I don't think Ked has room for them, he would have to settle for the Devore Chimpanzees !
"If you don't have a $200k [speaker]..."
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
I have heard Wilsons sound good actually..….but admittedly they are very set up finicky, more than some others comparable in terms of price. i know of more people in singapore who have moved away from Wilsons to other brands than the other way around. And for people who may not be aware, these are ‘listeners’ with means probably way beyond that of most people including those in this forum, especially considering the kind of houses they live in ( the average house in singapore costs WAY above that in the US). So affordability is not the issue……the average hi fi ‘listener’ we speak of in singapore is pretty well heeled.
Hi, Lloyd, I knew someone would ask me that…..
I’m buying the Marten Parker Trio diamonds! really like what they do with a smaller footprint, size and weight…. The Devore reference is too rich for my blood….for now
Congrats! Very exciting. Look forward to reading all about them when you get them in!
Yes, I am familiar with the market in s’pore.
I think the whole concept of “What’s Best” is fatally flawed. We live in the Golden Age of two channel home systems. There are a huge number of great options. And nothing remains king of the hill forever.
As the old song goes, Love the One You’re With.”
A couple of times at shows, Wilson speakers were clearly the best in show by no small margin. I am not a 'Wilson guy', but I will acknowledge when a particular outstrips everything else, including the other boutique speakers.
However, they do seem exacting if not finicky with space, setup and auxiliary electronics.
I still remember a manufacturer who had a full line of speakers including amongst the biggest and most expensive let slip that they liked their middle of the line and/or one above the middle of the line best (bitten tongue afterwards?). No, I won't say who they were, I want to avoid that quagmire. I don't know if that is a generalization, but I could believe it. There is a sweet spot in the line where the perfected technologies optimize, and anything beyond that is merely to satisfy commercial interests of the well heeled edifice clients and to have a massive top of the line model with stratospheric price so the Mfr. isn't downgraded by NOT having such a model?
Consider your room. I think a very large space with a large speaker capable of moving the larger air mass can in a well set up room sound better just because of the energy and the air mass. On the other hand, don't put more speaker in your room expecting results if the speaker is not size appropriate for the space.
However, they do seem exacting if not finicky with space, setup and auxiliary electronics.
I still remember a manufacturer who had a full line of speakers including amongst the biggest and most expensive let slip that they liked their middle of the line and/or one above the middle of the line best (bitten tongue afterwards?). No, I won't say who they were, I want to avoid that quagmire. I don't know if that is a generalization, but I could believe it. There is a sweet spot in the line where the perfected technologies optimize, and anything beyond that is merely to satisfy commercial interests of the well heeled edifice clients and to have a massive top of the line model with stratospheric price so the Mfr. isn't downgraded by NOT having such a model?
Consider your room. I think a very large space with a large speaker capable of moving the larger air mass can in a well set up room sound better just because of the energy and the air mass. On the other hand, don't put more speaker in your room expecting results if the speaker is not size appropriate for the space.
The O/96 are fantastic speakers at $12K but the Alexia V are a different level as they should be at $70K. The O/Reference at $85K is a better comparison imho.
For some reason I assume that multi-driver, complex crossover designs make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain phase coherence.
The O96 is totally not my kind of speaker (a small, low-sitting, box) but it is my standard, and standing, recommendation for a small box speaker.* I think it has wonderful tone, and it is natural-sounding and "musical." I also like that you can drive it with modest SET amplifiers. It just sounds "right."
With a small room you could buy the O96 and be pretty happy forever. It doesn't do things that are important to me, but what it does right takes you pretty far.
Is there something more musical and natural-sounding about the O96 than the XVX? I think so. So why do I prefer the XVX?
Because by the time I tube-i-fy the XVX I can pick up enough naturalness in the midrange that, in combination with the more convincing height, scale and power of the XVX, I get to a higher indifference curve.
*I think I maybe now prefer the Songer S2.
With a small room you could buy the O96 and be pretty happy forever. It doesn't do things that are important to me, but what it does right takes you pretty far.
Is there something more musical and natural-sounding about the O96 than the XVX? I think so. So why do I prefer the XVX?
Because by the time I tube-i-fy the XVX I can pick up enough naturalness in the midrange that, in combination with the more convincing height, scale and power of the XVX, I get to a higher indifference curve.
*I think I maybe now prefer the Songer S2.
Last edited:
Spoken like a guy who has not really heard the Devore enough, maybe once. It needs a big room, not small. You need space from the front wall and sides. You react visually, i.e. Because the speaker is small, it needs a small room.
The things "that are not important or you". It does size and scale better than most tall speakers. In your mind a 7 foot speaker does a large scale because it starts at 7 foot. That is just visual based and works with poor recordings, which do not scale. If the recording is good, the scale of the recording is projected upwards and outwards from the speakers, and the scale changes with the rise and fall of the orchestra. Devores are better than foo-fi speakers at doing this. The scale also needs to be projected with coherence and proportionality, rather than sounding like 3 different speakers joined together to give the impression of extension. Not saying a tall speaker like Martin Logans or good restored apogees cannot do this, but just height cannot achieve that. Unless you are listening to poor quality LPs, which do not have scale on them to be projected.
I didn't say they were the best, I said they were better than foo-fi
I am with you on this one…… the O/96 does scale and space that completely belies its size. I am playing them in a living room that is almost 600 SQ feet and it fills every inch of that better than my previous speaker.
Yes, and to do so you have to use first order crossovers. Wilson wires the midrange drivers, at least on the Alexia, in inverse phase from the tweeter and woofers. You can see this in the Stereophile review of the Alexia 2 and JA even states in the text of the measurements section. When you look at the impulse response plot, you can see that the midrange is negative going, which indicates A) it is not a first order crossover, which is necessary to have a phase/time coherent speaker passively and B) you typically invert the midrange when using a 2nd order crossover and that means the mid is sucking in when the other drivers are pushing out. All the moving of individual drivers that Wilson allows for will not make the speaker phase/time coherent.
You can use a 4th order Linkwitz/Riley crossover to get everything in phase; however, there is a 360 degree phase rotation that leads to group delay and then you can't really time align. So, technically it is phase coherent but not time coherent. In a 4th order xover though, you normally would not wire the mid inverse from the other drivers...you would wire them all in the same absolute phase.
What doesn't the O96 do for you?
You think the O96 is more natural sounding but prefer the XVX? That would suggest that you are more interested in the hifi whiz bang and perhaps just the visual impressiveness over a more holistic sound. Wilsons never sound very coherent to me, so that is a show stopper right there, regardless of whatever else they do right. The one exception was the original X1, which could be driven well with lower power amplification (like a medium power SET, for example) and was designed quite differently than later models (crossover especially).
You have found a more coherent way to get the scale, height and power by using the Gryphons, IMO. That RD75 covers a very wide range (doesn't even really need the tweeters that Gryphon added) and so is inherently coherent.
Ever since becoming a planar guy and now owning horns, I have sought out coherence as a very high priority because I don't think you can get natural sound with an incoherent speaker even if it has great tone, dynamics etc. That incoherence destroys any chance for realistic sound, IMO.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |