BEST AMPS FOR WILSON SASHA

System synergy, as so often pointed out in these forums, is key--in addition to the particular sonic proclivities and preferences of the listener. I have Sashas driven by MF NuVista 800 with Transparent cabling. The sound is beautiful--I literally  listen daily for many hours on end without fatigue. Definitely no high end "stridency" etc. the highs sound natural and beautiful.  I just wish I had the time to listen even more! They sound real. I've listened to Wilsons (I have owned Sophias and Sashas; heard Alexandrias, Maxx, Alexia), B&W (owned 804s and had extensive in home audition of 802s), Maggies, Harbeths, Dalis, Sonus Fabers, Linns, Vienna Acoustics. There are things I liked about most all of those. But the Wilsons were, to my ears, the best and most real sounding. But I've always heard them being fed with a lot of power.

When people do not have a reference frame, you can sell them everything you want.

After I visited my client with the Sasha I invited him to my house. He only plays classical music. To be honest every single Wilson Audio speaker I listend with classical music I was not convinced at all.

Because in real a violin, cello or even piano sounds a lot different.

This client also visits live classical music.

I think and work by Tru-Fi. This is how music sounds in real. I collect properties to create Tru-Fi. I test each part of an audio set ( amp, source, speaker, cable, conditioner etc) on Tru-Fi. These are 8 parts you judge sound for.

I have done thousands of tests in about 18 years of time and now understand of many brands the d.n.a. en properties.

I learned also the connections between brands and properties. This makes audio much easier to understand and use.

Because it allows me to create the sound I have in my head. It is like a puzzle. When you have done thousands of tests like I did you see patterns after time. They make audio so much more effective.

When I judge any set by Tru-Fi and using my own music in a few seconds I know what is there and what is missing. I can easiliy explain to each person what it missing. For me it is that simple, and it is even very easy for others to understand.

The client with the Sasha said after listening to my set; this is the sound what I would like to have. The instruments sounds how my experience is during live concerts.

In the past I have adapted sets with Wilson Audio speakers for clients. They were often a lot more satisfied. But to be honest I could never life with the endresult they have. Because it is by far not good enough.

The properties are not good enough to create the best sound possible. For a perfectionist only one thing counts; THE BEST. For me there is no second best or third best.

Why is Wilson Audio based on my personal expience not good enough?

For met it is very easy to explain it. I test each speaker based on Tru-Fi. This makes it easy to compare it with others ( like I did many times)

Based on sound realism, there are speakers who get closer to how instruments sounds in real.

Based on intimate sound, how sharp and physical in stage there are speakers who do it better. Listen to small classical live concerts and compare it with Wilson Audio. Then you understand exactly what I mean.

Black level, this makes instruments fully 3d and more tangible. The Wilson Audio speakers I heard often had a low or average blacklevel.

Timing and speed, based on all the acoustic difficulties you often get it is clear that it is not the fastest speaker in the world. Often I would like a much tighter bass with much more layers when I audition them.

Resolution, dome tweeters ( old technique, I think in about 10 years we will see them a lot less than today) have reached the maximum we can get out of them. They are less forgiving and realistic in sound compared to the best ribbonbtweeters. The older Wilson Audio speakers are even poor or average in high freq. The Sasha also had some difficulties in the high even with Audioresearch/Momemtum poweramps.

Beside this they can create less depth and width.

With the best ribbontweeters you have a much better perspective of differences in height of the recording. This part makes the harmonics of 2 or more voices togheter so much more diverse. And also it make the stage wider and deeper. It sets instruments much more separate from eachother.

When the tweeters of the Wilson Audio speakers would have a higher reach, you get more authority over these frequencies. This is often what you miss.

It can go low, but often you miss the layers in the lowest freq. In many rooms the freq. response of the Wilson Audio gives you difficulties.

Also in stage depth and width there are speakers who use better crossovers to create a much bigger soundstage.

When people have no reference frame they don’t know how to compare. In almost all shops and shows the sound is incomplete. But the people who listen to it, often don’t know how good it is.

When you use the word: Highend, they think it must be great. Audio is not based on words, but how it sounds.

The is the thing I love must of audio; because the sound doesn’t lie!

Bo, I  respect you opinion, and it sounds like you have a lot of experience. However, others of us who have and like Wilsons may also listen to live music (I do) and have that as a reference (I do). So many other variables come into play, such as system synergy, the listening room acoustics, preferred music genres, and your hearing (have you had pure tone audiometry up to 20kHz done in the past couple of years)? You mentioned ribbon tweeters.  I also have spent a lot of time listening to Carver Amazing loudspeakers in the past (planar with ribbon tweeters--admittedly they are now old) which are very nice, but I like Wilsons better. Just my 2 cents.