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

[Lagonda]

That is a beautiful sight.

Almost as good as the one where- I think it was your place - in what looked like a high rise bright condo with another beautiful system.

Same speakers, different century !

 

[Amir]

Wilson never mentioned the crossover specs so I do not know but I guess Alexandria use 4th order crossover

May I ask what is the slope used in there cross overs 6 or 12 ??

 

[Audio_Karma]

I can't wait until they start showing the all new IO Design Naked RS Loudspeakers at the Shows here in the USA soon !

www.iosoundesign.com

 

[Alrainbow]

Wilson never mentioned the crossover specs so I do not know but I guess Alexandria use 4th order crossover

So to make myself under stand this a typical cross is 6db and 12 db
A forth order uses 4 elements and is 24 db is this correct ?

 

[Robh3606]

So to make myself under stand this a typical cross is 6db and 12 db
A forth order uses 4 elements and is 24 db is this correct ?

Yes 6db for each pole. L/R 24db 4 poles 4th order. 1st order 1 pole and so on 3rd 3 poles. Remember that is electrical only. Speakers also roll off and horns roll off so the actual acoustic crossover slope doesn't always match the electrical. Depends on the driver types and crossover points.

Rob

 

[Alrainbow]

this thread should be as asked any well made speaker system is almost infinitely complex and not all is measurable then add how it sounds for us humans. the topic
I know there are speaker makers here and not one of them would be honest at what they did or do.
I do agree dsp can makes us learn to hear
In a more meaningful manner. Like learning what clipping sounds like. Then use this to demean others and their flea watt systems lol.
wilson made a makes monsters and gives you the tools to make them play music.And I doubt most any in reading a manual is enough.

 

[Alrainbow]

Yes 6db for each pole. L/R 24db 4 poles 4th order. 1st order 1 pole and so on 3rd 3 poles. Remember that is electrical only. Speakers also roll off and horns roll off so the actual acoustic crossover slope doesn't always match the electrical. Depends on the driver types and crossover points.

Rob

See you know lol. there is so much in a simple speaker and to make one on the scale of large Wilson’s is a lifetime commitment always improving until you stop
Ty

 

[Audiophile666]

I can't wait until they start showing the all new IO Design Naked RS Loudspeakers at the Shows here in the USA soon !

www.iosoundesign.com

Imagine asking your date "Do you want to see my Naked speakers"?

 

[Elliot G.]

I can't wait until they start showing the all new IO Design Naked RS Loudspeakers at the Shows here in the USA soon !

www.iosoundesign.com

is that the same speaker that was called YAR?

 

[marty]

I just spent an hour catching up on this wonderful thread. I thought Brad's post #328 was the finest post I've read on the WBF in quite some time. I must admit I never understood the merits that "the decay of the tweeter output should blend with the rise of the midrange output, etc.". I agree with Brad and others who cited John Dunlavy when he described what he considered proper driver time alignment.

But here's the rub. Despite the comments by many about the strengths and liabilities of the driver and crossover design of the larger Wilsons one can only cite the obvious which is namely, that this was done for a reason. I would of course love it if someone from Wilson would indeed chime in as many of the questions Brad raised are serious and thoughtful. If there are technical explanations for many his observations, I'd love to learn what they are from Wilson. One can guess that that manufacturer's reply will be likely based on the adage that the "proof is in the pudding" which is namely, how they sound. While it would be easy for Wilson to dodge the answers as any good politician would do by saying they make them the way they do because that's how they get them to sound the way they do, I would find such an answer somewhat of a disappointment and unsatisfying. I'd like to understand the physics that underlie the design a bit better, but I doubt we'll see that here. I suspect that lobing patterns as Amir points out in post #449 are an important consideration (as they usually are with 2nd order crossovers) and this probably enters the realm of proprietary work that Wilson would be reluctant to share. In the end, despite some great posts, we're probably at a point of "go home folks, nothing to see here" as much as we'd like to be able to see and learn more about the rationale for the design of the Wilson speakers. Then again, Alon Wolf and other designers aren't sharing their design secrets publicly either yet nobody seems to be frothing at the mouth because of that!

But this thread has been so good, I am considering a Go Fund Me campaign to support an all-expanse paid trip to send Brad to the Wilson factory so he can drive them all nuts for a few days.

 

[LL21]

Wonderfully balanced, articulate and focused as always, Marty. I concur. This has been a great thread despite its occasional fireworks.

- Is it time aligned (or whatever the terminology that applies between Wilson and our more technical/scientist members)? Brad has been quite lucid and [I believe factual] that it is not
- And if not technically correct as Brad is pointing out, then what is it that Wilson is actually seeking to accomplish with all of their complex module adjustment in some kind of time-related result? Wilson is a great speaker designer and a successful one...both. But they did not set up all these complex moving parts for nothing...so what are they trying to accomplish with it all? As a consumer, I have enjoyed watching the speakers being dialed in, centimeter by centimeter by Pedro of Absolute Sounds whose marvelous technical skills and knowledge have literally demonstrated what a centimeter of adjustment on a single module can do for finetuning the sound for a room and personal tastes. So the adjustability IS doing something positive when in the right hands...the question is WHAT?

 

[Audire]

When i bought my first set of Martin Logan Statement E2's a team flew into Miami to assemble and set them up. Someone from ML came back on 2 occasions after burn in to take measurements and make subsequent adjustments, they also supplied me with a full set of extra spikes, because i liked the design of the ones used in their original advertising, later production models had changed. And when i had a balance discrepancy they sent me a full set of crossover electronic and extra set of electrostatic panels, for free ! Gayle Sanders was still running the company back then, that was fantastic service !

That’s quality service!

 

[microstrip]

.

(...) If there are technical explanations for many his observations, I'd love to learn what they are from Wilson. One can guess that that manufacturer's reply will be likely based on the adage that the "proof is in the pudding" which is namely, how they sound. While it would be easy for Wilson to dodge the answers as any good politician would do by saying they make them the way they do because that's how they get them to sound the way they do, I would find such an answer somewhat of a disappointment and unsatisfying. I'd like to understand the physics that underlie the design a bit better, but I doubt we'll see that here. I suspect that lobing patterns as Amir points out in post #449 are an important consideration (as they usually are with 2nd order crossovers) and this probably enters the realm of proprietary work that Wilson would be reluctant to share. In the end, despite some great posts, we're probably at a point of "go home folks, nothing to see here" as much as we'd like to be able to see and learn more about the rationale for the design of the Wilson speakers.(...)

Marty,

In fact, nothing new around - the issue has been raised several times since John Atkison referred to it first time, even in russian audio web sites. David Wilson calls his technique aspherical group delay and once claimed that after the Alexandria they have time alignment according to a proprietary model, the press and reviewers took it and imagined things on it. More than once David Wilson addressed the alternative a priori apparently more correct approaches of speaker design in timing, but claimed to have developed methods to measure different time domain distortions, more effective to his aim of music reproduction. Most probably, as you guessed, this is proprietary knowledge.

The deeper I have read about it was in article about their tables, where someone from Wilson explained that these cook books were just a way to avoid having to carry specific measurements in place.

Having been a David WIlson admirer since long I have a large archive of Wilson pdf's and logs that are now inaccessible online, including their old magazine. But I do not have the time or will to research more in such subject.

If curious, please look for the WAMM press release - https://wilsonaudio.com/pdf/press-releases/wamm-press-release.pdf

 

[the sound of Tao]

When i bought my first set of Martin Logan Statement E2's a team flew into Miami to assemble and set them up. Someone from ML came back on 2 occasions after burn in to take measurements and make subsequent adjustments, they also supplied me with a full set of extra spikes, because i liked the design of the ones used in their original advertising, later production models had changed. And when i had a balance discrepancy they sent me a full set of crossover electronic and extra set of electrostatic panels, for free ! Gayle Sanders was still running the company back then, that was fantastic service !

Have always loved the stories of your earlier and wilder days Milan.

 

[pjwd]

I just spent an hour catching up on this wonderful thread. I thought Brad's post #328 was the finest post I've read on the WBF in quite some time. I must admit I never understood the merits that "the decay of the tweeter output should blend with the rise of the midrange output, etc.". I agree with Brad and others who cited John Dunlavy and other (i.e. Vandersteen) when he described what he considered proper driver time alignment.

But here's the rub. Despite the comments by many about the strengths and liabilities of the driver and crossover design of the larger Wilsons one can only cite the obvious which is namely, that this was done for a reason. It would of course love it if someone from Wilson would indeed chime in as many of the questions Brad raised are serious and thoughtful. If there are technical explanations for many his observations, I'd love to learn what they are from Wilson. One can guess that that manufacturer's reply will be likely based on the adage that the "proof is in the pudding" which is namely, how they sound. While it would be easy for Wilson to dodge the answers as any good politician would do by saying they make them the way they do because that's how they get them to sound the way they do, I would find such an answer somewhat of a disappointment and unsatisfying. I'd like to understand the physics that underlie the design a bit better, but I doubt we'll see that here. I suspect that lobing patterns as Amir points out in post #449 are an important consideration (as they usually are with 2nd order crossovers) and this probably enters the realm of proprietary work that Wilson would be reluctant to share. In the end, despite some great posts, we're probably at a point of "go home folks, nothing to see here" as much as we'd like to be able to see and learn more about the rationale for the design of the Wilson speakers. Then again, Alon Wolf and other designers aren't sharing their design secrets publicly either yet nobody seems to be frothing at the mouth because of that!

But this thread has been so good, I am considering a Go Fund Me campaign to support an all-expanse paid trip to send Brad to the Wilson factory so he can drive them all nuts for a few days.

Marty
A friend has a nakamichi self centering TT .. the before and after demo makes you believe self centering is the be all and end all.. then he gets an airforce 2 and you completely forget about self centering . Speaker design has vastly more tradeoffs than TT and Brad is focussing on one aspect, both as a false claim and a design issue and I think the 2 have got a bit mixed up ( not by Brad). Marketing spin aside the wilson step response is quite good in terms of overall time (as Brad notes) and I suspect the second order is chosen for that reason ... to allow the smooth transition in the shortest possible time ( in combination with physical alignment)...and have a decent slope on filters. I wonder what the step response of non dialed in wilsons looks like ?
You certainly can hear the effect of true time correction as Brad notes but its first order or digital that gets you there .. first order has its cross contamination problems and digital is the answer that is yet to be fully embraced.

It would be interesting to hear digitally corrected wilsons !

Wlison et all have all picked their path of tradeoffs and resolutely plough on. I wonder if it is partly to maintain value of previous models. It seems rare for major brands to change tack .. atmasphere from tubes to class D is one dramatic swerve I can think of
It is an interesting thread indeed .. if only there was a pointless bickering filter...

Cheers
Phil

 

[Ron Resnick]

i would love to hear the statements. The hybrids are still a fantastic value speakers, one of the few current companies that makes speakers that reproduce music. Maybe older models from Sanders’ time were better like some say, I do not know.

I still think the Neolith is fantastic (with tube amps). But I feel that with the new management at MartinLogan post Sanders even the Neolith is an unappreciated legacy stepchild.

 

[Audiophile666]

What's a better system ?
$200K speakers + $50K electronics/cables
or $100K speakers +$150K electronics /cables

 

[Ron Resnick]

What's a better system ?
$200K speakers + $50K electronics/cables
or $100K speakers +$150K electronics /cables

In a subjective hobby there is no metric by which to judge objectively "better."

If you put together systems in each of those categories I can tell you which one I likely will like better.

 

[morricab]

I just spent an hour catching up on this wonderful thread. I thought Brad's post #328 was the finest post I've read on the WBF in quite some time. I must admit I never understood the merits that "the decay of the tweeter output should blend with the rise of the midrange output, etc.". I agree with Brad and others who cited John Dunlavy when he described what he considered proper driver time alignment.

But here's the rub. Despite the comments by many about the strengths and liabilities of the driver and crossover design of the larger Wilsons one can only cite the obvious which is namely, that this was done for a reason. I would of course love it if someone from Wilson would indeed chime in as many of the questions Brad raised are serious and thoughtful. If there are technical explanations for many his observations, I'd love to learn what they are from Wilson. One can guess that that manufacturer's reply will be likely based on the adage that the "proof is in the pudding" which is namely, how they sound. While it would be easy for Wilson to dodge the answers as any good politician would do by saying they make them the way they do because that's how they get them to sound the way they do, I would find such an answer somewhat of a disappointment and unsatisfying. I'd like to understand the physics that underlie the design a bit better, but I doubt we'll see that here. I suspect that lobing patterns as Amir points out in post #449 are an important consideration (as they usually are with 2nd order crossovers) and this probably enters the realm of proprietary work that Wilson would be reluctant to share. In the end, despite some great posts, we're probably at a point of "go home folks, nothing to see here" as much as we'd like to be able to see and learn more about the rationale for the design of the Wilson speakers. Then again, Alon Wolf and other designers aren't sharing their design secrets publicly either yet nobody seems to be frothing at the mouth because of that!

But this thread has been so good, I am considering a Go Fund Me campaign to support an all-expanse paid trip to send Brad to the Wilson factory so he can drive them all nuts for a few days.

I actually don't care how Wilson designs their speakers...they have chosen their tradeoffs. I have a problem with claims that aren't really true.

 

[morricab]

Marty
A friend has a nakamichi self centering TT .. the before and after demo makes you believe self centering is the be all and end all.. then he gets an airforce 2 and you completely forget about self centering . Speaker design has vastly more tradeoffs than TT and Brad is focussing on one aspect, both as a false claim and a design issue and I think the 2 have got a bit mixed up ( not by Brad). Marketing spin aside the wilson step response is quite good in terms of overall time (as Brad notes) and I suspect the second order is chosen for that reason ... to allow the smooth transition in the shortest possible time ( in combination with physical alignment)...and have a decent slope on filters. I wonder what the step response of non dialed in wilsons looks like ?
You certainly can hear the effect of true time correction as Brad notes but its first order or digital that gets you there .. first order has its cross contamination problems and digital is the answer that is yet to be fully embraced.

It would be interesting to hear digitally corrected wilsons !

Wlison et all have all picked their path of tradeoffs and resolutely plough on. I wonder if it is partly to maintain value of previous models. It seems rare for major brands to change tack .. atmasphere from tubes to class D is one dramatic swerve I can think of
It is an interesting thread indeed .. if only there was a pointless bickering filter...

Cheers
Phil

I am only focusing on the claims...I don't actually care how they design their speakers.