THere is a teaser on their website. Looks beautiful if you can make out the images. I think it is a step up from the WP generation. Maybe a replacement.
You have to hand it to the folks at Wilson, if nothing else they are very good at marketing. IMHO, perhaps better at this than any other high-end manufacturer.
At the price of would go for .....X2.2s. Just wait for the deal. But honestly, I am happy w. the Maxx IIs. And reading about the Sasha has me wondering, are they going to upgrade the material used on the Maxx's in the future.
Also, for the money there is no speaker that will come close to a used Maxx II.
Do you know if the Maxx IIIs have the same material as the Sasha's?
Wadav,
Doubt it has to do w. the Magico V3s at all. Wilson doesn't need to look at others. They have their market base. IMO, there is a huge gap between the Maxx III & WP8. They are filling the gap & will probably move the Sophia up a level in a year or so.
The Magico V3? Please, don't mention that piece of overpriced garbage in the same sentence as Wilson. Talk about the Emperor's New Clothes. I feel sorry for the suckers that blew $25K and having to justify to themselves that there are some "intangible" qualities that to the V3 that justifies the price. Wilson Audio is the real deal.
I think Dgad has it right. Look for the Sasha to come in at around $45K-48K. It's all about where Wilson's market is at and what his customers are willing to pay.
Meh. Their marketing is not for music lovers, it's for rich boys who like to buy expensive toys.. Silly women's names.. "I had Sophia last year, but now I have Sasha!"
I'm going to start a speaker company, my first model will be called "Steve".
the steve...the little steve....the big steve....the old steve....the new steve......break out the automotive paint Queg, i think you've just come up with the next big thing in loudspeaker marketing.
Possibly a head on aimed at undercutting the V3s (hearsay from reliable sources; seem to be hurting the WP8s sales thus their recent rrp reduction). If above rrp of $26,950 for Sasha is materialized, this will mean bad news to most of Wilson's line in the used market.
"Wilson Audio is the real deal." It's just amazing what goes on here and how are ears are connected to our wrong orfices! Oh well, and 53% of Americans want socialism they also believe in our dictator and leader of the state. We have to go backwards before we may progress. Nothing seems to change in the deluded worlds we live in. Real and audio!
Well you know that Wilson Audio is going to change their Watt / Puppy every 3 year. That's why Wilson Audio speakers are the fastest depreciating speakers in the market. For example the Watt / Puppy 7 was 3 years ago around 30.000 euro in Holland but now you can not even get 10.000 for them. So unless you have a lot of money to throw a Wilson speaker is an excellent speaker to buy second hand since you never get more than 30-35% of the new price second hand.
So good news for all that wanted to buy a Puppy 8. I am sure in a few months time they will go for 10.000 euro.
In Holland the rumour is also that the Watt / Puppy 8 will be taken over by the Sasha and that it will be cheaper and better. So Wilson brings a better speaker for less money. I guess they must feel the crisis to.
For somebody that wants to buy the Sasha and does not have the money, just wait 2 years until Wilson brings the Sasha two out and then it goes for 30% of the new price again.
I love Wilson speakers and play now with the Maxx but I would never buy them new for the above mentioned reasons. A B&W N802 of 8 years old still brings 50% f the new price.
The real reason for the change could be the flop of the Puppy 8. A lot of people preferred the Puppy 7 and therefore did not buy the Puppy 8. Now with a new speaker coming up these people might be conviced to change also.
As usual, Wilson reinventing physics. According to him, 6061-T6 Aircraft Grade aluminum is actually less “rigid” then MDF or epoxy. I propose the word Aircraft Grade should be applied to MDF now… All these spectral-decay plots are showing is simply levels of material damping. In other words, “how well they store or dissipate energy”. These plots show clearly that the ‘X” material is indeed highly damped (Stores energy very well). So, as he suggested, why not rubber? It will store energy even better and have no measurable resonant at all. Damping, without stiffness is bad for bass performance. The young modulus (Stiffness) of any epoxy resins type material is many folds lower than Aluminum or even plywood. That is why you do not see airplane wings build from epoxy. I am amazed at the willingness of these companies to expose their complete ignorance. Even worse, a total dismissal to the intelligence of their clients (Which unfortunately, they can get away with).
I read the article. It didn't read as such. It indicated less resonant. There are great Aluminum speaker there. Not sure if you are a Magico or YG fan or what since this is your 1st post. And to be honest, then why aren't violins or pianos made out of Aluminum?
In reference to Mariv26 -- X material is a phenolic composite (not the same as an epoxy resin). X material is indeed extraordinarily rigid and very hard -- much stiffer and harder than aluminum. The waterfall graphs are but one type of scientific research Wilson does on materials -- but these graphs (despite your assertion) are very revealing of certain aspects of a material's acoustical performance. Wilson correlates these tests with blind-test listening comparisons. Certainly for Wilson, this test alone would indeed eliminate aluminum as a serious contender for speaker enclosures. But there are several other tests that reveal that aluminum is not a particularly good material for speaker enclosures. At least if the goal is to build enclosures that have the least sonic contribution to music. And the answer to the straw-man rhetorical question "why do you not see airplanes built from epoxy?" Again, X is not epoxy, but the simple and obvious answer is mass (weight). X is much, much more massive than aluminum and therefore would be unsuitable for the construction of airplanes -- where low mass is critical.
I am neither. In fact I never heard them, but after reading Wilson spin, maybe I should. I was interested in a new loudspeakers, and having heard and liked the Sophia, I thought I will do some more investigating to Wilson other offering. I must say, as an engineer (Mechanical), I was mortified by some of the nonsense I read on Wilson web site. Regardless of how good the sound is, I can see now from where the high-end gets its “bad rap”. BTW, the functionality of a loudspeaker enclosure is completely opposite to a musical instrument one. A musical instrument enclosures role is to vibrate and amplify sound a loudspeaker enclosure need to do the as “quiet“ (but rigid) as possible.
Wilson employs a post-grad mechanical engineer, along with an electrical and acoustical engineer -- again, both post-grad degrees. I can assure you that neither of these credentialed engineers are "mortified" about revealing this aspect (just one of several) of Wilson's science. You are absolutely correct: a loudspeaker enclosure needs to be as quiet and rigid ass possible. X-material does these two things in combination far better than any tested material to date. The science indeed clearly supports this claim.
Mr Johnmaxx, thanks for joining in. So if aluminum is not a serious contender for speaker enclosures how do you explain the excellent decay plot on the YGA (http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/yg_acoustics_anat_reference_ii_professional_loudspeaker/index4.html) and the hardly adequate oneÂ’s on the Watt (http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/607wilson/index4.html)
With all due respect Mr Johnmaxx, to suggest that a phenolic resin is stiffer then aluminum is ridicules. Whatever flavor of phenolic you are using the Young modules of what is basically a polymer resin, is much lower than Aluminum or steel. You seems to be confusing strength with stiffness. A sq inch of X material, might be heavier and “stronger“ then a sq inch of aluminum, but it will not be stiffer and it will also have a much higher damping ratio. That is basically what your plots are showing. The X material is very good at storing energy. So is MDF. It says nothing of its “stiffness”. Where the aluminum, can be easily damped, the phenolic resin Young modules (stiffness) can’t be change. Aluminum is indeed a great material for loudspeaker enclosure since you get excellent strength-to-weight ratio, stiffness and a very easy material to damp due to low energy storage (That is why it looks like a “train wreck” in you plots. It releases all the energy out instead of storing it). Especial if used as a constrained layer construction, which IMO will be the best way to go.
05-06-09: Tvad I remember hearing the WP8 at a major audio show in 2006. The speakers were driven by ARC amplification. Stunning sound. Every reviewer was fawning over them. The "Holy Grail".
Two of the best reproduced sounds I've ever heard were VTLs driving some Alexandria x2's and ARCs driving Maxx 3's. Wilsons definitely like high-powered tube amps and the synergy is extraordinary.
A lot of words have been spilled on the subject of cabinet materials, and since I have done quite a bit of research on this matter, I feel that I have something to contribute.
The main thing that I can contribute here is that measurements of arbitrarily-sized individual sheets of various materials really donÂ’t tell you enough. If you want to know how a material behaves in a speaker enclosure, the best way to do so is to build the best enclosure that you can with that material, and measure the resulting end-product.
When doing so, one should use the fastening methods most appropriate for each specific material, and varying thicknesses which are optimized for every different panel within the enclosure. This is a process which takes several years, and is essentially the equivalent of developing a different full-blown product out of each of the materials one is considering.
I actually performed this process, and have ended up with a combination of aircraft-grade and ballistic-grade aluminum alloys (all from the 6061T651 spec, which by the way is superior to 6061T6), and special pressurized-assembly techniques to keep the structure under tension (by the way, aircraft is also made using pressurized assembly, so I have to admit it is not my invention in any way).
On a more personal note, please realize that I (and other designers who use aluminum) are not “in love” with the material. It is expensive, takes time to machine and is hard to perform grinding and finishing on (I would have LOVED to avoid the cost of my Portatec CNC machining center and Kuhlmeyer CNC grinder). I wouldn’t have selected this material unless it had been proven over and over as the most suitable material for a highly-rigid, non-resonant enclosure.
Since I don’t expect you to just “take my word for it”, I would like to back this post with actual measured data. May I please direct your attention to my ad titled “Reason #2”, which appeared in Stereophile of July, August and December 2008. It showed a vibration analysis of my flagship speaker (Anat Reference II) versus the flagship model of a leading competitor who uses resin for the bass and a laminate for the midrange. Out of respect for the competitor, I would prefer not to mention their name. In this comparison, it was clear that the aluminum enclosure was superior to both materials used by the competitor, by a considerable margin.
And for those of you who are curious about seeing more vibration analyses, I can reveal that our future ad titled “Reason #6”, which will appear in Stereophile of August 2009 and The Abso!ute Sound of September 2009, we include a comparative measurement analysis with 2 additional competitors: the leading European competitor (wooden bass enclosure), and a competitor with significant press attention that uses machined aluminum baffles and a wooden enclosure. I believe that once those measurements are published, this debate will be given objective answers.
It's funny how many differing opinions there are in this gig. Some people feel resonance should be completely eliminated, while others feel its best when utilized in a controlled manner. As usual, both parties stick vehemently to their ideals.
That said, I've heard YG products plenty of times and like the stuff. The same can be said for Wilson. On that note: the Sasha looks to be one bad-ass speaker. One day.... one day...
I think the passion, competition, and drive for the best each respective company can produce is great for our hobby and your industry.
Thanks for the posts, it helps us all understand what your striving for and for us as the buyers, we can make better decisions with our brains and our ears !
Interesting about our mr YG comments , wonder why our dave rattles his cage since he has to try and compare alexandras in his demo room and comments now, on the pre sasha release. Bet our Dave's not bothered posting a comment ,after all he is the supreme trend setter !
Thanks Wsill. I tried to find the newsletter on their website but it seems the only way to get it is to become a subscriber. Can you post a link to it? thanks!
I've owned many of the pretty boxes mentioned here and quite a few others. At the end of the day, trying to get the impossible out of a box design is lunacy. The medium is inherently flawed in contrast to how music is dispersed in real space/time. The Wilsons, Magico's etc...sound like variations on a theme with a genetic error encoded in their AudioDNA. Compared to a Magneplanar for example, they project sound through little cones directly at you, trying to squeeze enormous amounts of acoustical information through a relatively small opening. Music travels as waves in space in all directions directly from a(n) instrument(s). The Maggies resemble this event closest with a larger radiating area and in a more seemless manner. I was just in the market again for speakers to replace my latest ones (Wilson Sophias), and was considering Sophia 2's, Magico V3's and Audio Physic...I've owned WP System 6's and 7's, Dynaudio C4's, B&W 801N's, Dunlavy SC-V's, ML Odyssey's, Totem Winds and Forest's. The Maggie Demo told me something special was going on versus the typical box design, like being able to hear the entire Hall or a Grand Piano with all of it's acoustic energy and acoustic presence intact. All of the music flowed effortlessly with a wholeness and organic nature that sounded just about identical to the real thing! It's hard to describe the Maggie sound except to say that it sounds like your sitting in the presence of musicians with only air between you and them...nothing is masked or lost in the box. In my home, the MG3.6R's are even more enthralling...music lives and breathes and expands and contracts and ebbs and flows just as in the Hall. Many people will change box after box after box in search of the impossible...save yourself alot of money and frustration and at least seriously consider a Magnepan. They may just turn out to be your last speaker:O) Head bangers and technophiles need not apply...sorry:O(
They say that once you go panels, you never go back. I guess I am evidence to the contrary. Magnepan creates some great sounding transducers to be sure, but are they the end all/be all? Hell no. So far, I've yet to find anything that is, and telling people anything different is misleading at best. I'm glad you found your huckleberry with the Maggies Dave. I've thoroughly enjoyed my time with the planars, full range ribbons, and stats' that I've owned.
There are compromises w. both designs. Magies have their limits as well. Need tons of current, and can't play loud. Need perfect symmetry for setup etc etc. Wilsons are a little more flexible. No question the Maggies give you something special. If we could only get it all in one package. Sweet spot size also has some issues in many planar/electrostatic designs.
Maggies are great. Love the realism and sound staging. The basic issue I have with with most speakers (I haven't heard everyone) is that what loudness level they do have to reach before sounding very natural. I have found that Maggies have to be play at fairly loud level. WAF becomes an issue. Once there, they are amongst the very best available. On the other hand, Quads sound very natural at low levels and IMHO don't sound so good at really high loudness levels or on big complex recordings. Generalizing, I find most other speakers falling between those two points. I love electrostatics first, but can't live with them as my only speakers. So I selected owning Wilson's 8's, high WAF, and sound very good at reasonable sound levels. Maybe the Sasha solves my sound level vs. natural problem, but then I can't afford them. Are they overpriced? I'm they guy who bought W/P 8's? What's over priced?
I must perhaps apologize for my enthusiasm, but to the contrary of what some may have experienced with a speaker such as my MG3.6R's, I have found them to be thee easiest speaker to enjoy! It may be with more than just a modicum of luck that I am having a unique experience with my Maggies, but they have been thee easiest speaker for me to position, power and enjoy. Dynamics bloom so freely and quickly that one can completely be immersed in the music at relatively low levels. On the other hand, I played Mahlers Symphony No. 1 and Shostakovich's No. 4 at concert level with absolutely no strain or protest of any kind from the Maggies. In some setups the Magneplanars may exhibit certain percieved limitations to some degree or another...it has definately not been my experience however. That said, I can fully understand the desire for some listeners to fill larger spaces with higher SPL's for that "ear covering effect" one can usually only get in the club setting. In fact, I considered myself one of them type listeners, if only on occasion. Since the MG3.6R's have blessed my home, I have sat transfixed so easliy with full satisfaction at relatively more modest levels of playback. I have always cursed the fact that it seemed necessary to play music excessively loud to become satisfied with the sound. In other words, the excessive capabilities of say a Wilson design is over compensation for the fact that they do not have the effortless dynamic expression at low volume levels as do the Maggies. Simply put, listening through the Maggies connects me with the naked soul of each and every recording I play through them...they truly re-create music on such an exhalted level and in such a refined and natural manner that anything else seems artificial IMHO:O )
Having lived with the MG20.1 (3yrs) prior to my latest two boxes, I must say that they are great speakers, but like all others, have their inherent limitations. A change is sometime a good thing but does not necessarily means an improvement. It 'evolves' with one's ideal, taste and priorities of sound reproductions.
Thus, more meaningful here would be if mentioned or competing speakers have actually been compared to the Sasha.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
