Genesis 1.1 VS Wilson X2 Alexandria

[garylkoh]

Hi guys, My Innersound Kayas have wings that go backwards to combat cancelation. For some reason the new Sanders Sound speakers don't have that feature. I also have them 6' + from the back wall as well. I just recently bought some Yucca Cane plants for diffusion behind the speakers and that was a real nice improvement.

Sean

That's the right way to do it. I was also impressed with the integration between the stat panel and the woofers. They did a very good job there. If only they had flared out the rear wings. 3 degrees is all that is needed to "free up" the back wave. Unfortunately, they may have found (like I did) that whenever you have not 90-degree joints, the cost of manufacturing goes up 4-fold.

 

[garylkoh]

I will say, i have really enjoyed reading through this post and pretty much everyone's queries, opinoins and answers. My own personal observations on a few things said here:

1. For the money, panels can be incredible bargains depending on what you are looking for in a speakers. i think because of their technology, they seem able to do things at a lower price point than their cone counterparts at the same pricepoint. The Maggie MMG, 1.7, Quads 2805s, the old Apogee Stages...these are speakers that have a magic about their space, midrange, air that you have to spend quite a bit of money to get in a cone (imho).
2. The key is that once you find a cone (for more money) that matches these speakers...you are also probably getting slam, major dynamics and a fuller deeper register.
3. Once you then decide to go back to panels to match this more expensive cone speaker...by buying a bigger panel, you are getting a REALLY BIG PANEL!
4. Personally, I love panels...always have. I nearly bought the Apogee Stages years ago third-hand...a bargain in retrospect but i could not swing $1000 when i was just out of school. For $1000 i could not find any cone that did what the Stages did.
5. At the same time, now that i have big Wilsons, i find them to have a 'comparable' though not equal alacrity with enormous effortless power and slam. And to get panels that match that effortless slam...well, as Gary says, i do not have the room...few of us do.
6. And that is where i am most impressed by Wilson. Even though they are 6 feet tall, the footprint of a Wilson is about 2 feet by 2.5 feet...it can work in many kinds of rooms, but you BETTER know how to set them up. But when you do, they are remarkable in what they can do in a (relatively) practical size/shape.

Finally, i would love to hear Genesis speaker by Gary...and would love have a room (and the money!) and be able to call him up one day and say...i want to hear the mighty 1.2s because i think i'm buying!

Gary - the photo of your client's room with your speakers is awesome. Those were 1.2s cut down to be custom-fitted into the room?

I have always loved panels - from Acoustats to Apogees to Magneplanar, and now Genesis. Strangely, I've never owned Martin Logans. The large line-source speakers have always had a special grip on my heart.

@Lloyd, those G1.2's were special custom. You can't just cut them down in size without crossover changes.

 

[NorthStar]

---$200,000+ for a pair of loudspeakers is a lot of dough for us common mortals.
And cars with price tags exceeding the million dollars ain't for taxi cab drivers.

Hollywood, Monaco, and the well heels are a target for some manufacturers; where are we?

 

[LL21]

I have always loved panels - from Acoustats to Apogees to Magneplanar, and now Genesis. Strangely, I've never owned Martin Logans. The large line-source speakers have always had a special grip on my heart.

@Lloyd, those G1.2's were special custom. You can't just cut them down in size without crossover changes.

In spite of the fact that i am extremely satisfied with my old Wilson X1/Grand Slamms...alacrity, 'trueness' to source and effortless slam...i have this sneaking suspicion that yours could seriously tempt me away someday because i have always been captivated by the 'voice' of great panels...but could never get past the superior slam factor of cones.

 

[garylkoh]

---$200,000+ for a pair of loudspeakers is a lot of dough for us common mortals.
And cars with price tags exceeding the million dollars ain't for taxi cab drivers.

Hollywood, Monaco, and the well heels are a target for some manufacturers; where are we?

That's why I don't "dumb down" the Genesis designs when they go down in price. The crossover components are the same, as far as possible, the drivers are the same, and I spent more time on the G7-series designs than I spent on the G1.2. It is harder to get the same quality from one tweeter and one mid/woofer than it is with 20 tweeters, separate ribbon midrange and 12 woofers.

I don't use a cheaper capacitor just because you are paying $3,500 for a pair of bookshelf monitors (which admittedly makes the G7 petite more expensive than I would like) and the well-heeled in Monaco are paying $320,000 for a pair of G1 Dragons.

 

[garylkoh]

In spite of the fact that i am extremely satisfied with my old Wilson X1/Grand Slamms...alacrity, 'trueness' to source and effortless slam...i have this sneaking suspicion that yours could seriously tempt me away someday because i have always been captivated by the 'voice' of great panels...but could never get past the superior slam factor of cones.

I'm not trying to tempt you...... but you don't lose any slam factor or macro dynamics when you have a large line source. With the latest new materials in the midrange ribbons, IMHO they have adequate "slam". Just ask the guy who recently replaced his MAXX2 with the G2jr.

Electrostatics are a little more restricted because there is a definite excursion limit, but because of the large area of radiation, they can be lighter and a bit more nimble. Because of the large area of radiation, they beam more and have a smaller sweet spot. There's no perfect technology.

Because of the different radiation pattern between a line source and a point source, line source speakers also require 4x less power to have the same loudness and dynamics than the equivalent point source when you are sitting at a proper listening distance (4m away).

 

[cjfrbw]

the old Apogee Stages...these are speakers that have a magic about their space, midrange, air that you have to spend quite a bit of money to get in a cone (imho).

I nearly bought the Apogee Stages years ago third-hand...a bargain in retrospect but i could not swing $1000 when i was just out of school. For $1000 i could not find any cone that did what the Stages did.

I have resureccted my rebuilt Apogee Stages in an 11foot by 10foot room in Santa Cruz. Active Accuphase crossover, two subwoofers crossed at 100, 45 tube based foil tweeters crossed over at 7Khz. Yamaha receiver does the DAC and surround duties.

It pretty much whollops anything I heard at California Audio Show last year, with exception of the Magico/MBL/Wilson setups in very large rooms on the first floor. It has also made rethink the potential of getting great sound from a small room.

 

[NorthStar]

---'Bout MBL 101 X-Tremes?

 

[cjfrbw]

No, it does not do better than the large systems by MBL, Wilson, or Magico. The Apogee Stage system has dynamic limitations, but manages to play reasonably loud in the small room. Compared the small room systems throughout the hotel, I can't say I heard anything at normal volume levels that sounded better. A lot of those small room systems sounded pretty bad at some pretty high prices. A few were quite good i.e. Vincent speakers, Sony speakers, MM mini with Dartzeel, Magico Mini etc, but not as good as the Stage with the Santa Cruz setup.

The sound is hard to describe, just open, spacious, creamy, with very distinct sound images. Not as fast as a stat system, but more body and substance. Cool.

 

[MrAcoustat]

I have resureccted my rebuilt Apogee Stages in an 11foot by 10foot room in Santa Cruz. Active Accuphase crossover, two subwoofers crossed at 100, 45 tube based foil tweeters crossed over at 7Khz. Yamaha receiver does the DAC and surround duties.

It pretty much whollops anything I heard at California Audio Show last year, with exception of the Magico/MBL/Wilson setups in very large rooms on the first floor. It has also made rethink the potential of getting great sound from a small room.

+1 That,s why i say BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK yes there is always better BUT at what price, the big MBL system whollops my system for sure BUT it's 30 times the price.

 

[audioarcher]

Unfortunately, the Genesis 1.1's haven't been $165,000 for nearly 10 years now. The last time I bought a swatch of raw rosewood veneer to build a pair of G1's it cost nearly $20,000 and 3 months to track down. Real Brazilian Rosewood is becoming more expensive and hard to find even if you are willing to pay for it. The quantity and length needed makes it really tough as you can't use two different trees to build one pair of speakers.

I thought I had the solution by going to a carbon fiber finish...... unfortunately it ended up costing even more!

I recently took a tour of Benaroya Hall in Seattle. The tour guide said that all the wood veneer in the Hall came from the same tree. It must have been a very large tree. They must be able to slice the veneers incredibly thin to cover such a large space. She did not say how much the veneer cost but did say the 2500 seat hall itself cost almost $120 million to complete. There was a free pipe organ recital before the tour. A 4000+ pipe organ. When he really got on it at the end it was very impressive.

 

[audioarcher]

Here's a picture of the pipe organ. They said most of the pipes are behind the back wall and the tallest pipe is 32' tall.

 

[LL21]

I have resureccted my rebuilt Apogee Stages in an 11foot by 10foot room in Santa Cruz. Active Accuphase crossover, two subwoofers crossed at 100, 45 tube based foil tweeters crossed over at 7Khz. Yamaha receiver does the DAC and surround duties.

It pretty much whollops anything I heard at California Audio Show last year, with exception of the Magico/MBL/Wilson setups in very large rooms on the first floor. It has also made rethink the potential of getting great sound from a small room.

Congrats...that does not suprise me at all. Those Apogee Stages are all-time greats in my book. Enjoy!

 

[LL21]

I'm not trying to tempt you...... but you don't lose any slam factor or macro dynamics when you have a large line source. With the latest new materials in the midrange ribbons, IMHO they have adequate "slam". Just ask the guy who recently replaced his MAXX2 with the G2jr.

Electrostatics are a little more restricted because there is a definite excursion limit, but because of the large area of radiation, they can be lighter and a bit more nimble. Because of the large area of radiation, they beam more and have a smaller sweet spot. There's no perfect technology.

Because of the different radiation pattern between a line source and a point source, line source speakers also require 4x less power to have the same loudness and dynamics than the equivalent point source when you are sitting at a proper listening distance (4m away).

Cool...very cool. I will remember that. I mean it...thanks, Gary!

 

[LL21]

No, it does not do better than the large systems by MBL, Wilson, or Magico. The Apogee Stage system has dynamic limitations, but manages to play reasonably loud in the small room...A few were quite good i.e. Vincent speakers, Sony speakers, MM mini with Dartzeel, Magico Mini etc, but not as good as the Stage with the Santa Cruz setup.

The sound is hard to describe, just open, spacious, creamy, with very distinct sound images. Not as fast as a stat system, but more body and substance. Cool.

Allow me to give it a shot. The Apogee Stages deliver air...lots of it. It almost literally breathes in the midrange, which coupled with a very beautiful, electrostatic purity of tone and snap creates a sense of space in the room from the original music venue that feels (subjectively) 25%-50% than a comparably sized cone speaker of comparable price, PSB, Monitor Audios. It really is a massive difference which places it in that special SOTA category. So space (lots of it) and purity of midrange tone, plus electrostatic speed. While the Stages dont dig the depths of bass, the upper bass is surprisingly taut and powerful, which means that on orchestral, you actually do get a nice wallop...a bit rounded compared to the best of the best cones, but very satisfying (coming from a bass freak). In these categories, particularly in the mids, treble, air and purity of tone which to me feel particularly strong...i feel like i would be happy to see the Apogee Stages go up against today's far more expensive mid-size floorstanders (WP 8s, Magico V3, Sophias, quite possibly Sashas, even the mighty SF Strads). If i could keep them on permanent reserve so if i ever i had another system...i would pick these to keep on permanent reserve. In fact, what i'd really love to do is hear the Apogee Grands which i believe were their ultimate statement speaker.

Cjfrbw - They are one of the all-time greats imho. Enjoy them!

 

[rbbert]

Although my quasi-line source ribbons are budget compared to Gary's, one thing they do have is dynamic slam, far in excess (IMHO) of any cone speaker near their price (or probably even double their price).

 

[RBFC]

I had a pair of full-range Apogees. They did some things better than any other speaker I've heard. They were a pain to drive (had 4 Krell monoblocks) and the bass wasn't as tight as I have heard from modern dynamic designs. I listened to the Apogee Grands in Chicago with Jason Bloom (RIP), Leo Spiegel, and Dan D'Agostino many years ago. Coupled with modern manufacturing capabilities, that speaker could well be a contender for world's best today. I'd like to hear the big Analysis model with the second bass panel to compare....

Lee

 

[cjfrbw]

There was a young German guy on the Apogee boards who rebuilt and owned several Apogee models. He had Divas, Scintillas, and finally went to enormous expense to re-build a pair of the original Grands with all their complex crossovers and electronics/Krells. He also found a room with dedicated power supply to put them in. He got a pair of Stages to use when the big system was down for repairs.

It has been couple of years since I have visited the boards, but he said his favorites for sound were the Grand and the Stage in that order. Don't know if he ever heard the original Full Range, however, an impressive but inefficient beast.

Apparently, when they first came out, a few symphony conductors chose the Stage as their monitor speakers. I have had mine since 1990.

 

[LL21]

I had a pair of full-range Apogees. They did some things better than any other speaker I've heard. They were a pain to drive (had 4 Krell monoblocks) and the bass wasn't as tight as I have heard from modern dynamic designs. I listened to the Apogee Grands in Chicago with Jason Bloom (RIP), Leo Spiegel, and Dan D'Agostino many years ago. Coupled with modern manufacturing capabilities, that speaker could well be a contender for world's best today. I'd like to hear the big Analysis model with the second bass panel to compare....

Lee

Wow...that must have been something. I have heard the same about the Apogee Grands still being a world-class speaker even by today's latest/greatest standards. I have also heard good things about the Martin Logan Statements. As you said, "coupled with modern manufacturing capabililties...." that would be something! And even if buying the old ones...still probably a lot less expensive to pay a real audio tech to get them back up to par. Providing the tech really knew his stuff and could maintain them.

 

[LL21]

There was a young German guy on the Apogee boards who rebuilt and owned several Apogee models. He had Divas, Scintillas, and finally went to enormous expense to re-build a pair of the original Grands with all their complex crossovers and electronics/Krells. He also found a room with dedicated power supply to put them in. He got a pair of Stages to use when the big system was down for repairs.

It has been couple of years since I have visited the boards, but he said his favorites for sound were the Grand and the Stage in that order. Don't know if he ever heard the original Full Range, however, an impressive but inefficient beast.

Apparently, when they first came out, a few symphony conductors chose the Stage as their monitor speakers. I have had mine since 1990.

I am not surprised...the Stages are amazing. As for 1990...i think i nearly bought that third-hand pair in 1993...but just could not swing the money at the time...definitely a speaker worth keeping!!!