Hi John. I used to own the WAS's and downsized when we moved homes. The Sammys take a long time to break in but are absolutely lovely looking and sounding speakers. Very clear and crisp midrange and very nice soundstage.
I'm not yet set up acoustically. My last home was built around the music so the acoustics were really nice and that has a huge effect on the sound. The midrange is actually better than that of the WASs (and the WASs are far better than Thiels and other speakers I've owned or heard previously). Silky, smooth and clear without being too much in your face or too laid back. You will never experience listening fatigue that can occur from other speakers but the sound is still exciting and palpable.
The highs are very nice indeed but the cymbols are just a touch softer than I was used to. However, I believe that is due to the acoustics. Ditto for the bass. You can't compare it directly to the WASs which had a fantastic low end but, to me, it's a tad soft at the lowest frequencies. That said, the dynamics are smooth all the way through the spectrum and it's as if there is no cross-over. At least I can't hear where the cross-over frequencies might be. Peter builds speakers that are transparent and consistent top to bottom.
The Sammys are great speakers. My wife (who has some great ears) likes the Sammys better than the WASs and I will say they are extremely clear all through the spectrum. I can't judge the very top end because my acoustics aren't right. Quite frankly though, I'm happy enough with the sound to be unmotivated to work at fixing the acoustics. To me the midrange is a hundred out of a hundred and the top end might be a ninty seven (due, I believe to poor acoustics -- too many windows, etc.). The upper bottom end is, in my view, also a hundred. The very bottom end is closer to an eighty five. It is definately there -- you can feel it in the floor and hear it very nicely in other parts of the house. However, my acoustics just can't get it to a hundred. If the room was fixed, I'd bet it would get closer to a ninty five. However, I'm spoiled by the WASs and it's hard to replicate that in a much smaller speaker.
All in, as with everything in life, there are trade-offs. The speaker is a manageable size (once it's set up) but the bass may not be quite as deep as the WASs with their super size and super large speakers. Apart from that, I believe the Sammys are as good or better overall as the WASs were. That's saying a lot. It's saying even more considering that I moved from a pristine acoustic environment to a very sub-optimal one.
I feel very good about moving to the Sammys and I will not make a change. I may work on the lower end room acoustics to see if I can pull a bit more out of the very lower end. But I'm spoiled with that.
Hope that helped. I think you will love the Sammys. Give them some time to break in. Have a few friends help you uncrate them and move them to the right position. Then sit back and enjoy the seamless musical experience.
I'm not yet set up acoustically. My last home was built around the music so the acoustics were really nice and that has a huge effect on the sound. The midrange is actually better than that of the WASs (and the WASs are far better than Thiels and other speakers I've owned or heard previously). Silky, smooth and clear without being too much in your face or too laid back. You will never experience listening fatigue that can occur from other speakers but the sound is still exciting and palpable.
The highs are very nice indeed but the cymbols are just a touch softer than I was used to. However, I believe that is due to the acoustics. Ditto for the bass. You can't compare it directly to the WASs which had a fantastic low end but, to me, it's a tad soft at the lowest frequencies. That said, the dynamics are smooth all the way through the spectrum and it's as if there is no cross-over. At least I can't hear where the cross-over frequencies might be. Peter builds speakers that are transparent and consistent top to bottom.
The Sammys are great speakers. My wife (who has some great ears) likes the Sammys better than the WASs and I will say they are extremely clear all through the spectrum. I can't judge the very top end because my acoustics aren't right. Quite frankly though, I'm happy enough with the sound to be unmotivated to work at fixing the acoustics. To me the midrange is a hundred out of a hundred and the top end might be a ninty seven (due, I believe to poor acoustics -- too many windows, etc.). The upper bottom end is, in my view, also a hundred. The very bottom end is closer to an eighty five. It is definately there -- you can feel it in the floor and hear it very nicely in other parts of the house. However, my acoustics just can't get it to a hundred. If the room was fixed, I'd bet it would get closer to a ninty five. However, I'm spoiled by the WASs and it's hard to replicate that in a much smaller speaker.
All in, as with everything in life, there are trade-offs. The speaker is a manageable size (once it's set up) but the bass may not be quite as deep as the WASs with their super size and super large speakers. Apart from that, I believe the Sammys are as good or better overall as the WASs were. That's saying a lot. It's saying even more considering that I moved from a pristine acoustic environment to a very sub-optimal one.
I feel very good about moving to the Sammys and I will not make a change. I may work on the lower end room acoustics to see if I can pull a bit more out of the very lower end. But I'm spoiled with that.
Hope that helped. I think you will love the Sammys. Give them some time to break in. Have a few friends help you uncrate them and move them to the right position. Then sit back and enjoy the seamless musical experience.