Sometimes the speakers that measure the worst get the most flowers. Did you read the review of the Raidho 3.8(I think).
Stereophile - Sabrina 5
Hate to rag on Sterophile again, but one of two things are true. One, the Sabrina speakers they reviewed were wired incorrectly or Wilson is now shipping with inverted midranges.
All that work to reduce distortion to vanishing levels only to totally ahem, add custom flavor to the frequency response.
Honestly if I was reviewing this speaker I'd have stopped to reach out to them before publishing, just to be sure this speaker shipped as intended.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-v-loudspeaker-measurements
- ...
- 95 posts total
erik_squires - - nice explanation. My first thought looking at that rather appalling frequency curve is the HOLE in the midrange from 2k-4k (-4db) is due to the crossover not allowing the tweeter to play low enough or the midrange to play high enough. That assumes that either is capable of playing in that range. Assuming the drivers were capable of playing that range without significant distortion, a bit more overlap would likely have filled that hole nicely.The other thing that stands out to me is the ascending frequency curve. That curve runs contrary to the universally preferred descending "Harman Curve" that is favorable in most real world listening conditions. steve59 - I agree. Many of the industry's most beloved speakers had absolute crap measurements. I've enjoyed a few myself! |
I have a relatively limited amount of personal experience with Wilsons; I have one friend with a pair of Sabrina’s, and a pair of Sasha Vs, and have only spent an hour or two with each. But this friend is definitely more into analytical-sounding speakers than I am, and less of a tonality/midrange guy than me. So that response curve actually makes some sense - it would seem to significantly emphasize highs over the midrange. |
- 95 posts total