I agree that is Ian's point. But Ian's point is based on a purely theoretical assumption, and not on actual listening. Neither of you have heard the XVX. I have heard the speaker four times.
And to suggest that amplifier choice is "very limited" I think is a grossly over-broad exaggeration.
I personally think this hand-wringing discussion is premature because, as Marty wisely admonished elsewhere, it is based on a data set of one (1). (A data set of two (2) only if you include pk_LA's report, but I suspect that report may have been mostly because that system was set up in essentially a warehouse.)
So, from one audiophile's personal experience, are you and Ian concluding -- ears unheard -- that the XVX can be driven, effectively, only by Gryphon, Boulder and Soulution?
Peter, your line of analysis here is puzzling to me, because I think you typically critique others for this kind of purely theoretical, assumption-based triangulation.
I wish we could engineer an actual financial bet as to whether the top CAT amplifier would properly drive the XVX. I am extremely confident that it would.
Hello Ron,
By the amplifier choice as "very limited" I mean that I assume one must use only very high powered amplifiers, either SS or tube, to hear the potential of these XVX speakers. That alone is a deal killer for me because of the sound of high powered amplifiers.
I personally don't care if this is in fact hand-wringing or not, or if it is premature. It is what it is on a forum discussion based on one member's personal experience with the amplifiers. One data point is enough to have the discussion and raise questions. We are all free to agree or disagree based on whatever experience we have. From what I recall of Marty's thread, he shared his experience and there was not in fact much disagreement. Afterall, he simply related his experience. It's a bit hard to disagree with that.
I have no idea if the XVX can be effectively driven only by Gryphon, Boulder or Solution. Nor did I ever imply or state such a thing. What does "effectively" mean, and by whose standards?
My analysis is based only on the comment by someone that the Wilson XVX is a nominal 2 ohm load. That is not a minimum load, but a nominal load. That is low. I presume from that spec alone, that it is not a very easy speaker to drive and thus requires high powered amplifiers. That makes it quite limiting. I don't know how limiting, but I have read reports of other difficult to drive speakers that had only a very few amplifier choices. There is no triangulation going on here. Simply a spec and my reaction to that spec.
Engineering such a bet would require a great deal of subjectivity necessitated by your use of the word "properly". Define the word and tell me how you would go about knowing if others' definition is the same as yours.
We all have our preferences. You like tubes and panels and warm cartridges (and analog) for girl with guitar type music. I like easier to drive speakers than ones presenting a nominal load of 2 ohms. These days I prefer extremely easy to drive speakers. Sure, I might enjoy the sound of a system that includes the Wilson XVX, not saying I wouldn't. I'm just agreeing with Ian, that I strongly suspect that I would not want to own such a speaker. Ian sounded even more certain. I fully admit I have not heard it and I know full well that you consider it your favorite cone type speaker.