Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)

[Thomas_A]

A comparison with the M106 400 Hz and up. There are some general similarities in the pattern, but with a larger 3-4 kHz dip for the tune tot.

Compared to my own speaker:

 

[dukanvadet]

Im not defending anything. Just trying to understand why they designed it the way they did and be open minded.
I just point out what I thought was plausible explanation . When you look at it, they spent a lot of effort in the design. The way the speaker looks I also guess that engineering has the upper hand to the markting/sales deparment. The felt around the tweeter, the adjustable spikes for time-alignment, the resistors for tweeter level adjustments the wobbly on/off axis with seems to work will in a reflective room, the in-house installation service etc.... They put a lot of effort in it. They...a whole team of engineers. Why the average DIY-er think they can do better? Sure they can do equal/better for their setup/environment. But they design it as is and made decisions/ trade offs maybe differently suiting better for there customers. I agree that if the peak is there for that purpose and solving that problem isnt an elegant solution and it wouldnt be my design decision. your point of how this solution will have down sides is correct. I assume the engineers prefer that trade off iso leaving a big dip.

I try to be open minded. The people who actually listen to the speaker seems to like them (with or without EQ) Why is that? That intrigues me.

I am not sure what is intentional or not in regards to this design.
It seems to me like you are looking for reasons that there are sound engineering involved in the design and after predictably finding apparent confirmation for your preconcieved notion that is used to disregard the contradictory data and everyone questioning the faults in the design are average DIYers. If we take a step back and look at the data in its totality and try to interpret it with the available science i dont think you can come to the conclusion that this is a good design.

I dont pretend to know why people buy this, i am sure they have their reasons but we see everyday on this site how the most popular and respected stuff can have awful performance. It shouldnt surprise anyone at this point.

 

[Geert]

Finally the legendary NS10 was purposly designed to achieve flat SPL when placed on the meter bridge of a big recording console... giving a very non-flat anechoic response.

How so? The NS10 was designed as a hifi speaker, and even on the meter bridge of a mixing console the frequency respons is still not that good. It provides a boost in the high-lows, but causes serious cancelations at other frequencies. The second version, the NS10 Studio, had the tweeter dialed back a bit just because it was ear bleeding.

 

[JJB70]

It's expensive. It has a name many audiophiles dream of. Despite the measurement it probably sounds fine as small speakers go. So it's not hard to see why there's a small but lucrative market for stuff like this.

 

[rammster]

I'm not suggesting that Genelec-style true flatness of response is necessary FFS

Could you please decrypt what is FFS?

 

[KSTR]

The NS10 was designed as a hifi speaker, and even on the meter bridge of a mixing console the frequency respons is still not that good.

I stand corrected.

https://docs.cambridge-mt.com/MSFTSS/NS10MResearchPaper.pdf

IMHO NS10 does still sound better in that use case compared to a brute-force anechoically flat speaker, wrt low-mids/bass.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

I am not sure what is intentional or not in regards to this design.
It seems to me like you are looking for reasons that there are sound engineering involved in the design and after predictably finding apparent confirmation for your preconcieved notion that is used to disregard the contradictory data and everyone questioning the faults in the design are average DIYers. If we take a step back and look at the data in its totality and try to interpret it with the available science i dont think you can come to the conclusion that this is a good design.

I dont pretend to know why people buy this, i am sure they have their reasons but we see everyday on this site how the most popular and respected stuff can have awful performance. It shouldnt surprise anyone at this point.

The design isnt textbook. you have a reference to which you compare this design. Maybe we should think out of the box?
Why do people who actually listen to them like them? where does that come from? Are they wrong? Amir prefer it above the revel M106 after EQ'ing. A speaker which measure great. Why? That intrigues me and I'm willing to think out of the box to find an answer. juist saying it doenst measure well so it should sound bad is a bit narrow minded. I'm open to try to understand and learn why... and try to find some answers....

 

[Geert]

IMHO NS10 does still sound better in that use case compared to a brute-force anechoically flat speaker, wrt low-mids/bass

Evaluating low-mids/bass is indeed what the NS10 is about. It's a tool.

 

[rammster]

The last few posts just scream for tone controls or built in EQ for systems. The one thing I don't like about my Yamaha surround AVR is the bass boost does nothing. I'm sure it is broken or designed to give a small amount of boost that sounds like no boost to me. My 30 channel EQ does it first class. But this is off topic. I will slink away now.......

I measured my Yamaha AVR's YPAO and it was a discovery, that instead of expected pushing down LF it brings up the HF on room frequency response.
There must be science behind it, I trust Yamaha engineering school. At least, I hope so.

 

[DSJR]

Could you please decrypt what is FFS?

For f**k's sake - Apologies...

To comment on the NS10 related posts above, I never heard these in full studio-screech mode, but do remember hearing a pair on a bookshelf when they were still a domestic based model. Certainly bright (so opposite of the Tunetot response) but there was certainly an 'easy' clarity to them and lack of 'smear.' I tried to 'liven' the perceived balance of my resident main system 'thunderboxes' with a simple graphic equaliser but it didn't work at all, as the resulting noise was still 'thin-wall-porty-passive-speaker sludgy.'


Take a look at the article @KSTR posts above, especially the reponse plots of 2000 era monitors of the time. All have lifts in the upper hundred Hertz region and lo and behold, the Billy Woodman era ATC 20ASL pro has exactly the bass to upper mid balance that was panned so hard here in the original 19 model - doesn't look so out of place in that company does it?

 

[zeppzeppzepp]

NAD and PS Audio at least know what bass is. It's 70 to 80 Hz. 115 Hz is what gives muddy bass (when over done). It's what you dail out of a bass drum during recording for that reason.

Depends on the speakers that work with.
You’ll be surprised how the in-room response changed after applying that 80hz boost on amps. Why people thinking bass response is like calculating numbers? do more in-room measurement for small speakers will help....

 

[sarumbear]

Dolby Atmos is currently mostly offered by speaker systems that bounce sound off the ceiling, whether stereo or multi-channel. This system disperses from the ceiling, although you can link to a floor-based system at the same time. Each unit can play either channel, so currently, L, R or mono. These units have both Apple Music and Amazon HD onboard, so I can play either HD or Atmos mixes from my Amazon HD account. From what I understand, unlike traditional multi-channel, Atmos can be automatically converted to other multi-channel or stereo formats. Sooner or later the software on these units will most likely be upgraded for multi-channel allocation. They have all the Atmos facilities onboard, the other one being AirPlay.

None of which is relevant to the Wilson Tunetot, which I regret not listening to when we went shopping for new speakers, although it does look better on a shelf than a stand and I don't like subwoofers, which it probably needs in a primary system.

I am afraid your understanding of spatial sound playback is very wrong. You are trying to re-invent the wheel and it is square

 

[DSJR]

The design isnt textbook. you have a reference to which you compare this design. Maybe we should think out of the box?
Why do people who actually listen to them like them? where does that come from? Are they wrong? Amir prefer it above the revel M106 after EQ'ing. A speaker which measure great. Why? That intrigues me and I'm willing to think out of the box to find an answer. juist saying it doenst measure well so it should sound bad is a bit narrow minded. I'm open to try to understand and learn why... and try to find some answers....

Didn't Amir comment that the bass driver Wilson uses has a longer throw with less distortion? That and the very solid box MUST help.

Got to say I can't live with tiny boxes where the bass falls off a cliff below 90Hz or so. and merely bumping up the 120Hz region as the LS3/5A does (one speaker that deserves knocking down a peg or three in my experience) just makes bass on the music I listen to a lot sound one-note and 'thumpy!' The ancient KEF mid driver, now re-manufactured by Falcon Acoustics, can't do bass at all really and it runs out of travel all too quickly.

 

[Rotiv]

I believe istening to classical music will highlight the defects and certainly allow to understand/meet the measurements.

Not about liking it or not. Too much Salt and Pepper.

 

[KSTR]

I am not sure what is intentional or not in regards to this design.

I'm pretty sure everything in that design is intentional. Best specs wrt to current standards was probably not the main intention.

 

[rammster]

For f**k's sake - Apologies...

Never mind. I'm still learning.
I have been struggling with BS abbreviation for a while, trying to understand the text in this and other threads. Recently came to a conclusion that it means Boutique Sound, but I'm not sure yet.
This time I decided to ask the source directly ))

 

[Geert]

Depends on the speakers that work with.
You’ll be surprised how the in-room response changed after applying that 80hz boost on amps. Why people thinking bass response is like calculating numbers? do more in-room measurement for small speakers will help....

I won't be surprised as it's my job to know. I confirmed boosting 80 Hz is common practice to increase the feeling of bass. And there are other known frequencies for other effects.

 

[rammster]

I am not sure what is intentional or not in regards to this design.
It seems to me like you are looking for reasons that there are sound engineering involved in the design and after predictably finding apparent confirmation for your preconcieved notion that is used to disregard the contradictory data and everyone questioning the faults in the design are average DIYers. If we take a step back and look at the data in its totality and try to interpret it with the available science i dont think you can come to the conclusion that this is a good design.

I dont pretend to know why people buy this, i am sure they have their reasons but we see everyday on this site how the most popular and respected stuff can have awful performance. It shouldnt surprise anyone at this point.

English is not my native language, but I'm sensing the Matrix_Architect speaking manner ))

 

[sarumbear]

Enlighten me...I'm open for it. I'm here to learn At the same time I try to understand why they designed the speaker the way they did.

When placed a speaker 85cm from the back wall you end up with a big dip at 115 Hz.

You said you want to learn but you insist that you know it already. If there will be a big dip to the sound at frequencies depending on how far you are away from a wall that means every speaker which is not flush to the wall will always have a dip in its response. We know that, that is not the case.

The wavelength of 115Hz is 298cm which is 2.6 times the 115cm you are giving. It is not even a half wavelength. Maybe you can explain us why a fractional wavelength is at work?

 

[wwenze]

I believe istening to classical music will highlight the defects and certainly allow to understand/meet the measurements.

Not about liking it or not. Too much Salt and Pepper.

Good bass line makes me happy. That's how I got the idea of EQ by ear.