Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)

[MrHifiTunes]

Sonus Faber is the go-to wife-friendly speaker. The one shown to her was the Olympic Nova III. She did not like the grille, which she thought were bits of string, not audiophile elastic. The dealer was surprised, because they are a pretty safe bet. He thought I would not like the sound, I don't know why.

There is no accounting for taste, which is why there are so many consumer loudspeakers.

Yes, I don't know who came up with the idea to put strings in front of the speaker. The woofer cone material doesn't look nice either I find the heritage much more appealing. If I only got the money.... : https://www.sonusfaber.com/en/collections/#heritage-collection

 

[richard12511]

Lastly, I agree with many comments that low distortion really matters;

These don't really have low distortion, though. Distortion is fairly good, but we've seen much better for cheaper.

it matters more than linear frequency response accuracy;

This I have to disagree with. Can you provide some research to support this claim? All the research I'm aware of points to the opposite: frequency response matters far more than distortion.

 

[DWI]

I can't really challenge the Quad 'situation' but my dealer pal has been able to cherry pick without issue.. Mind you, the little Vena 2 wouldn't interest KJ these days and the same with the speakers they now sell with ribbon? tweeters. Back in my day, it was a chain of six shops selling everything from almost bargain basement to some then serious high end. The financial issues in 1975? (VAT increasing I remember but there was more) caused the UK audio industry to crash out and I was lucky to remain employed (I was young, too keen if anything and cheap most likely). I jumped ship to a large Linn-Naim dealership (these products sold themselves back then and still do to a degree) and KJ went to the doldrums until UK distributor Absolute Sounds became a must-have with Krell and ARC to start with. NO WAY am I criticising at all, but I do have to say (and it's relevant to this thread) that it's taken me until recently (really, it has) to even begin to understand how wealthy people often regard products like this. I worried with the £4k or so Krell 50S I had that once you get on this ladder, you need expensive 'matching' gear to fully 'accept' such products (Amir touched on this in his review I think).

KJ went bust about 10 years ago for reasons I cannot explain (I was involved professionally), but it is a much better business under the new ownership. I went in there a few years ago and there was a massive pile of boxes piled up at the door, literally to the ceiling. I was told someone came in and bought a complete high-end system (presumably several hundred thousand £'s) in an hour, paid on the spot and gave a shipping address. I have no difficulty understanding audio as a consumer product that appeals to all price points for all sorts of reasons. You see any number of £100,000+ cars driving past all the time, or at least you do in London, so why not spend that money on audio? Or jewellery? Or a painting? Or anything really.

 

[celroid]

This should be a headless panther because of price/performance.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Depends on the $1000 speaker in question

Objectively, there are $500-$800 speakers that outperform this speaker in most ways. These speakers are also bad in ways that aren't fixable with EQ, particularly no bass, and directivity errors. The Revel demolishes this speaker in terms of objective performance, and if one believes in the research of Floyd Toole(which I do), the Revel would also win a blind test with multiple listeners. I have the M106, so I'd actually love to test this for real with my speaker switcher and friends. Maybe I can find a Wilson dealer that could help?

I think Amir also believe strong in the Floyd Toole theory.

The "blind" and "multiple listeners" are the key points, imo.

Totaly agree..look how many pages are filled already with people who didnt ever hear the speaker.

As much as Amir says he's immune to expectation bias because he listens to so many speakers and has no stake, I just don't buy it. His subconscious brain knows he's comparing a $10,000 speaker against a $2,000 speaker. For totally valid subjective impressions(IMO, Amir's impressions are valid in some sense), the comparison needs to be blind.

Well I would rather think that it is more difficult for him to admit that it sounds great despite the measurements. I think he would have it much easier if he could say it sounds bad.. and look the measurements prove it. I value the fact that he has the guts to say otherwise, which makes it more believable IMO.

Then there's the possibility that Amir as an individual just prefers a speaker with these specific resonances and directivity errors. This is where the "multiple listeners" adds value.

multiple listeners will be very helpfull in this case but we dont have it now. I do believe Arim findings are true and honest. Thats why it intrigues me. Why does it sound right. I assume there is something that this wobbly on and off axis gets right in the right place. There are other examples of it.

I truly believe that there will always be individuals who prefer something else, but research shows that the majority of the herd will prefer a speaker with attributes that this speaker lacks(bass below 100Hz, flat direct sound, no directivity errors).

To me, the most surprising thing that Amir said was:

TuneTot also had deeper and cleaner bass response than the M106

Someone pointed out this speaker has 3 bass ports. If so maybe the measurements is not complete. On the other hand this woofer has some great bass for it's size...Thats where it is know for.

Given that this was after he reduced the 120Hz peak with EQ, what in the data could support this impression? Unless my eyes deceive me, the Revel has both deeper bass, and for the most part less distortion(if the distortion difference matters at all).

I didnt see much difference in the distortion department.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

These don't really have low distortion, though. Distortion is fairly good, but we've seen much better for cheaper.

Do you have an example of speaker that has less distortion? Just out of interest.

This I have to disagree with. Can you provide some research to support this claim? All the research I'm aware of points to the opposite: frequency response matters far more than distortion.

 

[richard12511]

As someone who has actually bought a pair of Wilson speakers, the last thing that ever crossed my mind is how much it cost to make and sell them.

I suppose some people think brands like Wilson are charging criminal prices and people are stupid to pay them. You could say that about Nike shoes and a million other products. People buy things because they give them pleasure, and I enjoy going shopping with one of my kids buying him Nike shoes.

Honestly, given how sturdy the cabinet is, and the drivers they use, I don't see a problem with the $10,000 price tag. At 5x markup, it actually seems somewhat fair. I think it would be difficult for a new company to come in and design/produce(in the US) a similarly great enclosure, with those drivers, and still turn a profit. Have to consider the cost of the R&D. Good engineers are expensive, and from what I understand, Wilson pays their engineers extremely well, which is why much of the staff has been there 10+ years.

The bigger issue to me is the performance, namely no bass, FR errors, and directivity errors. The distortion performance is decent, but not great.

Keep in mind that by "performance" I'm simply talking objective performance. I've never heard these, and obviously they sounded great to the individual reviewer here. It's possible that Wilson has R&D that supersedes the work of Toole/Olive. Who knows? I think we need a proper blind test to answer.

 

[beagleman]

As much as Amir says he's immune to expectation bias because he listens to so many speakers and has no stake, I just don't buy it. His subconscious brain knows he's comparing a $10,000 speaker against a $2,000 speaker. For totally valid subjective impressions(IMO, Amir's impressions are valid in some sense), the comparison needs to be blind.

Most biases are subconscious, and not able to be under conscious control of the individual.

I am not implying that happened with HIM, but without a blind test one is never "sure"

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Yes you will and that is why ASR measurements show the reflections and the expected sum of them. Every room is different. You are now asking a question about how to acoustically treat a room. That is an altogether different topic.

Yes I value that summed reflextion in room gragh a lot. But like you said every room is different so Im confused what I see here. If every room is different and has such big influence which expected sum you see then?

You assumed wrong.

You lost me....software EQ is possible but passive EQ not?
But I would like to thank you for the time and effort you took in replying and answering. ( I think it took more time and effort then we initially thought)

As said before, focusing too much on the bass. What intrigues me more is why the speaker sounds great even wobbly measurements. There must be something right with it. balancing/mixing direct and reflected sound in the right way.

 

[richard12511]

You seem to be missing the experience you need to back this assertion. Room nulls appear at different frequencies depending on dimensions. You cannot "engineer" a 115Hz peak expecting it to fill in a 115Hz null in all rooms. That's just silly.

Indeed. You could easily have a peak at 115Hz that the Wilson tuning just exacerbates. For a non custom design speaker like this, there really is no such thing as trying as trying to tune the bass response to a particular room. All you can do is aim for the average. A neutral response will tend towards the best "on average".

 

[richard12511]

Just curious out of the 23 pages of responses has anyone had the opportunity to hear any Wilson speaker in a system?

I've never heard the Tune Tots, but I've heard the giant Wilsons. I thought they sounded great tbh, but they were also truly full range, whereas these have very little bass below 100Hz. It was also a 4 way speaker(iirc), so likely less directivity errors than this one.

Ignoring the price, I could imagine these sounding decent when crossed to subs at 120Hz or so, but not full range as they're judged here. Good bass is just too important for me.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

No offense, but you seem determined to prove that that bass-boost is "competent" ( never mind that it contradicts their own measured specs and Amir eq'd the speaker to lessen its impact) speaker design. I gotta respect that.

Oh I dont want to prove anything. Just bring some contra weight to the subject and looking with an open view on things.
Maybe naive, but i can not get it, that an army of educated designers would make so much effort to make a very good woofer sound bad. It would cost them a lot less effort to make it sound conform floyd toole's curves.
So trying to understand the idea behind it.

I dont want to focus on the bass...but seems everyone comes back only on that part.
What intrigues me most is the good sound of the wobbly on and off axis measurements.

Most important is to get the enjoyment from the music we like...all the stuff we use isnt really that important in the end. I rather listen to music I like on a transtor radio then listen to something I dont like on the best system possible.

 

[sarumbear]

Maybe naive, but i can not get it, that an army of educated designers would make so much effort to make a very good woofer sound bad.

Who said they have an army of engineers. Have you see how they started, their first speaker?

 

[Voo]

ever go listen to a bunch of different systems in a store or at a show? I like most of em on display, but still narrow it down to just 1. and unfortuneately for me the 1 I take home isnt the one I liked the most. compromises...everyone usually has made them or will at some point. Its nice to know this speaker isnt perfect but worth listening to. you know what is the worst? buying that perfect speaker and sounding like crap in your space/room...so disappointing....

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Indeed. You could easily have a peak at 115Hz that the Wilson tuning just exacerbates. For a non custom design speaker like this, there really is no such thing as trying as trying to tune the bass response to a particular room. All you can do is aim for the average. A neutral response will tend towards the best "on average".

That was my idea that they did. Tune for compensating the loss from the backwall when placed at their specific distance. (thats the only distance they have impact on in ones room)
I wouldn't call this a non custom design. I would call it semi custom as they come to set it up in your room according to one customer here.

I don't want to debate if it is right or wrong...just looking for an answer why they would come up with something like this. Because they surely thought about it.

 

[MrHifiTunes]

Who said they have an army of engineers. Have you see how they started, their first speaker?

Well I assume they have more then 1 engineer looking at their designs and would also think that when hiring someone they will have proper screening....or should we all go and apply for a job there

 

[heflys20]

The likely did it to give the impression of the speaker possessing more low-end than it actually does, particularly to the untrained ear. For show room effect. This wouldn't be the first speaker to display such behavior.

 

[richard12511]

Of course, in 20 years, how will the Gennie's fair?

Probably really well, given that they actively protect themselves from damage in ways that passive speakers can't(why I've only ever had to replace drivers in passive speakers). They are also designed for pro use, and in pro use, reliability is the number 1 variable. Speakers from companies like Genelec, Neumann, ATC are designed to work 8 hours a day under heavy use for a really long time.

 

[richard12511]

Hey! You guys have to remember, AMIR thought the bass was too much for his general listening. That does NOT mean it is too much for a person who likes bass heavy sound. There is no perfect speaker. If you listened to them at say 70 to 75 db and you thought "hey, that's great bass I hear and I like it" ,then this speaker is for you, well disregarding the price! Arguing or discussing about how Amir hears a speaker and what he thinks is fantastic may not be what anyone else likes. Others may want more treble for an "airy" sound, others may want a boosted 800 to 3k sound for amazing vocals. Look at the data and his opinion and say Gee, I do like a nice amount of bass. then go give whatever product that has that a listen. Or buy it and try it and return if not happy. The LEAST important part of the reviews are equating what Amir likes and what you may like, just look at the data. But his comments (subjective review) are helpful if he says "Yes, I noticed quite a bit of bass vs other small speakers are do not have much if any bass sound". That steers you right there to take a look at that speaker if you like bass. The devil is in the details.

I didn't miss the part of Amir preference. My point was more that Amir is just an individual listener listening sighted and with the knowledge of the speaker's cost. To get a truly "objective" subjective evaluation would require multiple listeners and blind conditions. That's not to say Amir's individual impressions have no value; I think they do.

 

[richard12511]

I don't want to debate if it is right or wrong...just looking for an answer why they would come up with something like this. Because they surely thought about it.

In my eyes, that question is easy to answer. They added that boost because the speaker has very little low bass at all, and adding that peak can trick many listeners into thinking they're hearing good/deep bass. There are legitimately well engineered speakers(like the Revel M16) that use the same/similar "trick".