Sonus Faber vs Wilson

Years ago I installed an expensive system in a customers house - not an audio system.  i went over all the details and exactly what he could expect.  everything went well until about 2 months later he called me and said that he needs to move one of the units that went on his roof.  Apparently, from just the right angle in the kitchen if you looked up through the skylite you could see a small portion of the equipment.  I told him we put it was exactly as described and that it would involve crane work and multiple trades to move it even a foot. He fully understood and expected to pay. I still remember his response: " it's cheaper than probate"  so is it cheaper than probate?

My wife and I also auditioned speakers at the OP dealer's showroom at the Biltmore earlier this year.  My wife is an experienced classical musician -- a soloist who has performed with some of the world's greatest orchestras, has made numerous recordings, and is intimately familiar with the acoustics of live music, and with recording studios.  

We heard Sonus fabers, Focals, and Wilsons, all with quality sources (DCS) preamp, and amps.  

My wife hated the Wilsons, finding them utterly artificial.  We wound up purchasing Sonus fabers, though from a different dealer.

I have to wonder whether audiophiles who prefer the Wilson sound are actually deeply familiar with the sound of live, unamplified classical or jazz music.  When you spend years performing and/or listening to live, unamplified music of some complexity and richness, speakers like the Wilsons we heard don't make a good impression.  They don't sound natural, organic, or musical -- they sound "hi-fi."

I realize there are many passionate adherents of Wilson speakers, and I'm not attempting to offend.  I love rock as well as classical, and I can understand how Wilsons, and perhaps similar speakers, can do a good job with music that is amplified and was not created primarily for live performance.  

I've run into a similar phenomenon in shopping for a new car recently -- many of the optional audio systems seem designed or optimized for rock or rap music, and perform poorly with classical music, particularly orchestral and operatic.

Well, GG107, I’d say your wife’s opinion only shows that the tastes (and ears) of musicians are as varied as they are for everyone else. There are certainly plenty of musicians who have a different opinion about Wilson speakers and find them to be wonderful. As an amateur musician myself, I also know that the perception of the music is very different from the stage, and behind your own instrument, than it is from several rows out in the audience. Which is one of the reasons I often ask friends to play the Flamenco guitar I had built by a Luthier several years ago - it sounds very different from across the room than it does when I’m playing it.

I’d also point out that Peter McGrath of Wilson audio is a highly respected recording engineer (including of Classical music), and certainly doesn’t share your wife’s opinion.

Your wife’s opinion is certainly valid - for her and perhaps you. But to suggest that those of us that don’t share that opinion are unfamiliar with the sound of live performances is, in fact, rather offensive. It’s simply a matter of different tastes.

I understand the appeal of Wilson. I have heard them over decades and still have the WAMM audition etched in my mind. The holographic imagery. I was overwhelmed and appreciated the sound, but at the same time, said that is not the sound I want to live with. It is wonderful and if I could have three fantastic systems, one would be Wilson based.

About ten years ago I got season tickets to the symphony, 7th row center now and subconsciously started moving from my mainstay of ribbon speakers to Sonus, then up the Sonus line. Currently Sonus Amati Traditional. I don’t think my migration to Sonus was unconnected to having constant exposure to live acoustical concerts. I found that instead of optimizing one kind of music at the expense of others, all improved as I moved to Sonus and up to higher levels of their products. I have nothing bad to say about Wilson, they are fantastic speakers. But for me with the right electronics Sonus better gets the gestalt right and true musical nature of the music they are reproducing. To me.

@steakster 


.

Yep, the better the system the more any change matters. Really high resolving speaker enhance this.

no doubt the speakers are the determining factor in a system's ability to resolve upstream changes made... there is a thread lingering about how and where to prioritize gear in system building - ultimately if the speakers can't play the music in a way that let's us hear the differences, all upstream efforts exist only in theory

having said this, the most resolving system, the most resolving speakers, are not necessarily the path to sonic happiness and satisfaction...

@jjss49 

.

Very true… actually on some components also… particularly on source. I chose carefully on the CD player I bought in the past. Too resolving and you can have many recordings sound bad because the high end is tuned up to catch every detail and it passes on distortion and gets hard, bright, and looses musicality. 

Try Focal's curvaceous Utopia range.
They are so much easier on the eye than the ugly, masculine Wilsons. More musical as well.

I'm sure we all can relate. Why not enjoy what you currently have awhile? It usually takes me 9 months to a year before the shine starts wearing off a new pair of speakers and resale value isn't going to change in that time.

Depends if you prefer a design classic or glorified cigar box.

I haven't heard the Sonus Faber line in a couple of decades.  The ones I heard some time ago sounded really good to me.  However, I have been to my new favorite store in Atlanta three times this past year with my eye on a pair of Wilson speakers to replace my Thiel CS6's.  I dragged a case of records and CDs to the store a month ago and spent a day critically listening to the Alexia 2's.  They even put ARC preamps (phono too) in the room to more closely match my system at home.  I love the sound of these Wilsons.  I'm vacillating only because the Thiels come close lacking mainly the very clear strong bass of the Wilsons.  I was also waiting to buy until I installed a wood floor in my listening room.  Then two weeks ago I heard the new Vandersteen Model 7 XTRM speakers at the same store.  They sound fantastic.  Oh but the cost...

Tonywinga I don't think it is unusual that you are drawn to the Vandersteen's.  The Thiel's are time and phase correct like the Vandersteen's.  That turns out to be a big deal for me.  I put Vandersteen Quatros in my space a year ago and all I do now is shop for vinyl as I am so happy with my system.  You say the XTRMs cost..., but everyone looks at the Kento as the baby 7.  I am sure Atlanta will be happy to show them to you.  The last time I was in Atlanta they ran them with the Vandersteen M5-HP amps and the ARC front end.  It was heaven.  The combo is about the same cost as the Alexia's if I remember correctly.  I thought it may be something fun to hear on the next visit. 

I owned Wilson and SF.  My wife hated the looks of the Wilson speakers.  I had the SF Amati Tradition Homage speakers that I picked over the Alexx 1.  I thought they sounded better.  I also thought the SF speakers looked really good to go along with the sound.  My wife still disagreed.  Now I have Viking Acoustic Grande Voix Dual Horn speakers which the wife loves and everyone who comes into my house thinks they are an art piece.  A happy wife is a happy life and the Viking Speakers blows away the Wilson and SF's by a long shot.  

tonywinga,

I once almost went from Thiel 2.4s to Wilson Sophia 3 for the improved bass. I ended up buying two subs and high passing them at 60hz and have surprisingly been happy. My system is a bit upside down now with my speakers only making up 25% of my system cost but you know how it goes lol….
The wilson are fine but I lost interest when the Sophia turned into the Yvette and went up $10k. But honesty even if I had the Sophia’s I would want to run subs with them. Once you have true 20hz bass you can’t go back. 
Imo mid size well designed speakers (Sopra 2, Olympica iii, 228be, Thiel 3.7 etc) with subs give these large very expensive speakers a run for their money. In reality mid sized speakers with subs are often better as you can tune the bass to the room. Once you run subs it is hard not to question the price of these large speakers unless you truly have a large room and sit far away. If you have a large room but sit within 10’ then it is irrelevant again. 

Hi James633- I actually have subs in my room.  I put them near the corners behind the main speakers.  After hearing the Wilson Alexia 2's for the first time, I came back and "tuned" the subs to the room better using what I heard at the store.  I phased the subs based on their relative position to the main speakers.  I did some math using 30 Hz as the reference point and came up with a phase angle of 29 degrees.  I think I'm more lucky than smart but after some experimenting, 29 degrees phase angle dialed into the subs seemed to be where the bass really popped.  I also have the subs roll off starting at 34 Hz so they do not interfere with the Thiels.  I don't think the subs are quite as fast as the Thiels but they do a great job supporting that last half octave down below 20 Hz.  And I do sit 10 feet from the speakers.  
Then, just recently I added a really expensive power conditioner to my system (the front end).  One advantage- the highs improved dramatically becoming so smooth now- even digital highs are creamy smooth now.  So that is my dilemma.  How much sound improvement will I really gain with such a large expenditure to acquire the Wilson's?  The clarity of the bass is still not quite there to match the Wilson's but it is close, real close.  I have one CD with some strong bass (Stanley Clarke) that I used as a reference.  One CD to make a large purchasing decision.
Hearing different outstanding systems is always a good thing, especially when It helps us to see where our own system's deficiencies lie.  I gained a lot of ground but I still am fighting that bug in me to get new speakers.

The subs integrated perfectly into my system.  I have to either turn them off or put my hand in front of the cones to tell if they are working.  And I agree with you that once you experience that last octave down to 20 Hz it is hard to give it up.  I have one song, a Choir song with a large bass drum.  When the bass drum is struck, the power of that drum is intoxicating.  The subs and the Thiels working together make moments like that possible.  But I wonder how it would sound on the Wilsons...

tonywinga,

You have a really nice system and room BTW. I have no complaint with Wilson really other than the cost. 
One more thing to try before throwing cash at the system. If you have the ability to highpass the subs and cut the lows out of the mains it will make a huge difference. Running the subs at around 60hz (right where your bass driver rolls off and the passive radiator picks up) will really elevate the bass (no pun intended) and the whole system. 
Subs are just so good these days might as well let them do their thing. At 60hz they will blend well. At 80hz I find I can hear them and at 40hz and less the system as a whole is not near as good. That has been my experience in a few different rooms with the same system. 
Anyway, something like the JL Audio CR-1 would add the ability if your system lacks a high-pass.  If you end up using a higher crossover you might want to pull the subs a little closer to the mains. If you keep the face of the driver less than 39” away from the front wall you should still be good at 60hz and less for room nodes based on the 1/4 wave. 

I've also visited John at the Biltmore.  Compared Focal, Sonus faber Nova III (one woofer), and the Wilson Sabrinas (not SabrinaX).  He used the BIG Gryphon amplifier.  I liked the Focal the least.  It took a lot of listening to determine the Sabrinas were just a little better than the Nova III's....but interior designer girlfriend nixed the Wilsons as "too ugly."  I think the Nova V's would likely have bested the Sabrinas, but he didn't have them available.

My opinion, FWIW, is keep the Serafinos and enjoy their excellent sound.  It is easy to get into the "better speaker" quandary, and (again, FWIW, and from 50 years having stereos, and owned a store)) you will likely never obtain the "best" speaker in small speaker increments.  If you were to make a big leap in price, you might get stuff that is better than the Wilson Sashas or Serafinos, but then the itch will hit again...  At some point, it's worth just staying with good stuff and listening to music rather than to the equipment; I think you'll get the most enjoyment.

So…..it’s been well over a year since posting about this lovely quandary.  My gorgeous Serafino’s are now being driven by an Audio Research 160s with Nordost Try 2 Speaker wires, a new Ethernet switch and Ansuz power distribution. I’m sitting in my chair listening now…. 

Sonus Faber is about to release the new Amati… Joseph Audio has a gorgeous floor stander and then there are those DAW’s….

Hopefully my dealer AudioSalon will get a pair of Pearl Graphine’s soon for me to listen to.

Ain’t this fun…?

And oh god…. I did upgrade to the Rossini Apex and got the clock..!
 

help…!

Congradulations. That would have been my choice as well. I run Amati, Ref 6SE, and Ref 160m or 160s.