Toward a Better WBF…

[morricab]

Agreed. Better cabinet materials, better cabinet design, better spikes, better capacitors, Klippel at Magico, etc.

Define better. Better at what? If it’s not sonic improvement then it not improved technology.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have enormous respect for dCS' business model and engineering philosophy and technological prowess which results in exactly the sonic attributes they are aiming for. I, personally, just don't happen to care for the resulting sonic attributes.

Ron,

Why not the alternative formulation:

I have enormous respect for dCS' business model and engineering philosophy and technological prowess which results in exactly the sonic attributes many audiophiles are aiming for. I, personally, just don't happen to care for the resulting sonic attributes.

Again I quote Nelson Pass:

"Our real customers care most about the experience they get when
they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we
like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste."

 

[Lee]

The title of this thread is “Toward a Better WBF…” From many of the comments it seems it should be renamed, “Toward a Bitter WBF…”

How many friends have been lost in this thread? While I’m no saint in such matters, we’re better than this, aren’t we?

WTB is fine just the way it is - except for such fighting as in this thread.

Please let’s get back to discussing high-end audio!

Has anyone lost any friends here?

Lee are you a lobbyist for wilson / DCS ?

Regarding alnico magnets this material has been in use since the 1930 s .
Please come with something better

I know this but I was making the case with respect to the improvement in midrange drivers since the latest WAMM.

 

[Lee]

Define better. Better at what? If it’s not sonic improvement then it not improved technology.

Brad, you need to answer my earlier question on what specific things in my comment you objected to.

 

[Lee]

That's what I do, buy stuff that I think provides good value, regardless of price (while I am not willing to spend above a certain level). That explains why I have a DAC that costs only $2,2K, but a preamp that costs $15K. I think the expensive preamp is fully worth it based on its sonic performance. On the other hand, there is no reason for me to buy a more expensive DAC, since I have heard mine beat or equal others at 10 x the price. The sonic performance is fully worth feeding the $15K preamp. Of course, some people think my DAC is shit because the brand is called Schiit. They are too uptight to like the joke, and/or too uninterested to decouple the idea of sonic performance from purchase price and investigate along those lines.

That's the beauty of capitalism. The customer can buy either what they perceive as good value, or go for prestige and brand image and spend too much money compared to actual product performance. Meanwhile the market sorts itself out through all of that by free competition.

Very well said, especially the last paragraph.

 

[Audire]

Has anyone lost any friends here?

Lee, I don't know, so I merely asked a question and did not make a statement of fact!

 

[microstrip]

(...) Have a look at the Maxx3 and have a look at the Alexx V. They are essentially the same speaker updated over 15 years inflated by 300%.

Well, I consider that the Allex V challenges and improves most aspects of the XLF , so I consider it a bargain. The Allex V used with a pair of Watchdog's will easily outperform the XLF in every way.

It's not me that is dishonest (...)

Surely - it is not honesty or dishonesty, just personnel opinions.
But it seems you mainly looking at size and weight!

FIY, I owned the MAXX3 and considered that every cent I put in the X2 was worth it, although I say the same about the XLF tweeter!

 

[morricab]

Yes. The company continues to evolve its drivers. The new midrange for the XVX uses Alnico magnets and is an improvement on the already excellent WAMM.

John Atkinson responded to the time coherency question when he said the Wilsons measure well on that dimension.

I do think there are many improvements in audio technology. I did not make any claims herein on vintage speakers or good analog playback except. I did claim that, based on my current understanding from talking to de Paravicini, that analog tape has an uniquely dense amount of musical information.

ALNICO magnets? How very 1930s of Wilson! My Lowthers, which are a 1930s design, use them and to better effect than Wilson.

 

[dcathro]

The title of this thread is “Toward a Better WBF…” From many of the comments it seems it should be renamed, “Toward a Bitter WBF…”

How many friends have been lost in this thread? While I’m no saint in such matters, we’re better than this, aren’t we?

WTB is fine just the way it is - except for such fighting as in this thread.

Please let’s get back to discussing high-end audio!

Although this thread has gone totally off topic (onto pricing and Wilson), I think it has been pretty civil and unpersonal. Some of the comments have also made me chuckle, which is one of the reasons I like reading the forum.

 

[dcathro]

Just a thought on Wilson pricing:

I don't think economies of scale work for their product - that is the idea that producing more brings the cost down. In many speakers the drivers are the most significant contributor to the cost. In Wilson speakers, I would expect the drivers to be a small fraction of the total manufacturing bill. What you are paying for is luxury cabinetry which is extremely labor intensive for both the cutting machines and the craftsmen. I cannot see how doubling the output would reduce the end pricing.

 

[morricab]

Ron,

Why not the alternative formulation:

I have enormous respect for dCS' business model and engineering philosophy and technological prowess which results in exactly the sonic attributes many audiophiles are aiming for. I, personally, just don't happen to care for the resulting sonic attributes.

Again I quote Nelson Pass:

"Our real customers care most about the experience they get when
they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we
like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste."

Many relative to what? Many Relative to the whole audiophile population…doubtful at best. I think the word you were looking for was some.

 

[PeterA]

Porsche builds hundreds of thousands of cars and Wilson builds thousands of units.

Lee, does Wilson really build eight speakers a day? (2000 (thousands)/250(working days per year=8)

 

[dcathro]

I think WBF has a lot of things going for it…lots of serious audiophiles, loads of true experts, considerate forum ownership, and much thoughtful discussion. However, I think there is more than enough disagreeable and downright rude posts on some threads.

May I humbly suggest we try as a forum to do three things…? And I am guilty myself on these so there is much work to be done in my own posting as well.

1. Let’s respect different and unpopular opinions on sound quality. Don’t like MQA? That’s fine. It’s not doing great but on sonic attributes many of us hear improved quality. Let’s respect that. Don’t like a particular approach like SET/horns or drivers/solid state then let’s respect and learn from our different approaches.

2. Let’s think more about presenting a compelling argument. I think when we can reference experts or AES research, we learn more. I‘m smart enough to know I certainly don’t have all the answers. Far from it. It seems to me that audio is actually a very complex and fast-changing subject.

3. Let’s think more about the impact of system setup. I think this subject is covered pretty well here but my thinking is that understanding the listener’s space and setup may account for some of the sonic differences that people report here. I don’t mean to dismiss anything that’s not a fancy listening room as many have constraints due to expensive city apartments, wife acceptance factor, etc. I heard some fancy rooms with poor setup and lousy sound.

Is this a reasonable request, or am I off base?

Lee,

I have some strong opinions based on my 48 years in the hobby. I often find myself at odds with others who have formed opinions different to mine based on their experience. I personally try to not get into personal arguments or just throw my opinions out for the sake of it. I also try and understand others points of view and to treat everyone with respect.

In a subjective hobby like ours it is not possible to prove one's opinions, and by weight of posts it is unlikely we will change the opinion of those who disagree with us.

I tend to agree with others who suggest that nothing is going to change and we all need to try and not take disagreements personally.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Just a thought on Wilson pricing:

I don't think economies of scale work for their product - that is the idea that producing more brings the cost down. In many speakers the drivers are the most significant contributor to the cost. In Wilson speakers, I would expect the drivers to be a small fraction of the total manufacturing bill. What you are paying for is luxury cabinetry which is extremely labor intensive for both the cutting machines and the craftsmen. I cannot see how doubling the output would reduce the end pricing.

likely the most significant aspect of volume and the Wilson pricing is that the cost of building their most expensive speaker, and the every other speaker in the top part of their line-up is not nearly as different as the retail price. so if they are selling lots of top of the line, that's quite lucrative. not saying that more drivers and chassis don't cost more to build, but not what the price differences are.

so maybe the entry level is a low margin, but it's adding move up customers to the upgrade train. and they might 'profit center' separately the different tiers and have separate targets for return. to keep the company healthy and focused on each part of the business.

to the point of more spendy speakers costing more to build since their labor costs are high, those higher costs do not track with the price differences. if the price differences were 20-25% instead of 80-100% that would be different.

and i see nothing wrong for Wilson Audio or Wilson customers with that situation. Wilson will be there for them long term for customers that align with their approach.

 

[PeterA]

It’s fashionable on WBF to hate the manufacturers and think that nothing is new. I am not buying it in either case.

My impression is that WBF used to be more weighted towards hobbyists who came here to share information and to learn. Today, my impression is that WBF is much more like the main stream audio magazines like TAS that basically support and promote the industry perspective and interests. WBF is now a business that is supported by advertising and eyeballs. This means current products and current advertisers. If you see a fashionable trend, perhaps it’s a reaction to how things have changed.

 

[Audire]

Although this thread has gone totally off topic (onto pricing and Wilson), I think it has been pretty civil and unpersonal. Some of the comments have also made me chuckle, which is one of the reasons I like reading the forum.

When people call other liars I don’t see that as being “civil.”

 

[dcathro]

When people call other liars I don’t see that as being “civil.”

I must have missed that one

 

[PeterA]

Out of interest what thoughts inspire this statement?
Loudspeaker design now has software modelling support, useful measuring techniques, several different cone materials at hand (including hard ceramics - "diamonds", AMT, ribbon, etc).


(Whether or not you consider the sonic result an improvement is another matter.)

What good are different technologies if the end result doesn’t sound better than the best from the past? This forum is called what’s best. That doesn’t necessarily mean the current best. What cartridge sounds better than a Neumann DST? How many current turntables sound better than an EMT 927? How many reports have we read about people saying the old western electric horns or something like the Seimens Bionor is the best speaker they’ve ever heard?

 

[microstrip]

Many relative to what? Many Relative to the whole audiophile population…doubtful at best. I think the word you were looking for was some.

Many relative to the few who listen to poorly distributed or niche products.
Many relative to other models of brands of similar price.
Many, considering the number of WBF active members.
Many, considering the dCS forum members.
Many considering the happy dCS users with Taiko servers I know about.
Many, considering the people who wait between three to six month for being delivered of a dCS unit, after APEX sales have increased.
Many considering the audiophiles of the far east, surpassing in number the the US and Europe.

Simply many ...

BTW, morricab, I know the word I intended to use and you are trolling, as usual. Odd days Wilson, even days dCS, I hope you rest on weekends ...

 

[PeterA]

Agreed. Better cabinet materials, better cabinet design, better spikes, better capacitors, Klippel at Magico, etc.

and yet, many prefer the sound of other speakers. Why are the cabinet materials better or the cabinet design better? There might be less resonance, but does that necessarily lead to better, or more accurately preferred, sound?