Floor Loudspeaker Reviews

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

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

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.

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!

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

... 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.

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

I'll chime in my 2c.

1) I agree with the frequency response plot: looks ridiculous, and would expect at most a +/- 3db variation over 20Hz to 20 KHz, wishfully at most +/- 1 db, given the price.

2) I've loved the sound of the Wilson X1 in the past. Not so much the Sophia and Sasha as of late, but my tastes have changed, and so have the partnering electronics. Size wise, the Alexia is more suited to my present condo than the XLF.

3) I'd love to hear this speaker and see how it compares to the Focal Grande Utopia EM and the more recent Magico (Q7).

4) Anyone else waiting to see the Avalon Tesseract? :)

...the disposable income, I'd buy them. Why not?  Wilson Loudspeakers are the best in the world..period.

And yes, I have heard all of them except the Thor's Hammer sub.

Great write-up Michael!

As professional loudspeaker engeneer for 30 years I would like to give my compliments to Mr Atkinson for his ever realistic quotes about the measurements;we use same equipment and I measured same speakers with same measurement results in past.The discussion i red above here is more emo-/phsycological than about real facts.200k is lot of money;and blind-staring at frequency-responses within 0,5dB is like drilling to water on the moon.

As every commercial product,at any price,the direct costs are about 1/8 from retail price.We all buy that,every day.I know a car is about 1/10th direct cost;and we all by cars (stil).

So wake up,dont focus on direct costs,imagine-or try to-how many hours of development  for a new design like this?Some high-end speaker (direct information)manufacturers spend one year with 30 people à 150/h to design a new speaker.Take your calculator now.I measured on many Wilson products and to my opinion its real well build,units are modified very clever;that's the "x-factor" say the magic why some speakers sound so very good.Wilson excells in this.Btw i have no business-relation with Wilson.

I never read DIY fora,gives me bad stomach of nitwit people 99% of the time;everybody with bucks can buy a scanspeak or accuton;and think they can do it better.So,if than,elevate a company and sell your speakers worldwide! What a real good design is,is not that flat freq curve,not that ripple-free imp curve or symmetric cross-over curve,but the sum of 100 other parameters;and thats a very intensive and intelligent process,besides of taste etc.

Better talk about design philosofics;aiming the goal;relation between measurements and what you hear.thats the clue.Thank you.

Grtz from Holland

@Mr GH;so,if you are in the biss of the DIY-what i read between the lines-,or maybe feel connected;than,i can understand you feel not OK by my text about my quote that 99% of the DIY designers are nitwitts.I dont talk to- or point in direction to people who buy a DIY-kit.I aim on the people (pfff...see my text before) who buy expensive drive-units and think they can copy (what is illegal by law;is "intellectual property"-issue) a renowned/famous/expensive design or think that they can even make it better.Almost zero chance-seen that.Besides,what i told in my previous post,is related to 30 years of experience in the speakerworld.Been there done that.Ego is biggest ennemy of forward thinking and end-result;so i stepped on it?Sorry for you.As you are probably or maybe  an inmortatant player in the DIY industry you feel not OK with my pure personal conclusions.Reality hurts,sometimes.Thats life.I dont even give a blink about your megalomane quote about banning.And;whats your "affiliation"??Or are you the God of speaker-industry who thinks he is above all?see header.

@Billyjul;thank you for your kind and fair reply;I am familiar with these AMT's-say Air Motion Transformers-i measured them on a reference baffle (IEC) as we do with every drive-unit; and my conclusions are same as yours;the only minus is a trade off in the horizontal beaming,since the width of the membrane is quite wide the beaming starts at relatively low frequency;(343/width membrane in meters-than divede to 2 is average frequency start beaming)so,in practice,the horizontal spational-amplitude response is worth considering.Nothing is perfect.Tune the filtering to flat response on 15dgrees to 10Khz..Distortion is about 0,05%measured at 95dB;not cheap drivers but for real high-end systems one of the best solutions.

Grtz to all audio and music lovers;from Holland

Btw,in my opinion,200K issue;see my previous post.

If Micky wants to send his money on Wilsons that's his choice. I've been in the "Hi Fi Industry for 30 years, and I have yet to hear a Wilson product that really knocked me out. But thats just me. 

@Eznirt

it is not difficult to do excelolent speaker for good DIYER

they no mistake 

if you use corectly a driver, you can't go wrong, on internet there a quantity of utilitise to simulate parametters, listenig for learn how make a speaker

but construct a driver is far difficult, it is a crutial point, a good speaker bigin whith good drivers, and goods drivers choice to have a good intégration

whith a good reflexion you can make not a good, but a very good speaker in 2voice, a three voice is more complicate

i think, 

"David Wilson, amateur!  That guy just throws a few drivers in a box and wants 200 grand.  I could do better than that"

yes, i agree his speaker have problem, the integration of the drivers, in the cabinet and the design of this are the problem i think

an exemple, the focal berylium tweeter have to be flush mounted on the cabinet, is you don't do this , the response curve is awfull, not flat, flush mounted it is excellent, and the sound is realy better

whtih air motion transformer you can do to directive driver, i think one of the best design is the adam adio x-ART but the model whith the most powerfull magnet, for the high-end speaker

and they have an high medium whitch is a very interesting driver, he goes lower than most other, and they are no to long and vertical directive

they make reference direct radiation drivers for 800hz to 20000hz 

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.

I'm not sure I understand what the implication is here - because it would seem that, by this statement, you could be confident in the response of the speaker above a certain frequency (let's say somewhere above the high pass moving from the bass drivers to the mid/tweet module) - and that those measurements, per the assumptions you derive from your methods ordinarily, would be more of the "certainty" variety and less of the "suggestion" variety.

Would you say that you are cnfident in the response of the speaker above ca: 150Hz?

I tend to stay away from the comment section following reviews, mine and those of other reviewers, and this thread is a good reason why. 

The arrogance, stupidity and ignorance is simply appalling and depressing.

I have had many of the world's greatest speakers in my room and I've heard others in other settings: homes, stores and shows around the world.

There are MANY different sounds that are valid and designed for different tastes. The inability of some here to understand that, not to mention understanding how to interpret measurements, is just plain pathetic.

Were I to be led around by measurements, all of which are CRUDE compared to the ear/brain, I'd be listening to CDs... 

This hobby combines science, art and human perception. 

Some of the comments here are sub-human, I'm afraid...

Beyond the finished product measurements, drivers parameters can help figure out the style of sound, especially in bass.

For instance, the difference of sound between 18" pro bass drivers JBL 2241 and 2242 can be traced to certain parameters such as BL and moving mass:

JBL 2241  BL 19,  mm 145g, 98dB/w/m versus JBL 2242 BL 24, mm 158g, 99 dB/w/m

Despite a slightly heavier moving mass, but thanks to a more powerful motor, bass from 2242 are much tighter offering better transient response and allowing more freedom in upper frequency cut off while bass through 2241 are more of the rolling type.

Similarly one can compare the same parameters in JBL pro offering versus the Focal drivers used in the Wilson family design:

In 15"

Audiom 15 BL 18, mm 137g, 92 dB/w/m versus JBL 2226 BL 19, mm 98g, 97 dB/w/m

In 12"

Audiom 13 BL 18, mm 108g, 90 dB/w/m versus JBL 2206 BL 18, mm 65g, 95 dB/w/m

Clearly, with a low BL and heavy moving mass, the Focal drivers exhibit quite a low output for such large drivers - a serious problem when trying to recreate live dynamics-, and won't physically deliver faster transients than their JBL pro counterparts, that is clean, lean bass. Other factors such as cone rigidity might help compensate but from the start, I would expect the Focal sound to be plump. Conversely, the 2226 won't go as deep as the Audiom 15, yet its bass will be tighter, punchier. My recent audition of the Focal Grand Utopia confirmed that feeling versus the quickness and tone of the JBL. And here we keep the comparison to bass/upper bass, as cone midranges versus compression would add another level of challenge for the expensive speaker as it did with the Utopia.

So the Wilsons or Focal are of course beautifully crafted, well designed speakers destined to plush interiors and lovers of a certain kind of sound, just as Cadillacs can deliver a certain style of ride. Fine. Yet at $200,000 there is plenty of space for DIY audiophiles to challenge them at more reasonable costs, especially when using active networking designs. Notwithstanding the choice of pro monitoring speakers that are much more affordable than these luxury items. Therefore, some DYI can proudly defend the quality of their bespoke work; however, others could tone down their arguments of authority, checkbook arrogance and quick tongue.

WOW, what a load of TROLL CRAP here.....some people here need to get a life and if you hate Wilson so, then get the hell out of here....you will NOT convince one person with the anti-Wilson spew.....I agree with others....build us your own XLF and prove that Wilson is building garbage or perpetrating a fraud....

When your fabulous speaker is built, let me know so I can buy your wonderful effort and save myself tens of thousands....

To some of you.....quit feeding the idiotic trolls who shit all over these and other forums....i guess that these trolls were run out of the asylums for audio elsewhere...

By the way, for you Wilson haters....I am planing an ultra high end system for late this year...the XLF's are on the list...for the turd here who claims to be able to build an XLF for way less, let me know and I will add it to MY list....hehehehehe...and I bet it will sound oh so sexy.....

GO DAVE WILSON!!!!!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cheers,

I would not pay too much attention to the speakers frequency response.
It is a very large speaker, and FR is always measured on the tweeter axis.
Low frequency measurements in smaller rooms are also questionable.
What I do find interesting is the speakers time domain behavior.
This is not very good, and I cannot imagine, that this will not ad a lot of collouration to the sound of this speaker.
It simply emits sound long time after the input signal has stopped.
In my experience this will mask the sound in a way, so that a lot of low level signal is lost.
Also the impedance of this speaker would make me worry.
Anyways I do not think this is a speaker for life, I´d believe that one would get fed up with this "Sound Of Its Own" as time goes by.

If one would like to see a clean time domain behavior, then look at the newly tested Dali Rubicon, that´s how things should behave
, if you want transparancy.