This is a very interesting thread. I have listened to several Wilson Audio speakers in several rooms with a wide variety of associated gear (all very highly regarded) under my own terms with my music. I’ve also been to invitation only compare-demos conducted by David Wilson, et al. No two models are what you might call “timbre matched”, but all are very good – especially compared to other speakers with 5 digit prices. A notably superior speaker is the Hansen Audio (Google it) – which really is IMPOSSIBLE to clone – proprietary drivers and enclosure materials.
Now with respect to “cloning” a WATT / Puppy: Obviously, given the rather princely price of the Wilsons with respect to the cost of the apparently off-the-shelf drivers, there are thousands of dollar reasons to try to build your own. I applaud the excellent efforts that many have posted. I’m sure that many also sound very good. But, why not take some credit for yourselves. Wilson does not have a patent on this configuration – just like Bob Carver has an invalid patent on large excursion woofers. So anyone who designs and builds a speaker with this WATT/Puppyish configuration is not really “cloning” a Wilson – he is merely using a configuration which works. Nearly every car ever has 4 wheels; if Ford et al. decided to “clone” the original Karl Benz patent Motorwagon, then we would all be riding around in tricycles. Keep the ideas that work and come up with better for the ones that don’t.
Well in any case, I doubt that anyone could really do a clone that could pass for a Wilson to an experienced listener; perhaps a “replica” with a passing resemblance from a distance, somewhat like a fiberglass look-alike of a Lamborghini body on a Fiero. It may impress the unwashed, but never the cognoscenti. There are too many aspects of the design and construction that are not easily duplicated by a home builder. X and M material are extremely difficult to work – even with large industrial CNC routers. MDF and bracing could never duplicate the density and very high Young’s Modulus necessary to get the enclosure to be so uncoloured. There is nothing like a heavy stiff box to let the drivers do their thing. And in the case of the 7 but not the 8, there is a substantial amount of lead damping. The 8 is at least partially in response to the harebrained EC RoHS directive – but I digress... Even if one could source the exact drivers, one is left without the correct crossover. One would have to get ones hands on a crossover and measure the transfer functions to merely come close. The reason that Wilson pots the crossovers is only partially for resonance control – I think it is mostly for Reconnaissance control.
So the “clone” would have different drivers, different crossovers, different enclosures. Yup, a Fiero dressed up like a Lamborghini.
Why not take the lesson of Wilson Audio’s success and try to design your own and come up with your own ideas to deal with the issues of creating a successful design – just like David Wilson did.
Now with respect to “cloning” a WATT / Puppy: Obviously, given the rather princely price of the Wilsons with respect to the cost of the apparently off-the-shelf drivers, there are thousands of dollar reasons to try to build your own. I applaud the excellent efforts that many have posted. I’m sure that many also sound very good. But, why not take some credit for yourselves. Wilson does not have a patent on this configuration – just like Bob Carver has an invalid patent on large excursion woofers. So anyone who designs and builds a speaker with this WATT/Puppyish configuration is not really “cloning” a Wilson – he is merely using a configuration which works. Nearly every car ever has 4 wheels; if Ford et al. decided to “clone” the original Karl Benz patent Motorwagon, then we would all be riding around in tricycles. Keep the ideas that work and come up with better for the ones that don’t.
Well in any case, I doubt that anyone could really do a clone that could pass for a Wilson to an experienced listener; perhaps a “replica” with a passing resemblance from a distance, somewhat like a fiberglass look-alike of a Lamborghini body on a Fiero. It may impress the unwashed, but never the cognoscenti. There are too many aspects of the design and construction that are not easily duplicated by a home builder. X and M material are extremely difficult to work – even with large industrial CNC routers. MDF and bracing could never duplicate the density and very high Young’s Modulus necessary to get the enclosure to be so uncoloured. There is nothing like a heavy stiff box to let the drivers do their thing. And in the case of the 7 but not the 8, there is a substantial amount of lead damping. The 8 is at least partially in response to the harebrained EC RoHS directive – but I digress... Even if one could source the exact drivers, one is left without the correct crossover. One would have to get ones hands on a crossover and measure the transfer functions to merely come close. The reason that Wilson pots the crossovers is only partially for resonance control – I think it is mostly for Reconnaissance control.
So the “clone” would have different drivers, different crossovers, different enclosures. Yup, a Fiero dressed up like a Lamborghini.
Why not take the lesson of Wilson Audio’s success and try to design your own and come up with your own ideas to deal with the issues of creating a successful design – just like David Wilson did.
lambo on a fiero
To the above poster. Actualy I do do my own designs and I have a second project I'm working on that could easily eclipse a wilson anything. I took this on as a challenge, as many others have. I noticed that you are rather in aww of the wilson marketing. As I have pointed out before Dave Wilson does have some valid arguments to backup some of his marketing claims, but they arn't nearly as special as many would like to think. Their materials among others are quite tough for the DIY community to obtain and use, but not impossible. Their drivers are tough to get your hands on, but once again not impossible. and their crossovers if someone really wanted to see inside could be uncovered, but why? To what end? I have tested their materials, and while impressive, they only acieve one goal and that is to make a thin wall that has the damping of a thicker wall made of another material. That isn't to say that you can't acieve the same charactersitics with other materials, but they usually have to be thicker. I experimented with everything from carbon fiber to drywall, and I think you might be suprized to hear that while wilson picked a good material, there are better out there. Unfortunately the speaker has to be bigger to allow a thicker laminated wall. I dont' have the time or really the incination to go that far, (buy sheets of phenolic and acryllic) for what I don't really consider to be that great of a design. I have been working on my other project for over a year now and I expect that it will take another easily. I have heard the real deal WP and I have to say they are nice, but the best.. NO WAY.. Funny enough I have heard speakers made of the dreaded MDF that actually sound better. There are many respected Mfg. that use off the shelf drivers as well, so that cant be the secret to the magic. Hmm, it must be the crossover. Well kind of. There are only so may ways to arrive at the same transfer function. The blend between the watt and the pupy are actuallu one of the most criticized parts of the speaker. I haven't heard a person yet who listened to the WP who didn't think there were some issues in the bass region. Personally I think the Sophia is a much better speaker and design, but that's just my two cents. When you take a WP and compare to lets say a Von Schweikert VR-5SE I hear much better bass, a smoother and much more listenable speaker, and much better image and sense of realism. Oh wait that can't be... An MDF speaker with off the shelf drivers and crossover that isn't potted in resin to hide the dirty secrets. HMM no way it could sound better..... But it does
To the above poster. Actualy I do do my own designs and I have a second project I'm working on that could easily eclipse a wilson anything. I took this on as a challenge, as many others have. I noticed that you are rather in aww of the wilson marketing. As I have pointed out before Dave Wilson does have some valid arguments to backup some of his marketing claims, but they arn't nearly as special as many would like to think. Their materials among others are quite tough for the DIY community to obtain and use, but not impossible. Their drivers are tough to get your hands on, but once again not impossible. and their crossovers if someone really wanted to see inside could be uncovered, but why? To what end? I have tested their materials, and while impressive, they only acieve one goal and that is to make a thin wall that has the damping of a thicker wall made of another material. That isn't to say that you can't acieve the same charactersitics with other materials, but they usually have to be thicker. I experimented with everything from carbon fiber to drywall, and I think you might be suprized to hear that while wilson picked a good material, there are better out there. Unfortunately the speaker has to be bigger to allow a thicker laminated wall. I dont' have the time or really the incination to go that far, (buy sheets of phenolic and acryllic) for what I don't really consider to be that great of a design. I have been working on my other project for over a year now and I expect that it will take another easily. I have heard the real deal WP and I have to say they are nice, but the best.. NO WAY.. Funny enough I have heard speakers made of the dreaded MDF that actually sound better. There are many respected Mfg. that use off the shelf drivers as well, so that cant be the secret to the magic. Hmm, it must be the crossover. Well kind of. There are only so may ways to arrive at the same transfer function. The blend between the watt and the pupy are actuallu one of the most criticized parts of the speaker. I haven't heard a person yet who listened to the WP who didn't think there were some issues in the bass region. Personally I think the Sophia is a much better speaker and design, but that's just my two cents. When you take a WP and compare to lets say a Von Schweikert VR-5SE I hear much better bass, a smoother and much more listenable speaker, and much better image and sense of realism. Oh wait that can't be... An MDF speaker with off the shelf drivers and crossover that isn't potted in resin to hide the dirty secrets. HMM no way it could sound better..... But it does
Somthing that is bugging me
BTW, am I the only one who thinks that vibration control on solid state electronics, baring those with moving parts, is rediculous. Having done work in defense, I can tell you that at 100 Gs the only problems with applying force to electronics lies in wire chafing, and pcb cracking. I want to start bottlying audiophile grade air and selling it for 200 bones a liter. Or maybe I could start selling suger pills and calling them hearing suplements. You could put an amplifer in a crash test dummy and it would sound the same durring the impact. The cables might be interesting... Am I the only one who saw the $16k transparent cables taken apart. It was hilarious what was inside. Later guys.
BTW, am I the only one who thinks that vibration control on solid state electronics, baring those with moving parts, is rediculous. Having done work in defense, I can tell you that at 100 Gs the only problems with applying force to electronics lies in wire chafing, and pcb cracking. I want to start bottlying audiophile grade air and selling it for 200 bones a liter. Or maybe I could start selling suger pills and calling them hearing suplements. You could put an amplifer in a crash test dummy and it would sound the same durring the impact. The cables might be interesting... Am I the only one who saw the $16k transparent cables taken apart. It was hilarious what was inside. Later guys.
psych&sound,
I do respect your opinion, but with a little knowledge about electronics and speaker design, it is not that difficult to produce a set of great sounding speakers. The laws of economics and marketing do magic!
I started my Watt/Puppy clones because I admire the physical appearance of them. The funny thing is that the sound characteristics of them are very close to the originals.
mp006ltk,
It's funny you mention this! I work in space industry in the area of communication systems. We use highest grade components to make sure when video, audio, and most importantly command to configure spacecrafts are uplinked, the information is not lost or degraded. All that said, the cables and connectors we use do not cost thousands of dollars!!!!! We use the same brands that all major telecommunication companies use.
I completely agree with you especially for audible frequency range.
I do respect your opinion, but with a little knowledge about electronics and speaker design, it is not that difficult to produce a set of great sounding speakers. The laws of economics and marketing do magic!
I started my Watt/Puppy clones because I admire the physical appearance of them. The funny thing is that the sound characteristics of them are very close to the originals.
mp006ltk,
It's funny you mention this! I work in space industry in the area of communication systems. We use highest grade components to make sure when video, audio, and most importantly command to configure spacecrafts are uplinked, the information is not lost or degraded. All that said, the cables and connectors we use do not cost thousands of dollars!!!!! We use the same brands that all major telecommunication companies use.
I completely agree with you especially for audible frequency range.
Attachments
I am surprised at the response; please allow me to clarify. I am not calling your baby ugly. I am saying take pride in YOUR baby and stop trying to turn it into David Wilson’s baby.
I have designed 3-way speakers that featured two 21 - 26 cm woofers, a 15 - 18 cm mid-woofer, and a 25 - 28 mm tweeter. I, in no way intended any to be a WATT/Puppy clone! Frankly, there are aspects of the WATT/Puppy that I would not implement in a speaker that I would have to pay for myself. David Wilson has made some choices, that are valid for his purposes, that I don’t think are the most efficient cost/benefit if audio performance were the only thing (e.g. machined aluminum port tubes!)
I did not say that MDF speaker enclosures sound bad – far from it; it is still my material of choice for a rational speaker design of justifiable cost for a middle income speaker buyer. This is precisely why most of the DIY speaker builders here would also use MDF. It is possible to make a predominantly MDF box heavy and stiff.
The level and type of enclosure colouration for an enclosure made of X or M material will be somewhat different from that of an MDF enclosure – but we must choose our own poison. By no means are X or M material “perfect” – I have tested better material. The primary purpose of using a material that will make the cost of the enclosure easily an order of magnitude greater than that of an MDF enclosure is not sonic – it is probably prestige! My friend's Audemars Piguet is not more accurate than my Seiko. These materials were chosen because they fit with the vision David Wilson had for his speaker. The Wilson WATT/Puppy at over $30000 Cdn is not intended to sell to people of average means or those looking for the best “value”. The majority of new purchasers have incomes that are in the 99.9 percentile. Many of these people have seldom used toys that could cost several times what an average person could earn in a year. Although many are, most of these buyers are not “audiophiles” in the same sense as the individuals on this forum. These individuals will pay a premium price to have something “special”. Wilson Audio is the Ferrari of the audio world – not perfect, but pretty special none the less.
Please! I am not in awe of anyone. I am not sure where you got that. I respect designers, builders, sellers and/or marketers with the skill, imagination, perseverance and vision, to successfully create and profitably sell a product that gives many people satisfaction – audio or otherwise. Really, if you were to create a speaker that were somewhat configured like a Wilson, but surpassed it in all the important areas – Would you have accomplished more if the Wilson were a great speaker or merely an over-rated over-priced terribly flawed speaker? Give yourself some credit, unless you feel that you are not worthy!
I have also heard the VS and I think that it was a good sounding speaker. But this was in a different room with different gear and different music and I was in a different state. No valid comparison can be made! The biggest dirty little secret is not potting resin (BTW, if you read my original post, then you may see that I am not a proponent of potting a crossover.) The biggest dirty little secret is that your comparisons are meaningless unless all of the variables are controlled – Experimental Methods 360 (a course that I once taught at University.) I propose that everyone immediately desist making invalid comparisons!
Finally, to put it another way; the design choices for a commercial product are not the same as those for a personal consumption project. If you examine everything to this point with this in mind, you may see that you are talking apples and oranges. And this is one of the reasons that I don’t see a reason for “cloning” a commercial product. So you “clone” a commercial product and, not counting your time and labour, it came in at a fraction of the cost of the commercial product. Congratulations. How much better or cost effective could it have been if your “design” were not constrained by the need to appear as if it were something else!?
I have designed 3-way speakers that featured two 21 - 26 cm woofers, a 15 - 18 cm mid-woofer, and a 25 - 28 mm tweeter. I, in no way intended any to be a WATT/Puppy clone! Frankly, there are aspects of the WATT/Puppy that I would not implement in a speaker that I would have to pay for myself. David Wilson has made some choices, that are valid for his purposes, that I don’t think are the most efficient cost/benefit if audio performance were the only thing (e.g. machined aluminum port tubes!)
I did not say that MDF speaker enclosures sound bad – far from it; it is still my material of choice for a rational speaker design of justifiable cost for a middle income speaker buyer. This is precisely why most of the DIY speaker builders here would also use MDF. It is possible to make a predominantly MDF box heavy and stiff.
The level and type of enclosure colouration for an enclosure made of X or M material will be somewhat different from that of an MDF enclosure – but we must choose our own poison. By no means are X or M material “perfect” – I have tested better material. The primary purpose of using a material that will make the cost of the enclosure easily an order of magnitude greater than that of an MDF enclosure is not sonic – it is probably prestige! My friend's Audemars Piguet is not more accurate than my Seiko. These materials were chosen because they fit with the vision David Wilson had for his speaker. The Wilson WATT/Puppy at over $30000 Cdn is not intended to sell to people of average means or those looking for the best “value”. The majority of new purchasers have incomes that are in the 99.9 percentile. Many of these people have seldom used toys that could cost several times what an average person could earn in a year. Although many are, most of these buyers are not “audiophiles” in the same sense as the individuals on this forum. These individuals will pay a premium price to have something “special”. Wilson Audio is the Ferrari of the audio world – not perfect, but pretty special none the less.
Please! I am not in awe of anyone. I am not sure where you got that. I respect designers, builders, sellers and/or marketers with the skill, imagination, perseverance and vision, to successfully create and profitably sell a product that gives many people satisfaction – audio or otherwise. Really, if you were to create a speaker that were somewhat configured like a Wilson, but surpassed it in all the important areas – Would you have accomplished more if the Wilson were a great speaker or merely an over-rated over-priced terribly flawed speaker? Give yourself some credit, unless you feel that you are not worthy!
I have also heard the VS and I think that it was a good sounding speaker. But this was in a different room with different gear and different music and I was in a different state. No valid comparison can be made! The biggest dirty little secret is not potting resin (BTW, if you read my original post, then you may see that I am not a proponent of potting a crossover.) The biggest dirty little secret is that your comparisons are meaningless unless all of the variables are controlled – Experimental Methods 360 (a course that I once taught at University.) I propose that everyone immediately desist making invalid comparisons!
Finally, to put it another way; the design choices for a commercial product are not the same as those for a personal consumption project. If you examine everything to this point with this in mind, you may see that you are talking apples and oranges. And this is one of the reasons that I don’t see a reason for “cloning” a commercial product. So you “clone” a commercial product and, not counting your time and labour, it came in at a fraction of the cost of the commercial product. Congratulations. How much better or cost effective could it have been if your “design” were not constrained by the need to appear as if it were something else!?
Where can I find detailed drawings and other details of the clones mentioned here. I have trouble making the WATT cabinet because of all the angles etc.
Bfard your picture is interesting, can we have some more and details, please?
How is WATT placed on the Puppy? Is it long spikes or is it leaning on the "wings"?
Bfard your picture is interesting, can we have some more and details, please?
How is WATT placed on the Puppy? Is it long spikes or is it leaning on the "wings"?
Mingo,
The measurements I used came from the Wilson Audio's web site and photos of the actual system 7
http://www.wilsonaudio.com/images/hi-res/wp8-dimensions.jpg
I had to extrapolate some of the measurements.
I am using Rubber foot for my WATT clone, since I dont want any vibration. On the Puppy clone, I am using a combo of spike and cone.
I used glossy formica for the wing edges and front and back of both WATT and Puppy clones. I chose this since I didn't have a facility to the perfect paint work done.
I hope the photos below help. I also included a photo of the real Watt/Puppy (taken while I was auditioning them).
The measurements I used came from the Wilson Audio's web site and photos of the actual system 7
http://www.wilsonaudio.com/images/hi-res/wp8-dimensions.jpg
I had to extrapolate some of the measurements.
I am using Rubber foot for my WATT clone, since I dont want any vibration. On the Puppy clone, I am using a combo of spike and cone.
I used glossy formica for the wing edges and front and back of both WATT and Puppy clones. I chose this since I didn't have a facility to the perfect paint work done.
I hope the photos below help. I also included a photo of the real Watt/Puppy (taken while I was auditioning them).
Attachments
answer in caps lock between text
I DID SOME SUCCESFULL DESIGNS THAT SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD(I CAN NOT TEL BETTER ITS ONLY MY CUSTOMERS CAN SAY THIS)
BUT I LIKE WATT PUPPY FOR ITS COMPACT "POWERPACK" ITS LIKE SNICKER CHOCHOLATE- SMALL BUT GIVES ENERGY FOR DAILY ROUTINES WHEN YOU HAVE NOT TIME TO HAVE A GOOD DINNER AT RESTAURANT. AND IT WORKS GOOD AT SMALL ROOMS.
psych&sound said:This is a very interesting thread. I have listened to several Wilson Audio speakers in several rooms with a wide variety of associated gear (all very highly regarded) under my own terms with my music. I’ve also been to invitation only compare-demos conducted by David Wilson, et al. No two models are what you might call “timbre matched”, but all are very good – especially compared to other speakers with 5 digit prices. A notably superior speaker is the Hansen Audio (Google it) – which really is IMPOSSIBLE to clone – proprietary drivers and enclosure materials.
EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE. JUST IMPOSIBLE TAKES MUCH MORE TIME THAN POSIBLE
Now with respect to “cloning” a WATT / Puppy: Obviously, given the rather princely price of the Wilsons with respect to the cost of the apparently off-the-shelf drivers, there are thousands of dollar reasons to try to build your own. I applaud the excellent efforts that many have posted. I’m sure that many also sound very good. But, why not take some credit for yourselves. Wilson does not have a patent on this configuration – just like Bob Carver has an invalid patent on large excursion woofers. So anyone who designs and builds a speaker with this WATT/Puppyish configuration is not really “cloning” a Wilson – he is merely using a configuration which works. Nearly every car ever has 4 wheels; if Ford et al. decided to “clone” the original Karl Benz patent Motorwagon, then we would all be riding around in tricycles. Keep the ideas that work and come up with better for the ones that don’t.
Well in any case, I doubt that anyone could really do a clone that could pass for a Wilson to an experienced listener; YOU ARE WRIGHT. ACTUALY I HAVE ORIGINAL DRIVERS FROM WILSON AUDIO WATT PUPPY(ACTUALY EVEN DIFERENT VERSIONS) I HAVE MANY LISTENERS WHO HAVE LIVED WITH WATT PUPPY OR AUDITIONED THEM IN LONG PERIODS. AND THEY PREFER IN MOST WAY CLONE (THEY WAS SURPRISE ALSO) ACTUALY ITS NOT FAIR. WILSON WATT PUPPY SPEAKERS ARE DECLARED AS ULTIMATE COMPACT DESIGN WITH COST NO OBJEST . HOME DIY SPEAKERS CAN(NO NESSESARY) BE MUCH MORE BETTER-AS WATT PUPPY USES PASSIVE XOVER AND VERY TRICKY TITANIUM TWEETER IT NEEDS VERY HIGH COMPONENTS. WISLON AUDIO IS NOT ABLE TO INCLUDE THEESE COMPONENTS ,SO THIS CREATS SOME SERIUOS PROBLEMS (HARSHNESS AND HOT STYLE OF HIGHTS AS MOST REWIEWERS COMPLAIN) i FULLY UNDERSTAND wa SPECIALITIES AND OTHER SPEAKER MANUFATURERS- THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PUT 800EUR PRICE XOVER PARTS TO ONLY 20 000-30 000EUR SPEAKER. ITS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THEM AND TOO BIG SIZE TO PLACE INSIDE ENCLOSURE. perhaps a “replica” with a passing resemblance from a distance, somewhat like a fiberglass look-alike of a Lamborghini body on a Fiero. It may impress the unwashed, but never the cognoscenti. There are too many aspects of the design and construction that are not easily duplicated by a home builder. X and M material are extremely difficult to work – even with large industrial CNC routers. MDF and bracing could never duplicate the density and very high Young’s Modulus necessary to get the enclosure to be so uncoloured. THERE i FULLY AGREE. MDF SOUNDS VERY BAD COMAPRING TO MORE EXOTIC MATERIALS. BUT WHO SAID THAT DIYERS MUST USE MDF? THERE ARE MANY OTHER RIGID MATERIALS. There is nothing like a heavy stiff box to let the drivers do their thing. And in the case of the 7 but not the 8, there is a substantial amount of lead damping. I LIKE LEAD. I USING ARROUND TRIPLE THICK THAN WILSON DOES . The 8 is at least partially in response to the harebrained EC RoHS directive – but I digress... Even if one could source the exact drivers, one is left without the correct crossover. One would have to get ones hands on a crossover and measure the transfer functions to merely come close. The reason that Wilson pots the crossovers is only partially for resonance control – I think it is mostly for Reconnaissance control. FULLY AGREE. XOVER IS NOT A BIG DEAL.BUT TWEETER IS. ANYTHING WHO CLONES WATTS WITH COMERCIAL AVAILABLE TWEETERS ARE END UP WITH VERY HARSH SOUND. EXACTLY LIKE WATT 5 SOUNDS. AND IF WITH COMERCIAL AVAILABLE MIDRANGE DRIVERS- VERY UNLIVE AND HEAVY MIDRANGE.
So the “clone” would have different drivers, different crossovers, different enclosures. Yup, a Fiero dressed up like a Lamborghini.
Why not take the lesson of Wilson Audio’s success and try to design your own and come up with your own ideas to deal with the issues of creating a successful design – just like David Wilson did.
I DID SOME SUCCESFULL DESIGNS THAT SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD(I CAN NOT TEL BETTER ITS ONLY MY CUSTOMERS CAN SAY THIS)
BUT I LIKE WATT PUPPY FOR ITS COMPACT "POWERPACK" ITS LIKE SNICKER CHOCHOLATE- SMALL BUT GIVES ENERGY FOR DAILY ROUTINES WHEN YOU HAVE NOT TIME TO HAVE A GOOD DINNER AT RESTAURANT. AND IT WORKS GOOD AT SMALL ROOMS.
A few comments now that the thread has been revived.
elviukai has started a fantastic journey of cloning the WP but he has not posted anything on his homepage for the last 12 months. I know that he was planning to write another article on the WP clone but it has never materialized.
I for one would certainly like to read more. Is there any chance that this article will turn up? I definately hope so!
farl, your clones look great. Have you got any detailed enclosure drawings and more pictures?
elviukai has started a fantastic journey of cloning the WP but he has not posted anything on his homepage for the last 12 months. I know that he was planning to write another article on the WP clone but it has never materialized.
I for one would certainly like to read more. Is there any chance that this article will turn up? I definately hope so!
farl, your clones look great. Have you got any detailed enclosure drawings and more pictures?
Mingo said:
hi everyone, I just realized that i just too busy with audioproject to ad to the website. in autumn I am planing to moove to another server(more comfortable, as there only 28mB info ant it takes to pay 10 times a mont for 10GB trafic, I can onle realize what would be if I add more info like300mb)
at the moment there lot of new speakers as my designs(first what comes to my mind is amazing SOLO speker witth scan speak revelator metal midrange(unfortunately it is not sold for public) capable of reproduction 80Hz-15khz,and scan speak 26w revelator sub built to my specifications. ) and also reproductions of variuos manufacturers like rockport technologies and verity audo.. as for wilson there is 6 diferent version of watt puppy with diferent drivers. I was able to get all originals drivers from watt 5/6/7/8(except wat 6 tweetr) and puppy 6/7/8 original drivers. I carefyly measured and yet performance of some makes me wonder both positive and negative. for example there is major diference between puppy 5/6/ woofers and puppy 7/8 woofers. and I fuly understand why david went down sensitivity with watt/puppy8. also I have made diferent watt versions with scan speak, audiotechnology drivers. please be patient and in autumn I will put all that stuff to new website. sorry for delaying
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.