my room is much smaller than marty's plus I have experience with Wilson set up. Marty is a true scientist who explores every single parameter of a test condition which is the way to do things
In search of my last great loudspeaker
- Thread starter marty
- Start date
my room is much smaller than marty's plus I have experience with Wilson set up. Marty is a true scientist who explores every single parameter of a test condition which is the way to do things
In my opinion, it shouldn't, and neither should speaker designs be so convoluted (true not just of these ones but most of them).
All that I read above begs the question of how many Wilson owners are truly getting the most out of their speakers. Particularly considering how many parameters need to be apparently correct in order for the speaker to truly sing. Perhaps this applies to the upper echelon Wilson's only...those that have multiple options for adjustment. OTOH, in this hobby, I guess we are all always--"adjusting" to get a better sound, LOL.
I know Ian struggled with his Wilson's because there was no customer support before he moved on to Magico. He might still have the Wilson's if he had heard them dialed in correctly!
Interesting. There are so many parameters involved in dialing in even the most simple of speaker designs....but to add to that a host of other adjustments that the average a'phile has to get just so...seems to me to be maybe a recipe for dissatisfaction. I sometimes question why a speaker manufacturer can get away with producing a speaker that is clearly flawed in one obvious way or the other...i.e. poor bass response, faulty high frequency response and propagation, an inability to work well in most everyone's room, poor x-over design, extreme inefficiency and on and on...YET they have the temerity to ask large $$ from the public! Seems like in many instances, the poor a'phile gets stuck with the result and has to try and live with the problem. Shouldn't happen with entry level speakers, never mind multi thousand $$ so-called 'flagships'. Just saying, LOL!! And of course...all IMHO
Interesting. There are so many parameters involved in dialing in even the most simple of speaker designs....but to add to that a host of other adjustments that the average a'phile has to get just so...seems to me to be maybe a recipe for dissatisfaction.
I struggled for 2yr. with my EA speakers. If they had been dialed in correctly, I still might have had them to this day!
Here's the question, Bruce....perhaps the EA speakers could never be dialed in to to work well in your particular room and for your tastes, is that not possible?
You can have the best speaker set-up in your room, but if the remaining system is not adequate for them you will not have a good sound.
Yes off course but vice versa is also the case , we are off course aiming for both here , including room .
Ps my room aint perfect
Ps my room aint perfect
Interesting. There are so many parameters involved in dialing in even the most simple of speaker designs....but to add to that a host of other adjustments that the average a'phile has to get just so...seems to me to be maybe a recipe for dissatisfaction. I sometimes question why a speaker manufacturer can get away with producing a speaker that is clearly flawed in one obvious way or the other...i.e. poor bass response, faulty high frequency response and propagation, an inability to work well in most everyone's room, poor x-over design, extreme inefficiency and on and on...YET they have the temerity to ask large $$ from the public! Seems like in many instances, the poor a'phile gets stuck with the result and has to try and live with the problem. Shouldn't happen with entry level speakers, never mind multi thousand $$ so-called 'flagships'. Just saying, LOL!! And of course...all IMHO
I think you have to keep in mind that the Speaker is truly a compromise in every fashion of the word. The goal is to compromise how you want, and as little as possible. It's just physics...
But there's a lot out there that aren't designed the best on paper, but people enjoy them anyways. I don't see the problem? I mean room interactions are always complicated, again it's just physiscs... that's how it is! Efficiency being higher is easier on the consumer, needing less power, but the reality is the lower it goes the easier it is to make the speaker perform to better specifications, for the most part. Lowering it can extend the response of any driver considerably, making the speaker more linear and crossover points easy, as well as going deep into bass. There's a reason for it, even though it's annoying to the consumer that would love to use 15w instead of 1500w.
but the reality is the lower it goes the easier it is to make the speaker perform to better specifications, for the most part. Lowering it can extend the response of any driver considerably, making the speaker more linear and crossover points easy, as well as going deep into bass. There's a reason for it.
Why would that be ??
IMO it only has advantages , wider choice of amps to begin with , given the impedance is a good match, not a low imp speaker
The one were discussing here is a given its 94 db iirc so thats a high eff design
Why would that be ??
IMO it only has advantages , wider choice of amps to begin with , given the impedance is a good match, not a low imp speaker
The one were discussing here is a given its 94 db iirc so thats a high eff design
Wilson installation by professionals is standard as far as i know. Fortunately, in my case, Pedro from Absolute Sounds is considered one of the top guys in the world by Wilson to setup speakers. Clients in London literally fly Pedro to Africa, Asia, LatAm to set up systems in their other homes. He is amazing, and when he came to set up here, even the build contractors (who were not audiophiles) were seriously impressed by his technical knowledge not just of audio but of construction (he also gets involved in super-high-end custom audio rooms). It still took Pedro several hours to do the X1s because unlike newer generations, the movement of the modules is more complicated...but magic when he's done.
He is absolutely a big reason for me being so loyal to Wilson (and Transparent where Pedro is again the distributor).
He is absolutely a big reason for me being so loyal to Wilson (and Transparent where Pedro is again the distributor).
I found with my Wilson's that bass output/extension varies with how close the speaker is to the wall behind them for sound reinforcement. Of course this applies to most speakers.
Yes the original Wilson WASP Speaker setup/alignment method was to play deep bass track then position ones self on the wall and inch forward till the bass heaviness "flattened out or neutralised"
You proceeded to do this with the behind the Speaker and side walls placing tape out at the appropriate distance--this in theory was a "Zone of Neutrality" to commence the final placement.
I'm not sure DW meant the rear wall to contribute to the Speaker sound reinforcement as you mention--more to eliminate it from the equation as much as possible.
Then again I have been wrong before
!Bruce D
Great to see discussion of setup playing a big role here. Certainly made a difference in my results (of course). Alas, I continue to wonder if I am getting all that's possible from my Wilson's. Tough to find a "reference" with so many variables including room, electronics, setup etc..
It took me about a year to settle on the setup and orientation of my speakers in my dedicated 25ft x 18 room , and whatever floats your boat is still a compromise..the room *still* mangles things , not the equipment.
If you measure your speakers in room , you will see you are MILES away from any anechoic measurement .. and added to that , the desired target curve is not flat either .. its a subjectve thing
Some folk are prepared to whittle down the compromises in terms of time and effort (setup is free anyway) to tweak it all to the Nth degree , some just accept that near is close enough .. your patience and dedication dictates how far you go
If you have messed with room correction etc.. you soon realise that you can fiddle yourself to death with the "it sounds good now , lets see if we tweak the target curve to get it to sound better" .. at some stage you have to stop.
What often puzzles me is that some folk here in SA will spend $150k ... 1/3rd of the price of their house .. or more.. only to just plonk it down in some shared room..with just the most rudimentary of adjustments.. and then they wonder why their ubersystem does not sound that uber.
Building a dedicated room here costs approximately $800 per m2 .. a room like mine at 48 m2 would cost $40k... which seems a lot.. however the room adds the same if not more to the selling price of that home.
If you measure your speakers in room , you will see you are MILES away from any anechoic measurement .. and added to that , the desired target curve is not flat either .. its a subjectve thing
Some folk are prepared to whittle down the compromises in terms of time and effort (setup is free anyway) to tweak it all to the Nth degree , some just accept that near is close enough .. your patience and dedication dictates how far you go
If you have messed with room correction etc.. you soon realise that you can fiddle yourself to death with the "it sounds good now , lets see if we tweak the target curve to get it to sound better" .. at some stage you have to stop.
What often puzzles me is that some folk here in SA will spend $150k ... 1/3rd of the price of their house .. or more.. only to just plonk it down in some shared room..with just the most rudimentary of adjustments.. and then they wonder why their ubersystem does not sound that uber.
Building a dedicated room here costs approximately $800 per m2 .. a room like mine at 48 m2 would cost $40k... which seems a lot.. however the room adds the same if not more to the selling price of that home.
Was reading a bit about metals , not a bad material at all titanium :
Whether berylium for tweeters is better? iirc its lighter but it ll also ring more , soundvelocity through both respectively , 12000 m/sec versus 6100 m/sec , not much dampening there,
Surely berylium has a higher first break up resonance
density berylium 1850 kg/m3 versus (yes its much heavier ) titanium 4506 kg /m3
https://owlcation.com/stem/What-is-the-Strongest-Metal-The-Hardest-Metals-Known-to-Man
The Most Useful Strong Metal: Titanium
With an ultimate strength of about 434 MPa, titanium is the perfect blend of strength and practicality. Its low density makes it perfect for industrial uses requiring a strong metal with a high melting point. Indeed, titanium has the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any natural metal known to man. Pure titanium is stronger than standard steel, while being less than half the weight, and can be made into even stronger alloys. Because it is also fairly common, it's no wonder that titanium is used for a multitude of purposes. When it comes to manufacturing, the only strong natural metal worth caring about is titanium.
These metals are the backbone of modern industry, providing the support that keeps our daily lives running smoothly. Whether in the tip of a pen, on the fuselage of an airplane, or in the beams of a tall building, we rely on metals to protect us as we seek to progress ever further. We should consider ourselves lucky that, no matter what our needs, there is something in nature to cover them.
Whether berylium for tweeters is better? iirc its lighter but it ll also ring more , soundvelocity through both respectively , 12000 m/sec versus 6100 m/sec , not much dampening there,
Surely berylium has a higher first break up resonance
density berylium 1850 kg/m3 versus (yes its much heavier ) titanium 4506 kg /m3
https://owlcation.com/stem/What-is-the-Strongest-Metal-The-Hardest-Metals-Known-to-Man
The Most Useful Strong Metal: Titanium
With an ultimate strength of about 434 MPa, titanium is the perfect blend of strength and practicality. Its low density makes it perfect for industrial uses requiring a strong metal with a high melting point. Indeed, titanium has the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any natural metal known to man. Pure titanium is stronger than standard steel, while being less than half the weight, and can be made into even stronger alloys. Because it is also fairly common, it's no wonder that titanium is used for a multitude of purposes. When it comes to manufacturing, the only strong natural metal worth caring about is titanium.
These metals are the backbone of modern industry, providing the support that keeps our daily lives running smoothly. Whether in the tip of a pen, on the fuselage of an airplane, or in the beams of a tall building, we rely on metals to protect us as we seek to progress ever further. We should consider ourselves lucky that, no matter what our needs, there is something in nature to cover them.
Another option would be give the ambient tw at the back a bit more out put and the focal a bit less , just thinking out loud lol
IIRC the ambient tw is either a softdome or a ringradiator softdome so the focal was there for a reason , wilson built his rep . partly with that focal so it cant be that bad
Speaker placement is off course very imporant
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |