Don’t we have a lounge for this kind of discussions? 😉 Wilsons are probably for those that can’t afford a Van Gogh.
It's a stereophile review.
It is measured at 1m from 300hz and up, below 300 is nearfield measurements that is spliced and "level matched"
If you look through hundreds of them, you will notice the nearfield section usually is higher in level then you find from other sources of third party measurements.
@maximax77 Absolutely no intent to bash the design. I'm just trying to understand the logic and reasoning in the design of this speaker. Not into wasting my time with soap opera type discussions. I want to keeo it as technical and objective as possible.
Again, this is a genuine attempt in discussing the design of these speakers. Its not considered lounge material for me. This is a multi way speaker and I wanted to understand what rhe design intent is considering the extremely high price tag. I figured maybe someone had some technical insight as to the designer's objective.
I am pretty sure that some top level designs from diy magazines like Hobby Hifi and Klang und Ton (both from Germany) yield satisfactory sound quality to make even the most critical listener lucky.
However some people like to buy for a lot of money loudspeakers because of prestige reasons.
If its not expensive it cannot be good?!
For example Hobby Hifi Audimax Reference loudspeaker
https://www.hifisound.de/de/Lautspr...sprecher-Bausatz-ohne-Gehaeuse-Paarpreis.html
Issue1/2021 Hobby Hifi Conclusion: "This is it, the loudspeaker who can do everything. Uncompromising quality in all respects, and at a price that is just upper mid-range for ready-made speakers. Audimax Reference Standard competes with the world's best speakers, and they come at a considerable five-figure rate. Measured against this, the use of materials is modest: from about 5,000 euros for a completely self-built pair of speakers, 7,000 euros with the particularly high-quality crossover components of our high-end recommendation. Well, if the cases are made by a carpenter, it will certainly be five digits all in all. But even this is by no means a comparison with adequate ready-made products:
There would be a fixed 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 euros in the discussion. And the author is firmly convinced that these noble products, regardless of the price, have a very difficult time in terms of sound compared to the Audimax Reference Standard."
Product 'State of the art' is the term for what is technically feasible. We designed Audimax Reference Standard according to this maxim, equipped with three of the best loudspeaker drivers of the moment, which become a loudspeaker construction proposal that does not have to fear any competition thanks to an uncompromising precision crossover.
However some people like to buy for a lot of money loudspeakers because of prestige reasons.
If its not expensive it cannot be good?!
For example Hobby Hifi Audimax Reference loudspeaker
https://www.hifisound.de/de/Lautspr...sprecher-Bausatz-ohne-Gehaeuse-Paarpreis.html
Issue1/2021 Hobby Hifi Conclusion: "This is it, the loudspeaker who can do everything. Uncompromising quality in all respects, and at a price that is just upper mid-range for ready-made speakers. Audimax Reference Standard competes with the world's best speakers, and they come at a considerable five-figure rate. Measured against this, the use of materials is modest: from about 5,000 euros for a completely self-built pair of speakers, 7,000 euros with the particularly high-quality crossover components of our high-end recommendation. Well, if the cases are made by a carpenter, it will certainly be five digits all in all. But even this is by no means a comparison with adequate ready-made products:
There would be a fixed 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 euros in the discussion. And the author is firmly convinced that these noble products, regardless of the price, have a very difficult time in terms of sound compared to the Audimax Reference Standard."
Product 'State of the art' is the term for what is technically feasible. We designed Audimax Reference Standard according to this maxim, equipped with three of the best loudspeaker drivers of the moment, which become a loudspeaker construction proposal that does not have to fear any competition thanks to an uncompromising precision crossover.
Last edited:
In another thread our member IamJF summed it up along these lines: there are High Performance designs (read well designed) as e.g.: Genelec, Neumann, KEF, Dutch&Dutch,Kii, Revell etc. and so called Hi End designs such as e.g.: Sonus F., Wilson, etc. (read: gimmicky designs for outragious amounts oif money).
B&W is an interesting case in that it falls nowadys 25% in the first category and 75% in the latter category, whereas it used to be R&D design driven company.
B&W is an interesting case in that it falls nowadys 25% in the first category and 75% in the latter category, whereas it used to be R&D design driven company.
Wilson Audio has been known for exotic cabinet material which tends to be a lot
or part of the high price. And tends to use higher priced drivers.
Far as crossover design. Few designs have been tested.
Usually pretty poor.
often 4 ohm dual woofers with 1.6 to 2 ohm dips
No magical 1" domes, they are crossed to high with too much center to center spacing.
Assuming the price you get good off axis. As with most your assumptions, yes it is not possibly to get the performance you would
expect. You can already see in first post at 10 degrees the tweet is too high cross over and starting to dip in response.
Not a drama post, was curious myself and there is measurements and crossover rework done by " other" debatable gurus.
But at least the off axis and factory impedance measurements were shown.
The expensive cabinets are done well with little resonance, but the driver implementation/spacing/crossover fails.
As far as what you assume should happen as opposed to what actually happens.
or part of the high price. And tends to use higher priced drivers.
Far as crossover design. Few designs have been tested.
Usually pretty poor.
often 4 ohm dual woofers with 1.6 to 2 ohm dips
No magical 1" domes, they are crossed to high with too much center to center spacing.
Assuming the price you get good off axis. As with most your assumptions, yes it is not possibly to get the performance you would
expect. You can already see in first post at 10 degrees the tweet is too high cross over and starting to dip in response.
Not a drama post, was curious myself and there is measurements and crossover rework done by " other" debatable gurus.
But at least the off axis and factory impedance measurements were shown.
The expensive cabinets are done well with little resonance, but the driver implementation/spacing/crossover fails.
As far as what you assume should happen as opposed to what actually happens.
this is from Klang und Ton DIY Audio magazine
https://www.lautsprechershop.de/hifi/amton.htm
https://www.lautsprechershop.de/hifi/amton_messungen.htm
https://www.lautsprechershop.de/hifi/amton.htm
https://www.lautsprechershop.de/hifi/amton_messungen.htm
Attachments
Might not be relevant to your wish list for a tweeter, but this apparently was his:
Excerpt from "First Sounds: Wilson Audio Alexandria XLF" article by Marc Mickelson. Used under the principles of fair use for educational discussion. Full article available at:
https://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/wilson_audio_alexandria_xlf.htm
"What Dave Wilson was seeking from the tweeters spread out on his countertop was a driver that improved upon the Focal tweeter in two areas: dynamic contrast and harmonic expression. Neither of these things would be easily recognizable from the spec sheets of the tweeters; they are matters of quality, not quantity. While Meticulous Dave knew each tweeter's measured response and sensitivity, Discerning Dave needed to hear each driver to determine if it had potential. Then Wilson Audio would redesign and remanufacture the driver to tease the potential out of it.
Of the five tweeters, three had beryllium domes, one had a diamond dome and one a ceramic dome. Each had certain characteristics that Dave Wilson sought, but each also had issues that made it less than promising. Among these were low sensitivity (which reduced dynamic contrast); limited frequency response at the bottom end of its range, which affected its ability to transition to Wilson Audio's 6 1/2" midrange driver; a character to its sound that disqualified it; or some seemingly non-audio consideration, such as suspect reliability or materials that raised question of their future viability.
It is ironic, then, that the two-year quest for a new tweeter would come back to a technology Wilson Audio had used decades earlier. The Alexandria XLF uses a silk-dome tweeter designed by Wilson Audio and partially manufactured by Scan-Speak. "Partially" means that Scan-Speak manufactures the dome, magnet, and flange to Wilson Audio's specs, while Wilson Audio manufactures all of the rear elements of the driver."
Last edited:
Hi there,
is this the design you want to talk about?
https://www.wilsonaudio.com/products/alexandria/alexandria-xlf
So far - so good, Stefano
If this is the subject we should leave out design questions - please - i think it's awful ...
is this the design you want to talk about?
https://www.wilsonaudio.com/products/alexandria/alexandria-xlf
So far - so good, Stefano
If this is the subject we should leave out design questions - please - i think it's awful ...
Last edited:
A lot of missed opportunities to reduce high frequency diffraction. With separate enclosures for each driver, why not make an attempt to mitigate the sharp baffle edge next to each driver? None of the enclosures have a simple 6-sided box shape, so money is already being spent on a complicated shape, why not make it a shape which actually makes a positive acoustic impact?
I know you are a serious contributor. I find that discussions on Wilson’s are generally short on hard info because the company is so secretive and few technically strong DIYers own them. Crossover details are unobtainium because they are cast in epoxy, drivers tend to be custom units and the exact enclosure construction details also seem to be unknown. The stereophile measurements are the only ones I am aware of. The reviews in named publications I have read only compare the speaker in question with other Wilson models, not with competitors. So all you are left with is their marketing blurb and personal opinions on forums.
I believe they made their reputation because founder Dave Wilson effectively created the high end audiophile speaker genre. His invention must have competed with studio monitors like the JBL 43xx and TAD 240x at the time so not sure what he had that they didn’t, other than maybe a better/smaller form factor?
Man, my issue with this speaker is definitely not going to start at using the tweeter too low, but the suck out in the frequency response. To add to this, B&W does the opposite. Their high end diamond dome tweeters are kind of crap so they end up using the mids far above where they should be used to avoid having to fully compensate the frequency response of the tweeter and they are still commanding exorbitant prices.
I should have looked up Wilson’s first speakers before writing this. They were huge, a bit like the chronosonic ones of today. But they were living room speakers, not studio monitors.
I’m quite convinced Wilson designs speakers which have shapes that fatally attract the masculine homo ludens. There is hardly any acoustical rationale in these shapes and concepts. That has to say enough about the technical quality of the rest of the design.
Theres nothing like an audiofool to get suckered out of his or hers money.diy is for intelligent people side stepping all the hype and non sense. We make it happen with a lot less.we enjoy the fruits of our efforts,well mostly. Be creative,dont copy the commercial crowd make your own and be happy.
