Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx loudspeaker Page 2

In my room, the Alexx's bottom end was far superior to the Alexandria's: deeper, faster, tighter, and, interestingly, more organically and tunefully delivered. With recordings that include deep bass, that deep bass was just there—it didn't sound as if it was being pumped into the room by a loudspeaker. In that regard, the Alexx was remarkable.

That visceral but tuneful, well-controlled bass was ideally damped: sounding neither too tight nor mechanical nor in any way "porty." I'll be interested to compare John Atkinson's measurements of the Alexx's in-room frequency response with those of the Alexandria XLF—or of any other speaker he's measured in my room.

But it was clear, based on how high the peak-power meters on my darTZeel monoblocks went, that the Alexx was somewhat less sensitive than the Alexandria, which is specified at 94dB. The Alexx's sensitivity spec is a still-high 91dB, though at 2850Hz its impedance drops to a low 1.5 ohm, and the minimum recommended amplifier power is 50W, compared to the Alexandria's 7W!

When the Alexxes were installed, I still had no idea that their paper-cone woofers were developed for and are used in the new WAMMs, though in a different alignment in a far larger enclosure. It got me thinking about the fetishized, over-exotic cone and dome substances that some believe must be better than old-school materials. Here were new woofers made of an old standby, paper pulp, that creamed the Alexandria XLF's larger drivers of Focal's "W" material. Now, that's not 100% fair—no doubt Wilson has also made advances in port implementation and tuning. And this was an in-room observation. Still, these new paper woofers—and dome tweeters of silk, which Wilson now uses instead of such exotic diaphragm materials as titanium, beryllium, or diamond—should give pause to those who insist that exotics must produce better sound. When I visited Wilson Audio, I was shown tweeter prototypes made of various exotic materials; in the end, silk won out because, to the Wilson team, it sounded and performed better.

Recently, I stood in AIR Studios' big room in London for a direct-to-disc recording session for the audiophile label Chasing the Dragon. The National Symphony Orchestra rehearsed Chabrier's tone poem España, on part of which Al Hoffmann and Dick Manning based their "Hot Diggity (Dog Ziggity Boom)," which was a hit for Perry Como in 1956. From where I stood, the SPLs hit well into the 90dB range, and the sound was surprisingly bright, in a good way.

The score included some big bass-drum thwacks; as the drum was struck, I paid attention to the attack, which wasn't as sharp as I was expecting (granted, the percussion section was behind a large divider so that its sounds wouldn't bleed into the rest of the room); and to the sustain, which was more generous than I often hear reproduced by an audio system. The decays hovered in the air longer than I expected, before cleanly and quickly evaporating.

For the actual recording, we guests had to sit in the control room. While tonally reasonably neutral, the sound from this room's built-in monitor system, compared to the live sound of the orchestra in the studio, was sadly lacking in texture, color, and transparency. Especially, attacks were sluggish, sustains blunted, and decays too fast: the usefully dry, dead sound of studio monitors.

When I got home, I played Ataúlfo Argenta and the London Symphony's famous original recording of the Chabrier (Decca SXL 2020) on the Alexxes, and it sounded more convincingly alive than what I heard in the control room—but, based on a double DSD binaural head version I heard the next day, I'm sure the Chasing the Dragon LP will also sound spectacularly live!

The familiar bass-drum thwacks on that record, and the monstrous ones heard in John Williams's Liberty Fanfare, from Winds of War and Peace, performed by Lowell Graham and the National Symphonic Winds (LP, Wilson Audio/Analogue Productions APC 8823), were reproduced by the Alexxes more "perfectly," convincingly, and especially effortlessly, than I'd ever heard them from any speaker in this room. The Alexx's bottom end was positively addictive.

I surrounded "perfectly" with quotes because I've heard audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike blurt out that a given speaker's bass was perfect—a word I haven't used to describe the Alexandria XLF's bass, or the bass of any other speaker in my room. But until the arrival of the Marten Coltrane 3s, I'd thought my room couldn't support gut-pulverizing bass—the kind that pressurizes but doesn't overwhelm a space. The Alexxes, too, produced such bass—but to my ears, somewhat more transparently and more ideally damped.

417wilsonal.2.jpg

Recently, when I interviewed veteran recording engineer and producer Roy Halee, he suggested I find a copy of Tayi Bebba (LP, Black Acre ACRELP006), an album by the Italian producer and DJ Cristiano Crisci, who records under the name Clap! Clap! Halee told me that Paul Simon's son had recommended it during preparations for Simon's Stranger to Stranger (LP, Concord CRE 39781-1), and that Simon and Halee had fallen under its fanciful spell. The bottom end of this record is insane. The Alexxes were installed before the record arrived, but I don't need the Alexandria XLFs back in place to know that Tayi Bebba's bass will not be as tight, extended, and "perfect" through them as it now is through the Alexxes.

You know how it goes with a great new component: You start pulling out familiar recordings with particular attributes, to hear them anew. To again test the bottom end, I played Iver Kleive and Knut Reiersrud's monumental Himmelskip (CD, Kirkelig Kulturveksted FXCD163). This atmospheric album of electric guitar and pipe organ was recorded, in a church, on a Studer A810 analog tape deck. As expected, the lower organ notes were more robust, better defined, and less "in the box," but the improvement in transparency was surprising. The guitar's image, immersed in the church's cavernous acoustic, was clarified and focused without exaggeration. Despite their size and close proximity to my listening position, the Alexandria XLFs "disappeared." The Alexxes went them one better by revealing more of the sanctuary and letting me "see" much deeper into it. This album needs a vinyl release!

The Alexx was notably more transparent than the Alexandria in the midrange: faster, cleaner, better focused, more resolving—and, to my ear, flatter. Central images were more reach-out-and-touch-it transparent—more like what electrostats deliver, but with all the dynamic slam and ability to play loud for which Wilson speakers are famous.

The Alexx also produced a more relaxing and resolved yet faster top end than the Alexandrias. This wasn't surprising, given the change from a three-way to a four-way design, in which the tweeter takes over at a higher frequency and is thus relieved of the burden of reproducing the upper-midrange frequencies. Achieving seamless driver integration, particularly in the midrange, could not have been easy to achieve, but it has been in the Alexx. The integration of the outputs of the Alexx's drivers sounds even more seamless than in the Alexandria.

All of this adds up to a $109,000/pair speaker that, in almost every way, and especially in a moderate-size room like mine, is better than the $210,000 Alexandria XLF. The Alexandria is still a superb speaker, and still is everything I said it was in the review that led the Bank of America to buy a pair for me. (Had to pay them back. Finally did.) The Alexandria is still a better choice for a larger room, and even in mine, a pair of them produces bigger—and especially taller—sound pictures than did the Alexxes. While the Alexandria's bass is neither as extended nor as fast and tight, its overall seamless sound makes it clear that its tuning is correct. Had the bass been any faster, it would have left the higher frequencies behind.

Otherwise, the Alexxes retained all of Wilson speakers' most desirable attributes, including dynamic slam, image specificity, and, especially, the ability to produce a sound that was big or small or in between, as required by the music and the recording.

A well-produced recording of solo acoustic guitar, such as Laurindo Almeida's Capitol monos, put a tonally believable, well-focused, three-dimensional guitar of convincing size between the speakers about as well as did small stand-mounts like the Joseph Audio Pulsar, but with the more expansive spatial context that only a larger speaker can produce.

Big as they were, the Alexxes "disappeared" as physical objects from my room even as they hung solid images in three-dimensional space better than any speakers I've had here or in my former listening room—and those speakers included the Audio Physic Virgo II, which was an astonishing re-creator of the illusion of space, regardless of price.

Conclusions
Wilson Audio's demonstrations of the Alexx at audio shows in 2016 didn't prepare me for what I heard at home—then again, neither had the demos of the Alexandria XLF. But in both cases, those demos dropped hints of what might be possible.

From the bottom to the top, Wilson Audio's Alexx was as enjoyable to listen to at low volumes as when cranked to club and concert SPLs. It never sounded strained at high volume, or soft and indistinct at low. In my experience, that's a quality shared by all Wilson speakers, along with dynamic authority and top-to-bottom coherence —even if that's not always evident at hi-fi shows.

Their last few generations of models have added some things to Wilson's attractive mix of sonic characteristics: airy, open highs, as well as transparent and silky-smooth mids. The Alexx exhibited all of these desirable qualities, each of them done better, and with greater top-to-bottom coherence, than I've heard from any other Wilson speaker here.

if you're fortunate enough to own these $109,000 speakers and if you're fortunate enough to own a copy of the stunning 1964 Decca recording of Benjamin Britten's Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra, with the composer conducting the London Symphony Orchestra (LP, UK Decca SXL 6110), play it through the Alexxes after returning home from a live concert. This work, aka Variations and Fugue on a Theme of Henry Purcell, is an exercise in orchestral fireworks. The woodwinds, brass, percussion, and strings—especially the "basement" strings—are reproduced well enough for you to suspend tonal and textural disbelief as Britten, family by family and instrument by instrument, introduces each element of the orchestra, which you'll then "see" before you as convincingly and naturally as if you were hearing the piece live.

The Alexxes cleared away the Alexandrias' slight bit of midrange fog to reveal delicate, solid, well-focused, three-dimensional images on a well-defined, transparent, stable soundstage. The xylophone, castanets, bass drum, and triangle had never sounded so convincing. And then, in the fugue, as Britten reassembles the orchestra, instrument by instrument, until all are again playing together—you may find yourself laughing in unexpected pleasure. I did.

The very-limited-edition WAMM Master Chronosonic aside, the Alexx is easily the best big speaker Wilson Audio Specialties has produced.

COMPANY INFO
Wilson Audio Specialties
2233 Mountain Vista Lane
Provo, UT 84606
(801) 377-2233
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
SpeakerScott's picture

"The Alexx shares with the Alexandria XLF Wilson's Aspherical Group Delay technology, whereby the positions of its individually enclosed midrange and treble drivers can be adjusted, precisely, to recreate a time-correct waveform at the listening position."

Would it be possible, at some point in the future reviewing a Wilson Audio speaker to measure the spot at the listening position where this is actually true? I've never once seen a review with anything remotely indicating a time domain accurate speaker. JA has accomplished it in the past with Dunlavvy and others...but never Wilson.

-Scott

John Atkinson's picture
SpeakerScott wrote:
Would it be possible, at some point in the future reviewing a Wilson Audio speaker to measure the spot at the listening position where [recreating a time-correct waveform] is actually true?

The step response calculated from the in-room measurement of the Alexx at the position of Mikey's ears that I made with the Fuzzmeasure system is not in conflict with the quasi-anechoic step response shown in fig.4, ie, tweeter and midrange units are connected in positive acoustic polarity, the woofers in negative polarity. And as I said in the review, the output of each drive-unit blends smoothly with that of the next lower in frequency. So while the Alexx's output is not time-coincident, it is time-coherent, which I feel more important.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

SpeakerScott's picture

"The step respons calculated from the in-room measurement of the Alexx at the position of Mikey's ears that I made with the Fuzzmeasure system is not in conflict with the quasi-anechoic step response shown in fig.4, ie, tweeter and midrange units are connected in positive acoustic polarity, the woofers in negative polarity."

Mr. Atkinson, this statement is a bit confusing...is there a second unpublished step response measurement in addition to figure 4? My issue is not with the performance of the system in the time domain itself, for a large format multi-driver system the measurement in figure 4 is entirely reasonable. I've measured way worse...as have you, and we've both measured better.

My issue comes from the manufacturers claim that adjusted, precisely, to recreate a time-correct waveform at the listening position..

In this case your measurements show, that after adjustment the response at the measurement location is not a correct representation of a step response.

In fact after studying the step response I may disagree with your assertion that the tweeter and midrange are in positive acoustic polarity. Notice the very short positive spike at approximately 3.75mS, in the positive direction, followed very quickly by a negative going "spike" just before 4mS. The negative going one I believe is the tweeter. As you study it, if that negative going spike wasn't there the remaining positive triangle would be the approximate shape from a 6-7" midrange driver operating over a relatively wide bandwidth. Put another way if the woofer(s), midranges and tweeter are operating over three frequency bands, how can you have two negative going spikes if two of the driver bands are supposed to be positive.

My interpretation is that the midrange is the only driver operating in positive acoustic polarity, and the woofer(s) and tweeter inverted. It is unlikely that either woofer would show the negative going risetime between 3.75 and ~3.9mS due to the low pass filters.

The fact that the midrange has such a sharp risetime and long tail indicate they are operating over widebandwidth, possibly with large amounts of overlap both acoustically and electrically which would explain the low impedance in the 500Hz to 3kHz range and the difference in on axis response 50" and 85". I would hazard a guess that had you been able to run vertical polar response measurements there would have been relatively large nulls and peeks across that bandwidth......

Again, my issue is not with the measurements themselves, but the disparity between marketing statements and measured performance.

a.wayne's picture

Never happen in the Time Domain with a reverse phase tweeter and JA 36 " height measuring technique.

John i know its 450 lbs , but I'm sure Between you, Mickey and Darrell you guys could pop this thing on its side and do a couple GP measurements on tweeter axis , no gating or splicing necessary ... :)

Want a better idea ? You could fly out to WA and do your measurements there , it would make for a great story , crap ! i can remember when SP used to do great measurement stories like that ..

Regards

John Atkinson's picture
a.wayne wrote:
Never happen in the Time Domain with a reverse phase tweeter...

The Alexx's tweeter is connected in positive acoustic polarity - see fig.4 in the review's Measurements.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

SpeakerScott's picture

I think the tweeter and woofer are negative...see my rather long winded response to Mr. Atkinson...

-Scott H.

John Atkinson's picture
SpeakerScott wrote:
I think the tweeter and woofer are negative...see my rather long winded response to Mr. Atkinson...

I am sorry but you are both wrong. You can find the impulse response of the Wilson Alexx, taken in Michael Fremer's listening room, at www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-alexx-inroom-impulse-response. You can see that the tweeter's output - the sharp spike at the beginning of the impulse - is in positive acoustic polarity.

And to confirm what I described in the text associated with fig.4 in the review, you can find the step responses of one of the midrange units and one of the woofers at www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-alexx-midwoofer-steps. The midrange unit's output is in positive polarity (like those of the tweeter and the other midrange unit), the woofer's in negative polarity.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

SpeakerScott's picture

Mr. Atkinson,

Thank you for the response and additional measurements. I think I understand better now....and now I'm even more perplexed about the time domain performance marketing claims of Wilson Audio.

The additional midrange/woofer step response measurements you provided do not adequately explain the sharp negative spike between roughly 3.5mS and 4mS in Fig. 4 of the review measurements. It's a bit difficult to see given the difference in time scale resolution (5 total mS with .5mS minor divisions vs. 50mS with 2mS minor divisions) but there is nothing in the dotted line that shows the sharp negative spike as it appears in Fig 4.

That now leads me to believe that the tweeter and one midrange are positive polarity while the woofer(s) and other midrange are negative unless you have additional measurements that would indicate the root cause.

-Scott

John Atkinson's picture
SpeakerScott wrote:
Thank you for the response and additional measurements. I think I understand better now....and now I'm even more perplexed about the time domain performance marketing claims of Wilson Audio.

You're welcome, Scott. But I owe you and a.wayne an apology, as while you were incorrect about the polarity of the Wilson's tweeter, I was also incorrect when I said that both of the midrange units were in the same polarity.

SpeakerScott wrote:
The additional midrange/woofer step response measurements you provided do not adequately explain the sharp negative spike between roughly 3.5mS and 4mS in Fig. 4 of the review measurements.

I reexamined the step responses of the 2 midrange units and have posted them at www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-alex-midrange-steps. You can see that while the output of the lower midrange unit is in positive acoustic polarity, that of the upper midrange unit is in negative polarity. So the negative-going spike that puzzles you is actually the step response of the upper midrange unit. It blends smoothly with the step responses of the tweeter and lower midrange unit to give a time-coherent output.

SpeakerScott wrote:
That now leads me to believe that the tweeter and one midrange are positive polarity while the woofer(s) and other midrange are negative unless you have additional measurements that would indicate the root cause.

You are correct and I will amend the review text accordingly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

a.wayne's picture

Hello John,

Yes, Lazy typing on my part , I did say reverse phase , instead of out of phase, as all the drivers dont share the same phase, , I did not specify as i should if positive or negative phase and yes you are correct the tweeter is of positive polarity, but that was not what i was addressing.

BTW, Is there any reason why you still favor using gated measurements with such short reflective paths ?

With such a large complex speaker , why not measure it at WA..? we would all like to see what it looks like in the time domain.....

Regards...

John Atkinson's picture
a.wayne wrote:
yes you are correct the tweeter is of positive polarity, but that was not what i was addressing.

See my recent response to SpeakerScott, where I confirm that the two midrange units are not in the same polarity.

a.wayne wrote:
Is there any reason why you still favor using gated measurements with such short reflective paths?

Other than the in-room averaged-response measurements, I use a gated measurement because I want to examine the speaker's anechoic behavior, ie, the direct sound that reaches the ear first.

a.wayne wrote:
With such a large complex speaker , why not measure it at WA?

I have only once in 30 years of measuring speakers traveled to a manufacturer to measure a speaker. One problem I encountered was that having the designer on hand interferes with the measurements because if I find a problem, the designer wants then to change something with the speaker to address the problem, which means the sample is no longer representative of what our reviewer auditioned.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

a.wayne's picture

"I have only once in 30 years of measuring speakers traveled to a manufacturer to measure a speaker. One problem I encountered was that having the designer on hand interferes with the measurements because if I find a problem, the designer wants then to change something with the speaker to address the problem, which means the sample is no longer representative of what our reviewer auditioned.

John Atkinson"

Ahhh,

Thanks for the response and explanation John ......

Regards ..

John Atkinson's picture
a.wayne wrote:
Thanks for the response and explanation John ......

You're welcome. What I find interesting about this speaker is that while the adjustments Wilson offers don't result in a time-coincident speaker, they do fine-tune the arrival times, taking the different driver polarities into account, to give a smooth blend of their time-domain outputs hence optimal integration in the crossover region. But using the phrase "Aspherical Group Delay" for this facility, no matter how effective, seems misleading.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

SNI's picture

I wonder when somebody will say thew words that really should go with a speaker like this.
The time domain is really terrable, and the impedance is even worse.
How can this ever be called high end?
To me this looks like someone without any knowledge of speaker design ran into a huge stack of components, drivers, MDF and veneer, and had a lot of fun.
If I did this speakers measured performance, I would start all over again.

The sure to come comment asking "Did you listen to it?" will be answered no, I did not, and I do not see any reason for it.
Good measurements will not promise anything when it comes to listening experiments, but bad measurements will always do so. I´ve never heard any speaker or other component perform well if the measurements were lousy.
And this set of measurements is way in the dessert.

Michael Fremer's picture

Do not listen. You are too foolish a person to let your ears tell you anything.

a.wayne's picture

In the time domain , it's hard to tell based on the way John is measuring the speaker, but i fail to see what's wrong with the impedance graph.

Could you be more specific ...?

SNI's picture

The impedance from ie. 60-200Hz is around 3 Ohms or lower, this is the area with the most enrgy in music.
This lowish impedance will make the life difficult for about almost any poweramplifier, causing the output stage to operate in it´s less linear area for no reason at all.
Also class A amplifiers will quickly be forced away from their most linear mode of operation.
And of all the worst @ 60Hz you have 3 Ohms in conjunction with around 45 dgrs. of phase shift. This is horrible.
To me this looks like very bad speakerdesign, which only quality seems to be it´s size.
And we should not forget the measured time domain behavior, which looks even worse. JA has a lot of times been able to measure TD, with much better results than this. Even with speakers with just as large distance from top to buttom as this one.
So I see no excuse for the poor Time Domain measurements.

Should I say somtheng positive, then it would be, that this speaker is so expensive, that it almost certainly will be paired with very powerfull poweramplifiers, such as Krell, Boulder or some class D powerhouse maybe @ a similar pricetag.
BTW class D will probably be the only amplifier type, which can function as "almost" linear into loads like this. Class A will definately need "sauna" bias to perform at its best.

a.wayne's picture

SNI,

Thanks for the response and I do agree with your concerns , but do oppose your conclusions.

1. Firstly it's nearly impossible to design a multi driver system and maintain an 8 ohm ( where class-A ratings are valid) zmin, also 60-200 is not the bulk of most music , the difficult area for most music reproduction is in the 400- 3K Region and while 3 ohm accompanied with a -45deg phase angle could represent some difficulty to most dinky toy amps , this speaker has reasonably high sensitivity , this does go along way in alleviating drive difficulty and should not be an issue with any competent 2 ohm rated amplifier. I can imagine most listening will be done in the 1-2 watts RMS range with 200 watts or so on dynamic peaks. This would mean 2-5 watts of class-A power at 3 ohms should suffice, if this is your concern ( Only 20 watts@ 8 ohm of class-A power would be necessary to achieve this ).

2. TD, agree, but , I would have to see the anechoic/GP measurements ( with phase) on tweeter axis with the alignments done for proper TD and not setup for subjective listening as tested .

3. Actually IMO, class-D amplifiers are best suited for 8 ohm operation and not for low Z loads.

Regards ..

SNI's picture

Mr Wayne

I wish it only was flimsy power amps, that will be stressed with impedances like this speaker. But I´m afraid that will be wishfull thinking.
Even the most stable and strong amps performs better with a more human load.
But even if that is left aside, the TD is still horrible, and I´m flabbergasted that someone making speakers this expensive, can get the idea of reversing the phase of one or more drive units.

I´m sorry, but to me this looks like carpentry more than speakerbuilding, and for the latter only for one self.
As a commercial product at the asking price, we have one of these high price audio products so frowned upon by engineers.

Class D will remain linear far longer than class A will @ lower frequencies, but at higher ones class A will be able to stay linear into more difficult loads than class D.
Class A/B is not linear at anytime, but the harder the load, the more distortion you´ll get especially at low volume.

Michael Fremer's picture

There's no wood involved. Please never listen to these speakers. Look at the measurements and decide. That's your best bet here.

monetschemist's picture

Mr. Atkinson,

I wonder if it would be possible, and worthwhile, to do an article (maybe a series) that more fully explain what we see in your graphs? Perhaps take a couple of speakers that you have recently tested, do some more annotated graphs ("this point here shows the effect of an out of phase frammistat or perhaps a busted knobflicker"). It would be especially cool if you are able to correlate the measurement with what weirdness it creates in the listening experience...

Perhaps this is not feasible, but it seems to be an interesting idea.

John Atkinson's picture
monetschemist wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible, and worthwhile, to do an article (maybe a series) that more fully explain what we see in your graphs?

I have written 3 articles on this subject, based on a paper I presented to the Audio Engineering Society 20 years ago:

www.stereophile.com/features/99/index.html.

www.stereophile.com/features/100/index.html.

www.stereophile.com/features/103/index.html.

And in 2011 I gave an illustrated lecture on the subject at the RMAF:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77VKw9Kx6U.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

monetschemist's picture

I look forward to reading these! Thanks very very much.

es347's picture

..and was mildly impressed. The fit and finish on any Wilson speaker is top shelf but the sonics have never been my cup of tea..

Michael Fremer's picture

judging how a speaker sounds at a hi-fi show hotel room is a fool's errand. It's funny how people who like a certain brand will say "oh it didn't sound good, but it's a hotel room". And for brands they don't like, they leave out the "but"....and just say what you said.

JimboJumbo's picture

Another unimpressive test result for a very expensive passive speaker.

My God, no wonder some of these manufacturers ask us to listen rather than measure and/or be guided by tests.

To the discussion about the step response; as it was clear to me what was initially written about was wrong.

My interpretation is that the upper mid and woofers are negative polarity and the rest positive.

In some of the comments John says; “It [the negative going transitions of the upper mid, bass, and overall step response] blends smoothly with the step responses of the tweeter and lower midrange unit to give a time-coherent output”, then he later says “What I find interesting about this speaker is that while the adjustments Wilson offers don't result in a time-coincident speaker, they do fine-tune the arrival times, taking the different driver polarities into account, to give a smooth blend of their time-domain outputs hence optimal integration in the crossover region. But using the phrase "Aspherical Group Delay" for this facility, no matter how effective, seems misleading”.

With all due respect, that step response is not symbolic of a time coherent frequency divided 4 way system.

Such disparity between marketing statements and measured performances.

The impedance, CSD, and step/frequency response should be way better for a speaker of this name/cost.

Michael Fremer's picture

The comments here from people who have never heard these speakers and from one who heard them in a hotel room at a hi-fi show. I have never met any of these people but they are all really butt ugly.

es347's picture
es347's picture

..are you and Peter Breuninger still BFFs?

X