I would love to do a comparison. I haven't heard the Salon 2 yet though.
This thread doesn't seem like it could go anywhere positive though, considering the animosity many people feel towards Wilson speakers. I doubt you will get any real comparisons, but certainly you will get a lot of knee jerk posts for or against either side... |
Hey again everyone.
I now have a pair of Salon2s to compare to my W/P8s in my listening room. We just put them in the room today. I'm giving them two weeks to break-in.
I already did in-room measurements. They aren't that different from each other in terms of in-room response. In terms of listening to the mid-range, the W/P8s image more precisely and cleanly, with more space between instruments and with the instruments better defined in space. I need to do more listening to the bass and treble between the two before I compare those, as they will require more thoughtfulness in my listening than the critical mid-range requires. This is without the Salon2s being broken in, so a lot might change in the next two weeks. This is also without the speakers in the same position the W/P8s were in. I'll have time to play around with these things as the Salon2s break in.
The two measure so much alike it is creepy. The Salons2s don't roll off as much in the high frequencies, but from the Stereophile measurements I have seen of the Studio2, it is likely because it is shelved up +2dB for a good portion of the high frequencies. That shelving in unison with natural room roll off makes their in-room high frequency response not rolled off enough IMO. As I mentioned previously, the W/P8s do have slight roll off anyway and looking at the Soundstage NRC W/P8 measurements reveals it as well. OTOH the Salon2s are rolled up, but I do have a treble control I will play with at some point as well to lower it to a flatter anechoic response for the sake of another group of ETF5 measurements.
I hope some people are willing to put their money where their mouths are (like I have), because I will be keeping whichever speaker I ultimately think sounds better. This means I will have a pair of used speakers to sell on Audiogon after my testing is finished (that is where the money where the mouth part comes in...). ;)
If anyone wants to see the preliminary measurement overlays of the two speakers I have made three overlays in ETF5. The first is of both speakers at 70dB (1/6th octave), the second of both at 80dB (1/6th octave) and the third at 80dB (1/12th) octave. I will at some point today post the 80dB measurements to my Audiogon System Equipment list. The 70dB (1/6th octave) doesn't differ from the 80dB (1/6th octave) measurement so I won't bother posting it. I'll also post a pic of them in my room, for the benefit of those who don't actually believe I am this insane!
I have to say, I am a little upset. For all the griping I have heard on fora everywhere concerning the importance of minute differences in frequency response measurements (which I bought into as a reason for making this comparison; in hopes of improving my sound quality), I am a little unenthusiastic when considering the similarities between how they both measure in my room in the critical frequencies... I expected some bass issues in my room to be resolved, but instead the speakers have revealed that those bass humps are room issues, not speaker related issues (yay... and boo...), because we know the Revels are not going to be wildly off a flat frequency response in those areas.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "best speaker," only a "best speaker for me." So any decisions I make are ultimately made on the basis of what I enjoy. |
I don't understand people saying the W/P 8 is on the bright side... If anything it is rolled off gradually as it approaches 20KHz. When people say something like that, I tend to assume they haven't listened to the W/P8 in a decent environment and/or are basing their remarks on hearsay.
Now, if you truly want to hear a bright speaker, check out a B&W Diamond tweeter speaker. Personally, bright doesn't bother me, as I used to own the 802D which had excellent highs (attack and decay were extremely accurate, more so than anything else I've heard), though it was lacking in mid-bass and mid-range clarity. Those speakers were a bit bright, but I definitely wouldn't call the W/P 8 bright... If you like, you can look at my in-room response measurements in my System thread. There is an overall excellent gradual decline in the 1/6th octave in-room frequency response measurements (both in the singular measurement, which was at a lower "normal listening" volume for me, and the overlay, which was taken at a considerable increase in volume).
Given, it is a well designed room in terms of acoustic treatment (Rives Audio), but if you are spending ~$28,000+ on a speaker, you should at least be treating the 1st reflection points in your listening environment as well as randomly adding absorption and diffusion in order to kill slap echo. The only thing I can imagine that would spark a comment that the W/P8s are too bright, is listening to the W/P8s in a bad environment. In such a situation, only an excessively rolled off speaker will not sound bright... |
Dhaan,
Most people won't hear the break-up mode. Keep in mind that the average adult can only hear 12Hz to 16KHz well and the breakup occurs at ~20KHz. Also, the frequency range it occurs in is responsible for qualities of sound that are fairly ethereal in nature if not completely unnoticeable in practice. So, it is a little over the top to make an issue out of it IMO. If you were a Dolphin or a Bat, perhaps it would bother you. :)
The Studio2 measures very similar to the Salon1. I had the opportunity to hear those a few times and didn't like them. Despite any awards in the objective measurements category, I thought they sounded flat dimensionally and lacked midrange transparency. I had the opportunity to buy some Salon1s fairly cheap but was not taken with their sound. Objective measurements are a nice starting point, but they aren't everything IMO; I've noticed that in my experience there is a direct correlation between extremely flat frequency responses and a "lifeless" sound to the music they reproduce. People do hear differently when it comes to stereophonic effects, not in terms of dB levels, but in terms of the illusions certain combinations of sounds create in our brains. So it is possible that a flat frequency response won't be a great thing for everyone in terms of the perceived authenticity of the event being recreated.
I was also a little peeved to find out that Revel cherry picks its testers, teaches them to listen for their speakers in particular (by teaching the testers to listen for specific sonic traits their speakers have) then use their test results to prove that their speakers are subjectively "better" sounding. Meanwhile, Paul Barton, who also worked under Floyd Toole, said something to the effect that uninfluenced blind tests showed that most people actually prefer additional bass in their frequency response rather than a truly flat frequency response. All the Revel tests prove is that they can pick the right people, that those people can be taught to learn to hear the Revel speaker sound qualities and that those people can use what they learned to pick the Revel speakers out of a group of other speakers.
Personally, I would use my ears over a graph to decide what sounds best to me. I can't hear with a graph, and a graph can't tell me what I like to hear. I use graphs to get a generally decent confirmation that a speaker is in the ballpark, then use my ears to decide if I like how it sounds.
In short, as others have said about subjective opinions, such as Branimir, use your own ears to decide... |
Regarding W/P8 sounding bright... To my ears they sound little bit "hot" in lower treble(not high treble). I even personally discussed that "quality" with Peter Mcgrath on one of his presentation of W/P8s(he setup the system with W/P8s on that presentation)... So, we can asume that prominent lower treble is Wilson sonic signature. I wouldn't say you have a good rationale for making the above assumption. My measurements and my room don't reflect those qualities you describe. My guess is, it was just a bad room without adequate lower treble room treatment. I've noticed that Wilson only puts up a curtain in its demonstration rooms, which would not be adequate room treatment for anything but the highest frequencies. You aren't going to hear how great a speaker sounds unless you put it in a well treated environment. Unless the speaker is rolled-off at the higher frequencies, you will get a cacophony of high frequency sound in untreated or partially treated spaces. The exact frequency spectra being affected will be determined by the frequency ranges not being acoustically treated... I've heard demonstrations at shows, et al., as well and I know what you are referring to, but that is an issue with the room, not the speaker. I've also been to dealer demo rooms that were properly treated and the difference is stark. Not to mention listening to them in my own room... |
The Studio2 measures very similar to the Salon1. I had the opportunity to hear those a few times and didn't like them. Despite any awards in the objective measurements category, I thought they sounded flat dimensionally and lacked midrange transparency. When I refer to "those" in the above sentence, as in "I had the opportunity to hear those a few times," I mean the Salon1, not the Studio2. Sorry for the confusing post... |
Call me a bat but the Watt sound to me exactly like they measure. I believe that the word bright should be change to harsh. In regards to the break-ups, you need to keep in mind that when these get agitated, distortion levels of the entire tweeter rises. That is where the harshness come from. If you are hearing those things, it is all in your head IMO. That or I must be very lucky. I'm 33 years old and I'm not hearing any of these issues in my setup... :D |
You are not alone Jkalman, my experience tells me different as well; comments such as those by Dhaan do not phase me. I think what happens is, people get an idea in their heads from other people or graphs and convince themselves they are hearing things that are not in all probability audible. Sadly, it is pervasive in this hobby... :( Thanks for the support. I'll be back when I get a chance to hear the Salon2, though to be honest, unless I can put them in my room or unless the dealer's room is an adequate setup, I am loath to come to any overwhelming conclusions. I'll still be willing to give my impressions with any inherent disclaimers. I'm still trying to find an environment where the Magico Minis have been set up well in my area. The Salon2 and the Magico Mini... Two speakers I would love to hear properly. |
I am afraid it is on paper as well. Yes, and outside your hearing range, unless you are prepubescent. Considering your comments, that is a possibility I am contemplating. I invite you to point out some specific places on some specific albums where you heard this phenomenon. I admit, I am baffled by your conclusions and want the opportunity to listen to this problem myself. That shouldn't be too hard if you are basing this on an actual instances and not just prospecting via graph. Let us all learn from your experience. I'll gladly eat crow if I can't find other valid reasons for the idiosyncrasies using Adobe Audition and my alternate studio monitor setup. I'm not above admitting I am wrong; I'm only human... I also entreat you to stop confusing my writing style with condescension. Perhaps it is just a case of your kettle calling this pot black... A case of terminal hypocrisy on your part. You were right about one thing, I do leave arguments when I get bored. I'm sorry if you have bored me in the past. ;) |
In the mean time, go listen to any decent violin or soprano recording and see how much of it you can take on your Watt. Then try the same on the Salon or even better the V3.
And yes, I know that a violin high note is only around 3.5K but its harmonics easily excites the break-up modes of the Watt. What you should hear is clear audible grain riding the entire treble. It would get worst as you increase the volume. Anyway, I am probably boring you again by now
I listen to Joshua Bell and Julia Fischer all the time among others (as well as classical music and opera occasionally with both soprano and violin!). I don't get these issues you are referring to. Both are clean sounding in my setup. I also listen to the same music on my studio monitors sometimes, which don't have the same resolution as the W/P8s (among other things). Give some exact examples please, as previously requested. Your statements about the Wilson speakers appear to be purely theoretical. So far you have not shown any evidence that you are actually hearing this problem you are pontificating about. It is likely you are hearing something that can be explained off as other issues in the recording chain. I certainly don't hear the problems you are referring to in my setup... To be sure, I just finished evaluating Joshua Bell playing the first 11 minutes of Tchaikovsky's Allegro moderato on both my Wilson setup and my studio monitor setup. The only issues I am finding are common to both setups and are likely related to echos of the timbre vibrato changes on the violin, likely from cavity resonance in the instrument of a high harmonic being picked up by the close miking, but that is a natural occurrence... The other thing it could be is the actual sound of his fingers or bow on the string muting certain harmonics. It is occurring on only the right side speakers where the violin output isn't as heavily weighted, and it is only during the heavier attacks. It occurs in both setups. Unfortunately, while I have been to many orchestral events, I am not an expert on violins and what exactly causes the sound I am hearing on this particular recording. So I can only offer those two ideas as possibilities. Yes, these two sets of speakers I am using sound different because they are different speakers, but the audio content is not changing between the two setups in any way to insinuate that distortion is occurring. There is no "grain riding the entire treble" as you declared earlier. Though the studio monitors lack the same level of resolution, involving clarity, depth of soundstage and lifelike presentation (among other things), they are still decent for music editing. On the W/P8s the recording is as clear as a Bell (sorry, I couldn't resist...). The next one I tried was a version of Mozart's Don Giovanni (Robert Norrington - EMI Classics). I used song 2 on side 3 for soprano testing. This test is the one that started to worry me, because I was hearing distortion like elements, but I believe they were due to the recording. To test the hypothesis that they were not due to tweeter break-up I tested the same area of the song over and over again at different volume levels. The issue did not get worse with increased volume (it actually seemed to dissipate with increased volume, likely because I could hear it better, though some of the volume levels I tried were obscenely loud and hurt my ears... So I only did very time limited trials at those volumes). My theory is, since these problems are happening at the loudest moments of her singing, not necessarily at the highest frequencies, that she overloaded the mikes they were using... The stability of the issue, despite changing volume levels by large amounts, would seem to support that. in any case, it isn't tweeter break-up modes, or the problem would get worse with increasing volume. Another reason I decided to do the above experiment with changing the volumes, is in case the two speakers I am using share similar qualities between their tweeters. After all, if they exhibit similar behavior in the treble, it is possible that they have similar break-up modes. I feel confident that, even if that is true, the varying volume levels eliminates any issues I've heard as being break-up mode issues. In short, I believe you are incorrect. IMO, your argument is the type that happens when someone applies theoretical ideals to a topic without making sure they are "sound" concepts of the audible world in practice. Perhaps you heard something, but it wasn't what you thought it was IMO. IMO, you should spend less time making assumptions from graphs and more time testing those assumptions in the real world. I'll be waiting for you to offer up some albums, track numbers and specific times on those albums where I can hear the issues you claim to be hearing on the Watt Puppy 8s. Have you ever done any practical listening and testing with the W/P8 personally, or are you just basing your statements on graphs alone? So far you have avoided listing specific albums with which you have tested the W/P8 in order to find these issues you are claiming exist, despite my attempts to solicit that information from you... Thanks. |
I am not sure how me pointing out to what I hear as harshness and grain (Plus hollowness, lack of body, artificial upper midrange and lumpy bass) will make you hear it as well. Obviously, you purchase these speakers cause you liked the way they sound. I have said, time and again, that the WP sounds to me exactly like they measure. They always did. Way before I saw any measurements on them. I would also argue, that to an experience listener, it makes more sense for any speaker to sound more like it measure then not. Perhaps, in a way of comparison, once you hear a better implemented design, you will hear what I am talking about. Then again, perhaps not. WP8 have many audible issues that can be measured and explained. I happened to hear most of these issues when I listen to them. Telling me that all these issues, that are clearly visible in the data measured by different sources, are not audible is not a serious argument. Perhaps you do not hear them. But I sure do. Pointing it out will allow me to analyze whether or not what you heard was really due to break-up modes or something else. I am more than qualified to be able to listen for these kinds of issues. I've taken David Moulton's Golden Ears courses. I can hear the general shape of the frequency response. I know what distortion sounds like and I can hear it, as that was part of the training course as well. I know what phase issues sound like, as well as differing levels of compression (etc, etc... For a full list of things I have learned how to hear look up the Golden Ears course outline). I have excellent hearing for my age (I was tested around two years ago by an Otolaryngologist). Of course, all these other issues concerning the frequency response, aren't what our argument was about. Our argument is about whether or not the break-up mode on the W/P8 is audible; your last post was full of straw-man arguments. I have things I think are imperfect about my speakers. No speaker is perfect, and all speakers are compromises from a perfect transducer. People also experience stereophonic illusions differently, so that people will subjectively prefer some compromises to others in terms of perceived "realism." Again, these weren't what out argument was about... Our argument was about the audibility of the break-up modes on the W/P8. Where I take issue, is with people posting about hearing things that are below hearing threshold under realistic human listening conditions. You want to talk about deviations from linearity, deviations from a perfect frequency response, phase issues, and distortion issues, you will find that I won't disagree with issues that exist if they are audible under human listening conditions. All speakers suffer from issues in these measured areas in one form or another to varying degrees. Speakers compromise in some areas in order to be stronger in others. If you turn the volume up enough, every transducer starts failing miserably, it is just the nature of those kinds of physical mechanics. How can I validate your assertions if you won't show me how you arrived at them in the "real" world so that I can repeat your experiments myself to see if what you heard could be something other than the cause you are ascribing it? So far it seems to me, based on your level of cooperation and my own testing with the type of material you recommended on the W/P8, that the placebo effect can work for people that look at graphs just as easily as it can work for people who believe in other imaginary audio phenomena. Tell me how you tested and what testing methods you used to prove to yourself that you were hearing actual break-up modes, or at least admit you didn't do any controlled testing and are basing your statements on pure speculation. If you don't supply your testing criteria and material, I'm forced to assume you didn't test at all and are fabricating your statements about hearing break-up modes. Your statements aren't facts unless you back them up with valid testing data and allow others to see if they can find alternate explanations for what you heard... If no alternate explanations can be proven, then you may have proven a fact, but if alternate explanations can be proven true, then it isn't a fact. Your statements seem to suggest that you haven't done any detailed testing and have only done some casual listening, perhaps under less than desirable conditions. Why are you so resistant to being cooperative? You only stand to be proved correct or to learn something... :( Thanks. |
Psacanli,
You really need to hear them both yourself. I'm still waiting to hear a pair of the Salon2s around my area, but so far no one
in NY has any to demo... There aren't many places holding demos
of them on the east coast for some reason. |
Dhaan,
I'm well aware of how measurements work. I've read the Master Handbook of Acoustics, some portions more than a couple of times. I understand that in-room measurements show the room interaction with the audio output (this is very basic stuff, which makes your post seem condescending to me...). I know how to analyze the two signals and see which are room modes, which are room nulls and how they cancel out between both speakers in an overlay.
What you aren't taking into account is that the Salon2 and Studio2 are both shelved up ~2dB in areas of the treble. You can see this in the Stereophile anechoic response from this months issue. That isn't balanced, it is shelving... OTOH, the W/P 8 does roll off after 12K, which is something I mentioned previously in that other thread when some people were saying it is bright (it isn't bright, however, the Salon2 is bright in comparison... You can hear it too, which I'm hoping will fade more as it breaks-in further). I was open in the last thread about having a list of issues I've had with the W/P8. The kickdrum issue and high frequency roll-off are major ones.
Likewise you can see the extra bump between 60-80Hz of around 4-5dB on the W/P8, which is a bit heavy in the kickdrum area. This is audible and bothersome in my room. If that area of the frequency response weren't already experiencing room reinforcement it might be pleasant to have some extra kickdrum, but with my room issues in that area it is too much. That is the room though, much more than the speaker, as you can see that the Salon2 exhibits the same issues but with 4-5dB less amplitude.
Now the shelving down in the mid-range on the W/P8 is actually useful design if you want a speaker that can be placed close to walls. This shelving is what allows the speaker to be placed well in a HT or other room where it needs to be out of the way. The Salon2, even with boundary compression turned on to the fullest still has to be placed out significantly further from walls in my room or the chestiness cause by bloating in the 200-300Hz region is intolerable. The boundary compression doesn't work that high up in frequency. So if I wanted to place both speakers in the same area by the sides of the room I would still need to use PEQ, but I would have to PEQ different areas of their frequency responses (W/P8 60-80Hz, and Salon2 200-300Hz regions).
My experiments with both speakers so far have shown me that thoughtful design doesn't have to mean a flat frequency response. In some cases an intentional shelving of the response allows for closer boundary placement, as is the case with the W/P8.
I digress though, I keep forgetting that your sole intention around here seems to be to sling mud at Wilson speakers and try to sell Magicos. Perhaps you should work on balancing your own approach to things. You would likely come off a lot better on these fora if you didn't assume nobody but yourself knows anything about these topics. |
I haven't done careful comparisons yet because the Salon2s are still breaking in. It does seem like the Salon2s are more foregiving, but a little less transparent in the critical mid-range. I have heard more transparency develop during the break-in process, so I am not sure what to expect when I come back to both speakers to do more careful A/B tests in early March. There is more bass extension with the Salon2s. There is also greater bass detail with the Salon2s so far, but this is with the boundary compression turned on, not with it set to normal. I do have a lot of live "Grateful Dead" recordings that sound better with a little forgiveness in the playback. So this should be interesting. I have started a list of plusses and minuses on my AVS forum HT thread concerning both speakers in relation to each other in my room: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=748097&page=1&pp=30).The room itself is an important consideration for me. I ultimately have to choose what will work best in my room situation with a 128.5" diagonal recessed screen in the center of the room. Room placement is an issue because of this. Compromises have to be made one way or the other. I don't think there is going to be a "best" speaker so far between the two, just another situation of having to choose what will work best in a given situation. I would wager, anyone who open-mindedly demos both thoroughly will find the same thing, and a choice will have to be made on what works best in his/her listening space. I'll be sure to give my opinion on which I would choose if room constraints weren't an issue. |
If you are aware of their shortcoming, why are you posting them? The in-room measurements show how inconsequential a flat frequency response can become once the speaker is placed in an actual room. A speaker that is slightly off of flat can sometimes measure better in-room in certain areas of the frequency response than a speaker that measures perfectly flat in an anechoic chamber as long as the speaker that is slightly off the flat response is placed correctly. So a company can design a speaker for wall placement, bookshelf placement, or close to boundary placement by designing it a certain way and it will still sound correct if placed well according to its design parameters. Go figure... People design speakers for particular kinds of room placement all the time. I'm not wasting my time on this guy any longer. People can validate what I have been writing themselves by looking at the Stereophile graphs, my graphs and NRC measurements via Soundstage. Both measure very similarly in-room. The problem with people who only look at graphs to judge things is that they tend to see the music and never hear it. As I mentioned previously, those people lack balance in their approach to this hobby. Those people tend to forget that people don't listen to music in anechoic chambers, but rather in a room. So if a speaker is designed for specific placement in rooms, whether by shelving or not, there is nothing wrong with that. That is not "wrong on wrong," that is intentional design with good reasoning behind it. Unless of course you are just looking to bash a brand, which this guy admits is his goal. I'm not at all surprised, it has been obvious almost since the beginning. At least now people know to take what he says with some grains of salt. This is also a subjective hobby, so the only "wrong on wrong" is buying something you don't like listening to. There are a lot worse measuring speakers out there than either of these speakers, and both of these speakers measure good in-room with proper placement (albeit different placement) and PEQ. one of the speakers just happens to have some minor room correction and high frequency correction built into it (though not enough to deal with 200-300Hz range issues, so if you need closer wall placement you will likely still need another one anyway), while the other one does not... |
Just one question-why you toe-in Salon2 so much? It is what they recommend in the Salon2/Studio2 user manual for "optimal imaging and timbre." I do plan on playing around with it more in early March when the speakers have finished burning-in. |
french fries,
I've been moved by both speakers. I'm still finding that the W/P8 is more detailed imaging-wise in comparison. I am going to move the speakers further into the room when they are fully burned-in to see if that will strengthen the imaging and space between instruments, but for now I have too much stuff going on. If I have to pull them too far into the room they just won't work in my HT room because of my screen.
The instruments on both sound real to me, though as mentioned, one throws an image that is more precisely locatable as well as offering more space between the instruments, but the amplitude issues because of my room response and the extra boost in the kick drum on the W/P8 can be annoying. Seeking to PEQ it with a cheap (really cheap) digital PEQ flattens the response, but it seems to affect the dimensionality slightly. I'm not sure how much is the quality of the digital PEQ device vs. the act of changing the FR. The mid-range transparency is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is not as much focus on the Salon2, but on the other hand, recordings that are not perfect (such as live performances especially) don't sound as coherent on the W/P8.
In the lower frequencies with the Salon2's boundary compression turned on in my room, the sound just goes a lot deeper and is more defined than the unequalized W/P8 with my room issues and the speakers' 70Hz bump. This has always been one of my biggest complaints with how the W/P8 integrates with my room... It is obvious the cheap PEQ (Behringer Digital) does improve the sound, but some of the dimensionality is lost in the process as opposed to the Revel's built in (analog?) approach. I'm not sure if this could be improved though, if I used a decent analog PEQ instead.
I would say the Revels are slightly bright (as per the ~+2dB shelving mentioned in Stereophile). I do have the ability to lower the treble as well as toe them out more later. This should change things, as I played with it briefly the other week and it was an improvement. OTOH, the W/P8 is slightly rolled off. One exhibits more sibilance, while the other doesn't (though this has faded during break-in). It is usually easier to fix extra treble than it is to try and add extra.
I think both are excellent speakers, and both require special setup needs. Out of the box, the Salon2 comes with more options for fixing any room issues it comes across as long as you have the freedom to choose optimal placement (which i don't because of my recessed projection screen), while with the W/P8 you could need further help (PEQ) if your room has major reinforcement modes. I think the important thing I'll find out around the end of this month is, can the imaging clarity be improved much more by moving the Salon2s further into the room...
Most of the bass issues you are referring to French_fries are going to be a result of room issues and room placement issues more than an issue with either of these speakers. Of course if your speaker placement is restricted (such as mine is), and that 70Hz bump falls on a room mode, then you could have similar issues to the ones I am having. These can be PEQ'ed but that is additional costs above and beyond the speaker price... |
Henryhk,
It looks like you compared the W/P8 to the old Revel Salon and not the Salon2? Your System thread doesn't say you demoed the Salon2 as far as I can tell. Is that correct?
Thanks. |
I have thought about it, but those are much harder speakers to find in order to get a demo. |
Dgad,
The measurements don't include the subwoofers. If I hook my Revel Sub 30s in and crossover at 80Hz I can eliminate all of the bass issues from 80Hz to below. The subs also have built in PEQ, so I can get a very flat response if I go that way. I currently only have them hooked into the surround potion of my setup. If I hook them into my two channel setup I will have to use them all the time or manually shut them off. I do know from listening to two channel through my surround setup that it does improve the bottom end.
Concert halls are usually big enough that bass doesn't become an issue. The modes are spread out so much. That and they usually do a much more thorough job acoustically since the space is designed for audio from the moment of conception (dimensions and all). My room was a pre-existing space. |
To sum up my experiences:
The W/P8 vocals sound more open and natural, while the Salon2 bass sounds more balanced and natural (with the compression setting in the middle setting). The treble on the W/P8 is a little more lively sounding.
I expected more of a clear choice, but instead both speakers have strengths and weaknesses. I wasn't sure which one I would like better, but I really thought it would be cut and dry either way. It just isn't. :(
Since the choice isn't cut and dry for me, I'll probably base my decision on what will work best in my HT situation... :D
Having the built in treble controls and boundary compression controls is a definite advantage for the Revels if someone is looking for out-of-the-box, quick-and-easy EQ. There is no denying that. Both are excellent sounding speakers, so I don't think someone can go wrong with either one.
That the W/P8 has a little bit of extra boom in the 70-80Hz range that happens to coincide with a room mode in my setup is an issue (someone people like that extra boom, I don't, as mentioned previously in this thread), and one that might come to play in the decision. The other issue in consideration is that I am going to be putting a third large speaker behind an acoustically transparent screen as a center channel. Having a built in treble control, while not an absolute solution to the roll-off this kind of situation can cause, is a boon. |
Anyone see those Magico Stereophile measurements? I was expecting them to be A LOT better considering all the hype some folks have been spreading around these fora hand-in-hand with insults concerning how other speakers measure graph wise... |
The Salon2 works better in my HT setup as a center channel. The vocals are not as natural sounding and open on the Revels, but the bass integrates better. Both are great speakers, but one will work better behind an acoustically transparent screen due to the built in treble controls. Don't read too much into it... If I had a second listening room I would keep both. |
Branimir,
I kept saying the Magicos were bright sounding when I heard them at HE2007, but a few people got all upset and started attacking my speaker choice and eventually me personally over it. Seeing that large area of +4 dB in the high frequencies confirmed my impressions 100%. Then there is the -4dB between 3KHz and 4KHz, as well as the +4dB at 100Hz. I just expected them to measure audibly better than the speakers people were railing against in the other threads, when in fact they don't measure better... In some instances like the frequency response, they measure worse! I expected better than -/+4dB for all the bullying that was being done hand-in-hand with the pushing of the Magico name.
This is good though, it saves me from having to do another demo... ;D |
As per the original poster's questions: I listen primarily to classical and am seeking detail,nuance,microdynamics,soundstage and imaging for a 'being there' sensation as I find any decent speaker is dynamic enough for me. Detail: Mid-range to mid-treble, W/P8 (this goes hand in hand with imaging). Bass and ultra high frequencies, Salon2. Nuance: I'm not sure what you are asking for here... If you are referring to an ability to sound natural, well either one will do that with EQ, but the Salon2 has it built-in in the form of boundary compression. So, in an orchestral movement the Salon2 won't be as elevated at certain frequencies if your room has excessive modal reinforcements (as mine does...). There is an extra bit of thump in the kickdrum frequencies on the W/P8 that requires EQ of some sort. This does appear to be intentionally designed that way (something I've complained about openly before on these and other fora...). Microdynamics: With the boundary compression and treble controls built into the speaker, the Salon2. If you buy a separate PEQ to use with the W/P8, then both... (I've tested this with a Behringer PEQ) Soundstage: Salon2 (as per the coherence), or W/P8 (as per individuation imaging)... Imaging: W/P8 (as per the critical range) Coherence: Salon2 Keep in mind, this is with the Salon2 boundary compression set to the middle setting, to compensate for room modes... I've had the "being there" sensation with both of them, but there does seem to be more instrument separation with the W/P8, while more coherency with the Salon2. Like I said, it is a win/win (or lose/lose if you prefer) situation, so the best thing to do is demo them both yourself. There is no holy grail... One important distinction I noticed is that vocals on the W/P8 tended to sound more like a live person in the room, while the Salon2 sounded more like a person singing into a microphone. So, you need to ask yourself... Do I want it to sound "lifelike," possibly at the expense of authenticity, or authentic possibly at the expense of "realism." In either case, I think you may be able to EQ that difference in or out, but perhaps not... I found that the Salon2 was more forgiving. I listen to a lot of live Grateful Dead, Zappa and Phish recordings (among others...), which are not usually well recorded, so this was an advantage for me personally (I have every Grateful Dead Dick's Picks CD except two or three, a lot of other live Dead material, all of the Zappa Beat the Boots I and II material, other live Zappa albums, and I have every live Phish release). OTOH, the W/P8s could make a studio recording sound like a live event. Like I said, it was a tough decision for me... A less forgiving speaker meant many of my not so well made live recordings did not sound so spectacular. The question is, is it more forgiving because it is less transparent in the critical range? My suspicion is yes, but whether that is due to intentional manipulation of the frequency response on one speaker, or not, I am not completely certain. I would guess this is so given the advertising of both companies; one speaker struggles to be completely objective, while the other strives to fulfill a vision. I think they both succeed at their goals in an enjoyable way. Now, it is funny to make some of the distinctions I am making in this post, because both speakers are so far above a lot of other speakers I have listened to that the differences between them with PEQ used in the bass frequencies is not tremendous. With the Wilson, you get the extra building costs for the materials they use (the ones that Revel uses plastic for instead of steel...), which doesn't affect the sound, but does look nicer IMO. As people can see in my HT thread here at Audiogon, their in-room frequency responses are not so terribly different, which shows that the room itself will be the predominant factor with either speaker installation. As long as a speaker is relatively flat, it will work well with a little variation in room placement to compensate, as well as some EQ to boot. I think that a lot of differences between the two can be manipulated with EQ of one sort or another (as per my own experimentation), so I decided to go with the cheaper speaker and buy five of them for perfect surround sound timbre matching. Unfortunately, not all the differences can be EQed out as far as I can tell, but buying five W/P8s is a little too expensive for my tastes and they have no built in tone control to compensate for the effects of an acoustically transparent screen. Room/speaker interactions can be so radically different, that I feel comfortable saying YMMV. |
No problem, Psacanli. It has been a great learning experience for me. I have more respect for both speakers, all said and done.
I would definitely demo both speakers yourself if possible. The best place to do so would be where you will end up listening to them... |
I wish my wife would let me have a second listening room. I would keep both speakers and use them for different listening material... |
The other three Salon2s I ordered will be arriving next week. By this time next week I'll have a full 5.2 compliment with all Salon2s and Ultima Sub 30s for the two subwoofers.
I'm impressed by how these speakers measure compared to the other speakers mentioned in this thread. I do miss the mid-range transparency of the W/P8, even if it was a product of intentional (albeit skillful) deviations in the frequency response. I can do this myself with a good PEQ, and hopefully get close to that mid-range clarity. Though, I can't change the materials being used, and I think that might leave me unable to get the mid-range as transparent as I would like.
Comparing the V3 to the Studio2 measurements in Stereophile, the Studio2 is just a much flatter measuring speaker, especially above 6.5KHz, where the V3 is up around 2dB more than the Studio2 off a flat response! So the Studio2 is getting ~-.5dB and +2.3dB (though, with treble correction and boundary compression, it is probably around -.5dB and +.7dB). This is compared to that -/+4dB on the V3. I've decided not to pursue an in-home test because of the frequency response differences between these two speakers... Of course, if someone wants to take a Saturday or Sunday drive and hook them up in my house, I wouldn't stop him/her. ;) |
JK-Please keep in mind that whenever you are going to bring up the V3, you will have to reckon with me. NP, I'm bored and need the entertainment... Not sure what you have against these speakers, but if you want to trash them, at least try and keep it real. How did I trash them? I told the truth about how they measure... As I mention before, even JA pointed out to the top octave shelved up of the Ultima Studio2 (Same tweeter arrangement as the Salon 2) This is true, which I mentioned in my post, and as I also mentioned, the Studio2 is not nearly as shelved up as the V3 is shelved up in the human audible range of the Frequency Response. Using the treble adjustment knob on the Studio2, the shelving isn't even worth mentioning... Especially from one who has defended the W/P -/+ 10db FR and admittedly, miss their 6 db midrange shelved up!! I enjoy upsetting you, since it causes you to exaggerate and/or flat out fabricate things about the W/P 8s, as well as distort things I previously mentioned in this thread. Without a doubt, you are Magico's worst enemy... If I were them, I would be begging you to start promoting another brand. :D The funny thing is, people can look at the objective measurements for the W/P8s and the V3s and see that I am telling the truth and you are not. They can also look at in-room responses and figure out what I have been saying about how speakers can be designed with frequency response aberrations intentionally for specific purposes (a common practice with in-wall, in-celling, and bookshelf speakers, among others). The W/P8s measure worst on the Stereophile site, where they are -5dB and +4dB, not the -/+10 dB you claim. The sooner you learn to use the truth to make your points, the better off your arguments will be, and the better off any speakers you associate yourself with will be... I never mentioned a "shelving up" in the mid-range... I did mention "shelving down" in a particular area of the mid-range, which happens to mate well with my room. I have to PEQ the Salon2s to get the same mid-range transparency with deeper male vocals that I had naturally with the W/P8s. The shelving down in the mid-range on the W/P8s allows for closer wall placement without the frequency response developing a mid-range bump that is bloated enough to interfere with many mid-range male vocals. That is all in the same paragraph complaining about the V3 extra 2 db abouve6.5K. Come on, get real. And then again, if you can correct it all with a good PEQ, does it really matter what speakers you end up having? So then you agree with me now that the W/P8 frequency response measurement issues are not really such a big deal? Make up your mind will ya... ;P I agree that it isn't such a big deal to have the V3s shelved up higher in the treble because the shelving can be EQed out with one form of EQ or another. I don't however see the point of spending money to bring a pair of V3s into my home to test, considering their measurements, which have issues in more than just the high treble. Wouldn't that be taking a step backwards according to your own philosophy concerning measurements? For instance, if you look at the V3 frequency response measurement, compare it to the Studio2 and then take a look at the in-room response of the Salon2, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that I am going to have even worse in-room response issues with the V3's frequency response, but like I said originally, and which you now agree with in your recent posts, it can be EQed out. Why bother though? With the Salon2 I have to do a lot less EQing and they cost less money as well. Why spend more money on a speaker that has more problems to deal with? Plus, with the EQing, I can make them sound practically the same anyway. As far as toeing-in (or out) the V3s to adjust for treble response is concerned, that will still yield bad results since the shelving isn't continuous throughout the entire treble band. So toeing them in or out will augment some areas while causing new issues with other areas that used to be flat or that were polar to the area being adjusted... Plus, between 3KHz and 10KHz, you have the response shooting down to -4dB then gradually rising up to +4dB (Wouldn't that be considered a bad crossover design?). Playing with the toe-in angle with that kind of wild variation in the response is not going to yield very linear results... My advice, stick with the EQing. ;) Also, whether a speaker is flat to 40KHz really is meaningless, since humans can't hear above 24KHz even at the peak of their hearing abilities, and even then, people who hear frequencies as high as 24KHz are very very very (etc) rare, as well as very very very young. People at my age (34) already don't hear above a level significantly lower than 24KHz, at least not at a decibel level that is even remotely near the border of useful for music playback. This is scientifically established data. ( Absolute Threshold of Hearing) I do find it funny that you have now contradicted some of your earlier points in this thread. Now that the V3 does it, it is OK in your mind to design a speaker specifically for a certain kind of placement, while when Wilson did it for the W/P8, it was just wrong... Now it is OK to not have flat measurements, as long as it is a Magico speaker and not a Wilson Watt Puppy. Your logic and consistency flew out the window when many of your arguments about the W/P 8s could be applied to a Magico speaker. That doesn't help your argument. Take at as you wish but at least it is coming from a person that actually spent significant time with both speakers. Yeah, TAS is really big on measurements (I'm kidding of course)... I especially love those room treatments JV seems to be using in his room. What are those things called again? Shakti Hallographs? A person's credibility flies out the window in my book, when he uses something like that and says it actually does something to the sound of the music... Weird stuff like that is one reason why I stopped buying that magazine. The other reason is because they don't objectively measure equipment. IMO, the best periodical for researching equipment is SoundStage, since they use the NRC to get measurements. There is a much lower chance for biased results using an independent research group for measurements. Plus the results are going to be more consistent since they pretty much use the same methods every time, and their methods are based on objective research. I look forward to seeing how any Magico speaker measures via the NRC. IMO, many of the discrepancies RH finds between the speakers could likely be EQed out... While I would love the opportunity to experiment with both speakers, I'm not throwing down another lump of cash at this point on what would be frivolity. Besides which, when I heard them at shows, they sounded horrendously bright to me and despite what a reviewer or two has been saying, I thought they didn't image very well either... Go figure though, I didn't prefer any of the Radialstrahlers either. |
I was never quite sure what exactly Mr. Jkalman has against the Magicos. I thought I had been quite honest about what I disliked about the Magicos when I described my personal experiences hearing them, so I don't know why it is so hard for you to figure out... |
Well, if that is the case, why are you constantly bringing them up? You were the one who brought them up in this thread, not me. After the hole you have dug for yourself, what are the chances you will admit to anything positive about them. I guess there will be no V3 for Jkalman. Ok, we got it. No can you please move on
Dhaan, they look cool, I'll give them that... :D All the Magicos look very pretty. Like I mentioned before, I probably wouldn't mind them with a bit of EQing. The only issue would be the areas where there are -4dB depressions in the frequency response. It is very easy to cut excessive gain in the response, but it can be dangerous to raise a null in the response, especially at higher frequencies where any EQing can have a negative effect on the sound. If a null in the room corresponds to a null in the speaker's response, then you have even more serious issues. I also admire the use of nano materials in their speakers. I'm actually involved in a venture capital investment with a "nano scale" technology company, so I am well aware of the excellent properties carbon nano tubes have to offer every industry. I respect it when a company uses new technologies, even if it is cost prohibitive. I haven't dug any hole for myself. I've stuck to the arguments and in some cases used your own arguments against you to demonstrate that "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander." When your arguments failed you, you resorted to attacking me personally... BTW, I eat my steak medium rare and I don't use ketchup on my steak (my family were original investors in and actually own a large share of some world famous steakhouses in NYC... Smith and Wollensky and Ben Bensons). My issues with the Magico sound are limited to the V3, Mini I and Mini II in an unequalized state. I have no experience with their other speakers or with equalizing the Magico speakers I mentioned. |
BTW, in the previous post I was referring to the V3, since that is what we have been arguing about. My only mention of Magico speakers previous to you bringing up the V3s a couple of times, was to mention that I would like to hear the Minis and the Salon2s in a "properly treated" environment. Though I guess that shouldn't be necessary seeing as JV, whose TAS review raved about the Mini speakers, doesn't seem to use any room treatments except those Shakti Hallographs... Here is the exact post where I mention the Minis, then some of your posts following that one start mentioning the V3: I'm still trying to find an environment where the Magico Minis have been set up well in my area. The Salon2 and the Magico Mini... Two speakers I would love to hear properly. I have nothing personal against your speaker of choice (I noticed yesterday that you own a pair of V3s, because you mentioned it in another thread). I do consider your behavior towards me reprehensible though... |
Dgad. I asked about changing the room shape, because I was worried about shared lengths (9' ceiling and one wall is mostly 18'). Richard Bird said he wanted to maintain room volume...
I still have to send him more in-room speaker measurements. I sent the first ones back awhile ago and he acted as if it was fine and only some reflections needed to be corrected on the impulse response. Not quite what I was expecting... I'll update the thread once I get a chance to send him updated measurements with the Salon2s and see what he says. |
