The Return of the WAMM

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by joey_v

Or how they sounded?

Excellent

[2fastdriving]

I can't imagine David Wilson's swan song would be anything but amazing.

[metaphacts]

Originally Posted by 2fastdriving

I can't imagine David Wilson's swan song would be anything but amazing.

[Venere]

Originally Posted by metaphacts

Still waiting for someone (Bill perhaps?) to explain how the rear firing drivers fit into the fully adjustable time and phase coherent design approach. On the surface they would appear to me at least to be in conflict with that critical primary design goal.

[metaphacts]

Originally Posted by Venere

Still waiting for someone (Bill perhaps?) to explain how the rear firing drivers fit into the fully adjustable time and phase coherent design approach. On the surface they would appear to me at least to be in conflict with that critical primary design goal.

Patience. More information will come out in the coming weeks. But rest assured that every aspect of the WAMM Chronosonic design fully addresses time.

[Venere]

Originally Posted by metaphacts

Patience. More information will come out in the coming weeks. But rest assured that every aspect of the WAMM Chronosonic design fully addresses time.

Thanks for the reply Bill. Looking forwaed to more info on what will surely be an amazing speaker.

[marsalis]

Originally Posted by Venere

Still waiting for someone (Bill perhaps?) to explain how the rear firing drivers fit into the fully adjustable time and phase coherent design approach. On the surface they would appear to me at least to be in conflict with that critical primary design goal.

None of Wilson speakers, despite the rhetoric, are time aligned or phase coherent. Two more drivers in the back (top or bottom) will not matter a bit.
I would be much more concern with the distance between drivers, especially the tweeter and the mids, and all the defractions from all these edges around them.

[2fastdriving]

Originally Posted by marsalis

None of Wilson speakers, despite the rhetoric, are time aligned or phase coherent. Two more drivers in the back (top or bottom) will not matter a bit.
I would be much more concern with the distance between drivers, especially the tweeter and the mids, and all the defractions from all these edges around them.

Ok, you can't throw that grenade on the table without backing it up. What's your proof that they aren't time aligned or phase coherent?

[marsalis]

Not a grenade, a common knowledge, and not for debate, I am afraid. Just look at any measurements ever done on any of his speakers. And if you don't quite understand what it is you are looking at, you can get clues like "the upper woofer's output clearly arriving at the mike before the lower woofer's" or "the tweeter is connected in positive acoustic polarity, the midrange driver in negative polarity, etc. These are all taken from JA work in Stereophile.

[Coppy]

Originally Posted by marsalis

Not a grenade, a common knowledge, and not for debate, I am afraid. Just look at any measurements ever done on any of his speakers. And if you don't quite understand what it is you are looking at, you can get clues like "the upper woofer's output clearly arriving at the mike before the lower woofer's" or "the tweeter is connected in positive acoustic polarity, the midrange driver in negative polarity, etc. These are all taken from JA work in Stereophile.

And so... Dave Wilson, respected world wide or marsalis. Guess there's no contest. Why do you think anyone cares about your comment?