Wilson Audio Specialties Alexandria XLF loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements

I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Wilson Alexandria XLF's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield and spatially averaged room responses.

Performing measurements on such a large, heavy speaker as the Alexandria XLF poses two main problems. The first is practical: shipping the speakers to my test lab was out of the question, so I had to take my test gear to Michael Fremer's house. The second is that the assumption in any farfield acoustic measurement is that the distance from speaker to microphone is much greater than the speaker's largest dimension. There is also the fact that the speaker needs to be well away from any boundary so that reflections of its sound from that boundary don't corrupt the measurement. With a speaker as large as the Alexandria, neither of these conditions can be met without a very large (and very expensive) anechoic chamber.

For the impedance and in-room measurements, the speakers were in their usual positions. We then (carefully) fitted the supplied wheels to one Alexandria and (very carefully) wheeled it outside, to Michael's driveway, for the rest of the acoustic measurements. (It was a clear, windless day.) However, while this eliminated the wall and ceiling boundaries, it was impractical to raise the speaker's 655 lbs off the ground. The reflection of the woofers' output thus curtailed the anechoic time window I could use for the analysis, reducing the measurements' resolving power in the midrange.

My estimate of the XLF's voltage sensitivity was 92.6dB(B)/2.83V/m. While this is slightly below the specified 93.5dB, it is still much higher than normal. Despite the Alexandria's imposing bulk, it will play at high levels with only a few watts. (During the in-room measurements, performed at a reasonably loud level, the darTZeel amplifiers' meters never indicated more than 5W peak.)

Wilson specifies the Alexandria as having a nominal impedance of 4 ohms. Fig.1 confirms this specification, the impedance magnitude (solid trace) varying between 4 and 8 ohms over almost the entire audioband. Though there are minimum values of 3.7 ohms at 19Hz, 3.2 ohms at 510Hz, and 2.35 ohms at 35kHz, the electrical phase angle (dotted trace) is low at these frequencies and generally benign overall, meaning that the speaker will not be a difficult load for the partnering amplifier to drive.

Fig.1 Wilson Alexandria XLF, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (2 ohms/vertical div.).

The traces in fig.1 are free from the wrinkles that would indicate the existence of enclosure panel resonances. I had neglected to take my accelerometer and its preamp to Michael's, so I'm unable to offer my usual cumulative spectral-decay plots of the walls' vibrational behavior. However, other than the vertical "wings" that flank the midrange-tweeter-midrange (MTM) array, all the enclosure walls were acoustically inert, to judge by the knuckle-rap test. This was confirmed by listening to the walls with a stethoscope while swept sinewave tones were playing.

The Alexandria's MTM array needs to be focused on the listening position, using the precision adjustments on the speaker's rear. I measured the height of MF's ears as he sat in his listening seat: 37". I then measured the height of the Wilson's front-firing tweeter—56.5"—and the distance from the tweeter to his ears: 94". Once we had the speaker outdoors, we placed the microphone at exactly this position and ran some response measurements. Unfortunately, the reflection of the upper frequencies from the ground followed the direct sound by just 3 milliseconds, meaning that the resolution of the measured response was 333Hz; ie, the datapoints lie at 333Hz and its multiples.

Fig.2 shows the Alexandria's response above 300Hz, with the speaker angled away from the microphone by 10°, which was the offset in Michael's listening room, and without the grilles, which Michael left off for his auditioning. Slight peaks in the upper midrange and mid-treble are balanced by a slight lack of energy in the presence region. Whether the peaks are audible as added detail and brightness or the presence-region dip is heard as "politeness" and a laid-back, forgiving nature will depend very much on the music being played, which in turn will determine which frequency band the ear latches on to as being its reference.

Fig.2 Wilson Alexandria XLF, anechoic response 10° to one side of listening axis at 94", corrected for microphone response, plotted above 300Hz.

To get a more detailed look at the Wilson's behavior in the frequency domain, I moved the microphone forward, along the line connecting the height of MF's ears to the height of the tweeter, until it was at my usual distance of 50". The black trace in fig.3 shows the Alexandria's output averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter. The response is generally very flat—flatter than at the listening distance—but with the lack of energy between 2 and 4kHz still apparent. The output of the soft-dome Convergent Synergy tweeter smoothly extends at full level almost to the 30kHz limit of this graph, whereas the inverted titanium-dome tweeter used in earlier Alexandrias, as well as in the MAXX 3, peaked at the top of the audioband.

Fig.3 Wilson Alexandria XLF, anechoic response on listening axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with nearfield responses of midrange units (green), woofers (blue), port (red), and their complex sum (black), respectively plotted below 312Hz, 1kHz, 650Hz, 312Hz.

The green trace in fig.3 shows the output of the midrange drivers, taken in the nearfield. It rolls off smoothly below 150Hz, crossing over to the woofers just above 100Hz. The bottom woofer has a radiating diameter of 12.5", the upper woofer 10". However, their outputs, measured in the nearfield, were virtually identical, so fig.3 shows their summed output (blue trace). With a passband covering 40–120Hz, the excessive level of the woofers compared with that of the midrange units is entirely a function of the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes a 2pi or half-space environment extending to infinity in both the vertical and horizontal planes. There is a peak between 700 and 800Hz in the woofers' upper-frequency output, but this is suppressed by the crossover.

The saddle centered at 19Hz in the impedance-magnitude trace suggests that this is the tuning frequency of the large rectangular port, which, in MF's review samples, was open to the speakers' rear rather than to the front. However, the minimum-motion notch in the woofers' summed output actually occurs at 21Hz, while the port's output, again measured in the nearfield (red trace), peaks just below 20Hz but doesn't roll off until above 70Hz. The black trace in fig.3 is the summed output of all the lower-frequency radiators, taking into account acoustic phase and the different distances from a nominal farfield microphone position. Though it peaks between 45 and 125Hz, this again will be almost entirely a function of the nearfield measurement technique. The port doesn't fully reinforce the woofers' output at its tuning frequency, which is appropriate, given that when the speakers are in a room, the boundary effect will increase the port's output level to give a response that should extend down to 20Hz at full level.

Figs.4 and 5 show how the Alexandria XLF's response changes to the sides and above and below the listening axis. (Because the speaker is too bulky and heavy to position on my speaker turntable, I've shown the changes over a limited window.) Laterally, the speaker's output shows very little change in its output up to 15° to its side. In the vertical plane, the Alexandria XLF's response doesn't change significantly from 5° above to 15° below the listening axis. This speaker appears to be much less fussy regarding the exact listening axis than the Wilson MAXX 3s that previously enjoyed pride of place in MF's system (see figs.4 and 5 here).

Fig.4 Wilson Alexandria XLF, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on listening axis, from back to front: differences in response 15–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–15° off axis.

Fig.5 Wilson Alexandria XLF, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on listening axis, from back to front: differences in response 10–5° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5–15° below axis.

In the past I have argued that perhaps the most meaningful measurement of a loudspeaker is of the pair's spatially averaged response at the listening position. Using SMUGSoftware's FuzzMeasure 3.0 program and a 96kHz sample rate, I average 20 1?6-octave–smoothed spectra, taken for the left and right speakers individually, in a vertical rectangular grid 36" wide by 18" high and centered on the positions of the listener's ears. This largely eliminates the room acoustic's effects, and integrates the direct sound of the speakers with the in-room energy to give a curve that I have found correlates reasonably well with a speaker's perceived tonal balance.

The red trace in fig.6 shows the spatially averaged response of the Alexandria XLFs in MF's listening room, driven by darTZeel NHB-458 monoblocks via TARA Labs speaker cables. It is even between 300Hz and 6kHz, with small peaks balanced by similarly small dips. Above 6kHz the response smoothly slopes down, due to the increasing absorptivity of the room furnishings in the high treble. At low frequencies, the Alexandria's in-room response is basically identical to that of the MAXX 3 (blue trace)—hardly surprising, given the similar woofer configuration and positioning in the room. A lack of energy in the upper bass is followed by small peaks at 80 and 50Hz, the frequencies of the lowest resonant modes in MF's room. However, the Alexandria has a little more low-bass energy, and the upper-bass dip is less extreme. Perhaps of more importance, the new speaker shows a little more energy in-room in the upper midrange and low and high treble, giving a more evenly balanced response overall.

Fig.6 Wilson Alexandria XLF, spatially averaged, 1?6-octave response in MF's listening room (red); and of Wilson MAXX 3 (blue).

A couple of weeks before driving to Michael's place I had auditioned another pair of Alexandria XLFs, at Manhattan dealer Innovative Audio, where they were driven by Dan D'Agostino Momentum monoblocks and a preproduction sample of D'Agostino's Momentum Ultra-Analog preamplifier, wired with Transparent Reference XL speaker cables and balanced interconnects. The ports were open to the rear, as they had been in MF's room. With a Meridian MediaSource 600 feeding data to a dCS Scarlatti D/A converter, this system gave the best sound I have heard at Innovative. I therefore asked Innovative's Scott Haggart if I could measure the Alexandria XLFs' spatially averaged response in the big room where I had auditioned them. Innovative's owner, Elliot Fishkin, was amenable; the result is the green trace in fig.7. (The red trace is, again, the speakers' spatially averaged response in MF's room.)

Fig.7 Wilson Alexandria XLF, spatially averaged, 1?6-octave response in: MF's listening room (red), Innovative Audio (green).

Above 250Hz, the XLFs' response in the Innovative listening room meets very tight limits: ±1.5dB. Again, small response peaks are balanced by small dips, but the response trend between 250Hz and 6kHz is a little flatter than in Michael's room. This may well be due to the greater distance to the listening position at Innovative: 128" vs 94".

The slight slope down above 6kHz will be due to the increased absorption of the room furnishings in this region, but I suspect that the plateauing of what would otherwise be a smooth rolloff between 10 and 18kHz in the Innovative room will be due to the effects of the XLF's rear-firing tweeter. The sharp rolloff above 18kHz in both rooms will be due to the 1" front tweeter's inevitable increasing directivity at frequencies at which it is larger than the wavelength of the sound it is emitting.

The spatial averaging has not entirely eliminated the effect of the low-frequency modes in the Innovative room, but the buildup of bass energy due to the proximity of the room boundaries will be mitigated by the overdamped woofer alignment. The effect will be to add some bass weight without obscuring clarity. The low-frequency extension is excellent, the level at 20Hz being the same as at 1kHz.

The lower-midrange dip at Innovative is both narrower and higher in frequency than the corresponding dip in MF's room. I suspect this is due to interference between the direct sound from the midrange units and the reflection from the sidewalls. (The floor-bounce cancellation of the woofers' output will be above their passband and is thus inconsequential.) The 200Hz dip is inevitable given the room dimensions, and I suspect that much of the fine-tuning of the speakers' positions is to arrange for this cancellation notch to have the least effect on music.

In the time domain, the Alexandria XLF's step response at the listening position (fig.8) indicates that the tweeter and woofers are connected in positive acoustic polarity, the midrange units in inverted polarity. However, the decay of the tweeter's step smoothly blends into the start of the midrange units' step, and the decay of the midrange units' step smoothly blends into the start of the woofers' step. This indicates optimal crossover design, which, in combination with the adjustable geometry of the upper-frequency drivers, will give the smooth blending of the drive-unit outputs in the frequency domain claimed for the Aspherical Group Delay technology.

Fig.8 Wilson Alexandria XLF, step response on listening axis at 94" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).

The cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.9), taken at the closer 50" microphone distance in order to push back boundary reflections, shows a very clean initial decay, but with then some low-level hash in the mid-treble. A small ridge of what appears to be delayed energy is visible at the computer monitor's line-scan frequency just below 17kHz. This is spurious and should be ignored. However, there is a notch in the on-axis response, and a more powerfully defined ridge of delayed energy at a lower frequency, 14,875Hz, both of which appear to be real.

Fig.9 Wilson Alexandria XLF, cumulative spectral-decay plot on listening axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).

As I said at the beginning of this section, there are practical limitations when measuring so large a loudspeaker. While I am confident that my measurements regime fully characterizes the performance of a small speaker (such as KEF's LS50, which I reviewed last month), with a speaker as large as Wilson's Alexandria XLF, the measurements offer suggestions rather than certainties. Note, also, that I don't measure distortion, which in this high-sensitivity speaker is likely to be very low. But overall, this is an impressively well-engineered design. As well as auditioning the Alexandria XLF at Innovative and in Michael's room, last January I had the opportunity to perform extended comparisons between the XLF and the earlier Alexandria X-2 Series 2 at Wilson Audio's headquarters. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the best speaker yet to come from the Utah company, which makes it a very fine speaker indeed.—John Atkinson

COMPANY INFO
Wilson Audio Specialties
2233 Mountain Vista Lane
Provo, UT 84606
(801) 377-2233
ARTICLE CONTENTS
Share | |
COMMENTS
JohnnyR's picture

Golly look at that frequency response. $200,000 gets you that. I really have nothing else to say about this...............no really.no

Michael Fremer's picture

Golly JohnnyR: interpreting what you see into what you might hear is well beyond your capabilities.

I'll tell you a story, not that it will penetrate your "brain" but I'll try:I encountered a couple of young Russian-born engineers at a turntable set-up seminar I did at Stereo Exchange in NY.

They said to me: 'we saw the measurements on the Wilson MAXX3s: boomy bass!"

I said: do you think I would live with "boomy bass"? 

They said: "but measurements show boomy bass".

I said "Come on over and listen to the 'boomy bass' "

They said "You would invite us over?" 

I said, "Why not?

So they paid a visit. They brought a test CD they'd devised that they use to judge speakers.

When they'd finished listening they exclaimed "NO BOOMY BASS! GOOD BASS"

Then I played them a format that doesn't MEASURE as well as CDs... a format they'd not really paid much attention to because IT DOESN'T MEASURE AS WELL  and guess what?

When they heard what proper vinyl playback sounds like they almost S...T.

Measuring a complex speaker like the XLFs is NOT EASY. And clearly interpreting a complex set of measurements and attempting to sort of what that might sound like is clearly beyond your abilities. But JohnnyR: blather on.....

ymm's picture

HI Michael,

How does this recording sound on your audio system?

mm

Devil Doc's picture

I understand you bought the review pair. Before the jealous rants begin, let me say that anyone who can turn a hobby into an occupation that allows him to acquire such equipment deserves a pat on the back.

Doc

John Atkinson's picture

Devil Dog wrote:
I understand you bought the review pair. Before the jealous rants begin, let me say that anyone who can turn a hobby into an occupation that allows him to acquire such equipment deserves a pat on the back.

Michael cashed in some of his retirement savings in order to be able to purchase the Wilson XLFs.

JohnnyR wrote:
Golly look at that frequency response. $200,000 gets you that.

So what did you think about the Alexandria XLF's sound when you heard them? (I assume you did hear them.)

JohnnyR wrote:
I really have nothing else to say about this . . . no really.

Really?

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

GeorgeHolland's picture

Cheap Shots Mr Atkinson?

JohnnyR said he had nothing else to say and you come along and taunt him? Classy as always. I also agree that for $200,000 I would expect a much better frequency response. I suppose Floyd Toole, who you like to quote so often would also agree with JohnnyR and myself on that matter.

Michael spent his retirement savings on these way over priced monkey coffins? I find the design hideous and as predicted, yet another Stereophile stupid review about a product maybe, maybe I say, 1% of your readership could afford.Keep up the good work Mr Atkinson.

ChrisS's picture

Georgie thinks = Georgie knows

Michael Fremer's picture

Really George Holland, you are "classy"? "Monkey coffins?"  You are beneath monkey level. What's heard and what's measured, particularly with a complex design like this don't always correlate.

I've heard some speaker that measure "flat" that sound like CRAP and vice-versa. As the talented speaker designer Joachim Gerhard once said to me: "Today, it's relatively easy to produce a speaker that has flat on-axis response but that doesn't mean it will sound very good."

Even the most vociferous Wilson-haters like you and folks who don't like moving coil speaker visit here and come away impressed.

With a comment like yours, I'm not constrained to be "classy": you are an idiot. 

tmsorosk's picture

" I asume you did hear them " 

Hearing them won't help if your mind is closed .

Good one John.

 

 I doubt johnnyR even owns a system.

Regadude's picture

"Michael cashed in some of his retirement savings in order to be able to purchase the Wilson XLFs."

Wow! Good job Michael. How he convinced his wife that spending some retirement savings on 200 000$, 650 pound monsters was a good idea is truly impressive!

Or maybe he's sleeping on the couch for the next 3 years... wink

Michael Fremer's picture

Well, actually I sleep comfortably on our king sized bed containing a Kluft mattress. It's stupidly expensive and unbelievably comfortable but I bet it doesn't measure all that well.

We once owned simultaneously 4 giant Bernese Mountain Dogs. That's her thing. Marriage is a give and take. We had giant black fur balls flying around the house like tumbleweeds. Not to mention occasional vomit and doody. Dogs have accidents. 

Currently we have two cats, a gecko and a Cardigan Welsh Corgi. We had two, but our older one that my wife showed died suddenly at 6 years of age. It was tragic.

His name was WILSON. I guess he didn't "measure up."

He was a swell dog. My wife named him Wilson but no doubt some lunatics will think Wilson Audio Specialties considered this advertising and subsidized the purchase of the speakers.

My listening room is the lower level of our home.... I can do as I wish down here and upstairs I live with her passion: animals. She's deep into it. That equals a good balance...

jeffca's picture

Just to bring some clarity to the subject, the drivers used in these boxes are (or variants of):

ScanSpeak Revelator D2904 - $312 from Madisound
Focal Audiom 13WX - $930 from Zalytron
Focal Audiom 15WX - $1,450 from Zalytron
Midranges - can't get a bead on the manufacturer, but I sincerely doubt they cost more than the woofers so lets spec them at $500 each (very few mids cost more than that).

That brings the grand total (for over-the-counter prices) to about $7,500 for the drivers in these behemoths. I imagine Wilson pays less so, even if they pay $1,000 for each mid (which I seriously doubt), the cost for the drivers is topping out at less than $10k. That's 5% of the cost of the speakers.

The crossover? I know Wilson uses crazy, complex networks, but I doubt that cost is more than $10k for the parts.

The cabs? I'm not a craftsman, but I think you could get something comparable from North Creek Music Systems for $20k or so.

So, I've budgeted $40,000 for speakers like the XLF. What accounts for the balance of $160,000? This isn't like a Bugatti Veyron where they're pushing technology way past what was previously achievable.

I propose something else that is just as audacious:
• Two Paradigm SUB 1 subwoofers - $10,000
• Mids and tweeters by any great supplier - in this case, some of the most expensive on the market - diamond tweeters and ceramic mids by Accuton - $3,600 for 4 mids and $5,800 for 2 tweeters - $9,400 total
• A DEQX HDP-4 processor/crossover with Reference Calibration Kit - $6,000
• Over-engineered cabinets for the mids & tweeters using custom-milled Corian or Zodiaq baffles (just a guess and, what the hell, let's be ridiculously generous) - $20,000

Total: $45,400.

With about the same amount of work as setting up the XLF's and 1/4 the expenditure, you have a system that is every bit as good as the Wilson XLF.

But, hey, take it from a guy who can hear the difference made by installing a $5,000 power cord to his turntable (the Fremer character who wrote the review), these speakers are worth every penny.

BillK's picture

Build it and show us the measurements.

Prove Dave Wilson a charlatan.

GeorgeHolland's picture

Wilson offering a $200,000 speaker that has such an awful frequency response is proof enough.

Michael Fremer's picture

you're a fool.

Michael Fremer's picture

Why don't you try producing a cabinet like that from difficult to machine composite components. In fact why don't you build a factory, buy enormous machine tools to cut the materials (and replace the expensive bits regularly since they wear out quickly), and install a fully equipped automotive paint shop in that factory you've built. Then HIRE people and pay them GOOD WAGES, not Wal-Mart wages plus health care and 401ks. 

Oh, and then consider the cost of shipping once you've assembled the speaker, don't forget to include the binding posts and complex hardware (take a look behind an XLF because clearly you haven't a CLUE) required to produce the Group Delay system that produced much of the spatial and tonal magic...etc.

And let's say you are correct: it's cost 40K as you say, but I'm sure you need to tack on at least 10K

But let's say you are correct: you clearly do NOT understand how high performance audio distribution works so let me clue you in:

If the speaker costs $40,000 to build, Wilson is entitled to make what's called a "profit". 

Even a "libtard" like me believes in "profit". So if the speaker cost $40K to build, Wilson would sell it to a dealer for $80K and then the dealer has to profit too!

kana813's picture

Congrats to Michael on his new speakers.

Enjoyed the review.

Maybe sometime he could post a picture of his room with the XLFs.

Hau'oli Makahiki Hou!

John Atkinson's picture

Jeffca wrote:
I've budgeted $40,000 for speakers like the XLF. What accounts for the balance of $160,000?

Let's assume that your estimate of the XLF's parts costs is accurate. That gives a price/parts ratio of 5:1. This ratio is widely accepted as about correct for an audio manufacturer who wishes to make enough money to stay in business. The difference covers fixed overhead, salaries, interest on borrowed capital, taxes, cost of shipping and packaging (neither minor on the case of a speaker as large and heavy as this), promotional costs, and retail margin.

From http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/diy-loudspeakers

"hard-core audio enthusiasts are the harshest critics of commercially-available speakers. They second-guess designers’ and engineers’ decisions, they question why a manufacturer choose to name or price or market their product in a particular way . . . They have absolutely no understanding of the relationship between material cost and retail price. They have close to zero understanding about the practicalities or processes of manufacturing on a large scale, packaging and shipping."

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Vogelhaus's picture

^ This. 

 

Thank you John, you are wise. 

GeorgeHolland's picture

So you are now quoting editorials? That's like using newspaper editorials or even Stereophile's The Open Bar forum as "proof". cheeky Did you bother to read what JohnnyR linked to and posted in the other thread?

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/loudspeakers/83412-diy-loudspeakers...

There's a lot more to this issue than one person's opinion. I guess you and Stereophile just can't be bothered finding out more.

Plenty of excuses for defending a ludicrously priced speaker but not many actual facts.

ChrisS's picture

Porgie, what do you "actually" listen to? Have you ever spent a ludicrous amount of money on a can opener?

Just checking your point of reference....

Michael Fremer's picture

A fellow I know looked at the MAXX3s and decided he could built an even better version using more expensive drivers but using well braced MDF cabinets. He built it: it sounded awful. Did nothing. 

So listen GeorgeHolland: build your own XLF and have a nice life. You're still an idiot.

I'm not as gracious as my editor.

jeffca's picture

... and those things are:

• All of the prices I've specced are retail, not wholesale so, for all of the items listed, a significant amount of marketing and R&D has already been spent and a generous mark up has already been made by the distributors. 

• I appreciate that there is a large overhead for specialty brands like this. The fact, though, that I can assemble a system largely sourced from retail brands with only one custom element (the cabinets - which would be expensive only due to them being one off's) and that system performs as well (possibly better than) the retail system four to five times it's cost leaves only one conclusion: these speakers are drastically overpriced. 

• You can't build a kit car that can perform like a Bugatti Veyron. These speakers are priced like Bugatti's, but they don't offer that level of performance.

I've read the manual for the Audio Artistry CBT36 kit from Parts Express and fully understand why that kit costs $2000 while the fully assembled speaker costs $10k. Start to finish, it will take 80 to 100 man/hours to complete it.

I don't see anything so distinctive in this speakers design as to warrant its cost other than hype. I sure that it's one hell of a great speaker, but it's price is absurd.

Mike Lomond's picture

Simplistic in the extreme.

You haven't invested anything in the design, production or marketing of a loudspeaker.

Just hot air.

Put in the hours, invest your $45,000 and send Mike F a review pair.

Until then, you're full of it.

BillK's picture

Don't forget to amortize in the costs of running a factory in the United States, setting up assembly to be able to make product within a reasonable time frame, training employees, paying them a good wage (with health insurance!) and shipping costs on a 1910 lb/pair speaker system.

You can't run a US company on cost + 10%.

Could Wilson cut prices if they perhaps made them in China instead?

Of course, they could, but thankfully they don't.

Once again, I challenge anyone who thinks they can design a better system and sell it for less to do so - your fellow audiophiles and dealers would thank you.

GeorgeHolland's picture

Already plenty out there, the Orion and LX521by Linkwitz and the offerings from John K at Music and Design and John "Zaph" Krutke's website either sell plans or offer them free, all you have to do is either build them yourself or hire someone to do it for you.Still a lot less expensive than Wilson's ludicrous offering, plus better design and engineering. This is only a few of the many out there that also build complete systems for sale. Do your homework and look around.

Michael Fremer's picture

I have heard many more loudspeakers than have you, probably by the HUNDREDS. In homes and stores and shows all around the country.

Your comments are IDIOTIC. That's why you are an IDIOT.

The XLFs will not be for every taste. Nor will Magicos, nor will (name your favorite brand).

BUT your comments about Wilson indicate a level of irrational hatred that seems to follow this brand because SUCCESS drives some people CRAZY. That would be you.

My favorite Wilson sleight is from people who say "Wilson is built for the 'carriage trade' not for music lovers."

Meanwhile, I travel around the world and meet accomplished professional musicians who are as enthused as I am about the sound. 

It's the same nonsense I hear about vinyl: "you're not an engineer, you're not a musician" blah blah blah.

So then I meet one of the world's most acclaimed Mahler interpreters who's conducted some of the world's top orchestras and the first thing he says to me is "I'm a turntable guy."

Look George Holland, if you don't like the sound of these speakers, FINE but the suggestion that they are not well engineered is INFANTILE as is your claim that the measurements are poor. On axis frequency response taken in isolation means VERY LITTLE.

The final sound is a result of a complex interaction of events. Interpreting the complex measurements is clearly beyond your abilities since your worldview is clearly simple minded.

billyjul's picture

 

some speakker whitch cost only 1000$ and far less have better frequancy responses, for a good ingeneer it's so easy to do better, 

this speaker is not a good speaker at any price, they use certainly good driver whtih flat response, like the scanspeak tweeter, but there a problem, they d'ont know how to use it

GeorgeHolland's picture

Wilson thinks throwing in expensive drivers along with a halfway designed crossover in a huge robot looking cabinet is what gullible people want. They are correct.

ChrisS's picture

Porgie,

Have you or anyone else you know bought a Harman Kardon product?

Pages

X
Enter your Stereophile.com username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Loading