I am always suspicious of seeing such low numbers in a dynamic speaker in the bass. I took apart one speaker and saw circuits there deliberately designed to reduce the impedance. It made the speaker "discerning" of amplifiers.
Wilson encases all his crossovers in resin so it is impossible to do the same analysis, but I am so very very curious if this dip is necessary, or a high end secret sauce.
@erik_squires , +1. I, too, wonder why a speaker designer would design a speaker with such low impedance? -Well, I understand, that such a design contributes to the sound of the speaker, but, when it comes at the price of limiting the amps capable of playing them then why not just sell the speaker and the amp the speaker was voiced with as a combo? Bob
Sometimes this is legitimate, and in the past, I could see that it was due to poor design tools.
Like in the early Genesis era. Damn, some of those crossovers are horrible in terms of impedance, but I can see how they got there due to manual trial and error. Attempts to get a certain sound out of the speaker, and not having very easy tools to help you optimize frequency AND impedance at the same time.
I can also see it with something like the giant Apogee true-ribbon speakers. The very technology caused 1 Ohm impedance, but with dynamic systems, I scratch my head.
When solid state-generated watts became cheap, speaker designers started to care less and less about the impedance of the models they were creating. Kind of a corollary of the law of supply and demand.
When solid state-generated watts became cheap, speaker designers started
to care less and less about the impedance of the models they were
creating. Kind of a corollary of the law of supply and demand.
I think this is a good observation. If Genesis only had tube amps, they probably would not have been able to release some of the speakers with the impedance issues they did.
On the other hand, I think that with the design tools and computer based optimization, there is no longer any excuse.
erik_squires I took apart one speaker and saw circuits there deliberately designed to reduce the impedance. It made the speaker "discerning" of amplifiers.
So it wasn’t a Conjugate impedance compensation load that you saw, that makes an amp sees a constant impedance load across it’s working range??? Your saying it was deliberately done to be detrimental to weaker amplifiers that maybe demo’d with them. Please say who these terrible cads were that did this kind of thing???? And if it was Wilson or not?
twoleftears When solid state-generated watts became cheap, speaker designers started to care less and less about the impedance of the models they were creating
Really!! you and whoever else is living in a dream world, if you think this is Wilson Audio design criteria
Are you guys listening to yourselves I’ve heard many of their top range, that are a b*****s to drive and I can confidently say these will give better bass because of it and their deign principles than anything that’s 8ohm and 100db efficient and called Klipsch or similar.
It’s cheating of course, but some of us enjoy “ low efficiency but also low trash “ speakers that are an easy load, low pass optimized with a power factor corrected feed forward bass amp and another optimized high pass amp with just 5 active components in the signal path....
somewhere... I remember a class on systems engineering...
oh and because the room is part of the system. 11 bands of analog EQ below 120 hz
Cracks me up you amp guys sweat over tenths of a % and tolerate a paper Wilson midrange ( for example as let’s say representative) that is out of phase 50% of the surface area of the cone at the crossover point...
$500 to scan your favorite driver and know the truth....
Cracks me up the way everyone acts like any of these specs matters. Definitive Audio is a huge Wilson dealer here in Seattle. Their flagship Audio Technica/Wilson/D'Agostino system is $1.3M. I heard it. Heard it right after one of their guys spent a whole day fine-tuning to present it to whoever has enough more money than brains and ears and so can be talked into buying it. Talked into it by blather just like this thread, all about specs, not one word about how it actually sounds when you listen to it playing music. Which is powerfully dynamic and,..... that's about it. In terms of, well pretty much everything else it can't hold a candle to mine, which you could have for about the Washington State sales tax you pay on their $1.3M monstrosity.
No amount of specs is enough if it doesn't sound good. And it doesn't.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled recitation of irrelevance.
Stereophile " A nasty combination of 4 ohms magnitude and –50° electrical phase angle at 80Hz. The three woofers do demand a significant amount of current to keep up with the horn-loaded midrange and treble drive-units."
When Wilson markets a PTS to match your Ferrari, they mean it. That is kind of the market for this except the question is which of my Ferrari's? According to Stereophile it is $329,000. The limited oligarch-grade WAMM Master Chronosonic is $850,000.
Not that I’m defending the price of these Wilson speakers...but...
Whoever said, "There is a sucker born every minute" was so right. Hilarious!
Why? You could BUY most orchestras for that same $ and hear the actual MUSIC as opposed to listening to it from a BOX.
^^^^ This is a strangely common remark made by people who scoff at very high priced audio equipment. I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen it. Some say "you could hire The Stones to play for you personally with that type of money," etc. Even as a joke supposed to make a point; it just utterly misses the mark.
What someone gets with a super high end system is generally what most of us want with out less pricey systems: the ability to hear a WIDE VARIETY OF MUSIC played by a WIDE VARIETY of favorite or known musicians, in the highest quality possible. Even if you just stuck to listening to symphonic music, the point is there are a huge number of recordings by heralded orchestras, conductors, classic performances, performers contempory and deceased etc, that a great system will allow you to hear in the best possible quality.
Then add to that a wider range of tastes one may have - rock, folk, pop, R&B, electronica etc - and you have an endless array of music and great performances to hear in the highest quality. So, no, you could not purchase anything LIKE the array of music by known musicians for the money you pay for even the highest priced Wilson systems.
One can certainly try to evaluate the performance/quality-to-cost ratio to render a critique of these high priced items. But this weird critique "you could hire live music for that money" should just go away, it’s so nonsensical and so utterly misses the point.
(Apologies richopp...this just happens to be one of my pet peeves)
Seems these type of threads always revolve around cost rather than sound quality. I've heard the XVX many times, with the Chronosonic subs, and with the right supporting gear, they are some of the best out there. IMHO of course. BTW, if you can afford the speakers, you can also afford property supporting gear including amps that can drive them.
hi, as for the six amps, on the floor, probably one each for the sub's, and i guess they were changing amps to show you, you don't need relentless to drive them, i have wilson speakers, and to my knowledge , wilson only make single wired speakers, as they really don't want you messing around with a whole mess of cables, with their speakers, for sound quality
unless you’ve heard a wilson speaker in your home criticism is conjecture at best. it’s tiring that every Wilson thread brings out class envy which has become so prevalent in our culture. I can’t afford a Ferrari but have no feelings one way or another about the owner as it has nothing to do with me. fwiw I own ‘budget’ Wilson’s and remain quite pleased.
eric.. can’t argue with your comment. snobbery is unacceptable at any level and it’s been a problem with some dealers but they pay a price, which they may not even be aware of. an audiophile that’s a snob is just a jerk.
Has anyone ever heard one of these Wilson's in a system and it sounded really good? Just curious. Because I never have. Not that I blame the speakers. Everything matters. But it sure is odd that I have heard great systems with lots of other speakers, but never with Wilson's. It also seems, now that I think about it, every one of those Wilson systems was presented with a very obvious air of snooty better-than-you-ness. Just sayin.
mikelavigne "interesting how every different hifi forum has a different take on the big Wilson’s reflecting the particular forum culture and membership.
no right or wrong to it, but the differences are dramatic."
Mike: The Audiogon discussion forums have changed. The days of IMO or IMHO are gone. Several members seem to think that their opinions are fact - in a very bloviating way. Their chronic posts are as fatiguing a noisy tweeter.