he he he ...
I think you will not be smiling anymore when you see the EPDR and efficiency of your old favorite, the Q3 ...
Wilson Yvette review
- Thread starter KeithR
- Start date
I think you will not be smiling anymore when you see the EPDR and efficiency of your old favorite, the Q3 ...
I thought you read reviews for entertainment value only?The picture with the quoted text comes from the HifNews review of the Magico S3, an excellent sounding speaker that got great reviews ...
I thought you read reviews for entertainment value only?
Unfortunately you are again trying to distort my original post concerning SUBJECTIVE reviews - and I am correcting again. "Entertainment and information" as I wrote and you systematically ignore.
But yes, in this case I am using it also for OBJECTIVE entertainment
, with the help of advanced google ...Ok, I am trying to understand this.
Being restricted in amplifier choice in itself is not necessarily a bad thing; the Magico Mini II for example can give fantastic results with the right high-power amp and really come to life, even though its sensitivity is low (on the other hand, I know you complained yourself about the speaker being demanding in amplification).
Yet if low impedance requires an SS amp anyway, then I see little point in greater speaker sensitivity, which usually is linked to allowing a wide variety of amplification, both SS and tube. Or is the greater sensitivity useful in being able to use a less high-powered SS amp and thus have more choices in SS amplification, even though perhaps tubes are still out? If that's the case, then the design is perhaps not as 'antiquated' as at first I provocatively stated...Perhaps most Wilson fans (and the company itself) would prefer SS amps anyway because of bass control.
I haven't had the opportunity to hear the new WA Yvette.
I have heard the Magico S3s and WA S3s driven by 75-80 watt tube amps.
The tube powered Magico S3s were very smooth, but the bass the MIA.
75 watts of tube power on the WA S3s produced a much more involving experience with excellent low end punch and definition.
In this price range, I've also heard the Rockport Atria powered by an 80 watt tube amp, and was very impressed.
I'd love to hear the new Rockport Atria II and the Magico S3 Mk. II, but there are no dealers in HI.
I have heard the Magico S3s and WA S3s driven by 75-80 watt tube amps.
The tube powered Magico S3s were very smooth, but the bass the MIA.
75 watts of tube power on the WA S3s produced a much more involving experience with excellent low end punch and definition.
In this price range, I've also heard the Rockport Atria powered by an 80 watt tube amp, and was very impressed.
I'd love to hear the new Rockport Atria II and the Magico S3 Mk. II, but there are no dealers in HI.
Listened to Yvette at VTL Suite at CES. See my write up here including music selections played: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...-2017-vtl-part-2-wilson-yvette-speakers.1231/
Amplification was high-power tube though (200+ watts) so not representative of how they would sound at much lower wattage. As you can see there with the right music I very much liked the overall presentation.
Amplification was high-power tube though (200+ watts) so not representative of how they would sound at much lower wattage. As you can see there with the right music I very much liked the overall presentation.
For example Apogees have low eff. and a difficult impedance , a lot of people love them for what they do (dont think i ve heard a apogee myself yet, not sure but doesnt matter ).
Is it not worth to design one ,off course it is ?
Just design a proper amp to drive them accordingly .
In transducer design choices are made which then sometimes end up in a low eff/ harder to drive speaker , is it a bad design because of that ?
Anybody can take a high eff 8 inch paper unit with 98 db eff , combine it with a low filtered horn with at least that efficiency , voila a 98 db speaker, is it a perfect design ??
Another example is the MBL radialstrahler , probably hard to drive due to its design construction but quite a few people like them
Is it not worth to design one ,off course it is ?
Just design a proper amp to drive them accordingly .
In transducer design choices are made which then sometimes end up in a low eff/ harder to drive speaker , is it a bad design because of that ?
Anybody can take a high eff 8 inch paper unit with 98 db eff , combine it with a low filtered horn with at least that efficiency , voila a 98 db speaker, is it a perfect design ??
Another example is the MBL radialstrahler , probably hard to drive due to its design construction but quite a few people like them
Last edited:
read the review and imo its basically a 2,9 ohm speaker at 94 hz / 88-89 db , to me personally that would be important , not that hard to drive, sometimes you just gotta try
EPDR ? never heard of it.
Phase problems will arise yes, what/ how much depends on the X over used .
Unless you use an unfiltered " full range" unit without x over components , which has its own problems off course limited bandwith ( Fostex )
Ps The only downside i see with the yvette is the paperpulp woofer , i think there are better materials for woofers
Ps have to correct that , seeing the FR , tilted to the highs and way to much tolerance +- 5,3 db , doesnt look very neutral from this graph , could be a very akward mic position( i hope ), im sure the yvettes are able to produce a more neutral FR/balance
Its measured at 1 m , would be nice if they showed also a measurement at 2 or 3 m also on axxis(listening spot )
EPDR ? never heard of it.
Phase problems will arise yes, what/ how much depends on the X over used .
Unless you use an unfiltered " full range" unit without x over components , which has its own problems off course limited bandwith ( Fostex )
Ps The only downside i see with the yvette is the paperpulp woofer , i think there are better materials for woofers
Ps have to correct that , seeing the FR , tilted to the highs and way to much tolerance +- 5,3 db , doesnt look very neutral from this graph , could be a very akward mic position( i hope ), im sure the yvettes are able to produce a more neutral FR/balance
Its measured at 1 m , would be nice if they showed also a measurement at 2 or 3 m also on axxis(listening spot )
Last edited:
Once again "the Forward frequency responses [Graph 1] were measured at 1m, on the tweeter axis and with the grilles removed" is useless and misleading. Please notice it is only shown only between 200Hz and 20 kHz! Several Wilson speakers have poor response on axis, but once you weight the responses over the listening area they become much nicer looking.
The Apogee units (ribbons) are excellent loads - almost perfect resistors. IMHO it is a dream speaker to go active.
Not an easy load reading this , besides reading the old review , audiophilia hasnt changed much
Their first design was called the Full-Range, a wall of a speaker as impractical as it was wonderful. It certainly was successful enough to attract the notice of the audio community, with most high-end manufacturers, including the then-equally-virginal Krell, deeming them of reference calibre. Krell, in fact, would play no small role in the Apogee saga, for the two companies were virtually inseparable during their early years and used each other's wares at shows. It was an alliance that was truly mutually beneficial because of an Apogee quirk: Apogees ran at obscenely low impedances, and Krells looked at such loads with disdain.
A three-way design loudspeaker using true direct-radiating ribbons for the midrange and treble and a 'quasi-ribbon' for the bass, the Full-Range stood close to 7ft tall and consisted of two panels: the trapezoidal woofer section and the mid/treble enclosure. The woofer and the 80in ribbon tweeter could be directly driven thanks to a high-enough impedance, but the 0.1ohm, 2in wide midrange ribbon had to be matched via a transformer.
It was the second Apogee product, the Scintilla, that put the brand on the map because it was smaller and less-expensive than the Full-Range. Crucially, it bore no transformer. As history won't let us forget, it was also the speaker that marked Apogee with the single-ohm curse. 'Amp killers' they would be called, and so they were, but it was a red flag before the bull that is audio. The Scintilla set a near-impossible performance parameter that amplifier manufacturers are still trying to achieve, even though it applied to very few speakers other than the Scintilla. That genuine 1 ohm impedance has become the litmus test for every amp purporting to be the King of the Hill.
http://hometheaterreview.com/apogee-scintilla-loudspeakers-reviewed/
Their first design was called the Full-Range, a wall of a speaker as impractical as it was wonderful. It certainly was successful enough to attract the notice of the audio community, with most high-end manufacturers, including the then-equally-virginal Krell, deeming them of reference calibre. Krell, in fact, would play no small role in the Apogee saga, for the two companies were virtually inseparable during their early years and used each other's wares at shows. It was an alliance that was truly mutually beneficial because of an Apogee quirk: Apogees ran at obscenely low impedances, and Krells looked at such loads with disdain.
A three-way design loudspeaker using true direct-radiating ribbons for the midrange and treble and a 'quasi-ribbon' for the bass, the Full-Range stood close to 7ft tall and consisted of two panels: the trapezoidal woofer section and the mid/treble enclosure. The woofer and the 80in ribbon tweeter could be directly driven thanks to a high-enough impedance, but the 0.1ohm, 2in wide midrange ribbon had to be matched via a transformer.
It was the second Apogee product, the Scintilla, that put the brand on the map because it was smaller and less-expensive than the Full-Range. Crucially, it bore no transformer. As history won't let us forget, it was also the speaker that marked Apogee with the single-ohm curse. 'Amp killers' they would be called, and so they were, but it was a red flag before the bull that is audio. The Scintilla set a near-impossible performance parameter that amplifier manufacturers are still trying to achieve, even though it applied to very few speakers other than the Scintilla. That genuine 1 ohm impedance has become the litmus test for every amp purporting to be the King of the Hill.
http://hometheaterreview.com/apogee-scintilla-loudspeakers-reviewed/
So is a short piece of wire. Would you say that is an easy load to put on an amplifier too? Pretty sure that would either destroy an amplifier or put it in protection mode.
Just because a load is resistive it does not mean it is good for an amplifier. It has to be resistive and high for it to be an easy load.
Andromedaaudio knows what he is talking about. I would read his post and the reference he provided:
"Bill Beard provided me with a special pair of mono P100s good for 200W and able to drive 1 ohm, while Martin reckoned that, 'the Krell KSA-100 was the minimum safe bet.' True, you could with some effort, re-wire your Scintillas at home for 4 ohm operation, but with a 6dB loss in voltage-rated sensitivity. At 1 ohm, MC estimated the sensitivity to be 73dB/1W, noting that, 'Consideration also needs to be given to the peak current demand of the Scintilla at 1ohm. Taking an average impedance of 0.9ohms, a Krell KMA-200 on full song will provide up to 60V peak. Assuming minimal cable losses, the Scintillas will draw peak currents of over 60 amps. Now you can see why blockbuster amplifiers of Krell current capacity are required for 1ohm working.'"
Do you know why it is cut off at 200 Hz and why that would or would not be important?
That would make the response highly room dependent and hence, difficult to position and optimize in the room.
That assumes what you say is true. Here is a random search of Sasha on Stereophile: http://www.stereophile.com/content/...-loudspeaker-measurements#MJAqWGGXrj4tkRCd.97
Walk us through how the off-axis response is combining with the direct response to correct what is wrong with it.
The expert himself dan dagostino , explains krell and the importance of power from 7;00 in the vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxx1oNtGD8g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxx1oNtGD8g
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |