Verity Parsifal or Magico V3 or Wilson Benesch ACT


I owned a pair of the original Verity Audio Parsifals and they were fantastic in my room (19'x15'x8' - speakers on the long wall). I went high efficiency route for a while (Avantgarde Uno's then Duo's) but am looking for a dynamic speaker again.

These three are on my list, but I would consider others as well. I have not heard any of these, and nobody around has the WB Act.

I would prefer something that I could drive with around 50-100w of tube power.

Would appreciate any comments on these.
128x128r32nj

Showing 18 responses by dhaan

..from carbon fiber so there is no cabinet design that is more technologically advanced...

What a silly thing to say. Where do you get such nonsense from? Just because the word Carbon is in the sentence, it does not make it automatically ” technologically advanced”. In your ACT case, it is actually a cheaper way to make a curved box. And actually, not a very good one.
Oh, dear… So according to your theory, a thin steel sheet metal box will be a better loudspeaker enclosure then say a 2” MDF one since the speed of sound through steel is faster than MDF? Pleeease do not answer that...

Given the OP's choice, I would select the Pasifal all day long. It is a very natural sounding speaker with beautiful tonal purity.

There is nothing natural about a speaker that is 6-8db depressed along its entire presents area (1K-7K). Have a look at http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/verity_parsifal_ovation/. Yes I am sure it is pleasant to the ears. So is ear plugs.
Vangoughear
ACTs cabinet secret is, in my opinion, not the use of layers of carbon fiber, but the use of a cabinet made of a sandwich of composite materials with a core of high density foam. This ultra-light external structure instantly absorbs the energy generated from the drivers.

Nonsense. You can’t eat the cake and have it too. It you are stiff (Carbon) you are not absorbers. You may add absorbent material inside the enclosure to deal with drivers back waves but it you depend on the Carbon skins to do so, you got a problem. It is not a surprise you do not see any WB measurements online. Unfortunately, for WB, Stereo Sound in Japan has measured these in issue 156. Quite a train rack with severe 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion through the entire frequency range. That can be a resolute of many things. Poor enclosure design can be one of them.

Sounds_real_audio

You are way over your head and insist of making a fool out of yourself. I would gladly enlighten you but you do not seems to be the kind who seek knowledge. It is a lot easier just to mumble some nonsense to your clients and apparently the world. A common phenomena in this industry. What a pity.
Whatever the measurements say, if the speaker sounds good to me, I don't care.

Nothing wrong with that. Assuming you know what you are listening to. But if you are going to make some stupid claims, like the Stealth bomber bla bla bla… analogy, you better be prepare for some scrutiny. But in a sense, once you say ‘you do not care’, it opens the door to all sorts of BS.
Pubul57

I think that people in general trust their ears too much. I mean do you really prefer/like the sound of a recessed midrange? And if so, why? This is not a condescending question. I think that you should be interested in the reasons you like the sound of a faulty design (Parsifals). Otherwise, it is all a crap shoot. God only know what goes in someone head when he listens to stereo. 90% of it probably have nothing to do with sound. Are you in a good mood? What have you had for lunch, are you trying to feel the “Stealth bomber” effect, etc. Why do you think that blind testing usually does not work? How many times have you convinced yourself that what you have just bought, that sounds like crap, actually sounds great (only to change it few days later)? I too have my preferences but I like to be more careful in my conclusions. It is very easy to make wrong assumption by ‘trusting’ your ears only.
I read your posts very carefully. I object to marketing slogans like "structure instantly absorbs the energy generated from the drivers". What does this mean? You know that you do want to hear the energy generated from the front of the driver right? No to mention that Sounds_real_audio was talking about drivers back waves which is different subject all together form cabinet resonance control, which I assume is what you are talking about.
What you are describing is a typical way to build light, yet stiff structures. You get the stiffness all right but Last-a-foam is a very rigid material that will do very little, if anything, to damped vibration. One more thing you do not get with these type of enclosures is the necessary mass to damped high freq vibrations. Go ahead and tap your WB, they have a high pitch sound to them, and that is not a good thing.
hmm pls tell us more it really get interesting now!

I will gladly tell you more but first, let’s make sure you understand the difference between creating sound from a violin and reproducing sound from stereo system.
Marty,

Unfortunately, these measurements, and the Sarastro one on SP exhibits similar flaws that indicates a serious lack of some very basic loudspeakers design criteria. The reasons for the shelved upper mid and mid bass is simply a lack of Baffle Step Compensation (http://sound.westhost.com/bafflestep.htm). A very basic thing to start with. Next, is the totally wacked transition from the mid to the tweeter. It is due to a phase mismatch along the XO poles between the drivers(If the mid even have a low pass XO). This contraption will not pass speaker building 101 in middle school. So if I dismiss a speaker based on its anechoic test result, it is not because it is not flat, in fact, that is hardly what I am looking at. And yes of course I heard them, how can you not if you are in to this silly hobby.
Marty,

I appreciate your civil reply, but please understand that the points I made are not opinions, sound reproduction is not a subjective matter. Unfortunately, you do not need a license to build speakers. I always felt that, in audio, what people like have very little to do with ‘objective qualities’. I never fully understood it. Other then egos, I could not come up with any explanation. Discussing people listening impression and taste is a lost cause. God only knows how our brains are interpreting what we actually hear. Not to mention the ‘power of suggestion’. Have you ever read a negative comment from anyone here about a recent purchase of his? Everyone is totally in love with what they just bought. Yet, you can count the days before that product will be changed or upgraded etc. I do not know why people like the Veritys or the Wilsons or the Sonus Fabers, if these were cars, they will not go very far. Even if they cost a lot or have a nice finish. Audio, funny business…
Marty,
There are endless viable possibilities to a ‘sensible’ design. If we take the car analogy, it can be the difference between a good sport car like the Porsche and a good luxury car like the BMW. Both are sound designs and may cater to a different personal taste. Nothing wrong with that. However, when basic design elements are not address properly (Or at all), it gets difficult to make any ‘intelligent’ comparative assessment of preferences. That is why there are so many cynical, and unfortunately, quite worthless comments on audio forum. You very seldom read an ‘intelligent’ comment about the actual merits of the issues in question.
You are raising good points that can help advance the discussion.

Aldavis

I know very well that people buy audio for different reason. But there is a different between a warm speakers that was design properly to be voiced slightly warmer (A controlled elevated lower region), and a speaker, like some Sonus, that is generating way to much energy form its enclosure, and therefore is extremely colored. Some do mistake it for ‘warmth’ and ‘musicality’ when it is basically acting like a musical instrument that is adding lots of uncontrolled and uncalled for energy to everything played into it. Same goes for the ‘impressiveness’ of the Wilson. Elevated midbass, and grungy highs will do the trick. I am saying that you can be accurate and warm (Or cold if the recording is) and impressive yet articulated when you design and build it right. Music is all of the above if you can reproduce it accurately.

Tubegroover,

It is not difficult to get goosebumps from a design without a step correction. The elevated midrange is impressive to the ear on first listen. Especial on a tube amp that has a real easy time with the elevated impedance at that region. But you are listening to a very colored and unnatural representation of the source. I can see why some would like, and I admit that it is fun some times, but not all the time. Not to mention that these kinds of ‘effects’ work on very specific recordings only. So as an avid audiophile, you do end up listening to a very narrow band of music because of that.
The people at Wilson Audio are not dummies and I have no doubt that for a fraction of what they charge they could produce a better behaved speaker if they so chose

I have asked myself that same question many times. You may give them too much credit. Yet, I may be be given them too little…
Marty, your “ it is the room” solution to the problem of incompetent loudspeaker design simply does not cut it. If you are designing a speaker with a particular room in mind, how would it works in other rooms. And if your room has problems, do you fix it by introducing even more problem in the speaker? So is wrong on wrong makes right? You can always treat a room, move to a different one or build one, but you can never take a 10db boost at 80Hz, or a shelved mids and flatten it. No room will correct a disasters XO integration. You can never take out the THD these design have either. Not to mention so many other flaws that simply show a lack of basic loudspeaker engendering knowledge. If you had any idea of what it is that you are doing, you will have absolutely no reason to desing a speaker like that. Sorry, but you always going to listen to your music through a pretty dirty filter. No matter what room you are in.
But Marty, it is all related. The suck out in the Verity FR is due to a very poor integration between the drivers. It has nothing to do with “voicing” or room integration issues. It is simply very poor XO design.
So if we are concluding, I take it you see no correlation between your listening experience and objective assessments like measurements. Not only that, but you are suggesting, that since I do actually hear the speakers the way they actually sound, I am the ‘outlier’. Very interesting but totally irrational. BTW, I know quite a few that do not care for the Verity and share my opinion on them. And you know quite a few that do. So what? That does not change the fact that these are ‘objectively’ poorly design speakers.
PSB, Ravel, TAD, Focal and MAGICO. They are all different and skin the cat in a their own way. I have my preferences but they are all design by people who knows what they are doing.