Why not to buy Wilson or ARC

Posted by: Bob Edwards on 26 December 2000

All--

Preaching to the choir, I know, but heard a Audio Research system (CD2/Ref2/VT200) driving Wilson WATT/Puppies (System 6--whatever the latest is). It was bad. Specifically, it was totally tuneless--I couldn't hum along to CDs I know very well--I was literally getting tired trying. In audiodweeb terms it was OK--lots of round earth imaging/soundstaging etc, and tonally it was actually pretty good from the midrange on up. The bass was a total mess--completely disconnected from the rest of the music and totally out of control--lurching along like an out of control truck down a mountain pass.

A couple observations from this experience: First--most hifi gear is not built to play music--it is built to make pretty sounds. (And to make money !) I think this is the reason that both CD and home theater have caught on. Second, the pricing is way of line with performance (another reason high quality stereo is in trouble). The Wilson speakers were like $18K--and my SBLs annihilate them in both bass control and musical communication. Just one example--drums didn't sound like drums on the Wilsons; they do on the SBLs. Not to mention the fact that the Wilson manual, replete in leather cover, misspelled "interchangeable"--and as a chapter title ! Speakers like these just make me mad--to agree with Joe Petrik and lots of others, they sucked out loud.

I also heard the Sony SACD player through Levinson and then Linn electronics. It is actually not bad through the Linn gear (Wakonda, LK140)--timing and tune were OK, but not up to a LP12/CDX etc. (The Levinson gear was too boring to notice.)

Sorry for the rant--just had to get it off my chest. There is an action item, here, though: tell anyone you know looking for a stereo to buy something that can play music--not just make noise.

Cheers,

Bob @ Qwest

Ride the Light !ü

Posted on: 26 December 2000 by Andrew Randle

Bob,

There's a term that I invented that describes the "Round Earth" world to a 'T':

Acoustic Wallpaper

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

Posted on: 26 December 2000 by Martin Payne

Bob,

I've heard the WATT/Puppy/lots of Krell combo sound both fantastic & appalling.

Fantastic was at the London (UK) show 3-4 years ago (Penta hotel???). System cost about £45K. Performance far beyond the best I'd heard from active DBLs.

Both times since (Novotel shows) it's been an utter pig's breakfast. Poor setup, I presume. It's not hyperbole to say I'd take the well-setup CD5/NAIT5/Rega Ela I heard recently in preference.

It appears it's not just SBL systems which need to be well setup.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 26 December 2000 by Ron The Mon

Bob,
I have a group of friends who have similar systems to your description. There are five of us and we meet about once a month and listen to records, drink wine, and always have a great time. I am the only one who has an LP-12 and Naim and I also have the "cheapest" system of the bunch. One of the guys just got his Audio Research /Single- Ended/WATTS/Blah/Blah/Blah which has the super- thick $800 electrical cords plugged into TWO power conditioners and a surge protector and the newest Tube-Traps, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. This system's only saving graces are the Xerxces turntable, an isolated listening room, and he had a separate electrical circuit installed. Not only does this low-fi not come close to my active Kans, but it costs literally eight times more than my hi-fi (he spent over eighty thousand dollars!!). He knows I used to sell hi-fi and asked for my expertise in tweaking it because he wasn't quite satisfied with the sound and I'll be damned if I couldn't get it to sound as good as my son's "budget" system! It is very easy to hear a piece of crap and decide not to buy it but quite another to tell a friend his system sucks. He has a solution though: after re-hearing my hi-fi he's decided that buying two more single-ended mono- blocks and bi-amplifying will get his low-fi "perfect".

Ron The Mon

Posted on: 27 December 2000 by Todd A

if it is indeed preaching to the choir. But preach on! I'm glad to see that someone else rates Levinson a bore. Having heard three Levinson based systems, I can think of almost no more boring "hi-fi" out there.

And count yourself lucky you didn't have to endure Wilson CUBs. They are, without reservation, the worst speakers on planet earth. I heard a pair draped at the end of $50-$60 K worth of gear and my ears bled. I couldn't turn down the Beethoven's Eroica fast enough. A discman sounds better. Truly offensive sound. And I wasn't the only person to think so.

Posted on: 27 December 2000 by Tony L

quote:
And count yourself lucky you didn't have to endure Wilson CUBs.

Has anyone heard Wilson driven by Naim / Exposure / DNM / Densen or anyone else who can make an amp. I heard a pair of 5.1s driven by Krell which sounded boring as hell, but very clear and uncoloured - I have tried Krell / Audio Research etc myself at home, and they are boring as hell. I'm curious as to whether the speakers are just showing up the slop upstream.

There are certainly some US speakers that I like (Vandersteen, Magnaplaner, plus a lot of 60s and early 70s Acoustic Research etc).

Tony.

Posted on: 27 December 2000 by Bob Edwards

Tony--

Glad you mentioned Vandersteen--very good loudspeakers that work brilliantly with Naim. They tend to be a bit on the laid back/rich side, and Naim gear "wakes them up" a bit. Very musical combination--not as tuneful as others, but a very good combination of round and flat earth. Probably a bit slow for most on the forum, but we sold lots of Naim gear with Vandersteen 1's, 2's, and 3A's.

I have heard Wilsons off a Naim system and they are the same--very clear, very boring--sterile, even. Interestingly they offer superb imaging/soundstaging from the Naim gear--either the Naim stuff CAN do imaging etc or the Wilsons somehow impose it on whatever they are fed. The speakers just somehow sucked the life and groove out of whatever they are fed--quite a trick ! OTOH, I have heard Thiels off Naim sound pretty good.

Cheers and hope Tony wasn't too bored Christmas day !

Bob @ Qwest

Ride the Light !

Posted on: 27 December 2000 by Ron Toolsie

quote:
Has anyone heard Wilson driven by Naim / Exposure / DNM / Densen or anyone else who can make an amp. I heard a pair of 5.1s driven by Krell which sounded boring as hell, but very clear and uncoloured

Yes. I spent several hours at my dealer listening to CDX/XPS/52/135s playing into two speakers. The first were a pair of Wilson Witts, priced imaginatively at $8888- followed by a pair of rather cheaper Linn Tukans. Maybe about 10 different people heard the comparison of those two speakers in that period of time, and ALL of them vastly preferred the Tukans, which not only bounced and grooved to the music, but also gave a very credible illusion of actually having more bass and more tuneful bass than the Witts.

The dealer also has one customer with Watt 5s, and was fortunate enough to be able to plug a loaner NAP500s into them with alleged superb results. Now I haven't heard the 500/Watts but I HAVE heard the 500/Tukans which makes for a truly excellent sound, albeit a trifle lop-sided in price.

Back in 1986 or so I heard the original Watts sound stupendous, and in many ways outKanned the Kans. This was with a WTT turntable, Rowland Coherence/Model 3s amplification and MIT cables. A round earth system with serious flat-earth aspirations- very close to the impossible task of squaring the circle. Since then the Rowlands have become more and more refined, ultimately turning into the musical equivalent of white sugar. The Watts have lost most of their colourations and with it most of the music.

I think it is oversimplistic to try do divide systems or components into flat earth vs round earth as there are a few systems which can do both, and most systems do neither. If we were to adher to the nomenclature and assign geometrical or even transcendental shapes to the final results then the 'perfect' (ie Joels) system would be the 'Spira Mirabilis' which has both simple beauty in its relations as well as quasi-supernatural properties. And derived from the Golden Rectangle. Lesser systems would be a geometric spiral (rather than a logarithmic one), the overblown ones hyperbolic. And so on and so forth.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

http://homepages.go.com/~rontoolsie/index1.html

Posted on: 28 December 2000 by Rockingdoc

Thanks for some sense in this strand at last.
Comparing the Watt/Puppies to SBLs is like comparing a Ferrari to a Toyota MR2. The Toyota is fine and given the price difference would be most people's purchase, but to suggest it is a better car in a head to head is silly.

The Wilsons are a bit difficult to position and are very revealing of faults up the chain, but when set up correctly they make the SBLs sound thin and weedy.

Malcolm

Posted on: 28 December 2000 by Bob Edwards

Malcolm--

Sorry to disagree, but I do. I have heard every incarnation of the Watt/Puppy and none of them have made music. They make great sound. SBLs make great music and sound that improves as the equipment upstream improves. So in that sense the SBL is absolutely a better speaker then the Watt/Puppy. And I have heard Wilsons set up properly--unless setups by Dave Wilson don't count.

Cheers,

Bob @ Qwest

Ride the Light !

Posted on: 28 December 2000 by Todd A

quote:
Comparing the Watt/Puppies to SBLs is like comparing a Ferrari to a Toyota MR2.

Huh?

To claim boldly that Wilson speakers, contrary to people's actual experience, sound good and are better than SBLs, or any other speaker is silly. Now granted, I've only heard the 5.1s and the CUBs, but the first was boring, except for its overwhelming bass (in a roughly 15 x 25 ft room) and the CUBs produced BAD SOUND and NO MUSIC. It literally hurt my ears. The 5.1s were driven by a Classe Omega and Krap, er Krell, CD / pre-amp combo. There was no music; unrealistic bass and a sterile mid-range does not constitute music. The CUBs were driven by a Krell / ARC combo, and I am dead serious when I say that I'd rather have a discman. Without question, it was the most horrible stereo experience I've had. There were other people present who had the same reaction, and they did not end up buying Naim.

That written, my bile is reserved primarily for Krell and Wilson, which are just plain bad, but have astronomical prices to go with bad sound. The other brands quoted are a different story. Wadia is exceptionally good. Sonus Faber speakers are great, and Avalons fronted the best system I have ever heard (with Wadia, Spectral, and VTL).

And while I agree with Richard generally about brand focused forums, my guess is that there are a number of contributors who started off with some of the more traditional high-end gear and converted. You see they seek music, not sound.

And stereos are not analogous to cars. Come on. Are you saying that Wilsons need to be in the shop a lot?

Posted on: 28 December 2000 by Martin Payne

Quoting myself:-

quote:
Performance far beyond the best I'd heard from active DBLs.

Just to clarify this - better than anything I'd then heard from a Naim system. I guess I hadn't really heard an on-form pair of DBLs, nor a NAP500 system (obviously).

If the latest demo of the System 6 was representative then it is now a truly appaling speaker. Who can say.

cheers, Martin