Years to come? With all due respect and given Wilson's history, a dubious claim at best.I asked my good friend at Wilson about 2 years ago how XVX treble compared to the Alexx V in his opinion. His reply was that Alexx V treble was not even in the same ballpark with XVX treble. The XVX is a light year better than any other Wilson speaker and will be for years to come.
(...) The XVX is a light year better than any other Wilson speaker and will be for years to come.(...)
Years to come? With all due respect and given Wlson's history, a dubious claim at best.
Probably the claim is enthusiastically hyperbolic, as most or our audiophile claims. But I have no problem saying that I still prefer the XLF to other Wilson Audio speakers, except the WAMM and probably the XVX, that I have not yet listened.
New Wilson speakers have surely improved medium, transparency, precision and bass definition. But overall none of them has the scale, bass depth and easiness of drive of the XLF, aspects that I valuate a lot.
Apparently it took ten years to Wilson to create the XVX, that betters the XLF. Charles S surely knows about it ...
I am very familiar with the XLF. The XVX imho is light years ahead.
We should expect it. I wrote the same about the WAMM.I am very familiar with the XLF. The XVX imho is light years ahead.
Isn’t the old Alexandria X2 the most sensitive? I think that one opens up more amplifier choices.
Isn’t the old Alexandria X2 the most sensitive? I think that one opens up more amplifier choices.
Curiously the measured difference was minimal and the X1 and X2 have lower impedance peaks than the XLF. Probably you are addressing the older Grand SLAMM, that had a minimum impedance magnitude of 6.4 ohms and true 95dB/W. I owned the X2 before getting the XLF - the XLF is light years ahead of the X2, as people are saying.
Curiously the measured difference was minimal and the X1 and X2 have lower impedance peaks than the XLF. Probably you are addressing the older Grand SLAMM, that had a minimum impedance magnitude of 6.4 ohms and true 95dB/W. I owned the X2 before getting the XLF - the XLF is light years ahead of the X2, as people are saying.
Peter, I have known you for some time. This comment is, shall I say.....surprising.Perhaps. I’m thinking f the speaker Rockitman and Steve Williams have.
Peter, I have known you for some time. This comment is, shall I say.....surprising.
Tom
Sorry, Peter. This may be due to a mistype. I read this as "F" the speaker that they have.....in not a polite manner, if you know what I mean.Perhaps. I’m thinking f the speaker Rockitman and Steve Williams have.
Sorry, Peter. This may be due to a mistype. I read this as "F" the speaker that they have.....in not a polite manner, if you know what I mean.
Tom
Hi Microstrip, very good to make your acquaintance. I got my dealer upset with me for not buying an XLF. I came very close. I think it's a wonderful speaker, though I haven't heard it. It was Dave Wilson's last speaker, other than the WAMM and I know that he was extremely satisfied with its sound. DW also designed my Thor. Some don't know that he designed the Thor for mono, horizontal lie, music position. It was meant to be used with the XLF. The Thor was meant as a replacement for the XS, which was too heavy and impractical.Probably the claim is enthusiastically hyperbolic, as most or our audiophile claims. But I have no problem saying that I still prefer the XLF to other Wilson Audio speakers, except the WAMM and probably the XVX, that I have not yet listened.
New Wilson speakers have surely improved medium, transparency, precision and bass definition. But overall none of them has the scale, bass depth and easiness of drive of the XLF, aspects that I valuate a lot.
Apparently it took ten years to Wilson to create the XVX, that betters the XLF. Charles S surely knows about it ...
Synergistic Research’s Innovative Pricing Strategy: Delivering Premium Performance at Half the CostThanks Ron. You bring up a lot of great points and questions. Let me touch on a few from my perspective and experience. We are an unusual industry. The large majority of companies in high end audio are started by one person with a passion. We're not the only industry where that's the case, but we sure do manifest it strongly.
In terms of the cost of high end audio equipment there are a number of ways, from a manufacturer's perspective, to determine pricing. The reality of these prices are mostly justifiable but there are some that are not. A number of years ago I was in a foreign country (outside of the U.S.) at a high end audio trade show. Out in the hallway I was chatting with a few fellow manufacturers and the topic of pricing came up. One of the gentlemen said to me, "how do you determine the pricing of your products." I responded by saying, "we use strict cost analysis, and determine the pricing based on our hard costs." One of the other fellows said "that's crazy, you should base your pricing on what the market will bear." I was naive enough at that point to assume that almost all manufacturers based their pricing on true cost analysis. Fortunately in my audio career I've been able work for, or with, manufacturers who's pricing is legitimate and honorable (based on true cost analysis). Regardless of how products are priced, I can attest to the fact that the audio business is not a "get rich quick" scheme. It's a labor of love.
Parts buying power and the ability to build products in a timely fashion are some of the biggest challenges facing high end audio companies. How much parts inventory can relatively small companies afford to stock? And even if they have all parts in stock can they afford good machinery and the labor to operate the machinery and assemble the products? Much more difficult than most consumers realize! Therefore, do you want the quality and performance of high end products built by small companies, or are you willing to compromise performance for the price of more mass produced products? Fortunately, there are those occasional products out there that are extraordinary performance values for the price. I've been lucky enough to purvey some of those gems myself!
does that also apply to the tweak you are holding in your photo?Synergistic Research’s Innovative Pricing Strategy: Delivering Premium Performance at Half the Cost
You are exactly correct— it is not simply what the “market will bear.“
At SR we base our pricing on a multiple of material and labor. Then we seek to undercut a competitor’s product that represents an industry standard for a particular product price point by half. In other words, when developing and fine-tuning a new product, based on a multiple of material and labor, the final price needs to come in at half of what a competitor’s product would that represents a parity for performance.
For example, if we come out with a $1,000 cable, it needs to compete favorably against $2,000 cables. Similarly, a $3,500 line conditioner needs to compare favorably against a $7,000 line conditioner, and so on. If we’re not there yet, we need to continue to develop the product until its performance is equal to or greater than a product that it will compete against at twice its price.
This strategy ensures strong sales throughout the product’s lifespan and elevates the overall brand image among consumers.
Ted Denney
CEO and lead designer Synergistic Research Inc.
His name is Steve, he’s my baby boydoes that also apply to the tweak you are holding in your photo?![]()
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |