has the same opinion about hat cheap clone...
greets,
Ralf
Time to revive this thread
Guys, I'm interested in building this clone. It's the same one at the beginning of the thread: http://users.nac.net/markowitzgd/david/david.htm
Has anyone recently built this and will I really only like them with tubes? I have a Bottlehead Foreplay and two VERY entry-level K501 monoblock tube amps. I've built six other sets of speakers and now I want a floorstanding, high-end design. I've also liked most everything on Troel's page: http://home1.stofanet.dk/troels.gravesen/
Guys, I'm interested in building this clone. It's the same one at the beginning of the thread: http://users.nac.net/markowitzgd/david/david.htm
Has anyone recently built this and will I really only like them with tubes? I have a Bottlehead Foreplay and two VERY entry-level K501 monoblock tube amps. I've built six other sets of speakers and now I want a floorstanding, high-end design. I've also liked most everything on Troel's page: http://home1.stofanet.dk/troels.gravesen/
Watt, Pleh.
Puppy, ick.
Nothwithstanding Thorsten's work on it, this is one heck of an overpriced speaker system. David Wilson does a great job of marketing. The fact that they are priced through the roof shouldn't effect your appraisal of these speakers.
The main thing that makes this speaker of interest is the extremely solid and DEAD cabinet. This is the one lesson worth learning.
Puppies are pathetic in bass, and I have yet to find a Wilson speaker ever that had properly or correctly designed bass section.
Since it is unlikely that I will be using any Focal T120 or T90 tweeters these days, here's *the trick*: put a very small value inductor in series with the tweeter after the xover... this corrects the real response when chosen properly and flattens it - the tweeter then sounds right. The tweeter actually has a rising response.
In my opinion throwing a Focal tweeter and a Seas mid together isn't a big deal - and Wilson has had a number of versions here...
My view is don't be blinded by reviews and brands...
_-_-bear
Puppy, ick.
Nothwithstanding Thorsten's work on it, this is one heck of an overpriced speaker system. David Wilson does a great job of marketing. The fact that they are priced through the roof shouldn't effect your appraisal of these speakers.
The main thing that makes this speaker of interest is the extremely solid and DEAD cabinet. This is the one lesson worth learning.
Puppies are pathetic in bass, and I have yet to find a Wilson speaker ever that had properly or correctly designed bass section.
Since it is unlikely that I will be using any Focal T120 or T90 tweeters these days, here's *the trick*: put a very small value inductor in series with the tweeter after the xover... this corrects the real response when chosen properly and flattens it - the tweeter then sounds right. The tweeter actually has a rising response.
In my opinion throwing a Focal tweeter and a Seas mid together isn't a big deal - and Wilson has had a number of versions here...
My view is don't be blinded by reviews and brands...
_-_-bear
Distortion in all of it's possible parameters can wreak havoc with impressions of bass. Nevermind the rest of the spectrum.BigMacX said:Thanks for the kind words
When the whole system is connected, the bass is pretty good, it's quite punchy with very little overhang. I'm not sure about the ultimate depth though, sometimes it seems to be very deep and other times (especially during movies) I seem to remember the Kefs going deeper which is suprising since there's now so much more real estate dedicated to the bass. Some quick measurements I've made with my SPL meter show useful bass down to 40-35hz so maybe it's just my imagination.
Mac.
A couple of years ago I built some speakers based on the WATT PUPPy 5 series. They have proven to be very exellent.
I guess I could post some pictures of them when I get around to it. I call mine quazi Watt Puppies because they are not exact clones.
I still have not painted them and they are in the raw MDF but they sound so good I haven't bothered to finish the outsides yet.
Mine follow the WATT/Puppy configuration in this way. Seperate cabinets with similar size and geometry. Three way 12 db crossover. I used different drivers but I'm convinced that the exact drivers don't matter. THe Wilsons use modified Focal, SCan Speak and Dynaudio drivers.
Because I was on a sub 1000 USD budget I used the following drivers in the following ways.
I hate digital noise and transients on poor recordings so I opted for a Vifa silk dome tweeter with the double chamber for lower Fz. Midrange is the most important to me and though 4 -5 inch speakers have better dispursion in the upper midrange I went with an Audax carbon fiber cast frame 6.5 inch driver. I did this because 6-7 inch speakers seem to have the most natural sounding midrange for some reason.
I love the sound of carbon fiber in the midrange better than any other material because it is so smooth sounding. And for the money these drivers have awesome timbre.
I only used one Vifa 9 inch bass driver because I needed to reduce expense and the room was small. I sacrificed some bass slam but got better transients by having near critical damping.
Instead of vented cabinets mine are aperiodic both top and bottom.
Having plenty of room for the midrange driver to breath is important for good timbre. The pyramidal shape also is the best for reducing internal standing waves inside the cabinet.
The crossover is housed inside it's own subenclosure in the bass module and is point to point wired with large spacing between the inductors.
In fact had I to do it again this is how I would to it. Make the cabinets as deep as you can and leave about a two inch recess in the near entire rear bass cabinet. Then build the crossover with as wide a spacings as possible between inductors and pot the whole thing in sand filled epoxy with the wires as umbilicals coming out at the proper locations. This kills most vibrations in the crossover.
Then mount the crossover in the rear cabinet recess.
If you wanted you could have the speaker cables hard wired into the crossover to eliminate one set of binding posts.
The cabinet is braced well beyond normal cabinet bracing and all walls are two layers of .75 inch MDF.
It is my believe that the most significant reason why the watts are so good is because the midrange cabinet is decoupled from the main cabinet. Also the design has smoother baffle step response due to tapered sides and narrow top.
Mine weigh about 150 pounds each. One thing that I think is important and I followed audio psychics design philosophy on this. The midrange driver needs to cover all fundamental frequencies. Often the lower frequency crossover is right in the middle of of the vocal range at around 300 Hz. This is very bad and may be pulled off with 6db cross overs but not with anything else. Treat the woofer midrnage crossover point as if it is a subwoofer. So try and get the lower point at least down to 100 Hz. This relieves the midrange driver enough of bass so that it helps clear up the midrange but doesn't mess up the vocal range. This is one reason I am sure many people prefer small two way with sub. Because too many speakers put lower crossover in exactly the worst place possible.
Hezz
I guess I could post some pictures of them when I get around to it. I call mine quazi Watt Puppies because they are not exact clones.
I still have not painted them and they are in the raw MDF but they sound so good I haven't bothered to finish the outsides yet.
Mine follow the WATT/Puppy configuration in this way. Seperate cabinets with similar size and geometry. Three way 12 db crossover. I used different drivers but I'm convinced that the exact drivers don't matter. THe Wilsons use modified Focal, SCan Speak and Dynaudio drivers.
Because I was on a sub 1000 USD budget I used the following drivers in the following ways.
I hate digital noise and transients on poor recordings so I opted for a Vifa silk dome tweeter with the double chamber for lower Fz. Midrange is the most important to me and though 4 -5 inch speakers have better dispursion in the upper midrange I went with an Audax carbon fiber cast frame 6.5 inch driver. I did this because 6-7 inch speakers seem to have the most natural sounding midrange for some reason.
I love the sound of carbon fiber in the midrange better than any other material because it is so smooth sounding. And for the money these drivers have awesome timbre.
I only used one Vifa 9 inch bass driver because I needed to reduce expense and the room was small. I sacrificed some bass slam but got better transients by having near critical damping.
Instead of vented cabinets mine are aperiodic both top and bottom.
Having plenty of room for the midrange driver to breath is important for good timbre. The pyramidal shape also is the best for reducing internal standing waves inside the cabinet.
The crossover is housed inside it's own subenclosure in the bass module and is point to point wired with large spacing between the inductors.
In fact had I to do it again this is how I would to it. Make the cabinets as deep as you can and leave about a two inch recess in the near entire rear bass cabinet. Then build the crossover with as wide a spacings as possible between inductors and pot the whole thing in sand filled epoxy with the wires as umbilicals coming out at the proper locations. This kills most vibrations in the crossover.
Then mount the crossover in the rear cabinet recess.
If you wanted you could have the speaker cables hard wired into the crossover to eliminate one set of binding posts.
The cabinet is braced well beyond normal cabinet bracing and all walls are two layers of .75 inch MDF.
It is my believe that the most significant reason why the watts are so good is because the midrange cabinet is decoupled from the main cabinet. Also the design has smoother baffle step response due to tapered sides and narrow top.
Mine weigh about 150 pounds each. One thing that I think is important and I followed audio psychics design philosophy on this. The midrange driver needs to cover all fundamental frequencies. Often the lower frequency crossover is right in the middle of of the vocal range at around 300 Hz. This is very bad and may be pulled off with 6db cross overs but not with anything else. Treat the woofer midrnage crossover point as if it is a subwoofer. So try and get the lower point at least down to 100 Hz. This relieves the midrange driver enough of bass so that it helps clear up the midrange but doesn't mess up the vocal range. This is one reason I am sure many people prefer small two way with sub. Because too many speakers put lower crossover in exactly the worst place possible.
Hezz
bear said:
They were among the best I've heard (in my admittedly limited experience). In your opinion, what would be worth cloning then? There are a number of stupidly expensive boutique "super speakers", but I haven't heard most of them due to their pretty small production quantities. The most I have to rely on is Stereophile, and I don't really trust them to give an accurate appraisal of most products.
Given that I can drive from here to Kingston in ~35 mins, you might want to shoot me a private email? bear at bearlabs dot com <--
Imho, you can "clone" a Watt and Puppy, but if you do it properly, it won't be a Wilson anything when you are done!
The bass section on all the Wilson products is "funny" in that it is oddly configured using odd devices. Why, I don't know. Historically, the Wilson bass has never been well done, imho.
Now, if you skip the "puppies" and put ur own bass section in the slot (not hard to do) what do you have? You have a "Watt". Which consists of a midrange and tweeter as a two way. Now you have your pick of all mids and all tweeters, right? There are better drivers than any of the ones that Mr. Wilson has chosen, imho.
That leaves the cabinets. In terms of finish and materials, they're good. Dense, dead and well finished. I'd say if there was anything to learn from those products it is that reasonably good drivers sound better in non-resonant, heavy enclosures.
Personally, I'd aim for shapes that are less likely to have an effect in the passband of the drivers in question... wider baffles with gentle transitions always sound and measure better than narrow ones with sharp edges.
Imho, I'd take the idea of cloning any commercial products and lose it - it's better to take the best design ideas or best drivers and use that as a stepping off point and synthesize something that is most appropriate to your preferences and listening space.
Similarly, you can make very strong argument that almost any good ESL will outperform the Watts and likely the Puppies as well, and that there are all sorts of ribbon and "leaf" ribbon tweeters that outperform Wilson's tweeters, many ribbon drivers that run from midbass and up that outperform 99% of all cone mids too... and don't really cost all that much in comparison to many commercial offerings, they're just not getting the same ad space and hype!
But that's my take.
From a hobbyist point of view, I'f you don't feel confident enough to synthesize your own design, and there are no clubs or hobbyists near you to draw from (and there are many around here...) the next best thing is to follow one or more of the DIY mag articles and/or the commercial "kit" products that are being offered - since this will yield a known result. Not always a result that will be to your total liking, in my experience, but certainly more clear an outcome than attempting to copy a given high-end product without one on hand to test and compare with.
Ymmv, of course.
_-_-bear
bear at bearlabs dot com <--Imho, you can "clone" a Watt and Puppy, but if you do it properly, it won't be a Wilson anything when you are done!
The bass section on all the Wilson products is "funny" in that it is oddly configured using odd devices. Why, I don't know. Historically, the Wilson bass has never been well done, imho.
Now, if you skip the "puppies" and put ur own bass section in the slot (not hard to do) what do you have? You have a "Watt". Which consists of a midrange and tweeter as a two way. Now you have your pick of all mids and all tweeters, right? There are better drivers than any of the ones that Mr. Wilson has chosen, imho.
That leaves the cabinets. In terms of finish and materials, they're good. Dense, dead and well finished. I'd say if there was anything to learn from those products it is that reasonably good drivers sound better in non-resonant, heavy enclosures.
Personally, I'd aim for shapes that are less likely to have an effect in the passband of the drivers in question... wider baffles with gentle transitions always sound and measure better than narrow ones with sharp edges.
Imho, I'd take the idea of cloning any commercial products and lose it - it's better to take the best design ideas or best drivers and use that as a stepping off point and synthesize something that is most appropriate to your preferences and listening space.
Similarly, you can make very strong argument that almost any good ESL will outperform the Watts and likely the Puppies as well, and that there are all sorts of ribbon and "leaf" ribbon tweeters that outperform Wilson's tweeters, many ribbon drivers that run from midbass and up that outperform 99% of all cone mids too... and don't really cost all that much in comparison to many commercial offerings, they're just not getting the same ad space and hype!
But that's my take.
From a hobbyist point of view, I'f you don't feel confident enough to synthesize your own design, and there are no clubs or hobbyists near you to draw from (and there are many around here...) the next best thing is to follow one or more of the DIY mag articles and/or the commercial "kit" products that are being offered - since this will yield a known result. Not always a result that will be to your total liking, in my experience, but certainly more clear an outcome than attempting to copy a given high-end product without one on hand to test and compare with.
Ymmv, of course.
_-_-bear
Bear .... you mention ribbons. I am having a deadly hard time trying to figure out how to mate these Morell 166 and the RT8II from Hi-vi . Its a mid-tweet massive ribbon. Would i be better letting the Morel run up past 3500 before bringing in the Hi-Vi or bring it in at 1500 ?, which is in the Verbotten region . Sorry not hijacking a thread but its the first guy to talk about ribbons in a bit.
Michael
Michael
bear said:Given that I can drive from here to Kingston in ~35 mins, you might want to shoot me a private email?
Imho, you can "clone" a Watt and Puppy, but if you do it properly, it won't be a Wilson anything when you are done!
The bass section on all the Wilson products is "funny" in that it is oddly configured using odd devices. Why, I don't know. Historically, the Wilson bass has never been well done, imho.
Now, if you skip the "puppies" and put ur own bass section in the slot (not hard to do) what do you have? You have a "Watt". Which consists of a midrange and tweeter as a two way. Now you have your pick of all mids and all tweeters, right? There are better drivers than any of the ones that Mr. Wilson has chosen, imho.
That leaves the cabinets. In terms of finish and materials, they're good. Dense, dead and well finished. I'd say if there was anything to learn from those products it is that reasonably good drivers sound better in non-resonant, heavy enclosures.
Personally, I'd aim for shapes that are less likely to have an effect in the passband of the drivers in question... wider baffles with gentle transitions always sound and measure better than narrow ones with sharp edges.
Imho, I'd take the idea of cloning any commercial products and lose it - it's better to take the best design ideas or best drivers and use that as a stepping off point and synthesize something that is most appropriate to your preferences and listening space.
Similarly, you can make very strong argument that almost any good ESL will outperform the Watts and likely the Puppies as well, and that there are all sorts of ribbon and "leaf" ribbon tweeters that outperform Wilson's tweeters, many ribbon drivers that run from midbass and up that outperform 99% of all cone mids too... and don't really cost all that much in comparison to many commercial offerings, they're just not getting the same ad space and hype!
But that's my take.
From a hobbyist point of view, I'f you don't feel confident enough to synthesize your own design, and there are no clubs or hobbyists near you to draw from (and there are many around here...) the next best thing is to follow one or more of the DIY mag articles and/or the commercial "kit" products that are being offered - since this will yield a known result. Not always a result that will be to your total liking, in my experience, but certainly more clear an outcome than attempting to copy a given high-end product without one on hand to test and compare with.
Ymmv, of course.
_-_-bear
Would you consider a ML summit a good ESL that should outperform the wilson?
they weren't the same sound... not even close... I personally loved the wilson
also to talk about ribbons for a second... I actually disliked the Magnepan 20.1's sound very much...
sort of out of curiousity... what would you recommend for drivers in the creation of a Wilson Alexandria beater?
say budget is $6000....
I think Bear is got his head screwed on straight. I have heard Wilsons (sophias, wp6.x, wp7, big ones which I forget the name) all left me sorely wanting. The WP's, 7s included are severly lacking in bass. They have a tight but anemic bass kick that may give you the impression that their bass is better than average. It is a pyschoacoutic pleasing affect (trickery) at best. Actually I thought it sucked and made the music the most artificial of all setups I have heard.
Then there is the god awful treble. Even the WP7 which everyone claims is the fixed WP and the best WP ever still has brutal and unnatural highs. This is with the best gear I have ever auditioned or put my eyes on (dcs+halcro). The WP was designed originally for a very different purpose and IMHO bastardized to make a home speaker which it should have never been.
There is always going to be the gang who taughts it as the next coming because they believe it is so and have shelled out a teacher's salary for them. I say go listen to some live music and then listen to the WPs with your mind free of hype. You will leave with a full wallet.
Then there is the god awful treble. Even the WP7 which everyone claims is the fixed WP and the best WP ever still has brutal and unnatural highs. This is with the best gear I have ever auditioned or put my eyes on (dcs+halcro). The WP was designed originally for a very different purpose and IMHO bastardized to make a home speaker which it should have never been.
There is always going to be the gang who taughts it as the next coming because they believe it is so and have shelled out a teacher's salary for them. I say go listen to some live music and then listen to the WPs with your mind free of hype. You will leave with a full wallet.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.