I totally understand loving the appearance of the original WAMM. It was a beautiful assemblage and totally unique. But sometime after that Wilson abandoned wood veneers and went to automotive paint, a move I just don’t understand. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Well, I clearly understand it. Most people do not want their speakers look like cheap furniture or have much better wood quality and finish in their speakers than in their furniture. If we exclude the large multi box speakers, the Wilson design finished with quality paint in many hues and colors is attractive to most people and blends fairly well with most room decors, classic or modern. For me, no doubt that their aspect is a strong Wilson marketing point, as shown in their brochures.
Well, I also like a lot my B&W Silver Signature or Sonus Faber Amator. But I must recognize the preference is not shared by most of my friends - they still refer to the old pair of Wilson Puppy in Ferrari red that is now owned by a friend of mine ...
sorry, people who love certain speakers like to think others hate them, when I only have disrespect for the listening and evaluation/research of the NLs who like such speakers. Nothing against the speakers and the company.
This is why I respect SSFAS’s post. He goes to a lot of live shows but did not pretend that is why he chose Wilson. His wife did on looks, they heard it for less than an hour and that was it
This is why I respect SSFAS’s post. He goes to a lot of live shows but did not pretend that is why he chose Wilson. His wife did on looks, they heard it for less than an hour and that was it
Besides the looks, I thought the tonality was very similar to my Harbeth, that the wife wanted to chop up and use as firewood. They go down to 32Hz -3dB, which is about right for a 18x14 room for mostly acoustic music.
Re @Ron Resnick 's other thread referring to Robert Harley's article, on page 124 of his book he ends his section on how to choose speakers with this.
That's what happened.
Robert Harley's section "What to Listen For" has good advice and I go through a range of single instruments, percussion and voices, then small groups. My demo tracks are mostly extracts of around 30 seconds or less. I was done in less than half an hour and when the wife came back from some retail therapy I was just enjoying the speakers.
Re @Ron Resnick 's other thread referring to Robert Harley's article, on page 124 of his book he ends his section on how to choose speakers with this. View attachment 117703
I totally understand loving the appearance of the original WAMM. It was a beautiful assemblage and totally unique. But sometime after that Wilson abandoned wood veneers and went to automotive paint, a move I just don’t understand. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
For my tastes, and just speaking of visual aesthetics, I much prefer my current speakers where the front is solid Birds Eye maple.
Wood veneers vibrate more than the new X, V, and S material that Wilson uses. Automotive paint is more durable in use as well. I think it's just part of the ongoing improvement process to have less resonant cabinets.
sorry, people who love certain speakers like to think others hate them, when I only have disrespect for the listening and evaluation/research of the NLs who like such speakers. Nothing against the speakers and the company.
So it's more personal? You don't mind the brand but you have disrespect for the people that enjoy the brand because you feel the listener has not done a quality evaluation? That is the same as saying the speaker does not perform well, no?
So it's more personal? You don't mind the brand but you have disrespect for the people that enjoy the brand because you feel the listener has not done a quality evaluation? That is the same as saying the speaker does not perform well, no?
I don’t like coke and pepsi as a product either, I respect them as companies, I think it is pretty silly if someone drinks it thinking they are having health drinks or take a coke to fuel their gym training. Which is kind of like listening to a system of dCS and Wilson and thinking this is high end audio because it has a high end price tag.
If you think you are having a sugar drink that is fine, but even then there are much better desserts. So yes, I would not have much respect for someone who eats neither healthy, nor chooses good naughty food, e.g. someone on a diet of Big Mac and Coke
I don’t like coke and pepsi as a product either, I respect them as companies, I think it is pretty silly if someone drinks it thinking they are having health drinks or take a coke to fuel their gym training. Which is kind of like listening to a system of dCS and Wilson and thinking this is high end audio because it has a high end price tag.
If you think you are having a sugar drink that is fine, but even then there are much better desserts. So yes, I would not have much respect for someone who eats neither healthy, nor chooses good naughty food, e.g. someone on a diet of Big Mac and Coke
You are suggesting that both dCS and Wilson are not real "high end audio" and people are buying them only because of the higher price tag. Yet both these companies have demonstrated a wide variety of technical excellence and innovation over the years and have remained in business and thrived financially. How would Wilson and dCS be able to do that if they didn't produce a good product?
Same is true for Magico and MSB...
Is the audiophile press (which people here claim is increasingly irrelevant) influential enough to float these brands enough to make up for their performance not being genuine "high end" as you see it?
Isn't the Wilson/dCS/Magico/MSB just a different yet valid path for obtaining good sound like the different path of SET/Horns?
Group one: A is better than B
Group two: B is better than A
Endless war = offtopic
1- if you want to judge wilson or dCS you should have a reference/match system to judge wilson and dCS .
Listening to wilson or dcs is many different setups does not warranty your judgment is right.
2- if you want to judge a component you should be expert enough to review/describe the sound
In my opinion Over 99% of judgments/reviews are not true.
I have listened to wilson watt puppy 7 in DPOLS position 17 years ago , you know wilson watt puppy 7 is a mid-performance loudspeaker but that night the sound was wonderful, far better than any over 1 million system.
Sure, the four Ps get you in the door and secure a sale, but many Wilson and Magico customers come back and buy again and often move up the ladder in the product hierarchy. So that indicates to me that the product quality is high and people enjoy the sound quality.
Sure, the four Ps get you in the door and secure a sale, but many Wilson and Magico customers come back and buy again and often move up the ladder in the product hierarchy. So that indicates to me that the product quality is high and people enjoy the sound quality.
If we exclude the large multi box speakers, the Wilson design finished with quality paint in many hues and colors is attractive to most people and blends fairly well with most room decors, classic or modern. For me, no doubt that their aspect is a strong Wilson marketing point, as shown in their brochures.
