That's a matter of semantics - but what Arthur wrote is not wrong.
On the other hand, Lynn wrote that Arthur thinks Watt are great speakers. I couldn't find that anywhere in quoted post. I also couldn't find the part where Arthur said wirring is bad in Watt's.
Quite strange.
Last edited:
"Only their cabinets will be utilized" ... a direct quote, from a former dealer and presumably knowledgeable owner. All the rest, discarded.
That's like buying a used Porsche 911 and discarding the engine, suspension, steering, and tires, and keeping the body. Is it even a Porsche anymore?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think the drivers + crossover are 90% of the speaker, in the same way the motor, suspension, and steering are most of the driver's experience of a car. A quiet cabinet is nice, but it's not at the top of the list.
Every comparison of automotive industry and HiFi is most unfortunate and doesn't correlate with loudspeakers at all. Let us stick with what was written.
So, bottom line is, the guy didn't wrote Watt's are great speakers - as you implied. He wrote that cabinets are good (as they are) and could be used to make great speakers.
I see nothing bad, untrue or funny in that.
Cheers
Last edited:
It is my guess - from his view on 'high end audio' in general - the point Arthur Salvatore is trying to make is that the WATT/PUPPY concept in itself is good, but the execution leaves much to be desired. So, basically what's left after you have removed all the 'weak' parts are extremely well built cabinets with some nice acoustic features (pyramid shape etc.).
A Porsche 911, though the concept is basically wrong, i.e. Engine behind the rear axle > far from ideal weight distribution etc. , it has been perfected over the years. Porsche chooses an integrated design approach in which the rear mounted engine is the fundamental element. Everything else is designed / constructed to optimize this (trademark) concept.
Last edited:
Every honest and experienced person, would simply have to agree with the above statement, with the addition of placing transmission in the same group.
rofl
Last edited:
Interesting thread. I read all of it I hope and in a few posts there are a different kind of monitors mentioned. I refer to the much, Much, bigger speakers offered by JBL, EV, Altec Lansing, Peavey and others.
How do they compare?
I once owned a pair of Leak 600. They were a three-way, with a 12" woofer with a sandwich type cone, about 60 litres. As I remember it they were much more interesting to listen to than the smaller 8" woofer + plus tweeter speakers discussed here. This was in the late 70-ties, early 80-ties. But my Leaks was blown away by the huge American tweeter horn + 15" woofer combinations I heard at some Hi-Fi fairs. As I remember it EV preferred 3-ways while JBL even had a 2*18" plus horn speaker for really loud applications.
The huge American speakers were at least 10-times more expensive than my Leaks so for home use the Leaks gave good value for money.
How do they compare?
I once owned a pair of Leak 600. They were a three-way, with a 12" woofer with a sandwich type cone, about 60 litres. As I remember it they were much more interesting to listen to than the smaller 8" woofer + plus tweeter speakers discussed here. This was in the late 70-ties, early 80-ties. But my Leaks was blown away by the huge American tweeter horn + 15" woofer combinations I heard at some Hi-Fi fairs. As I remember it EV preferred 3-ways while JBL even had a 2*18" plus horn speaker for really loud applications.
The huge American speakers were at least 10-times more expensive than my Leaks so for home use the Leaks gave good value for money.
Don't forget the medium to big Tannoy DC 2ways or their even bigger 3ways in that.
Seems very different.
http://img.canuckaudiomart.com/uploads/large/229035-wilson_audio_watt_puppy_7.jpg
Yes indeed, they are about 18 years apart.
The picture was taken late 1985 and shows David Wilson testing the prototypes of the Tiny Tot's in his living room.
His personal WAMM system cannot be overlooked. Launched in 1981 at $28000, the price of a decent house in those days.
Last edited:
On the chairs (previous picture) are crossover breadboards and this is all you get to see of the crossovers from Series I , at least on my part. With some magnification a significant amount of caps and coils can be seen on each board. This practically rules out a simple 1st order XO with only cap, coil + resistor across the woofer terminals, as stated by somebody (the only person for that matter).
In fact, the WATT's series I & II crossover is supposed to be 1st order, albeit a rather complex one. Probably similar to (vintage) Thiel, with several notch- and zobel networks.
According to 'Audio' (1987) the crossover point is at 1800Hz.
In 1990 - with the introduction of the Puppy Woofer and WATT Series III - the system became a full range 3 Way with an even more complex XO in an epoxy potted aluminium case that was mounted (see pictures) in the cabinet.
Crossover points between WATT and PUPPY: 150 Hz (extended Bass-Shelf alignment), between the SEAS 6.5" woofer and the Focal tweeter: ca. 3500Hz.
The last picture (from ca. 1989) shows David Wilson David Wilson tweaking the prototype Watt Puppy crossovers on breadboards.
These white caps are likely either Wonder-Cap (REL), Spraque or Cornell-Dublier high quality capacitors from those days.
In fact, the WATT's series I & II crossover is supposed to be 1st order, albeit a rather complex one. Probably similar to (vintage) Thiel, with several notch- and zobel networks.
According to 'Audio' (1987) the crossover point is at 1800Hz.
In 1990 - with the introduction of the Puppy Woofer and WATT Series III - the system became a full range 3 Way with an even more complex XO in an epoxy potted aluminium case that was mounted (see pictures) in the cabinet.
Crossover points between WATT and PUPPY: 150 Hz (extended Bass-Shelf alignment), between the SEAS 6.5" woofer and the Focal tweeter: ca. 3500Hz.
The last picture (from ca. 1989) shows David Wilson David Wilson tweaking the prototype Watt Puppy crossovers on breadboards.
These white caps are likely either Wonder-Cap (REL), Spraque or Cornell-Dublier high quality capacitors from those days.
Attachments
Last edited:
The intriguing force behind the brand and products of Wilson Audio obviously is its founder.
Like many members of this forum, I would not consider buying Wilson products, but that doesn't mean the background of David Wilson as a recording engineer, his philosophy on loudspeaker design and technical know-how, represent - at least some - educational value.
A quotation from the master (slightly edited):
"Understandably, the loudspeakers that bear my name reflect my vision of how such a thing should be built, how the company should be run, and, of great importance, what speakers should sound like. As is true of some other designers, I want Wilson Audio loudspeakers to sound as much as possible like live musicians playing music.
What are the specific characteristics of the sound of live music that are the most important to me? It’s a question I’ve pondered many times over the years. I keep returning to three sonic attributes I always associate with the sound of the real thing. I’ve noticed these qualities during years of location recording in a wide range of venues, as well as private recitals in our own music room. The following three are central to the target sound of every Wilson Audio speaker. They are, not in any order of preference, the following:
• Dynamic Contrast
• Harmonic Expression
• Silence Between the Notes
It doesn’t take much exposure to even small musical instruments played up close to realize just how much power they can produce. Sure, it’s not the ear-splitting type of loudness that you endure in some live rock concerts, hyped-up car audio systems, or even (regrettably) your local cineplex. But unamplified acoustical instruments have been developed, in some cases, over centuries to such that the volume and pitch density they are capable of producing has increased. They also seem, in the hands of a skilled musician, to be able to go from pianissimo to fortissimo levels with breathtaking and delightful alacrity. So, while I rarely marvel over a live instrument’s airyness, I am always thrilled by its dynamic contrast.
Imagine the dynamics you hear while on a ladder hanging microphones over an openlidded 9’ Fazzioli grand piano – what a sound! Or, even in a large hall, try setting mics in front of a 50 piece symphonic wind band: huge dynamics! No PA speaker is required or desired, just pure, nadulterated acoustical sonic ecstasy and dynamic contrasts. The perception of large dynamic scale is only appreciated when you hear delicacy at the pianissimo end. It is this kind of dynamic range I want my speakers to reproduce.
I first began to really appreciate pure harmonic expression during some of those same recording sessions. Usually at the beginning and half way through the day, the piano tuner would touch up the instrument. Over time, I developed an increased sensitivity to purity of pitch. Perhaps of even greater importance, I began to appreciate how the pure pitch of the well-tuned instrument blended harmonically and dynamically with the other instruments. Comparatively, the sound of an untuned instrument is both more rough and less expressive. Harmonic expression requires consistent tonal balance across at least the middle six octaves as well as accurate wave front propagation alignment of the drivers, and finally, linear enclosure resonance control.
“Silence between the notes” took on special meaning to me when violinist David Abel worked with me on putting together the master tape of our recording of WCD-8722, Sonatas for Piano and Violin, works by Brahms, Debussy, and Bartok. David explained to me that classical musicians do not have as many avenues of expression as do jazz musicians. Pitch cannot be validly changed in the name of interpretation, and tempo must be observed within fairly narrow limits. Dynamics, on the other hand, provide many arresting and colorful opportunities for artistic expression in classical music. David pointed out several of these elements in the second movement of the Debussy, and then said, “I make music in the silence between the notes.” Much of what is so compelling in acoustical music occurs at the pianissimo (quiet) end of the dynamic range. Elimination of or rapid settling of electrical and mechanical noise is important to allow subtle nuances at pianissimo levels to be revealed.
Followers of one design model or another frequently criticize us because our design model is different than their own beliefs. One school of thought is that since 6 dB/oct. crossover slopes can theoretically yield more accurate impulse response, our speakers are fatally flawed because we use a different approach. But what if, as I have found, 6 dB/oct. designs have less dynamic range and contrast than our designs? Remember, I value dynamic contrasts. Similarly, what if I have found that some wideband tweeters are dynamically compressed and colored in the lower 2 kHz of their bandwidth? Or if, on the other hand, I have chosen to use tweeters with less ultrasonic bandwidth but more consistent dynamics over the audible range? It is more consistent with my personal sonic values to use the more dynamic tweeter. I choose to use those approaches that allow me to more closely realize my vision of musical sound – even if those design elements are not the latest darlings of the press or the current fetish of audio fundamentalists.
Many of us remember the Total Harmonic Distortion wars of the 70’s. Amplifier designers found that by employing certain circuit topologies, such as massive amounts of negative feedback, they could reduce THD to vanishingly low levels. Distortion is bad . . . like a disease. Less distortion is always better! End of discussion! When the hoopla died out, it was found that those low distortion wonders sounded pretty sterile – terrible, actually. The medicine to cure the THD disease, it turned out, had some nasty side effects.
Another example can be found in the comparison of solid state amps vs. tubes. Anyone knows that similarly priced and powered solid state amps exhibit wider bandwidth, higher damping factor,
and lower distortion than their tube counterparts. Therefore, no one could possibly prefer tubes!
Finally, since noise, distortion, and flatness of frequency response are always desirable, then early digital (which was superior in these respects) must surely be superior to mere analog.
No single design element or criterion can embrace all of truth and result in perfect sound. Most experienced, successful designers know this. Successful designs come from designers who know what they want and use appropriate approaches, and, finally execute to the best of their ability. The danger is to be seduced by the notion that there is only one correct design approach, and back this false belief with narrow-minded fundamentalism. There are always a number of perfectly valid design approaches. A mature designer accepts and embraces this fundamental truth, and with a mind open to the possibilities, picks the set of design criteria best suited to his vision and priorities."
Like many members of this forum, I would not consider buying Wilson products, but that doesn't mean the background of David Wilson as a recording engineer, his philosophy on loudspeaker design and technical know-how, represent - at least some - educational value.
A quotation from the master (slightly edited):
"Understandably, the loudspeakers that bear my name reflect my vision of how such a thing should be built, how the company should be run, and, of great importance, what speakers should sound like. As is true of some other designers, I want Wilson Audio loudspeakers to sound as much as possible like live musicians playing music.
What are the specific characteristics of the sound of live music that are the most important to me? It’s a question I’ve pondered many times over the years. I keep returning to three sonic attributes I always associate with the sound of the real thing. I’ve noticed these qualities during years of location recording in a wide range of venues, as well as private recitals in our own music room. The following three are central to the target sound of every Wilson Audio speaker. They are, not in any order of preference, the following:
• Dynamic Contrast
• Harmonic Expression
• Silence Between the Notes
It doesn’t take much exposure to even small musical instruments played up close to realize just how much power they can produce. Sure, it’s not the ear-splitting type of loudness that you endure in some live rock concerts, hyped-up car audio systems, or even (regrettably) your local cineplex. But unamplified acoustical instruments have been developed, in some cases, over centuries to such that the volume and pitch density they are capable of producing has increased. They also seem, in the hands of a skilled musician, to be able to go from pianissimo to fortissimo levels with breathtaking and delightful alacrity. So, while I rarely marvel over a live instrument’s airyness, I am always thrilled by its dynamic contrast.
Imagine the dynamics you hear while on a ladder hanging microphones over an openlidded 9’ Fazzioli grand piano – what a sound! Or, even in a large hall, try setting mics in front of a 50 piece symphonic wind band: huge dynamics! No PA speaker is required or desired, just pure, nadulterated acoustical sonic ecstasy and dynamic contrasts. The perception of large dynamic scale is only appreciated when you hear delicacy at the pianissimo end. It is this kind of dynamic range I want my speakers to reproduce.
I first began to really appreciate pure harmonic expression during some of those same recording sessions. Usually at the beginning and half way through the day, the piano tuner would touch up the instrument. Over time, I developed an increased sensitivity to purity of pitch. Perhaps of even greater importance, I began to appreciate how the pure pitch of the well-tuned instrument blended harmonically and dynamically with the other instruments. Comparatively, the sound of an untuned instrument is both more rough and less expressive. Harmonic expression requires consistent tonal balance across at least the middle six octaves as well as accurate wave front propagation alignment of the drivers, and finally, linear enclosure resonance control.
“Silence between the notes” took on special meaning to me when violinist David Abel worked with me on putting together the master tape of our recording of WCD-8722, Sonatas for Piano and Violin, works by Brahms, Debussy, and Bartok. David explained to me that classical musicians do not have as many avenues of expression as do jazz musicians. Pitch cannot be validly changed in the name of interpretation, and tempo must be observed within fairly narrow limits. Dynamics, on the other hand, provide many arresting and colorful opportunities for artistic expression in classical music. David pointed out several of these elements in the second movement of the Debussy, and then said, “I make music in the silence between the notes.” Much of what is so compelling in acoustical music occurs at the pianissimo (quiet) end of the dynamic range. Elimination of or rapid settling of electrical and mechanical noise is important to allow subtle nuances at pianissimo levels to be revealed.
Followers of one design model or another frequently criticize us because our design model is different than their own beliefs. One school of thought is that since 6 dB/oct. crossover slopes can theoretically yield more accurate impulse response, our speakers are fatally flawed because we use a different approach. But what if, as I have found, 6 dB/oct. designs have less dynamic range and contrast than our designs? Remember, I value dynamic contrasts. Similarly, what if I have found that some wideband tweeters are dynamically compressed and colored in the lower 2 kHz of their bandwidth? Or if, on the other hand, I have chosen to use tweeters with less ultrasonic bandwidth but more consistent dynamics over the audible range? It is more consistent with my personal sonic values to use the more dynamic tweeter. I choose to use those approaches that allow me to more closely realize my vision of musical sound – even if those design elements are not the latest darlings of the press or the current fetish of audio fundamentalists.
Many of us remember the Total Harmonic Distortion wars of the 70’s. Amplifier designers found that by employing certain circuit topologies, such as massive amounts of negative feedback, they could reduce THD to vanishingly low levels. Distortion is bad . . . like a disease. Less distortion is always better! End of discussion! When the hoopla died out, it was found that those low distortion wonders sounded pretty sterile – terrible, actually. The medicine to cure the THD disease, it turned out, had some nasty side effects.
Another example can be found in the comparison of solid state amps vs. tubes. Anyone knows that similarly priced and powered solid state amps exhibit wider bandwidth, higher damping factor,
and lower distortion than their tube counterparts. Therefore, no one could possibly prefer tubes!
Finally, since noise, distortion, and flatness of frequency response are always desirable, then early digital (which was superior in these respects) must surely be superior to mere analog.
No single design element or criterion can embrace all of truth and result in perfect sound. Most experienced, successful designers know this. Successful designs come from designers who know what they want and use appropriate approaches, and, finally execute to the best of their ability. The danger is to be seduced by the notion that there is only one correct design approach, and back this false belief with narrow-minded fundamentalism. There are always a number of perfectly valid design approaches. A mature designer accepts and embraces this fundamental truth, and with a mind open to the possibilities, picks the set of design criteria best suited to his vision and priorities."
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It should be remembered the Tiny Tot was originally designed as a nearfield recording monitor loudspeaker taking into account some boundary gain from the studio control room. For this reason the crossover did not include baffle step compensation. Add to this the small, rather shallow cabinet and it may come as no surprise the WATT sounded rather thin when placed on stands. As a result of the rising response in the midrange and somewhat harsh nature of the tweeter, the WATT was by many perceived as quite a fatiguing loudspeaker.
"In his 1988 Stereophile review, Martin Colloms mentioned the WATT's superb resolution of detail, transparency, focus, and depth as being revelatory, coupled with a build quality which he instanced as being "the most perfect exposition of cabinet construction." However, he had to weigh this performance against the speaker's lightweight bass, erratic response in the vertical plane, and awkward impedance, which dropped to a very low value in the lower treble, necessary to control a dustcap resonance in the woofer.
Wilson's development of the "Gibraltar" stand (see image 1 & 2), which in effect extended the front baffle area downward to the floor, helped the speaker extend its bass response, while many users coupled the WATT with subwoofers, the Entec SW-5 in particular (see image 3), to give a full-range system that preserved the speaker's remarkable qualities. (Wilson recommended that the WATT still be used on its Gibraltar stand rather than sitting on the Entec.) In 1989 the Series 2 WATT followed, with a smoother midrange balance, a more extended, less overdamped bass, a slightly higher overall sensitivity, and a less cruel impedance. Then, in the summer of 1990, David Wilson launched the Puppy, not so much an independent subwoofer as a dedicated woofer to turn the WATT into a full-range three-way system. (This time, the WATT does sit on the woofer.)."
The comprehensive Owners Manual from the original WATT is extraordinary in its completeness and a testimony of David Wilson's dedication to the art. It is worth taking note and you'll find it here .
"In his 1988 Stereophile review, Martin Colloms mentioned the WATT's superb resolution of detail, transparency, focus, and depth as being revelatory, coupled with a build quality which he instanced as being "the most perfect exposition of cabinet construction." However, he had to weigh this performance against the speaker's lightweight bass, erratic response in the vertical plane, and awkward impedance, which dropped to a very low value in the lower treble, necessary to control a dustcap resonance in the woofer.
Wilson's development of the "Gibraltar" stand (see image 1 & 2), which in effect extended the front baffle area downward to the floor, helped the speaker extend its bass response, while many users coupled the WATT with subwoofers, the Entec SW-5 in particular (see image 3), to give a full-range system that preserved the speaker's remarkable qualities. (Wilson recommended that the WATT still be used on its Gibraltar stand rather than sitting on the Entec.) In 1989 the Series 2 WATT followed, with a smoother midrange balance, a more extended, less overdamped bass, a slightly higher overall sensitivity, and a less cruel impedance. Then, in the summer of 1990, David Wilson launched the Puppy, not so much an independent subwoofer as a dedicated woofer to turn the WATT into a full-range three-way system. (This time, the WATT does sit on the woofer.)."
The comprehensive Owners Manual from the original WATT is extraordinary in its completeness and a testimony of David Wilson's dedication to the art. It is worth taking note and you'll find it here .
Attachments
Last edited: