Ivan, you have compared SF to Wilson.

[Alberto]

I am far from being an expert on this particular topic, but one does not need to be an expert to tell you that Wilson and SF have VERY different design philosophies, aesthetics and "house sound". They are almost polar opposites.

Owning Wilsons was a dream of mine for a long time. When I was finally able to afford them, I went for a listen (WP - forget what number) and at first I was incredibly impressed by their dynamics and clarity. But after a few minutes, I became underwhelmed. I found them very dynamic but also very analytical and VERY fatiguing. I also found them rather unattractive, and the floppy foam-like "grills" may make sonic sense, but they looked really cheap and ugly - like an afterthought.

Over the years, I kept auditioning Wilsons (several models), with all sorts of electronics, hoping that what I had heard the first time was a fluke. It wasn't. I had heard the Wilson sound - a sound several of my friends like, or - more accurately - venerate.

I had the exact opposite experience with Sonus Faber. I would be lying if I didn't admit that it was the design that first caught my attention. That lute shape, those grills that looked like an instrument's string. I kept thinking, I hope they sound the way they look. My first listening impressions were a bit underwhelming. What's the big deal? They sound a bit too smooth? Where are "the fireworks"? But after more extended listening I became enamored with that smooth and luscious sound. Always involving and musical and never fatiguing. Like Wilson, SF has remained mostly true to its original philosophy, design and sound ... and I've remained a big fan.

So when you ask how these two brands of speakers sound - "regardless of curb appeal", the best answer is: different. VERY different. Perhaps, as different as two great speakers can sound while maintaining a high-level of fidelity (or "sound quality" to use the same term you do.)

And that's good news, because when you audition them the differences will not be subtle. To a semi-trained ear, the differences in sound will be as obvious as those in design. This means that making a decision should be relatively easy.

I hope this helps,

Alberto

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

When I was looking for speakers for my 2-Channel room; price was not an object; and neither was time. I had over a year to seek out my blissful companions. I listened to Focal's Grand Utopia's, Wilson's Sasha, Maxx3, & Alexandria, PMC MB2's, SF, among some of the more popular brands.

I already had 2 sets of Mac XRT2K's, and was looking for another sound altogether. These would be driven by tube Amps, specifically the MC2301's.

Curb appeal aside, this was actually easier than I thought it would be.

First; awards, and reviews mean absolutely nothing to me. The only person I have to impress is me. Think it's unfair to compare a $220K pair of Grand Utopias to the $45K Strads; I don't.

For me it was a simple process of elimination. Each brand had a proper chance to dazzle and impress me with it's audio prowess.

I will now awswer your original question:



For me the Strads are the more musical speaker, they are not sterile sounding or fatiguing. To further expound, since you asked; I found the Sasha's to be dissapointing in most all respects. Yes, they were set up correctly as were the Maxx3's.

I listened to the Maxx3's on two occasions in different locals, and at best said to myself, "I could live with these speakers" but that certainly shouldn't be. I even went to New York to hear the Alexandria's hoping they might "blow me away" unfortunately they didn't. They simply give more of the "Wilson sound"

This is a very subjective and touchy topic. There are no winners & no losers, it's all about what "You" desire to hear in a speaker. I am very fortunate to have heard, seen, and been able to aquire the pair that most impressed me; and I did just that.

Ivan, your comments on the Sasha and Wilson in general have not surprised me for reasons I will not get into here... I am not even going to ask as to what it was that made you think that Sasha was dissapointing in all respects when that speaker is as close to perfection as only a few others out there.

As far as the other speakers you have mentioned, they would not have worked out very well in your 2 channel room even if you did like them as those flagship speakers are not designed for small rooms like that. Your theater down in Florida would be a much more appropriate acoustical space for them. Even the Strads and I've heard the Strads in rooms 2 to 4 times the size of your 2 channel room (which is approx the same size as my next 2 channel room, also (14x21x10) as well as smaller rooms like ours and they only begin to really open up and shine when given proper space to breathe.

Speakers and taste are a highly touchy subject and while you tried pretty hard to make Wilson sounds like losers while putting SF on a pedestal of gold, I for one got a good laugh out of it. It was an entertaining post to say the least. Good one Ivan. I would have never said that SF speakers were dissapointing in all respects because that would not be true just as it is not true for Wilsons either.

Like I mentioned to KingRT in the beginning of the post, Wilsons are more capable speakers, from the way the present a holographic, 3 dimensional soundstage with superb ability to convey spatial information available on the recording which eludes the wide cabinet SF speakers by comparison, to the effortless dynamics exhibiting dynamic contrast like very few other speakers out there which once again by comparison the SF Strads tend to soften the transients and sound less effortless, to the way the Wilson speakers handle bass which is not only more linear but also more articulate and textured to the more neutral voicing that is both faithful to the recording and able to recreate the subtle nuances that the Strads tend to burry in their more colored overall presentation. To also say that Alexandria X2 or Focal Grand Utopia was somehow more disappointing or incapable as compared to Strads once again simply makes me chuckle. Speakers like that need careful optimization and choices of supporting gear since they are able to both pin the ears back with their dynamics, wow someone with their musicality or lack of while listening to them with unsynergisitic gear or poorly recorded material. Not the speakers fault.

But I disgress, nothing I say really matters to KingRT or those not willing to be more honest and open minded. That's why I concluded my original post by saying that KingRT should audition both and see which he likes better. After all, it is his money and his choice, one he will have to live with. To answer KingRTs question if he can find a speaker that would eliminate the need for subs, I am confident in saying that YES, he can. Of course Ivan would rather recommend a few dozen Fathoms.

[Jerome W]

I could have bet a lot that Serge would come in right now ! Either to reply to Ivan or to Alberto !
I will say Wilson speakers as SF are not that easy to characterize.
I had mixed emotions with both brands depending on the models I listened to and the recordings.
One have to live with them for a fair amount of time before knowing them really. Both brands have a high personality.
As Alberto mentionned, they sound very different but it does not mean that one could not live with both.
I could enjoy very much both Sasha and Elipsa speakers although they sound very different....
Jerome

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by 1KW

Comparing Wilson and Sonus Faber is like the classic American muscle technological Corvette (front engine) vs European style Porsche (rear engine) debate. One may have more HP or bass but the other may handle better in certain situations or the other may be more musical vs a slight difference in ultimate detail. Both are superb sounding not trying to outdue the other but rather a different interpretation of ultimate reference performance. I have had B&W 800 series, SF Cremona, Amati's and now the Elipsa's in my 2 channel room. I have also listened to Serge's Wilson speakers at his house as well as Wilson speakers at the dealer. This is a very subjective subject. I know if I give my opinion I will be accused of drinking too much SF Koolaid. Serge your Sasha was in a price range above the Elipsa so you may have felt you were going backward if you considered Sonus Faber for your home theater. I think if the Strads had a matching center channel speaker to be integrated into your home theater you might have given that speaker more consideration but only you can answer that . I think that the Elipsa and Sophia are a fair comparison since they are both full range speakers in the same price range. They are both excellent sounding speakers. I could have purchased the Sophia but I prefered the Elipsa; it all depends on what sound rings your bell. I wanted to like the SF Amati's in my house but they were not a good match for my room . They would have sounded terrific in my home theater room but I was looking for speakers for my 2 channel room. Last night I listened without my sub. and I was not wanting for any bass even though on my test tone track at normal listening levels it produces down to 30 hz. At louder volumes it will do 20 hz but probably the Wilson speaker has a slight edge in this department . The bass from the Elipsa is more than just fine (same woofer as the strad , only the strad has 2 per speaker rather than the 1 in the Elipsa) and overall is terrific even at low level listening ie 15 on the pre amp. . The Wilson and SF speakers that I have heard all have terrific imaging, nice midrange and tweeters, both have a unique design. I reject the notion that sonus faber is all show (good looks) and no go (lack of performance). Serge I do not think it is fair for you to compare your monitors (SF auditor and GM) or the Cremona's to the Wilson speakers you have had in your house. The better comparison would be the Elipsa vs Sophia .

David, with all due respect my friend, you are simply not up to speed with Wilson speakers. Listening to Alexandrias and not even realizing what they were and listening briefly to a pair of Sashas does not constitute a well educated point of view. I suggested you spend some quality time listening to Wilson but you chose to have Amatis dropped off to your house, spend a night with them and send them packing in the morning after like two bit wh^res. Having obtained a discounted deal on Elipsa, you jumped on them like tomorrow wouldn't come.

I am happy for you that Elipsa is bringing you satisfaction, it is a very good speaker indeed but I am confident in saying that you would have been very impressed with a few dozen other speakers of which you don't even have knowledge of or previous experience with. Flock mentality will do that, if a few McIntosh fans own them, it must be the best and nothing else exists, making it that much easier to spend what would be a very nice car for a teenager in a blink of an eye without even attempting to audition some alternatives. Not to worry, the Elipsa will not be your last speaker as you still have the Strads as your ultimate dream speaker and it is just a matter of time before another wad of cash will fix that problem.

[schaefer11]

Serge, If only we could all listen with your ears. It is a shame we have to use our own.

Ivan & David, I do not know what you were thinking! You both came to a conclusion that Serge disagrees with, so naturally you must have done something wrong.

Serge, are people only "more honest and open minded" if they agree with you?

Sorry, I probably should stay out of this one, but the entertainment factor here is sometimes just too much to pass up. I am glad that I cannot afford to play this game right now, but still get to watch from the sidelines.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Alberto

I am far from being an expert on this particular topic, but one does not need to be an expert to tell you that Wilson and SF have VERY different design philosophies, aesthetics and "house sound". They are almost polar opposites.

Owning Wilsons was a dream of mine for a long time. When I was finally able to afford them, I went for a listen (WP - forget what number) and at first I was incredibly impressed by their dynamics and clarity. But after a few minutes, I became underwhelmed. I found them very dynamic but also very analytical and VERY fatiguing. I also found them rather unattractive, and the floppy foam-like "grills" may make sonic sense, but they looked really cheap and ugly - like an afterthought.

Over the years, I kept auditioning Wilsons (several models), with all sorts of electronics, hoping that what I had heard the first time was a fluke. It wasn't. I had heard the Wilson sound - a sound several of my friends like, or - more accurately - venerate.

I had the exact opposite experience with Sonus Faber. I would be lying if I didn't admit that it was the design that first caught my attention. That lute shape, those grills that looked like an instrument's string. I kept thinking, I hope they sound the way they look. My first listening impressions were a bit underwhelming. What's the big deal? They sound a bit too smooth? Where are "the fireworks"? But after more extended listening I became enamored with that smooth and luscious sound. Always involving and musical and never fatiguing. Like Wilson, SF has remained mostly true to its original philosophy, design and sound ... and I've remained a big fan.

So when you ask how these two brands of speakers sound - "regardless of curb appeal", the best answer is: different. VERY different. Perhaps, as different as two great speakers can sound while maintaining a high-level of fidelity (or "sound quality" to use the same term you do.)

And that's good news, because when you audition them the differences will not be subtle. To a semi-trained ear, the differences in sound will be as obvious as those in design. This means that making a decision should be relatively easy.

I hope this helps,

Alberto

Alberto, we've known each other for many years now, through literally thousands of posts we have found out that our taste and preference is similar when it comes to certain qualities of sound. We both are highly sensitive to grain, hash and irritating top end as well as sterile and cold sonic signatures that are devoid of rich harmonics and proper weight and scale. Through some of the posts, we both have enjoyed some gear based on recommendations from each other immensely.

Believe you me when I tell you that I've never liked Wilson sound and I have heard plenty of previous versions of Wilson speakers over the last 20 years... Some of the blame was on the speakers themselves that tried too hard to be perfect and failed to engage the musical soul and an even bigger problem was often the wrong supporting gear that also tried to do the same but also failed.

I've also found comfort in Sonus Faber for a few years having enjoyed what I was not hesitant to admit was a colored response but one that pleased me more than the more neutral and linear response of many other speakers.

It wasn't until recently that I happened to drop by a Wilson dealer and heard the Sophia IIs singing in the background. Imagine my surprise when I heard that those speakers actually had a much more charming tonal balance and one that intrigued me enough to sit down and listen some more... The rest is history, at that point I knew I found the perfect speaker for my Lamm gear as they would be able to convey the very best Lamm had to offer in terms of rich harmonic structure, the proper weight, well balanced tonal response, seriously addicting bass qualities that Lamm is capable of, the intoxicating naturalness and righteousness that Lamm had in spades over all the other gear I have owned. It simply sounded more like real music without the artificial edge, etch, glare, sterility, dryness or any other HI-FI gremlins that keeps us from ultimately enjoying music and I no longer had to live with a much more colored speaker. Sasha was a natural step in the right direction as that speaker is also very engaging and musical while being even more capable. I am hoping the Maxx 3 in my new listening room will raise the bar while heading in the same direction and that will be the last step for me for quite some time.

Without drinking any Kool-Aid of any kind, Lamm, Wilson, Ayre or anything else for that matter as I have mentioned in other posts, I simply follow the gear that gets me closer to music and brings me the most satisfaction. While doing that and spending rather large quantities of money on these toys, I also expect for the gear to wow me as well as please my critical ear and music loving soul. The recent Wilson does it for me with Lamm. I am enjoying music like never before, I have the richness, smoothness and lucious sound that is much closer to perfection than I have come in the last 25 years and I am happy.

Having said that, I am sure I could build another half dozen systems with various gear and also come very close to my personal satisfaction as I know exactly what it is I want from my gear by now and where to find it.

[Masterlu]

Wow, someone woke up cranky this morning...

[cmalak]

I think KingRT knew exactly what he was doing when he asked that question, trying to instigate a



contest between the owners of Wilson and SF speakers on AA. That's my 2c (or 2 liters) worth

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by cmalak

I think KingRT knew exactly what he was doing when he asked that question, trying to instigate a



contest between the owners of Wilson and SF speakers on AA. That's my 2c (or 2 liters) worth

Say it isn't so!

[cmalak]

yes yes Ivan...i know it's hard to believe