Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear

[Gregadd]

The WATT/Puppy has never been Wilson's "flagship speaker". At the time the WATT (sans Puppy) was introduced, that privilege was with the WAMM; these days it's the Alexandria X2. And when it was first introduced, the WATT/Puppy was indeed two separate boxes (connected by so-called Puppy Tails). I forget exactly what iteration did away with the two enclosures per side.

Actually the WAMM is a much better example of P's point. It was a modular design with each piece placed in in its optimal room placement. Conrad Johnson made a similar design that never caught on. It was quite good. The reason the SASHA is not modular is because I think Wilson does not regard the woofer section as a sub but just a woofer. You can buy a sub and put it any where you want it. The Puppy is a woofer and not really a sub.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Actually the WAMM is a much better example of P's point. It was a modular design with each piece placed in in its optimal room placement. Conrad Johnson made a similar design that never caught on. It was quite good. The reason the SASHA is not modular is because I think Wilson does not regard the woofer section as a sub but just a woofer. You can buy a sub and put it any where you want it. The Puppy is a woofer and not really a sub.

The original Watt/Puppys were two separate units. The Sashas still function that way (separate cab enclosures) whether you can physically separate them or not. Woofer/sub woofer...the distinction is moot unless you're saying the sub woofer covers a lower band of frequencies, which is typically not the case when compared to speakers like the Watt Puppy/Sasha. No, I think the Watt Puppy/Sasha is a perfect example of the point, being a smallish two-way monitor paired with a separate sub/woofer.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The WATT/Puppy has never been Wilson's "flagship speaker". At the time the WATT (sans Puppy) was introduced, that privilege was with the WAMM; these days it's the Alexandria X2. And when it was first introduced, the WATT/Puppy was indeed two separate boxes (connected by so-called Puppy Tails). I forget exactly what iteration did away with the two enclosures per side.

I stand corrected. It is not the flagship. It is the best-known speaker of one of the most famous high-end speaker companies.

P

 

[MylesBAstor]

Actually the WAMM is a much better example of P's point. It was a modular design with each piece placed in in its optimal room placement. Conrad Johnson made a similar design that never caught on. It was quite good. The reason the SASHA is not modular is because I think Wilson does not regard the woofer section as a sub but just a woofer. You can buy a sub and put it any where you want it. The Puppy is a woofer and not really a sub.

I think the WAMMs in bottom left pic are in Dave's living room.

Heard the WAMMs many years ago at Definitive Audio in Mammaroneck, NY driven by an all Krell system and Basis/Air Tangent/Koetsu front end. Was pretty amazing sounding back then esp. on the Sheffield drum record!

 

[Gregadd]

I think the WAMMs in bottom left pic are in Dave's living room.

Exactly,Myles. That's only half the picture. The full picture was of Daves' living room with both speakers in the corner. I don't remember what magazine it was in. But I think it accompanied an interview of Dave Wilson. It may have been in Audio.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think the WAMMs in bottom left pic are in Dave's living room.

Exactly,Myles. That's only half the picture. The full picture was of Daves' living room with both speakers in the corner. I don't remember what magazine it was in. But I think it accompanied an interview of Dave Wilson. It may have been in Audio.

Yeah saw them when I was out at Daves many years ago. Not sure if we ran a pic in Ultimate Audio when we did an interview with Dave and Sheryl.

 

[Gregadd]

The original Watt/Puppys were two separate units. The Sashas still function that way (separate cab enclosures) whether you can physically separate them or not. Woofer/sub woofer...the distinction is moot unless you're saying the sub woofer covers a lower band of frequencies, which is typically not the case when compared to speakers like the Watt Puppy/Sasha. No, I think the Watt Puppy/Sasha is a perfect example of the point, being a smallish two-way monitor paired with a separate sub/woofer.

P

First of all your point is your point. No argument there.

There is definitely a difference between a sub and a woofer. You're right the WATT/Puppy was detachable. I never saw them separate. A demo is worth a thousand words. If you ever get an invite to Steves' place, have him turn the the JL Gothams on and off for you. The difference will be readily apparent.
Finally I have heard the Sasha and the bass is good and tight but hardly subterrainian. Wilson claims -3db at 20hz. The Stereophile review is not quite so generous. http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/wilson_audio_sasha_wp_loudspeaker/index5.html

Of course bass response is source/room/system dependent.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There is definitely a difference between a sub and a woofer.

Technically, yes, but it doesn't change the discussion. The sub that is sold as a match to my AVis, for example, is capable of a highs above 100hz and lows below 20hz. You can, in fact, choose crossover points of 100, 80, 60, 40, 30 or 20hz. But you would want to cross over to most two-way monitors no higher than 60hz, and probably closer to 40, to avoid doubling the lower mids, creating boom and masking midrange detail. So in the case of the AVis, the monitors cover the bandwidth from above 20khz to about 60hz, then you cross over to the sub, which takes you down to below 20hz. So the difference is that this combination of smallish monitor and (sub)woofer is broader and more flexible than the Watt/Puppy combination, which brings us back to the core question: What, other than tradition and expectation, makes the traditional, passive, full-range floor-stander better? What defines it as the near pinnacle of high end while a similar monitor, mated with an active sub would be considered entry-level high end at best?

I don't have the sub that goes with my monitors and don't have the room for it. I know my system is a compromise, so I don't have a dog in this hunt; I'm not trying to prove that my choice is the one, honest. I just think it is a really interesting question.

P

 

[Gregadd]

Unfortunately SIZE matters! To put it bluntly.

 

[RUR]

Greg, my Summits are crossed to the subwoofer @ 77Hz i.e. they're acting like P's hypothetical 2-way monitors, even if they're 2-way floor-standing. What "size" issue do I have?

Keep it clean, now! ;-)

 

[Ron Party]

It's not the size, it's the frequency! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Unfortunately SIZE matters! To put it bluntly.

Perhaps it does. Even if you matched the WATTs to a pair of great subs, you'd still be competing with four 8" woofers and those big cabinets. It would be different. The question is, would it necessarily be better? And even if it had the edge, would it be category-defining? IE: the difference between one of the most famous high-end speakers of recent history and a solution (bookshelf speakers and sub) not taken seriously by serious audiophiles?

P

 

[Gregadd]

Greg, my Summits are crossed to the subwoofer @ 77Hz i.e. they're acting like P's hypothetical 2-way monitors, even if they're 2-way floor-standing. What "size" issue do I have?

Keep it clean, now! ;-)

First of all let me say I've always been a fan of satellite systems. M&K manufactured excellent examples of such a system. It deals with so many problems like cabinet resonance, room space, WAF and price. A now defunct dealer I know was an almost exclusive dealer of Pro ac speakers and the Janis sub system. I am sure you all remember the pro ac Tablette. There was also a super system with the Decca ribbon tweeter, the Quad 57 for midrange, and the Hartley subs. So there is nothing new here.

I don't think electrostatics make a good example here. A dynamic mini-monitor has a fairly small box and can go down to around 60 hz. Although many manufactures cheat and use an artificial rise at 60hz to create the impression of more bass.

I'm not qualified to to do a complicated speaker design discussion.

However the the laws of physics dictate that size matters. I am a huge Martin Logan fan.

One of the reasons I have not switched from CLS to to one of there excellent hybrids is because I believe the panels are to small. (Uh Oh! i'm in trouble now.) Yeah I know all about the about micro perforations. All I've seen on that is marketing copy. If anybody has a white paper on the issue I'd like to see it. Many agree with with me that the woofer takes over to early and creates a discontinuity. This argument has been around since the introduction of the Sequel.
On the issue of size, take two examples from the Martin Logan lineup. You can access complete specs at www.martinlogan.com. I don't consider these subs I consider them woofers. In my day a true sub was flat from 20-30 hz. Neither of these are. A true sub would not go higher than 100hz.
Back to the point. We can see that the Summit X even with its' much larger than the Source panel, crosses over at 270hz. The Source crosses over at 470hz. The reason they crossover so high is because those small panels can't do bass. My CLS and the CLX go down to 56hz. We can easily see that CLS pane lis significantly larger than the Summit X and The Source. The CLX is larger still. While they CLX and CLS have similar frequency response the larger CLX panel results in a much greater dynamic range.
If we transfer over to Soundlab we can see an either greater utilization of size as you move up the model lineup.
P.S. I should point out that the WATT started out as an average speaker. I guarantee if anybody had made it besides Dave Wilson, it would have languished in obscurity.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

However the the laws of physics dictate that size matters.

They do. I guess the question is does it matter where the size comes from? Does it need to be from a big floor-standing pair, or will bookshelves/sub(s) do it as well?

P.S. I should point out that the WATT started out as an average speaker. I guarantee if anybody had made it besides Dave Wilson, it would have languished in obscurity.

Perhaps. But it didn't. And the fact of the matter is that the WATT/Puppy is just one of many examples. An awful lot of high-end floor standing speakers are a 2-way monitor sitting on a couple of (sub)woofers. Some get the woofing from one or two big drivers, some get it from two or more mid-sized drivers, they have different driver designs and materials, different crossover points, etc. -- lots of subtle differences. But a lot of them get their mids from what amounts to a 5 - 7" midbass/tweeter in an isolated enclosure. A small two-way.

I've been able to experiment with this idea, though admittedly on a somewhat smaller scale than the WATT/Puppy or the other rather famous small monitor on a (sub)woofer -- the B&W 800. I've been able to directly A/B Vienna Acoustic's Mozart against their Hayden bookshelf mated to a REL sub. The Mozart and Hayden share midbass and tweeter and in the Mozart, these two drivers are physically isolated from the woofer, so it is the principle we're discussing.

What I hear in the Mozart is a fuller low midrange. It is warmer and sounds a bit "bigger." But the Hayden/REL combination has greater midrange clarity and images better. Which one is better is certainly a matter of taste. The point I suppose I'm getting at is that this notion that floor standers are genuine audiophile and monitors/subs are a compromise just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. YMMV, but I actually think I like the latter combination better.

P

 

[Gregadd]

What I hear in the Mozart is a fuller low midrange. It is warmer and sounds a bit "bigger." But the Hayden/REL combination has greater midrange clarity and images better. Which one is better is certainly a matter of taste. The point I suppose I'm getting at is that this notion that floor standers are genuine audiophile and monitors/subs are a compromise just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. YMMV, but I actually think I like the latter combination better.


WOW! Careful there . You're starting to sound like an "anti-measurement subjectivist."

 

[Gregadd]

You might like this. It has an excellent sound. The guy is anti establishment. You see he is using zip cord, no rack and generic amp and CD player. I can only imagine how good it would sound with a tube amp and some audiophile cable.
www.selahaudio.com
P.S. I know I just argued size matters. Is there any reason these pictures are so big?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can only imagine how good it would sound with a tube amp and some audiophile cable.

Don't make me come over there .

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

P

While I am one of those who believe that the best bass requires at least 3 sub-woofers regardless of speaker size, I think your post are over-simplifying the issue. Dispersion characteristics are important in what we ultimately hear in our rooms and the design of a speaker whether it is a 3-way or a 2 ways influence greatly its distortion characteristics...
Indeed several speakers are mini-monitors on top of a woofer. There are several models which are physically that but a speaker is more than that. Crossover designs and drivers have a direct effect on the speaker final "sound". I don't know what you did in just taking off the bottom end of the B & W 800 speaker but I would like to think that the results with your sub most likely would not sound like the original ... unless you carefully matched the crossover slopes, frequencies and compensation, defeating the purpose somewhat ...

In my personal experience and there I am left with only anecdotes.. Most small mini-monitors sound , well.... small. It's not only a matter of SPL, some can sound loud and when relieving them of the bass they still sound ... well ... small .. Could that be psycho-acoustics? Or me seeing a small speaker? Not really ... Take any real monitor you wish, mate it with the sub you want to and it will never produce the imaging scale of a Dunleavy or an Altair or a Magnepan, not even that of a Martin Logan CLS, which is quite limited in SPL and bass ... There is something else at play here ... Some of this mini-monitors over a sub do have good scale, not they would be mistaken with thiewr larger brother even with subs .. The Von Sweickert VR 4 and yes the Watts etc ... The Aerial 20 and some others .. Other speakers excel in many things but don't have that scale the Quad ESL 63 mated to any subs you want, might play loud up to sub 100 dB, maybe depending on crossover setting .. It will never foll you inits depiction of music scale ....

I understand the discussion was about Pro Gear vd Audiophile gears and on this I think there is a lot of misunderstanding .. We, audiophiles , have come to look at Pro gear with a good amount of suspicion. If we were to open our mind we would be quite surprised. We tend to think of PRO gear in term of SPL and this is not true .. MikeL referred in his post to a lack of refinement and while I am not entirely convinced that it is a matter of refinement only, I have not found the some of the few larger PRO speakers I have heard, ATC, Genelec, Meyer, I have heard, on a par with the better (read not necessarily expensive) "audiophile" speakers.. I must say I have not compared a PRO speaker with mine in my room, with my electronics ...
On the subject of Amplifiers .. I will simply say that I don't know and tend to see PRO amplifiers like a truck and audiophile gear like a performance sedan. Prejudice? maybe ...
On Digital gear .. Well it looks like PRO gear are up there with the best the audiophile world can produce .. The Benchmark is an example .. There are better preamp and DAC than the Benchmark .. in the audiophile world ...of course but I would dare say it provide more than 90% of their performance in a small , relatively inexpensive package. We know that some PRO DACs,one of the Weiss comes to mind are the exact same audiophile models except for the faceplate and the (higher) price on the audiophile side...
It is also well known that even audiophiles-leaning PROs don't go for the tweaks that some audiophiles fall for on a regular basis, the Shakti Stones, Harmonix dots, m'pingo disks and quantum physics based air molecules re-aligners. Interestingly some PRO profess using Audiophiles cables ...

So I am not anti-PRO gear. Only that I think there are good and bad products at both end of the aisle and I do think that we must open our mind and explore both world for more bang for our bucks an ultimately better sound reproduction in our homes ...

 

[Ethan Winer]

i'm not using the word musical; which infers distortion in the name of beautiful.

The word "musical" might mean that to you, but certainly not to me. I use the term "euphonic distortion" to describe distortion that for one reason or another sounds pleasing. And this is exactly the problem with all such terms - they relate a subjective rather than technical assessment of sound quality. Subjective to me implies personal and individual, and thus will not be universally understood. For example:

when i use the word refinement i'm speaking about a higher degree of coherence and lack of edgyness, i'm speaking about lots of inner detail and texture and shades of color, i'm speaking about a microdynamic life, i'm speaking about a top end extended but not sterile.

Every single one of those descriptions can be better stated as the frequency response at various frequency ranges. I'd also like to hear a definition of microdynamics, and how it's different from regular dynamics. (Actually, I'd like to hear a definition of regular dynamics too.) The last time this came up, in another forum, someone kept using the term microdynamics. So I asked him to define it. He was unable to do that, so instead he had the forum mod delete the entire thread. I'm not kidding. And the thread had grown to several dozen pages by then!

I'm sure that won't happen here because this is a much more friendly place! So I'm comfortable asking you to define your terms explicitly and completely, leaving no room for misinterpretation. But if you use the word "palpable" I will never forgive you. Hey, maybe you'll convince me! At the minimum it will be entertaining and enlightening.

and the damn numbers cannot tell you everything you need to know to impart these qualities to a speaker.

Those "damn numbers" can indeed tell us all that's needed to assess everything that affects fidelity. Of course you have to know what to measure.

--Ethan

 

[FrantzM]

True .. All these ... between 2 and 5 K ... Very interesting .. have you heard any of these ... There is a very strong buzz on, again, another pro DAC unit: The Antelope Zodiac ...