Watt Puppy Iterations

[Uberbrown]

Stereophile's review of the Watt Puppy 7 (Michael Fremer, September 2003, Stereophile: Wilson Audio Specialties WATT/Puppy 7 loudspeaker) claims the following:

"I've been told that the various WATT/Puppy iterations over the years have vacillated between soulless perfection and soulful compromise, stopping everywhere between...The 7 has both soul, and, I'll bet, superb technical performance. While its frequency response appears to have been altered from strict flatness to add layers of love in the midbass and high frequencies, the WATT/Puppy 7 has so may positive attributes and so few negative ones that I do not hesitate to say that it's one of the finest-sounding and -performing speakers I have had the pleasure to evaluate."

It seems that reviewers who have heard both claim the W/P 8 is more neutral than the W/P 7 was. I wonder if for those who love sweetness in their sound and are easily fatigued by "crystalline" highs if the 7 might be the jewel of the Watt/Puppy line?

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by Uberbrown

It seems that reviewers who have heard both claim the W/P 8 is more neutral than the W/P 7 was. I wonder if for those who love sweetness in their sound and are easily fatigued by "crystalline" highs if the 7 might be the jewel of the Watt/Puppy line?

I have a feeling that the jewel of the Watt/Puppy line is the Sophia .

Seriously, the well-documented genesis of the W/P is that Dave Wilson wanted an extremely accurate (some would say ruthlessly accurate) monitor for ... well monitoring.

The following is more of a conjecture than well-documented history, but I have a feeling that during the 80s and 90s as CDs replaced vinyl, the "crystalline highs" of the W/P became a bit too much when combined with digital - hence the shift toward a softer/sweeter sound. All relative of course, even the sweetest W/P is ruthlessly revealing compared to most other speakers.

I've lusted after Wilsons for a few years (I guess those ads worked) and there's a local dealer that always had a few used ones in stock (from people who upgraded). But every time I listened to them, the first impression of WOW! was quickly followed by listening fatigue.

Alberto

[Uberbrown]

Originally Posted by Alberto

I have a feeling that the jewel of the Watt/Puppy line is the Sophia .

Alberto

I have heard many who thought the Sophia I & II was a speaker that better integrated its parts and was actually preferred to the Watt Puppys.

However, it was my impression that the Shphias belong to the Sophia line of Wilson, while the Watt Puppys belonged to the Watt Puppy line. It is great to do so, but I didnt mean to include the Sophia's in the discussion. But by all means!

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by Uberbrown

I have heard many who thought the Sophia I & II was a speaker that better integrated its parts and was actually preferred to the Watt Puppys.

However, it was my impression that the Shphias belong to the Sophia line of Wilson, while the Watt Puppys belonged to the Watt Puppy line. It is great to do so, but I didnt mean to include the Sophia's in the discussion. But by all means!

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but I could not resist making that comment. Back to W/Ps.

Alberto

[Uberbrown]

Originally Posted by Alberto

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but I could not resist making that comment. Back to W/Ps.

Alberto

Ha! No problem.

[PHC1]

In my humble opinion, all Wilsons are neutral and dynamic to bring out the very best of every recording. That also means the very worst in every crappy recording. Now, couple a neutral, open, dynamic speaker with an amp that has lots of refinement and naturalness such as Lamm or some of the other well executed Class A amps and it is a match that is tough to resist. That still doesn't mean that crappy recordings will be smoothed over or sugar coated to the point that they all become magically listenable and enjoyable, as that would imply lot's of coloring from the system and that is just not the way the Wilson or some of the best gear out there is built.

I find the MDA1000 is able to add a little sugar coating to those dynamic range compressed and hot recordings to make them just tolerable but when I want to listen to XRCD or a well recorded material, the Ayre C-5xeMP, Ayre KX-R, Lamm M1.2 hybrids and the Wilson Sophia 2s are simply incredible.

[Jean-Marc jmajma]

To me, WP8 is the jewel by itself.

I've compared with Sophia's, they both have the Dave Wilson's sounding signature,but in the end I preferred the WP8 for its better bass extension and the naturalness and truth of the whole musical presentation; I had the feeling they would better match my room which is 33 feet X 17 feet , listening position at 16 feet. Don't forget you can play with different spikes between the Watt and the Puppy, allowing to adjust perfectly the soundstage knowing the height of your ears, the distance from the tweeters to your ears, etc etc ...That's my humble opinion.

For what I've listened, they are very well married with Audioresearch and with McIntosh.

One thing is certain, I would never speak of fatiguing crystalline highs . Or my 50 years begin to cut strongly in the highs...

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by Jean-Marc jmajma

One thing is certain, I would never speak of fatiguing crystalline highs . Or my 50 years begin to cut strongly in the highs...

I think you illustrate a very important point: in addition to sonic preferences, we all hear differently. I have audiophile friends who find my system rolled off while I find theirs too bright.

However, I was at the house of a friend who finds my system too rolled off a few months ago and, while we were talking in the living room, I said "Do you hear that?"

"Hear what?" He replied.

"That whooshing sound."

To make a long story short, the toilet tank in his guest bathroom was "stuck" (i.e. the water kept streaming in,) I heard from another room, and he didn't even hear it in the bathroom until we lifted the tank lid.

We laughed about it and he said: "Well, I guess that explains a lot!"

I am not trying to imply that people who prefer some brands of speakers (e.g. Wilson, B&W) have compromised hearing. A lot of recording studios, for example, use B&Ws. It might very well be that people that prefer some other brands (e.g. Sonus Faber, Vienna) have an abnormal sensitivity to certain frequencies. But it would be hard to deny that in many cases differences in hearing play some role in our preferences (together with room acoustics, choice of musical material, other components, etc.)

Alberto

[Still-One]

Alberto

Good points. I agree with what you are saying.
Jim

[Jean-Marc jmajma]

Alberto, me too, I agree: it's very well known that when age grows we hear less in the highs; it wasn't a joke.And that's all about synergy, compensation, ...to find what you search.

That's exactly my feeling: to each his own, what is the the most important to my eyes (and ears first) is to choose the gear which reproduces the music like you love to hear it: I remember that you talked in some of your posts using terms as "delicious" and so on... I totally agree with that, it's important to ENJOY our system. Emotion must be the leitmotiv to me. Foot tapping. etc...

In the end, my little philosophy about that is listen to the music and enjoy it, rather than listen to the gear.