I have just got a second-hand pair of Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy 5.1 speakers,
and I am having problems which I hope that some kind soul can help me with.

I used to use Martin Logan CLSIIz panels driven by big monoblock triodes,
but then I relocated for a few years over to India (where I figured the
equipment would not survive so I sold it). I got used to beautiful and
natural soundstaging for sure. I am just not getting anything sounding
vaguely natural (not even tonally) at all from the Wilson setup.

I also got married, and the WAF on big equipment is amazingly low - not to
mention that big ticket amplification is just out of the question now. So I
am using a Copland valve amp (usual 4 x EL34 thing) that has driven smaller
box speakers quite well.

I am wondering whether :

a) Am I setting up the speakers correctly (having been so used to setting up
panels rather than dynamic speakers)?
b) Is the amplifier up to the job, even though the Wilsons have a very good
sensitivity?

It is making me sufficiently unhappy that I might just sell up and go back
to panels.

All help and advice very gratefully received.

Neil

On 16 Dec 2004 02:42:52 GMT, "Neil McMillan"
wrote:

I have just got a second-hand pair of Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy 5.1 speakers,
and I am having problems which I hope that some kind soul can help me with.

I used to use Martin Logan CLSIIz panels driven by big monoblock triodes,
but then I relocated for a few years over to India (where I figured the
equipment would not survive so I sold it). I got used to beautiful and
natural soundstaging for sure. I am just not getting anything sounding
vaguely natural (not even tonally) at all from the Wilson setup.

I also got married, and the WAF on big equipment is amazingly low - not to
mention that big ticket amplification is just out of the question now. So I
am using a Copland valve amp (usual 4 x EL34 thing) that has driven smaller
box speakers quite well.

I am wondering whether :

a) Am I setting up the speakers correctly (having been so used to setting up
panels rather than dynamic speakers)?

Probably not, although the Wilsons also like a lot of free space
around them, so you should be reasonably OK.

b) Is the amplifier up to the job, even though the Wilsons have a very good
sensitivity?

Probably not, as the Wilsons generally do like to be driven by
something SS and beefy. A decent 100 w/channel SS amp should be
compact and economical, if you're that worried about her!

It is making me sufficiently unhappy that I might just sell up and go back
to panels.

Oh, she'll just luuuurrrrve those! :-)

Seriiously, if you like the sound of panels (and most people do), you
can never go back to boxes........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

If I were you, I would contact Wilson. I would think that their
customer support should be excellent and they can give you some
suggestions for optimum placement and amplification requirements. That
said, the WAF issue is something that NO one can "fix." :-)

Cheers,

Jack

Neil McMillan wrote:

I have just got a second-hand pair of Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy 5.1 speakers,
and I am having problems which I hope that some kind soul can help me with.

I used to use Martin Logan CLSIIz panels driven by big monoblock triodes,
but then I relocated for a few years over to India (where I figured the
equipment would not survive so I sold it). I got used to beautiful and
natural soundstaging for sure. I am just not getting anything sounding
vaguely natural (not even tonally) at all from the Wilson setup.

I also got married, and the WAF on big equipment is amazingly low - not to
mention that big ticket amplification is just out of the question now. So I
am using a Copland valve amp (usual 4 x EL34 thing) that has driven smaller
box speakers quite well.

I am wondering whether :

a) Am I setting up the speakers correctly (having been so used to setting up
panels rather than dynamic speakers)?
b) Is the amplifier up to the job, even though the Wilsons have a very good
sensitivity?

It is making me sufficiently unhappy that I might just sell up and go back
to panels.

All help and advice very gratefully received.

Neil

"Neil McMillan" wrote in message
...
I have just got a second-hand pair of Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy 5.1
speakers,
and I am having problems which I hope that some kind soul can help me
with.

I used to use Martin Logan CLSIIz panels driven by big monoblock triodes,
but then I relocated for a few years over to India (where I figured the
equipment would not survive so I sold it). I got used to beautiful and
natural soundstaging for sure. I am just not getting anything sounding
vaguely natural (not even tonally) at all from the Wilson setup.

I also got married, and the WAF on big equipment is amazingly low - not to
mention that big ticket amplification is just out of the question now. So
I
am using a Copland valve amp (usual 4 x EL34 thing) that has driven
smaller
box speakers quite well.

I am wondering whether :

a) Am I setting up the speakers correctly (having been so used to setting
up
panels rather than dynamic speakers)?
b) Is the amplifier up to the job, even though the Wilsons have a very
good
sensitivity?

It is making me sufficiently unhappy that I might just sell up and go back
to panels.


If you loved the Martin Logans, I doubt you'll like the Wilsons all that
much, no matter how you drive them. And if you liked (and could live with)
small box speakers, then maybe your wife could learn to love some of the
smaller Maggies....depending on your decor they may actually appeal to her.
They should be quite happy with your current amp. Then as finances permit,
you could add a powered subwoofer or two (tucked away discretely) and
essentially have a very fine full range stereo system.

Hi Neil, My input, and opinions probably aren't probably going to be
very helpful to you, but I have once heard the Wilson Watt Puppy 5.1's
in a high end audio store in Chicago about 5 years ago (Audio
Consultants)

The speakers were being driven in a properly set up room, and in fact,
set up like thier benchmark reference system at the time.
They were driven by a top of the line Threshold Class A Amp, and I came
away not liking these speakers at all. They seemed lacklste IMO.

I probably wouldn't have bought the pair if they told me I could have
them for $3K, that's how much I disliked this particular model I can
recall.

Listening to the Wilson Witt moments later at the exact opposite side of
the same room, I actually liked the sound this speaker produced much
better, and the cost was virtualy 1/2 of what the Watt Puppy 5.1 cost.
($8500 vs $17,000)

Have you listened to the Watt-Puppy at some point in the past that you
decided you liked them?

Please understand I'm not trying to bash your choices, or even bash the
Wilson Watt-Puppy.

Many may highly praise, and love this speaker, and also too, perhaps the
front end of this system I personally heard may not have been optimally
matched for the Wilsons?

I've heard a few models of the Martin Logans over the years, and it had
been said that speaker placement can be a bugger with these too, but on
a couple of occasions, I must agree with you, that when set
up/positioned properly, the Martin Logans did in my experience exhibit
huge, wide soundstaging, crystal clear, shimmering, and coherent mids,
and highs..
Walls just literlly disappeared, and when the goosebumps came up my my
arms during certains passages, I knew I was experiencing a proper
acoustical envoirment-set-up for these wonderful speakers.

I'm hoping as others have mentioned that a call to Wilson Audio may help
you weed out what may be lacking with your particular set-up. I would
not doubt that over the years, perhaps x-over components have been
changed/modified, and perhaps this will be an area where you may find a
change will be beneficial to your particular set-up?

I'm hoping that your difficluties are something simpler like as others
mentioned, proper speaker placement?
Wishing you the best of luck, Mark D.

On 21 Dec 2004 00:43:12 GMT, (Mark D) wrote:

They seemed lacklste IMO.

Wuzzat?

Kal

Sorry Kalman, I meant to say 'Lackluster" .

Perhaps a better description would be to say they sounded "Small".
Maybe the room I heard them in was too large? Too damped acoustically?

Sorry I didn't check my spelling/typing that well before responding to
the original poster.
Mark D.