 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
106.222.239.81
In Srereophile by Martin Colloms gives the impression that speakers need not sound good for all music. The Watt Puppy is very good for Classical and soft Jazz but not for Hard Rock and Jazz including Coldplay. Strange. More specialization? Also these speakers need specialized placing to sound right by super experts who can make a difference with a few inches movement. And JA One did not do the measurements.
Bill
Follow Ups:
"gives the impression that speakers need not sound good for all music. The Watt Puppy is very good for Classical and soft Jazz but not for Hard Rock and Jazz including Coldplay. Strange. More specialization?"
Did he just recently figure that out? Or you?
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
is the price. The same problem exists for all the usual famous brands, but at least some of them make you feel like you're getting some premium components for your money, e.g. Diamond tweeters, field coils drivers, cool horns, plasma tweeters, etc.
Edits: 02/01/25
"Audio Jewelry" is not a misnomer here. Nobody can deny the supremacy of Wilson Audio bling factor.
Wilson paint job is very nice, but underneath it all, they are the usual MDF cabinets with just mysterious baffle materials glued onto the wood.
The fancy-sounding Wilson materials (X, M, S, V, etc) are essentially variations of thermoplastic resins mixed with various paper pulp, epoxy, etc. Worth the Wilson prices...?
I have the same response to Wilson's "bling" as I do their sound -- unimpressed. I wouldn't consider them even if they cost a tenth of what they do. Way too many other speakers out there at reasonable prices where I greatly prefer both the appearance and sound.
... is the drug of choice for the syncopated psychopaths we sometimes call "audiophiles".
And yet once one closes their eyes and uses ears alone, it the acoustic, electromechanical parts that govern the radiation and those are what tickles the eardrums and preserves or transmogrifies the original signal.
The thing that makes selling loudspeakers to musicians easier is they listen to hear how well their instrument is reproduced, in hifi no one or very few have that first hand reference and can only go by what they think the recording should sound like and what they imagine the exotica does to the sound.
It is simple to reproduce recognizable sounds and instruments, it is another thing entirely to make it sound like those instruments are directly in front of you without loudspeakers as the source.
"And yet once one closes their eyes and uses ears alone, it the acoustic, electromechanical parts that govern the radiation and those are what tickles the eardrums and preserves or transmogrifies the original signal.
The thing that makes selling loudspeakers to musicians easier is they listen to hear how well their instrument is reproduced, in hifi no one or very few have that first hand reference and can only go by what they think the recording should sound like and what they imagine the exotica does to the sound.
It is simple to reproduce recognizable sounds and instruments, it is another thing entirely to make it sound like those instruments are directly in front of you without loudspeakers as the source."
We're getting a little off-topic here, but I wanted to reply to your post.
As a musician (trumpet), I've played in brass quintet, big band, concert band, and orchestra.
"The thing that makes selling loudspeakers to musicians easier is they listen to hear how well their instrument is reproduced,"
I can assure you that it goes much deeper than that. Musicians who have performed in multiple ensembles for many years, acquire a knowledge of the sound of many instruments - not only their own, as well as a keen sense of balance across the ensemble and the sound of the venue and how it affects how loudly or softly we play.
With regard to sound reproduction via loudspeakers...
"it is another thing entirely to make it sound like those instruments are directly in front of you without loudspeakers as the source."
Absolutely. And several factors contribute to that imaginary "soundstage". The recording, the speakers, and the room. For the recording: Miking technique, reverb, EQ, limiting, delay, panning, and how they're used are also critical factors.
Two of the best sounding systems I've heard are Magico S7's in the Magico listening room, and Siegfried Linkwitz's system at his home. Both systems could make you believe that various instruments were "there, or there, or there". Both systems, but especially Linkwitz's, presented the impression that you could walk up to a player at a certain position! Almost holographic.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
of my Sound Lab speakers are adorned with the highest quality flat black Polane enamel from Sherwin-Williams just like these U945s getting heat treated at the factory. ;)
Not a small stature worker on the third step and frames still above his head
Truely planar presentation!
.
.
with 45 degree radiation angle.
If want to increase either horizontal or vertical coverage, they can be assembled in arrays. For many years, Ray Kimber demoed his recordings at RMAF using twelve 922s. Triples for each channel . :)
The effortless performance of large square footage of membranes was a memorable experience.
Also the weight of the amplifiers at one venue required them to be spread around as floor deflection was of a mild concern
Magnifique !!!
The sound of a 'perfect' speaker would depend primarily on the source recording and also on the gear in front of it. Speakers, even great ones, are voiced differently. It appears that Martin is making a personal. subjective comment about the voicing of the Watt/Puppy and its relationship to the way rock is usually recorded.
JA didn't do the measurements. Martin Collums did them. Martin is an accomplished expert on speaker design with a signature book, numerous well known speaker designs and decades of audio reviewing. You read this quality writer and apply your own views on sound reproduction to his comments. He's not choosing a speaker for you but giving you his input for you to use as you wish.
I have read MC from 1986 onwards in various British mags. I also know he was the founder of Monitor Audio, a speaker I like a lot. I was only observing that the WP speaker was very good for some type of music only. Very good for Classical but not for Hard Rock. That is what MC wrote. This means that to get good response in all types, different makes of drivers should be used together in the cabinet. I wonder if JA would have noticed it in his measurements if he had done it. Maybe some glitch on a curve while Cold Play response was tested? It would be great if JA decides to measure WP
Bill.
Their lines are alerady established. This is some kind of tribute to the classic look that is designed so you can't just but the tot.
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
Not exactly flattering....
Edits: 01/31/25
The WATT existed before the Puppy.
The WATT was always a full range speaker by design. It initially had very different drivers with more smooth midbass unfiltered response but not as resolving as different units over the WATT versions, but the tweeter was far rougher than subsequent models.
WATT is Wilson Audio Tune Tot. As a Tot, large rooms didn't have enough bass impact. Much like some of the Bass enhancement modules for say LS3A units, the Puppy created to both a bass augment oriented and high pass filter. From the videos we see that approach still remains. The original Puppy had very different drivers and impedance lows were not as extreme but still somewhat crippling for non-robust amplifiers.
The WATT made and sustained Wilson Audio and it seems clear they are focused on preserving its legacy. If you look at the Wilson lineup today, there are several models that seem redundant to the WATT , couple with nearly same driver numbers and layout but smoother response and less demanding impedance.
I was surprised to learn about the tweeter diffraction issues. I was of firm belief that the real standout contributions to speaker design implementation was the shape and material used in the WATT. The solution of foam guides ought to be copied by every owner even if they have no interest in utilizing the other suggested changes.
I also imagine Wilson Audio are bit put out of the idea of using a sub plate amp on Puppy. It is a far better solution than what they designed,
I'm certain they always felt and used the demanding impedance would keep this unit and reputation out of the hands of the masses and the well healed owner$$$ could afford arc welder level amplifiers
I'm doubting many owners are going to take up on a non Wilson Audio crossover as that might question their decision making and listening skills. It's one thing to buy a Klipsch and realize it can be made better, than it is to shell out $10,000 plus and find it's got warts that can be removed
"The WATT was always a full range speaker by design."
+1, -3dB, 58Hz to 18 kHz is full range?
"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior."
- Robin Skynner
Many 7 inch two ways have same basic range
I was surprised by the GR Research reports but those kinds of measurements don't lie. I have heard Wilson speakers I've liked but they're later models without the Focal tweeter which I know from a designer friend is hard to control at typical crossovers. Also I believe the new Wilsons by Dave's sons both measure and sound better which has been reinforced by some well known reviewers both publicly and privately.
Go figure !
Whoa...
k
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
since what you hear at rock concerts includes the colorations of sound reinforcement speakers, brands like Altec, JBL, Klipsch, etc are closer to that *reality*.
As for me, I prefer the superior transparency of truly good speakers to that ilk played at ear bleeding levels!
Most every speaker can benefit from precise placement into room with respect to listening position. Most Wilson speakers including this one provide physical adjustments to the upper driver section(s).
I haven't heard the Puppy/Watt speakers in many years. The older versions sounded lean/clinical to my ears. But, I have no idea how the new ones sound. That said, not all speakers do everything really, really well, in fact few do. There's always a compromise. Also, it has been my experience that most speakers required serious set up, within an inch or less to get everything right. The price of (new) Wilson speakers usually includes delivery and set up. They tend to be big heavy monsters. There is however, a healthy demand for used Wilsons.
Jack
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
