Have heard several Wilson’s and have only been impressed by the marketing skill shown. They are simply conventional designs (or worse): MTM design (meh); high density cabinet walls (again, been done); zero WAF (or self acceptance factor as they frankly look scary); expensive (goes without saying); not even active design and no mention of room treatment or DSP; cubic sealed boxes (possibly the worst enclosure design - think of a listening room of that shape and isn’t the cabinet just a smaller reflection of the room?).
Much more impressed by low impact (financial, space, aesthetics) setups that sound wonderful and use some sort innovative design(s). Will admit the above setup hits two of my basic hi-fi requirements: covering the entire music frequency spectrum; and reaching live concert sound pressure levels (which precious few systems can do).
I am with you on this. You hit on my two primary criteria for speakers: covering the entire spectrum and being able to play live levels of sound pressure. I would add to that without audible strain or compression and the sound cannot come from the speaker boxes themselves.
Plus, those are some mighty scary looking boxes.
I was impressed with the Alexx[sp?] 2 when I heard them.
You may not like the look but Wilson was an innovator. I don’t own Wilson speakers, but if I had the money, they would be on my list.
I heard three rooms at AXPONA featuring Wilson speakers. Two out of three sounded excellent and the third was unlistenable. In particular, the Sasha DAW speakers with ARC 160 monoblocks sounded excellent—one of the very best rooms to my ears. The looks have never been instantly appealing to me, and the price above my willingness to pay. The quality though is undeniable.
But the real question is…will my Sprout100 be able to drive them… 
Dealer told me his best selling speakers are Dynaudio but his biggest profit speakers are Wilson. They are well made and can sound quite good in the right setup, but aggressive marketing & overpricing seems a big part of their business model.
Can you think of any highly successful companies that don’t practice “aggressive “ marketing? Apple, Google, USAA, Rolex, LEGO, Bosch, Pro-Ject (tiny but largest turntable manufacturer)?
If there products were overpriced wouldn’t they go out of business?
Hey, ya forgot Bose 
Marketing can cover a multitude of shortcomings. An example: An East German chocolate maker offered high quality candy in plain wrappers was out competed in the open market after fall of the wall with a West German company that offered ordinary candies in attractive wrappers for the same price. Another example: 40% of the price of a car in the U.S. can be attributed to marketing costs (all the various forms of advertising, rebates, etc.). And don’t forget how well low neck lines and high skirts sell.
Wonder which brand he profits the most from? Hard to figure because the Wilson’s probably brings in many more to the store than Dynaudio’s. How many come in the door to buy Dynaudio’s but walk out with Wilson’s versus the reverse?
Man those speakers look like their gonna grab ya, and the amplifiers remind me of the bling bling 27" rim 1" rubber wheeled Cadillac Escallades. As to @rajugsw if I had to choose between your Bose’s and those “whatever they are” even if they came for the same price I’d choose Bose. The amplifiers I would immediately exchange for anything else. They look so awfully pimped.
But hey, if that makes your hart beat faster and you have your money and don’t know what else to spend it on. You also don’t have to worry how much profit the company makes selling t to you, as there are no other companies you can get these from.
He said he sells more Dynaudio speakers but makes more money on Wilson sales.
Those amps are beautiful in person, and not pimped.
The other thing is they are quality on the inside, extremely well built.
I can’t afford Wilson or D’Agostino amps, but choosing Bose over them, just proves you know very little about the high end.
I do agree about the big rims that are destroyed by pot holes. But you are comparing TOTL to a turd on the sidewalk when you are talking about Bose.
I understand we have different tastes in appearance, but if sound quality is your goal, both brands would deserve a listen. Those speakers were Dave Wilson’s last design. His all out assault on making the best speaker based on his theories. I don’t think they had planned on selling more than a few pair.
It reminds me of “oh the horror” when Paul first showed pics of the P20. The handles I liked, and Paul liked, never mind that they are practical, others stomped their feet, saying they wouldn’t buy one, even though it was the best regenerator PSA ever designed. They didn’t like the handles.
I think you guys are talking at cross-purposes. The reference to Bose was a joke/comment regarding high profit margin products.
You are absolutely right I know very little about those speakers, that stuff is in my opinion so ugly I would walk away from it and never know how it sounds.
Probably I know very little about high end too, that is for you a guess and for me to know. I am happy keeping it that way.
I wasn’t discussing SQ, I just ventilated my taste. Good for those brands that there are people with different taste.
And thus if I had to choose, for me the Bose’s, without a doubt. Those that @rajugsw proudly showed on this forum all together with his Stellar amps. Those are much more my taste.
Honest sellers vs. manipulative/lying marketers. PS Audio told us that the recent demonstration of the AN3 speakers at AXPONA was a rousing success, that the critics of the sound quality were in the small minority, and the speakers just needed a few small tweaks to the crossovers before being released later this year.
Yet, the speakers have taken a rather significant design revision: different size, number, and placement of drivers, two boxes per speaker rather than one, and a new speaker designer was hired and added to the team.
How do you all reconcile this divergence? Where in the marketing spectrum does PSA fit?
Yes it was Elk. Thanks.And remember I’m “that Bose Guy”…LOL.
If we can’t poke a little fun at ourselves in this hobby of ours (regardless of price point, reputation…etc.). Then what’s the point. I would never have considered spending $4k on a Stellar Stack without understanding what I was getting myself into wrt the Series 1 901’s and the “Dog’s Breakfast” EQ that I built.
One day I would like to aspire to something like the AN3. But that’s not in my financial cards at the moment. Magnepan’s are another option. Buying another “boring” looking box that sounds fantastic is not in my future plans at the moment. The 901’s were a rabbit hole that I’m happy to be in.
I know there are better Speaker’s out there that would run circles around my Series 1 901’s. But that’s a price point I can’t afford at this time. I would however pit my 901’s against any “budget” tower Speaker under $2k which I’ve stated before in these forums.
I totally get that, my uncle has Boses from the same time frame they sound really good, I’d connect Stellar’s to them anytime.
I have bought a Stellar Gain Cell DAC especially to connect them to the Yamaha MSP 50 active monitors that I cherished for about 20 years, they still work and by adding the Stellar Gain Cell DAC. I have satisfied myself squeezing the last bit of quality out of them. And also with me, it’s budget. We have 3 studying kids and may consider our self blessed being able to fork out that money and be happy with what we’ve got. When they have a job and moved on, we might be able to afford more. But those speakers and amps on the top, the looks really are not my taste.