2. speakers
  3. 133974-108878

How can Wilson Audio speakers sound that good if they are using OEM drivers?

How can Wilson Speaker sound that good if they are using OEM drivers made of last century materials? B&W used Kevlar and now Continuum, after a lot of R&D. Magico uses Graphane which is the new Carbon Fiber. 
Would a Wilson Speaker sound better if somehow one could put a B&W midrange Continuum driver instead of the OEM paper driver they use?
128x128gonzalo_oxenford
erik_squires
5,268 posts
 
Honestly, this is a really funny, but fascinating thread.

Not too long ago, a poster asked why do so many conversations devolve into technology, this post is all about technology, but only superficially. The OP assumes there are absolute improvements in driver performance given strictly by the materials.

So, the answer in my mind is in at least these dimensions:

  1. The goal of the designer of the speaker
  2. The complete performance envelope of a driver is far greater than merely it's material. There are good Be tweeters, and terrible Be tweeters.

So this puts me in an interesting position of answering the OP's question. I'm not a Wilson fan, and yet I am a fan of some of the components they use. The mid-woofer in general is often ScanSpeak, of which I own, and I rank them as superb components. Do I like how they go together in a Wilson? Meh. I think they are OK, but not worth the cost.

Do I think B&W (after Matrix) is all that? Not really.

So, Gonzalo, honestly, I think that you would be well served by making your own pair of speakers. Why don't you find a good kit from Meniscus or Parts Express or Madisound and build your own? I think you would learn a great deal more that way than via this forum alone.

This is actually good advice for all audiophiles: At least once in your life, build your own speakers.

Best,


E
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
4,908 posts
 

The comparison between Wilson and Vandersteen speaker designs is an interesting one. Richard has designed and now makes some of his own unique, groundbreaking drivers (using balsa wood, a brilliant idea imo), and uses all 1st-order x/o slopes---he is a proponent of phase-coherency in speakers (whether 1st-order filters remain phase-coherent away from the x/o frequencies is an issue of some debate). Dave has drivers made to his specs---making changes to OEM models, and his drivers are, as tomic601 mentions above, wired in opposing polarity (as they are in many other, if not most, speakers). Each also has his own idea of the best way to deal with enclosure issues. (As a long-time fan of planars, I find it amusing the amount of effort is takes to get dynamic speakers to do what planars do inherently. Of course, planars are not without their inherent shortcomings.)

For years, Vandersteen offered only the Models 1, 2, and 3, priced well below Wilson’s products. There were some dealers selling both brands, Vandersteen’s to those of, shall we say, more modest means, Wilsons to the more affluent. But there were (and are) people who can afford Wilsons, but prefer Vandersteens.

With the introduction Model 5, Vandersteen was now in direct competition with Wilson in price. The two men’s designs sound very different; some find Vandersteens slightly warm, soft, and veiled, others Wilsons too bright and analytical. But a dealer selling both faces a dilemma---which does he "push". I know, I know, a product should sell itself; let the customer hear both, and decide for himself. But here’s a little secret (already known to some here): the more product of a company a dealer sells, the more of a "preferred" dealer is he by that company. If a dealer sells $500,000 of Wilsons and $500,000 of Vandersteens a year, he is less valued by each company that he would be if he sold $1,000,000 of either of them.

I had (R.I.P.) a well-known dealer friend who sold both, but told Richard he didn’t want to stock, audition, and sell the upper-priced Vandersteens, only the Models 1, 2, and 3. (The reason being he wanted to reserve the higher-priced range for Wilsons). Richard wouldn’t agree to that (I wouldn’t either), and the dealer and Vandersteen parted ways. I thought the dealer was making a huge mistake, but it was his store, and he was a very strong-headed and opinionated guy. He did sell two planars---Quads for ESL enthusiasts, Eminent Technology as his magnetic-planar choice. It was he who hipped me to the superiority of the ET push-pull driver over the single-ended Magnepan.

coolatheart's avatar
coolatheart
8 posts
 
My 1977 JBL Century's still kick ass after 41 years.  The first 30 years were driven hard by a Pioneer SA9900.  My 1986 German made Yamaha NS200ma speakers with titanium highs and mids and carbon fiber woofers still sound fantastic.  1994 Polk LS50's are still terrific.  I think older technology is fine as long as the quality and engineering is first rate.
johnk's avatar
johnk
1,490 posts
 
Loudspeakers are the sum of there parts and design not the sum of the materials used in it. Carbon nano tube research on them shows they may be carcinogenic since carbon tubes are nano sized they easily penetrate skin and cell walls. B&W is also bragging about using plywood in the new cabinets over MDF talk about modern. If modern materials were the end all be all in sound quality why do so many embrace old designs? Why are we still even using any loudspeakers with paper, wood, alnico, aluminum, F.C,. ferrites,carbon fiber or rare earths these are all so last century.  
teo_audio
932 posts
 
Having dealt with some of the most innovating and respected driver manufacturing firms in the world, at point blank range, with regard to making custom drivers...it’s the depth of knowledge in the lore of the build that is the big deal. New materials are exactly that, new materials. The new material may not be a panacea and is probably not a panacea.

Added to the mix is that we still don’t correlate the measurements back to how we hear, in a perfect manner...so we can get some good measurements..but that may not necessarily correlate back to being a good sounding driver.

100 years later, the basic design of a dynamic driver has not changed.

It is our understanding of the applications of the materials, our understandings of how the driver works, our understandings of how the ear works ---that propel us.

In such scenarios where those (mentioned) aspects change, the 100 year old material and design may propel us forward in a increase in sonic quality, at least as much, or more, than the application of any fancy new material.

However, the new material makes for great advertising fodder, fun little white sheets to read. Cool exploded diagrams with all kinds of labels, and so on. Looks really high tech! Now we’re really getting somewhere! At least in cool advertising, that is.

Useful quantification and weighting is difficult, with so many things going on. It’s actually near impossible to put paper, for example, behind or in front of , lets say, diamond. The number of other variables outside of the material itself, is what makes that be a near impossible task. "All other things being equal" is not possible, due to the entire complex package of designing and executing a driver.

Then you add in all the other aspects of a whole finished speaker package, and you’ve got one huge complex mess. Then you add in the cables, the amplification and it’s reactionary aspects in conjunction with the speaker and all the rest, well....it’s amazing that we have any forms of consensus at all.

Thus, we circle back to trying to impress people with slick advertising about the old, about the new, or whatever the case may be. Whatever demographic the given advert may be trying to catch the eye and ear of. Buy our stuff, watch our dance, we be best buds, we gotcha covered, we be slick, we charm you!...the undercurrent of the advert says silently....

And so on.

Simple integrity, IMO works best, but..oddly enough, it's not the biggest demographic of potential buyers. Advertising is a strange business..... I know exactly how to do it, I just don't like it and balk at the line, when it comes to playing those psychological games.
More to discover