Genesis 201 vs Wilson Maxx Series 2 ??

Hi Krc,
maybe I'm too late on discussion but I wonder which speaker you have choosen.
I own a pair of genesis 200 and had the opportunity a month ago, to hear a pair of the new Wilson/Alexandria, which costs more then the double as Gen.

First of all, without discussion both are great sounding speakers. You can have an endless discussion compareing their sound. This depends also on the electronics you use.
But there are 3 main differences between the systems which affect the sound character:
1)Genesis are full range "back fireing" speakers. This means you realy need a huge space between rear wall and them. Consider to dedicate 1/3 of your room for the system.But doing so you will have a depth in soundstage, which is incomparable with "front fireing" systems. This is esp. importend if you like symphonic and organ music.
2)The active driven woofers with more then 1000 watts of energy need large rooms, say minimum 60-70 m2. In this point I'm full agree with mejames.
3)The mid-range and tweeters of Genesis are ribbons. Thus give a big clarity and neutrality to this sound range. For some people the sound may be to open but for me "a must".

I must admit Demeter is correct.If set up correctly the Genesis will literally "THROW" a STUNNING soundstage.Unmatched by other fine designs.It has to be heard,to fully realise the potential,here.

Best of luck!

As a owner of Genesis 200 since 6 years, I know very well the room set up problems with this beautiful towers. I have experimented with many different combinations of distances to the walls and between towers and panels.On all solutions the biggest problem I had, was the control of bass energy and to fit it with mid's and up's.
Now I have a solution which give the best result I had untill yet and I will share it with you: Use the "Golden Ratio" method of Cardas Audio(www.cardas.com/content.php?are...) for the woofer towers! Depending to your room configuration, there are many diagrams you can use (I had the best solution with Diag. E), but again USE IT FOR THE WOOFERS and take the FACE of the REAR WOOFERS to calculete the distances to the rear and side walls. After placement of the woofers you can go on experimenting with the midrange/tweeter panels. If your room width is big enough you can place them inside between the woofers or otherwise also outside (I have them just outside and 4 inches in front of the woofers).
You will be surprised with the result: The control of the bass and it's integration into the higher frequecies are nearly ideal(the best I had). After all the years, I can hear my "The 4 great Toccatas and Fugues of JSB played by Power Biggs" SACD(Sony-SS87983) again at a volume that I feel I'm in that Cathedral of Freiburg. Before new set up the bass was dangerously heavy and that you couldn't equalize with volume or low pass control of the woofer

In the interests of full disclosure, I have previously owned Watt Puppy 3/2's, Genesis V's, and Genesis 300's. With that said, I have auditioned both the Genesis 200 (not the 201) and the Wilson Maxx Series 1 (not 2). I concur with some of the posts above regading room size being an issue for the 200's, but would also point that that 18 x 14 is a bit on the small side for Wilson Maxx's as well.

As to specific comparisons, in the systems in which I auditioned these speakers, the Genesis presented more of a Row M sound; also, the soundstage started well behind the main panels (maybe 3-4 feet). The soundstage presentation on the Maxx's was more up front. Images were also bloomier with the 200's, whereas the Wilson's presented more of a pinpoint representation of individual actors on the stage. On large scale orchestral pieces I felt the Genesis nailed the spatial presentation, but on smaller scale pieces (e.g. solo female vocals), sometimes images tended to be a bit overblown. The 200's sounded more coherent through the midband, whereas I felt there was a discontinuity with the Maxx's in the midrange. Both speakers had extended treble responses, but I felt the Genesis sounded more natural, with the Wilson's a bit edgy. The Maxx's had an emphasized midbass, which added an unnatural richness to the sound on some pieces. I also felt the Genesis had more low end authority, and ultimately better bass extension. I wasn't particularly thrilled with either speakers' resolution of low level detail - the Wilson's seemed to have an emphasized upper midrange/low treble that highlighted detail in an unpleasant manner; the Genesis tended to obscure some low level information. Neither speaker excelled at low volumes - both seemed more pleased when you put a good amount of juice into them. As to macrodynamics, both speakers excelled - I couldn't pick one over the other. Finally, if fit and finish is an issue for you, the Wilson's look much more sturdy, and more well constructed.

Given that you own Genesis V's, the 200's are very much of the same sonic cloth, but give you much, much more. The soundstage is more expansive; the bass is tighter, but with better extension; dynamics - both macro and micro - are also improved. In short, the 200's are better in every sonic parameter; in some cases, by a little (low level resolution), in some, by quite a lot (soundstage).

As I read over my synopsis, I realize I focused more on what I found to be these speakers' weaknesses, as opposed to strengths. I don't mean to say these are not good speakers by any stretch; rather, I did so in an attempt to get across their differing presentations. Indeed, whether others agree with my individual perceptions or not, I guarantee most would agree that these speakers' sonic presentations are quite different.

One last point - I know it may in principle seem like a step back from the speakers you are considering, but given your room size, I urge you to take a look at the Genesis 350se and/or the Wilson Sophias. I think both speakers give you a good bit of the benefits of their respective higher end models, but are more tolerant of a smaller room size (I also like the Sophia's presentation much better than the Watt/Puppy and Maxx's).