You are sure but you've never seen any measurements, did you? Ho loud do they play? Distortion: the figure indicated for mine is based on a weighting scheme along the lines proposed by Earl Geddes. What do amplitude responses on-axis/off-axis of the current Wilson look like? The FR on-axis of the 1994 version looked quite bad, frankly.
Then, what do the Wilson cost? $100k? Mine cost about $28k at current exchange rate, and you get preamp with two inputs, the power amps and a 10-band parametric equalizer. You can place them against the wall, in the corner, in-wall and use the provided adjustment features.
>You are creating a strawman here Klaus that high end speakers are inaccurate.<
When I looked for speakers 8 years ago I looked at every mesaurement I could find, there was simply not one speaker which measured as well as mine do! If you know of a speaker which is flat 20-20 ± 1.5 dB and does not cost 2-5 times more than mine (that includes pre-and 2x2500 Watt power amp), let me know.
>And under what conditions are your monitors accurate?<
Anechoic, because that's the only environment which allows for comparable measurements.
>I can show you plenty of accurate loudspeakers.<
Yes, please, and I'd like to see the graphs, too.
>Are you talking only about FR? If so this is so easily corrected as to be laughable as a defining criteria of accurate.<
Of course, I'm talking FR on axis. FR on-axis is the first thing to look at and it's the first thing the designer has to get right. It is FR on-axis which is the major part of the response at listening position, and it triggers the precedence effect. I'm talking FR right out of the box, not after correction. A $100k speaker should not need correction. If it does, then the designer hasn't done his homework.
As for the "easily corrected as to be laughable": read
Schuck et al., “Perception of perceived sound in rooms: some results of the Athena project”, Audio Eng. Soc. 12th International Conference 1993
then see if you still laugh!
Here is another example of good engineering:
>Yes many times and no they are not capable. It was not their design goal either. Near-field monitoring has a different purpose.<
Why does everyone here assume that studio monitors are exclusively built for near-field monitoring? Main monitors like mine are built for far-field monitoring and every maker has comparable models in his range.
Let me rephrase the question: did you ever hear big studio monitors in a home situation?
Klaus
