Question for Wilson Watt Puppy 7 or 8 owners [Text View]

oneobgyn

06-25-07, 07:57 PM

Can we please stay on topic.................I am concern about the small sweetspot of these beautiful sounding speakers.

I feel that I can probably speak with more authority on Wilson speakers here than anyone else having owned the entire line except for the WAMM or WOWW

Having said this I have been into high end stereo for 35 years and over the past 13 years have only owned Wilson (which BTW I feel is the best speaker made)

I started with WP 5.1's, then WP 6's, MAXX l's, X-1 Series lll Grand Slamm and now what I truly consider the pinnacle of all speakers, to wit, Dave's X-2 Alexandria.

The sweet spot is just as you say because to truly hear and understand the magic of his speakers they should be set up in the manner described in his owner manuals. This unfortunately yields a very narrow and unforgiving sweet spot. The X-2 however is a different breed based on how the upper modules are positioned. There is as a result an enormous sweet spot both laterally and behind. Nonetheless, I sense that you have been smitten by the Wilson sound and as I posted earlier, that as the owner of these great speakers all that should matter is the enjoyment that you get when your butt is in a perfectly established sweet spot for it is there that your ears will reach audio nirvana.

Happy listening and don't let Alimentall rattle you.

Alimentall

06-25-07, 08:16 PM

There *is* a solution to the sweetspot issue of the 7/8s if you really must have them. DEQX. You will need to remove the crossover and triamp, but the added performance to the sound is earth-shattering. You can have improved accuracy, much greater sweetspot, time/phase coherence, much lower distortion. Cost is reasonable, considering the electronics you're scoping - about $3000 + 3 amps of your choice. It's certainly better to actively triamp a speaker with 3 $5000 amps than passively amp with a single $15K amp.

Or possibly TacT, I haven't kept track of them because of price, but it seems they've pretty well caught up to DEQX +/- in technology, plus it is very high-end design. Room EQ now too.

oneobgyn

06-25-07, 08:34 PM

Alimentall

06-25-07, 08:44 PM

Dave's forte, as I recall, was pharmaceutical sales or something of that nature. Nothing Dave knows how to do can touch what can be done in the digital domain. It's like comparing a child with a paint brush to a top end Nikon camera.

The question was how to improve sweetspot. DEQX and/or TacT, using steeper, lower crossovers *will* absolutely improve the sweetspot by improving dispersion in the 1000Hz-3000Hz range where the 7/8s lose off axis dispersion and narrow the sweetspot.

It's somewhat more radical than just attaching expensive electronics, but it will absolutely improve the sweetspot dramatically. Absolutely. No one else can give you a solution that will do anything like what DEQX or Tact could do.

OP, it's your call, but don't let luddites tell you that it doesn't work, because it does. Dramatically. And has other big benefits.

Raul GS

06-25-07, 08:57 PM

There *is* a solution to the sweetspot issue of the 7/8s if you really must have them. DEQX. You will need to remove the crossover and triamp, but the added performance to the sound is earth-shattering.
Although everything you say may be true, any individual with a basic understanding of speaker design will know that the critical element of a speaker design is the x-over (cabinets are not that difficult to make and drivers and can be generally obtained). However, that is by far the most complex aspect of speaker design and that is where an audio engineer's training comes to play. To assume that the DEQX or any other digital x-over can just be fitted in and all will be great is naive, if not asenine.

Interesting suggestion, but of very limited value to the OP unless he has access to people sufficiently qualified to tune the x-over.

PS Please don't bother suggesting that some embedded generic/dedicated x-over software will get you there, that would only lead to the first step, not the final by any means.

PPS btw John, I'm not particular to the Wilson house sound and I have a stated bias for digital x-overs, so there should be little reason for me to side with OB on this one.

Alimentall

06-25-07, 09:02 PM

That's why I made my other suggestion, but if it has to be a Wilson, that is the way to go. I did this to a Thiel, and while Jim Thiel is great with crossovers too, the active Thiels were a night and day improvement. If you're paying $40K for a sound system, it shouldn't be difficult to find a qualified person to program and setup the crossover. It's not as hard as it sounds to get a big improvement. Getting things to "perfect" would take more work, of course. But I've gotten *amazing* results just screwing around.

oneobgyn

06-25-07, 09:19 PM

wgerman

enjoy what you have

Alimentall is IMO a moron who who will only diss Wilson Audio and he has never even heard the speaker.

QueueCumber

06-25-07, 09:49 PM

I heard some Wilson Watt/Puppy 8s this weekend with DCS front end and CJ preamp and mono amps. Transparent Reference wire throughout..............Beautiful sounding music flowed into the listening room. Spent two hours there listening to some favorite music. Changed my perception of Wilson speakers and Conrad Johnson gear (it was not soupy warm but straight up neutral).

My question has to do with the sweetspot,kinda narrow...............The speakers were toed in I guess in accordance to Wilson's standard. Have some of you WattPuppy owners toed your speakers in just a little to widen the soundstage and sweetspot? Or does the beautiful music just fall apart when you do that?

I am familiar with the sophisticated set up system required for Wilson Speakers,but how do you owners widen up the sweetspot?

As an owner of W/P 8s in a well designed room, I find that these speakers image exceptionally well when you sit off center. Sure, it will never sound as good to be off the direct center axis (no speaker will on its own merits; for that you would need something like Audessey EQ or a center channel), but it is better than my last speakers (B&W 802Ds) by a long shot when they were not toed in and when they were toed in at varying angles. Usually toeing a speaker in like you do with the W/P 8s gives a focal point where the soundwaves cross that helps to reinforce the location of sound elements, even for people outside the sweetspot. I've found this to increase the sense of localization in terms of where the image is supposed to be soundstage-wise for off axis listening, at least for myself personally in my listening room.

I don't know of any speakers that image great outside the 8" sweetspot off to each side of the center axis. I would wager that speakers that do so are sacrificing focus and greater clarity for the sake of that illusion.... Not because they are actually expanding a quality sweetspot, but because their sweetspot isn't so sweet to begin with IMO. In these cases you won't notice as large a difference when moving from the sweetspot to somewhere outside the sweetspot, because there isn't as much to miss when making that move.

The very nature of two channel stereo depends on the delicate balance that occurs only within that very limited range where the two speaker outputs hit the ears at just the right distances and angles, unless that signal is intentionally altered at the loss of other enjoyable qualities. The only viable solutions IMO, if the current sweetspot isn't large enough for your purposes, are some kinds of signal alteration like Audessey/Tact/etc, or a center channel. Of course, you could buy a different speaker that has a wider sweetspot, but listen for yourself to see if its sweetspot sounds anywhere near as sweet as the W/P 8s...

Alimentall

06-26-07, 12:21 AM

Alimentall is IMO a moron who who will only diss Wilson Audio and he has never even heard the speaker.

It's not "dissing" something to accept reality. You're the one that said it's pretty well impossible to get a decent sweetspot from a Wilson without spending $130K. If that's not dissing Wilson, I don't know what is.

The W/P 8 would respond extremely well to DEQX (because of the drivers and layout) and, if someone gave me a set, it would almost certainly be the first thing I'd do to them. Given my experience with what DEQX does, I wouldn't think twice before ripping the existing crossover out and replacing it.

As for the insults thrown my way, I'm not the one that spent too much money on a speaker that probably has +/- 5 or 10dB FR deviations if the X1 and Maxx II are any indication. Look in the mirror.

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 01:03 AM

It's not "dissing" something to accept reality. You're the one that said it's pretty well impossible to get a decent sweetspot from a Wilson without spending $130K. If that's not dissing Wilson, I don't know what is.

The W/P 8 would respond extremely well to DEQX (because of the drivers and layout) and, if someone gave me a set, it would almost certainly be the first thing I'd do to them. Given my experience with what DEQX does, I wouldn't think twice before ripping the existing crossover out and replacing it.

As for the insults thrown my way, I'm not the one that spent too much money on a speaker that probably has +/- 5 or 10dB FR deviations if the X1 and Maxx II are any indication. Look in the mirror.

yawn and double yawn

wgerman

06-26-07, 09:28 AM

To those who ANSWERED my post thank you.

Could the problem have been that I was too close to the speaker? I was probably 8 ft away in a 20x20 room. I am not expecting "BOSE STEREO EVERYWHERE" sound but the ability to sit on the left or right side of the sofa without have the soundstage collapse.

Again, I am a frequent flyer,have heard many many high end systems at different stores and this by far was the best I have heard within a given db limit. It didn't sound hifi,or "audiophile" like,nor did it have that "warm" and fuzzy sound........it was music. WOW! Who knew a couple ScanSpeak and Focal parts in a cabinet that looks to be stronger than a slab of concrete and a paint job that would make Ferrari salivate could sound so real........................................................ ..............except for that nagging sweetspot. Its a problem when your non audiophile wife loves the sound but only in the center of the sofa.

On a side note,is there much difference between Emmlabs and DCS?

Thank you again for all the replies on the subject. They have been very helpful,especially the post reminding me that WP8s were intended to be studio monitors......... That explains alot.

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 09:58 AM

Could the problem have been that I was too close to the speaker?

Yes!!

Wilson formula suggests that the listening position be between 1-1.2 X the distance from tweeter to tweeter.

My setup is 1.1 times which for my ears and room provides the best soundstage

On a side note,is there much difference between Emmlabs and DCS?

last year our audio club did a comparison between the EMMlabs (which I own and prefer) to DCS (owned by Tzucc) to Theta Gen 8

All IMO were terrific.

One of our club members and fellow AVS member Ron Party (who BTW owns WP 7's) summed it up appropriately by suggesting that it was a "difference of flavors". This is what makes the listening experience unique. Audition them all and decide for you what rocks your sonic boat.

I have said many times that my mantra in this hobby is "let "your" ears and "wallets" be your judge.

Happy listening

Peter Nielsen

06-26-07, 10:23 AM

I am familiar with the sophisticated set up system required for Wilson Speakers,but how do you owners widen up the sweetspot?

As mentioned before, it is possible that room correction like DEQX or TACT could help you here. At least to some extent...

Thanks to TacT I was able to remove my center speaker (CC3) and use only the L+R MG20.1 Maggies in the front stage.

DEQX requires more work, but may work out better in your case. I switched to TacT because in a multi-channel setup, the tedious measuring work required for the DEQX was too much for me (DEQX requires you to move the speakers during measurements, etc).

Peter

QueueCumber

06-26-07, 11:08 AM

Yes!!

Wilson formula suggests that the listening position be between 1-1.2 X the distance from tweeter to tweeter.

My setup is 1.1 times which for my ears and room provides the best soundstage

I've found that the difference between the 1.1 and 1.25 distance with the W/P8s amounts to a difference between more focus or more involvment in my room, thanks to help from my dealer during speaker voicing. At 1.25 it is less involving but instruments are more localized and focused. At 1.1 it is much more involving and detailed, but less focused as a whole and localized. It is pretty cool actually, depending on my mood, I can just move my chair and have a relatively different take on the music I am listening to at the time. It is like one position puts you in the music so you can see the up close details of the event, and one puts you outside of it so you can see the acoustic totallity in detail.

mmiles

06-26-07, 11:25 AM

QueueCumber

06-26-07, 11:25 AM

On a side note,is there much difference between Emmlabs and DCS?

I would try out something more reasonably priced in the same setup as well and see if you actually hear enough of a difference to warrant the price of admission for either of those components. Personally, I think the Meridians players are likely the best around (RAM bufffers right at the DAC mean extremely low jitter), but they don't have SACD... I'm not saying you won't hear a difference, I would just make sure you do.

I have all Ayre gear for my two channel equipment, the fully balanced wiring throughout the whole system was one of the real selling points for me, especially since a lot of wire is being passed through my walls to get to my MX-Rs. The fully balanced circuitry removes all the crap that might get into the signal along the way from point A to point D.

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 11:25 AM

1.1 X has always worked the best for me regardless of the Wilson speaker that I owned.

QueueCumber

06-26-07, 11:36 AM

The setup sounds like "Speaker 101" (no insult to Wilson since I love the sound and the look just not the cost).

MOST speaker folks tell you the same thing...

2 - 3' from the side and rear walls and 8 - 10' apart with the listening position equidistant from the tweeters. In other words an equal sided triangle is formed from you listening chair to each tweeter and between each tweeter.

The more things change the more the stay the same.

No one is claiming a lack of commonality between speaker setups. Newer Wilsons do get placed a little differently than other speakers though, since they don't use MDF but rather their own proprietary material. I was actually quite amazed at how close to the wall the best positions in my room were. Of course, in my room that placed them behind the recessed movie screen, so we had to use the second best position further out into the room. I couldn't get my B&W 802Ds anywhere near as close to the side walls or rear walls without them becoming excessively boomy and uncomfortable to listen to for any reasonable period of time.

I was actually quite amazed at how quickly I picked up the WASP method. My friend and I found many of the beginnings of the zones of neutrality boundaries for speaker placement before the dealer came over, but we had a hard time finding where they ended (likely because the room is so heavily treated). I say "zones" because the way the room is designed there are multiple areas along borders of the ceiling (where room volume suddenly increases by a lot) more zones of neutrality occur than in a simple rectangular room. In any case, we found the general area, but it took the dealer's experience to narrow that wide area down into the position they are currently in right now. It would have taken us weeks to do what he did in a few hours.

QueueCumber

06-26-07, 11:41 AM

Also, as an example. My room is irregularly shaped, so the equal distance issues to side walls is counterbalanced with ceiling design irregularities and sidewall irregularities. It turns out that all of these add up to the speakers needing to be unequal in their locations from the sidewall in order to interact with the entire room correctly as a whole. It took doing the WASP method for my friend and I to realize how important the ceiling boundaries are when you don't have a completely flat ceiling. I never would have reasoned that on my own until I actually heard it while using the WASP method to try and find the zone of neutrality. We quickly realized that the bass kept freeing up when we would come out from under the larger soffits or sometimes in-between a soffit and a sidewall when the soffit was larger on one side of the room. In any case, despite the inequality in individual speaker placement from the sidewall, the soundstage sounds right because of speakers being placed correctly according to the room anomalies.

I added some pics of the speaker placement on page 5 of "My HT" thread located in my signature, if you are curious where they ended up and what I am referring to when I say room abnormalities. On page 4 you can see better pictures of the room, since my photos of the Wilsons came out so dark.

Harrypt

06-26-07, 12:31 PM

I would try out something more reasonably priced in the same setup as well and see if you actually hear enough of a difference to warrant the price of admission for either of those components. Personally, I think the Meridians players are likely the best around (RAM bufffers right at the DAC mean extremely low jitter), but they don't have SACD... I'm not saying you won't hear a difference, I would just make sure you do.

I have all Ayre gear for my two channel equipment, the fully balanced wiring throughout the whole system was one of the real selling points for me, especially since a lot of wire is being passed through my walls to get to my MX-Rs. The fully balanced circuitry removes all the crap that might get into the signal along the way from point A to point D.
As always, USE YOUR OWN EARS! And I mean that kindly, but IMO the dcs is a warmer presentation than the EMM Labs which gives a truer, more neutral timbre. I own the Meridian, I love it's slightly richer than neutral presentation, but the difference in price and it's inability to do DSD doesn't really make it a logical competitor for the other two.

QueueCumber

06-26-07, 12:40 PM

As always, USE YOUR OWN EARS! And I mean that kindly, but IMO the dcs is a warmer presentation than the EMM Labs which gives a truer, more neutral timbre. I own the Meridian, I love it's slightly richer than neutral presentation, but the difference in price and it's inability to do DSD doesn't really make it a logical competitor for the other two.

Funny, you quoted me and made the same point I made about listening for yourself. Shouldn't you have quoted the original poster, or am I reading too much (too little?) into things?

I am surprised you found the Meridian to be richer. It was the neutrality that I heard, along with the rock solid presentation/soundstage, that attracted me to it. I didn't end up buying one though, because I wanted a universal player...

Harrypt

06-26-07, 01:06 PM

Funny, you quoted me and made the same point I made about listening for yourself. Shouldn't you have quoted the original poster, or am I reading too much (too little?) into things?

I am surprised you found the Meridian to be richer. It was the neutrality that I heard, along with the rock solid presentation/soundstage, that attracted me to it. I didn't end up buying one though, because I wanted a universal player...
No, I meant that to the OP who originally asked about dcs vs. EMM, and I was too lazy to quote both you and he. And because there are so many on here giving advice they know little about and people accepting that advice. I'd like more people to learn to trust their own ears and get educated more on what they are hearing. So I don't want to throw out opinions or advice without a disclaimer.

As for buying the Meridian, as much as I do believe DSD improves on Redbook, there is just not enough software out for me to be all that interested.

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 01:23 PM

No, I meant that to the OP who originally asked about dcs vs. EMM, and I was too lazy to quote both you and he. And because there are so many on here giving advice they know little about and people accepting that advice. I'd like more people to learn to trust their own ears and get educated more on what they are hearing. So I don't want to throw out opinions or advice without a disclaimer.

As for buying the Meridian, as much as I do believe DSD improves on Redbook, there is just not enough software out for me to be all that interested.

and I will again repeat MY mantra in this hobby..."let your ears and your wallet be your judge"

Alimentall

06-26-07, 02:46 PM

Thanks to TacT I was able to remove my center speaker (CC3) and use only the L+R MG20.1 Maggies in the front stage.

Another answer might be a Meridian preamp with a third W/P. It at least mitigates the precedence effect causing the problem.

Alimentall

06-26-07, 02:46 PM

To those who ANSWERED my post thank you.

You're welcome! :)

Alimentall

06-26-07, 02:49 PM

2 - 3' from the side and rear walls and 8 - 10' apart with the listening position equidistant from the tweeters. In other words an equal sided triangle is formed from you listening chair to each tweeter and between each tweeter.

You can also go as much as 1.5:1 listening distance, then treat the side walls. 1.1-1.25 really gives you an over inflated soundstage that isn't representative of real life anyway, but it is impressive. And it leaves no room for a sweetspot with most speakers. Of course, "impressive" seems to be the overwhelming goal of "high-end" these days.

Harrypt

06-26-07, 03:31 PM

You can also go as much as 1.5:1 listening distance, then treat the side walls. 1.1-1.25 really gives you an over inflated soundstage that isn't representative of real life anyway, but it is impressive. And it leaves no room for a sweetspot with most speakers. Of course, "impressive" seems to be the overwhelming goal of "high-end" these days.
At least there is a bit of irony if I read your posts followed by your signature "Truth?!? You can't handle the truth!"

wgerman

06-26-07, 04:23 PM

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 04:35 PM

So if the speakers are 8 ft apart, the listener should be 9 to 10 ft back?

106 inches to be precise

splaskin

06-26-07, 05:07 PM

My WP8s have made certain demands on my life. Remember, the rear spike choice for the Watt is determined by the height of your ear from the floor when sitting. I now have to select my audiophile friends very carefully. They must be the same height and weight as I am. A fat individual will sink deeper in the couch and not be zeroed in.

These are the sacrifices one has to make when purchasing a Wilson WP8.

Alimentall

06-26-07, 05:19 PM

At least there is a bit of irony if I read your posts followed by your signature "Truth?!? You can't handle the truth!"

It's a double entendre :)

Randybes

06-26-07, 05:25 PM

It's a double entendre :)You realize that "Jack" was arrested shortly after yelling that line, correct :D

QueueCumber

06-26-07, 05:45 PM

So if the speakers are 8 ft apart, the listener should be 9 to 10 ft back?

The Watt Puppy 8 manual/binder, says 1.1 to 1.25, which would be 105.6 inches (8.8 feet) to 120 inches (10 feet). I believe that measurement is in distance from the inside corner of the mesh grill at tweeter level, as that is how the dealer was doing the measurements when voicing mine.

Alimentall

06-26-07, 06:33 PM

The good news is that if a speaker can still do a center image at 1.1:1, that's a pretty clean sound and generally good room acoustics/setup.

However, if it *needs* 1.1:1 to do a big soundstage, that's not so good.

Typical placement rules for most speakers is more like 1.5:1 to get the best combination of sweetspot, imaging and soundstaging.

Also, most speakers sound better on a wide wall than a narrow wall, FWIW.

I've seen many audiophiles, going for big soundstaging, improperly put their speakers way too close to their side walls, not realizing that this actually screws up soundstaging.

Peter Nielsen

06-26-07, 06:56 PM

and I will again repeat MY mantra in this hobby..."let your ears and your wallet be your judge"

I would expand this saying to include "your back" ;) When I'm older and not planning on moving anywhere, then X-2 is for me. Until then a more lightweight alternative like the Maggies will have to do...

(I would absolutely LOVE to be able to do active quad-amping using four Boz2200 (www.bozaudio.com)s, which the X-2s would let me do!)

Peter

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 07:41 PM

I would expand this saying to include "your back" ;) When I'm older and not planning on moving anywhere, then X-2 is for me. Until then a more lightweight alternative like the Maggies will have to do...

(I would absolutely LOVE to be able to do active quad-amping using four Boz2200 (www.bozaudio.com)s, which the X-2s would let me do!)

Peter

none of Wilson's speakers are meant to be biamped let alone quadamped.

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 07:43 PM

BTW, the X-2 is a much easier speaker to set up than my previous X-1'a which took the better part of a day and with the help of several of my friends. Once the bottom module on the X-2 is set the upper modules are a piece of cake. I have done them myself on 2 prior occasions each taking me less than one hour for both speakers.

Peter Nielsen

06-26-07, 07:51 PM

none of Wilson's speakers are meant to be biamped let alone quadamped.

Uh... So it can't be done? I thought each section of the X-2 has its own speaker terminal and that the crossover is separate (like in Maggies)... Obviously I assumed wrong! (=lost Wilson sale for my part, unless they change that in the future).

The speaker and crossover is the most important part of the system. It's not a fluke that most pro systems are bi/tri/quad amped. Due to the nature of how things work, a better result is almost always achieved this way.

Of course, in a super high end product like the X-2, multi-amping may have less of an impact. Still, it will let you use much smaller amps and separate the delicate highs from the demanding lows and use amps that are best suited for the corresponding tasks... I'm sure you know all this, but I'm including it just for other readers.

Peter

oneobgyn

06-26-07, 07:55 PM

not only can it not be done it will blow the drivers and void the warranty

Alimentall

06-26-07, 08:13 PM

not only can it not be done it will blow the drivers and void the warranty

Oh, good god. Well, with Wilson's penchant for cracked cabinets, I suppose that's important, but otherwise, that's complete BS. DSP can actually prevent drivers from being blown up for one thing and who cares about the warranty on $50 drivers?

Peter Nielsen

06-26-07, 08:14 PM

not only can it not be done it will blow the drivers and void the warranty

Well, that's just the answer...

If you're careless, you may blow the drivers. However, that goes with ANY speaker product.

I never said multi-amping was for the novice...

If you can afford the heat and other problems with a mastodon Krell amp, or alike, fine. That solves a lot of problems. I'm confined to use digital amps (TacT/Boz) because the heat omitted by my previous nine JC-1 amps totally ruined my HT experience by having my air conditioning running all the time. OH the NOISE! If I were back in Finland, this would be a non-issue (natural AC ;) ), but in southern North Carolina the heat of many amps will either be very unpleasant (35-40 degrees room temp!) or noisy when the AC kicks in....

Peter

Alimentall

06-26-07, 08:14 PM

Uh... So it can't be done? I thought each section of the X-2 has its own speaker terminal and that the crossover is separate (like in Maggies)... Obviously I assumed wrong! (=lost Wilson sale for my part, unless they change that in the future).

Ohhhh boy, are you ever in the wrong forum! It's like you just painted a target on your chest.

I would buy B&W Nautilus 4-way speakers for quad-amping over a Wilson. THAT would be cool.

Alimentall

06-26-07, 08:17 PM

none of Wilson's speakers are meant to be biamped let alone quadamped.

That's like saying "none of my kids are meant to be the President".

Peter Nielsen

06-26-07, 08:17 PM

I would buy B&W Nautilus 4-way speakers for quad-amping over a Wilson. THAT would be cool.

Sorry, but I never liked the B&W sound. I'd choose Magnepan or Wilson over B&W. Any day.

Peter

Alimentall

06-26-07, 08:26 PM

Sorry, but I never liked the B&W sound. I'd choose Magnepan or Wilson over B&W. Any day.

I understand perfectly, neither do I. However, Nautilus doesn't have a the B&W sound. No kevlar, no ports, 4-way design. It's really a great design. That's why they didn't seriously put it into production. Special order only. I wouldn't pay $50K for it unless the only option was spending $50K on a Maxx II maybe. But the design is fantastic.

Peter Nielsen

06-26-07, 08:32 PM

I understand perfectly, neither do I. However, Nautilus doesn't have a the B&W sound. No kevlar, no ports, 4-way design. It's really a great design. That's why they didn't seriously put it into production. Special order only. I wouldn't pay $50K for it unless the only option was spending $50K on a Maxx II maybe. But the design is fantastic.

Oh... Yeah. Sorry, again. That's got to be the worlds most ugly speaker (to me, that is with the exception of some Accapellas and the MBL speakers with a cross on the top). Maggies are beautiful... I like the Wilson X-2 a little bit, only because they remind me so much of Ambassador Kosh! :) Yeah, I'm a geek, I know...

Peter

mmiles

06-26-07, 11:37 PM

Now you're talking PN those MBLs are some of the ugliest speakers ever made but they are banging (= good).

The kinda look like outdoor gas heaters.

QueueCumber

06-26-07, 11:55 PM

Now you're talking PN those MBLs are some of the ugliest speakers ever made but they are banging (= good).

The kinda look like outdoor gas heaters.

What, you don't like the zippo heads?

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 01:13 AM

That's like saying "none of my kids are meant to be the President".

your kids can't even speak English

QueueCumber

06-27-07, 01:42 AM

I still don't get it. I don't go into threads about the speakers Alimentall mercilessly and illogically pushes on other people and post garbage there. Yet he shows up in threads for speakers I own that aren't NHT products to trash my speakers and sell his own speakers even when the person isn't looking to buy the speakers Alimentall sells and even when the person is interested in a product Alimentall has never heard (listened to) in person.

Adding insult to injury, Alimentall doesn't even know enough about the nuances of speaker setup to make intelligent posts on the topic. From reading his posts you would think there is only one kind of speaker, made from one kind of material, with only one kind of dispersion characteristic, in only one type of room, when in fact all these variables change and in some cases to such an extent that some of the predictability is eliminated except by actual acoustic "voicing" in the room itself. This isn't BS, it is an actual audible process that you can hear when you partake in it, that is highly influenced by room boundaries and irregularities. In many cases this process ends in compromises in order to achieve the best balance between the room shape, room boundaries, and speaker characteristics (material, bracing, drivers, disperison, etc, etc, etc). All I can think is that Alimentall doesn't understand this, or he does and is merely trolling Wilson speakers for his own enjoyment.

"You can't handle the truth!" Indeed, Alimentall, you can't. I'm putting you back on ignore. You never seem to learn anything. Go be lonely in another thread, or stay and be lonely here, either way I'm not indulging your ignorant off-topic posts again for some time to come. I already had to compromise my own sense of dignity to post this, but rereading your self-indulgent, ignorant posts compelled me to break my silence lest that silence be misconstrued as some form of agreement with the crap you incessantly post. TTFN.

Harrypt

06-27-07, 02:12 AM

QueueCumber

06-27-07, 02:45 AM

Awwwww, you got sucked in.

This has happened before, thus the "I'm putting you back on ignore," instead of "I'm putting you on ignore." Given, he hasn't really done anything this annoying in the threads I have been in for a long time. I tried to let it ride, but he "kept on" the thread instead of doing the responsible thing once he was notified of the lack of relevance in his posts, and he "kept on" going, and going, and going, and going...

Don't be fooled though, I was already annoyed from the first post he made, I just hadn't expressed it yet.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 07:51 AM

This has happened before, thus the "I'm putting you back on ignore," instead of "I'm putting you on ignore." Given, he hasn't really done anything this annoying in the threads I have been in for a long time. I tried to let it ride, but he "kept on" the thread instead of doing the responsible thing once he was notified of the lack of relevance in his posts, and he "kept on" going, and going, and going, and going...

Don't be fooled though, I was already annoyed from the first post he made, I just hadn't expressed it yet.

welcome to the world of Alimentall..

By his own admission he has never heard a Wilson speaker

Ron Party

06-27-07, 12:08 PM

And by his own admission, about a year (and change) ago, he is the only intelligent person posting in the 20K+ section of this forum.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 12:47 PM

your kids can't even speak English

Actually, they're bilingual, but thanks again for another personal insult.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 12:55 PM

I still don't get it. I don't go into threads about the speakers Alimentall mercilessly and illogically pushes on other people and post garbage there. Yet he shows up in threads for speakers I own that aren't NHT products to trash my speakers and sell his own speakers even when the person isn't looking to buy the speakers Alimentall sells and even when the person is interested in a product Alimentall has never heard (listened to) in person.

Q, I'm not trashing *your* speakers. I don't care about what you own. However, for someone actually seriously considering buying $30K speakers and wants to know about setup for a wider sweetspot, well, none of the previous answers were terribly helpful. If you want a wide sweetspot, you can't set up a speaker at 1 or 1.25:1 (unless they have *huge* dispersion), for one thing. The answer isn't that Wilsons can't have a wide sweetspot, I'm sure they can. But stock ones, at 1.1:1 won't do it. Therefore saying "live with it" isn't terribly helpful.

Adding insult to injury, Alimentall doesn't even know enough about the nuances of speaker setup to make intelligent posts on the topic.

If you want to think so. How would you know?

From reading his posts you would think there is only one kind of speaker, made from one kind of material, with only one kind of dispersion characteristic, in only one type of room

Where do you get these things? When did I say any of that?!?

I'm putting you back on ignore.

Please do if you're so sensitive.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 01:00 PM

By his own admission he has never heard a Wilson speaker

I've never had the driving urge. For my tastes, they're too expensive and measure too poorly to be worth consideration or spending the time to search them down. That's my own personal opinion. Curious, but not terribly interested. HOWEVER, for those that like them and want to buy them, there are more ways to do things than "what Dave says" or "what OB says" (which is basically "live with it"). The idea that they can't be improved upon is somewhat silly. Everything can be improved upon, and in the age of DSP, it won't necessarily take a speaker engineer to do it. $18K tube monoblocks won't improve the sweetspot, but DSP certainly can.

By *your* own admission, you have no helpful advice for the OP (aside from spending $100K more). I do. You just don't like it. It's not for you to like or dislike.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 01:02 PM

And by his own admission, about a year (and change) ago, he is the only intelligent person posting in the 20K+ section of this forum.

Can you back that up with a quote? This place seems to be populated by nothing but intelligent people. But that doesn't mean that everyone knows everything, nor does it mean that they apply all of their intelligence scientifically or equally in every aspect of their life.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 01:18 PM

Actually, they're bilingual, but thanks again for another personal insult.

sorry can't resist...but is "pig Latin" now recognized as a language? :)

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 01:21 PM

"what Dave says" or "what OB says" (which is basically "live with it").

John..would you be kind enough to back that up with a quote?

What I did say was that if you were the person that bought the speakers then all that matters is your a$$ in the sweet spot. I guess however that your bilingualism allows you to interpret somewhat other than what was really said. :mad:

Alimentall

06-27-07, 01:30 PM

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing, but this is about as close to "live with it" as I think necessary, don't you?

Unfortunately you can't (without the loss of imaging)..

IMO the only Wilson speaker which allows for wider sweet spot is the X-2

Nonetheless the WP7 and WP8 are terrific speakers and if it is your wallet which paid the price then it is your a$$ in the sweetspot and no one else's

Alimentall

06-27-07, 01:35 PM

Hah. Here's what actually was said:

if you disagree with John, you are not intelligent..

No, but you might not be correct. I have been known to be right at times, you know, even against the mighty Morbius (who still won't admit he didn't know how crossover slopes affect dispersion in a system)

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 01:35 PM

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing, but this is about as close to "live with it" as I think necessary, don't you?

actually not John

you do need to take a course on "English as a second language" :rolleyes:

read the last line that you just quoted John

Alimentall

06-27-07, 01:41 PM

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 01:56 PM

You mean your thought that a wide sweetspot isn't important for anyone but the person paying the bill? I guess it's good to be king, but some people actually listen to music or movies with other people. Some people maybe even don't want to sit in the same place every day or feel constrained in that way.

I've offered up, 3 or 4 actual ways of dealing with the sweetspot issue. How many have you offered aside from sitting in the small sweetspot you have?

actually John, if you had continued to read my post instead of spewing your verbal diarrhoea you will have seen my comment that the X-2 (which I own) has a very wide, deep and unforgiving sweet spot.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 02:04 PM

diarrhoea

new medical term? :)

you will have seen my comment that the X-2 (which I own) has a very wide, deep and unforgiving sweet spot.

I'm sorry, but how can a speaker have an unforgiving sweetspot if it's both very wide and very deep? :confused:

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 02:11 PM

new medical term? :)

I'm sorry, but how can a speaker have an unforgiving sweetspot if it's both very wide and very deep? :confused:

Something that you could never understand because you have never heard the X-2's let alone any Wilson speaker. Keep it up John...we all love your "technobabble" :p

splaskin

06-27-07, 02:22 PM

There are certain folks I have learned NOT to get into a discussion with. Alimentall is up there with Romy The Cat.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 02:30 PM

There are certain folks I have learned NOT to get into a discussion with. Alimentall is up there with Romy The Cat.

I would agree... although abrasive John at least knows how to spell most times. Romy is still learning English and continues to think as a Russioan

Ron Party

06-27-07, 02:44 PM

Can you back that up with a quote?
If you (or someone) can instruct me on how to search archived threads, I'll be glad to take the time to find your post. If memory serves me correctly, you posted something to the effect of leaving the 20K+ forum and returning to another part of the forum where the intelligent people post. It may have been the same thread where you accused the good Doc Grant of having poor teaching skills because you failed to understand his excellent explanation of upsampling and/or oversampling. Sadly, you failed to honor your promise.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 02:52 PM

Something that you could never understand because you have never heard the X-2's let alone any Wilson speaker.

Ah hah. Still seems like a huge contradiction in terms to me, speaking of "technobabble".

Alimentall

06-27-07, 02:56 PM

It may have been the same thread where you accused the good Doc Grant of having poor teaching skills because you failed to understand his excellent explanation of upsampling and/or oversampling.

In a big twist of irony, Greg was the one that explained it well, whereas Michael wasn't. That's all water under the bridge, as far as I'm concerned. Heck, I think Michael even forgave me for that one.

Sadly, you failed to honor your promise.

Yes, well, with all of the craziness, insults and misinformation that gets tossed around here, it's hard not to get involved. I think it was personal attacks that made me come right back. If ever actually said "unintelligent", I probably really just meant "petty", but I'm pretty precise with my wording, so I doubt I said it.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 02:58 PM

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 02:58 PM

John....discretion is the better part of valor and I am not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with you because I also have learned "noli contra ventum urinare"

Alimentall

06-27-07, 03:05 PM

Okay then, let's wrap it up. OP, your options are:

1. Live with the small sweetspot
2. Live with a small soundstage (narrower placement)
3. Buy X2s
4. Use a third W/P with a really good multi-channel processor
5. Use DEQX or TacT to actively drive your speakers and do DSP correction
6. Buy different speakers that have wider dispersion

Anything I missed?

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 03:14 PM

Alimentall

06-27-07, 03:21 PM

yes..two Betz cells synapsed with a Spirochaete ;)

Don't piss in the wind, just shoot from the grassy knoll? :eek:

Ron Party

06-27-07, 03:51 PM

Hah. Here's what actually was said
No John. Intelligent was your word, hence my post which you cited. I repeat: you or someone show me how to search archive/closed threads and I'll find your quote. And Doc Grant's explanation was excellent, it is just that you were the only one who failed to understand, so you resorted to a personal attack, questioning his credentials and abilities as a teacher. Whether Michael did or did not forgive you - it will be his words alone that are dispositive on that one - that foregiveness, if any, is irrelevant to your self-important assessment of your and everyone else's intelligence.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 04:02 PM

No John. Intelligent was your word, hence my post which you cited. I repeat: you or someone show me how to search archive/closed threads and I'll find your quote. And Doc Grant's explanation was excellent, it is just that you were the only one who failed to understand, so you resorted to a personal attack, questioning his credentials and abilities as a teacher. Whether Michael did or did not forgive you - it will be his words alone that are dispositive on that one - that foregiveness, if any, is irrelevant to your self-important assessment of your and everyone else's intelligence.

Ah Ron...tell us what you really think :)

Ron I sent you PM about this weekend

Alimentall

06-27-07, 04:17 PM

No John. Intelligent was your word, hence my post which you cited. I repeat: you or someone show me how to search archive/closed threads and I'll find your quote. A

Use google if you like. I have no idea. However, I very much doubt I said that in such a way, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you were to attempt to insert those words in my mouth (oh, wait, you already did).

Shall we tally up all the insults tossed my way simply because people here are intolerant of other viewpoints? I think it's amusing to see people who hurl insults like a model hurls lunch accusing *me* of being insulting, what, well over a year ago?

Well, search away. Keep me updated.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 04:20 PM

John

Once again you miss the point. It is not that people are intolerant of other view points but rather it is how you invariably and predictably inflict yours on the rest of us.

Alimentall

06-27-07, 04:28 PM

It is not that people are intolerant of other view points but rather it is how you invariably and predictably inflict yours on the rest of us.

First of all, that makes little sense. How do you "inflict" a viewpoint? By stating it? It seems that, then, what you are saying is that you're not completely intolerant, just intolerant of me. That's fine, but that's your choice. Or by "inflict" you mean actually being correct?

Secondly, most of my "viewpoints" aren't aimed at you, they're aimed at others, you just get upset because you disagree rather than......simply disagreeing. You call names, hurl insults, even at my kids (?!?), then you act like I'm the problem. Intelligent people usually discuss, why do you find it so incredibly difficult?

Third, put me on ignore if I bother you (Ron, you too, please). You're like the guy who complains about how bad Jerry Springer is, but you continue to watch it rather than changing the channel. If I could set you to ignore me, I would, but I can't. In the interest of your own sanity, of course.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 04:35 PM

. Intelligent people usually discuss, why do you find it so incredibly difficult?

I as well as others far more intelligent than I have tried so often that we have given up. Never once when you have been in any form of meaningful debate here and clearly with a misguided viewpoint (we all have those John) you have never once openly admitted that you were wrong

Further and equally as important is the opinion of Queuecumber who tried to show you (as we all have in vain) that you time and again dance into threads which you highjack with trying to suggest other gear which interestingly is the same as that which you sell. It remains your opinion that only that which you sell is that which is the only ones to buy.

Finally, look at how this thread has gotten so OT from that of the OP because "SO MANY PEOPLE BEG TO DIFFER WITH YOU!!"

Gosh was I yelling? :rolleyes:

Alimentall

06-27-07, 04:43 PM

I as well as others far more intelligent than I have tried so often that we have given up. Never once when you have been in any form of meaningful debate here and clearly with a misguided viewpoint (we all have those John) you have never once openly admitted that you were wrong

I rarely *have* to because the emphasis isn't on whether I'm right or not, but that I'm somehow I'm a problem for actually having the "wrong" opinion

It remains your opinion that only that which you sell is that which is the only ones to buy.

Well, that certainly isn't true. I recommend Triad, Revel, lots of other stuff. C-J, for instance. You only get upset if I recommend something I sell.

Finally, look at how this thread has gotten so OT from that of the OP because "SO MANY PEOPLE BEG TO DIFFER WITH YOU!!"

I haven't seen too many people disagreeing, just hurling insults.

Gosh was I yelling? :rolleyes:

Probably, I'm not because I'm not emotionally wrapped up in it like you are.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 05:01 PM

Probably, I'm not because I'm not emotionally wrapped up in it

That is without doubt the funniest thing I have read all day :D

Bhagi Katbamna

06-27-07, 05:14 PM

QueueCumber

06-27-07, 05:34 PM

It's fun(in a trainwreck sort of way) to see so many seemingly intelligent posters get so out of whack just because someone's posts don't agree with or validate their choices. And it's funnier to see people putting other posters on ignore as if they are compelled to reply if they read something in an internet thread.

Anyways, I hope the replies helped the OP. Back to your regularly scheduled free-for-all.

When I'm subscribed to a thread and I keep up to date on it (reading it when I get notifications) I'm compelled to read the posts if I want to participate with any relevant information. When someone hijacks the thread, the hijacker interferes with that goal. It isn't uncommon knowledge if you stick around here long enough, that most threads Alimentall becomes involved in become exclusively about him and nothing else. I am saving myself the hassle of mistakenly reading any of those posts (though, sadly, the notification system lets some of them through).

I'm glad you are amused though, as I am likewise amused by people like you who post off-topic nonsense just for the sake of antagonizing other people, so keep up the good work your true character is showing through that thin veneer of pseudo-intellect.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 05:39 PM

When I'm subscribed to a thread and I keep up to date on it (reading it when I get notifications) I'm compelled to read the posts if I want to participate with any relevant information. When someone hijacks the thread, the hijacker interferes with that goal. It isn't uncommon knowledge if you stick around here long enough, that most threads Alimentall becomes involved in become exclusively about him and nothing else. I am saving myself the hassle of mistakenly reading any of those posts (though, sadly, the notification system lets some of them through).

I'm glad you are amused though, as I am likewise amused by people like you who post off-topic nonsense just for the sake of antagonizing other people, so keep up the good work your true character is showing through that thin veneer of pseudo-intellect.

The sad thing about it all is that of all the 100 posts and all of the posters you and I were perhaps the only ones who could give informed answers to the OP's question

Bhagi Katbamna

06-27-07, 05:46 PM

I'm glad you are amused though, as I am likewise amused by people like you who post off-topic nonsense just for the sake of antagonizing other people, so keep up the good work your true character is showing through that thin veneer of pseudo-intellect.

It doesn't seem like you're amused. You sound more angry than amused.

QueueCumber

06-27-07, 05:48 PM

The sad thing about it all is that of all the posts and the posters you and I were perhaps the only ones who could give informed answers to the OP's question

If it weren't a thread about a speaker I own, I would have left awhile ago. I'm only hanging around in case anyone else comes along who wants to know anything about these speakers from someone who actually owns a pair.

I am actually very surprised at how well they image when you are off-axis. It isn't anything as amazing as the sweet spot itself, but for movies it is pretty darn good. In the OP situation where, I am assuming, they will be sitting side by side, I don't think any speaker is going to be good on its own merits unless you buy something that has sacrificed detail and clarity in order to do so. Signal alteration is another issue entirely, that can be done to any speaker.

I don't know any speakers that image exceedingly well outside the 16" zone (~8" off center to either side). David Moulton has good chapters on the stereo effect and why this is so in his book Total Recording. Like I had mentioned, it is easy to go out and do comparisons and see if any of these speakers with supposedly larger sweetspots sound as sweet when you sit dead center in comparison to the W/P8...

QueueCumber

06-27-07, 05:49 PM

It doesn't seem like you're amused. You sound more angry than amused.

That's what happens when you read too much into things. ;)

Alimentall

06-27-07, 07:06 PM

That is without doubt the funniest thing I have read all day :D

Let me ask you (and Ron) a few simple questions:

Why can't you put me on ignore?

If my posts are so scintillating that you can't, why can't you refrain from counter posting?

If you can't refrain from counter posting, why can't you refrain from hurling insults?

If you can't refrain from insults, why can't you keep my family out of it?

The sad thing is, even though I'm supposedly "the bad guy", I don't harbor ill will towards anybody here, I'd just like to think that people would be more tolerant of other viewpoints and posters and would behave better, *especially* coming from the hotbed of liberal, tolerant society. I mean, christ, you'd think I were George Bush for all the venom thrown my way.

When I read your first post of this thread, I thought one thing, but I *typed* another. Just because you think something, doesn't mean you have to say it. But even what I was thinking wasn't a personal insult or anything as low as your first counter post. Some of you might hate me and that's your issue, but I'm very often a much better person than some of you based on your behavior. You might think about that one.

QueueCumber

06-27-07, 07:39 PM

Directly from David Moulton's Total Recording:

At the same time, there are some strict limits within which we can maintain a phantom image by defeating the Precedence Effect. The Precedence Effect is fully invoked by a time difference of just .7 milliseconds between two artifacts arriving at the listener from different directions. A listening position set just 8" off the median plane (yielding a time difference of about .6 ms.) is enough to defeat the phantom image (which is to say, the localized source of the sound "pans," or migrates to the nearer speaker, even though the same signal is being played over both speakers).

So, it would seem that with any speaker this holds true. The toe-in won't increase the sweet spot or decrease it, it will only likely focus the soundstage by decreasing sidewall reflection issues, thus enhancing the localization and detail of the sound elements. The reason the difference is so noticeable (again anyone can go listen for themselves and do as many demos as they like - personal preference of course being a key issue as well), is because they are much better sounding speakers overall than many others on the market, so when you go outside the sweet spot, it is all the more apparent that you have left it because of how stunning the detail and localization is when you are in it.

Ron Party

06-27-07, 07:40 PM

Use google if you like. I have no idea. However, I very much doubt I said that in such a way, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you were to attempt to insert those words in my mouth (oh, wait, you already did).
OK. Here (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6477718&&#post6477718) is the exact quote from your post on November 4, 2005, post # 177 in the “BAAS welcomes Jack Hidley and Jay Dougherty ...” thread - I was incorrect in previously posting it came from the oversampling thread - but Ill repeat the pertinent part in case I've incorrectly linked your post:
The reality is that Wilsons measure very poorly, but people like them anyway. Tens of $thousands to get a speaker that measures, what, +/-8dB? I've seen flatter roller coasters. But I have to sit here and pretend that a completely inaccurate product is "just fine" because people subjectively like it. And walk on eggshells because god knows, you might annoy someone who got sucked in by the BS. Well, great. Have at it then. I'm officially retreating to the <$20K forum where people actually have more intelligence than money. When a pompous ass like Morbius is revered despite his constant inaccuracies, misinformation and attitude, it's clearly not a club I want to be in. I'm the "interloper". Well, I resign. Have at it. [Emphasis added.]

Alimentall

06-27-07, 07:45 PM

That's interesting. However, while I've experienced this with conventional speakers on a regular basis, I have not experienced this at all with Xd. In fact, I can get a reasonable (but slightly shifted) image within about 3-4' of center line. That means that the voice hasn't collapsed, just moved slightly. I can't explain how it avoids the "strict limits", yet it does. I have yet to experience another speaker that does it so well. Well, time/intensity trading does work also as the Bose 10.2 (bad though it may be) demonstrates.

On the other hand, my other advice of using a center W/P speaker would be the only effective way of solving the problem if this is the case.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 07:46 PM

Ron
\

congratulations on finding that because I too remembered that John made that post

However I love your analogy to Woody Allen in several posts above. Interesting how even at that time we still expressed similar sentiment about John

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6477507&&#post6477507

Alimentall

06-27-07, 07:48 PM

OK. Here (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6477718&&#post6477718) is the exact quote from your post on November 4, 2005, post # 177 in the “BAAS welcomes Jack Hidley and Jay Dougherty ...” thread - I was incorrect in previously posting it came from the oversampling thread - but Ill repeat the pertinent part in case I've incorrectly linked your post:

Ah, stating that people have more money than intelligence is hardly saying that someone isn't intelligent. Bill Gates has more money than intelligence. And obviously, I was generalizing and kinda POed. I mean, really, that's the worst thing I've ever said? That would definitely make me a better person than many of you folks.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 07:50 PM

Ah, stating that people have more money than intelligence is hardly saying that someone isn't intelligent. Bill Gates has more money than intelligence. And obviously, I was generalizing and kinda POed. I mean, really, that's the worst thing I've ever said?
John...is there ever ANY contrition by you?? :mad:

Can you ever perhaps admit that you are wrong?

Alimentall

06-27-07, 07:55 PM

Genuinely apologize for insulting my kids, maybe we'll talk.

It's like the rapist demanding that the woman apologize.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 08:04 PM

Genuinely apologize for insulting my kids, maybe we'll talk.

It's like the rapist demanding that the woman apologize.

I do agree but here is the post wherein I poked some fun (albeit wrong) by saying "I can't resist" and followed it with a smiley

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10894427&&#post10894427

so now John "am I the rapist or are you the rapist?"

Alimentall

06-27-07, 08:15 PM

I was thinking of this one:

your kids can't even speak English

Alimentall

06-27-07, 08:21 PM

Believe it or not OB, I don't *like* arguing with you. I certainly don't want to insult you or demean you. I wish you felt the same. We're never going to agree on somethings. I respect the fact that you love your system, I'm sure it sounds great. It's way more than I could or would spend on a system and I'm a bonafide cheapskate. So, I apologize for anything I've ever said that you took as insulting. That is not my overall intention (though obviously I may have a moment or two where I might feel otherwise). Unlike you, I do remember when we had cordial discussions and wish it were always that way. I can only control so much of the relationship. If you genuinely don't like me, i'm okay with that, but that's why the ignore function exists. While I disagree with Q, I do admire that he will use it if necessary. If you don't want to put me on ignore, at least try to respect my opinion and/or style, no matter how much you may otherwise disapprove. And that's all I have to say on the subject.

oneobgyn

06-27-07, 08:33 PM

John

I don't believe in my heart that anyone here has a true dislike for anyone.

Here is where we should leave it

Please go back and read Ron Party's post from 18 months ago. I believe there is a message here. That is all that I would ask

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...&&#post10894427

I have seen you take on some very intelligent and articulate people here

Michael Grant--PHD in Electrical Engineering

Morbius--PHD in Nuclear Physics

Ron Party...attorney

to name but a few.

Perhaps I do take sides because all three are BAAS members and I call them my friends. I don't know or dislike you BUT I have seen these and other intelligent people make some strong arguments in debate with you only to watch you go off in tangents and never admit that perhaps...just perhaps they are correct. This forum is not a matter of one upmanship but of ongoing learning

Several hours ago I spoke with Ron Party by phone about other matters. Your name came up and both of us agreed that you are very knowledgeable and can make great contribution here. We also agreed that is however the way by which to try to achieve your means. Please read Ron Party's post to you and let that be the inherent message :)

Many years ago the host of the Today Show on NBC was Dave Garroway (man that dates me). He would alwys sign off at the end of each show by raising his hand and making the Vulcan salute that Spock did and would say one word "Peace" :)

QueueCumber

06-27-07, 11:40 PM

I was thinking about earlier suggestions about locating speakers at greater than a 1.25:1 distance of listening position to speaker and speakers to each other. There are some inherent problems with this approach. Anyone but Alimentall (as I won't be reading it), feel free to correct any gaps or misunderstandings in my post.

The first issue is room boundary interference. In order to place speakers so they exhibit the least amount of room interference (while not being forced into near-field monitoring positions at the very front of the room) You often end up with speakers closer to the boundaries than you would expect. You can put the speakers anywhere you want, but in my experience, doing this without regards for finding the area with the least room interaction leaves you with elements of the sounds that are disconnected from each other. This is something I experienced very strongly when I initially set the Wilsons up of my own volition in a bad position. The top of the bass notes were disconnected from the bottom halves. Moving the speakers into positions that were closer to neutral in the room caused an alignment of these different parts of the sound. Besides that, bad placement of speakers can also cause very large FR aberrations. Funny enough, in my situation, the FR measured flatter where I initially placed them, but sounded better where the Wilson dealer placed them (consequently the ETF5 1/6th octave measurement for the Wilson dealer's setup was much flatter - extremely flat for an in room response - while my placement was flatter FR wise but not so flat for the 1/6th octave measurement).

The second issue is "distance perspective." Distance perspective sound contains a higher ratio of reflected sound to direct sound. This means you are listening to the room more than the actual original signal when you move the listening position out too far ratio wise, at least if you set the speakers up correctly for the least amount of room boundary interference (the other solution is to set them up more into the center of the room to accommodate the larger ratio while offsetting for the occurrence of distance perspective, but this causes other issues - see the next paragraph). In a room where you mate the speakers well to their boundaries (so they are in an area with the least amount of room interference), going further out than the 1.25:1 distance is going to cause major issues with the sound quality and fidelity, since you are no longer hearing the original sounds as much as the room itself. This is because there is a relationship between room dimensions and speaker placement, though room irregularities can effect this, as was the case in my room, they still, for the most part, follow fairly predictable rules if you study hard to understand them (audio physics, ray behavior, fluid dynamics, etc).

The third issue is comb filtering. The further out you go ratio wise, i.e. past 1.25:1, the greater the increase will be in comb filtering. This will also effect the sound quality tonally (hopefully at this point, anyone who doesn't already know this stuff can see that most of these issues are not occurring in isolation, but rather all at the same time, compounding one another depending on what issues are disregarded in the speaker setup...). The one solution for this is to create a room treatment boundary along the median plane (as I understand used to be done in Ambiophonic sound setups - Total Recording pg. 170) and place the speakers next to each other with the boundary in-between running from the speakers to the listening position. This is all good if you don't mind putting a large sound treatment wall in the center line between your two speakers, though I think that won't work well for anyone who sits off-axis either, that leaves the OP in the same position he initially started out in when posting this thread. He is still only given the option of inferior sound quality, less sweet spot, less detail, tonal anomalies, etc.

So no problems have been solved IMO. The only reasonable approaches are signal alteration and/or a center channel if you want to accommodate more than one person and have quality listening with more than one person using these speakers (or for that fact, any speakers of high sound quality). Or, of course, you can go with a lower sound quality, less detailed speaker that sacrifices clarity and detail so that more people can have a sweet spot, but in this case everyone really loses for the illusion of winning, and off-axis listening with a better sound quality speaker is still better sounding compared to one with less sound quality being listened to off-center IMO.

Unfortunately the laws concerning equidistance between pairs of loudspeakers and the listener always holds true for speakers on their own merit, but the less detail/clarity(...quality...) a speaker has, the less noticeable it will be when you go off center, that is due to a lack of precision on the part of the lesser speaker, not because it has an actual asset to its advantage. Also, the closer together you place the speakers and the further away you sit, the harder it will be to have a discrepancy in time between the two speakers and the listener, but as you can imagine, when taken to its limits, this eliminates the phantom image effect and many other benefits that stereo provides (consequently it also increases tonal aberration/coloration due to comb filtering, increases room interference, and/or possibly increases the distance perspective issues depending on how you choose to implement the setup - i.e. your high fidelity system isn't so faithful anymore). Take your average boombox and see how noticeable it is when you move off axis, as well as what happens to the phantom image when taken to an extreme. Try some Niles in-wall speakers, I have done this in my own house before - see how noticeable it is when you move off axis with these. Best yet, experiment with your car stereo system as well and see how these things apply.

If a center channel is the decision that is eventually made, I highly recommend the Meridian units' that have Trifield processing for moving two channel media into three front channels. This is probably going to sound better than using something to alter the signal, as even those devices will work significantly better with three front speakers than they will for two front speakers. Oh well, enough rambling out of me, I think I hit all the issues worth considering. I apologize for any grammar or spelling mistakes. God I am tired...

oneobgyn

06-28-07, 01:12 AM

QueueCumber

06-28-07, 06:54 AM

Queuecumber

The nice thing about the Wilson X-2 is that it is a front ported speaker. This was done by Dave W because it is such a large speaker and a significant amount of their business comes from Asia and Europe where the rooms are smaller. These are very large speakers and due to the front porting the X-2 can literally be placed up against the front wall without sacrificing sound stage or deep bass.

I believe it considering how close the W/P 8 can be to the wall, and it isn't even front ported. It is pretty incredible considering how bad an effect that kind of placement would have on my last speakers. My last speakers sounded awful when placed this close to a wall, and they didn't go as deep in frequency. The initial position the dealer placed them in was almost against the front wall. He said the inertness of the cabinet material allowed a lot of forgiveness in terms of room boundaries, and I was surprised to hear how good they sounded when in such positions. My only unfortunate problem is I had to use the second best position in the room (at around a 2%, perhaps 3%, loss in sound quality), since the best position was behind the recessed movie screen. :(

Alimentall

06-28-07, 07:38 PM

Dare I speak up and say that where a speaker is ported has virtually nothing to do with how it will interact with a room boundary and even less with how it images? That imaging has far more to do with the front being 2.5' or more from any room boundary and that has nothing to do with speaker design and everything to do with how we process early reflections?

Alimentall

06-28-07, 07:53 PM

Also, cabinet rigidity really wouldn't apply either.

oneobgyn

06-28-07, 08:27 PM

QueueCumber

06-28-07, 09:20 PM

I agree with you in part here. Just don't have time now to say which part

I'm assuming his exact number of 2.5' is what you disagree with? As long as the immediate reflection point is adequately treated (in the case where it is closer than 2.5' from the wall, likely with some kind of two-in-one diffusor and absorber to add dimension) the speaker can be closer to the wall. The best determining factor isn't some contrived absolute number such as 2.5', but where the room interaction will be at its lowest. After that determination the room can be acoustically treated accordingly to deal with any early reflection issues.

The number of 2.5' is too arbitrary to have any real meaning in and of itself, too many factors influence what that number could really be between different rooms. An exact number, such as 2.5', has less to do with imaging than finding the neutral area where room interference is lowest, placing the speakers there (as well as placing the listener proportionately to the speakers), and treating the first reflection points adequately (as well as the room as a whole to avoid other more indirect reflection issues such as slap echo).

Alimentall

06-29-07, 12:19 AM

I'm assuming his exact number of 2.5' is what you disagree with? As long as the immediate reflection point is adequately treated (in the case where it is closer than 2.5' from the wall, likely with some kind of two-in-one diffusor and absorber to add dimension) the speaker can be closer to the wall. The best determining factor isn't some contrived absolute number such as 2.5', but where the room interaction will be at its lowest. After that determination the room can be acoustically treated accordingly to deal with any early reflection issues.

The number of 2.5' is too arbitrary to have any real meaning in and of itself, too many factors influence what that number could really be between different rooms. An exact number, such as 2.5', has less to do with imaging than finding the neutral area where room interference is lowest, placing the speakers there (as well as placing the listener proportionately to the speakers), and treating the first reflection points adequately (as well as the room as a whole to avoid other more indirect reflection issues such as slap echo).

It's hardly arbitrary or meaningless. It's the basic, known boundary at which early reflections are processed in a different way. You can fight it, but you can't ever win. 3' is generally better, but 2.5' is obviously better than 2'. Not only have I tested it, but others have as well and that's the number that separates bad imaging from good imaging, +/- a bit.

hikejohn

08-22-07, 09:03 PM

OB,
Having owned some Wilsons....but have migrated to Rockports...much more musical in my opinion...but the newer Wilsons are pretty good...

John

Alimentall

08-22-07, 09:28 PM

It seems to me that Rockports are what Wilsons want to be when they grow up, at least, if you go by the measurements.

oneobgyn

08-22-07, 09:51 PM

I love Rockports. Grellman, a member of our BAAS has Hyperions and they are beautiful. Whatever rocks your sonic boat. For me I love the Wilson sound and will NEVER replace my X-2's

oneobgyn

08-22-07, 09:52 PM

It seems to me that Rockports are what Wilsons want to be when they grow up, at least, if you go by the measurements.

of course John, for you it is all about the measurements especially since by your own admission you have NEVER heard a Wilson speaker:mad:

QueueCumber

08-22-07, 11:49 PM

of course John, for you it is all about the measurements especially since by your own admission you have NEVER heard a Wilson speaker:mad:

National Research Council (NRC) of Canada measured some of his "beloved" speakers... Stereophile as well... They didn't do so well compared to the Wilsons I've seen measurements of (the W/P8 and Sophia 2). Pretty badly actually, especially in terms of distortion and non-linearity issues. His "beloved" speakers' frequency responses weren't so great either.

So, ironically enough, he has no legs to stand on with his comments...

oneobgyn

08-23-07, 12:09 AM

QueueCumber

08-23-07, 12:22 AM

for once you and I are in agreement :)

We agree all the time. We agree to disagree and we agree to fight about it. :D

oneobgyn

08-23-07, 12:34 AM

Perhaps

Alimentall

08-23-07, 01:06 AM

National Research Council (NRC) of Canada measured some of his "beloved" speakers... Stereophile as well... They didn't do so well compared to the Wilsons I've seen measurements of (the W/P8 and Sophia 2). Pretty badly actually, especially in terms of distortion and non-linearity issues. His "beloved" speakers' frequency responses weren't so great either.

You need to learn how to read graphs better if you think the Wilsons are even close in most ways. Besides, said speakers were measured before the software upgrade and with a single sub, so the newer versions have notably lower distortion and even better frequency response than the measurements you've seen. And they're less expensive, even with dual subs, than the cheapest Wilson. So, the leg to stand on is that the Wilsons cost 2-3 times as much for lower measured performance.

FrantzM

08-23-07, 07:48 AM

Alimentall

Reading your post, I could not help but being reminded of reading a marketing material concocted by a staff of legal consultants....Have you LISTENed to a Wilson speaker lately? Have you heard one at all? The whole purpose of a speaker is to ffol one into thinking what one is hearing is the real thing.. on that account Wilson speakers, especially the latest generation (X-2, MAXX-2) have succeeded in a resounding way.
This is not coming from a Wilson fan boy if you have followed me in this forum
Measurements in speakers are far from the real story. The interesting thing is that we ALL are aware that you KNEW that... besides, I have also looked at the Wilson measurements and they are really good.. Sonically the X-2 and MAXX-2 are excellent. I do not care much for the Sophia, thinking it is met with ferocious and to me better competition in its price range, and I have not heard the WP8 yet

I am expressing here a personal opinion about Wilson: They are good for all kind of music and are part of that rare breed of speakers at ease with both HT and music equally. I do not think however that the WATCH center channel and the surrounds (Forgot their names) are to the standard of the other Wilson speakers.. they could be money-making for Wilson but they are really lacking in my opinion, they are Wilson allright but stopgap measures toward a true Wilsonian HT... Hope that I did not hijack the thread the question was addressed to WP OWNERS...

oneobgyn

08-23-07, 08:59 AM

Frantz... you are ever the gentleman

The long and the short of it is that John by his own admission has never heard a Wilson speaker but ALWAYS finds a way to inject his same hyperbole by way of high jacking every Wilson thread.

QueueCumber

08-23-07, 10:33 AM

Alimentall

08-23-07, 10:42 AM

Alimentall

Reading your post, I could not help but being reminded of reading a marketing material concocted by a staff of legal consultants....Have you LISTENed to a Wilson speaker lately? Have you heard one at all? The whole purpose of a speaker is to ffol one into thinking what one is hearing is the real thing.. on that account Wilson speakers, especially the latest generation (X-2, MAXX-2) have succeeded in a resounding way.

I don't think you get my point. I don't think there's an excuse for building such expensive speakers and have them measure that badly, except to give a particular group of people the "boom and sizzle" they want. The Rockports, I haven't heard either, but they show that it's not impossible to build a huge, ridiculously expensive speaker *and* have it measure well. Have cake, eat it too. Besides, I've heard *so* many negative comments from people who I know very well about Wilsons that I can only imagine that there's a big correlation there. Of course, you can have 99% of the people hate the sound you offer if the other 1% thinks it's the best available.

Alimentall

08-23-07, 10:44 AM

I love his excuses about old "software" and "software" updates... :rolleyes: LOL

Not an excuse. If I made a negative remark about how a WP7 measured, everyone would point to the fact that the WP8 measures better. That is how it should be with new revisions of product. The speakers measured very well, but measure notably better in the bass and treble with the new software. And the original owners paid......$0.........to get a "new" pair of speakers. What's the upgrade cost to go from a WP7 to a WP8?

QueueCumber

08-23-07, 10:49 AM

How desperate does one need to be to come into a thread about speakers they don't own, have never listened to, and are outrageously biased against just to antagonize people?

I'm surprised you don't realize how bad this makes you look. Also, considering how God awful the NHTs measure, I'm embarrassed for you that you even try to make an argument against Wilson speaker measurements when they are much better than the NHTs overall measurement wise. :rolleyes:

Alimentall

08-23-07, 11:06 AM

QueueCumber

08-23-07, 11:14 AM

Not desperate, just a little bored and poking a little fun :)

It's not about the NHTs as NHTs are 1/20th the price of Wilson, look at the Rockports (or Revels or.......), they measure really well and don't have to make excuses about them.

I have heard the Revels a few times (the Salons) because I was considering them as speakers for my room. They might measure a little bit better, but they don't sound very good at all IMO. It goes to show, measurements aren't everything. I was even offered a really sweet deal on a pair, but I didn't enjoy their sound enough to contemplate the offer.

I haven't heard the Rockports. So I can't say how I feel about those. Unlike you, I listen to speakers before deciding if they sound good or not.

Alimentall

08-23-07, 11:40 AM

QueueCumber

08-23-07, 12:02 PM

I wasn't talking about "sound good" or not. That's subjective and varies wildly from person to person. I'm talking about technical excellence that is worthy of the price tag as opposed to just good marketing.

That of course, is in your opinion... :rolleyes:

You are one hell of a desperate person, still hanging out here in a thread about speakers you have never heard, let alone owned. Let me remind you of the thread title lonely man, "Question for Wilson Watt Puppy 7 or 8 owners."

I'm done indulging your desperate neediness for attention today. Come back next week.

Morbius

08-23-07, 12:51 PM

I'm talking about technical excellence that is worthy of the price tag as opposed to just good marketing.
John,

The problem is that we DON'T HAVE a technical metric that exactly correlates with
sound quality.

The "measurements" that you speak of are NOT exact metrics - they are ONLY
approximations.

For example, when these measurements are made, what type of room is the speaker in.
The measurement of a speaker is GREATLY affected by the environment. The only
environment that is anything like a standard is an anechoic environment. However,
no speaker is played in an anechoic environment - so why should we expect the
measurement in an anechoic environment to be definitive.

The response of a speaker is a multidimensional function. The response of the speaker
is a function of direction [ 2 variables there in 3-space ], as well as frequency. The
typical FR measurement is usually done on-axis; and again nobody listens to speakers
on-axis.

As usual, the science of speakers is NOT as SIMPLISTIC as you make it out to be.

A good scientist knows and understands EXACTLY what the measurements are
measuring. If the measurement measures the density of a material, for example;
the scientist knows that the measurement is of density, and does not substitute
"quality" for the goal of the measurement.

Ideally, one would like a speaker system not to distort the frequency balance of the
material being reproduced. However, just because one measures a speaker to have
a flat response on-axis in an anechoic environment or whatever; doesn't mean that
the speaker in question is ideal in any sense of the word.

An engineer / designer has to impart their own judgment into the design process. If
someone slavishly aims for the "ideal" of some metric; they most likely won't produce
a good product.

I've seen this LOTS in my own field. I had a colleague that had his favorite metric; and
would design to that metric. He'd claim before an experiment that he had the ideal device.
Then we'd do the experiment; and the device would FAIL - MISERABLY SO!!!

It was all due to the fact that Mother Nature is NOT as simple as his favorite metric
would assume. [ The Division Leader got rid of him - he doesn't work for us anymore. ]

Alimentall

08-23-07, 05:16 PM

John,

The problem is that we DON'T HAVE a technical metric that exactly correlates with
sound quality.

Paul Barton of PSB who studies this stuff would argue with you on this (except for the "exactly" part), but regardless we have many that correlate with problem areas in a speaker and whether they come close to ideal theoretical performance.

Also, "subjective sound quality" is entirely different from objective performance. It shouldn't be, but it is and varies wildly from person to person. We do have objective measures for objective quality.

Morbius

08-24-07, 09:50 AM

Paul Barton of PSB who studies this stuff would argue with you on this (except for the "exactly" part), but regardless we have many that correlate with problem areas in a speaker and whether they come close to ideal theoretical performance.

Also, "subjective sound quality" is entirely different from objective performance. It shouldn't be, but it is and varies wildly from person to person. We do have objective measures for objective quality.
John,

I have YET to see a simple metric that captures "objective quality".
In a way, "objective quality" is oxymoronic. The fact that one talks about "quality"
means that a judgment is being made.

One could test the response of a speaker system, and sample both frequency response
and temporal response. If one is filtering the signal to enhance, for example, the
frequency response; then one has to deal with what I analogize to the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle.

The SAME mathematics that says a quantum mechanical wave function can not
represent BOTH position and momentum to arbitrary resolution, also says the same
thing for filters - they can't correct BOTH frequency and temporal response to arbitrary
resolution.

Therefore, the engineer has to trade-off frequency response with temporal response.
But those are apples and oranges. How many apples is an orange worth? Or is the
question, how many oranges is an apple worth?

ANY objective metric that is sensitive to both frequency and temporal response has
some type of "value decision" inherent in it. The metric HAS to have some way of
weighting the frequency response and weighting the temporal response in order to
arrive at a metric that represents the performance of the speaker.

There's no way to get around the fact that the "value decision" inherent in the metric
is NOT objective - it is subjective. Mother Nature doesn't tell you how much an error
in frequency space is worth vis-a-vis an error in temporal space. That's something
human beings decide.

It may not be readily apparent as to where that decision is being implemented; someone
puts their meter in front of the speaker and takes a reading - but that subjective
component is there.

We can't even do something as simple as a sound level measurement and keep it totally
objective. Take your old Radio Shack sound meter and take a volume measurement.
You got a reading - and it's totally objective? NOPE - look at the meter. You have
a switch on the meter that selects whether you want A-weighting or C-weighting.

The meter shows you where someone made a value choice in how to weight the
measurements in order to end up with a single number displayed on the scale.

If you make measurements of physical quantities that are defined by Mother Nature;
then YES - you can make objective measurements.

But once you introduce the concept of "quality"; then you are in the realm of
subjectivity, whether you realize it or not.

Randybes

08-24-07, 10:05 AM

Morbius

08-24-07, 10:48 AM

I thought that Floyd Toole has done blind (they could have been double blind) tests that did come up with objective data that correlated well with subjective preferences. I thought one of them was off-axis performance (among others).
Randy,

I think you TOTALLY missed the point!!!

When Toole measured something that correlatd with subjective preferences; who / what
told him that what he measured correlated with a subjective preference? People - human
beings did!!

In other words - it's NOT objective.!!! It's only a correlation; and a SUBJECTIVE one!!!

Besides, what's "off-axis performance"? That's scientifically pretty SLOPPY if
Toole says that one of the metrics is just "off axis performance". Just how does
one define "off axis performance"?

REAL scientific inquiry doesn't use such FUZZY concepts as "off-axis performance".

That's the problem; audiophiles seem to have blurred the boundary line between
what is subjective and what is objective.

The only things that are truly objective are quantities that Mother Nature defines -
i.e. physical properties of something - like pressure, temperature....

QueueCumber

08-24-07, 10:48 AM

I thought that Floyd Toole has done blind (they could have been double blind) tests that did come up with objective data that correlated well with subjective preferences. I thought one of them was off-axis performance (among others).

From what I have read, his research says that if a speaker is relatively flat, and maintains close to the same shape across a 15 degree window, it will sound good, at least in terms of off-axis FR performance.

Alimentall

08-24-07, 11:26 AM

I have YET to see a simple metric that captures "objective quality".

I didn't say that it was simple. You have to look at 4-5 different performance measures. *If* the product does equal to or better in all of them, by definition, it will do a better job of reproducing the sound than one that is equal to or worse in all areas. What you're getting at is that designers prioritize which parameters are more important so it's "subjective", but when you put the speaker on the bench you can still look at it objectively to see how it does it *all* of the parameters and you can tell if a speaker has major problems with distortions, resonances, spectral decays, etc. I'm saying that a $60,000 speaker should measure equal to or better in every way than a $6000 speaker. If it can't, the speaker simply isn't worth it. A $12,000 speaker should *at least* do two things better for every one thing it does worse and that rarely happens either. We already know that it is possible for a speaker to have very low distortion, very smooth dispersion, very high accuracy, good phase and low acoustic cabinet distortions at a reasonable price, now don't we ;)

QueueCumber

08-24-07, 11:28 AM

BTW, and correct me if I am wrong with a link to some contrary information, it looks like some of the DBTs done by Floyd, et al., involve picking out listeners who can succesfully complete their training course to learn to identify sound differences of +-3 dB over a 2.5 octave range.

That seems fairly subjective to me. It looks like they are teaching people to base their decisions on training, instead of blindly letting people listen and see what they prefer.

I heard the Revel Salons on more than one occasion. I didn't like their sound, and I wasn't shopping for a possible upgrade during two of those demos. Meanwhile, when I went to demo the Ayre C-5xe, the combination of the Ayre gear with the Wilson W/P7 sounded so great, I decided to start saving up to get them. I didn't know they were Wilsons, or how much they cost while hearing them. I actually got up when listening to the Doors CD I brought to see what speakers they were, because I hadn't heard anything sound so eerily real before... I was a little depressed after hearing the price, but I became determined to some day own a pair. In my case, marketing had little to do with my initial impression of that speaker, because I didn't know what they were.

I actually came here and posted about it (some of my first posts on this forum), as well as Audiogon (I believe it was my first post on Audiogon, or second ever... Kal responded to that post and set a whole bunch of events into motion by recommending Rives Audio and ETF 5 meauring equipment for my room!).

QueueCumber

08-24-07, 11:37 AM

We already know that it is possible for a speaker to have very low distortion, very smooth dispersion, very high accuracy, good phase and low acoustic cabinet distortions at a reasonable price, now don't we ;)

Unfortunately, even if it measures flatter in some areas, it might not sound as good to some people. As per my experience with the Revel Salons and W/P7s and 8s. Why would I buy a speaker if it doesn't sound great to me? The W/Ps sounded great to me, the Revels did not.

From what I have read online concerning human audibility and comparing the W/P 8 NRC measurementes to that information, the only real complaint anyone can have if they buy an amp that can drive the W/P speaker properly, is correctible (FR EQ of some kind). Room resonance will be a much greater issue, and since you might correct for that anyway (EQ or room treatments, resonators, etc), you can kill two birds with one stone (if it bothers you that much that is...).

I hear a lot of people recommending speakers that "measure" a little flatter, but so far none have sounded very good to me...

Randybes

08-24-07, 11:43 AM

Randy,

I think you TOTALLY missed the point!!!

When Toole measured something that correlatd with subjective preferences; who / what
told him that what he measured correlated with a subjective preference? People - human
beings did!!

In other words - it's NOT objective.!!! It's only a correlation; and a SUBJECTIVE one!!!

Besides, what's "off-axis performance"? That's scientifically pretty SLOPPY if
Toole says that one of the metrics is just "off axis performance". Just how does
one define "off axis performance"?

REAL scientific inquiry doesn't use such FUZZY concepts as "off-axis performance".

That's the problem; audiophiles seem to have blurred the boundary line between
what is subjective and what is objective.

The only things that are truly objective are quantities that Mother Nature defines -
i.e. physical properties of something - like pressure, temperature....

Thanks for so POLITELY pointing the error of my ways:rolleyes: I don't think I will ever come back to this forum.

Chu Gai

08-24-07, 11:52 AM

I don't think it was that it'll sound good but that it'll be preferred.

QueueCumber

08-24-07, 11:59 AM

I don't think it was that it'll sound good but that it'll be preferred.

Good point, considering they were being trained to prefer certain things, we don't really know what sounds "good" to the test subjects.

http://www.axiomaudio.com/NRC.html

Morbius

08-24-07, 01:28 PM

Good point, considering they were being trained to prefer certain things, we don't really know what sounds "good" to the test subjects.

QueueCumber,

EXACTLY!!!

One can only come up with something that correlates to what some group "prefers".

Again, when we talk about something like "preference", "quality".....those are all value
judgments. Some person or persons made a judgment as to what they liked.

Unfortunately, the judgments of the test group may not correlate with any judgments
that I or someone else might make.

So ANY metric that contains "preferences" or "quality decision" are NOT objective.

Only things that Mother Nature defined are truly objective.

If one tests a large enough sample, then one can perhaps say that something is
preferred by 90% of those that were tested - and the confidence interval of that 90%
number is related to how many people were tested - the larger the number tested, the
lower the width of the interval.

But there's no way to make something pure objective; in the sense that if you measure
it, you have proof positive. I can't say, "I measured this to be a great speaker, and if
you don't like it - then you are WRONG".

I can do that with metrics like temperature. "If I measure the termperature of this
5 pound slug of iron to be 700 degrees F; and if you don't think it's going to burn you
if you press on it with the palm of your hand - then you are WRONG!!"

In audio, we can't make those types of assurances.

Therefore, we use these metrics as guides - but not the last word.

Speaker manufacturers, like Wilson, may use these measurements to get them into
the "ballpark" with the design. However, once Wilson gets into the ballpark, they don't
shove the product out the door because they are finished with the design.

The speaker may have ruler-flat frequency response, but it may have compromised
temporal response - it may "smear" transients. After all, there's no "perfect" speaker.

So the Wilson engineers have to adjust the design and do trade-offs like any other
engineers. In order to get better temporal response, they may have to trade off some
of that ruler-flat frequency response.

This is where the "art" of engineering design comes into play. Depending on how well
the Wilson engineers do these trade-offs will distinguish them from the engineers of
other speaker manufacturers.

Of course, after the adjustments the speaker isn't going to measure as well as it did
with respect to frequency response - but if the Wilson engineers have done their job
properly, it will have better transient response.

IF, a big IF; there were a metric that objectively gave good quality sound, then an
engineer could just design to that, and be done with it. However, no such animal
exists; and the engineers have to work with imperfect metrics. [ So what else is new? ]

So just because a given speaker doesn't measure optimally on some imperfect metric
doesn't mean that the product is inferior. It just means that the engineers did the rest
of their job.

Otherwise, we get garbage products like the amplifiers from the great "THD Wars" of
the 1970s. THD is NOT an objective measure of amplifier quality, and is NOT the
be all and end all of amplifier performance.

Back in the '70s, the amp manufacturers discovered they could measure EXTREMELY
well on the THD measurements - all they had to do was design the amp with tons of
negative feedback. Those amps would have GREAT THD numbers - exceedingly
small fractions of 1%.

However, those amps couldn't "slew" worth a damn. They couldn't track or follow a
musical signal. They just knew how to do one thing well - get good THD numbers.

Fortunately, Marantz didn't buy into that game. The Marantz amps were VASTLY
better than the others that played the "THD game." People could have said back
then, "For what you pay for a Marantz, they should measure better".

The Marantz engineers were being good engineers and realized that what REALLY
counted was how good the amp sounded - NOT how well it measured.

Alimentall

08-24-07, 01:31 PM

Q, you always should go for what you like in the end. The validity of high-end audio for the most part is that it is liked by the people that buy it more so than objective measures. Lots of music needs help in order to sound good and stereo isn't exactly the best way of reproducing music, so there's something to the concept that a pair of purely accurate speakers might not sound quite right with 2 of them, but might sound quite a bit better with 3 because of the suckouts and comb filtering you get.

I look at speakers more as transducers than musical instruments, so that's why I expect so much from the measurement side, regardless of how they sound subjectively. That could be a bias as much as any other bias.

Alimentall

08-24-07, 03:17 PM

Greg,

All you're successfully saying is that there is no one metric. That's should be obvious. But you can look at many different ones to see how the speaker is doing its job. If you were to build a literally perfect speaker, lots of people would say it doesn't sound good to them or is missing some of the added distortion of other systems. HOWEVER, we do know that, all things being equal added distortion is worse than not. That spectral decay is worse than not. That erratic dispersion is worse than not. That erratic FR is worse than not, etc, etc. If a speaker has less distortion, smoother/flatter response and smoother dispersion characteristics it almost automatically is a better transducers *regardless* of how it is perceived subjectively.

Morbius

08-24-07, 04:40 PM

Greg,
If a speaker has less distortion, smoother/flatter response and smoother dispersion characteristics it almost automatically is a better transducers *regardless* of how it is perceived subjectively.
John,

Again given your limit grasp of the mathematics; you don't understand that you can't
solve all problems simultaneously.

How do you quantify "smoother dispersion" or "smoother" response?

You're just "hand-waving" undefined terms around and pretending they mean something.

Additionally, just because something is "smoother" doesn't by necessity mean that
it is better. Again, how do you quantify "smoother"? I can give you a dozen
ways of measuring how much "smoother" something is.

Ever see the output of a Class D amp? It has all sorts of "hash" superimposed on top
of the waveform. Any old linear amp would be a lot "smoother" than the Class D; yet
there are lots of linear amps that don't sound as good as the Class D.

There's a counter-example were "smoother" doesn't "automatically" [ your word ] mean better.

Chu Gai

08-24-07, 04:58 PM

Bikini waxes are pretty darned smooth.

QueueCumber

08-24-07, 05:15 PM

Are smoothies smooth? Or are they granular?

chirpie

08-24-07, 05:17 PM

John,

Again given your limit grasp of the mathematics; you don't understand that you can't
solve all problems simultaneously.

[ your word ] mean better.

No one ever does. They compromise them simultaneously. ;-)

Alimentall

08-24-07, 05:29 PM

Again given your limit grasp of the mathematics; you don't understand that you can't
solve all problems simultaneously.

Greg, given your "limit grasp" of the English language, you're lucky you understand anything.

There's no reason you can't solve multiple problems simultaneously and you can do it in a way that has more pluses than negatives. That's the concept of a "better solution". It's one thing to say you can't create "perfection" and if you want to use "solve all problems" as a synonym for attaining perfection, have at it, but no one is suggesting anything of the sort. Once again you try to win arguments by being pedantic and really quite silly. If it were only for guys like you, nothing would ever move forward.

How do you quantify "smoother dispersion" or "smoother" response?

The exact same way you describe accuracy, but with degrees as the third dimension.

You're just "hand-waving" undefined terms around and pretending they mean something.

They mean something to intelligent people that can read a graph. If you see a deviation of 5dB at one frequency over a few degrees, that is an indication there is something bad going on in the system *especially* if it is within the predicted dispersion pattern of the speaker. By your way of defining things, a doctor couldn't read an X-ray and tell you that you have a broken arm.

Additionally, just because something is "smoother" doesn't by necessity mean that
it is better.

Within that specific aspect, yes, it does. Smoother response means that the product is performing within predicted parameters and/or has no unresolved anomalies. A low distortion speaker with uneven dispersion *may* sound better than a speaker with higher dispersion and more even dispersion, but a low distortion speaker with smooth dispersion will almost certainly sound better and do it across a wider area.

Ever see the output of a Class D amp? It has all sorts of "hash" superimposed on top
of the waveform. Any old linear amp would be a lot "smoother" than the Class D; yet
there are lots of linear amps that don't sound as good as the Class D.

There are more parameters than simply one.

There's a counter-example were "smoother" doesn't "automatically" [ your word ] mean better.

Smoother is better, all other things being equal, so it doesn't "counter-example" anything. Nice try though.

Chu Gai

08-24-07, 05:44 PM

Slurpies are granular.

Morbius

08-24-07, 06:01 PM

Greg, given your "limit grasp" of the English language, you're lucky you understand anything.

There's no reason you can't solve multiple problems simultaneously and you can do it in a way that has more pluses than negatives.
John,

As usual John; WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

There are cases like the frequency and temporal response problems were you CAN'T!!!

This is where you are hamstrung by your limited mathematical acuity. This problem
is analogous to the "Uncertainty Principle" problem. Do you know why there is an
"Uncertainty Principle"? Contrary to what is sometimes taught in school, it is NOT
a limitation on our ability to measure. We have an "Uncertainty Principle" because
Mother Nature herself doesn't know the answer.

There is no wave function that can represent a particle that has an exact value of
position and simultaneously an exact value of the momentum.

Or to consider an even simpler example; derive the unique solution (x,y) for
the following simultaneous set of equations:

4x + 2y = 5
2x + y = 3

There's a simple set of 2 simultaneous equations in 2 variables.
They could represent an engineering optimization problem. You have to
choose the two parameters (x,y) that solve the equations so that you
opimize both constraints - each contraint represented by one of the two equations.

As you state, there's no reason you can't solve multiple problems. Here are multiple
problems - 2 of them - each represented by an equation. You also have the 2 degrees
of freedom [ I know you hate that term ] for you to solve.

I await your answer.

Chu Gai

08-24-07, 07:01 PM

chirpie

08-24-07, 07:04 PM

Some people live in a cage of semantics. I'm just sayin'.

chirpie

08-24-07, 07:05 PM

I do wonder though, if there's any reason one couldn't trade off cabinet material type and other things (not the drivers or crossover) and make a speaker substantially identical to any one of the Wilson's at an enormously reduced price with performance that'd rival it.

They'd be less unique. Even someone with tastes as low-balled as my own can understand some appeal in that. Not sure I'd pay the difference though. ;-)

Chu Gai

08-24-07, 07:09 PM

There's a lot of overdesign and use of esoteric parts that I think? one could do without. IMO of course. But yes, it would no longer be unique and the upper models would lose their appeal. Can't make a Rolls for the common man now. Who the hell would buy it?

Morbius

08-24-07, 07:58 PM

There is no solution. Greg, perhaps what John is getting at is that it's possible not so much solve, as in an exact answer, but to arrive at certain targets in several areas (FR on an off axis, impulse response, distortion, impedance/phase angle ranges, etc.) simultaneously. The targets are not tiny points but ranges of acceptability constrained by choices in materials, technology, and price points.
Chu Gai,

That's correct - contrary to John's claims - there is no solution.

You are correct that when you can't solve the for an exact answer; you can arrive
at certain targets in certain areas, as you state - and that there are ranges of
acceptability.

However, the instant that you ditch the exact solution - and go for some type of
compromise - then you are applying the "art" of engineering.

There is no longer this "objective" answer that nobody can argue with.

There are a whole range of compromises. The engineer trades off frequency response
for better temporal response. The product no longer will have the ultimate in
frequency response; i.e. it won't be ruler-flat - but the temporal response will be better.

The temporal response won't be ultimate either. But one will have a design that is
a compromise.

The degree to which the engineer trades off one metric for another is part of the
engineer's art. One engineer may consider transient response important enough
to trade off a bunch of frequency response. Another engineer may trade off less
frequency response, because they don't consider temporal response as important
as the first engineer did.

One can NOT say that either engineer or problem solution is really right or wrong.

However, what we can say is that there IS NO objectively "correct" solution; only
different compromises. One can't say; this design is objectively superior to all
others; but nobody will like it because everyone expects their favorite colorations.

When one realizes that there is really no 100% correct design - then one can
evaluate the compromised designs on their own strenths and weaknesses.

That's where your ears and listening skills come in. You listen to the speaker.
Forget about the fact that there is a bump or suckout in the FR curve. That may
be the price the engineer paid [ traded-off ] to get the other fine qualities of the
speaker.

Listen to the Wilsons. Does the playback from the Wilsons sound like the music?
Then don't be bothered by the fact that there's some squiggle in the FR curve.

This is just like the "THD Wars" of the 1970s when it came to amplifiers. Again, there's
no perfect amplifier. There's no amp with a 0.0% THD that sounds wonderful on all
music.

Back in the 1970s, you could get a Technics amp with a 0.0001% THD and a Marantz
with a 0.03% THD. The THD of the Marantz was 300X that of the Technics.

The Marantz would sound great; but there might be someone who would denigrate it
by saying that for the price you pay for the Marantz it should measure better than
300 times worse than the Technics.

That same person might say; this Technics measures so wonderfully - it only has
0.0001% THD - yet a bunch of people don't like it. That's because they can't handle
the truth - they can't handle the "objectively superior" amplifier.

NOPE - the Technics was designed to do one thing; measure well on the THD test.
The Technics had a ton of global negative feedback; and when they fed it the 1 kHz
test signal - it "locked-on" that test signal like a lobster.

The problem is it couldn't "slew" worth a damn. It couldn't change signal levels fast
enough to keep up with the music.

The reason the Technics didn't sound good was NOT because people couldn't handle
the truth - the "objective superiority" of the Technics. NO - this amplifier was CRAP -
it sounded bad because it WAS BAD!!!

It was a "one-trick pony" - it knew how to pass the THD test - and that's it.

However, that was the state of afairs 30 years ago - when people ignored what they
were hearing in favor of looking at spec sheets - because spec sheets are "scientific".

What finally stopped the "THD Wars" was not that people started listening. What finally
stopped the "THD Wars" was that a new metric was devised - the TIM distortion.
TIM is Transient InterModulation distortion. Now people had a number that showed
that the amps with tons of feedback weren't any good.

That's when the "THD Wars" ended, and Technics and the other participants let their
engineers design good amps, and to stop merely trying to make good ad copy for the
marketing department.

Finally, people stopped "drinking by the label" - i.e. buying amps based on spec sheets.

People LISTENED to the playback systems; and audiophile's became sophisticated
enough to trust their ears; and ignore the "snake oil" charlatans that were peddling crap
but claiming the science said it was great, and it was only people's biases and expectation
of their own favorite type of distortion that kept this miracle product from being
universally acclaimed.

Chu Gai

08-24-07, 09:15 PM

There are always compromises and often many global and local 'solutions' to a given problem exist. As we learn to measure things we've not measured before and then look to correlate that with listener perceptions, we can take the art of engineering to places it's not been before and arrive at better solutions. There are still problems that remain to be solved as well as identified. I look at some of the conferences that Wiggins has been to and read about what's discussed and it's pretty interesting what people are looking in to.

But just as there can be unsighted tests conducted to determine preferences, there can also be sighted tests to do just the same thing. Some people that I've had private communications with have noted that things like driver locations on a cabinet aren't necessarily done for the purposes of better sound, it's because certain arrangements resonate more with people and that leads to more sales.

BTW, the slewing problem wasn't limited to solid state and it's also not necessarily a function of negative feedback.

Alimentall

08-24-07, 09:19 PM

As usual John; WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

:rolleyes: How you dress yourself is a mystery to me.

There are cases like the frequency and temporal response problems were you CAN'T!!!

Analog or digital? Even if you couldn't, the temporal part is dismissed because of its near total lack of audibility. But you can certainly do it digitally.

This is where you are hamstrung by your limited mathematical acuity. This problem
is analogous to the "Uncertainty Principle" problem. Do you know why there is an
"Uncertainty Principle"? Contrary to what is sometimes taught in school, it is NOT
a limitation on our ability to measure. We have an "Uncertainty Principle" because
Mother Nature herself doesn't know the answer.

A speaker is not an equation, nor is there one perfect answer. And the last sentence is complete crap. Is that what passes for philosophy to a mathematician?

There is no wave function that can represent a particle that has an exact value of
position and simultaneously an exact value of the momentum.

Speakers aren't particles.

Or to consider an even simpler example; derive the unique solution (x,y) for
the following simultaneous set of equations:

4x + 2y = 5
2x + y = 3

Or, to prove you're full of crap, since we're just making up equations, I could just as easily say:

4x + 2y = 6
2x + y = 3

Easily solved. Now we can say that you can solve two problems with the same solution.

Now let's get back to reality or doesn't God let you go there?

Alimentall

08-24-07, 09:46 PM

That's correct - contrary to John's claims - there is no solution.

To THAT specific problem. To then claim that there is no single answer to two different problems is absolutely unscientific and illogical.

However, the instant that you ditch the exact solution - and go for some type of
compromise - then you are applying the "art" of engineering.

There is no longer this "objective" answer that nobody can argue with.

No one ever said there was. What I have said is that we have enough measurement expertise and equipment now that we can often tell whether one speaker is a better transducer than another based on its measured performance, regardless of how it is perceived. Or do we just do that by retail price these days?

One can NOT say that either engineer or problem solution is really right or wrong.

Sure we can. Even even if it is a bit over the top to do so, we can certainly say whether one solution is better or not by the results.

However, what we can say is that there IS NO objectively "correct" solution; only
different compromises. One can't say; this design is objectively superior to all
others; but nobody will like it because everyone expects their favorite colorations.

We can say that "this design is objectively superior to *many* solutions but *many* won't like it because it does not have their favorite colorations".

Listen to the Wilsons. Does the playback from the Wilsons sound like the music?
Then don't be bothered by the fact that there's some squiggle in the FR curve.

It's not the curves that would bother most people, it would be the price paid to accept that level of compromise.

Back in the 1970s, you could get a Technics amp with a 0.0001% THD and a Marantz
with a 0.03% THD. The THD of the Marantz was 300X that of the Technics.

That's only because people tried to use one metric, rather than all that pertain to the performance. Like saying a Mustang is better because it's faster. That leaves out a lot of other variables. You can't take an example of bad science and then say good science is equally flawed.

....and audiophile's became sophisticated
enough to trust their ears; and ignore the "snake oil" charlatans that were peddling crap

Oh really? When exactly did this happen except inside their heads? What actually happened is that, instead of using bad science, the charlatans simply conned people into ignoring *good* science and just said "hey, whatever you think you like is good and we're going to make a product that we think that you will think you like and we'll charge enough for it that you'll be more inclined to think it's amazing". And the better mousetrap was invented.

chirpie

08-24-07, 10:10 PM

Now let's get back to reality or doesn't God let you go there?

John, you need to listen to some Peter Gabriel and chill. (I was thinking Fourteen Black Paintings might do it) I worry about you man. ;-)

Dizzman

08-25-07, 12:15 AM

he is not just making up equations...

oh and...

OY VAY!!! Are you two wankers at it again???

Greg... give it up. All you are doing is making yourself look ridiculous. Remember what they say about arguing on the internet!

And John... yes we know... the digital system is better. And Greg is a nitwit who failed grade two. :D

FrantzM

08-25-07, 06:01 AM

Alimentall
You shold refran from hijacking to systematically hijacking a thread and deteriorate it in usch fashion. Greg, you know beter than to argue with John. The results will be the same. You should understand that John is just pulling you leg by now.

Chu

You seem to have a pretty cynical view of the Audio industry, I can understand why, prices are to make one cynical and a non-believer, I have Valhalla and simply WILL NOT buy the Odin, to me such pricing is Odious, I fail to see how I can rationalize such purchase, just an emotional response there I find it quite OK to have 100K speakers. There are to me a few simple reasons why products of quality are so expensive:
1) The simple cost of doing business.
2) The microscopic size of the market
3) Human Perception.

There probably are more but I will go with these 3..
You can take your time and design a better speaker than a Wilson, I hope your cost of designing , manufacturing and selling are low, else you will not make a dime.
That covers 1 and 2
People do not know how good your speakers are. They may actually without hearing them infer they can not be that good if so inexpensive, that covers 3 but wait... it covers 1,2 and 3 since you need to design, manufacture and sell ( marketing)... I do not know if using the esoteric material is not necessary, you do not either, unless you have designed your own speakers but it looks like you have failed to manufacturer them and sell them... I will not post on this for WP Owners thread anymore, I am not an owner of WP nor do I intend to become one.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 01:38 PM

Alimentall
You shold refran from hijacking to systematically hijacking a thread and deteriorate it in usch fashion.

C'mon Frantz, you know this thread was in trouble the moment the term "Wilson" and "sweetspot" was used in the same sentence ;)

And, yes, I do like to play with my food before eating it :D My wife says she can tell I'm on the $20K forum just by the gigantic smile I have on my face.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 01:41 PM

have Valhalla and simply WILL NOT buy the Odin, to me such pricing is Odious, I fail to see how I can rationalize such purchase,

If I had unlimited resources, I would buy them just because they're so beautiful. It's like male jewelry. I'd rather have them than a painting ;)

Morbius

08-25-07, 03:09 PM

Or, to prove you're full of crap, since we're just making up equations, I could just as easily say:

4x + 2y = 6
2x + y = 3

Easily solved. Now we can say that you can solve two problems with the same solution.

John,

WRONG AGAIN!!!!! You just keep digging yourself in DEEPER!!!

Notice I told you to I wanted a unique answer!!!! To quote my post of 3:01PM
on Aug 24:

Or to consider an even simpler example; derive the unique solution (x,y) for
the following simultaneous set of equations:

I put the word unique in bold face for a reason - I was asking for a unique answer.

The problem you posed where you modified the right hand side of the equation STILL
doesn't have a unique solution. Your problem has INFINITELY MANY
solutions - all in a line in x-y space.

If you cast either my original problem or your modified version in a matrix form, you
will find that the determinant of that matrix is identically ZERO.

As long as you keep the same left hand side of the equation with the coefficients of
"x" and "y" that I chose - that problem is SINGULAR and no unique solution
to it exists. There are either 0 solutions or infinitely many solutions; but there won't
be a unique solution, which is how I posed the original problem.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 03:25 PM

John,

WRONG AGAIN!!!!! You just keep digging yourself in DEEPER!!!

Notice I told you to I wanted a unique answer!!!!

I honestly don't care what you want Greg, you're not my employer or teacher or anybody else of concern to me. I don't dance to your beat because it's so misguided and lacking in depth. You can't just make up mathematical analogies and make them apply because you want them to do so. Building a speaker is nothing like a couple of simple equations so it's an exercise in futility trying to equate them.

I put the word unique in bold face for a reason - I was asking for a unique answer.

Still don't care!

The problem you posed where you modified the right hand side of the equation STILL
doesn't have a unique solution. Your problem has INFINITELY MANY
solutions - all in a line in x-y space.

Yes, but your premise is that you can't solve two problems simultaneously with one solution. You obviously can. No one every said there was one *unique* solution to all problems. You still are a very illogical human with a poor grasp of the English language and lack the ability to use it properly in an argument.

I tell you what, answer this question for me:

In what way does the $30K W/P8 outmeasure the $800/pr NHT Three bookshelf speaker
1. FR Accuracy
2. Vertical dispersion
3. Horizontal dispersion
4. None of the above

Morbius

08-25-07, 04:11 PM

Yes, but your premise is that you can't solve two problems simultaneously with one solution. You obviously can.
John,

WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

It's NOT obvious that you can solve two problems simultanesously.

The answer to that question, is as I've been trying to point out; is "It DEPENDS!!"

Depending on the problem; there may be a unique solution, there may be infinitely many
solutions, or there may be precisely ZERO solutions. It all depends on the problem.

I analogized to the problem with the "Uncertainty Principle" because there is a case
where NO SOLUTION exists - there IS NO wave function that can represent a particle
to arbitrary resolution in both space and momentum.

It DOESN'T MATTER if you are talking analog or digital or whatever representation
you want - the mathematics says that there is no solution.

You "think" [ and I use the term loosely ] that just because you have represented a
quantity in the digital domain, that you can get around, or bypass the mathematics.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this John, but digital is no pancea; you can't break the laws
of mathematics just because you've chosen to represent something in digital form.

Because you don't understand the mathematics, digital is "magic" to you; and you assume
you can do anything with this magic. I, on the other hand; understand the mathematics
of digital, and I know what its limitations are - limitations that you don't see.

However, you HEAR those limitations every time you listen to the NHT Xd.

Morbius

08-25-07, 04:14 PM

That's only because people tried to use one metric, rather than all that pertain to the performance..
John,

Use a DOZEN metrics if you want; that still won't completely describe the system.

Morbius

08-25-07, 04:21 PM

I tell you what, answer this question for me:

In what way does the $30K W/P8 outmeasure the $800/pr NHT Three bookshelf speaker
1. FR Accuracy
2. Vertical dispersion
3. Horizontal dispersion
4. None of the above
John,

I haven't checked out the measurements of the NHT Three.

After listening to the flagship Xd, multiple times now; I'm pretty much unimpressed with the whole NHT line.

QueueCumber

08-25-07, 04:58 PM

Alimentall

08-25-07, 05:01 PM

John,

WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

It's NOT obvious that you can solve two problems simultanesously.

Of course it is. Not necessarily every combination of two problems, but you certainly *can* solve two problems simultaneously.

The answer to that question, is as I've been trying to point out; is "It DEPENDS!!"

Of course it does. Why bother arguing the obvious?

I analogized to the problem with the "Uncertainty Principle" because there is a case
where NO SOLUTION exists - there IS NO wave function that can represent a particle
to arbitrary resolution in both space and momentum.

But who cares?

You "think" [ and I use the term loosely ] that just because you have represented a
quantity in the digital domain, that you can get around, or bypass the mathematics.

When did I say that?

I'm sorry to have to tell you this John, but digital is no pancea; you can't break the laws
of mathematics just because you've chosen to represent something in digital form.

Thanks for telling me the sky is blue. This is why your arguments make no sense. You divert a perfectly sensible argument by saying in ridiculous, but long-winded ways that "but the sky is blue" as if the other person said that it wasn't. This gives you the appearance of winning an argument when you really are so far off the beaten path that you might as well be talking about silverware.

However, you HEAR those limitations every time you listen to the NHT Xd.

That's your opinion, but the gain in performance is well worth the very small limitations. What you perceive as flaws are simply your first experience with something that is relatively faithful to the input signal. If you grew up drinking nothing but orange juice, you might think there is something wrong with water, but all it is is OJ without the flavor.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 05:06 PM

Use a DOZEN metrics if you want; that still won't completely describe the system.

It describes it far better than the ear/brain can. You just have to know what you're reading. And an instrument isn't fooled by price or looks or brand or expectations.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 05:10 PM

John,

I haven't checked out the measurements of the NHT Three.

The answer is d. The WP8s go marginally deeper in bass, have marginally lower distortion, marginally lower spectral decay, but actual more cabinet resonance. The Three is more accurate and has better dispersion characteristics and by that I mean flatter and smoother in every dimension and doesn't suffer from the typical 20kHz oil can resonance. All that for only 35 times the price.

After listening to the flagship Xd, multiple times now; I'm pretty much unimpressed with the whole NHT line.

Lack of coloration isn't that impressive to many self-described audiophiles.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 05:12 PM

Morbius,

There is no convincing fools of things that are beyond their comprehension... It is an exercise in futility. If it is any consolation, you are right, but you are just wasting your time on him. Like a cat, he's little brain and mostly claws.

Somewhat akin to what the church said about Galileo when it interfered with there belief system, I'll take it, thanks. :cool:

Morbius

08-25-07, 05:15 PM

That's your opinion, but the gain in performance is well worth the very small limitations. What you perceive as flaws are simply your first experience with something that is relatively faithful to the input signal.
John,

WRONG agian.

I've heard the NHT Xd now several times; including side by side with a Wilson.

The Wilson sounded like the music it was reproducing; while the NHT Xd sounded
like a reproduction. As Kal Rubinson stated in his review of the Xd, it lacked the
"eerie recognition" - while the Wilsons [ which you've never heard ] are able to carry
off the "eerie recognition" and the "you are there" or the "musicians are in your room"
sensation with aplomb.

BTW - I now use the Tact RCS 2.2XP digital correction system in my own system.

However, I didn't setup the Tact with the steep crossovers that NHT foisted on the
DEQX system. IMO, it's the artifacts of the steep crossovers, which ring and have
pre-echos that John Atkinson measured - which do NOT acoustically cancel; if they
did Atkinson's microphone would never have heard them - that are the downfall of the
Xd.

I agree with Leo Spiegel, the designer of my Apogee speakers; steep crossovers
were always a problem when Apogee tried them. The sharp transition always
called attention to itself and destroyed the seamless integration of the drivers.
A smooth gradual transition which means a smoother transition between radiation
patterns is to be preferred.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 05:32 PM

WRONG agian.

Wrong from you sounds so good to me.

The Wilson sounded like the music it was reproducing; while the NHT Xd sounded
like a reproduction.

No speaker sounds exactly like the music it was reproducing except in your head. However, keep in mind, you were comparing a $6000 system to one that costs, last I checked, about 40 times as much. Not 4, 40. But there are things that even an X2 can't do as well as Xd *regardless* of how you perceive it. The fact that you can't think of any shows your bias.

As Kal Rubinson stated in his review of the Xd, it lacked the
"eerie recognition" - while the Wilsons [ which you've never heard ] are able to carry
off the "eerie recognition" and the "you are there" or the "musicians are in your room"
sensation with aplomb.

"Eerie recognition" is something that is a coloration. The B&Ws and Revels to which it is ascribed are not necessarily a Wilson either way, but certainly the B&W 802D sounds far more like a reproduction than the Xd, so Kal's use of the term doesn't imply realism as I know it in any way.

BTW - I now use the Tact RCS 2.2XP digital correction system in my own system.

You'll get there eventually.

However, I didn't setup the Tact with the steep crossovers that NHT foisted on the
DEQX system. IMO, it's the artifacts of the steep crossovers, which ring and have
pre-echos that John Atkinson measured - which do NOT acoustically cancel; if they
did Atkinson's microphone would never have heard them - that are the downfall of the
Xd.

Actually, they almost completely cancel at the listening position and are far less devastating than other forms of coloration. What John Atkinson heard is something that I have heard *once* - a software glitch that happened on one of my Xds where it had an echo to it. I shut it off and restarted it and it went away. Atkinson did *not* hear the ringing, that is something that is too coincidental to be heard as an "echo". The above repetition of things you don't understand is why you amuse me so much.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 05:37 PM

BTW, a truly accurate speaker will sound at least a little bit like a reproduction, at least on a lot of CDs because guess what, it IS a reproduction. You can get a speaker to cloak some of that, but there is a euphony to that. It would take at least 3 speakers up front to avoid sounding at least a little reproduced. Such is reality, but I'm glad that you are easily faked out :)

Chu Gai

08-25-07, 05:58 PM

Well, I don't know if I'm cynical or not FrantzM in my view on some matters pertaining to audio. Whether we're talking about high end or mass market, there's been enough examples to illustrate a company's contempt for the public. It could be Sony looking to pull a fast one by installing rootkits on people's computers or Nordost's appeal to new-age mumbo jumbo.

With regards to the Wilson's, which I don't own, I offer as my gut feeling and opinion that they likely could be made for significantly less if certain substitutions were made. It's also my gut feeling that these substitutions would result in a speaker that costs much less. I don't offer the comment to rain on any Wilson owner's parade. I don't begrudge their price, the market that Wilson targets, or anything else. The substitutions though would diminish the pride in ownership though and I don't think Wilson would be able to sell enough lower priced models to offset the loss in sales of what would be their upper end models.

Now, Alimentall has a point with regards to their FR measurements. Wilson is a smart guy engineering wise. He reads, understands, follows the literature and makes a very competently performing speaker whether you like the price and appearance or not. If they really measure poorly, and I've not seen Wilson's measurements that they perform, I have to think in my own mind that there's a very good reason why this is so. Perhaps Wilson has latched on to something that's more important than FR. Perhaps it has to do with speaker/room interactions. Perhaps it's because in order to get the characteristics that are more important right, there simply aren't any drivers made at this time that can provide the +/- 1 dB variation one traditionally expects. Maybe Wilson wants these particular deviations because subjectively, the people who are likely to buy his speakers, have some general preference for them. I don't know. I do know that there's no reason why this matter can't be discussed and anyone has to feel slighted in any way. Wilson is not god. God wore #23.

Morbius

08-25-07, 06:01 PM

Actually, they almost completely cancel at the listening position and are far less devastating than other forms of coloration.
John,

Apart from your delusions, they don't cancel, as John Atkinson demonstrated in his
measurements in the Stereophile Xd review - see Figure 11 with the Xd electronics and
compare it to the speaker alone in Figure 10. Figure 12 shows the full output of the
XdS when driven by the XdA:

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1105nht/index4.html

"What can also be seen from fig.11 is that each drive-unit's step is preceded by some low-frequency ringing.
But because the tweeter's and woofer's acoustic outputs appear to have opposite polarities, this pre-ringing
should to a large extent cancel, at least on the tweeter axis."

It cancels to an extent on the tweeter axis; but the listener is NOT on the tweeter axis!!!
Geometry tells you that if it cancels on the tweeter axis; it can't cancel off the axis.
The difference in distance between woofer/listener and tweeter/listener off axis are different
from the relationship on axis. So if it cancels on-axis; it can't cancel off-axis.

Contrary to your assertion above; "pre-ring" IS a devasting coloration - because it is
"acausal" - we hear parts of the impulse before we hear the main impulse. This means
some parts of the signal arrive too soon - and we immediately recognize that as bad.

To quote from Keith Howard's article in the January 2006 issue of Sterophile:

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

"In most cases, as here, the filtering will be applied digitally within an oversampling
converter and will be linear-phase. This removes the possibility of audible phase distortion
but results in a symmetrical impulse response having a pre-response before the main
peak. Such acausal (cause before effect) behavior is rare in nature and stands accused of
imprinting digital audio with a characteristic, unnatural sound quality."

QueueCumber

08-25-07, 06:49 PM

Somewhat akin to what the church said about Galileo when it interfered with there belief system, I'll take it, thanks. :cool:

Talk about delusions of grandeur... :rolleyes:

To think, Galileo was admonished for saying that the world revolved around the sun, and you are being admonished for thinking the world revolves around you. I guess there is a fitting analogy in there after all.

QueueCumber

08-25-07, 07:24 PM

Here, check out these measurements:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/speakers/nht_xd/

Not such a good FR. I particularly like the 15 degree window that doesn't match up well (as per Floyd Toole's research suggestions, that they should in order to be "preferred"). I don't put a lot of stock in FR (it is easily corrected, and room interference will dominate any FR anyway), but you do, so I thought you might want to see it.

The other thing I really like is the deviation from linearity... Eek! Looks like your NHTs will be even less flat FR-wise the more you try to turn the volume up. I hope you listen to them in a small room, at low volumes.

Floyd Toole set up the NRC measurement protocols. It is where he did all his research and came up with all these tests you value so much to begin with, before he left to work at Harman. Of course you should realize, he has a BIG stake in promoting and validating all these measurement systems as useful, considering they are his life's work.

I was a little miffed to read that he trained people to listen a certain way before putting them into his DBTs. That seems like it sort of defeats the purpose and validity of the tests. It is like telling people to "listen for these characteristics and rate systems based on the least amount of those characteristics they have," rather than telling them, "pick what sounds the best to you." Basically, he is teaching them to validate a flat FR and not give their personal "preference." Yet reports on these tests always state things in a way that would lead one to believe that people just "blindly" picked the speaker with the flatter responses, not that they were trained to pick the flatter speakers before hand...

Alimentall

08-25-07, 10:26 PM

John,

Apart from your delusions, they don't cancel, as John Atkinson demonstrated in his
measurements in the Stereophile Xd review

Cancel 100%? No. But 80-90% cancellation of a problem is a whole lot better than 0% cancellation of problems in the typical speaker.

It cancels to an extent on the tweeter axis; but the listener is NOT on the tweeter axis!!! Geometry tells you that if it cancels on the tweeter axis; it can't cancel off the axis.
The difference in distance between woofer/listener and tweeter/listener off axis are different
from the relationship on axis. So if it cancels on-axis; it can't cancel off-axis.

This is what makes you such a screaming moron. If it cancels precisely at 3' off the ground, then it cancels at all points 3' off the ground. That means regardless of where you sit, there is virtually 100% cancellation of your imagined problem.

Contrary to your assertion above; "pre-ring" IS a devasting coloration - because it is
"acausal" - we hear parts of the impulse before we hear the main impulse. This means
some parts of the signal arrive too soon - and we immediately recognize that as bad.

You should learn what acausal means. It means "without cause", not "before the fact". This is why I see you as such a moron.

To quote from Keith Howard's article in the January 2006 issue of Sterophile:

Do you understand that some music has pre-echo built in? This is *causal*, it has a basis in the music itself. There is no temporal restriction on causal and acausal of which I'm aware. It's like saying that imaginary or negative numbers can't exist in math.

Alimentall

08-25-07, 11:16 PM

Here, check out these measurements:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/speakers/nht_xd/

Not such a good FR. I particularly like the 15 degree window that doesn't match up well

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The measurements there are +/-3dB. Wilson's best speakers have a hard (impossible?) time fitting within +/-5dB. Secondly, the biggest aberrations are in the bass region where a) it is hardest to measure consistently and b) you will get the biggest variation in your own room. Moreover, this was before the filter upgrade that flattened this response to within about +-1dB, something Wilson might accomplish, oh, about the year 2112.

QueueCumber

08-26-07, 12:10 AM

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The measurements there are +/-3dB. Wilson's best speakers have a hard (impossible?) time fitting within +/-5dB. Secondly, the biggest aberrations are in the bass region where a) it is hardest to measure consistently and b) you will get the biggest variation in your own room. Moreover, this was before the filter upgrade that flattened this response to within about +-1dB, something Wilson might accomplish, oh, about the year 2112.

Ahh, but you are the one so concerned with the FR, not me. :rolleyes:

It doesn't take much brain power to look at the NRC W/P 8 graphs and see that except at the extreme low and extreme high frequencies the W/P 8 has a FR of +1 dB, -3 dB. This alters slightly past 13 KHz and more extremely before 60 KHz. The most critical regions are all +1 and -2 dB. Not that any of this matters too much, as it is all easily fixed with an EQ if it bothers anyone. With room issues being a much greater issue, someone who is concerned with these kinds of FR issues will have to EQ anyway, thus killing two birds with one stone.

For some reason you ignore the even more dangerous issue, the deviation from linearity on the NHT XDs. Your speaker's +-3 dB response is going to get much much much worse as you turn up the volume on your system. Making an already badly measuring speaker horrendous if you listen to music relatively loud (at the 90 dB measure it is already truly awful)... Easily less flat than the FR on the W/P 8 very very quickly. Talk about shoddy engineering. :eek:

You also ignore how it deviates off of keeping a similar FR across a 15 degree window. Tsk tsk tsk. More shoddy engineering...

The XD in NHT XD must stand for Xtra Deviation. :D

I love hearing your claims of software fixes curing the FR issues on the XDs... That's a hoot (I get a good giggle out of that one). I guess we'll just have to trust you since the NRC won't be measuring them again (NOT!). :p

I still don't understand why you are in this thread, when you don't own Wilsons. Are you really that lonely in life that you have to come into a thread about speakers you don't own and don't like to antagonize other people who own those speakers? Do you enjoy treating other people badly? Does it make your insignificant life more meaningful somehow, or make your ambitious ego feel more important than it is offline? It must be hard for you to make friends...

Let me remind you of the thread title again: "Question for Wilson Watt Puppy 7 or 8 owners"

QueueCumber

08-26-07, 12:19 AM

Alimentall

08-26-07, 01:00 AM

Ahh, but you are the one so concerned with the FR, not me. :rolleyes:

Actually, not that much. Distortion is still generally more important overall that reasonable FR deviations or dispersion problems.

It doesn't take much brain power to look at the NRC W/P 8 graphs and see that except at the extreme low and extreme high frequencies the W/P 8 has a FR of +1 dB, -3 dB.

It doesn't take much brain power to look at the graphs note that this is twice the deviation from accuracy, even in that cherry picked region as those other affordable speakers.

For some reason you ignore the even more dangerous issue, the deviation from linearity on the NHT XDs. Your speaker's +-3 dB response is going to get much much much worse as you turn up the volume on your system. Making an already badly measuring speaker horrendous if you listen to music relatively loud (at the 90 dB measure it is already truly awful)... Easily less flat than the FR on the W/P 8 very very quickly. Talk about shoddy engineering. :eek:

Actually, not true except maybe over 100 dB or so which is extremely loud. You're really just making things up here. Please actually illustrate this as the graphs in Stereophile and Soundstage say that you're 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

You also ignore how it deviates off of keeping a similar FR across a 15 degree window. Tsk tsk tsk. More shoddy engineering...

?!? Are you high? LSD?

The XD in NHT XD must stand for Xtra Deviation. :D

cute.

I love hearing your claims of software fixes curing the FR issues on the XDs... That's a hoot (I get a good giggle out of that one). I guess we'll just have to trust you since the NRC won't be measuring them again (NOT!). :p

You can see the improvements made by the software upgrade in the Stereophile measurements. It's significant, despite the initial measurements being so some of the best Stereophile's ever measured.

I still don't understand why you are in this thread, when you don't own Wilsons. Are you really that lonely in life that you have to come into a thread about speakers you don't own and don't like to antagonize other people who own those speakers? Do you enjoy treating other people badly? Does it make your insignificant life more meaningful somehow, or make your ambitious ego feel more important than it is offline? It must be hard for you to make friends...

No, it was really the initial comment about trying to figure out how to make Wilsons have a good sweetspot. There are speakers that sound great and have a wide sweetspot. I guess a narrow sweetspot is God's way of telling you that you have too much money or something.

Alimentall

08-26-07, 01:02 AM

If you plan on responding, "that you are trying to save someone from the mistake of buying Wilsons." Save us all the BS. If you really were concerned with that you could message the individual privately instead of derailing this thread into yet another desperate "cry for attention" on your part. :(

I think anyone who likes Wilsons and wants them should buy them. If someone thinks that a wide sweetspot or tonal accuracy or deep bass or things like that are important, they should probably make sure they hear a lot of other speakers, even if it means traveling.

QueueCumber

08-26-07, 08:08 AM

Actually, not that much. Distortion is still generally more important overall that reasonable FR deviations or dispersion problems.

The W/P8 measures better there as well, when you consider that certain frequencies (the low ones) will not be perceptibly audible as distorted even with high distortion numbers (based on human audibility vs frequency response and distortion). The XD distorts across almost the entire FR.

It doesn't take much brain power to look at the graphs note that this is twice the deviation from accuracy, even in that cherry picked region as those other affordable speakers.

Uh, you must not have looked at many speakers (actually you couldn't have, not many there were measured for it because they only implemented that test at the end of 2006 on Soundstage site). The W/P 8's deviation from linearity is small enough to be imperceptible at both levels during music playback at those volumes. Unfortunately for you, the XD's deviation is loud enough to be noticable since it hits 3 dB, which will definitely be noticable in conditions such as playing music.

Actually, not true except maybe over 100 dB or so which is extremely loud. You're really just making things up here. Please actually illustrate this as the graphs in Stereophile and Soundstage say that you're 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

Where did all your scientific background go? The measurements were taken at 6.6' away (2m). 90 dB at 2m, 83 dB at 4m (13.2') away. Your speakers compress badly at 90 dB and above. I hope you plan on sitting very close to these speakers. I rememember you recommending large distances between the listener and the speakers in another post on perhaps another thread.

Deviating off the 15 degree window with a FR makes a speaker sound less preferable according to Toole.

You can see the improvements made by the software upgrade in the Stereophile measurements. It's significant, despite the initial measurements being so some of the best Stereophile's ever measured.

Actually it looks worse in the high frequncies now. Now your FR is +3 -5 dB, plus a nice bass hump to boot in the 200-400 region. :rolleyes:

No, it was really the initial comment about trying to figure out how to make Wilsons have a good sweetspot. There are speakers that sound great and have a wide sweetspot. I guess a narrow sweetspot is God's way of telling you that you have too much money or something.

Funny enough, the W/P 8s have a wider sweetspot than your XDs. The 15 degree window is more consistent. Your XDs just don't sound so good from what I have heard, so people likely don't miss the sweetspot very much when they leave it, because it lacked focus.

You have a funny penchant for ignoring measurements when they don't work for your argument and only focusing in on the ones that allow you to feel that you have a reason to stay here and bother people. If you consider one of these measurements important, then all of them are, otherwise Floyd Toole wouldn't have devised all of them to be used together as a group!

Go be pathetic somewhere else. No one wants you here.