"If you don't have a $200k [speaker]..."

[Alrainbow]

I think Wilson speakers the larger ones are made to achieve many goals that need the adjustments given to use. now to me this translates to many knobs to turn. and very few of us are actually qualified to use them much less correctly
Marty has the best setup I’ve heard for Wilson’s hands down just perfection in nothing jumping at you. Is his time aligned or what ever that means ?
what I do know I don’t have the determination to do what he did period nor the understanding to either.
smaller Wilson’s are better at making a good sound faster in set up. Less knobs per say.
now aside of Wilson I can’t think of many speakers non dsp that allow for so many adjustments
Perhaps there just more of a finished product in the end

 

[Lee]

Aside from the periodic devolving into bickering, I find this whole discussion really interesting. And I wonder if much of the "controversy" (i.e., variability in opinions) regarding Wilsons has to do with listener sensitivity to the various time-domain (vs. frequency domain) issues identified in the thread.

hmm, maybe. But my ears are very sensitive to timing and I like the sound of Wilsons…so does that make me a counter-example?

Maybe, the step function is a great metric but doesn’t capture everything happening with timing. Maybe subjective is a necessary factor.

 

[Robh3606]

Look at my example above from Vandersteen and from Thiel...they did it successfully.

The other two you show clearly were less successful examples... but at least all the drivers move the same direction...just not quite at the same time.

Thanks missed the whole page!!

Rob

 

[Lee]

I think Wilson speakers the larger ones are made to achieve many goals that need the adjustments given to use. now to me this translates to many knobs to turn. and very few of us are actually qualified to use them much less correctly
Marty has the best setup I’ve heard for Wilson’s hands down just perfection in nothing jumping at you. Is his time aligned or what ever that means ?
what I do know I don’t have the determination to do what he did period nor the understanding to either.
smaller Wilson’s are better at making a good sound faster in set up. Less knobs per say.
now aside of Wilson I can’t think of many speakers non dsp that allow for so many adjustments
Perhaps there just more of a finished product in the end

Setup seems to be everything no matter what the speaker.

I think the movements of the drivers are actually very easy. You just look up the ear height and distance from speaker metrics on the X and Y columns in the nomograph charts and the setiings are spelled out in a simple set of numbers. Even better still, the dealer does that for you.

 

[Robh3606]

Aside from the periodic devolving into bickering, I find this whole discussion really interesting. And I wonder if much of the "controversy" (i.e., variability in opinions) regarding Wilsons has to do with listener sensitivity to the various time-domain (vs. frequency domain) issues identified in the thread.

You should realize that few systems are time aligned and exhibit a "perfect" step response. The ear integrates sounds together so as long as you don't go beyond that window you can't hear the arrival time differences between drivers. Same thing with phase in a listening room. The Frequency domain dominates what we hear.

Rob

 

[LL21]

I think Wilson speakers the larger ones are made to achieve many goals that need the adjustments given to use. now to me this translates to many knobs to turn. and very few of us are actually qualified to use them much less correctly
Marty has the best setup I’ve heard for Wilson’s hands down just perfection in nothing jumping at you. Is his time aligned or what ever that means ?
what I do know I don’t have the determination to do what he did period nor the understanding to either.
smaller Wilson’s are better at making a good sound faster in set up. Less knobs per say.
now aside of Wilson I can’t think of many speakers non dsp that allow for so many adjustments
Perhaps there just more of a finished product in the end

Agree here. In fact, I have to be honest...I think the largest single reason I own Wilsons is Pedro, the maestro of Absolute Sounds. He has set up our speakers in both of our homes over the last 14 years...and come back when we have changed amplification or added subwoofers as well. The Wilsons extreme adjustability is both a blessing and a curse. Thanks to Pedro, its been a blessing.

Wilson themselves have waxed lyrical about his technical knowledge and ear, considering him perhaps one of a handful across the globe with that level of articulate skill and knowledge.

While I fully acknowledge the level of detail Wilson have put into their owner's manual, I admit that factoring in odd-shaped rooms, furniture, curved corners, walls of varying thicknesses or materials which affect bass, ceilings, etc, etc...I can honestly say on my own...no chance I produce good results. Pedro has finetuned each speaker to sheer brilliance with all of the various adjustments. And he has kindly demonstrated just 'one click', 'less than one centimeter of movement' of one module and the impact it has on sound.

I profess no technical knowledge worth anything in this thread...but I know what I hear when Pedro does his thing over the course of several hours. And I give credit to its original designer, David Wilson, for going thru the trouble of designing a speaker with not only this many mechanical adjustments, but also the ability to change resistors as well...all in the name of his goal which I recall was being able to consistently reproduce a sound in various rooms and environments.

 

[morricab]

hmm, maybe. But my ears are very sensitive to timing and I like the sound of Wilsons…so does that make me a counter-example?

Maybe, the step function is a great metric but doesn’t capture everything happening with timing. Maybe subjective is a necessary factor.

It captures everything that is happening with timing. You maybe like the negative going impulse from the mid? You can hear that it's doing that, btw.

 

[morricab]

You should realize that few systems are time aligned and exhibit a "perfect" step response. The ear integrates sounds together so as long as you don't go beyond that window you can't hear the arrival time differences between drivers. Same thing with phase in a listening room. The Frequency domain dominates what we hear.

Rob

Have you heard demos with digital correction that can be turned on and off (no equalization, no room correction...just impulse response correction)? It matters even though you are right that non-time coherent speakers can still sound good and not disjointed...but there is integrated and there is integrated...it is part of the reason some people love single driver concepts despite their obvious flaws.

 

[microstrip]

Brad's Post #372 was understandable even to a non-scientific person like me. He asked you a simple question:


do you consider a speaker where the sound from the tweeter arrives before the mid, which arrives before the woofers to be “time aligned”? Doesn’t TIME alignment mean that all sounds From all drivers reaches your ears at the same time (thus the meaning of alignment)?

Surely - it was a question that has a childish formulation of a very complex subject, that would assure a long and never ending discussion. I answered I was not interested in such diverging path . My objective was simply to debate and explain David Wilson use of time alignment, not every use on earth of these two terms.

Instead of answering with intellectual honesty a direct and understandable question you chose to dodge and parry. (You did the same thing several times on my suspension of disbelief thread when, in response to my polite solicitation to give us your definition, you consistently chose not to, preferring, instead, to complain repeatedly about the source of the definition I posted.)

Ah, I see. You are still chewing my rejection of your use of ChatGPT. Sorry, having had a few talks with experts during the last week, my position is even more strict about it now. And sorry again, I preferred to give a well thought definition of suspension of disbelief of a real audio expert, implying my agreement with it.

This, candidly, is why some people find you frustrating. You are all rational and scientific and objective up to a certain point, but then when the going gets intellectually hot you choose to obfuscate, to make excuses, to fold.

I have no hope or desire to please everyone in this forum, even forum owners. I regret that you systematically misrepresent the objective side of this hobby and can't separate intellectually hot from simple argument entropy and chaos - we will always politely disagree on these aspects. The fact we can do it is a good thing of WBF.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The fact we can do it is a good thing of WBF.

+1

 

[Amir]

Not sure what you want to imply that I am missing from old TAS. To my knowledge they never made measurements, so how would they actually know if the speaker they were auditioning was time aligned/coherent or not? Answer: They didn't know...only what they were told by the manufacturers.

You can't answer my question and still hold your position, which is why you won't answer it.

Yes, I agree that Wilson engages in marketing semantics because they claim something their speakers are not and then claim that 'time alignment' means something different from what it has historically meant.

Just pointing out the language thing because the words time and alignment seem to elude you as to what they actually mean. I am shocked that if you are science and instrumentation driven that you continue to defend something that it is obviously from the DATA not true.

i don't care about David Wilson's twisting of words. He was a salesman first and foremost and would tell you that the speakers walked on water if he thought it would increase sales.

Scientific language ceases to be such when everyone starts to adopt their own definitions for marketing purposes...

Check the digital cable impedance topic and read what microstrip wrote there, finally (Like me) you will realize describing simple technical subjects for micristrip is wasteful.

phase accuracy could be shown by step response of loudspeaker and all wilson speakers do not have perfect step response. It means wilson crossover design does not have perfect phase response.

Selection of digital cables BNC 75 Ohm.

Can we know what is exactly meant by this confusing sentence? yes sure, in analog sound signal transfer the speed of signal is not high as you know the frequency bandwidths of sound signal is less than 20khz so the speed of signal is so far less than the speed of light and this means there is...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Al M.]

Brad's Post #372 was understandable even to a non-scientific person like me. He asked you a simple question:

do you consider a speaker where the sound from the tweeter arrives before the mid, which arrives before the woofers to be “time aligned”? Doesn’t TIME alignment mean that all sounds From all drivers reaches your ears at the same time (thus the meaning of alignment)?

Instead of answering with intellectual honesty a direct and understandable question you chose to dodge and parry. (You did the same thing several times on my suspension of disbelief thread when, in response to my polite solicitation to give us your definition, you consistently chose not to, preferring, instead, to complain repeatedly about the source of the definition I posted.)

This, candidly, is why some people find you frustrating. You are all rational and scientific and objective up to a certain point, but then when the going gets intellectually hot you choose to obfuscate, to make excuses, to fold.

Indeed, Brad makes very clear and logical points throughout, also in #328. To try to obfuscate in response is unconvincing and not a good look.

Yet as Brad points out in #328, John Atkinson tries to muddy the waters, too. But then, he was fully wrong on MQA as well (no, Stereophile and TAS reviewers, we will not forget). Fortunately, that technology finally is a thing of the past, and even Tidal has moved on.

 

[davidavdavid]

Agree here. In fact, I have to be honest...I think the largest single reason I own Wilsons is Pedro, the maestro of Absolute Sounds. He has set up our speakers in both of our homes over the last 14 years...and come back when we have changed amplification or added subwoofers as well. The Wilsons extreme adjustability is both a blessing and a curse. Thanks to Pedro, its been a blessing.

Wilson themselves have waxed lyrical about his technical knowledge and ear, considering him perhaps one of a handful across the globe with that level of articulate skill and knowledge.

While I fully acknowledge the level of detail Wilson have put into their owner's manual, I admit that factoring in odd-shaped rooms, furniture, curved corners, walls of varying thicknesses or materials which affect bass, ceilings, etc, etc...I can honestly say on my own...no chance I produce good results. Pedro has finetuned each speaker to sheer brilliance with all of the various adjustments. And he has kindly demonstrated just 'one click', 'less than one centimeter of movement' of one module and the impact it has on sound.

I profess no technical knowledge worth anything in this thread...but I know what I hear when Pedro does his thing over the course of several hours. And I give credit to its original designer, David Wilson, for going thru the trouble of designing a speaker with not only this many mechanical adjustments, but also the ability to change resistors as well...all in the name of his goal which I recall was being able to consistently reproduce a sound in various rooms and environments.

I have met Pedro on several occasions whilst visiting with Riccardo, he is indeed the man who can make systems sound delightful in just about any room.

 

[Lee]

Indeed, Brad makes very clear and logical points throughout, also in #328. To try to obfuscate in response is unconvincing and not a good look.

Yet as Brad points out in #328, John Atkinson tries to muddy the waters, too. But then, he was fully wrong on MQA as well (no, Stereophile and TAS reviewers, we will not forget). Fortunately, that technology finally is a thing of the past, and even Tidal has moved on.

I love how MQA critics call out journalists for being “wrong.” The audiophile press heard sound improvements from MQA and talked that up. That’s not being wrong, it’s just having a different opinion. Also, there is no way to know if a new technology is going to catch on from an economic and/or adoption standpoint.

Also, we don’t yet know the results of the MQA reorganization. Let’s wait on the final results before declaring it is a “thing of the past.”

 

[LL21]

I have met Pedro on several occasions whilst visiting with Riccardo, he is indeed the man who can make systems sound delightful in just about any room.

Absolutely.

 

[Tiltedfault]

I love how MQA critics call out journalists for being “wrong.” The audiophile press heard sound improvements from MQA and talked that up. That’s not being wrong, it’s just having a different opinion. Also, there is no way to know if a new technology is going to catch on from an economic and/or adoption standpoint.

Also, we don’t yet know the results of the MQA reorganization. Let’s wait on the final results before declaring it is a “thing of the past.”

You mean wait until the MQA parasite finds a new host? Let’s hope this MQA business is finished and to paraphrase a particularly inarticulate friend of mine, let’s hope MQA is deader than something that’s really dead.

Matt

 

[Lee]

I just spoke with John Atkinson and we discussed the Wilson Audio speakers and measurements. A few points of interest he made:

1. Vern Credille and team like to use second order crossovers. This prevents them from being time coincident but not time coherent.

2. Time coherency is achieved via the precise driver module placement. The step decay of each module blends in together in a way that preserves time coherency according to John.

3. John feels that the rare example of time coincident speakers sound is only a “minimal” sound improvement over time coherency.

 

[morricab]

I just spoke with John Atkinson and we discussed the Wilson Audio speakers and measurements. A few points of interest he made:

1. Vern Credille and team like to use second order crossovers. This prevents them from being time coincident but not time coherent.

2. Time coherency is achieved via the precise driver module placement. The step decay of each module blends in together in a way that preserves time coherency according to John.

3. John feels that the rare example of time coincident speakers sound is only a “minimal” sound improvement over time coherency.

Nothing new here Lee. Go back and reread my post where I show that JA used to use time coherence properly (Dunlavy SC-IV review) and has since made up his new term time coincidence and changed what he means by time coherence!

There is nothing Time “coherent “ about a speaker where sound reach your ear at significantly different times! What is coherent about that??

As to whether it makes a difference…well some say yes and some say no. I think does but it isn’t the only thing that matters.

 

[gleeds]

An article on the subject that may be useful in this discussion.

Time & Phase Alignment: Inside Two Principal Concepts Of System Optimization - ProSoundWeb

They're related but different and have specific applications. It’s important to know which form to use to get your answers for a given application.

www.prosoundweb.com

I am of the belief that crossover and mechanically aligned baffle/driver design cannot be separated when it comes to achieving a speaker that creates a wavefront that mimics live acoustic instruments in time and space.

 

[Alrainbow]

Does

Agree here. In fact, I have to be honest...I think the largest single reason I own Wilsons is Pedro, the maestro of Absolute Sounds. He has set up our speakers in both of our homes over the last 14 years...and come back when we have changed amplification or added subwoofers as well. The Wilsons extreme adjustability is both a blessing and a curse. Thanks to Pedro, its been a blessing.

Wilson themselves have waxed lyrical about his technical knowledge and ear, considering him perhaps one of a handful across the globe with that level of articulate skill and knowledge.

While I fully acknowledge the level of detail Wilson have put into their owner's manual, I admit that factoring in odd-shaped rooms, furniture, curved corners, walls of varying thicknesses or materials which affect bass, ceilings, etc, etc...I can honestly say on my own...no chance I produce good results. Pedro has finetuned each speaker to sheer brilliance with all of the various adjustments. And he has kindly demonstrated just 'one click', 'less than one centimeter of movement' of one module and the impact it has on sound.

I profess no technical knowledge worth anything in this thread...but I know what I hear when Pedro does his thing over the course of several hours. And I give credit to its original designer, David Wilson, for going thru the trouble of designing a speaker with not only this many mechanical adjustments, but also the ability to change resistors as well...all in the name of his goal which I recall was being able to consistently reproduce a sound in various rooms and environments.

Pedro do Infinty IRS V lol.