What makes me think that is the many audiophiles i know who do... I am sure there are plenty who don't. The discussion itself is pointless, I should have refrained from commenting...
Last edited:
State-of-the-Art Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Not at all, it’s a fair comment, especially on this forum, as I have little doubt a disproportionate number of eternally dissatisfied audiophiles are gathered here, along of course with us others who are curious and keep informed on what’s new.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
I’m tired of being attacked by owners of respective brands or products who seem to make it a habit to justify and defend their buying decisions (especially in hindsight), but have a serious problem with the underlying premise: that the perception mirrors the quality of the product. You’re listing several that are considered “best”and I’ve heard a number of times, and I don’t even like enough that I’d want to own, more importantly live with them, if I could have units for free or at a ridiculous discount as, one must suspect, the enthusiastic reviewers appear to. It’s as if one asked about the latest gossip. But yes, of the products you mention, I’d be curious to hear the new latest and most expensive one that I don’t yet know, even if only out of curiosity if it’s really a “quantum leap” in digital playback? Considering the countless promises of so-called “night and day” improvements over the years, I’m literally just that: open-mindedly curious.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Needless to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if the new and latest and most expensive product of a brand turns out to be an audible improvement over earlier products by the same brand, although in my experience, even if prospective customers would seem to have every right to expect this, there’s no guarantee. I could list a number of brands and products where this wasn’t the case, but again, I’m tired of getting into fights with those who’ve blindly bought into the hype and seem to track down and attack any and every alternative opinion.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
I don’t disagree with you. However, as an example to the contrary I just got the new Synergistics Research Network Switch MkII and I find it an improvement over the original version. I have only listened to it one time so far. Back in December I decided to give an ultra expensive audio grade network switch a try. I consider the SR network switch ultra expensive because it is 100 times the cost of a basic utilitarian network switch. I got a loaner to try out in my system. The loaner was the original version which has been out since 2021, I believe.
After using the loaner for a couple of weeks I was impressed enough to purchase one for myself. A few days later Ted Denny of SR posted that a new version would be soon released. So I waited for the MkII version and was allowed to hang onto the loaner for an extra two months. I know the sound of the original version quite well. The question would be, if I had bought the original version SR Ethernet Switch and then had the new MkII in my system for a listen- would I upgrade? I’m going to say yes because it was enough of a difference that I would not want to go back to the older version. On the other hand, had I just bought the original version I would have no interest auditioning the new version in my home- not for a few years at least.
I am one to buy and hold onto a component for years if I am happy with it. What I mean is I don’t not typically chase after the newest version of something when it gets released. I might want to but I could never afford to. My only other example is the ARC Ref 6SE Stereo Preamp. I had the Ref 5SE for several years and finally decided to give the Ref 6SE a try. I kept the Ref 6SE.
in my experience there are areas of photography which do change levels of relative performance frequently. and others that evolve slowly.
photography of birds in flight (and sports/action) for instance, which can take advantage of advances in facial recognition from A.I. and processing speeds are always leaping forward with enhancements which allow for certain shots to be made easily, that previously relied on extreme skills and much time....even luck.
you now have up to one second pre-capture and up to 120 frames per second at full frame performance. when the button is half pushed pre-capture runs continually. so the bird at rest can take off and you push the button all the way and you can go back and get the launch moment (or in baseball the ball impacting the bat, or in soccer the ball leaving the foot). like being able to select any frame from a movie and get full still-picture quality. 5 years ago this capability did not exist in a hand held camera. and this capability continues to be improved along with the A.I. recognition.
so that actual deliverable performance does change for the benefit of the photographer. reducing the level of skills, personal reaction time , and luck required. processes for sorting thru all the shots has also evolved to handle all the data captured since you do have many more frames recorded.
the lenses evolve more slowly but size and weight get's reduced and all the auto-focus and shudder resistance gets improved along the way. we now see some types of shots become common place which were unique and unusual only a few years ago. the photographer can now focus on the art of the shot more as their skills allow.
still photography is much more static like you say. but even for still photography the tech advancements do allow for more freedom for lighting approaches as flash sync is no longer an issue when using the newest tech allowing flash to be used without previous limits.
Last edited:
You summarize my feelings - open minded curious. Fortunately I will be able to listen to it soon, it is coming to my distributor by the end of the month.
Being extremely happy with what I have now, I can't imagine what is really such "quantum leap".
Yes, I understand what you are saying. This is a subjective, experiential hobby - for the rational folks in this hobby. Ultimately, if the guys have done their homework and are willing to spend the money, it's all good. Freedom is a great thing.
As to "night and day" differences, again, it's very subjective. As an example, when I heard the Varese, it was on the wilson wamm jr xvx system. I am not a wilson guy, so I could not detect whether Varese was a musical piece, as wilsons sound very analytical and hifi to me.
However, I could detect a much, much, much lower noise floor and a banishment of digital hifi artifacts - in favor of more music coming through, compared to the vivaldi apex. I imagine dcs fans will / have SHIT IN THEIR PANTS when they hear / heard it.
So was it a "night and day" difference? I am not sure. If I was paying attention, the gap between the Vivaldi apex and Varese was "huge" sonically. But since wilson is not my thing, and the tracks demoed were not my musical favorites, it became background music. So when I was not engaged or paying attention to the music, it seemed ridiculously overpriced.
Subjectivity, preferences and the types of experiences we seek drives everything in this hobby.
Not a Wilson fan either, but the direct comparison must have been interesting - hard to gauge an improvement otherwise. Like you, I happen to find a lower noise floor most important where it’s associated with an absence of digital artifacts. Of course, your statement makes me wonder why the improvement in sound quality should be appealing especially to fans of the brand: it would seem to defeat the purpose of improving digital playback if it won’t make music sound more like music? To me anyways, I understand full well that realism isn’t every audiophile’s ideal.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Last edited:
The Varese is a huge step up over the Vivaldi. I have heard this comparison several times.
The way the Varese renders vocals so naturally is truly mindblowing. Once you hear it, other dacs seem broken.
The way the Varese renders vocals so naturally is truly mindblowing. Once you hear it, other dacs seem broken.
I want to speak up for a moment regarding the comments about Wilson speakers for the benefit of some budding audiophiles out there. I respect that some do not like the sound of Wilson speakers. No speaker is for everyone. But I would argue that while Wilson speakers are analytical, they do not sound analytical. They sound like the gear driving them. That is both their strength and their weakness. I would say to someone beware- whether you buy a pair of Wilson speakers used or new, better have significant sums set aside for upgrades to the gear and the wires. The payoff is big. It is there in the end when everything is right. I find it almost ridiculous when I can hear a difference in the texture of the bass by changing a lowly ethernet cable. On the vinyl side I spent nearly a day getting the VTA just right. Close used to be good enough. (Well sort of but it took much fewer iterations.) I thought my room and my gear was ready for my Wilson speakers when I got them. I was wrong. Patience and experimentation will yield rewards. Yes, I have heard a few speakers that I thought sound better. But not better enough to motivate me to make a change. I mean, after all the work I've done getting my rig to sound like it does? Forget about it.
i think Wilson speakers get a bad rap due to their popularity. it's a high performance speaker needing proper set-up and a mature curated system to be tamed. and at dealers and home systems these factors vary. so it's a highly variable result where the speaker gets the blame. and many listeners come into a Wilson system experience with pre-conceived notions and the system has to first climb that hill to get the benefit of the doubt.
people have their opinions, of course. my perspective is that probably if we take a good, sorted system with Wilson's and substitute another large box, passive, dynamic driver brand it's a question which one will offer the better net sound. but the room and system will be much more significant in the listening experience than which speaker is used. Wilson's do their part and are not a weak link in the chain.
Last edited:
I think set up is always important, but when David/Daryl Wilson expressly make the speaker with multiple moving parts (all the upper modules from 200hz on up or so), plus a variety of different resistor values, plus rear firing or forward firing woofer port, they are definitely creating a speaker that can sound very different in the identical location and with the identical system on purpose. And having listened to the speakers throughout the set up period, and witnessed the sound change quite dramatically, I have to say that is a big part of the Wilson speaker experience.
Within certain bounds, one could certainly say that the sound is how the setup team and system owner agreed it should sound. In our case, that is true, since the guru Pedro of Absolute Sounds and his team have been doing our setups in our various homes/systems for 15 years, and it is both an art and a science at which Pedro truly excels.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
I don’t know what the bad rap is for Wilson as they sell a lot of speakers and I believe more than any other high end brand.
The “bad rap” is they are not a plug and play product . I have said this many times that the results lie in the room and the ability of the set up.
These people are rare and most can’t do it other than read a set up manual. This is the reasons for the widest variety of listening opinions coupled with their sonic signature which of course no speaker pleases everyone.
The fact that they have a limited and precise place to sit doesnt help this either .
If you need to readjust many parameters everytime you move the speaker this is a very complicated, time consuming and difficult process.
I don’t think that most clients or demos at dealers or shows have gone through this very precise process.
For example I heard the XVX set up at Robert Harley’s room set up by Wilson with asssist from Stirling Trayle and at Jays Audio Labs room set up by Wilson staff.
The results very very very different.
I can’t tell you why they sounded nothing alike but they did.
I would venture to say the different sound in the two setups, besides the rooms is due to the gear and cabling. I think they both use very different amplification and cables. Wilson speakers are like windows all the way back to the source.
And what was said a moment ago- the set up is a collaboration with the customer to how they like the sound.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
That isn’t the case here as both of these set ups were done by the factory to their standards are neither person who has them played any part in the set up.
I don’t want to argue with you but if the speakers have no consistency of set up and sound then what is there?
If they always sound different then they are never set up properly ?
Why only Wilson’s?
I don’t see this with other brands but maybe it’s just me.
Have nothing against Wilson but their design philosophy and set up / room / ancillary gear requirements creates this potential false positive experIence for many listeners. Why does one want a speaker that is hyper sensitive to miniscule changes and require this magical combination of factors listed above to sound exceptional? All within a very limited listening area. As an aside, I believe one of the reasons for their success (sales volume) is their advertising / marketing model.
Last edited:
I think its because that is how DW wanted it...specifically that his speakers are designed to be significantly changed on site by the team.
Of course, unfortunately, I too have heard systems set up by members of the Wilson team I did not like. But whenever Pedro at Absolute Sounds has set it up (to be fair, to suit my ear), it has had much much more suppleness, much more nuance and much more organic. That is the pro and con of DW's design ethos.
In the times I have seen an official set-up-by-Wilson setup, I have consistently found them a bit on the bombastic/hard side. I have heard and listened seriously to 3 by-Wilson set ups of the X2s and XLFs...and always in a room I have spent 10+ years in over the years with multiple systems. Interestingly in that same room, I have heard big Wilson systems at least 12 times...and twice set up by Pedro....and the first time I heard Pedro's way of setting them up was the first time when I got seriously interested in big Wilsons.
Sorry to disagree but seems to me that all hi end manufacturers should have some semblance of a "signature sound". Don't mean to pick on you but what is Wilsons? Or do they not have one?
I’m fine. I find debate healthy a good learning experience. I managed surly design/project engineers for 20 years including a group of rocket scientists- literally. They were a handful.
My opinion: Wilson speakers are very close to neutral. The cabinets are almost inert and the crossover networks of highest quality- I believe. Other speakers have cabinet resonances that add colorations that might be perceived as warmth or musicality. If tuned properly the cabinets can enrich the sound- like the body of a guitar or a violin. I used Thiel speakers for 21 years. They were close to the sound of Wilson, to me at least but much more affordable.
The sound is homogenous in my room. Yes, best imaging experience is at the center spot but I hear good soundstage imaging all around the room, as with the sound. I can sit at my desk in the back of my listening room and even with my head turned sideways to the speakers I hear the imaging. The sound only changes when I stand behind the speakers or when I walk just outside the room. I’ve never had a speaker before that could perform like that. Maybe because my room is fairly large and open in the back. Also, I think my speakers sound like they did at the dealer. Perhaps because the dealer was using ARC gear too.
That all didn’t happen by accident. I kept fiddling with speaker position for a year at least. Distance apart matters as much as distance from walls. That was a eureka moment. The Thiels were not quite as fussy about position but they were not ported.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |