Genesis 1.1 VS Wilson X2 Alexandria

treitz3

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 25, 2011
5,459
961
1,290
The tube lair in beautiful Rock Hill, SC
Uh Tom, I think you are talking to a diehard stat owner :)
Yes, sir! I do believe that you are correct. What I am attempting to extract is why? There is no harm and no foul in any speaker type [there are a few exceptions] but he has me finding myself very curious as to what his attraction to panels are, while at the same time, what he might consider the deficiencies of a boxed speaker may be. I can appreciate both and they [along with other types] have there own attributes and deficiencies. Just personally curious as to why he chooses one type over perhaps another?

I feel that the lower registers may have the biggest impact with him but alas, I may be reading into it incorrectly. I'll wait for him to chime back in.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Yes, sir! I do believe that you are correct. What I am attempting to extract is why? There is no harm and no foul in any speaker type [there are a few exceptions] but he has me finding myself very curious as to what his attraction to panels are, while at the same time, what he might consider the deficiencies of a boxed speaker may be. I can appreciate both and they [along with other types] have there own attributes and deficiencies. Just personally curious as to why he chooses one type over perhaps another?

I feel that the lower registers may have the biggest impact with him but alas, I may be reading into it incorrectly. I'll wait for him to chime back in.

So why did you choose box speakers over stats?
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
So what is your biggest gripe about boxed speakers, if you don't mind me asking MrA?

It seems that the deficiencies are so severe that you would not even consider ever enjoying them at this point. If I am reading into this incorrectly, please forgive me.

Tom

Hi Tom it's not that i don't like boxed speakers, it's more that my preference is for STATS, dollar for dollar the Acoustat Spectra 8800s cost my friend around 12k rebuilt them himself and i haven't heard ANY boxed speaker that gave me more pleasure than these and i have heard MANY in 40 years plus, he also rebuilt my Acoustat's 1+1s the only reason that i have the smaller model is that I DON'T HAVE THE ROOM for the bigger models, i live in a small condo.

PS: I have been with Acoustat's for the last 28 years never had a single problem and most likely will die before them.

Acoustat Spectra 8800 ( 1991 ) = 6600 + 1+1s
Acoustat Spectra 8800 10.jpg
Acoustat 1+1 ( 1984 )
MrAcoustat & Speaker.JPG
 
Last edited:

treitz3

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 25, 2011
5,459
961
1,290
The tube lair in beautiful Rock Hill, SC
So why did you choose box speakers over stats?

Oh dear, I wasn't expecting this but I would have to admit that my observations are fair game just as much as anybody else's is. At the risk of offending those that own stat's, I will speak my mind. I have heard Quad's that blew my mind in the realism department that lacked some things that I hold dear to my heart for reproduced music. Still, I have heard others that disperse sound in an extremely pleasing way but fall short of some things that I also hold dear to my heart for reproduced music. The same holds true for many ribbon speakers but with different attributes and deficiencies.

My biggest gripe with panels would be a full frequency spectrum [no omissions] with the pin-pointability of the spatial locational cues, along with the precision of the image. Without going into detail, please allow me to explain it this way. If you have a guitarist. He is strumming the guitar. He is picking certain strings as he strums, while at the same time, he is changing notes on the neck of the guitar. The illusion or the perceived image I have with what I have is that I can place each in its own 3-D location [to a point and as always, recording dependent]. To me, with stat's and ribbons, what I get is one guitarist that may be three feet wide. Yes, this produces an image that is spatial but I'm looking for the spatial locational cues within the image itself. A 3 feet wide image of one guitarist? That is not what I am personally looking for in reproduced music.

I'm looking for the best all around reproduction with many of the genre I listen too, not just jazz or classical or rock or a myriad of other genres. I want a speaker that produces not just average results, but great results on as many aspects of all genre's of music. I do not want a speaker that is the best at one genre of music. Not Quad's with stellar [and I do mean stellar] mid range but no existence of any of the lowest of registers. Not a ribbon with a confused and perhaps congested upper frequency range. I do not want sound that is "thrown out there".

I want a realistic reproduction of the event. That said, in my lifetime, I do not think I'll ever get it. The technology just isn't there IMO. A guitarist shouldn't be three feet wide. A guitarist should sound like a guitarist. Where that guitarist is strumming in relation to where the notes are being changed on the neck should [IMO] be two distinct images within the sound stage. At least that's where I come from, YMMV.

Don't get me wrong, boxed speakers have there own attributes and deficiencies as well. So do many other types of speakers. The reason I choose my boxed is that [at least with the pair that I currently own and enjoy] they perform not stellar on every genre of music, they perform great to stellar with a full frequency range than those that do stellar reproductive performances on just certain genres of music. In other words, I have found myself a happy medium to enjoy all types of genres of music at all frequency ranges with precision imaging and spatial locational cues.

To me? That is where happiness lays. Yes, I know of many speakers that do so much better than mine on one genre of music. Switch the genre? All bets are off.....might as well start shopping for a new speaker. What I have may not perform the very best on all but what I can proudly say is that what I have performs extremely well on ALL types of music.

Jack of all trades, Master at none. At least that's my stance. Regardless of what your stance is? Enjoy the music. That's all that matters.

Tom
 

treitz3

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 25, 2011
5,459
961
1,290
The tube lair in beautiful Rock Hill, SC
Hi Tom it's not that i don't like boxed speakers, it's more that my preference is for STATS.... i live in a small condo.
So, may I take it that this is perhaps why you prefer stat's? Forgive me if I am incorrect. What I'm interested in is finding out why you love your stat's so much, along with what turns you off on boxed speakers.

I'm just curious and in no way am I trying to be confrontational. Some of the best things I have learned throughout this hobby is just through casual conversation, just like this. I would LOVE to hear those big stat's. With out a doubt!
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
Well I for one am happy that my Alexandria's arrive tomorrow....The Genesis are just too darn big for my application. Alexandria is a big scaled sound in a relatively compact 600lb. per channel package. :p
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
So, may I take it that this is perhaps why you prefer stat's? Forgive me if I am incorrect. What I'm interested in is finding out why you love your stat's so much, along with what turns you off on boxed speakers.

I'm just curious and in no way am I trying to be confrontational. Some of the best things I have learned throughout this hobby is just through casual conversation, just like this. I would LOVE to hear those big stat's. With out a doubt!

Lot's of reasons but most important to me is the soundstage and the 3D imaging my panels fill the whole room the panels are 94 inches high one panel is at 2 inches from the ceiling and the other one is 2 inches from the floor as you know there is as much music coming from the back than there is coming from the front some audiophiles don't like this they say that the sound is to BIG well for ME that's what i like the musicians are not only three feet high to get the same feeling with boxed speakers you need realy good one's and for ME i cannot afford them that's about it i have heard some boxed speakers that i loved BUT they where all two to three times the price of my Acoustat in the last two years i had the chance to spend lot's of time in the MBL room in Montreal i fell in love with the small Corona system this was very close to the sound that i have now BUT the retail value of that system was double the value of mine and between the two i still prefered my system but the MBL reference system was something else BUT 600k my system is 20k it's always a question of money but at least the system wont RUST.
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
Well I for one am happy that my Alexandria's arrive tomorrow....The Genesis are just too darn big for my application. Alexandria is a big scaled sound in a relatively compact 600lb. per channel package. :p

Good for you Christian, the important thing here is that you are pleasing YOURSELF congratulations on your purchase hope you are happy.
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
-----Bob Carver, did he make the Amazing loudspeaker? ...Was that a Stat?

Yes he did, here is a photo of this beautiful hybrid speaker 4x12 woofers and 2x30 ribbon tweeters, yes they are much nicer with the grills on.

Carver Amazing Platinium.jpg

speaker.jpg
 
Last edited:

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
Uh Tom, I think you are talking to a diehard stat owner :) (while I certainly can appreciate a box speaker, there's nothing to my ears like those panels.) Like tape, when you hear a well set up pair of electrostatics, it's hard to go back to box speakers. YMMV. That is unless you're Harman. Then stats stink.

Myles Quote: ( there's nothing to my ears like those panels. ) 100% correct i have said this many times but here it is again it's not that i dislike boxed speakers it's just that the one's i like happen to COST much much more than my Acoustat's i had an audiophile come over at my place he was owner of a nice pair of Tannoy's Glenair 15 inches he just couldn't believe that my stats cost me only 3k i also went over to his place yes the Tannoy's sounded very good but they are 10k and it's the same with every boxed speaker that i like they are just to expensive for ME.

PS: To get the same soundstage of an 8 foot panel, your boxed speakers need to be very very good and that means $$$$$ i don't have any i'm a poor retired man living on a very small pension but at least i have a roof over my head and a nice pair of Acoustat's in my small living room. NOW THAT'S LIFE.

Keep It Simple 1600x1200.jpg
 
Last edited:

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Bob Carver has some new ribbon hybrids coming that look very interesting.

I spent many years (18+) with Acoustats in various configurations, enough charmed by their virtues to continually try to overcome their bothersome deficiencies. I ran them with subs (using custom crossovers) to keep the low bass from interfering with the glorious midrange. I stacked them to utilize a line source approach. I tried 3+3, 2+2 and 1+1 before deciding on 2+2 as the best way to have both adequate volume output and dynamics but limiting the "vertical venetian blind effect" common to many dipoles. Ultimately, though, it was a losing battle. Interestingly, most of the the few remaining 'stat manufacturers continue to work at correcting those same deficiencies, with varying degrees of success IMHO.
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
You are right on regarding their deficiencies BUT those are things of the past with the JJ mods first the panels doubling the contact points second soldering of the heads top & bottom of each panel ( yes it takes time & patience ) then it's the interfaces Caddock MS-322 resistors & Audience Auricaps 5000 volts capacitors + volage adjustments +++++ the photos are of my speakers Jocelyn also as the Bybee mods wich i don't have not realy worth the expense ON THE 1+1s

Acoustat Panel 03.jpg

Interface 01.jpg
 
Last edited:

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Myles Quote: ( there's nothing to my ears like those panels. ) 100% correct i have said this many times but here it is again it's not that i dislike boxed speakers it's just that the one's i like happen to COST much much more than my Acoustat's i had an audiophile come over at my place he was owner of a nice pair of Tannoy's Glenair 15 inches he just couldn't believe that my stats cost me only 3k i also went over to his place yes the Tannoy's sounded very good but they are 10k and it's the same with every boxed speaker that i like they are just to expensive for ME.

PS: To get the same soundstage of an 8 foot panel, your boxed speakers need to be very very good and that means $$$$$ i don't have any i'm a poor retired man living on a very small pension but at least i have a roof over my head and a nice pair of Acoustat's in my small living room. NOW THAT'S LIFE.


Have you had to change your panels?
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
None of those mods actually address the things that bothered me (and probably others) most. Nevertheless, I'm sure they are worthwhile mods with notable sonic improvements.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
My biggest gripe with panels would be a full frequency spectrum [no omissions] with the pin-pointability of the spatial locational cues, along with the precision of the image. Without going into detail, please allow me to explain it this way. If you have a guitarist. He is strumming the guitar. He is picking certain strings as he strums, while at the same time, he is changing notes on the neck of the guitar. The illusion or the perceived image I have with what I have is that I can place each in its own 3-D location [to a point and as always, recording dependent]. To me, with stat's and ribbons, what I get is one guitarist that may be three feet wide. Yes, this produces an image that is spatial but I'm looking for the spatial locational cues within the image itself. A 3 feet wide image of one guitarist? That is not what I am personally looking for in reproduced music.

Tom, that might have to do with set-up. Stats are dipoles, so are Genesis, Magneplanar, etc. The set-up rules are different, and you have to be careful. It is both easier and harder at the same time to set up a pair of dipole speakers. However, I've heard Martin Logan CLS's, Maggie 20's, and large Acoustats deliver the guitar image as you desire. However, this is greatly dependent on the image that was recorded on the CD.

The problem I've found is that most owners set up their speakers in relation to the listener, instead of in relation to the room. This is more important for dipoles than the usual box speakers.

If you look carefully at the pictures posted by MrAcoustat, he has a room that has an angled wall on the right, and an open space on the left. His speakers are also set up asymmetrically which is brilliant. To handle the angled right wall, he has the speaker toe-ed out slightly. This manages the rear wave of the dipole speakers, and if I am not wrong, would give him superlative pin-point and real-sized imaging and soundstage.

The other problem with most stats has to do with integration between the midrange and the bass. How do you get a 100gm woofer cone to move at the same speed (I know bass "speed" is hugely debatable) as an almost weightless ribbon or stat? Ever since Martin Logan implemented servo-bass technology in the early 2000's the integration have been very, very much better. Other speakers have relied on a large enough radiation panel (Soundlabs, CLS, etc.).

However, with any dipole, the wrap-around cancellation frequency is an factor and no matter how wide the panel is, it is difficult to get the cancellation into the bass. Some companies - Emerald Physics being a recent notable one - managed this using digital equalization. In the Genesis 1, we manage this using a 4-foot wide wing (140Hz cancellation frequency). However, this 4-foot wide wing means that most music lovers, even if the have the money and want a pair, don't have the space for a G1. I couldn't even hope to get a pair of G1's into Steve's room which houses the Alexandria and four JL Audio subwoofers.

This guy paid for the development and engineering to shoe-horn a pair into an apartment that had only 5.2m width (but 18m length). Even though I did the re-design with narrower wings - which meant that I had to change the crossovers - I was never sure that it would be a success and could be called my flagship speaker until I had them installed.

When Amir heard them in the Genesis factory (6,000 sq.ft. no walls) they were sounding small and lightweight. The image specificity was very good (a cello that was recorded to sound cello-sized sounded cello-sized) but the soundstage while it extended outside the speakers sounded small and diffuse. However, installed in the room they were designed for, they were absolutely spectacular.

Monaco Dragon..jpg

After we installed them, the wife insisted that they clear the projection screen and the wings were moved another 1.5m apart. However, we still managed :)
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
No but the panels have been modified.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
None of those mods actually address the things that bothered me (and probably others) most. Nevertheless, I'm sure they are worthwhile mods with notable sonic improvements.

What was/were the issues you found challenging? Sweet spot/beaming? Low frequency integration?
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
No but the panels have been modified.

Interesting, have had to replace the panels on my MLs every say five years or so. Was wondering where you might get replacement panels for the Accoustats. The MLs seem to get duller over time. Might just be that dirt builds up on the mylar film over time, esp. living in a dirty environment like NYC :)

Funny thing is that the first time I heard the 1+1 at a dealers (playing RLJ's debut album on an LP12), thought the sound was heavenly. She floated in the air and was solidly placed between the speakers. Nothing like my DQ10s at the time ;) Just took a detour (Magnepans) to finally arrive at the final destination (Martin-Logans). And I can fully appreciate the love affair with estats!
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
What was/were the issues you found challenging? Sweet spot/beaming? Low frequency integration?

I thought that he said "verticle venetian blinds" effect - that's a common problem with narrow-wing dipoles. It's due to interference between the waves coming from the two panels, from behind the panels, and bouncing around the walls.

 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing