If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

About 1 year ago, GR “upgraded” my beloved Wilson Watt Puppy 8 speakers which I power with a pair of McIntosh MC275s in mono mode.  These speakers are + - 3db across the frequency range, 22 hz to 22.5 kHz, 92 db sensitivity from the factory.  We absolutely love the way they sound directly from Wilson.  The GR solution was to make the tweeter play lower (longevity ?), take the low end out of the midrange speaker, and attach separate subwoofer plate amps to each woofer.  GR claimed that it would sound 10 times better and it seems that he did not even hear it in that configuration.  He also made derogatory comments about Wilson Engineering capabilities.   I thought the whole thing was unfair to a legendary speaker, legendary company, legendary founder, and to the legendary reviewers who highly rated this speaker.   For me, GR basically made a new set of 4 speakers.  Transforming 2 full range tower speakers into 2 book self speakers or monitors and 2 subwoofers powered by additional amps.   I think if he would just have said this and articulated why this was a more flexible configuration, it would have been more interesting. 

A lot of Hurt Feelings here…

@hjdca I'm sure with those changes the speakers sound different. Does it sound 10 times better to you? I can't tell from your post if the "upgrade" was worth it to you.

You can simply adopt the John DeVore approach and stick the crossover components in a can, fill it with resin of some sort, and then it takes somebody with a hammer to find out the "secrets" of the component pile.

I find it funny the callout of GR measurement methods when they have been the status quo for decades unless a full anechoic chamber is used. To top it off, the measurements of several different speakers closely match when also measured by Erin's klippel vs Danny's gated clio. Soooo, I find it interesting the ASR vs GR debate is again struck up attacking measurement methods.

Secondly, I can see in the before/after graphs there was some interference of woofer to tweeter on the original that wasn't there in the altered. Now, is there some fact behind that tweeter avoiding a lower xo; yeah probably. Can't argue that lowering the xo would put more stress and resonance on a tweeter like that. That does raise some question as to why you would put two drivers together that barely fit, like wearing a tight pair of jeans that used to fit in high school. You can squeeze, but is it the best answer?

I know Danny is pretty abrasive on some of these videos, where others are understandably pretty neutral. Seems nobody gets preferential treatment, just if a speaker actually performs or not. I think Danny is a little harsher on the larger mfg with more resources available or the real high $ speakers that should be built to a higher standard. His Wilson Duette video was pretty understood and having spoken with the guy who owns those speakers, it sounds like the upgrade was worth every penny.

I just wish speaker designers would learn to take some constructive criticism and try to view some different perspectives upon these reviews. Maybe it'll convince some to change their design and construction methods for a better finished product, benefitting the end user. Do you think F1 race engineers argue their car is the best, or do they look at every other car on the grid to understand if a different design works better? Either way, I'm tired of the ASR vs GR debate. They both debate for the same thing, better measuring likely yields better sound amd more $ doesn't guarantee better sound. They just believe in different methodology in achieving those results but the overall message is the same. I honestly wonder what would happen to the video content from Amir and Danny if the other were not around. ASR would be a pretty boring place if they didn't have someone to rip on.

And full disclosure, I'm typing this listening to my NX-Studio speakers on Rythmik subs with a huge smile on my face from how good they sound.

So, how 'bout them Dodgers...