Why so many WATT/Puppy 5.1 speakers for sale???
HIFIHIFI
coming out with an update, or are people just unhappy with them?
Garthap
>Why are there so many Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 5.1 speakers for sale? Are
>they
>coming out with an update, or are people just unhappy with them?
Hi HIFI etc. (what does your mother call you? HI?)
Have you ever heard a W/P 5.1? If you had and actually owned a pair you would
probably sell them too.
Yes, I have heard them in many different systems. Some were almost OK, WAVAC
50WPC SE amps, and others were terrible, Krell 600 amps, Rowland amps.
Garth
Roger Williams
> Why are there so many Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 5.1 speakers for sale? Are they
> coming out with an update, or are people just unhappy with them?
Well, from what I've read, they sound absolutely miserable for a pair
of $17,000 speakers. There are some reviews you can find at:
http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Speaker/wilson_wattpuppy_speakers.shtml
Some of the comments:
"Excessive bass. Bright metallic sound. Very dynamic. Can play loud. Good
imaging if set up correctly. In my opinion they are a corvette speaker at
a porche price. Much better speakers are available at the retail price."
"I recently auditioned the WATT/Puppy 5.1's with a complete Mark Levinson
setup: 31.5, 38S, 36S, 33H monoblocks ($22,000!), Transparent Reference
cables. The sound was mediocre at best. The speakers has a PRONOUNCED
midbass hump which blurred imaging and ovrepowered the sound. It did not
sound neutral or musical at all."
"These speakers have to be one of the most over-rated speakers
in the audiophile kingdom. They tend toward excessive brightness,
and have poorly articulated bass. They image reasonably well,
though there are systems which are superior. Given their extravagant
price, they remain a poor value."
And so on, and so on.
Looks like another Egglestonworks style boondoggle to me.
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
Tom Melanson
seen where EgglestonWorks was negatively mentioned. This time they were
not even the subject being discussed. Just curious.
Tom
Roger Williams
> Why the hard-on for Bill Eggleston? This is the second RogerW post I've
> seen where EgglestonWorks was negatively mentioned. This time they were
> not even the subject being discussed. Just curious.
> Tom
Heh. I didn't think you'd need help making the connection, Tom -
overrated, overpriced speakers. May I assume by your huffiness that you
take offense to the comparison? C'mon now, you can tell me - did you plunk
down $16,000 for a pair of these gaudy WATT/Puppy noisemakers, or maybe a
more modest $15,000 for a pair of the Andras? Remember - part of buying
such an obvious status symbol is the obligation to defend your purchase to
cynics. I won't deny you this joy (if it applies).
Trotsky
<rog...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
Things must be getting slow over at alt.fan.karlmalden-nose.
--
Greg M. Singh
g...@wwa.com
jonatha...@hotmail.com
I worked for a hi-fi dealer that is a Wilson dealer. You are definitely
correct in that they are miserable for $17k. After they had been "voweled"
into our reference room, I measured a 10dB hump at 80Hz! The Focal tweeter
they use has a nasty hashiness in the extreme treble, they're not very
musical, and they have no realistic image depth to speak of. Another former
employee of that dealer and I used to call them the most expensive PA
speakers we've ever heard!
-Jonathan
In article <6rdlil$6...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
Roger Williams <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> Thus spracht HIFIHIFI <hifi...@aol.com>:
>
> > Why are there so many Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 5.1 speakers for sale? Are
they
> > coming out with an update, or are people just unhappy with them?
>
> Well, from what I've read, they sound absolutely miserable for a pair
> of $17,000 speakers. There are some reviews you can find at:
>
> http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Speaker/wilson_wattpuppy_speakers.shtml
>
> Some of the comments:
>
> "Excessive bass. Bright metallic sound. Very dynamic. Can play loud. Good
> imaging if set up correctly. In my opinion they are a corvette speaker at
> a porche price. Much better speakers are available at the retail price."
>
> "I recently auditioned the WATT/Puppy 5.1's with a complete Mark Levinson
> setup: 31.5, 38S, 36S, 33H monoblocks ($22,000!), Transparent Reference
> cables. The sound was mediocre at best. The speakers has a PRONOUNCED
> midbass hump which blurred imaging and ovrepowered the sound. It did not
> sound neutral or musical at all."
>
> "These speakers have to be one of the most over-rated speakers
> in the audiophile kingdom. They tend toward excessive brightness,
> and have poorly articulated bass. They image reasonably well,
> though there are systems which are superior. Given their extravagant
> price, they remain a poor value."
>
> And so on, and so on.
>
> Looks like another Egglestonworks style boondoggle to me.
>
> --
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
> {} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
> {} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Chris Johnson
enthralled with
the 'image' of a Highly Revered Brand Name that they allow that 'image' to
influence
their purchasing decisions.
It's quite similar to someone (going back a few years) buying a Cadillac
Cimmaron
and later on finding out that he really just bought a Buick with Cadillac badges
on it.
This is a classic case of audiophiles who are so struck by Upgrade Fever that
they
make a decision they later regret. I suspect most audiophiles have done that
at one time or another. Either they bought something that eventually proved to
be unsatisfying, or they sold something (their old equipment) that turned out to
be
better than its replacement.
The man who sold me my Aerial 10Ts has hinted that he'd be interested in buying
them back from me. Turns out those VR-3s didn't satisfy so much in the long run,
as I suspected would happen. I think I'll keep my Aerials, he can afford to buy
new speakers like that and I was barely able to buy them used.
Just because it's a "hot new item" according to the reviews and raves, doesn't
mean
that it really is. Take your time when making such a big purchase. It'll cost
you
if you make the wrong one.
CJ
PAUL MACCA
>The Watt/Puppy 5.1 stands as an object lesson for consumers who are so
>enthralled with
>the 'image' of a Highly Revered Brand Name that they allow that 'image' to
>influence
>their purchasing decisions.
>
>It's quite similar to someone (going back a few years) buying a Cadillac
>Cimmaron
>and later on finding out that he really just bought a Buick with Cadillac
>badges
>on it.
To be more precise, the Cimarron was derived from GM's J-car platform, the same
compact sedan body type used for the Chevy Cavalier, Olds Omega, and Buick
Skylark. This Caddy failed because it was underpowered and many people saw it
for what it really was, a glorified (and overpriced) Cavalier.
Ambrose Thompson
Just who cares Paul - if thats all you had to say to sender why bother.
Am I missing the point here, I just don't understand why this group
attracts so many worthless postings.
AT
Frank Johansen
Ambrose Thompson wrote in message <35DF72...@virgin.net>...
>> To be more precise, the Cimarron was derived from GM's J-car platform,
the same
>> compact sedan body type used for the Chevy Cavalier, Olds Omega, and
Buick
>> Skylark. This Caddy failed because it was underpowered and many people
saw it
>> for what it really was, a glorified (and overpriced) Cavalier.
>
>Just who cares Paul - if thats all you had to say to sender why bother.
>Am I missing the point here, I just don't understand why this group
>attracts so many worthless postings.
>AT
-I- care, "Ambrose"... Please tell us: just -who- died and made -you-
God!?
This whole damn NG is full of nothing but flames. In fact, if it weren't
for flames, it wouldn't exist!
btw: I think the Cavalier, while somewhat boring, was a well-built and
lasting car. Unlike "Ambrose". LOL!!
nitetide
interior plastic rattles too much for me sometimes ;)
NigelBD
apartments don't allow pets......
Nigel
Joe Duffy
Roger Williams <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>Thus spracht Tom Melanson <win...@ntplx.net>:
>
>> Why the hard-on for Bill Eggleston? This is the second RogerW post I've
>> seen where EgglestonWorks was negatively mentioned. This time they were
>> not even the subject being discussed. Just curious.
>
>> Tom
>
> Heh. I didn't think you'd need help making the connection, Tom -
>overrated, overpriced speakers. May I assume by your huffiness that you
>take offense to the comparison? C'mon now, you can tell me - did you plunk
>down $16,000 for a pair of these gaudy WATT/Puppy noisemakers, or maybe a
>more modest $15,000 for a pair of the Andras? Remember - part of buying
>such an obvious status symbol is the obligation to defend your purchase to
>cynics. I won't deny you this joy (if it applies).
>
>--
that stratospherically priced items really are not any
better at all :-)
Armand
This is all becoming nonsensical. I agree the Wilsons
are overpriced, but are still one of the most detailed
speakers with outstanding soundstaging around.
Wilson speakers are still amongst the top winners at HE shows.
BTW, possible that they are trading-in the Wilsons for more
expensive Wilsons or more expensive speakers period?
Armand
Tom Melanson
>
> Thus spracht Tom Melanson <win...@ntplx.net>:
>
> > Why the hard-on for Bill Eggleston? This is the second RogerW post I've
> > seen where EgglestonWorks was negatively mentioned. This time they were
> > not even the subject being discussed. Just curious.
>
> > Tom
>
> Heh. I didn't think you'd need help making the connection, Tom -
> overrated, overpriced speakers.
I am sure there are many speakers that, in YOUR opinion, are "overrated
and ovepriced". You don't like 'em--don't buy 'em.
My question remains: Why pick on EgglestonWorks when they were not
remotely mentioned in the post to which you responded? Just what is it
that has you so exorcised?
<May I assume by your huffiness that you take offense to the
comparison?>
Nothing "huffy" about it. Just seems to me that you are going out of
your way to trash a company and it seems peculiar.
>C'mon now, you can tell me - did you plunk down $16,000 for a pair of these gaudy WATT/Puppy noisemakers, or maybe a more modest $15,000 for a pair of the Andras?L>
Your sarcasm aside, I bought the Andra's and I didn't pay near $15K for
them-not that a later price increase wasn't justified.
<Remember - part of buying such an obvious status symbol is the
obligation to defend your purchase to cynics.>
Only problem with this less than cogent observation is that when I
bought them, they were not status symbols.
I bought them long before they were ever reviewed anywhere, including
Stereophile. The late, very well respected engineer, Gabe Weiner had
mentioned them favorably and that's what first gave me the impetus to
audition them. (You are, no doubt at least in your mind, much more
perspicacious than the late Mr. Weiner.) Further, I have ZERO obligation
to defend any purchase I make to you or anyone else and am not doing so
now.
<I won't deny you this joy (if it applies).>
How very nice of you. Your overwhelming sense of self-importance is only
exceeded by your condecension.
Take an example from your namesake and founder of Rhode Island and be
more charitable, less anal and judgemental. Particularly when your
judgement wasn't called for in the first place.
Tom
Brian Leupp
>
> Roger Williams wrote:
> >
> > Thus spracht Tom Melanson <win...@ntplx.net>:
> >
> > > Why the hard-on for Bill Eggleston? This is the second RogerW post I've
> > > seen where EgglestonWorks was negatively mentioned. This time they were
> > > not even the subject being discussed. Just curious.
> >
> > > Tom
> >
> > Heh. I didn't think you'd need help making the connection, Tom -
> > overrated, overpriced speakers.
>
> I am sure there are many speakers that, in YOUR opinion, are "overrated
> and ovepriced". You don't like 'em--don't buy 'em.
He *can't* buy 'em-- that's why he doesn't like 'em.
Brian
Roger Williams
> Roger Williams wrote:
> >
> > Thus spracht Tom Melanson <win...@ntplx.net>:
> >
> > > Why the hard-on for Bill Eggleston? This is the second RogerW post I've
> > > seen where EgglestonWorks was negatively mentioned. This time they were
> > > not even the subject being discussed. Just curious.
> >
> > > Tom
> >
> > Heh. I didn't think you'd need help making the connection, Tom -
> > overrated, overpriced speakers.
> I am sure there are many speakers that, in YOUR opinion, are "overrated
> and ovepriced". You don't like 'em--don't buy 'em.
Tom, perhaps you could back up and find where I issued some sort of
edict against buying either WATT/Puppies or Andras? Of course it's *my*
opinion Tom, that *is* the name of the game here after all.
> My question remains: Why pick on EgglestonWorks when they were not
> remotely mentioned in the post to which you responded? Just what is it
> that has you so exorcised?
Because, both speakers are (in my opinion) vastly overpriced status
symbols. They *compare* to the WATT speakers in that they are (IMHO, and
in the opinon of others) priced to be status symbols, not speakers. You
could easily find similarly comparable speakers for half the price, even
if Stereophile doesn't gibber about them as enthusiastically.
> <May I assume by your huffiness that you take offense to the
> comparison?>
> Nothing "huffy" about it. Just seems to me that you are going out of
> your way to trash a company and it seems peculiar.
I'm not "trashing" anyone, Tom. It's your tone that's huffy and
defensive, which is why I asked if you took offense to the comparison.
It's apparent you do. Even excellent products can be vastly overpriced,
and sometimes products attract a reputation which forces their price into
the stratosphere. This seems to be the case with the WATT/Puppy speakers,
and it seems to be the case with the Andras. No, Tom, you're not a bad
person for buying them. Relax. However, I stand by the comparison.
> >C'mon now, you can tell me - did you plunk down $16,000 for a pair of
> these gaudy WATT/Puppy noisemakers, or maybe a more modest $15,000 for a
> pair of the Andras?L>
> Your sarcasm aside, I bought the Andra's and I didn't pay near $15K for
> them-not that a later price increase wasn't justified.
Defense #1: They're not overpriced, but I didn't pay anywhere near
retail for them (although the price is fine with me).
So, here's a question: Would you spend 15 (closer to 16) thousand
dollars on a pair of the Andras?
> <Remember - part of buying such an obvious status symbol is the
> obligation to defend your purchase to cynics.>
> Only problem with this less than cogent observation is that when I
> bought them, they were not status symbols.
Defense #2. "They're status symbols, but not when I bought them!"
Another question: Would you buy them now given their high cost, and
status symbol reputation?
> I bought them long before they were ever reviewed anywhere, including
> Stereophile. The late, very well respected engineer, Gabe Weiner had
> mentioned them favorably and that's what first gave me the impetus to
> audition them. (You are, no doubt at least in your mind, much more
> perspicacious than the late Mr. Weiner.)
What interesting, if defensive, speculation. You do, however, get bonus
points for using the word "perspicacious" more accurately than
"excorcised".
> Further, I have ZERO obligation
> to defend any purchase I make to you or anyone else and am not doing so
> now.
Uh... except where you qualify your purchase by saying you didn't pay
the full retail price, and that you bought them before they were trendy,
etc. etc. So, while you have "zero obligation", you're sure going out of
your way to defend your purchase. If you'll recall, that's why I made the
original invitation to you to defend your purchase, and revel in all the
glee that brings.
> <I won't deny you this joy (if it applies).>
> How very nice of you.
Quite. Not that wild horses could have stopped you from pulling out all
the stops to defend your purchase. Someone once said, "man is not so
much a rational animal, as a rationalizing one". Too true.
> Your overwhelming sense of self-importance is only
> exceeded by your condecension.
Gee Tom, I give you a polite invitation to vent, and I get an
inaccurate slam - I freely admit to being condescending.
> Take an example from your namesake and founder of Rhode Island and be
> more charitable, less anal and judgemental. Particularly when your
> judgement wasn't called for in the first place.
Yes, because as we all know, people who spend lots and lots of money on
trendy audio equipment are a poor downtrodden lot, yearning for the sweet
air of religious freedom. Perhaps I could lead a group of WATT and Andra
owners into the wilderness, and carve out a state (and get a charter
which forbids unfavorable comments about their pricey toys). Yes, perhaps
that's some spectacularly good advice, and an uncommonly keen comparison.
And one other thing, Tom. This group is named rec.audio.opinion
Nobody's judgement is "called for" in an opinion group. If it makes you
feel better, I'll promise not to make any more fun of your toys. There,
now that's better, isn't it?
> Tom
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
"I believe every news client will
show you the header of a message that resides on
your ISP's server, but it is true and verifiable
that DejaNews, the archive service, does not store
that info."
DejaStupidity from the Middibot in message <36121453...@news.erols.com>
Chris Johnson
Roger Williams wrote:
Because, both speakers are (in my opinion) vastly overpriced status
> symbols. They *compare* to the WATT speakers in that they are (IMHO, and
> in the opinon of others) priced to be status symbols, not speakers. You
> could easily find similarly comparable speakers for half the price, even
> if Stereophile doesn't gibber about them as enthusiastically.
>
Maybe there's something about the Andras that he just likes so much thathe thinks
they're worth the difference? Is that possible? I think so.
> I'm not "trashing" anyone, Tom. It's your tone that's huffy and
> defensive, which is why I asked if you took offense to the comparison.
> It's apparent you do. Even excellent products can be vastly overpriced,
> and sometimes products attract a reputation which forces their price into
> the stratosphere. This seems to be the case with the WATT/Puppy speakers,
> and it seems to be the case with the Andras. No, Tom, you're not a bad
> person for buying them. Relax. However, I stand by the comparison.
>
> > >C'mon now, you can tell me - did you plunk down $16,000 for a pair of
> > these gaudy WATT/Puppy noisemakers, or maybe a more modest $15,000 for a
> > pair of the Andras?
>
> > Your sarcasm aside, I bought the Andra's and I didn't pay near $15K for
> > them-not that a later price increase wasn't justified.
>
> Defense #1: They're not overpriced, but I didn't pay anywhere near
> retail for them (although the price is fine with me).
>
> So, here's a question: Would you spend 15 (closer to 16) thousand
> dollars on a pair of the Andras?
>
> > <Remember - part of buying such an obvious status symbol is the
> > obligation to defend your purchase to cynics.>
>
> > Only problem with this less than cogent observation is that when I
> > bought them, they were not status symbols.
>
> Defense #2. "They're status symbols, but not when I bought them!"
>
Just an observation here: I've always though of a status symbol as something
that
can induce a high rate of drooling by the majority of your neighbors, like a new
Porsche or a Rolls-Royce. Tell your average neighbors you just blew several
THOUSAND dollars on a pair of speakers and his laughter won't resemble
being green with envy very much. Maybe you shouldn't tell them how much
you pay for speaker wire...?
Only other audiophiles (less than 3 percent of the music buying public) consider
such things to be status symbols, the rest think Bose is a status symbol. (Gack!)
> > Further, I have ZERO obligation
> > to defend any purchase I make to you or anyone else and am not doing so
> > now.
>
> Uh... except where you qualify your purchase by saying you didn't pay
> the full retail price, and that you bought them before they were trendy,
> etc. etc. So, while you have "zero obligation", you're sure going out of
> your way to defend your purchase. If you'll recall, that's why I made the
> original invitation to you to defend your purchase, and revel in all the
> glee that brings.
Jumping in here uninvited...
I bought my Aerial Acoustics 10Ts used and I paid 2700 dollars for a perfect pair
that costs 6600 if they're still in the store.
When I first encountered the model it took about one second to decide that I
would buy a pair as soon as I could manage the expense.
It was merely to my good fortune to find a prime pair
used, and I ended up getting them sooner than expected and for less.
This model was selected as Stereophile's Joint Loudspeaker of the Year, 1996,
along with the Dunlavy SC-IV, but I'd fallen in love with them before I even
read Stereophile. They were the first truly great speaker I ever heard, and
still the best I've ever heard.
I'm in exactly the same position as the gent quoted above,
and I assure you I bought speakers that are worth their full asking price
in my opinon. I'd happily buy them at full retail if that was what it took to
get them. In fact when and if I ever set up a home theater the way I want
to I'll buy two more matched pairs of 10Ts for front and rear speakers.
Don't be too critical of other people's purchasing choices. There's something
out there for every taste, and if someone wants to spend a buttload of money
on speakers that don't wind your clock, don't sweat it. Each person only needs
to justify their purchases to themselves. Remember, somewhere, today, some
poor schmo just bought himself a Bose system and thinks he did good.
(Poor sap!)
Chris Johnson
wjoh...@palmnet.net
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
> Because, both speakers are (in my opinion) vastly overpriced status
> symbols.
That seems fair enough, this is an opinion newsgroup afterall. I
personally, having a lot of experience with both speakers agree about
one, (WATT/PUP) and not at all about the Eggleston's (most folk would go
who? what?).
> They *compare* to the WATT speakers in that they are (IMHO, and
> in the opinon of others) priced to be status symbols, not speakers.
Actually they were first designed by Bill Eggleston specifically for
Peter McGrath to use as an evaluation tool for his excellent
recordings. They were never conceived of as an actual commercial
product. I have heard them compared directly against the Wilsons,
playing some of McGrath's master tapes (like a recording of Carmina
Burana - withing one week of our attending the SAME performance!) and
the Egglestons trounced the Wilsons. They are much better.
> You could easily find similarly comparable speakers for half the price, even
> if Stereophile doesn't gibber about them as enthusiastically.
I would be curious to see your list of speakers, Roger, that are
comparable at half the price. Since you suggest they are easily found,
I am presuming that your list is pretty extensive, no?
> Nobody's judgement is "called for" in an opinion group.
It does though, make sense to justify the opinions with 'what', 'why',
and 'wherefore'. Opinions without reasoning are like sails on a
sailboat without wind.
Note, Roger - this is not a flame, I am not an Eggleston dealer - though
I think they are very fine - your post simply struck a note of curiosity
in me, and I hope you answer in a serious vein.
Cheers
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores FL 33138
PASS NOVA EAD Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Technology
Audio Logic Parasound Kinergetics Cabasse Chiro Benz Micro Dunlavy
NEAR NHT Jadis Gallo Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision ESP Arcane
Straightwire Mordaunt Short Rega Vans Evers Monster Cable ENTECH
Sunshine Stereo encourages all audiophiles to support their local
dealers. If you do not have a local dealer, we will gladly assist
you with all your audio and video needs! *** ENJOY THE MUSIC! ***
Tom Melanson
Rest of reply stands on its own.
Tom