Makes me happy I DIY.
CTC spacing looks terrible between mid/tweet.
Why use a 7" mid, 8" woofer, then another 10" woofer. I'd go tweet (and probably not a dome at this level) 4" mid, 8" mid woofer, 15" woofer if going 4 way. Spread the load out more. So much overlap doesn't make sense to me.
Most of the cabinet design is ugly and the styling on the sides don't serve a purpose that I can see (possible it does).
Pretty unimaginitive. Like I said. Glad I DIY.
Good for you!
He has a history of suing everybody who uses the word 'Monster' in his business regardless of what the business actually does. Except those who can afford better lawyers than he can.
For example he sued family-run 'Monster Mini Golf' but never touched the people who produce the Monster energy drink.
A bona fide scumbag IMO.
There are a few things troubling me about some of Wilson's choices..
1. The foot-print of the Sasha is now almost as large as the XLF - it really isn't smaller in terms of floor space (as suggested by Wilson when holding up the models of each). It is however less imposing physically because of the XLF's much greater vertical nature. So I can see the "move" to the Alexia, but not entirely for the reasons provided. Personally I think it has as much to do with a "vertical" reduction as it does with a *PRICE REDUCTION* (in respect to the XLF).
2. This change in tweeters is *odd*. The biggest limitation of ANY of the older Wilson designs were specifically related to dynamic compression due to heating with the tweeter. The new tweeter might be much better thermally, BUT because it's a "ring" type with a low excursion potential - it trades a superior motor for an inferior suspension, pretty much resulting in a similar problem with higher spl's.. (..yes, that tweeter is very good with 1 watt - but increase output by 12-15 db and its in every bit as much trouble as the focal tweeter.)
1. The foot-print of the Sasha is now almost as large as the XLF - it really isn't smaller in terms of floor space (as suggested by Wilson when holding up the models of each). It is however less imposing physically because of the XLF's much greater vertical nature. So I can see the "move" to the Alexia, but not entirely for the reasons provided. Personally I think it has as much to do with a "vertical" reduction as it does with a *PRICE REDUCTION* (in respect to the XLF).
2. This change in tweeters is *odd*. The biggest limitation of ANY of the older Wilson designs were specifically related to dynamic compression due to heating with the tweeter. The new tweeter might be much better thermally, BUT because it's a "ring" type with a low excursion potential - it trades a superior motor for an inferior suspension, pretty much resulting in a similar problem with higher spl's.. (..yes, that tweeter is very good with 1 watt - but increase output by 12-15 db and its in every bit as much trouble as the focal tweeter.)
Last edited:
Sensisitvity.
With the 2 bass drivers running in tandem no baffle step compensation is required, hence the 90dB sensitivity.
On the downside, they have a 2 ohm impedance dip at 80Hz.
Last edited:
The Alexia certainly gets the price of the worst of worst diffraction housing of mids and tweeter...Or I am missing some Secret Lodspeaker Knowledge 2.0?
Regarding Monster Cable picking the wrong opponent:
Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable — Reviews and News from Audioholics
Have fun,
Eelco
Regarding Monster Cable picking the wrong opponent:
Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable — Reviews and News from Audioholics
Have fun,
Eelco
Scott,
Why are you calling the tweeter a ring radiator? Looks like a normal half roll surround with a standard dome on it to me. Looks like they have maximized the BL factor with the amount of magnetic surface area and that would produce a high output with an under-hung voice-coil. The frequency response looks rather great for a soft dome silk tweeter. I would have to see a lot more technical data before I would say that the power handling isn't good such as if there is any ferrofluid used or not but I doubt it with that response curve. With a copper cap it could dissipate a fairly high power input.
Why are you calling the tweeter a ring radiator? Looks like a normal half roll surround with a standard dome on it to me. Looks like they have maximized the BL factor with the amount of magnetic surface area and that would produce a high output with an under-hung voice-coil. The frequency response looks rather great for a soft dome silk tweeter. I would have to see a lot more technical data before I would say that the power handling isn't good such as if there is any ferrofluid used or not but I doubt it with that response curve. With a copper cap it could dissipate a fairly high power input.
I don't see it. You can build in the baffle step correction with a larger woofer. People do it all the time. Then you get the added benefit of a larger woofer. And why use a 7" mid?
It's not very sensitive at all. 90db/ for $45k speaker with 4 separate drivers. I'd expect at least 93db @ 4ohms. I'd probably expect 93db @ 8ohms.
Well it is quite the cabinet, backed up by a large group of dedicated employees that need to get paid and have health insurance etc. The cabinet includes all that and more running a company isn't cheap. As a DIY community we just see cost of parts, as a business owner/partner you see much more.
Look at the linear excursion. 😉
These are all derived from Vifa's XT driver. At some point Scan went and swapped-out the inner ring and phase plug to a 3/4" dome. Their older designs generally feature at least double the linear excursion of these newer designs, and a few are 4-times the linear excursion. On the other hand the older design's motors/venting are not nearly as good as the newer designs. 😱
Last edited:
Scott,
I went back and looked at the specifications on the tweeter again and I see that this is a fairly short voicecoil in a short gap. Yes it is slightly underhung but not by much. You couldn't expect any more excursion than is listed with this design. Unless you either extended the gap or went with a long voicecoil the limits they are showing are already pushing into the non-linear region of the suspension. Here we are perhaps looking at a limitation of the total magnetic energy that is really available with the distributed magnets or using a lower Mgoe neo magnet material. Without having a cross-sectional drawing I can only draw simple conclusions here but I would not put this with the Vifa ring radiator in design, they have very different designs and the profiles of the domes are not even close. No dongle in the center either. Hate those things, just get the curvature of the dome correct and you don't have to correct for the dome problems with one of those things.
I went back and looked at the specifications on the tweeter again and I see that this is a fairly short voicecoil in a short gap. Yes it is slightly underhung but not by much. You couldn't expect any more excursion than is listed with this design. Unless you either extended the gap or went with a long voicecoil the limits they are showing are already pushing into the non-linear region of the suspension. Here we are perhaps looking at a limitation of the total magnetic energy that is really available with the distributed magnets or using a lower Mgoe neo magnet material. Without having a cross-sectional drawing I can only draw simple conclusions here but I would not put this with the Vifa ring radiator in design, they have very different designs and the profiles of the domes are not even close. No dongle in the center either. Hate those things, just get the curvature of the dome correct and you don't have to correct for the dome problems with one of those things.
I hate them as well (original XT design) - bright and flat (without depth). Clean and detailed though. 😱
I guess you would need to talk to the engineers directly for a conclusive answer, but I'm fairly certain I'm correct. Note that I would NOT say the designs are the same, but rather that the engineering development and *general* design is (with respect to the "surround" acting as a ring-radiator).
Here are Zaph's comments on the 6600:
"Scan-Speak 6600 ($220) - Also known as the "AirCirc" from it's unique magnet and rear chamber design. This tweeter very low non-linear distortion. It takes a few design elements from the XT25 and improves on a few things. Low end distortion is better, and off axis response is closer to normal for a 1" dome. The only negatives to this are a small dip in the top octave response, the high price, and some production variance over the years. Old/Other tests available. Tested May 2008."
Note that he has been to been to Tymphany's facilities on a free "tour" (..when Scan was still part of Tymphany).
Last edited:
Scott,
I understand what you are saying but don't think that you are quit correct on some of your assumptions here. The surround on a typical direct radiator as far as I have measured is usually out of phase with the cone movement, not in phase and this is one reason that you don't want a large surround eminating large amounts of energy. One of the reasons that large sub-woofer speakers sound so nasty and have such a narrow usable bandwidths is the monstrous surround they use and massive out of phase contribution the surround contributes, besides the terrible damping of natural rubber surrounds. Besides centering the cone and having some restorative function to the cones rest position the surround is there to attenuate the waves as they hit the end of the cone itself and keep that energy from returning back down the cone to the apex. You would like all the energy to be dissipated and or end at the frame connection if possible, but you can never achieve that to 100 % in any case. So I do not consider the surround a portion of the dome and used as a ring radiator in that sense.
I understand what you are saying but don't think that you are quit correct on some of your assumptions here. The surround on a typical direct radiator as far as I have measured is usually out of phase with the cone movement, not in phase and this is one reason that you don't want a large surround eminating large amounts of energy. One of the reasons that large sub-woofer speakers sound so nasty and have such a narrow usable bandwidths is the monstrous surround they use and massive out of phase contribution the surround contributes, besides the terrible damping of natural rubber surrounds. Besides centering the cone and having some restorative function to the cones rest position the surround is there to attenuate the waves as they hit the end of the cone itself and keep that energy from returning back down the cone to the apex. You would like all the energy to be dissipated and or end at the frame connection if possible, but you can never achieve that to 100 % in any case. So I do not consider the surround a portion of the dome and used as a ring radiator in that sense.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.