State-of-the-Art Digital

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 agree with your point and my post said as much about Wilson "needing proper set-up and a mature curated system to be tamed".

then you expanded on that issue.

the bad rap is a combination of the set-up issue and just it's market position as the target for other brands. which is a different thing than personal preferences and brand loyalty.

Wilson is not my personal preference; there are a number of other competing brands i prefer for one reason or another. but i respect them and could build a great system with them. i'm not anti any brand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda
i think Wilson speakers get a bad rap due to their popularity.

Well, in fact I do not see such bad rap, except for some limited posts triggered by the usual anti Wilson brigade. Surely some people prefer other brands and love to compare their preferred with Wilson's, but IMO this only shows their success. They sell in large numbers, so they get a a lot of attention and generate a lot of talk - it is well known that in this particular hobby unfortunately unsatisfied people sometimes generate a lot more noise than pleased people.

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.

Although this was true fifteen years ago, models after 2012 were much room and system friendly. The same happened with most top speaker brands BTW.

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.

IMO this experience is meaningless and is in the antithesis of the high-end objective. In the high-end we do not substitute individual pieces in a system for amusing experiences. We look for systems that please listener preference in order to create an enjoyable performance.

Wilson's are usually the strong link in the chain in many systems - if they please the preference of their owners, surely. As all high end speakers they have their signature - but surely the good work done in general by their large network of dealers and installers helps the real statistics.
 
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.

Only after experiencing the full capabilities of a Wilson speaker properly set up we can understand why people are ready to accept their requirements. Surely this only if we happen to prefer the type of music message they are able to deliver!

Stereo is a compromised system in terms of localization and soundstage - it is in the basics. Wilson speakers can be tuned for different compromises, as most top speakers - there are no miracles in high-end. Marketing usually address the top performance with limited listening area. Individualist hypercritic audiophiles usually do the same.

And yes, any one knows that marketing is part of the success in the high-end. In this hobby people will never love what they do not have experience with and did not learn or were not thought. And being successful attracts more success.
 
Only after experiencing the full capabilities of a Wilson speaker properly set up we can understand why people are ready to accept their requirements. Surely this only if we happen to prefer the type of music message they are able to deliver!

Stereo is a compromised system in terms of localization and soundstage - it is in the basics. Wilson speakers can be tuned for different compromises, as most top speakers - there are no miracles in high-end. Marketing usually address the top performance with limited listening area. Individualist hypercritic audiophiles usually do the same.

And yes, any one knows that marketing is part of the success in the high-end. In this hobby people will never love what they do not have experience with and did not learn or were not thought. And being successful attracts more success.
This is not personal, as I respect your taste and no one's taste is better:

I have heard wilson speakers hundreds of times. Regardless of setup, they sound the same to me every time I have heard them - analytical and hifi.

And most importantly, don't forget the importance of band wagon effects on their success.
 
Getting back to State of the Art Digital, my sense is that although DACs are very important, transports are even more important.

It's like that Source First philosophy of Linn turntables - lose that information upfront, and the DAC matters a lot less
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtemur
Getting back to State of the Art Digital, my sense is that although DACs are very important, transports are even more important.
How?
Are the bits not coming off with zero bit errors?
What does the transport do good and bad to influence all that?

It's like that Source First philosophy of Linn turntables - lose that information upfront, and the DAC matters a lot less
 
If Wilson has a “bad” reputation, it’s because they build speaker and demand a setup procedure that would only make sense if the multiple drivers were playing in phase, which independent measurements from e.g. John Atkinson have shown repeatedly they’re not, not to mention the diffraction problems based on chopping baffles up into multiple hard-edged quadratic ones. Since few audiophiles appear to have an understanding of loudspeaker design, none of this knowledge seems to matter much to most, though. But since the question was asked…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JiminGa and Holmz
If Wilson has a “bad” reputation, it’s because they build speaker and demand a setup procedure that would only make sense if the multiple drivers were playing in phase, which independent measurements from e.g. John Atkinson have shown repeatedly they’re not, not to mention the diffraction problems based on chopping baffles up into multiple hard-edged quadratic ones. Since few audiophiles appear to have an understanding of loudspeaker design, none of this knowledge seems to matter much to most, though.
^That^ was well worded.

It is odd that the difference between the electrical signal and the speaker’s output can get so easily ignored.
How do you explain that?
 
^That^ was well worded.

It is odd that the difference between the electrical signal and the speaker’s output can get so easily ignored.
How do you explain that?
Ignorance? I mean, seriously, none of this is new. None of this is a design choice, or a matter of voicing. These are flaws. Equal distance quadratic baffles so the same type of diffraction multiplies is a known flaw. Getting the respective acoustic centers of drivers onto a plane is a great idea, but doing so with drivers that measurably do not play in phase is nonsense, and hence a flaw. Any speaker designer worth their salt knows this, and if anything they’ll explain away compromises such as putting all drivers into one flat baffle referring to cost, which is a justifiable argument. But doing the contrary in a cost-no-object product defies logic. Except, of course, it’s a clever marketing gimmick that apparently sells speakers, so philosophically speaking, one might say all of this makes sense? But the question was, why does the brand sell and still have an iffy reputation: well, because they keep doing things that been proven to be design flaws (electrically is one thing, but more importantly, physically, and sound is physics!) decades ago already.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DasguteOhr
^That^ was well worded.

It is odd that the difference between the electrical signal and the speaker’s output can get so easily ignored.
How do you explain that?
The bottom line is: it’s awfully hard to call BS on something that sells product.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
^That^ was well worded.

It is odd that the difference between the electrical signal and the speaker’s output can get so easily ignored.
How do you explain that?
And when I say out of phase, it’s not just that crossover slopes do not add up off-angle, but how come when a new model is presented, I can immediately tell if the midrange or midbass coupler is connected in inverted polarity, the moment I walk into a room? How can people keep ignoring that? It’s a mystery…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
^That^ was well worded.

It is odd that the difference between the electrical signal and the speaker’s output can get so easily ignored.
How do you explain that?
The fact of the matter appears to be the drivers need to be shifted, and their speakers set up hyper-carefully, BECAUSE the drivers are NOT playing in phase.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
The fact of the matter appears to be the drivers need to be shifted, and their speakers set up hyper-carefully, BECAUSE the drivers are NOT playing in phase.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
The question I had was, “Why don’t more people care?”.
Why do they think that it is right?

It is certain easier and cheaper to to do it the way that almost everyone does it… which is the middle speaker out of phase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acousticsguru
The question I had was, “Why don’t more people care?”.
Why do they think that it is right?

It is certain easier and cheaper to to do it the way that almost everyone does it… which is the middle speaker out of phase.
Can’t speak for others? Nor arguing tastes! What I am saying is that even if these were one’s favorite speakers, they have known objective flaws, measurable and audible, and when the question is asked, why does the brand have a reputation problem, then that’s the answer.

The real question always seems to gets me in trouble: isn’t the purpose of audiophile gear to make a voice sound like a voice, or a piano like piano? Seems like a mantra that brands and audiophiles keep parroting, but how many actually compare to reality and the live event, I have my doubts…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holmz and morricab
Can’t speak for others? Nor arguing tastes! What I am saying is that even if these were one’s favorite speakers, they have known objective flaws, measurable and audible, and when the question is asked, why does the brand have a reputation problem, then that’s the answer.

The real question always seems to gets me in trouble: isn’t the purpose of audiophile gear to make a voice sound like a voice, or a piano like piano? Seems like a mantra that brands and audiophiles keep parroting, but how many actually compare to reality and the live event, I have my doubts…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Your arguments seem more emotion based than technical which leaves me skeptical. I would ask you what you think is the perfect speaker. If you say the Quad ESL, then I understand where you are coming from. If not the Quad, then an explanation will be needed.
 
This is not personal, as I respect your taste and no one's taste is better:

Surely. It is why we respect opinions and should carry statistical analysis including weighting when considering opinions.

I have heard wilson speakers hundreds of times. Regardless of setup, they sound the same to me every time I have heard them - analytical and hifi.

It is why the weight of your personal opinion about Wilson's is close to zero. Why considering the opinion of someone who has such extreme opinions and besides, loves insulting people?

And most importantly, don't forget the importance of band wagon effects on their success.

Nice to know that Wilson Audio owners are so many, so pleased and so proud that it creates bandwagon. Do you feel the same for dCS?
 
The real question always seems to gets me in trouble: isn’t the purpose of audiophile gear to make a voice sound like a voice, or a piano like piano? Seems like a mantra that brands and audiophiles keep parroting, but how many actually compare to reality and the live event, I have my doubts…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

It's even worse: Not all who compare system sounds to live events can agree on what sounds real or not.

In that context, I have also learned that some who are regularly exposed to live sound don't seem to have a reliable memory of it.
 
Ignorance? I mean, seriously, none of this is new. None of this is a design choice, or a matter of voicing. These are flaws. Equal distance quadratic baffles so the same type of diffraction multiplies is a known flaw. Getting the respective acoustic centers of drivers onto a plane is a great idea, but doing so with drivers that measurably do not play in phase is nonsense, and hence a flaw. Any speaker Designer worth their salt knows this, and if anything they’ll explain away compromises such as putting all drivers into one flat baffle referring to cost, which is a justifiable argument. But doing the contrary in a cost-no-object product defies logic. Except, of course, it’s a clever marketing gimmick that apparently sells speakers, so philosophically speaking, one might say all of this makes sense? But the question was, why does the brand sell and still have an iffy reputation: well, because they keep doing things that been proven to be a design flaws (electrically is one thing, but more importantly, physically, and sound is physics!) decades ago already.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
45 years ago, Cabasse showed everyone how to build phase-correct loudspeakers. OK, nowadays it is more important that they look good and have a perfect housing and the rest is secondary. Some manufacturers should ask France how it is done.;)fca22f627f3a91a2bbe74ed4b8b9017b.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: abeidrov
It's even worse: Not all who compare system sounds to live events can agree on what sounds real or not.

In that context, I have also learned that some who are regularly exposed to live sound don't seem to have a reliable memory of it.
Maybe? But it’s not the audiophiles one expects to have knowledge. There’s no arguing taste. Anyone who’s happy with their gear and uses it to enjoy music happily ever after, that’s perfectly fine. But designers who build and sell cost-no-object products, what excuse do they have for ignoring universally acknowledged facts? Not new or recent discoveries, mind you, decades old knowledge. The only excuse I can think of is they sell product and thus don’t care. Not what I think of as justification…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing