Is Wilson losing their marketing edge?

[Amir]

But at least Dave Wilson was smart enough to know he could never reproduce the sound of a Steinway D with a horn.

could you please send me the link that shows Dave Wilson claims horns are not good for reproduce the sound of a steinway D?

I know some speaker designers believe cone speakers are more linear and getting good sound from horns are not easy but I doubt if Dave Wilson said horns are not good.

 

[tima]

I found it amusing these posts repeatedly suggest that Wilson doesn't really understand what's happening but the psychologist does.

I knew I would get responses like this from wilson fans. If you seek a serious understanding, slowly re-read what I wrote in terms of what wilson did and what they have no idea about, per Bill Pewkes , Megaphacts, post above.

This being an audio forum, and thinking out of the box, I expect personal attacks. Interesting how the sad wilson and magico fanboys are mum about the substance, as always

This sort of psycho-social analysis wants to tell us "what's really going on" using the structured vocabulary of the psychologist's belief system. Your 'essays' work hard to make that belief system convincing in having explanatory or descriptive power. I suspect that convincing is as much your goal here (perhaps unrealized by you) as your claims to unlock the so-called secret accelerants in Wilson's success.

You posit notions ("Here's something critical to understand: Wilson Audio likely doesn't consciously understand or deliberately exploit the psychological factors that made them the industry leader.") And then proceed to make claims that you believe are insights based on other notions you posit (such as "What's actually happening (invisible to Wilson): The three conditions for smart herds are being violated, and psychological factors are beginning to create their industry leadership position.")

You label your efforts "behavioral science" but where is the empirical evidence for any of this? What evidence have you gathered from which to construct your explanations? Cleverly worded notions such as "smart herds" and "dumb herds" are simply non-objective constructs (to use Resnickian language). What tests can we repeat to validate or verify any of these claims? Have you been able to apply these notions to actually turn a company into a market leader? From your theories can we make predictions? Granted it is all quite clever and having spent time with academic metaphysicians I understand the appeal in building such structures. I realize I'm probably calling your world view into question -- no disrespect, I realize behavioral science is soft science.

I welcome opposing views.

Given the evidence of your sensitive reactions to those who disagree, maybe not so much. Or, at best, only in the context of your own views. When the effort is not embraced as the great reveal, the response is to talk of sad fan boys and to play the victim card. You appear to have spent a fair amount of time writing these recent posts and I give you credit for the effort to make a contribution.