Wilson Audio Sasha V

[tima]

I bought a Burmester 911 Mk3 and installed it at home this afternoon. My DAWs are doing all the things that I had attributed to the V upgrade. They don’t sound exactly the same as the Vs, but they are much closer than the dealer pair.

Do I understand you correctly to say the Burmester 911 Mk3 amp leads your Sasha DAWs to perform like Sasha Vs? That's interesting. If correct, perhaps take the Burmester to your dealer and hear how the Sasha V sounds with it.

 

[Another Johnson]

Do I understand you correctly to say the Burmester 911 Mk3 amp leads your Sasha DAWs to perform like Sasha Vs? That's interesting. If correct, perhaps take the Burmester to your dealer and hear how the Sasha V sounds with it.

Not necessary. I’ve heard that pairing in extended audition at the dealer. It is very nice.

I did not say my DAWs sound like Vs. I said that in my system the DAWs were performing better than the DAWs in the demo. I specifically said that there were still differences.

Possible causes include the room, the interconnects, the speaker cables, the power cords, my use of a P20 Regenerator, my non Apex Rossini. Also my DAWs are well broken in.

The V was great driven by Burmester or ARC at the demo. The DAW was great driven by Burmester or ARC at the demo.

I like the DAW setup in my room (with either Burmester or ARC) as well as I liked the V set up in their room (with Burmester or ARC). But I liked their V set up better than their DAW set up. Their demo shows off the Vs.

My set up is tweaked for the DAWs. It works for me.

 

[KeithR]

I’ll be curious how well $50k Watt Puppies do in todays market. Some others have shifted up in price as well (Focal)

 

[tima]

I bought a Burmester 911 Mk3 and installed it at home this afternoon. My DAWs are doing all the things that I had attributed to the V upgrade. They don’t sound exactly the same as the Vs, but they are much closer than the dealer pair.

Do I understand you correctly to say the Burmester 911 Mk3 amp leads your Sasha DAWs to perform like Sasha Vs? That's interesting

I did not say my DAWs sound like Vs. I said that in my system the DAWs were performing better than the DAWs in the demo. I specifically said that there were still differences.

Ok - thanks for clearing that up.

 

[CKKeung]

 

[CKKeung]

 

[art vandelay]

S

Just finished an extended comparison where the only change was Sasha V vs Sasha DAW.

To my ears the V is a clear upgrade. I love my DAWs … but the Vs had an even more natural midrange. Both were very enjoyable, but the Sasha V made an even bigger positive impression on me than did the Alexia V.

I spent some time recently auditioning the new V's too. Tonally they're close to Alexia V's but there's a bit more presence - from a touch of emphasis in the upper mids / low treble. They are definitely an exciting ride, with enormous transparency and resolution, and a soundstage that's finely delineated and dimensioned. Low frequencies were really neutral, extended, dynamic, controlled etc. If not quite the equal of Alexia V, they're very close, perhaps missing that last ounce of impact at the very bottom. Overall I would still rate the Alexia V's a notch higher because they achieve a small step closer to recreating 'reality', but I could absolutely live with the Sasha V's as an end-game speaker.

Another speaker that really impressed me recently was the B&W 801D4.

 

[andrew1]

Another reader.
The DAWs sing on my REF75SE. My room is over 5000 cubic feet. I run them on the REF250SEs because I can. But going back to the REF75SE is no disappointment.

Lots of folks know what they think. That’s different from actually knowing.

Very happy to read this also heard the DAWs with 75SE and there was no issue, the meters did not even move sounded great. Sent you a PM, thanks for your input on this and also the DAW vs the V comparison.

 

[Down Under]

S



I spent some time recently auditioning the new V's too. Tonally they're close to Alexia V's but there's a bit more presence - from a touch of emphasis in the upper mids / low treble. They are definitely an exciting ride, with enormous transparency and resolution, and a soundstage that's finely delineated and dimensioned. Low frequencies were really neutral, extended, dynamic, controlled etc. If not quite the equal of Alexia V, they're very close, perhaps missing that last ounce of impact at the very bottom. Overall I would still rate the Alexia V's a notch higher because they achieve a small step closer to recreating 'reality', but I could absolutely live with the Sasha V's as an end-game speaker.

Another speaker that really impressed me recently was the B&W 801D4.

Do you remember what ancillaries were used?

 

[art vandelay]

Do you remember what ancillaries were used?

Source was via Totaldac > Supratek pre > Gryphon Antileon Evo. (VYDA Labs cables).

 

[XV-1]

Source was via Totaldac > Supratek pre > Gryphon Antileon Evo. (VYDA Labs cables).

How is Ed travelling these days? Did he move the Alexxia's out of his room?

 

[Down Under]

Source was via Totaldac > Supratek pre > Gryphon Antileon Evo. (VYDA Labs cables).

Thanks for that.Ed Kramer’s system.
He looked good when I spoke to him at the recent Sydney Hifi Show.

 

[sbo6]

Official Sasha V Marketing Verbiage
Convergent Synergy Carbon:
When Wilson Audio introduced its cutting-edge rear-wave chamber in the Convergent Synergy Carbon (CSC) Tweeter, initially in Alexx V, the CSC allowed for an extended high-frequency range, remarkably smooth linearity, and superior high-frequency harmonic expression. Cohesively integrating this CSC tweeter with the midrange and woofers has resulted in an impressive improvement to Sasha V’s overall sound quality.

This unique and complex carbon fiber rear-wave chamber is constructed entirely inhouse on one of our many dedicated 3D printers.

Rear - wave chamber, hmm, where did I hear about rear wave chamber before? Who has been using a rear wave chamber constructed in house for years? ;-)

 

[transaminasi]

Next month I will have Sasha V in my room for test. Then I will decide if buy or not to buy them. I have very nice reseller

 

[sbo6]

It's great to see Wilson explaining their tech, but the net is - the devil is in the details. A material's X, Y, Z dimensions all interactively affect its resonance and its ability to absorb sound. Then there's the application (bracing, quantity, placement, effect when combined with other material(s), etc.). Then there's internal absorptive material and its effect. Net - to ding on a sample material gives a slight glimpse into the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of any given material.

 

[ScottK]

Rear - wave chamber, hmm, where did I hear about rear wave chamber before? Who has been using a rear wave chamber constructed in house for

I get your cynicism on the marketing hype. However I think products and technologies do improve with time. KEF has Meta that improves upon the "tweeter rear wave chamber" concept. I doubt that B&W invented the concept but I may be wrong. Most development is incremental and rarely revolutionary, especially in Audio. I think all companies try to differentiate themselves from the "pack" through marketing hype. It's the world we live in.

 

[ssfas]

Rear - wave chamber, hmm, where did I hear about rear wave chamber before? Who has been using a rear wave chamber constructed in house for years? ;-) View attachment 118697

Do you remember this? It was originally the idea of a design student who played a fundamental role in B&W designs for decades, including Nautilus and the 800 series. Of course Nautilus and Vivid are both Laurence Dickie designs.

30+ years later they formed a business and created a rather more compact product. What Laurence Dickie has achieved with these speakers is quite something. (It is a complete audio system and lighting system.) I have 50 of these throughout our house.


I went to the UK Sasha V launch. It didn't seem to go very well. I can't blame any manufacturer for selling product based on any legitimate means, whether specific technology, marginal improvements, better aesthetics (a Wilson plus), better prices or, in the case of the above, a totally new product.

The advantage of marginal increases is that the. previous version can be almost as good and give people like me an entry point, especially given the Wilson I bought was the only one my wife would allow in the house.

 

[sbo6]

Do you remember this? It was originally the idea of a design student who played a fundamental role in B&W designs for decades, including Nautilus and the 800 series. Of course Nautilus and Vivid are both Laurence Dickie designs.
View attachment 118727
30+ years later they formed a business and created a rather more compact product. What Laurence Dickie has achieved with these speakers is quite something. (It is a complete audio system and lighting system.) I have 50 of these throughout our house.
View attachment 118728



The advantage of marginal increases is that the. previous version can be almost as good and give people like me an entry point, especially given the Wilson I bought was the only one my wife would allow in the house.

I have to hand it to Wilson, they figured out how to have their cake and eat it too. They offer incremental improvements that are conveniently never possible as an upgrade from previous models. So they keep R&D costs down while reaping new product sales' higher margins. Don't get me wrong they make very good speakers; other companies should follow suit in their Marketing strategy.

 

[sbo6]

I get your cynicism on the marketing hype. However I think products and technologies do improve with time. KEF has Meta that improves upon the "tweeter rear wave chamber" concept. I doubt that B&W invented the concept but I may be wrong. Most development is incremental and rarely revolutionary, especially in Audio. I think all companies try to differentiate themselves from the "pack" through marketing hype. It's the world we live in.

Cynicism or realism? I call it like it is. ;-)

 

[ScottK]

I have to hand it to Wilson, they figured out how to have their cake and eat it too. They offer incremental improvements that are conveniently never possible as an upgrade from previous models. So they keep R&D costs down while reaping new product sales' higher margins. Don't get me wrong they make very good speakers; other companies should follow suit in their Marketing strategy.

How much do they spend on R&D? I have no idea and don't think it is public knowledge as they are a privately held company. Can you also explain how you can put in completely new drivers and not change the crossover? Better yet how many speaker companies have an upgrade path? I do know in the watt puppy days they did have upgrades. I met Daryl Wilson a few months back. I was super impressed not by his marketing but by his candor and directness. His company is known for its "family" like values toward its skilled American work force. I'm certain if they were made in China, like B&W and so many others they would cost less.