Verity Parsifal or Magico V3 or Wilson Benesch ACT

Pubul,

Many contributors to these threads maintain that the speaker is top heavy (insufficient bass). The VSMs IME are very sensitive to room and partnered electronics. Their impedence curve probably contributes to the latter. In my home, particularly before I had the SEs upgraded, a number of people made the same comment - generally after direct comparison to the Verity, which is a bit warmer. However, the vast majority like both.

Over the years, I have wavered between them, switching them in and out of my system. Over time, I migrated more to the VSMs. Recently, I have added a couple of new speakers into the rotation, so both the P/Es and VSMs are sidelined for a while. I assure you, when they return to action both speakers will once again delight with their respective strengths and satisfy with their common lack of significant weaknesses.

Marty

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.

Dhaan,

I understand your point. It would be difficult to design high performance into any product without some sense of best practices. But....

Performance of a loudspeaker is, as a practical matter, only meaningful in room. Room contributions often overwhelm the intrinsic (to the extent that this word has any meaning in this context, you can probably substitute "anechoic") character of any loudspeaker. Hard as this may be for a disciplined designer to swallow, a "poor" design may perform very well in an unanticipated environment.

I have used the P/E in 4 rooms. The last should count as two, pre room treatment and post room treatment, as the character of the room changed so drastically after treatment. In 4 of these rooms (#4 pre-treatment excepted) the Verity produced an exceptionally "natural" sounding tonal balance. Not merely my opinion, but that of literally everyone who's heard it and offered a comment (lots of folks).

I only see 3 possibilities here:

1) My speaker does not have the same performance issue as the Ovation, presumably due to differing design.

2) The speakers do sound similar and the vast majority of listeners (admittedly not tested for statistical reliability) mistakenly think they sound natural when they are obviously poor sounding.

3) The speaker - despite its design - sounds natural to most people in many real world environments, but your evaluation is different.

#1 or #2 is possible, but I suspect that #3 is at play here.

To explain this, you point to biases (owners love everything they just bought) among listeners. Certainly possible.

I'd only note that you ignore your own potential bias. You produced "Exhibit A" to support your argument: an anechoic graph that was of limited indicative value to me. "Exhibit B" was listing certain Verity design decisions that violate commonly accepted (I hope I'm characterizing your position fairly) best practices.

Clearly, you disagree with the design choices and believe that the raggedy anechoic response illustrates the cost of these decisions. (It certainly wasn't pretty, I'll give you that!.) I'm merely stating that - despite the design choices and anechoic result - I have not found a soul in my home, in print, or on-line, who shares your judgement that these speakers present an obviously and significantly flawed tonal balance.

My point is that these factors might be coloring your judgement. Or you may be right.

Marty

But Dhann you are assuming that eveyone purchases their speakers for same reasons that you do. They do not. They purchase and enjoy them all for their own reasons. They may not want faithful recreation of the recording on the disc. They prefer 'sound creation' versus 'sound recreation'. People who enjoy Sonus Faber probably enjoy an agreeable "warm" deviation from neutrality and people who like Wilson probably enjoy " impressive" sounds. So what ? You may not understand it but the fact is that these people do gravitate towards these presentations. Who knows why ? "Accuracy" may be the only way to go for studio moniters when your mixing etc and precision is essential. I personaly like this kind of speaker. Other than that speakers are just sources of enjoyment. A "good design" is one which lots of people like the sound enough to buy it. The vast majority of people , even " audiophiles", are not used to listening to a truly flat/neutral speaker. They just don't want what YOU want and successful speaker manufacturers give them what THEY want. I once started a very illconcieved thread questiong the sanity of Wilson Audio purchasers and the motives of the manufacturer based upon MY listening and MY view of the (pretty poor) meaurements. How could anyone part with that kind of jack for what I think are vastly overpriced and underperforming ( from the viewpoint of 'accurate' sound reproduction) speakers ? Well, the fact is that they do " impressive" in spades and if people buy them then they are "properly designed' for THAT purpose. - Jim

Interesting discussion. It seems Stereophile's John Atkinson had issues with a Verity design a few years back. Can't recall the model or year but remember the measurements being the least favorable part of the review.

In my brief experience with the Verity's, under show conditions I have found the Parsifals, Sarasto and Ovations exceptional in stimulating goosebumps which is a quite involuntary reaction. Can this be measured? I'm not sure but maybe someone can take a stab. All I know is that few systems I've listened to could illicit this response. The Verity's I've found are exceptional in recreating timbre and the art of the performance. This is to say they draw you into the music. Of course this may sound trite and maybe cynical to some on the other hand knowledge in the form of measurements and what should sound right based on design principles might also lead to blindness if it is the primary criteria for speaker design.

Careful listening must have a significant role in creating speakers that sound any of the following subjective characteristics; bright, dark, recessed, pleasant, accurate, tonally balanced, real. Which is to say that not every designer is looking for or maybe even hearing the same things in musical reproduction hence all the different choices, aren't we lucky! After all the discussions I've read over the years I'm sure what we hear and value in live music, let alone reproduced, varies from listener to listener so there is no clear cut winner. The losers are the ones that don't survive the marketplace. I am unaware of ONE speaker system in audio that doesn't have at least one detractor including Vandersteen, Verity and Merlin, three of my favorites the latter I own, and isn't it funny they each sound different with their own virtues.

Dhann you make a quite lucid case for why the Verity should sound offensive and I truly appreciate your input to this discussion. If only measurements could predict how a system at a given time in a given room will convey music to a given listener. Art or science, which comes first, that might be the question. After all, which component in an audio system is more a combination of the two?