Controversial Opinion

[Freestone]

Initially I didn't like the look of the Wilson but now I do. The vivid though I could never have in my room, though I could see where others have different tastes and decor to match. I ALWAYS liked the Wilson's sound.

[thesaint519]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Ok, I'm going down to listen to my Wilson system now, wish me luck, I hope I still like them when I emerge from my theater room. We audiophiles are a very impressionable bunch after all...

Just coming up for air after a very intimate listening session with the twins (Sashas). Gotta run - they're calling me again.

[Jerome W]

On the Allnic audio web site, I found this :



And this statement :

"The Wilson’s require attention to setup. Preferred sitting distance is recommended to be within 1.1 to 1.25% of the tweeter to tweeter width with the speakers pointed directly at the listener. Best is to be able to slightly see the inner wall of the cabinet from your seating position. Once dialed, the magic is there! These are very good, surprisingly efficient to be driven to decent listening levels with Allnic 12.5 WPC DHT A5000’s. The sounds leap off the cabinets rendering them invisible"

I find it interesting to read the term "magic". Plus the fact that the speakers simply disappear. I have had a very hard time finding speakers able to disappear as Wilsons do.
All this is a question of taste and highly subjective. I personnaly never found Magico being "magic" !
All over the world and in HiFi shows, electronic and cables manufacturers use Wilson to demo their products. The Sashas are the most displayed everywhere by a large margin. This also says something. Those guys do not read curves. They listen to music. They must all have bad ears.

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by thesaint519

Just coming up for air after a very intimate listening session with the twins (Sashas). Gotta run - they're calling me again.

Sure, rub it in...

[thesaint519]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

Sure, rub it in...

Ahhhhhh... Comrades, I'd like nothing more than to deliver some lengthy pseudo-scientific discourse that definitively explains why Wilsons are terrible or terrific, why they measure horribly or perfectly, and why you should never buy or ever buy their products. But I simply cannot find the time to devote to such an eloquent postulation, because the sound = ahhhhhh... If I can somehow muster the time in the next 5 or 6 years to do that, I'll be happy to clear up these issues for everyone. But for now, I'm WAY too busy listening to musical bliss. Everyone - please lets get back to the music we love to listen to. What was that, Sasha? Sorry folks - duty calls.

[thesaint519]

Originally Posted by thesaint519

Ahhhhhh... Comrades, I'd like nothing more than to deliver some lengthy pseudo-scientific discourse that definitively explains why Wilsons are terrible or terrific, why they measure horribly or perfectly, and why you should never buy or ever buy their products. But I simply cannot find the time to devote to such an eloquent postulation, because the sound = ahhhhhh... If I can somehow muster the time in the next 5 or 6 years to do that, I'll be happy to clear up these issues for everyone. But for now, I'm WAY too busy listening to musical bliss. Everyone - please lets get back to the music we love to listen to. What was that, Sasha? Sorry folks - duty calls.

How lovely...

[JSCC]

The more I read, the more I find this thread interesting.

Its all about a "paint job" but the defense Wilson garnered is tremendous. Seriously, almost everyone is into paint jobs these days - even Magico had also started to. Now, Wilson Gloss is but a word merely like slightly more than a decade ago where most speakers are solid wood or veneered! There must be something right about doing a paint job indeed.

Each of us are individually different, and so, the taste, on speakers performance, the passion of loving a brand, ownership pride varies. Some of us, I do, ... buy gears mostly thru magazines write ups/reviews and advises of friends and sales person, while many others knows what they want and do in-depth auction before plonking the monies for them.

I think its time we move on from this subject as there will be no end to this .... Right, wrong or indifferent, we have to respect each other views and at the same time, be sensitive to the choice of words used.

We are all lovers of music and the gears producing it. And all we seek is the pure enjoyment derived from what we have owned or are about to own. We does not have to agree all the time. As long as love what we have, great. If not, time to change and have upgraditis! Just like our wives, we don't marry them just because someone else say so nor we ditch them because someone else say something different. We marry them because we all love our wives!

We are all friends in this forum, and its all about exchange of ideas, advise and experience. Lets leave it at that!

[Charles]

Originally Posted by tima

Measurements are interesting. Nonetheless, if a piece of gear rubs against the rules of human hearing - very roughly, those physiological and non-cognitive mechanisms for 'processing' sound that the we are born with - then its not likely to find long term acceptance. Think back to all the hoo-haa about THD measurements we went through with solid state amplifiers (many of them Japanese) back in the Eighties and early Nineties. To achieve miniscule distortion those SS amp builders went with a lot of loop negative feed-back which impacted odd-order harmonic emphasis and loudness cues. You won't find that in the measurements.

Ralph Karsten (a preeminent amp designer) has fascinating comments on the rules of human hearing. They are scattered throughout Audiogon forum messages and worth searching out. I covered the topic a teeny bit here. From Ralph: "If you design your amp to look good on paper, it at best will sound like good hi-fi. What we really want is for it to sound like music. For that, we have to get the circuitry/stereo to obey as many of these perceptual rules as we know about." There's more to realistic sound than measurements and opinion.

That is IMO a very good understanding of audio. One must understand how to interpret measurements. As I have mentioned anytime you see a broad rise or even flat in the 1,000 to 12,000 Hz range with a speaker, watch out. It may sound bright. Looks good on paper though.

Just the opposite is true in bass. IMO the MAXX3 has the ideal bass graph showing a broad rise beginning at 30 Hz going through about 100 Hz. The roll off is quick below 30 Hz. If you see a speaker with a flat bass response, watch out, looks good on paper but it will have no bass. I can't hear a piece of paper. In other words, I want a speaker with a broad peak in the bass, a flat or even slightly declining response in the 300 to 15,000 Hz range with zero peaks above the 0 db line, and a quick roll off below 30 Hz. In practical terms the roll off below 30 Hz is much more important than the Wilson resonance at 20,000 Hz (which by the way doesn't even cross the 0 db line). Why? I can't remotely hear 18,000 Hz but I can hear woofer doubling when a woofer incapable of linear output at really low frequencies is asked to do 20 Hz flat. It takes a Thor to be flat at 20 Hz. A speaker that is flat to 20-25 Hz is a curse. The MAXX3 does the best job I have ever seen of a speaker doing 20 Hz. It will produce a remarkable 18 Hz note that shakes the room. What it will not do is pick up the very faint 20 hz background organ notes that I love to hear so much on some of my recordings because it is markedly rolled off by 20 Hz. Takes my Thor to do this. But my MAXX will produce heavy sustained 20 Hz material remarkably well without any distortsion. What DW has achieved with the bass response of his speaker, my hats off to him.

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by Charles

That is IMO a very good understanding of audio. One must understand how to interpret measurements. As I have mentioned anytime you see a broad rise or even flat in the 1,000 to 12,000 Hz range with a speaker, watch out. It may sound bright. Looks good on paper though.

Just the opposite is true in bass. IMO the MAXX3 has the ideal bass graph showing a broad rise beginning at 30 Hz going through about 100 Hz. The roll off is quick below 30 Hz. If you see a speaker with a flat bass response, watch out, looks good on paper but it will have no bass. I can't hear a piece of paper. In other words, I want a speaker with a broad peak in the bass, a flat or even slightly declining response in the 300 to 15,000 Hz range with zero peaks above the 0 db line, and a quick roll off below 30 Hz. In practical terms the roll off below 30 Hz is much more important than the Wilson resonance at 20,000 Hz (which by the way doesn't even cross the 0 db line). Why? I can't remotely hear 18,000 Hz but I can hear woofer doubling when a woofer incapable of linear output at really low frequencies is asked to do 20 Hz flat. It takes a Thor to be flat at 20 Hz. A speaker that is flat to 20-25 Hz is a curse. The MAXX3 does the best job I have ever seen of a speaker doing 20 Hz. It will produce a remarkable 18 Hz note that shakes the room. What it will not do is pick up the very faint 20 hz background organ notes that I love to hear so much on some of my recordings because it is markedly rolled off by 20 Hz. Takes my Thor to do this. But my MAXX will produce heavy sustained 20 Hz material remarkably well without any distortsion. What DW has achieved with the bass response of his speaker, my hats off to him.

Charles,
This is an impressively good post !
Thanks a lot !

Sent from my iPhone using A.Aficionado

[rlacoste]

Charles,
You have a very "interesting" rational when it comes to reading these charts. Can you please explain to us what do you mean by saying "doesn't even cross the 0 db line"?