Any Sasha2 reports? Looking for opinions ...

[radioactive]

I hear a lot is people say "my amp has more than enough power for XYZ speakers". I can tell you from my experience, there's almost always room for more power. I've heard Sasha's with amps that have what some would call "way too much power", and the difference between these "overpowered" amps and their lesser-powered siblings (like for instance the Boulder 1060 vs the 2060, or the 'dag stereo's vs the monos, or the xa100.8's vs the XA200.8's, or the MX-R's vs the ... well you get it, I could go on an on -- everyone, from Ayre to VTL has a high powered amp and a lesser powered version) is that the speakers sound better at reference levels with higher-powered amps. Sure, at that level you may only be using 60Watts -- but it's a significant difference in low-end reproduction and headroom. My old Sasha's sung crazy good bass when they were powered by the Boulder 2060 (or heck even the MC601's, but the rest sounded like mud, but I digress). Case-in-point, I listen to my Alexia's now, and I can say the same thing: "I have enough power". But I've heard Alexia's powered by amps with double mine, and the difference is they sounded less stressed, more unrestrained, and cleaner at around 90-92 DB-A. I was shocked at much impact they can produce -- and the room was just a little bigger than mine. Once you've heard the difference you just know.

Ask anyone who's heard the Dag monos and the stereos and they'll tell you they're not the same. The mono's are working less to drive the speakers at higher volumes and that translates to a sound that is less compressed, has more impact and is significantly more enjoyable.

As for your choice between the 'dag stereo or the XA100.8:
1. One thing you should research is how well your XP20 integrates with the 'dag. I have seen at least one person with the XP20 and 'dag stereo together driving MAXX3's so you're probably ok there.
2. My guess is that you'll be happier with the XP20 and the XA100.5 combo. I personally don't like to mix preamp and amp manufacturer's.

I've heard the ARC gear (REF250's, and quite a few other's) with Sasha's and while I was impressed, it was more like amused. I can understand why some people like the combination, but I'm not a tube person.

Let your ears tell you what you like the most. Perhaps your dealer will lend you a pair of XA100.8's to have an in-home demo?

ok......I had the Pass xa100.5 and they are more as enoughfor the Sasha2.
You have listen the D'agostino Stereo (or the monos) with a Wilson? -> your opinion is that a d'agostino can give pleasure sound with details like a class A amplifier?

I pay the d'agotino stereo (black) the same price from the Pass xa100.8. -> between this two you choice the d'agostino without doubt?

At today I have the premapli Xp20. A Audio Research REF5se can be the next step with the D'agostino or the Xa100.8 .....the REF5se with tube give a sound a like more "likely" but alway "fast" with the Wilson. (I dont will have a sound Mcintosh-Sonus Faber!!)

 

[db33]

My system is in a living room from around 60m2. -> 10 meters lang and 6 meters wide. the system is the wide and not over the 10 meter placed.
= 2/3 from the room are for the system then I have a table for "special" dinner and meet friends.... (not good 1 speaker is 1.5-2 meter from the wall and the other sepakers is around in the center of the room 5 meters from the wall or so like that....-> so you have a idea from my situation....


I had the xp20 and the Xa100.5 and the power is enough for the Sasha. I speak from ampere, electricity. 100 Watt in class A are much. I had too a X250.5: the Xa100.5 sound much more powerfull. Damping factor from the Pass is not "to the stars" but is a very good "energie center"!

You can have too a class D, like a Jeff Rowland with a damping factor from 1000!!! -> exemple the little 525.....will be better? I dont think!
Pass whit the 100.5 give a powerfull sound like no others. Details never heard with amplifier with a lot of watt but without "soul"!: the mid/tweeter is very fine. the LF are controlled.

same brand for pre and amplifier is the right way? 90% is so.
Audio Research preampli is a good match with Pass. this is sure. With the D'agostino I dont know.

I've heard the ARC gear (REF250's, and quite a few other's) with Sasha's and while I was impressed, it was more like amused. I can understand why some people like the combination, but I'm not a tube person.

I 'm too not a full-tube lover.

I read from people that with the combo AR ref5se and ampli ref75 (2x 75watt tube) and Sasha amplifier is very happy and say thati s"enoug"! well so I dont' think too that this power give "passion".....

Mcintosh, with the 452 or the 601, make a lot of "noise" (in the good sense of the word!) but is as you write "mud"...so soft ....not in my taste.
-> a sound that is compared to the Audio Research system, nearly a tube amplifier.....
The Mc 452 / 601 are full of watt but they have a damping factor very minimal! Wilson need a ampli that in the first 50watt have a bias, damping factor,..very high! dont need 600 watt!


Sure the monos from dagostino sound different from the stereo version but so much money extra for a dagostino for me dont make sense. for the price from a pair monos Dag i go search in other place. -> Constellation, Soulution....

In europa Dagostino as be "reworked" with new trafos in the "new serie": the first Dagostino ampli were not god. a sound so "flat"...a disarter.
the new "product" (well are always the same but with the new trafos inside the sound is radical changed: now they are fine.
Boulder is very "rare" in europa. Strange but true.

I dont need the have a Xa100.8 as demo: xp20 and xa100.5 sound without LF problem to 125 dB. no distrortion.
nothing Wacky Races of needle in the porthole of Passlabs..
Xa160.8 will be maybe better but I do not like listening to music at high volume.

At the end I say you that I will go with the Dagostino stereo (and I go test this ine with the preampli AR ref5se) or the Xa100.8-> this last before with te Xp20.

Ayre monos I liked very much. I have to find a dealer that can 'provide these devices in my paese.non is so simple.but this 3 brands (Passlabs/Dagostino and Ayre) are my "future"

Ps. Accuphase with Wilson I dont have necer listen but I think they are not a good match! -> the preampli 2420 with the A70?

thak you for all info and your point of view!

 

[j3brow]

FWIW, my Sophia 3 sound very good with an all McIntosh system (mcd1100, c500T, MC501s) with Transparent Ref XL (MM2) cabling. No mud here. Synergy is king. McIntosh will never be accused of being hyper-detailed. They typically have a "smooth"sonic signature, especially the older amps like mine, but never veiled, at least not my system or my ears. I am very pleased with Mcintosh-Wilson pairing. Personally, I don't like B&W speakers whether or not driven by Mcintosh.

 

[radioactive]

Since my post, a few people insisted to me that their Alexia's are fine with their low power/current amps. Don't take my word for it, take a look at John Atkinson's comment at "Wilson Audio Specialties Alexia loudspeaker | Stereophile.com" , where he states:

""Okay, Martin describes the Alexia's impedance on p.15 of the Jan/Feb/Mar 2013 issue. His impedance curves (on p.17) look very similar to my fig.1. His minimum impedance was 1.8 ohms at 80Hz with a -20 degree phase angle and he also mentions the impedance at 60Hz as being 2.5 ohms with a -42 degree phase angle. (Martin uses the Clio system for his speaker measurements.)

So neither Martin's nor my measurements indicate that the Alexia's impedance is quite as punishing as Keith's, though yes, the Alexia _must_ be driven by an amplifier that isn't fazed by low impedances. As I wrote in my review, the Alexia "demands quite a lot of current from the partnering amplifier.
​

The context is in disambiguation of HIFI News' measurements of the Alexias and an EPDR (The combind phase and impedance) at 65Hz of 0.9 ohms! FWIW, John and Martin Colloms from The HiFi Critic had measurements that indicated the Alexia's weren't "as punishing" as that from HIFI News -- though their's were in the 1.8-2.26 range. Somewhat better but still an indicator that the Alexia's require lots of good clean current.

Bryan

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Since my post, a few people insisted to me that their Alexia's are fine with their low power/current amps. Don't take my word for it, take a look at John Atkinson's comment at "Wilson Audio Specialties Alexia loudspeaker | Stereophile.com" , where he states:

""Okay, Martin describes the Alexia's impedance on p.15 of the Jan/Feb/Mar 2013 issue. His impedance curves (on p.17) look very similar to my fig.1. His minimum impedance was 1.8 ohms at 80Hz with a -20 degree phase angle and he also mentions the impedance at 60Hz as being 2.5 ohms with a -42 degree phase angle. (Martin uses the Clio system for his speaker measurements.)

So neither Martin's nor my measurements indicate that the Alexia's impedance is quite as punishing as Keith's, though yes, the Alexia _must_ be driven by an amplifier that isn't fazed by low impedances. As I wrote in my review, the Alexia "demands quite a lot of current from the partnering amplifier.
​

The context is in disambiguation of HIFI News' measurements of the Alexias and an EPDR (The combind phase and impedance) at 65Hz of 0.9 ohms! FWIW, John and Martin Colloms from The HiFi Critic had measurements that indicated the Alexia's weren't "as punishing" as that from HIFI News -- though their's were in the 1.8-2.26 range. Somewhat better but still an indicator that the Alexia's require lots of good clean current.

Bryan

Since I respect all three guys measurements, why should there be any difference?

 

[radioactive]

Since I respect all three guys measurements, why should there be any difference?

Very astute point Miles.

I can think of a couple of reasons for the difference:

1. How they accounted for the length of cable used to connect the speaker to their measuring gear. Different cable, no cable accounted for, etc. If this is the culprit, it highlights the necessity of taking into account all variables when conducting measurements.
2. Different measuring suites producing different results.
3. Quality control issues between samples provided to the evaluator. I didn't look to see if they all had the same serial numbered pair to evaluate. As a Wilson customer and believer in their products, I hope this is not the case -- I even doubt it, but who knows. I do know that every pair they produce are "tuned" to match each other, suggesting that they try to account for slight differences in drivers. There is still an art to this and I doubt that every pair measures exactly the same. There are some very subtle differences due to manufacturing processes and tolerances. The smaller the tolerance, the higher the costs. At some point at an engineering level the break-even point between cost and performance is determined.

Perhaps someone has other insight and can share with the group?

Bryan