Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Wilson LS again

Expand Messages
  • musica_pt
    I have never read anything by this Neil Gader fellow but considering that uses fidelity and explosiveness in the same sentence his opinion is pretty much
    Message 1 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I have never read anything by this Neil Gader fellow but considering that uses "fidelity" and "explosiveness" in the same sentence his opinion is pretty much worthless.

      Cheers,
      Ric


      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
      >
      > But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
      >
      > http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mallin wrote:
      > >
      > > The larger Wilsons ARE ugly, unless you like cubic industrial design
      > > elements and a lot of glossy auto paint in your living room.
      > >
      > > Also, in this clip, I would worry about whether part of that large glass
      > > table in the center covers the first reflection point of the tweeters from
      > > the floor as seen from the listening position and would thus reflect highs,
      > > smearing the imaging and adding grunge to the highs.
      > >
      > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, mm wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8wseujBBAM&feature=endscreen
      > > >
      > > > Yip
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • musica_pt
      Your post sort of sums up High End Audio quite nicelly, as does the State of The Art article... Here we have a well off gentleman with a pile of critic
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Your post sort of sums up High End Audio quite nicelly, as does the "State of The Art" article...
        Here we have a well off gentleman with a pile of "critic" approved High End gear listening to explosive "sounds" and being flatered by one of those "critics" who's work "marketing" expensive gear might one day be rewarded with some otherwise unreachable High End gear.
        It is nevertheless somewhat entertaining, though.

        Cheers,
        Ricardo


        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
        >
        > Interesting that if you strip away all
        > the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
        > what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
        > Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
        > to truth. Truth is not commented on.
        >
        >
        > Incidentally, it is well known that
        > jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
        > of discrimination about audio of any source material.
        > This has been studied. Pink noise is the
        > top(for distinguishing speakers),
        > followed by female vocal material
        > with full range back up and orchestral material.
        >
        > Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
        > of material loudly does not really show one much
        > of anything--except
        > that the system will play loud(which no one
        > doubted in this case).
        >
        > Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
        >
        > REG
        >
        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@ wrote:
        > >
        > > And he built a dedicated listening room for that.
        > >
        > > Yip
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > >________________________________
        > > > From: Robert
        > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        > > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
        > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
        > > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
        > > >the bass cannot sound right.
        > > >
        > > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
        > > >REG
        > > >
        > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
        > > >>
        > > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
        > > >>
        > > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >> --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mallin wrote:
        > > >> >
        > > >> > The larger Wilsons ARE ugly, unless you like cubic industrial design
        > > >> > elements and a lot of glossy auto paint in your living room.
        > > >> >
        > > >> > Also, in this clip, I would worry about whether part of that large glass
        > > >> > table in the center covers the first reflection point of the tweeters from
        > > >> > the floor as seen from the listening position and would thus reflect highs,
        > > >> > smearing the imaging and adding grunge to the highs.
        > > >> >
        > > >> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, mm wrote:
        > > >> >
        > > >> > > **
        > > >> > >
        > > >> > >
        > > >> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8wseujBBAM&feature=endscreen
        > > >> > >
        > > >> > > Yip
        > > >> > >
        > > >> > >
        > > >> > >
        > > >> >
        > > >>
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Edward
        I can t be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson
        Message 3 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
          >
          > Interesting that if you strip away all
          > the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
          > what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
          > Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
          > to truth. Truth is not commented on.
          >
          >
          > Incidentally, it is well known that
          > jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
          > of discrimination about audio of any source material.
          > This has been studied. Pink noise is the
          > top(for distinguishing speakers),
          > followed by female vocal material
          > with full range back up and orchestral material.
          >
          > Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
          > of material loudly does not really show one much
          > of anything--except
          > that the system will play loud(which no one
          > doubted in this case).
          >
          > Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
          >
          > REG
          >
          > > > > From: Robert
          > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
          > > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
          > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > 
          > > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
          > > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
          > > >the bass cannot sound right.
          > > >
          > > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
          > > >REG
          > > >
          > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
          > > >>
          > > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
          > > >>
          > > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
          > > >>
          > >
        • Tom Mallin
          One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available. Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object
          Message 4 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.

            Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.

            I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.

            On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward <Edward_Wu@...> wrote:
             

            I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)

            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
            >
            > Interesting that if you strip away all
            > the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
            > what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
            > Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
            > to truth. Truth is not commented on.
            >
            >
            > Incidentally, it is well known that
            > jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
            > of discrimination about audio of any source material.
            > This has been studied. Pink noise is the
            > top(for distinguishing speakers),
            > followed by female vocal material
            > with full range back up and orchestral material.
            >
            > Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
            > of material loudly does not really show one much
            > of anything--except
            > that the system will play loud(which no one
            > doubted in this case).
            >
            > Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
            >
            > REG
            >
            > > > > From: Robert
            > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
            > > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
            > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 
            > > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
            > > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
            > > >the bass cannot sound right.
            > > >
            > > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
            > > >REG
            > > >
            > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
            > > >>
            > > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
            > > >>
            > > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
            > > >>
            > >


          • yipmangmeng
            The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner. Here on this foru at least the truth can be said. Yip ... The
            Message 5 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
              Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.

              Yip


              From: Tom Mallin <tmallin4@...>
              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
              Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

               
              One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.

              Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.

              I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.

              On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward <Edward_Wu@...> wrote:
               
              I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)

              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
              >
              > Interesting that if you strip away all
              > the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
              > what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
              > Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
              > to truth. Truth is not commented on.
              >
              >
              > Incidentally, it is well known that
              > jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
              > of discrimination about audio of any source material.
              > This has been studied. Pink noise is the
              > top(for distinguishing speakers),
              > followed by female vocal material
              > with full range back up and orchestral material.
              >
              > Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
              > of material loudly does not really show one much
              > of anything--except
              > that the system will play loud(which no one
              > doubted in this case).
              >
              > Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
              >
              > REG
              >
              > > > > From: Robert
              > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              > > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
              > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > 
              > > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
              > > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
              > > >the bass cannot sound right.
              > > >
              > > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
              > > >REG
              > > >
              > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
              > > >>
              > > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
              > > >>
              > > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
              > > >>
              > >




            • Robert
              Not true and not fair. I think that it is not at all true that everyone who says in print that they like Wilson is intimidated by advertising considerations. I
              Message 6 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Not true and not fair.
                I think that it is not at all
                true that everyone who says in print
                that they like Wilson is intimidated
                by advertising considerations. I
                know these people, RH in particular,
                and I know he says what he really thinks.
                Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                scale, low distortion. These are not
                enough to my mind unless accompanied
                by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                do not live in a huge house).
                But that Wilson offers these things
                seems to me the case.
                The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                no doubt.
                But this is more cynicism than is
                at all justified in my opinion.
                As to the owner, he has(last time
                I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.

                As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                to prefer one thing over another.

                Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                but still one paid. Things at TAS
                are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                But no one is lying about what they hear
                nor about what they like.

                REG

                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                >
                > The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                > Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                >
                > Yip
                >
                >
                >
                > >________________________________
                > > From: Tom Mallin
                > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                > >
                > >
                > > 
                > >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                > >
                > >
                > >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                > >
                > >
                > >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                > >
                > >
                > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >> 
                > >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                > >>
                > >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                > >>>
                > >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                > >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                > >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                > >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                > >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                > >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                > >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                > >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                > >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                > >>> followed by female vocal material
                > >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                > >>>
                > >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                > >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                > >>> of anything--except
                > >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                > >>> doubted in this case).
                > >>>
                > >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                > >>>
                > >>> REG
                > >>>
                > >>> > > > From: Robert
                > >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                > >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                > >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                > >>> > >
                > >>> > >
                > >>> > > 
                > >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                > >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                > >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                > >>> > >
                > >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                > >>> > >REG
                > >>> > >
                > >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                > >>> > >>
                > >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                > >>> > >>
                > >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                > >>> > >>
                > >>> >
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • yipmangmeng
                On what formula was TAS started? Are Wilson speakers accurate in timbre or not? If accurate tonally and in well balance, why has the sound of the various
                Message 7 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On what formula was TAS started?
                  Are Wilson speakers accurate in timbre or not?
                  If accurate tonally and in well balance, why has the sound of the various versions change much?
                  Is that also true of DH and AS designs?
                  Or the Quads?
                  I don't doubt that they like what they buy,but are these speakers as accurate in timbre and as well-balanced in room as the BBC Monitors?
                  If not, what is the purpose of the High End? Or High Fidelity to use the old phrase in its original sense.
                  Just curious.

                  Yip


                  From: Robert <regtas43@...>
                  To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                  Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                   

                  Not true and not fair.
                  I think that it is not at all
                  true that everyone who says in print
                  that they like Wilson is intimidated
                  by advertising considerations. I
                  know these people, RH in particular,
                  and I know he says what he really thinks.
                  Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                  scale, low distortion. These are not
                  enough to my mind unless accompanied
                  by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                  do not live in a huge house).
                  But that Wilson offers these things
                  seems to me the case.
                  The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                  no doubt.
                  But this is more cynicism than is
                  at all justified in my opinion.
                  As to the owner, he has(last time
                  I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.

                  As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                  Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                  to prefer one thing over another.

                  Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                  free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                  one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                  but still one paid. Things at TAS
                  are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                  That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                  But no one is lying about what they hear
                  nor about what they like.

                  REG

                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                  >
                  > The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                  > Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                  >
                  > Yip
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >________________________________
                  > > From: Tom Mallin
                  > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                  > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > 
                  > >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >> 
                  > >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                  > >>
                  > >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                  > >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                  > >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                  > >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                  > >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                  > >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                  > >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                  > >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                  > >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                  > >>> followed by female vocal material
                  > >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                  > >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                  > >>> of anything--except
                  > >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                  > >>> doubted in this case).
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                  > >>>
                  > >>> REG
                  > >>>
                  > >>> > > > From: Robert
                  > >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                  > >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                  > >>> > >
                  > >>> > >
                  > >>> > > 
                  > >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                  > >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                  > >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                  > >>> > >
                  > >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                  > >>> > >REG
                  > >>> > >
                  > >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                  > >>> > >>
                  > >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                  > >>> > >>
                  > >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                  > >>> > >>
                  > >>> >
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >



                • yipmangmeng
                  Time for all the TAS reviewers to state in print what they look for in a speaker. The priority criteria - starting from the most important sound factor to the
                  Message 8 of 23 , Feb 1, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Time for all the TAS reviewers to state in print what they look for in a speaker.
                    The priority criteria - starting from the most important sound factor to the least important one.
                    Preferably in a numerical list form.

                    Yip 


                    From: Robert <regtas43@...>
                    To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                    Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                     

                    Not true and not fair.
                    I think that it is not at all
                    true that everyone who says in print
                    that they like Wilson is intimidated
                    by advertising considerations. I
                    know these people, RH in particular,
                    and I know he says what he really thinks.
                    Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                    scale, low distortion. These are not
                    enough to my mind unless accompanied
                    by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                    do not live in a huge house).
                    But that Wilson offers these things
                    seems to me the case.
                    The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                    no doubt.
                    But this is more cynicism than is
                    at all justified in my opinion.
                    As to the owner, he has(last time
                    I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.

                    As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                    Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                    to prefer one thing over another.

                    Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                    free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                    one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                    but still one paid. Things at TAS
                    are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                    That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                    But no one is lying about what they hear
                    nor about what they like.

                    REG

                    --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                    >
                    > The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                    > Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                    >
                    > Yip
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > >________________________________
                    > > From: Tom Mallin
                    > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                    > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                    > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > 
                    > >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >> 
                    > >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                    > >>
                    > >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                    > >>>
                    > >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                    > >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                    > >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                    > >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                    > >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                    > >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                    > >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                    > >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                    > >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                    > >>> followed by female vocal material
                    > >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                    > >>>
                    > >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                    > >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                    > >>> of anything--except
                    > >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                    > >>> doubted in this case).
                    > >>>
                    > >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                    > >>>
                    > >>> REG
                    > >>>
                    > >>> > > > From: Robert
                    > >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                    > >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                    > >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                    > >>> > >
                    > >>> > >
                    > >>> > > 
                    > >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                    > >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                    > >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                    > >>> > >
                    > >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                    > >>> > >REG
                    > >>> > >
                    > >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                    > >>> > >>
                    > >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                    > >>> > >>
                    > >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                    > >>> > >>
                    > >>> >
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >



                  • k3ox
                    If I am remembering correctly, and to paraphrase, the Absolute Sound was the sound of live instruments in a natural performance space. So we have a clue, the
                    Message 9 of 23 , Feb 2, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If I am remembering correctly, and to paraphrase, the Absolute Sound was the sound of live instruments in a natural performance space. So we have a clue, the "instruments" and "space" here were given equal billing. By this standard, the perfect system would mimic the actual tonal balance of the orchestra while perfectly reproducing the sound space of the original venue.

                      In real life, nothing does either of these perfectly, let alone both. So our subjective feeling about what is most important and what is less important comes into play. In my view, this can depend on factors involving us as individuals.

                      REG, as he has expressed for himself, finds tonality by far the most essential characteristic. This is not hard to understand, as a musician, tonality is what you are about. The intimate knowledge of specific makes and indeed, certain specific instruments makes it hard to "fake him out" in this respect. When REG says something is tonally accurate, I tend to believe him!

                      Speaking as a "civilian", I do not have such extensive knowledge or experience with live instruments. I know what, say, a clarinet sounds like, but if the tonal reproduction is skewed a bit in playback and it doesn't sound like "that" clarinet, so long as it sounds recognizably like a clarinet, I am OK. But the fact that systems/recordings do not reproduce the "scale" of a live orchestra is immediately apparent to me.

                      Are Wilson's "accurate" in timbre or not? I would say certainly not completely so, but I suspect they are tonally accurate enough for many listeners, just like Spendors and Harbeths reproduce the original soundspace and play loud well enough for many listeners.

                      Ya pays' your money and takes yer cherce...

                      Kevin

                      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                      >
                      > On what formula was TAS started?
                      > Are Wilson speakers accurate in timbre or not?
                      > If accurate tonally and in well balance, why has the sound of the various versions change much?
                      > Is that also true of DH and AS designs?
                      > Or the Quads?
                      > I don't doubt that they like what they buy,but are these speakers as accurate in timbre and as well-balanced in room as the BBC Monitors?
                      > If not, what is the purpose of the High End? Or High Fidelity to use the old phrase in its original sense.
                      > Just curious.
                      >
                      > Yip
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > >________________________________
                      > > From: Robert
                      > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                      > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                      > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > 
                      > >
                      > >Not true and not fair.
                      > >I think that it is not at all
                      > >true that everyone who says in print
                      > >that they like Wilson is intimidated
                      > >by advertising considerations. I
                      > >know these people, RH in particular,
                      > >and I know he says what he really thinks.
                      > >Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                      > >scale, low distortion. These are not
                      > >enough to my mind unless accompanied
                      > >by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                      > >do not live in a huge house).
                      > >But that Wilson offers these things
                      > >seems to me the case.
                      > >The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                      > >no doubt.
                      > >But this is more cynicism than is
                      > >at all justified in my opinion.
                      > >As to the owner, he has(last time
                      > >I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.
                      > >
                      > >As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                      > >Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                      > >to prefer one thing over another.
                      > >
                      > >Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                      > >free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                      > >one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                      > >but still one paid. Things at TAS
                      > >are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                      > >That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                      > >But no one is lying about what they hear
                      > >nor about what they like.
                      > >
                      > >REG
                      > >
                      > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@ wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >> The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                      > >> Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                      > >>
                      > >> Yip
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >> >________________________________
                      > >> > From: Tom Mallin
                      > >> >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                      > >> >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                      > >> >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >> > 
                      > >> >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >> >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >> >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >> >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >> >> 
                      > >> >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                      > >> >>
                      > >> >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                      > >> >>>
                      > >> >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                      > >> >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                      > >> >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                      > >> >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                      > >> >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                      > >> >>>
                      > >> >>>
                      > >> >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                      > >> >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                      > >> >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                      > >> >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                      > >> >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                      > >> >>> followed by female vocal material
                      > >> >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                      > >> >>>
                      > >> >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                      > >> >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                      > >> >>> of anything--except
                      > >> >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                      > >> >>> doubted in this case).
                      > >> >>>
                      > >> >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                      > >> >>>
                      > >> >>> REG
                      > >> >>>
                      > >> >>> > > > From: Robert
                      > >> >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                      > >> >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                      > >> >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                      > >> >>> > >
                      > >> >>> > >
                      > >> >>> > > 
                      > >> >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                      > >> >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                      > >> >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                      > >> >>> > >
                      > >> >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                      > >> >>> > >REG
                      > >> >>> > >
                      > >> >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                      > >> >>> > >>
                      > >> >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                      > >> >>> > >>
                      > >> >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                      > >> >>> > >>
                      > >> >>> >
                      > >> >>
                      > >> >>
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >> >
                      > >>
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • k3ox
                      TAS used to do this, too! It was called Listening Biases . Each reviewer had a couple of pages to express their audio philosophy and a drawing with dimentions
                      Message 10 of 23 , Feb 2, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        TAS used to do this, too! It was called "Listening Biases". Each reviewer had a couple of pages to express their audio philosophy and a drawing with dimentions of their room appended.

                        In fact, I just happen to have issue 58 here and there is one Robert E. Greene featured. An interesting read, with a stirring quote from Colin Davis as an end piece.

                        The REG reference system? Ortofon MC-3000, Morch DP-6, Nakamichi TX-1000, Nova CPA-100 (pre), Spectral DMA-50 (oh my...) and Quad ESL-63 US Monitor. Hey, it was 1989, what were YOU (and for that matter, I) listening to back then? No matter, I would probably take REG's rig (LOL).

                        Kevin

                        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Time for all the TAS reviewers to state in print what they look for in a speaker.
                        > The priority criteria - starting from the most important sound factor to the least important one.
                        > Preferably in a numerical list form.
                        >
                        > Yip 
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > >________________________________
                        > > From: Robert
                        > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                        > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                        > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > 
                        > >
                        > >Not true and not fair.
                        > >I think that it is not at all
                        > >true that everyone who says in print
                        > >that they like Wilson is intimidated
                        > >by advertising considerations. I
                        > >know these people, RH in particular,
                        > >and I know he says what he really thinks.
                        > >Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                        > >scale, low distortion. These are not
                        > >enough to my mind unless accompanied
                        > >by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                        > >do not live in a huge house).
                        > >But that Wilson offers these things
                        > >seems to me the case.
                        > >The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                        > >no doubt.
                        > >But this is more cynicism than is
                        > >at all justified in my opinion.
                        > >As to the owner, he has(last time
                        > >I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.
                        > >
                        > >As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                        > >Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                        > >to prefer one thing over another.
                        > >
                        > >Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                        > >free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                        > >one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                        > >but still one paid. Things at TAS
                        > >are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                        > >That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                        > >But no one is lying about what they hear
                        > >nor about what they like.
                        > >
                        > >REG
                        > >
                        > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@ wrote:
                        > >>
                        > >> The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                        > >> Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                        > >>
                        > >> Yip
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >> >________________________________
                        > >> > From: Tom Mallin
                        > >> >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                        > >> >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                        > >> >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >> > 
                        > >> >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >> >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >> >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >> >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >> >> 
                        > >> >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                        > >> >>
                        > >> >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                        > >> >>>
                        > >> >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                        > >> >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                        > >> >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                        > >> >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                        > >> >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                        > >> >>>
                        > >> >>>
                        > >> >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                        > >> >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                        > >> >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                        > >> >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                        > >> >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                        > >> >>> followed by female vocal material
                        > >> >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                        > >> >>>
                        > >> >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                        > >> >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                        > >> >>> of anything--except
                        > >> >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                        > >> >>> doubted in this case).
                        > >> >>>
                        > >> >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                        > >> >>>
                        > >> >>> REG
                        > >> >>>
                        > >> >>> > > > From: Robert
                        > >> >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                        > >> >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                        > >> >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                        > >> >>> > >
                        > >> >>> > >
                        > >> >>> > > 
                        > >> >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                        > >> >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                        > >> >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                        > >> >>> > >
                        > >> >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                        > >> >>> > >REG
                        > >> >>> > >
                        > >> >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                        > >> >>> > >>
                        > >> >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                        > >> >>> > >>
                        > >> >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                        > >> >>> > >>
                        > >> >>> >
                        > >> >>
                        > >> >>
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >> >
                        > >>
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Fred
                        Seems to me that recordings are the result of a mastering process and Hi-End being such a mish-mash of variables, why do we tend not to choose speakers of
                        Message 11 of 23 , Feb 2, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Seems to me that recordings are the result of a mastering process and "Hi-End" being such a mish-mash of variables, why do we tend not to choose speakers of studio mastering quality?

                          Fred.





                          From: "yipmangmeng@..." <yipmangmeng@...>
                          To: "regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com" <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 7:14
                          Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                           
                          On what formula was TAS started?
                          Are Wilson speakers accurate in timbre or not?
                          If accurate tonally and in well balance, why has the sound of the various versions change much?
                          Is that also true of DH and AS designs?
                          Or the Quads?
                          I don't doubt that they like what they buy,but are these speakers as accurate in timbre and as well-balanced in room as the BBC Monitors?
                          If not, what is the purpose of the High End? Or High Fidelity to use the old phrase in its original sense.
                          Just curious.

                          Yip


                          From: Robert <regtas43@...>
                          To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                          Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                           

                          Not true and not fair.
                          I think that it is not at all
                          true that everyone who says in print
                          that they like Wilson is intimidated
                          by advertising considerations. I
                          know these people, RH in particular,
                          and I know he says what he really thinks.
                          Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                          scale, low distortion. These are not
                          enough to my mind unless accompanied
                          by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                          do not live in a huge house).
                          But that Wilson offers these things
                          seems to me the case.
                          The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                          no doubt.
                          But this is more cynicism than is
                          at all justified in my opinion.
                          As to the owner, he has(last time
                          I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.

                          As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                          Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                          to prefer one thing over another.

                          Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                          free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                          one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                          but still one paid. Things at TAS
                          are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                          That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                          But no one is lying about what they hear
                          nor about what they like.

                          REG

                          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                          >
                          > The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                          > Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                          >
                          > Yip
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > >________________________________
                          > > From: Tom Mallin
                          > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                          > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                          > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > 
                          > >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >> 
                          > >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                          > >>
                          > >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                          > >>>
                          > >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                          > >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                          > >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                          > >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                          > >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                          > >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                          > >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                          > >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                          > >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                          > >>> followed by female vocal material
                          > >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                          > >>>
                          > >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                          > >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                          > >>> of anything--except
                          > >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                          > >>> doubted in this case).
                          > >>>
                          > >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                          > >>>
                          > >>> REG
                          > >>>
                          > >>> > > > From: Robert
                          > >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                          > >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                          > >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                          > >>> > >
                          > >>> > >
                          > >>> > > 
                          > >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                          > >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                          > >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                          > >>> > >
                          > >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                          > >>> > >REG
                          > >>> > >
                          > >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                          > >>> > >>
                          > >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                          > >>> > >>
                          > >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                          > >>> > >>
                          > >>> >
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >





                        • Ted Rook
                          Fred I think we DO chose speakers of mastering quality, that is the origin of what REG calls the BBC boxes, the Harbeths and Spendors originally designed for
                          Message 12 of 23 , Feb 2, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Fred I think we DO chose speakers of mastering quality, that is the origin of what REG calls
                            the BBC boxes, the Harbeths and Spendors originally designed for broadcast monitoring,
                            they make ideal domestic speakers, not to be confused with pop/rock studio mastering
                            speakers where loud is the primary requirement, the broadcast monitoring environment
                            doesn't require loudness to be the primary goal.


                            On 3 Feb 2013 at 0:02, Fred wrote:

                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Seems to me that recordings are the result of a mastering process
                            > and "Hi-End"
                            > being such a mish-mash of variables, why do we tend not to choose
                            > speakers of
                            > studio mastering quality?
                            >
                            > Fred.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > From: "yipmangmeng@..." <yipmangmeng@...>
                            > To: "regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com"
                            > <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 7:14
                            > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                            >
                            > On what formula was TAS started?
                            > Are Wilson speakers accurate in timbre or not?
                            > If accurate tonally and in well balance, why has the sound of
                            > the various versions change
                            > much?
                            > Is that also true of DH and AS designs?
                            > Or the Quads?
                            > I don't doubt that they like what they buy,but are these
                            > speakers as accurate in timbre and
                            > as well-balanced in room as the BBC Monitors?
                            > If not, what is the purpose of the High End? Or High Fidelity to
                            > use the old phrase in its
                            > original sense.
                            > Just curious.
                            >
                            > Yip
                            >
                            >
                            > From: Robert <regtas43@...>
                            > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                            > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                            >
                            >
                            > Not true and not fair.
                            > I think that it is not at all
                            > true that everyone who says in print
                            > that they like Wilson is intimidated
                            > by advertising considerations. I
                            > know these people, RH in particular,
                            > and I know he says what he really thinks.
                            > Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                            > scale, low distortion. These are not
                            > enough to my mind unless accompanied
                            > by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                            > do not live in a huge house).
                            > But that Wilson offers these things
                            > seems to me the case.
                            > The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                            > no doubt.
                            > But this is more cynicism than is
                            > at all justified in my opinion.
                            > As to the owner, he has(last time
                            > I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.
                            >
                            > As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                            > Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                            > to prefer one thing over another.
                            >
                            > Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                            > free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                            > one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                            > but still one paid. Things at TAS
                            > are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                            > That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                            > But no one is lying about what they hear
                            > nor about what they like.
                            >
                            > REG
                            >
                            > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                            > >
                            > > The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes
                            > advertisements. And is
                            > answerable to the owner.
                            > > Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                            > >
                            > > Yip
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > >________________________________
                            > > > From: Tom Mallin
                            > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                            > > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >Â
                            > > >One should not necessarily assume that the best
                            > cost-no-object award goes
                            > to the best sounding speaker available.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer
                            > this year don't
                            > sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.
                            > Â And
                            > there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product
                            > to be considered
                            > for this category. Â Look how expensive the speakers are which
                            > are named in
                            > the more expensive categories below this category. Â The
                            > cost-no-object
                            > category must only include speakers above this price range.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in
                            > the
                            > cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would
                            > question the choice.
                            > Â By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker
                            > systems available
                            > (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the
                            > best) keeps
                            > the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way
                            > satisfies
                            > readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high
                            > end/ultra expensive
                            > end of the market. Â It also prevents TAS from having to
                            > editorially take the
                            > position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best
                            > one is a huge
                            > waste of money.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >>Â
                            > > >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid
                            > Robert is
                            > concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on
                            > this forum.
                            > (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS
                            > cost-no-object
                            > speaker of the year award.)
                            > > >>
                            > > >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                            > > >>>
                            > > >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                            > > >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                            > > >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                            > > >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                            > > >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                            > > >>>
                            > > >>>
                            > > >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                            > > >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                            > > >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                            > > >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                            > > >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                            > > >>> followed by female vocal material
                            > > >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                            > > >>>
                            > > >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                            > > >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                            > > >>> of anything--except
                            > > >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                            > > >>> doubted in this case).
                            > > >>>
                            > > >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                            > > >>>
                            > > >>> REG
                            > > >>>
                            > > >>> > > > From: Robert
                            > > >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                            > > >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                            > > >>> > >
                            > > >>> > >
                            > > >>> > >Ã'Â
                            > > >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                            > > >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                            > > >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                            > > >>> > >
                            > > >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                            > > >>> > >REG
                            > > >>> > >
                            > > >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward"
                            > wrote:
                            > > >>> > >>
                            > > >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from
                            > Utah. See
                            > this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's
                            > listening room).
                            > Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                            > > >>> > >>
                            > > >>> > >>
                            >
                            > http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm
                            > _campaig
                            > n=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                            > > >>> > >>
                            > > >>> >
                            > > >>
                            > > >>
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • yipmangmeng
                            I forgot that it was called Listening Biases.  TAS was my rest time reading material when REG was only then a LP reviewer. I find that reading the later big
                            Message 13 of 23 , Feb 2, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I forgot that it was called Listening Biases. 
                              TAS was my rest time reading material when REG was only then a LP reviewer.
                              I find that reading the later big format issues put me to sleep pretty quickly,so TAS became my bedtime reading.

                              Yip


                              From: k3ox <kolson@...>
                              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 7:51
                              Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                               
                              TAS used to do this, too! It was called "Listening Biases". Each reviewer had a couple of pages to express their audio philosophy and a drawing with dimentions of their room appended.

                              In fact, I just happen to have issue 58 here and there is one Robert E. Greene featured. An interesting read, with a stirring quote from Colin Davis as an end piece.

                              The REG reference system? Ortofon MC-3000, Morch DP-6, Nakamichi TX-1000, Nova CPA-100 (pre), Spectral DMA-50 (oh my...) and Quad ESL-63 US Monitor. Hey, it was 1989, what were YOU (and for that matter, I) listening to back then? No matter, I would probably take REG's rig (LOL).

                              Kevin

                              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                              >
                              > Time for all the TAS reviewers to state in print what they look for in a speaker.
                              > The priority criteria - starting from the most important sound factor to the least important one.
                              > Preferably in a numerical list form.
                              >
                              > Yip 
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > >________________________________
                              > > From: Robert
                              > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                              > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                              > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > 
                              > >
                              > >Not true and not fair.
                              > >I think that it is not at all
                              > >true that everyone who says in print
                              > >that they like Wilson is intimidated
                              > >by advertising considerations. I
                              > >know these people, RH in particular,
                              > >and I know he says what he really thinks.
                              > >Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                              > >scale, low distortion. These are not
                              > >enough to my mind unless accompanied
                              > >by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                              > >do not live in a huge house).
                              > >But that Wilson offers these things
                              > >seems to me the case.
                              > >The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                              > >no doubt.
                              > >But this is more cynicism than is
                              > >at all justified in my opinion.
                              > >As to the owner, he has(last time
                              > >I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.
                              > >
                              > >As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                              > >Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                              > >to prefer one thing over another.
                              > >
                              > >Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                              > >free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                              > >one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                              > >but still one paid. Things at TAS
                              > >are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                              > >That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                              > >But no one is lying about what they hear
                              > >nor about what they like.
                              > >
                              > >REG
                              > >
                              > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@ wrote:
                              > >>
                              > >> The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                              > >> Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                              > >>
                              > >> Yip
                              > >>
                              > >>
                              > >>
                              > >> >________________________________
                              > >> > From: Tom Mallin
                              > >> >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                              > >> >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                              > >> >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >> > 
                              > >> >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >> >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >> >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >> >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >> >> 
                              > >> >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                              > >> >>
                              > >> >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                              > >> >>>
                              > >> >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                              > >> >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                              > >> >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                              > >> >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                              > >> >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                              > >> >>>
                              > >> >>>
                              > >> >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                              > >> >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                              > >> >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                              > >> >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                              > >> >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                              > >> >>> followed by female vocal material
                              > >> >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                              > >> >>>
                              > >> >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                              > >> >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                              > >> >>> of anything--except
                              > >> >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                              > >> >>> doubted in this case).
                              > >> >>>
                              > >> >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                              > >> >>>
                              > >> >>> REG
                              > >> >>>
                              > >> >>> > > > From: Robert
                              > >> >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                              > >> >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                              > >> >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                              > >> >>> > >
                              > >> >>> > >
                              > >> >>> > > 
                              > >> >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                              > >> >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                              > >> >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                              > >> >>> > >
                              > >> >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                              > >> >>> > >REG
                              > >> >>> > >
                              > >> >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                              > >> >>> > >>
                              > >> >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                              > >> >>> > >>
                              > >> >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                              > >> >>> > >>
                              > >> >>> >
                              > >> >>
                              > >> >>
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >> >
                              > >>
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >



                            • yipmangmeng
                              JBLs back then for pop music. Yip ... JBLs back then for pop music. Yip From: Fred To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                              Message 14 of 23 , Feb 2, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                JBLs back then for pop music.

                                Yip


                                From: Fred <glenndriech@...>
                                To: "regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com" <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 8:02
                                Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                                 
                                Seems to me that recordings are the result of a mastering process and "Hi-End" being such a mish-mash of variables, why do we tend not to choose speakers of studio mastering quality?

                                Fred.





                                From: "yipmangmeng@..." <yipmangmeng@...>
                                To: "regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com" <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 7:14
                                Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                                 
                                On what formula was TAS started?
                                Are Wilson speakers accurate in timbre or not?
                                If accurate tonally and in well balance, why has the sound of the various versions change much?
                                Is that also true of DH and AS designs?
                                Or the Quads?
                                I don't doubt that they like what they buy,but are these speakers as accurate in timbre and as well-balanced in room as the BBC Monitors?
                                If not, what is the purpose of the High End? Or High Fidelity to use the old phrase in its original sense.
                                Just curious.

                                Yip


                                From: Robert <regtas43@...>
                                To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:04
                                Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again

                                 

                                Not true and not fair.
                                I think that it is not at all
                                true that everyone who says in print
                                that they like Wilson is intimidated
                                by advertising considerations. I
                                know these people, RH in particular,
                                and I know he says what he really thinks.
                                Wilson offers something--size, dynamic capacity,
                                scale, low distortion. These are not
                                enough to my mind unless accompanied
                                by exact timbre accuracy. (I also
                                do not live in a huge house).
                                But that Wilson offers these things
                                seems to me the case.
                                The world in general tempts one to be cynical
                                no doubt.
                                But this is more cynicism than is
                                at all justified in my opinion.
                                As to the owner, he has(last time
                                I checked) MBLs not Wilsons.

                                As to advertising, almost everyone advertises.
                                Thus advertising does not constitute a pressure
                                to prefer one thing over another.

                                Finally, I note that reviewers do not get
                                free equipment to own. If one owns Wilsons,
                                one paid for them. Accommodation prices,
                                but still one paid. Things at TAS
                                are straightforward and uncorrupt.
                                That we do not all agree is the nature of audio.
                                But no one is lying about what they hear
                                nor about what they like.

                                REG

                                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@... wrote:
                                >
                                > The element of truth - last paragraph. TAS takes advertisements. And is answerable to the owner.
                                > Here on this foru at least the truth can be said.
                                >
                                > Yip
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > >________________________________
                                > > From: Tom Mallin
                                > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                > >Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 1:27
                                > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > 
                                > >One should not necessarily assume that the best cost-no-object award goes to the best sounding speaker available.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >Perhaps none of the other cost-no-object speakers on offer this year don't sound as good as the Wilson XLF to TAS reviewers, especially RH.  And there is probably an unwritten lower dollar limit for a product to be considered for this category.  Look how expensive the speakers are which are named in the more expensive categories below this category.  The cost-no-object category must only include speakers above this price range.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >I suspect that if an under-$50k speaker were named as best in the cost-no-object category, readers and manufacturers would question the choice.  By giving an award to one of the most expensive speaker systems available (one which many audiophiles assume has to be at least among the best) keeps the flow of very expensive equipment coming to TAS and in a way satisfies readers that TAS is watching and appreciates the ultra high end/ultra expensive end of the market.  It also prevents TAS from having to editorially take the position that any speaker priced above the really sonically best one is a huge waste of money.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Edward wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >> 
                                > >>I can't be the only person here who is amazed by how candid Robert is concerning the systems/views of his TAS colleagues--at least on this forum. (The Wilson Alexandria XLF did after all just win a TAS cost-no-object speaker of the year award.)
                                > >>
                                > >>--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
                                > >>>
                                > >>> Interesting that if you strip away all
                                > >>> the verbiage, all the warmup and back story,
                                > >>> what he has to say is that it was LOUD.
                                > >>> Immediacy and volume are nothing compared
                                > >>> to truth. Truth is not commented on.
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>> Incidentally, it is well known that
                                > >>> jazz combo offers some of the lowest level
                                > >>> of discrimination about audio of any source material.
                                > >>> This has been studied. Pink noise is the
                                > >>> top(for distinguishing speakers),
                                > >>> followed by female vocal material
                                > >>> with full range back up and orchestral material.
                                > >>>
                                > >>> Jazz trio combo is way worse. Playing that sort
                                > >>> of material loudly does not really show one much
                                > >>> of anything--except
                                > >>> that the system will play loud(which no one
                                > >>> doubted in this case).
                                > >>>
                                > >>> Demo material with the lowest level of discrimination.
                                > >>>
                                > >>> REG
                                > >>>
                                > >>> > > > From: Robert
                                > >>> > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                > >>> > >Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 6:54
                                > >>> > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Wilson LS again
                                > >>> > >
                                > >>> > >
                                > >>> > > 
                                > >>> > >I suppose everyone here knows that a speaker
                                > >>> > >that is not smooth and essentially flat above
                                > >>> > >the bass cannot sound right.
                                > >>> > >
                                > >>> > >Thanks for the thought(about making the rounds)
                                > >>> > >REG
                                > >>> > >
                                > >>> > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
                                > >>> > >>
                                > >>> > >> But some go to great lengths to house the beasts from Utah. See this recent TAS report (Neil Gader visiting Jacob Heilbrunn's listening room). Of course, I wish Robert were the one making the rounds.
                                > >>> > >>
                                > >>> > >> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-67
                                > >>> > >>
                                > >>> >
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >







                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.