Genesis 1.1 VS Wilson X2 Alexandria

[microstrip]

Looking for information about the Forsell turntable I found this nice picture of a pair of Genesis G1.1 in Holland. Great speakers, system and house. It seems I need a Kalista to put on the side of my turntable.

http://marten.se/blog/2010/02/dutch-courage/

BTW, if someone in Europe who can not afford a TechDas needs a Forsell Reference turntable with airbearing tonearm for a nice price (euro 5000) please send me a PM - a good acquaintance is selling it, but will not ship outside EC. It quite similar to mine, but does not include the Air Force flywheel.

 

[Jazzhead]

Looking for information about the Forsell turntable I found this nice picture of a pair of Genesis G1.1 in Holland. Great speakers, system and house. It seems I need a Kalista to put on the side of my turntable.

http://marten.se/blog/2010/02/dutch-courage/

BTW, if someone in Europe who can not afford a TechDas needs a Forsell Reference turntable with airbearing tonearm for a nice price (euro 5000) please send me a PM - a good acquaintance is selling it, but will not ship outside EC. It quite similar to mine, but does not include the Air Force flywheel.

Microstrip this is the same set up Lloydelee auditioned and wrote about in the Genesis Dragon thread . The owner is a member here on WBF .

 

[LL21]

Curious...anyone have any thoughts about the Alexandria 2 with Thor Hammer subs vs Genesis 1.1s? I know the speakers are very different and there are personal preference and equipment involved...not to mention room requirements. However, I am mainly inquiring with respect to sheer scale and effortlessness...I have observed that much of scale lives in the mids...not just bass...but that bass can help open up soundstages dramatically and also enhance a sense of seamlessness across the spectrum which allow a soundstage to grow in power without starting to harden due to stress.

Given that the X2 and XLF both have substantial scale as standalone speakers...I wonder what happens when someone elects to add Thors like a 4-tower Genesis, Tidal Sunray + Tower Subs or a Nola Grand Reference VI.

Any thoughts on this are most welcome. I happen to love my Wilsons...and enjoy the Velodyne with it...but as I continue to target the next level (someday)...I wonder about this point because (for me) the scale of the Genesis 1.1 or Arrakis are probably the last frontier on my ultimate wish list, with most everything else more or less achieved by either of these amazing speakers.

 

[JackD201]

Bruce has been working over at DW's a lot lately. He'd be the one to ask I think.

 

[ddk]

Curious...anyone have any thoughts about the Alexandria 2 with Thor Hammer subs vs Genesis 1.1s? I know the speakers are very different and there are personal preference and equipment involved...not to mention room requirements. However, I am mainly inquiring with respect to sheer scale and effortlessness...I have observed that much of scale lives in the mids...not just bass...but that bass can help open up soundstages dramatically and also enhance a sense of seamlessness across the spectrum which allow a soundstage to grow in power without starting to harden due to stress.

Given that the X2 and XLF both have substantial scale as standalone speakers...I wonder what happens when someone elects to add Thors like a 4-tower Genesis, Tidal Sunray + Tower Subs or a Nola Grand Reference VI.

Any thoughts on this are most welcome. I happen to love my Wilsons...and enjoy the Velodyne with it...but as I continue to target the next level (someday)...I wonder about this point because (for me) the scale of the Genesis 1.1 or Arrakis are probably the last frontier on my ultimate wish list, with most everything else more or less achieved by either of these amazing speakers.

I have 3 clients with Thors, one has the XLF (the same client previously owned X1- Series 2 + XS sub) and two have Alexandrias, not sure which version. I've spent many days with each client setting their systems up on various occasions so I have a very good handle on them, and in very different spaces. My experience with Genesis 1.1 is limited to shows and a few hours over several days at Lyric hifi in NYC; but I owned a pair of Genesis 201. I haven't listened to any current Genesis models, there might be some improvements in certain areas but I doubt that they're all that different from earlier version when its basically the same design. Here are my impressions your mileage and/or standards may vary.


When comparing the Gen 1 with a Wilson flagship, for me the Genesis falls way short. Starting with physical size the Gen 1.1 comes in 4 giant towers and is incredibly imposing and demanding of space. Both are full range speakers but Wilson does in a single elegant package, that you could even call compact in comparison. The versions that I had and heard the amp and servo woofer towers left quite a bit to be desired. They sound completely unnatural and like every other speaker with an active bass section that I've heard are almost always impossible to get to blend with mid/high section seamlessly; specially if you're using quality tube amplifiers. The only way I got my Gen 201 sections to kind of blend was by using a mid level ss amp and then wiring up the system with the typical expensive, colored, distorting audiophile cables and cords, anything better and more natural would end up showing off the shortcomings of the servo towers and their associated electronics. My other qualm with the Gen 1.1 is the exaggerated image size. Everything is huge and big, great for orchestral music but terrible for a small ensemble where the musicians become the size of King Kong and the instruments are as big as cars. Wilson speakers don't suffer from any of these problems.


If you know how to set them up the big Wilsons perform at a level above most. Certainly with a couple of exceptions the best and most natural low end of almost any other current production speakers I've heard. The Alexandria & XLF are top quality speakers that you can drive full range with ultra high end amplifiers like the Lamm ML3s, there's no servo amp built that can match ML3's natural bass. In this context the Wilson speaker is truly a no compromise package. The same is true of their subwoofers. The XS and Thor are passive units designed for high end musical reproduction. This isn't an overgrown, over priced active sub system designed for HT and sound effects. Even at these very low levels you can easily hear the quality or lack of quality of plate amps when you try to blend them in with high end tubes. Even the best ss bass isn't the same as what you get from quality tube electronics. The XS and Thor not only give you the deepest notes they don't lock you into 2nd rate electronics supplied by the speaker manufacturer. IMO opinion this is the only way to truly integrate subs with any speaker. XLF + Thor, all tubes is unbeatable and the best money can buy today.


david

PS, You can hit the next level in a big way by biamping your X-1 (with matching amps) and adding the XS or Thor.

 

[Audiocrack]

I have 3 clients with Thors, one has the XLF (the same client previously owned X1- Series 2 + XS sub) and two have Alexandrias, not sure which version. I've spent many days with each client setting their systems up on various occasions so I have a very good handle on them, and in very different spaces. My experience with Genesis 1.1 is limited to shows and a few hours over several days at Lyric hifi in NYC; but I owned a pair of Genesis 201. I haven't listened to any current Genesis models, there might be some improvements in certain areas but I doubt that they're all that different from earlier version when its basically the same design. Here are my impressions your mileage and/or standards may vary.


When comparing the Gen 1 with a Wilson flagship, for me the Genesis falls way short. Starting with physical size the Gen 1.1 comes in 4 giant towers and is incredibly imposing and demanding of space. Both are full range speakers but Wilson does in a single elegant package, that you could even call compact in comparison. The versions that I had and heard the amp and servo woofer towers left quite a bit to be desired. They sound completely unnatural and like every other speaker with an active bass section that I've heard are almost always impossible to get to blend with mid/high section seamlessly; specially if you're using quality tube amplifiers. The only way I got my Gen 201 sections to kind of blend was by using a mid level ss amp and then wiring up the system with the typical expensive, colored, distorting audiophile cables and cords, anything better and more natural would end up showing off the shortcomings of the servo towers and their associated electronics. My other qualm with the Gen 1.1 is the exaggerated image size. Everything is huge and big, great for orchestral music but terrible for a small ensemble where the musicians become the size of King Kong and the instruments are as big as cars. Wilson speakers don't suffer from any of these problems.


If you know how to set them up the big Wilsons perform at a level above most. Certainly with a couple of exceptions the best and most natural low end of almost any other current production speakers I've heard. The Alexandria & XLF are top quality speakers that you can drive full range with ultra high end amplifiers like the Lamm ML3s, there's no servo amp built that can match ML3's natural bass. In this context the Wilson speaker is truly a no compromise package. The same is true of their subwoofers. The XS and Thor are passive units designed for high end musical reproduction. This isn't an overgrown, over priced active sub system designed for HT and sound effects. Even at these very low levels you can easily hear the quality or lack of quality of plate amps when you try to blend them in with high end tubes. Even the best ss bass isn't the same as what you get from quality tube electronics. The XS and Thor not only give you the deepest notes they don't lock you into 2nd rate electronics supplied by the speaker manufacturer. IMO opinion this is the only way to truly integrate subs with any speaker. XLF + Thor, all tubes is unbeatable and the best money can buy today.


david

PS, You can hit the next level in a big way by biamping your X-1 (with matching amps) and adding the XS or Thor.

Hi David,

First of all, of course everybody is entitled to his own audio opinion and - as I just wrote on another thread on this forum - part of the fun of our audio hobby is that tastes differ a lot. But please allow me to make the following remarks:
- the Genesis systems I used for many years (Genesis 200) and I am still using (Genesis 1.1 although modified, particular the xovers using only Duelund silver caps) are able to portray the image of musicians and instruments in a realistic way, that is not way too big. My experiences in this regard concur with the review of HP of the Genesis 1 and 1.1 in TAS many, many moons ago. So I am wondering if something was wrong with the set ups you were listening to.
- I am struggling with the quote " sounding completely unnatural". Could you please explain because I cannot recognise this remark at all.
- I suppose getting the bass towers to blend well with the midrange towers requires skill, experience and hard work but to my ears it can be done successfully, even with tube amps. I am using Kondo Gakuoh 300b push pull amps.
- yes the speakers are huge but somehow (ribbon technology) can be set up successfully in rooms that are not huge (my room is 'only' 4,5 meters wide). But I believe that my view in this regard differs from Gary's opinion.
- as you I have not heard the latest version of the Genesis line up such as the Genesis 1.2 but like you my impression is also that basically there are still using the same principles and techniques that Arnie Nudell introduced. And in all honesty I am up front (have not heard them) not very fond of the class D amps that are currently being used for the bass towers. But I suppose Gary sees things differeny and can correct me if I (as a non technician) sees things wrongly.

 

[MrAcoustat]

Hi David,

First of all, of course everybody is entitled to his own audio opinion and - as I just wrote on another thread on this forum - part of the fun of our audio hobby is that tastes differ a lot. But please allow me to make the following remarks:
- the Genesis systems I used for many years (Genesis 200) and I am still using (Genesis 1.1 although modified, particular the xovers using only Duelund silver caps) are able to portray the image of musicians and instruments in a realistic way, that is not way too big. My experiences in this regard concur with the review of HP of the Genesis 1 and 1.1 in TAS many, many moons ago. So I am wondering if something was wrong with the set ups you were listening to.
- I am struggling with the quote " sounding completely unnatural". Could you please explain because I cannot recognise this remark at all.
- I suppose getting the bass towers to blend well with the midrange towers requires skill, experience and hard work but to my ears it can be done successfully, even with tube amps. I am using Kondo Gakuoh 300b push pull amps.
- yes the speakers are huge but somehow (ribbon technology) can be set up successfully in rooms that are not huge (my room is 'only' 4,5 meters wide). But I believe that my view in this regard differs from Gary's opinion.
- as you I have not heard the latest version of the Genesis line up such as the Genesis 1.2 but like you my impression is also that basically there are still using the same principles and techniques that Arnie Nudell introduced. And in all honesty I am up front (have not heard them) not very fond of the class D amps that are currently being used for the bass towers. But I suppose Gary sees things differeny and can correct me if I (as a non technician) sees things wrongly.

As you say so well sir everybody is entitled to his own audio opinion and sir here is mine not heard the Genesis 1.1 BUT i have heard the Wilson's Alexandria's & Thor combination a few times and was NEVER impressed for 230k i would choose the Genesis WITHOUT even listening to them because they are much closer to my tastes in speakers and for me dollar for dollar i choose electrostatic speakers and for those kinds of price my choice woul be the big Sound Labs or the Analysis Audio Orion.

 

[LL21]

I have 3 clients with Thors, one has the XLF (the same client previously owned X1- Series 2 + XS sub) and two have Alexandrias, not sure which version. I've spent many days with each client setting their systems up on various occasions so I have a very good handle on them, and in very different spaces. ...The XS and Thor not only give you the deepest notes they don't lock you into 2nd rate electronics supplied by the speaker manufacturer. IMO opinion this is the only way to truly integrate subs with any speaker. XLF + Thor, all tubes is unbeatable and the best money can buy today.


david

PS, You can hit the next level in a big way by biamping your X-1 (with matching amps) and adding the XS or Thor.

David - Thank you. I appreciate your opinion and in all these years, I have favoured my X-1s above all comers for their particular combination of strengths which suit my personal tastes...and since no speaker is perfect, I have shored up their relative weaknesses best I could (the ones which matter to me...treble, coherence, lack of mechanical-type distortion) through the electronics, isolation, and upgrading the tweeters when it finally came time to replace the older tweeters which after years were wearing out. I alos use a Velodyne DD18 running in parallel...cut off with a 48db rollover above 40hz. It sits on Stillpoints Ultra 5s and has 3 large brass weights totalling 75 lbs on top of hRS Nimbus Couplers on top...to keep vibration/rumble as low as possible.

I love the combo, and yes it does manage to squeeze into the living room.

I have been advised by a Dealer that biamping the X1 with matching amps and Thor would indeed be incredible...Thors are not easy to come by for audition. He recommended it to me as an option to consider vs a full upgrade to new speaker but he had not done one himself...only been told it works well. Is there any way you can describe what happens when you biamp the X1? And then add a Thor (vs an ordinary sub)?

You are one of the few if any who may be able to describe this, so thanks for any guidance!

 

[Steve Williams]

The Alexandria & XLF are top quality speakers that you can drive full range with ultra high end amplifiers like the Lamm ML3s, there's no servo amp built that can match ML3's natural bass.

I have been using this combo for the past 4-5 years and I will never buy another amp my X2's

 

[garylkoh]

Two different opinions. I'd never take a swipe at Wilson like that. I think that they produce excellent products - just different from mine.

Audiocrack - I much prefer the G1.2's in a larger room as I think that the space allows the bass wavelengths to develop. However, I have listened to excellent installations in rooms as small as yours. One day, when I'm in Europe, I look forward to visiting you and listening to your G1.1's with the Duelund caps.

I took on Arnie's legacy (from Infinity and early Genesis) and evolved it with better quality, engineering and a much more open mind to design and trying something new to get a better result.

Class D amplification is a tool and nothing more. Just like picking the KT88 for a tube over a 6550C, or a one power transistor over another, picking a Class D module is just a component to be selected. The reason I picked a Class D module over a transistor was that it was extremely efficient. The original servo-amplifier design by Arnie was "rated" at 500W per channel (or 1000W per channel) but the power supply and transformer inside the 4-channel amplifier was only capable of less than 750W total. Since the servo-circuit requires massive power to over come the laws of physics (overcoming inertia and momentum), I estimated that in order to build a true Class AB amplifier would cost far too much and weigh far too much. For the US, it would require putting in 230V cooker circuits into the audio room, and most audiophiles won't do that.

So, I designed the new servo-amplifier using Class D modules. In total, the new 4-channel SCAmp (Servo-Controlled Bass Amplifier) comes in only 5 chassis and weigh just over 140lbs. To have done it in Class AB would be nearly 4 times the weight in heatsinks.

However, since using the Class D module for the servo-bass amplifier, I also applied it to full-range amplification using my rather unique (IMHO) power supply design, and as a result most of the owners of my Class D amplifiers are converts from tube- or Class A-amplifiers.

 

[ddk]

Hi David,

First of all, of course everybody is entitled to his own audio opinion and - as I just wrote on another thread on this forum - part of the fun of our audio hobby is that tastes differ a lot. But please allow me to make the following remarks:
- the Genesis systems I used for many years (Genesis 200) and I am still using (Genesis 1.1 although modified, particular the xovers using only Duelund silver caps) are able to portray the image of musicians and instruments in a realistic way, that is not way too big. My experiences in this regard concur with the review of HP of the Genesis 1 and 1.1 in TAS many, many moons ago. So I am wondering if something was wrong with the set ups you were listening to.
- I am struggling with the quote " sounding completely unnatural". Could you please explain because I cannot recognise this remark at all.
- I suppose getting the bass towers to blend well with the midrange towers requires skill, experience and hard work but to my ears it can be done successfully, even with tube amps. I am using Kondo Gakuoh 300b push pull amps.
- yes the speakers are huge but somehow (ribbon technology) can be set up successfully in rooms that are not huge (my room is 'only' 4,5 meters wide). But I believe that my view in this regard differs from Gary's opinion.
- as you I have not heard the latest version of the Genesis line up such as the Genesis 1.2 but like you my impression is also that basically there are still using the same principles and techniques that Arnie Nudell introduced. And in all honesty I am up front (have not heard them) not very fond of the class D amps that are currently being used for the bass towers. But I suppose Gary sees things differeny and can correct me if I (as a non technician) sees things wrongly.

Hi Audiocrack,

We all have different tastes in music, systems and how we listen to reproduced music and our expectations from the so called high. If you looked for a polar opposite of how I listen or prescribe a high end system, you couldn't find a better candidate than HP. MY main criteria for a system is naturalness, it's all about tone and timbre the rest will come. The servo woofers with their associated amp don't have the right tonality or timbre, and that's what you're used to, then you haven't heard natural bass, a class d amp just doesn't cut it. I can understand the compromise when there are budget issues but why should you be limited by a class d amp at this price point to begin with? Unlike HP I listen to the music as a whole, a finished canvas. He dissects music in different parts and comes up with separate story lines for each section and I've never heard that at any live performance like I've never heard such a thing as fast or subterranean bass. Double bass has a lot of tone and its fat, slow and luscious, never heard it tight, fast or subterranean. I hear bass as part of the whole and its important for me that's its fully integrated with everything else. Having an active woofer is like having part of that canvas done by one artist and the other part by another and you're trying to blend in the different styles somewhere on that canvas. No matter how good you are at blending, you still have to halves or if you want a painting and a frame. I always hear and see that. Different brands and topologies of solid state already have very different sound characteristics, tubes and ss, specially in their presentation of bass have nothing in common. I've never heard them become one. I didn't sell the systems to the Wilson owners mentioned above, I went it later fine tuning their setups and switching some components in and out. Two of the three were running tubes on the main speaker and high end ss on the subs, both changed them out for tubes. I do more setups than sales and all those years of shoehorning big speakers into small crappy spaces and really near field listening taught me a lot. I know how to make things work, I also know where the limit is with certain technologies, rooms, equipment etc. As far as the overblown scale that I heard with the Gen 1.1, I can only comment on what I heard as a whole system. It could have been the cables or electronics, I don't know. At lyric I did play around with different amplifiers and front ends and the results were always the same, and I never heard the scale problem with the 201 in any setup. All I can say is that if you're in the market for one, audition it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

david

 

[ddk]

David - Thank you. I appreciate your opinion and in all these years, I have favoured my X-1s above all comers for their particular combination of strengths which suit my personal tastes...and since no speaker is perfect, I have shored up their relative weaknesses best I could (the ones which matter to me...treble, coherence, lack of mechanical-type distortion) through the electronics, isolation, and upgrading the tweeters when it finally came time to replace the older tweeters which after years were wearing out. I alos use a Velodyne DD18 running in parallel...cut off with a 48db rollover above 40hz. It sits on Stillpoints Ultra 5s and has 3 large brass weights totalling 75 lbs on top of hRS Nimbus Couplers on top...to keep vibration/rumble as low as possible.

I love the combo, and yes it does manage to squeeze into the living room.

I have been advised by a Dealer that biamping the X1 with matching amps and Thor would indeed be incredible...Thors are not easy to come by for audition. He recommended it to me as an option to consider vs a full upgrade to new speaker but he had not done one himself...only been told it works well. Is there any way you can describe what happens when you biamp the X1? And then add a Thor (vs an ordinary sub)?

You are one of the few if any who may be able to describe this, so thanks for any guidance!

LL21, The easiest, most cost effective upgrade for you is bi-amping. The X-1 is very efficient and an easy load, you'll get wonderful results from a pair of low powered tube amps. Keep everything including the cables the same for both sections. You'll probably have to make adjustments to your subs after doing this. Look for a used XS, they're fantastic.

david

 

[ddk]

Two different opinions. I'd never take a swipe at Wilson like that. I think that they produce excellent products - just different from mine.

Audiocrack - I much prefer the G1.2's in a larger room as I think that the space allows the bass wavelengths to develop. However, I have listened to excellent installations in rooms as small as yours. One day, when I'm in Europe, I look forward to visiting you and listening to your G1.1's with the Duelund caps.

I took on Arnie's legacy (from Infinity and early Genesis) and evolved it with better quality, engineering and a much more open mind to design and trying something new to get a better result.

Class D amplification is a tool and nothing more. Just like picking the KT88 for a tube over a 6550C, or a one power transistor over another, picking a Class D module is just a component to be selected. The reason I picked a Class D module over a transistor was that it was extremely efficient. The original servo-amplifier design by Arnie was "rated" at 500W per channel (or 1000W per channel) but the power supply and transformer inside the 4-channel amplifier was only capable of less than 750W total. Since the servo-circuit requires massive power to over come the laws of physics (overcoming inertia and momentum), I estimated that in order to build a true Class AB amplifier would cost far too much and weigh far too much. For the US, it would require putting in 230V cooker circuits into the audio room, and most audiophiles won't do that.

So, I designed the new servo-amplifier using Class D modules. In total, the new 4-channel SCAmp (Servo-Controlled Bass Amplifier) comes in only 5 chassis and weigh just over 140lbs. To have done it in Class AB would be nearly 4 times the weight in heatsinks.

However, since using the Class D module for the servo-bass amplifier, I also applied it to full-range amplification using my rather unique (IMHO) power supply design, and as a result most of the owners of my Class D amplifiers are converts from tube- or Class A-amplifiers.

I didn't take a swipe Gary, I only stated the differences I see and hear. I don't sell either brand and personally prefer horns over both types. Your servo towers aren't subs, they're part of a full range speaker with a predefined sound for that part of the music. You might have the best sounding amplifiers on the planet and one might like them over anything else, but the fact remains that they will always be different from other brands, technologies and topologies. One part of the whole is already framed and set by you and the buyer is locked into buying something that would work with the framework and sound that you set. Great if you like that sound, poor choice if you don't. I don't know where the xover point for the Gen 1.1 is but if I recall correctly with the 201 was somewhere in the 80 hz and above range, that's just too high in the musical spectrum not to hear the differences between the associated electronics and expect them to mesh seamlessly. I would say the same for every other speaker system with active bass section I've heard.

david

 

[Audiocrack]

Two different opinions. I'd never take a swipe at Wilson like that. I think that they produce excellent products - just different from mine.

Audiocrack - I much prefer the G1.2's in a larger room as I think that the space allows the bass wavelengths to develop. However, I have listened to excellent installations in rooms as small as yours. One day, when I'm in Europe, I look forward to visiting you and listening to your G1.1's with the Duelund caps.

I took on Arnie's legacy (from Infinity and early Genesis) and evolved it with better quality, engineering and a much more open mind to design and trying something new to get a better result.

Class D amplification is a tool and nothing more. Just like picking the KT88 for a tube over a 6550C, or a one power transistor over another, picking a Class D module is just a component to be selected. The reason I picked a Class D module over a transistor was that it was extremely efficient. The original servo-amplifier design by Arnie was "rated" at 500W per channel (or 1000W per channel) but the power supply and transformer inside the 4-channel amplifier was only capable of less than 750W total. Since the servo-circuit requires massive power to over come the laws of physics (overcoming inertia and momentum), I estimated that in order to build a true Class AB amplifier would cost far too much and weigh far too much. For the US, it would require putting in 230V cooker circuits into the audio room, and most audiophiles won't do that.

So, I designed the new servo-amplifier using Class D modules. In total, the new 4-channel SCAmp (Servo-Controlled Bass Amplifier) comes in only 5 chassis and weigh just over 140lbs. To have done it in Class AB would be nearly 4 times the weight in heatsinks.

However, since using the Class D module for the servo-bass amplifier, I also applied it to full-range amplification using my rather unique (IMHO) power supply design, and as a result most of the owners of my Class D amplifiers are converts from tube- or Class A-amplifiers.

Thanks for your reply and explanation Gary. As regards the size of the room I am fully with you that a Genesis 1.1 or 1.2 will sound better in a larger room than one that is only 4,5m wide. My point was only that even in rooms that are not very wide the Genesis 1.1 (have no experience with the G 1.2) can sound very good. My room is about 13 meters deep and 3,5 meters high and this works fine although I would love to have say 1,5 meters extra space on the sides.

As regards your second point (class D amps) and given the high price being asked for the G 1.2 loudspeakers: would other bass amps than class D power amps not yield better (musical) results? My Marten coltrane supremes mk i speakers do not employ class D woofer amps nor I believe does the Pendragon system of Gryphon. Somehow I always get the impression that the choice for class D woofer amps is mainly based on cost (cutting) considerations and not primary on performance related grounds. But of course you might be proof wrong on that.

Lastly, of course you are most welcome to visit me.

 

[garylkoh]

I didn't take a swipe Gary, I only stated the differences I see and hear. I don't sell either brand and personally prefer horns over both types. Your servo towers aren't subs, they're part of a full range speaker with a predefined sound for that part of the music. You might have the best sounding amplifiers on the planet and one might like them over anything else, but the fact remains that they will always be different from other brands, technologies and topologies. One part of the whole is already framed and set by you and the buyer is locked into buying something that would work with the framework and sound that you set. Great if you like that sound, poor choice if you don't. I don't know where the xover point for the Gen 1.1 is but if I recall correctly with the 201 was somewhere in the 80 hz and above range, that's just too high in the musical spectrum not to hear the differences between the associated electronics and expect them to mesh seamlessly. I would say the same for every other speaker system with active bass section I've heard.

david

David, the main problem with the woofers sounding different from the midrange/tweeters on the old system was because the midrange/tweeters are driven by your power amplifier (and it's associated sound) and the woofers are driven by the preamplifier bypassing the power amplifier.

I designed something to overcome that - I'll post the circuit and how to do it on the Genesis forum.

 

[Audiocrack]

Hi Audiocrack,

We all have different tastes in music, systems and how we listen to reproduced music and our expectations from the so called high. If you looked for a polar opposite of how I listen or prescribe a high end system, you couldn't find a better candidate than HP. MY main criteria for a system is naturalness, it's all about tone and timbre the rest will come. The servo woofers with their associated amp don't have the right tonality or timbre, and that's what you're used to, then you haven't heard natural bass, a class d amp just doesn't cut it. I can understand the compromise when there are budget issues but why should you be limited by a class d amp at this price point to begin with? Unlike HP I listen to the music as a whole, a finished canvas. He dissects music in different parts and comes up with separate story lines for each section and I've never heard that at any live performance like I've never heard such a thing as fast or subterranean bass. Double bass has a lot of tone and its fat, slow and luscious, never heard it tight, fast or subterranean. I hear bass as part of the whole and its important for me that's its fully integrated with everything else. Having an active woofer is like having part of that canvas done by one artist and the other part by another and you're trying to blend in the different styles somewhere on that canvas. No matter how good you are at blending, you still have to halves or if you want a painting and a frame. I always hear and see that. Different brands and topologies of solid state already have very different sound characteristics, tubes and ss, specially in their presentation of bass have nothing in common. I've never heard them become one. I didn't sell the systems to the Wilson owners mentioned above, I went it later fine tuning their setups and switching some components in and out. Two of the three were running tubes on the main speaker and high end ss on the subs, both changed them out for tubes. I do more setups than sales and all those years of shoehorning big speakers into small crappy spaces and really near field listening taught me a lot. I know how to make things work, I also know where the limit is with certain technologies, rooms, equipment etc. As far as the overblown scale that I heard with the Gen 1.1, I can only comment on what I heard as a whole system. It could have been the cables or electronics, I don't know. At lyric I did play around with different amplifiers and front ends and the results were always the same, and I never heard the scale problem with the 201 in any setup. All I can say is that if you're in the market for one, audition it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

david

Thanks David. Let's agree to disagree. The bass of the Genesis 1.1 speakers is rather 'big', wet and a little bit 'slow' compared to the bass of my Marten coltrane supreme mk i speakers. Visiting the Concertgebouw orchestra in Amsterdam on a regular basis the Genesis bass strikes me far from unreal. But, and on this we agree, luckily people hear differently and favor different aspects in music. Furthermore we agree that tube bass can be really impressive. This I experience in one of my systems. And lastly I agree with your reply to Lloyd that trying some high quality (set?) tube amp on his Wilson speakers probably will render some very impressive results. But I know he loves his Gryphon amp so I suppose this is likely not going to happen in the near future.

 

[microstrip]

(...) So, I designed the new servo-amplifier using Class D modules. In total, the new 4-channel SCAmp (Servo-Controlled Bass Amplifier) comes in only 5 chassis and weigh just over 140lbs. To have done it in Class AB would be nearly 4 times the weight in heatsinks.

However, since using the Class D module for the servo-bass amplifier, I also applied it to full-range amplification using my rather unique (IMHO) power supply design, and as a result most of the owners of my Class D amplifiers are converts from tube- or Class A-amplifiers.

Gary.

Is the servo system of your servo- amplifiers implemented with analog electronics or a DSP? Can we know what type of sensor you use in the speakers?

 

[garylkoh]

Gary.

Is the servo system of your servo- amplifiers implemented with analog electronics or a DSP? Can we know what type of sensor you use in the speakers?

The servo system is completely analog. This is because of the need for the woofers to match the midrange. With analog electronics, it was easy to get the coherence and matching I wanted to the also analog passive crossover.

The sensor is an accelerometer and the signal is integrated with the incoming music signal in analog in real time. Since we match the acceleration of the woofer to the acceleration of the incoming signal (d2x/dt2) there is no lag.

By the way - I've already posted the circuit to improve the coherence of the older Genesis speakers here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?13993-Improving-Bass-Mid-bass-Coherence

 

[LL21]

Gents,

this is quite an overwhelming show of experience to help me answer my question. For that, I thank you (David, Audiocrack, Micro, Steve and of course Gary). Adding my own opinions here, I will say that I have heard Audiocrack's system...and I have posted at length in a new thread I created which, ironically, is called something like "Genesis 1.1s vs Wilson X1/Grand Slamms". In it, I clearly state that I came away with the distinct impression that in that same room, my X1s to the Genesis 1.1s would be like Sashas to X1s. Now that is an IMPRESSION because of course we could not actually do it...but I have never heard in all the years of auditions of X1/X2s heard effortless scale on Rachel Podger Vivaldi Extravaganza like in Audiocrack's customized room.

That said, I come back to reality...which is that the mighty Genesis 1s are too big for me today and in the foreseeable future. I have considered the equally expensive Arrakis...but at the moment, a logical question is the one I have asked: Can X1s biamped and combined with seriously powerful and well-setup subs (Thor, XS, Magico QSubs, Gothams, etc) allow me to scale up pretty darn close to the really big boys in a much more room-manageable form. Biamping does not cost more room other than an amp, and I already have one sub.

Here is my guess...those who have participated, please let me know if I am on the right track. In a room, say 17 x 35 x 8-10...a pair of X1s biamped probably adds:
- far greater linearity
- less grain
- more control/dynamic capability and speed
- presume we are also replacing the passive woofer crossover with the Wilson Active Crossover so more adjustable to the room

Thor/XS/JL-type subs add:
- spaciousness/sense of scale
- ultimate sense of power
- deep bass

My gut tells me the sense of scale will still not be at Genesis or Arrakis level...but it will close in a room of the above dimensions...so close I might not even be able to tell or care.

Plus, it probably IS significantly greater scale and naturalness than what I have today...because once a system starts to have notable grain, strain or lack of linearity...the soundstage immediately collapses and the 'lifelike palpability' starts to fad quickly because the music becomes injected with distortion. The bi-amping and the removal of the X1 passive woofer crossover (in the right technical hands!) should reduce that much more distortion...and the super-subs should give that ultimate sense of space, effortlessness and, yes, slam that would be better than what I have (even in my medium room) because the super subs will have even lower distortion and superior control to the Velodyne.

About right?

 

[microstrip]

The servo system is completely analog. This is because of the need for the woofers to match the midrange. With analog electronics, it was easy to get the coherence and matching I wanted to the also analog passive crossover.

The sensor is an accelerometer and the signal is integrated with the incoming music signal in analog in real time. Since we match the acceleration of the woofer to the acceleration of the incoming signal (d2x/dt2) there is no lag.

By the way - I've already posted the circuit to improve the coherence of the older Genesis speakers here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?13993-Improving-Bass-Mid-bass-Coherence

Gary,

Thanks. Your answer proves me that I was going the good way when I bought some high linearity ICSensors 3052 accelerometers to build a servo subwoofer long ago. Unfortunately (or fortunately ) they should be somewhere in my large chessboard of the unfinished projects due to lack of time ...