Stereophile - Sabrina 5

I get that it's fun to pick on #1- we all do it at one time or another. I was up for saucy comments on Wilsons overpriced over hyped over worshiped speakers. I even wrote a nastygram here about some AlexxVs that underwhemed me.  

Then I heard a set of W/P 8s set up correctly. It was a full U turn experience. 

Now I own a set of dark red Sabrina 2s and their 250# each mass and bespoke finish speak to me even when they are idle. The sound? Transformative- at least to me. 

How many American brands managed to stay alive 50 years and still be considered "reference"? Wilson, Audio research, Bryston come to mind. There is value in staying power. 

I like French Vanilla. maybe you like chocolate chip. It's all so personal and subjective. 

I'm always amazed at posters with strong, authoritative opinions about gear they have never actually listened to. Often based on articles written by unidentified others of uncertain skills and interests. Usually with incorrect information. 

After years enjoying most of the higher B&W models; discovered Wilson Audio. My ownership experience with Wilson started years ago with the then new, Watt-Puppy 7.  Still a desired speaker.  On to the Sasha and for the past years, the excellent Yvette.  Spent plenty of time at dealers listening to all of their speakers.

Wilson, in certain models, intentionally wires the midrange out of phase (backwards) with the speaker's bass and treble units.  It's done, of course, in the service of  increased sound quality and is fully considered in the design of the crossovers.  The ultimate result is verified through electronic testing and extensive listening sessions.  Can't tell you if any I've owned use that technique. but they all sounded great.

@vvvvvv6 The perfect reply!

More seriously, honestly, I will admit that I do care about what others think of my system, and this is in part because there are things I do not know about audio and also about critical listening. There are people on this forum whose advice has had a major impact on the improvement of my system -- after I verified it, of course. AND, there are local people who have listened to my system over the years and made suggestions which improved it -- verified by me. 

How have people helped me? Here are a few:

Vocabulary and attention: By naming what they heard—"sibilance," "midrange bloom," "sound stage depth"—they gave me conceptual tools to parse my listening experience differently. This vocabulary directs my attention to aspects of sound I may have heard but not consciously distinguished.

Fresh ears: Sometimes they noticed fatigue-inducing harshness, boxiness, or unnatural timbres that familiarity made me overlook.

Comparative listening: They suggested A/B tests—speaker positioning, toe-in angles, acoustic treatments—that helped me hear differences I was missing.

Listening tracks: Their musical suggestions revealed different system characteristics. This helped me identify weaknesses my typical listening wasn't exposing. (E.g., the "french horn test" -- that horn's complex overtones, dynamic range, and tonal warmth tested my system's balance, distortion, and whether my midrange sounded natural or artificial.)

Room acoustics: Outsider's perspective helped me "get outside my head" insofar as they commented on how my room was affecting bass response, reflections, and imaging in ways I became desensitized to.

Unlike you, I'm not self-sufficient as an audiophile. Drawing on others for advice about gear, acoustics, and even listening has improved my system and augmented my listening enjoyment by huge leaps.

My understanding is that Wilson uses second order (12 dB/octave) crossovers. If that's true the midrange must be wired electricallt out of phase so that it is acoustically in phase. This is common for all second order crossover 3 way speakers, not a Wilson thing.