
Few products I’ve encountered have struck me the way Wilson Audio’s Sasha loudspeaker has. This isn’t because Sasha delivers the best sound I’ve ever heard, but because it seems fully realized in every aspect of design and performance. Listening to the Sasha gives the impression that the last iota of musicality has been wrung from its component parts. Not only that, but the Sasha is beautifully balanced in presentation—it’s the antithesis of a speaker that’s freakishly great in one sonic area but mediocre or worse in others. Moreover, the Sasha is simply gorgeous to look at, even by Wilson standards. The subtle enclosure facets, new to the Sasha, endow this loudspeaker with visual grace and elegance. The Sasha is made even more compelling by its ability to deliver the sound of a big speaker in a relatively compact package, and by its exceedingly reasonable price.
It might seem strange to call a Wilson speaker “reasonably priced” considering the recent debates in the Letters section and my recent editorials. But that’s exactly what it is. Wilson has managed to greatly improve upon the performance of the WATT/Puppy and at the same time lower the price. In addition, when the Sasha is judged on its sonic performance for the money, it turns out to be a tremendous bargain—and, in my view, the highest-value proposition in the Wilson line.
The Sasha might look superficially like a WATT/Puppy, but Wilson designed it on a clean sheet of paper. The platform is entirely new, and derives much of its technology from the MAXX 3 and Alexandria X-2. Like the MAXX 3 and the X-2, the Sasha’s crossover is housed in a chamber behind the woofer (it had been located inside the WATT’s enclosure). The low-pass filter remains at the bottom of the woofer enclosure, but the crossover components for the midrange and tweeter have been moved from the upper enclosure to the bass enclosure (behind an aluminum panel). This better isolated the crossover while also providing greater volume behind the midrange driver.
The midrange driver is derived from the X-2’s midrange unit, the driver that is the foundation of the X-2’s significant improvement over the X-1. Sasha’s tweeter is the same one used in the $68,000 MAXX 3. The woofer is entirely new, and features a magnet structure twice the size of the woofer used in the Puppy 8. (See the sidebar for more technical details.)
One aspect of Wilson loudspeakers that has made me gravitate toward them is their outstanding bass reproduction. From the Sophia to the X-2, Wilson loudspeakers have excelled at bottom-end weight, clarity, transient fidelity, dynamic shading, and tone color. I’ve heard many loudspeakers that get some of these qualities right, but not all of them simultaneously. Of these characteristics, perhaps the rarest is transient fidelity—the ability of a loudspeaker to reproduce music’s dynamic structure with one voice. All too often, the bass sounds like it’s a little slower on a transient’s leading edge (and hangs on longer on the trailing edge). As a result, the lower frequencies don’t have the agility of the rest of the spectrum, creating the sensation that the bass is lagging behind the music, like a heavy weight being dragged along for the ride. We’re so used to hearing this type of presentation that only when this form of distortion is removed can we recognize and describe it. Such was the case when I lived with the MAXX 2; it was revelatory in its combination of bass power, extension, and transient fidelity. The X-2 took these qualities several notches up, delivering what is the best bass I’ve heard from a hi-fi system.
The Sasha embodies these qualities as well, and is vastly better than the WATT/Puppy. This newest Wilson improves upon the bass speed and precision for which the company is justifiably famous, while also greatly increasing clarity and resolution in the lower registers. Think of the increase in midrange and treble clarity you hear by replacing a mediocre DAC with an outstanding one, or by adding a first-rate AC power conditioning system. You suddenly hear deeper into the music—its fine detail, micro-dynamic nuances, richness of tone color, and clarity of individual instrumental lines. Those are exactly the qualities I heard in the Sasha’s bass. It was as though a layer of opacity had been lifted, making the bottom end more transparent to the source. The improvement in the Sasha’s bass performance (relative to other loudspeakers and even to the WATT/Puppy 7) was akin to what one hears in the midrange and treble by replacing a slightly thick-sounding preamp with a highly transparent one.
I’d call the Sasha’s bass analytical, but that term implies a soulless detachment that doesn’t convey the experience of listening to music through this loudspeaker. The Sasha is intellectually analytical in its tremendous resolution of bass detail, yet it has a warmth, density of tone color, and richness of texture that make it anything but analytical in an emotional sense. In fact, it’s the Sasha’s resolution of even the lowest-level of lower-register detail that makes it so musically engaging and satisfying. It’s as though bass resolution and clarity as reproduced through a loudspeaker has finally caught up with the transparency we sometimes hear throughout the rest of the spectrum.
Comments
I am concerned about the relationship between room and speaker. The Sashas are, to me, on the large size and would dominate the relatively small rooms in my home. I wonder if it is possible to get comparable dynamics, soundstaging, depth/width, articulated deep bass, etc. in a smaller room. Are their compromises to be made? If one can, is the Sasha still a great speaker for that smaller space. Can a speaker be too "big" (i think electrostates here that do better with some space)? If speakers can be too big, what are some of the very very best speakers for smaller rooms that will deliver the FULL package in the way that you find the Sasha does?
Cheers,
Hans
As no one has yet to comment... I would think that the Sophia would fill your bill, if you wish to stick with a Wilson Product. I know they are renowned to have a very definate family relationship soundwise. I believe the Sasha would be fine in a smaller room myself, but as a Bassist I enjoy overkill anyway.
Ron
Your question is not silly, but try and remove the voodoo and look for the physical reasons why room size makes a difference?
Pistonic drivers generate a bunch of energy in the straight ahead direction, but not only in that direction. The sound also spreads off-axis and assuming a non gigantic room it will bounce back from the sidewalls/ceiling/floor and also be heard by the listener (usually at quite a high output level and usually within a few ms of the initial signal)
Now ears and brains are clever things and have a bunch of filtering which eliminates this secondary echo and you only hear the direct signal, however, there are some limitations on this. The ear seems to look at the tone of the reflections and integrates this in a complex way into how you perceive the direct sound - it also looks at the level of the reflection and uses this for various cues such as spatial cues.
So to get to the punchline, a problem with pistonic drivers is that they do NOT have a smooth off-axis response, and in particular the high frequency tends to decrease much faster than the mid-range as you move off-axis. Also the smoothness of the response is often variable per driver (it's largely determined by driver diameter). The end result is that your ear is hearing nice flat direct soundwave and trying to reconcile that as it's removing the reverberant soundfield which is NOT flat. This isn't disastrous, but it's part of the audio cues that our brain is processing and hifi lovers tend to be listening out for these small differences
The practical end result is that hifi buffs usually spend a while toe-ing their speakers and fiddling with their location quite a bit until they sound their best. In fact *what* you are doing is adjusting the ratio of reverberant sound vs direct sound until you find something you prefer... Stated this way you are starting with a compromised design and just tweaking it to be the best it can be in your situation...
So physical box sizes should not be the main reason a speaker works or doesn't work in a given sized room. What you are basically controlling in a smaller room is the reverberant sound. Lots of ways to do this including keeping the speakers away from the wall (easier with a small physical box), toeing them in (usually to cross just in front of the listening position), and purchasing speakers with good off-axis response
The last one is the key for me... Plenty of ways to tackle this one. Dipoles, such as your openbaffle and electrostatics reflect a lot of output forward and backwards and this leads to a cancellation wave side to side (but also a lot of reflected energy in the room.
Horns in contrast can be built with near constant directivity, ie their off-axis response is very similar to their on-axis response. Waveguides are a form of horn.
In this case it would appear Wilson use smaller drivers and baffles for the HF range which presumably allows better than average off-axis performance (would be nice is AS would plot this?). There are also other high quality design factors such as decoupling the HF drivers from the bass unit, and the angled front facia likely near time aligns each driver (again plots would be nice?)
Personally I'm looking at horns right now as the route to nirvana. I have a small listening room and have struggled to get pistonic drivers to sound their best (better accoustic damping would probably go a long way here). I'm looking very hard at the designs from Earl Geddes such as the Summa and Abbey designs - perhaps AS would consider reviewing some..?
Regards