What is transparent like ML, dynamic like a horn, and disappears like a mini monitor?

[David Matz]

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion...

I'm not a fan of the Thiel stuff at all, but I haven't heard them with many different amplifiers, so who knows? I wasn't a big fan of Wilson till I heard them with decent equipment properly set up. And I've had plenty of people come over to my house, take one look at my Summits and tell me that "they hate the way panels sound" or "panels don't have dynamic range" blah blah, and I've sold about a dozen pairs of Summit/Vantage in the meantime.

It's all about the room and the setup.

Again, can't wait to hear the CLX..... Good chance that is going to be my next speaker!

Jeff,

Have you heard the new Thiel? I heard it driven by Classe monoblocks/ Transparent Opus, VTL 7.5 system. That speaker would be one of my top choices if the electrostatic/ ribbon technology did not exist. It does sound quite a bit veiled compared to the Logans though. I would love to a/b the new Thiel vs Sophias.

 

[Statman]

I too have auditioned the Watt/Puppy (model 7's) recently. Very nice and dynamic in the extreme. But at ~26K, they are a ripoff. They are not 20K better than a decent set of Logans. They are an esoteric (and beautifully constructed) product for the eccentric and wealthy. I have only ever seen the Alexandrias, never listened -- I simply don't see the point.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm glad that someone makes and buys speakers like these. But although I am fairly well-off, I will simply not consider Wilson Audio products a reasonable or intelligent purchase.

I would like to see a review of the new Thiel 3.7 (at 10K) and see how they compare. My thinking is that they will trounce just about anything at that price level and even those at 3 times the cost.

~VDR

I'm as happy as can be with a demo pair of WP7's I think they are going around 16-17K used). I've noticed those that sell their Wilsons tend to get a better return on the used market. Switched from Odyssey's. Same electronics used. If they are set up correctly they can disappear with the right recordings. More dynamic and just as fast as my Odyssey's were.

The Stats have a little more air or space around the instruments due to the advantage in stage height which I always have loved with Stats. They do require a room with some acoustic treatment placed in the reflective points of the room to sound their best just as ML's do also.

 

[David Matz]

I'm as happy as can be with a demo pair of WP7's I think they are going around 16-17K used). I've noticed those that sell their Wilsons tend to get a better return on the used market. Switched from Odyssey's. Same electronics used. If they are set up correctly they can disappear with the right recordings. More dynamic and just as fast as my Odyssey's were.

The Stats have a little more air or space around the instruments due to the advantage in stage height which I always have loved with Stats. They do require a room with some acoustic treatment placed in the reflective points of the room to sound their best just as ML's do also.

Statman,

I agree with your post. As I said earlier, it is to Wilson's credit to be able to produce a midrange that is close to one produced by an electrostatic. I found Wilson's bass to be real fast and authoritative, which makes the entire speaker seem very dynamic. The big difference is price. A used Ascent is $2K or less vs. $16K for the used Wilson, and you get the better midrange. The newer Logan models give one much better bass integration, although it is still not as fast as the Wilson's. I think the Logan engineers should get together with Mr. Wilson to figure out how to do the bass better.

At the $25K price point, I wonder how much of a value the CLX will be against the Watt Puppy 8, the new Revel, and the "Revolutionary" Magico.

 

[VanDaRo]

Hmmmm...Thiel haters. OK....

I have an neighbor, fellow audiophile, that has a set of Thiel CS7.2 driven by an older, Jeff Rowland model 8. It produces what I feel is the best sound I have ever heard from any system. Playing Pink Floyd The Wall on vinyl via his Linn LP12 is just stunning...

It's possible the 7.2s one of the highest of the high-end speakers available today. I find it hard to believe that the new 3.7s wouldn't give them a run for their money since they are sold at about the same price point (13K ). Initial impressions according to the internet audio editors have them very excited.

Hey Tonepub, call Thiel and get a review set !!

~VDR

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi guys,

I'm ready to get flamed by what I'm going to say but that's OK. My biggest issue with Wilsons (besides IMHO god awful looks) is the fact that they introduce a new and improved model and then, within a year or two, they introduce another new and improved model.

The Watt / Puppy line is the most egregious example. How long were the Model 6's out until they were replaced with the Model 7's. And then the 7's were replaced with the 8's. Oh please! They have been using the same basic boxes and probably iterations of the same crossover since the original WP's first came out on the market.

Personally, I don't understand why (with a speaker like the WP) they can't get it right the first time. Seems to me to be all about marketing and money similar to new and improved labelling we see on so many consumer products.

And oh yes, let us not forget about the price increase with each WP version and the money Wilson makes when an owner of a previous iteration wants his WP upgraded. And on top of that, they are, in my opinion, overpriced to begin with.

And then there's the general attitude that seems to be so common amongst Wilson dealers. That alone is enough for me to not even give them any serious consideration.

GG

 

[SundayNiagara]

Hmmmm...Thiel haters. OK....

I have an neighbor, fellow audiophile, that has a set of Thiel CS7.2 driven by an older, Jeff Rowland model 8. It produces what I feel is the best sound I have ever heard from any system. Playing Pink Floyd The Wall on vinyl via his Linn LP12 is just stunning...

It's possible the 7.2s one of the highest of the high-end speakers available today. I find it hard to believe that the new 3.7s wouldn't give them a run for their money since they are sold at about the same price point (13K ). Initial impressions according to the internet audio editors have them very excited.

Hey Tonepub, call Thiel and get a review set !!

~VDR

What else is in the system?

 

[SundayNiagara]

Hi guys,

I'm ready to get flamed by what I'm going to say but that's OK. My biggest issue with Wilsons (besides IMHO god awful looks) is the fact that they introduce a new and improved model and then, within a year or two, they introduce another new and improved model.

The Watt / Puppy line is the most egregious example. How long were the Model 6's out until they were replaced with the Model 7's. And then the 7's were replaced with the 8's. Oh please! They have been using the same basic boxes and probably iterations of the same crossover since the original WP's first came out on the market.

Personally, I don't understand why (with a speaker like the WP) they can't get it right the first time. Seems to me to be all about marketing and money similar to new and improved labelling we see on so many consumer products.

And oh yes, let us not forget about the price increase with each WP version and the money Wilson makes when an owner of a previous iteration wants his WP upgraded. And on top of that, they are, in my opinion, overpriced to begin with.

And then there's the general attitude that seems to be so common amongst Wilson dealers. That alone is enough for me to not even give them any serious consideration.

GG

Research never stops!

 

[Joey_V]

Jeff,

Just to clarify, the new X2 v2 actually have more than just the crossover changed. The midrange driver is totally new and the tweeter has been tweaked/modified.

Just found that out.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Research never stops!

That's quite true SN. Nor does the money train.

GG

 

[C.A.P]

Hi guys,

I'm ready to get flamed by what I'm going to say but that's OK. My biggest issue with Wilsons (besides IMHO god awful looks) is the fact that they introduce a new and improved model and then, within a year or two, they introduce another new and improved model.

The Watt / Puppy line is the most egregious example. How long were the Model 6's out until they were replaced with the Model 7's. And then the 7's were replaced with the 8's. Oh please! They have been using the same basic boxes and probably iterations of the same crossover since the original WP's first came out on the market.

Personally, I don't understand why (with a speaker like the WP) they can't get it right the first time. Seems to me to be all about marketing and money similar to new and improved labelling we see on so many consumer products.

And oh yes, let us not forget about the price increase with each WP version and the money Wilson makes when an owner of a previous iteration wants his WP upgraded. And on top of that, they are, in my opinion, overpriced to begin with.

And then there's the general attitude that seems to be so common amongst Wilson dealers. That alone is enough for me to not even give them any serious consideration.

GG

I couldn't have said it better. !

 

[DTB300]

I'm not getting rid of my ML's either. It's all about your room, your system and your requirements. Not everyone has the right room for a set of panels. I know if I wasn't lucky enough to have such a good room for my Summits, I would buy a pair of Sophia 2's in a heartbeat.

Sophia's are one of the speakers I would probably own (and the only Wilson I like) if not for my CLS. IMO, the WP has not sounded good since version 5, but I am sure other Wilson fans will disagree. I also like the Aerial 9 and 20T.

Like you said Jeff, each to their own opinion, and I am so glad we have so many choices for ourselves.

 

[tonepub]

Hmmmm...Thiel haters. OK....

I have an neighbor, fellow audiophile, that has a set of Thiel CS7.2 driven by an older, Jeff Rowland model 8. It produces what I feel is the best sound I have ever heard from any system. Playing Pink Floyd The Wall on vinyl via his Linn LP12 is just stunning...

It's possible the 7.2s one of the highest of the high-end speakers available today. I find it hard to believe that the new 3.7s wouldn't give them a run for their money since they are sold at about the same price point (13K ). Initial impressions according to the internet audio editors have them very excited.

Hey Tonepub, call Thiel and get a review set !!

~VDR

Don't really want Thiels in for review. I'm not fond of them at all and it would be very unfair to Thiel for me to write a snarky review about the speaker. They are a very good company and have a lot of loyal followers, so it's obvious that they do not make a bad product.

I've heard them in a lot of different rooms with different gear and it's never been a speaker that I've ever had an emotional connection with.

Like many other high end audio products, a lot of people are very loyal Thiel customers. They are now distributed in the US by the same people that distribute Bryston, so you never know. But we make it a habit of sending stuff back that we aren't crazy about.

That doesn't mean it's bad gear by any stretch of the imagination....

 

[VanDaRo]

1) I would think that when a manufacturer loans you a piece of equipment that you would publish your review, be it good, bad or indifferent. Unless, of course, you suspect the component is faulty.

2) Not reviewing equipment unless you are "crazy" about it also seems odd. In most occupations, we have to endure both aspects that we like and aspects that we don't.... and try our best at both. Example: A reviewer of automobiles would certainly rather spend his or her time piloting the latest BMW rather than a Hyundai. But they review the vehicle they are assigned, and if it turns out to be a prematurely introduced, flawed concept, or just a plain ol' piece of s**t.... it goes to print as such.

3) Most people get into the publishing and reviewing business because they have an innate curiosity about what is out there and are willing to experiment with everything in their field of interest. I suspect you are the same, as I have read many of your reviews. So I am somewhat taken aback by your comments....

~VDR

 

[Joey_V]

1) I would think that when a manufacturer loans you a piece of equipment that you would publish your review, be it good, bad or indifferent. Unless, of course, you suspect the component is faulty.
~VDR

I thought that's how all 'zines ran - they only publish good reviews. This is why you don't see a bad review. Ever... (or almost ever).

Personally, I'd like to see 'zines look out for the consumer moreso than the manufacturer. They don't review bad products (or products that turn out lukewarm to the reviewer) probably because of the manufacturer backlash... and they send it back without a word in the magazine.

This is how my reviewer friend told me the industry functions.

I personally think that consumers are always left in the dark. The only reviews we read are the good ones, we never hear about the bad ones. And even then, we never even get a good sense of how a well reviewed product ranks against other similarly well reviewed products.

As much as I enjoy reading Stereophile or Absolute Sound, I've found myself (on more than 1 occassion) reading the intro and then the conclusion. I bypass the entire middle section of the article because it is almost the EXACT same from every other review article they've done - there's no variety because each and every review is "great! greater!"

I don't even read reviews to the end of the article nowadays, they always either recommend it heartily or recommend it without reservations.

And how is it that every other product reviewed is better than any other product 3 times its price? And that every other product which is 3x the price of the former product is worth 3x the price of itself once again? And so forth??

This is not against you, Jeff. But I just don't think there's much stock in reviews if the consumer is not looked after.

Joey

PS
It's sad when I can predict the final 3-4 sentences of a review article. Always they run... "This component made me hear new things that I had not heard prior. It is the epitome of design, execution, and technological know-how. I recommend this product as a good buy for anything 3x its price."

 

[Bernard]

As much as I enjoy reading Stereophile or Absolute Sound, I've found myself (on more than 1 occassion) reading the intro and then the conclusion. I bypass the entire middle section of the article because it is almost the EXACT same from every other review article they've done - there's no variety because each and every review is "great! greater!"

Joey, I disagree. I have read less than enthusiastic reviews in TAS, where the reviewer did not care for the product. Admittedly, they are few and far between.

 

[Joey_V]

Joey, I disagree. I have read less than enthusiastic reviews in TAS, where the reviewer did not care for the product. Admittedly, they are few and far between.

Bernard,

You are right, I do recall a few that were not stellar... but by no means was it negative. It just wasn't as positive as I had been used to reading. I've seen this on Stereophile several times as well. Which is why I wrote...

I thought that's how all 'zines ran - they only publish good reviews. This is why you don't see a bad review. Ever... (or almost ever).

I've not read a bad review. Just a less than enthusiastic one here and there.

I would like to read reviews that are written with one thing in mind - the consumer. If one keeps the manufacturer in mind - it's tough to really get the truth out there.

 

[VanDaRo]

One thing to bear in mind with reviewers of high-end components is that they have no interest in Lo-Fi (Emerson, Soundesign, etc..) or Mid-Fi (Pioneer, Sony, etc...) devices. They simply refuse or do not ask for review samples from these companies.

PLEASE do not misunderstand me, though. We all have or will own middle-of-the-road gear in our lives, and they provide enjoyment that goes beyond their price tag.

But when it comes to strict 2 channel audio devices, we have the right -- the obligation -- to see how all components measure up. And then we make the call on whether to even audition, much less buy, the unit(s) in question.

Even though I am 13 years from interaction with the industry, I feel that some things never change and we should try to get better. Namely, that if a producer loans out a piece of its new equipment, that they should know that it's a crap shoot.... If your component sucks, it will be labeled as so. How else can the consumer be protected ??

Reviewers should call them as they see them, as I did with the Watt/Puppy 7's in another post on this forum. I am a fan of Rotel gear, but if Jeff spends a month or so listening to their latest product then I would like it for him to tell me if it blows ass -- if that is the case. If it rocks with authority, then he NEEDS to tell me this too.

I want and need to trust reviewers, as there is so much money at stake in many cases. We're not buying a six pack of tube socks here.... So cough up the real story, regardless of manufacturer response. It ensures informed readers and a straight-up relationship between builder and consumer.

And stop with the free gear and golf trips in exotic places. This type of influence from manufacturers, which I have accepted and nourished in the past, is akin to bribery....

~VDR

 

[kwr]

Joey, I disagree. I have read less than enthusiastic reviews in TAS, where the reviewer did not care for the product. Admittedly, they are few and far between.

One of the less than enthusiastic reviews in TAS was for the Plinius SA102 - I can't recall the reviewer now but he was unimpressed and thought the amplifier had "too much control".

I think at best you can gain small snippets of information from a review. I have not bought a print magazine for several years.

Kevin

 

[Joey_V]

Kevin,

If that is so, then that's fair and good. I'm glad it got a fair review.

VDR,

I agree... it is so very difficult to audition equipment at this range - it's tough to really get a sense of how it will perform in one's setting and that is why reviewers have a tough job ahead of them. Not only are we trusting ears of someone else, but we also have to trust their judgement on the product. If they all called it AND published it as they saw it, it would be very helpful to the rest of us who can't take every component home or audition it at the limited hifi shops around our respective areas.

 

[IWalker]

I think all of us have slightly (or not so slightly) different preferences as well, when it comes not only to musical tastes, but also the presentation (detail vs warmth discussions, etc.). An unbiased reviewer has much greater experience with varying equipment, and so can tell people that he prefers A instead of B (and with that experience can act as a benchmark of sorts), but can't say necessarily that A or B is better for you. It's better to his ears, so has limited usefulness in making a final decision. And that's if you can trust that a reviewer is unbiased, and doesn't have financial incentives to give a good review (or supress a bad one)

I know that I've heard a number of systems (not a ton, but a handful) that cost 10x what I've paid for mine...and while I won't say that mine is better I'll say that I greatly prefer it(with a couple of notable exceptions)......and to me that's all that matters...even considering some have said they prefer other speakers I've auditioned (and passed on) to the ones I love/use.

I do think that there's a lot of use in reading about new products, and reading impressions from a review in terms of getting ideas, though. I'd just never (again) make a big purchasing decision based off of one, unless I knew I could recoup 95-100% of my money if I didn't like what I'd bought.