Anyone compared the HT3 with Wilson Watt Puppy?

mr_bill · « **on:** 31 Oct 2009, 01:18 pm »

Just curious if anyone has compared or has comments, as a reference.

2bigears · « **Reply #1 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 03:06 pm »

isn't the WP 27,000.00 bucks new ????

different ball game here.....

avahifi · « **Reply #2 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 03:20 pm »

I have heard the Puppies at a few trade shows and kinda felt they were amazingly overpriced.

I think the name for the adult version of that species would be more appropriate.

Frank

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #3 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 03:40 pm »

The HT3 might embarrass them.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/wilson_wattpuppy8/

That isn't a bad set of measurements compared to some of what you see in high-end audio, but it certainly isn't up to the price tag.

Edit:

I take it back... you have to call a spade a spade. Considering the price, they are poor.

End Edit:

I'm sure Dennis is capable of improving upon it.

Zero · « **Reply #4 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 03:51 pm »

And off they go...

maxwalrath · « **Reply #5 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 03:54 pm »

Quote from: Zero on 31 Oct 2009, 03:51 pm

And off they go...

If I preferred the Wilson's I'd probably stay away from this thread...which is too bad, I'd like to hear people's impressions about the OP's question.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #6 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 04:09 pm »

I'm offering up objective data, that has correlation with sound quality as shown in multiple studies. I think it is germane to the subject and is useful information for anyone making a purchasing choice.

I also stated my confidence in Dennis & Jim that they can improve upon it. That is based upon faith, and the knowledge that they know how to engineer a loudspeaker.

I'm don't mean to offend anyone, or hurt their feelings but the objective measurements are not great. They don't suck, but they are easily improved upon which is hard to understand at their price point. That is my only point.

lowtech · « **Reply #7 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 04:30 pm »

Quote from: Kevin Haskins on 31 Oct 2009, 04:09 pm

the objective measurements are not great. They don't suck, but they are easily improved upon...

Really? The distortion measurement looks quite clean. What makes you think the HT3 would perform as well under the same conditions? Maybe you have measured the distortion of the HT3? I have never seen a published measurement, so I cannot speculate.

Top curve: frequency response @ 90dB SPL

Bottom curve: THD+N @ 90dB (50Hz - 10kHz)

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #8 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 04:52 pm »

Quote from: lowtech on 31 Oct 2009, 04:30 pm

Quote from: Kevin Haskins on 31 Oct 2009, 04:09 pm
the objective measurements are not great. They don't suck, but they are easily improved upon...

Really? The distortion measurement looks quite clean. What makes you think the HT3 would perform as well under the same conditions? Maybe you have measured the distortion of the HT3? I have never seen a published measurement, so I cannot speculate.

Top curve: frequency response @ 90dB SPL
Bottom curve: THD+N @ 90dB (50Hz - 10kHz)

At 90dB, that is good for non-linear distortion, which has nothing to do with the design talents of the loudspeaker engineer. It has to do with the fact that they are using SS devices. It takes zero design talent to buy a woofer and a tweeter.

The FR, arguably the most important aspect of loudspeaker design is +/- 2.5 dB. That isn't on one axis either, if you look at the averaged listening window.

lowtech · « **Reply #9 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 05:10 pm »

Quote from: Kevin Haskins on 31 Oct 2009, 04:52 pm

It takes zero design talent to buy a woofer and a tweeter.

Dare I speculate that it takes even less talent to criticize a highly-respected design from a well-regarded loudspeaker manufacturer. This coming from a competing loudspeaker manufacturer.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #10 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 05:17 pm »

Quote from: lowtech on 31 Oct 2009, 05:10 pm

Quote from: Kevin Haskins on 31 Oct 2009, 04:52 pm
It takes zero design talent to buy a woofer and a tweeter.

Dare I speculate that it takes even less talent to criticize a highly-respected design from a well-regarded loudspeaker manufacturer. This coming from a competing loudspeaker manufacturer.

I'm not here trying to sell my product. I don't even have a product to sell at the moment that in any way competes with either the HT3 or the Wilson Watt Puppy.

Those are the measurements, I'm not making them up. I have zero to gain by pointing them out in a public forum whereby I'm likely to offend the Wilson supporters.

You may make of it what you may. I'm simply giving my opinion that the design is lacking considering the price tag. That is my opinion, based upon the measurements. If you want to read any more into my intentions than that you are free to do so.

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #11 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 05:36 pm »

Boys, this happens to be a Salk Circle. What the heck do you expect? Wilson-lovers stand easy. They're not bad speakers, just overpriced.

I've auditioned the Sophia I's and II's several times and while engaging, they lacked the top and bottom extension, or truthfulness, of the HT3. A nice looking and very sexy speaker for sure. Now how they compare to the Puppies I cannot say. But perhaps that gives you some comparative point to jump from?

lowtech · « **Reply #12 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 05:50 pm »

I should also make it known that I have no bias towards or against Wilson speakers and have never owned a set.

What I do take exception to is having an award winning product bashed by someone in the industry based on 3rd party measurements and hearsay. If he had actually taken the measurements himself and also measured the HT3's under the same conditions and then offered commentary about how they compared objectively, perhaps I would feel differently.

lowtech · « **Reply #13 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 05:57 pm »

Quote from: Marbles on 31 Oct 2009, 05:54 pm

here is a FR chart of the HT1 (basically the top half of an HT3) taken from the Salk site (again fwiw)

Please enlighten us by providing a link for non-linear distortion measurements.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #14 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 05:59 pm »

Quote from: lowtech on 31 Oct 2009, 05:50 pm

I should also make it known that I have no bias towards or against Wilson speakers and have never owned a set.

What I do take exception to is having an award winning product bashed by someone in the industry based on 3rd party measurements and hearsay. If he had actually taken the measurements himself and also measured the HT3's under the same conditions and then offered commentary about how they compared objectively, perhaps I would feel differently.

I'm pointing out the measurements, taken in the NRC, by an objective third party. If I had taken those measurements would you feel better about the data? I doubt it.... you would then say that I had an axe to grind and that the data clearly could not be trusted.

All I'm doing, is offering my opinion of the design, based upon the measurements. If that means nothing to you, or if it offends you, then I'm sorry but I don't feel I'm being unfair to the product or the designer. It is the same scrutiny that I'd have when evaluating any loudspeaker design. One that cost more than an entire production run of loudspeakers should stand up to scrutiny, wouldn't you agree?

In terms of the HT3, I freely admit to being ignorant.

macrojack · « **Reply #15 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 06:09 pm »

I used to work at a Wilson Dealer. It's basically Bose for the carriage trade. It has its place in the market, legitimately earned and studiously maintained. Wilson has had the reviewers in his corner from day one. Dave was a reviewer for TAS when he initiated this enterprise. He started at the right time. He was well connected and reasonably well funded and he read the psychology of the audio customer well enough to get in his pocketbook.

It is what it is. I think a lot of us know what we could do with the ridiculous sums that are laid down for Wilson's stuff and feel some resentment about seeing it squandered.

I know Salk only by name.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #16 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 06:13 pm »

Quote from: macrojack on 31 Oct 2009, 06:09 pm

It is what it is. I think a lot of us know what we could do with the ridiculous sums that are laid down for Wilson's stuff and feel some resentment about seeing it squandered.

I feel envy of his business acumen.

srb · « **Reply #17 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 06:25 pm »

Quote from: Kevin Haskins on 31 Oct 2009, 06:13 pm

I feel envy at his business acumen.

And Bose as well.

Steve

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #18 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 06:27 pm »

Quote from: srb on 31 Oct 2009, 06:25 pm

Quote from: Kevin Haskins on 31 Oct 2009, 06:13 pm
I feel envy at his business acumen.

And Bose as well.

Steve

Yes... both of them know their target customer well. There is nothing wrong with that either.

stereodad · « **Reply #19 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 06:50 pm »

I would like to second Big Reds post.The question was asked in a Salk circle and yes there will be a Salk bias,it's nothing to get excited about. I'm sure Mr. Bill will take that into account, i know I would.
Also I have read many debates on Wilson speakers on other audio sites,they are anything but objective.