Wilson Audio Specialties Alexia loudspeaker Specifications

Sidebar 1: Specifications

Description: Three-way, four-driver, reflex-loaded, floorstanding loudspeaker. Drive-units: 1" (25mm) silk-dome tweeter, 7" (178mm) cellulose-fiber/carbon composite-cone midrange unit, 8" (203mm) paper-cone woofer, 10" (254mm) paper-cone woofer. Crossover frequencies: not given. Frequency response: 20Hz–32kHz, ±3dB. Sensitivity: 90dB/W/m. Impedance: 4 ohms nominal, 2 ohms minimal at 80Hz. Minimum amplifier power: 20Wpc.
Dimensions: 53.25" (1353mm) H by 15.25" (387.4mm) W by 21.125" (537mm) D. Weight: 256 lbs (116.1kg).
Finish: Multiple automotive paint colors, plus custom options.
Serial numbers of units reviewed: 0381, 0382.
Price: $48,500/pair. Approximate number of dealers: 39.
Manufacturer: Wilson Audio Specialties, 2233 Mountain Vista Lane, Provo, UT 84606. Tel: (801) 377-2233. Fax: (801) 377-2282. Web: www.wilsonaudio.com.

Company Info
Wilson Audio Specialties
2233 Mountain Vista Lane
Provo, UT 84606
(801) 377-2233
Article Contents
Share | |
Comments
Regadude's picture
No comments!

Really, no comments? Last year when the 200K Wilson's were reviewed, the comments section went crazy! So many people (who had never heard the Wilsons) were angry and torched the product. Some judged the speakers only on the measurements... And, they went ballistic!

No measurements were done for this review. Also, no comments. What a difference a year makes!

John Atkinson's picture
No Measurements?

Regadude wrote:
No measurements were done for this review.

No measurements? Check out www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-alexia-loudspeaker-measurements.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

billyjul's picture
this loudspeaker is not

this loudspeaker is not high-end , except if you look the price only, beacause the main concept has som flaws, that drivers whith exotic sanswich cône whtih cabon nanotube, diamond, roacel, or other matérials  witch cost a fortune can't change

the main concept of this speaker stay the same

you can realise a speaker using the kinoshita concept, used in rey audio monitor ou or tad loudspeaker, and sold a fraction of the alexia price, whith really excelent 15" drivers from PHL audio, TAD or JBL, and a 2" compresion coaxial BMS4590 with it's horn BMS2236 

it will do better beacause the main concept is better

that's all

Regadude's picture
One negative

I have never heard this speaker, so I won't offer an opinion on its sound quality. But, I find that bright orange paint job just a little too much. 

They do look extremely well built though. I would be curious to hear them, but it's probably better that I didn't. The problem with going to shows and hearing 40 000$ speakers, is that it takes a few days for your own system to start sounding good again!

georgehifi's picture
Combined phase and impedance is evil at 65hz

HIFI NEWS has a added measured spec, that should be included.

http://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/WA%20Alexia%20HFN%200313-4web.pdf

The combind phase and impedance (EPDR) at 65hz is evil, not stated in the Stereophile measurements.

It represents a load of .9 of an ohm. To get the best out of the bass around this frequency you need bags of current, tubes and mosfet output stages need not apply.

You need a good big solid state amp that has a BJT (bi-polar) output stage that can dump heaps of current into this to get the best bass out of these. 

 

Cheers George  

John Atkinson's picture
Different Measured Impedance

Georgehifi wrote:
HIFI NEWS has a added measured spec, that should be included.

http://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/WA%20Alexia%20HFN%200313-4web.pdf

The combind phase and impedance (EPDR) at 65hz is evil, not stated in the Stereophile measurements. It represents a load of 0.9 of an ohm.

The Alexias have long since been returned to Wilson but I reexamined the raw data I used to plot fig.1 in my review. At 65.5Hz the impedance was 2.26 ohms with a phase angle of   -30.5 degrees. The largest phase angle was -42.25 degrees at 53Hz, but the impedance magnitude at that frequency was 3.7 ohms.

HFN's minimum impedance was 1.8 ohms at 85Hz; mine was I.97 ohms at 83Hz, though my measurement does includes the series resistance of 10' of speaker cable, which might explain the small difference. .

Why the discrepancy between my measurement and Keith Howard's for HiFi News? Different samples, of course, but also different measurement techniques: Keith uses DRA Labs' MLSSA, which produces an FFT-derived result and also compensates for the speaker cable resistance, while I use a swept series of spot-frequency tones using an Audio Precision System One. I check my findings by measuring the impedance of a 10 ohm resistor; there didn't appear to be anything untoward with my measurement of the Alexia.

When I get home this evening, I will check Martin Colloms' impedance measurement in The HiFi Critic.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson's picture
HiFi Critic Measurements

John Atkinson wrote:
When I get home this evening, I will check Martin Colloms' impedance measurement in The HiFi Critic.

Okay, Martin describes the Alexia's impedance on p.15 of the Jan/Feb/Mar 2013 issue. His impedance curves (on p.17) look very similar to my fig.1. His minimum impedance was 1.8 ohms at 80Hz with a -20 degree phase angle and he also mentions the impedance at 60Hz as being 2.5 ohms with a -42 degree phase angle. (Martin uses the Clio system for his speaker measurements.)

So neither Martin's nor my measurements indicate that the Alexia's impedance is quite as punishing as Keith's, though yes, the Alexia _must_ be driven by an amplifier that isn't fazed by low impedances. As I wrote in my review, the Alexia "demands quite a lot of current from the partnering amplifier."

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

nile49's picture
EPDR

Hi John,

I was wondering if you could comment on the EPDR calculation mentioned above. Why don't you don't use it? Does this method of calculation have potential pitfalls? Etc.

It seems to me to be a very clear and easy way to compare and to understand otherwise tricky to interpret measurements.

Thanks, Warren

John Atkinson's picture
Re: EPDR

nile49 wrote:
I was wondering if you could comment on the EPDR calculation mentioned above. Why don't you don't use it?

Including it in my published speaker measurements has been on my To-Do list for several years. I wanted to kickoff using it by applying the calculation retroactively to every loudspeaker I have measured for Stereophile and publish the results in an article. But like all things that are important but not urgent, it gets push back and back and back. . . :-(

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Site Map / Direct Links