What are the Top Horn Speakers in the World Today? Vox Olympian vs Avantgarde Trio vs ???

[microstrip]

Yes, it describes what I feel when I heard the X1...it seems to very easily accept musical signal and transfer it out. The key is that while that freedom of expression is clear, and 'breathes easily'...I also found 'not all the signal' might have actually come out.

It is probably a question of semantics, but having lived for most of my life with Quad ESL63, I can't considered that a censored message has freedom ... . IMO some speakers subjectively sound more dynamic because they are pleasantly colored, but this coloration masks information.

 

[Amir]

Yes, it describes what I feel when I heard the X1...it seems to very easily accept musical signal and transfer it out. The key is that while that freedom of expression is clear, and 'breathes easily'...I also found 'not all the signal' might have actually come out. Somehow, the physical/electrical/whatever pathway seemed 'shaky' in comparison with later generations of big Wilsons so what came thru breathed easily but it seemed a slightly truncated version of what went into the signal from the sources/amps

Whereas with the XLF, despite perhaps not having that original sense of freedom...the XLFs DO seem to put the signal back out with greater resolve, solidity, and without as much of a 'loss of signal' which we seemed to get thru the X1s in comparison no matter how much we tried to ameliorate that. There was something in the transmission in the signal thru the X1s that always seemed to lose something along the transmission line internally in comparison with the XLF.

The XLF I feel is harder to drive, so that is something where those who love SETs/horns might object to that character, and I could see that and immediately sensed it when I first heard it. But when I went thru my own priorities...and the fact that I was very happy with pure Class A Solid State (Gryphon and now Robert Koda), that drive was something that I am less bothered by because our electronics can create that drive effortlessly.

Its all about priorities and preferences in the end.

I am not cone driver designer but I read about efficiency vs accuracy of driver, it seems more freedom more breath more dynamic more efficient cone driver is not also more accurate , it means the designer should decide about the best balance between these parameters.

Dave Wilson decided to decrease efficiency after 2010. Now in 2025 Wilson loudspeakers I just like WAMM model.

 

[LL21]

Well, I still often listen to both. IMO there is no possible comparison - the XLF betters the Grand Slamm X1 in every aspect when you use a clean source, able to recreate a dynamic and transparent sound.

Surely if you need a 95 dB, gentle 8 ohm impedance speaker because powerful amplifiers sound nasty, you opinion will be different.



Did you ever listen to the XLF driven by a pair of Constellation Audio Hercule II monoblocks in a large room?



A much, much better version IMO. The XLF was not just incremental - at that time it redefined the concept of transparency of David WIlson designs.

About 30 years ago, the X1 was was an extraordinary achievement and still is a great speaker. But IMO the state of the art went on improving along time. Surely my preference, MO and YMMV.

I have heard the XLFs with Constellations, and also Boulders, Gryphons, ARC and Krell reference, MBL reference and also the Naim Statement.

There remains in all cases a sense to me that the overall conduit of the speaker requires some drive relative to the X1 which does not need it, and I can 'feel that' when I heard it...but the clarity of the ultimate transmission when driven well is very special.
In which case the 'issue' disappears for me, because the amplification can easily handle it.

 

[Amir]

Well, I still often listen to both. IMO there is no possible comparison - the XLF betters the Grand Slamm X1 in every aspect when you use a clean source, able to recreate a dynamic and transparent sound.

Surely if you need a 95 dB, gentle 8 ohm impedance speaker because powerful amplifiers sound nasty, you opinion will be different.



Did you ever listen to the XLF driven by a pair of Constellation Audio Hercule II monoblocks in a large room?



A much, much better version IMO. The XLF was not just incremental - at that time it redefined the concept of transparency of David WIlson designs.

About 30 years ago, the X1 was was an extraordinary achievement and still is a great speaker. But IMO the state of the art went on improving along time. Surely my preference, MO and YMMV.

1- for comparing dynamics of both wilsons you should play high performance turntable not dCS. I think dCS is not perfect in midrange dynamics.

2- wilson never sounded good with high power high feedback solidstate systems so constellation amplification is a wrong way for powering wilson speakers

 

[LL21]

I am not cone driver designer but I read about efficiency vs accuracy of driver, it seems more freedom more breath more dynamic more efficient cone driver is not also more accurate , it means the designer should decide about the best balance between these parameters.

Dave Wilson decided to decrease efficiency after 2010. Now in 2025 Wilson loudspeakers I just like WAMM model.

Thank you and interesting. However DW decided to do the XLFs, I prefer them to the X1s.

 

[microstrip]

1- for comparing dynamics of both wilsons you should play high performance turntable not dCS. I think dCS is not perfect in midrange dynamics.

We disagree on this one. My dCS is closer to my Stude A80 playing master tapes than my vinyl, that I considered high performance.

2- wilson never sounded good with high power high feedback solidstate systems so constellation amplification is a wrong way for powering wilson speakers

Your opinion. David Wilson had VTL Siegfried II tube, Nagra and D'Agostino SS in his listening/development room. I got the Siegfried's because I could not afford the D'Agostino's. I recently listened to the new Relentless preamplfier - an amazing preamplfier IMO.

BTW, I consider crusades against specif audio typologies an useless and futile exercise - in this hobby what counts most is expertise and implementation.

 

[morricab]

I really liked our old X1s...after passing on the X2 Series 1 and 2, I found overall I preferred the XLF by a significant enough margin that we went for it after they were replaced by the new XVX. Big discount and with the trade-in of the original X1s at actually what we had paid for them 10 years prior...quite a nice overall trade.

In fact, I have PMd you for another piece of advice on that!

You never tried driving your X1s with a SET or PP Class A triode amp though, did you?

 

[morricab]

Yes, it describes what I feel when I heard the X1...it seems to very easily accept musical signal and transfer it out. The key is that while that freedom of expression is clear, and 'breathes easily'...I also found 'not all the signal' might have actually come out. Somehow, the physical/electrical/whatever pathway seemed 'shaky' in comparison with later generations of big Wilsons so what came thru breathed easily but it seemed a slightly truncated version of what went into the signal from the sources/amps

Whereas with the XLF, despite perhaps not having that original sense of freedom...the XLFs DO seem to put the signal back out with greater resolve, solidity, and without as much of a 'loss of signal' which we seemed to get thru the X1s in comparison no matter how much we tried to ameliorate that. There was something in the transmission in the signal thru the X1s that always seemed to lose something along the transmission line internally in comparison with the XLF.

The XLF I feel is harder to drive, so that is something where those who love SETs/horns might object to that character, and I could see that and immediately sensed it when I first heard it. But when I went thru my own priorities...and the fact that I was very happy with pure Class A Solid State (Gryphon and now Robert Koda), that drive was something that I am less bothered by because our electronics can create that drive effortlessly.

Its all about priorities and preferences in the end.

Odd, the way you describe the XLF it sounds as if it was the one struggling to get all the sound out. What do you think that freedom of dynamic expression translates into in terms of signal delivery? To me, it means more of the original info gets out and you are closer to the true dynamics of the recording.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Dave Wilson decided to decrease efficiency after 2010. Now in 2025 Wilson loudspeakers I just like WAMM model.

We agree on the WAMM Master Chronosonic, introduced around 2016 - surely the best speaker system I have ever listened.

 

[LL21]

You never tried driving your X1s with a SET or PP Class A triode amp though, did you?

I think I may have heard them with Unison Research many many years ago. But I never really focused on real auditioning and time with SETs. I could easily imagine the magic that a world-class SET brings to the X1s. It is for me also about the dynamic control and power that the music I listen to benefits from.

 

[andromedaaudio]

You never tried driving your X1s with a SET or PP Class A triode amp though, did you?

Probably not , Lloyd seems like a wise man .

Lloyd dont bother spare yourself the effort you only need a 268C and a 711mk2 .
May be a pair of 111 would work ( it ll be the only expensive hifi i ll buy.)


and for all you horn lovers a FMA XS2C with FMA amps /phono , smokes any Horn set up by a large margin incl those Sibatone / Old western electric horns

 

[LL21]

Odd, the way you describe the XLF it sounds as if it was the one struggling to get all the sound out. What do you think that freedom of dynamic expression translates into in terms of signal delivery? To me, it means more of the original info gets out and you are closer to the true dynamics of the recording.

The way I think about it is: the X1s are easier to drive, but they were not nearly as quiet nor resolved a speaker as the XLFs. The XLFs are harder to drive but lower noise floor and more resolved and accomplished in its ability to present the signal in a completely controlled way.

 

[LL21]

Probably not , Lloyd seems like a wise man .

Lloyd dont bother spare yourself the effort you only need a 268C and a 711mk2 .
May be a pair of 111 would work ( it ll be the only expensive hifi i ll buy.)


and for all you horn lovers a FMA XS2C with FMA amps /phono , smokes any Horn set up by a large margin incl those Sibatone / Old western electric horns

I have always heard great things about the 286C...the stuff of legend. On the 711, I just did not want to go to that level of cost to get pure power. The monos I heard were mellifluous and extremely and naturally filigreed in the treble...but lacked power, and to get to the power levels at that time, the cost would have been prohibitive.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I have always heard great things about the 286C...the stuff of legend. On the 711, I just did not want to go to that level of cost to get pure power. The monos I heard were mellifluous and extremely and naturally filigreed in the treble...but lacked power, and to get to the power levels at that time, the cost would have been prohibitive.

I have never heard any Amp do that being SET PP or SS , its a completely different level of reproduction
Cant believe all those " professional " audio reviewers don t hear that ( big box is better lol )

 

[morricab]

The way I think about it is: the X1s are easier to drive, but they were not nearly as quiet nor resolved a speaker as the XLFs. The XLFs are harder to drive but lower noise floor and more resolved and accomplished in its ability to present the signal in a completely controlled way.

Sounds like in a more restrictive way to me. Greater dynamics is a sign of higher resolution, not so much of detail but of scaling both at high and low levels, which more important for realism.

 

[PeterA]

Sounds like in a more restrictive way to me. Greater dynamics is a sign of higher resolution, not so much of detail but of scaling both at high and low levels, which more important for realism.

I agree. Resolution is very comprehensive and holistic, and it is about much more than just detail. This is why having the largest selection of potential amplifiers as possible is important. And that usually means more efficient and easier to drive speakers. It is the pairing that makes the presentation and lasting impression.

Take the three speakers in the thread title and other possible contenders and compare them to each other with different amplifiers. The preferred speaker will surely depend on which amplifier is chosen.

 

[morricab]

I agree. Resolution is very comprehensive and holistic, and it is about much more than just detail. This is why having the largest selection of potential amplifiers as possible is important. And that usually means more efficient and easier to drive speakers. It is the pairing that makes the presentation and lasting impression.

Take the three speakers in the thread title and other possible contenders and compare them to each other with different amplifiers. The preferred speaker will surely depend on which amplifier is chosen.

I have been on record for a long time saying electronics first because they have a bigger impact on getting a realistic sound. Then find the best speakers to work with the amp(s).

 

[PeterA]

I have been on record for a long time saying electronics first because they have a bigger impact on getting a realistic sound. Then find the best speakers to work with the amp(s).

I used to be speakers first, but when I switched systems, I chose the amplifier first. I’ve come around to your approach.

 

[microstrip]

The way I think about it is: the X1s are easier to drive, but they were not nearly as quiet nor resolved a speaker as the XLFs. The XLFs are harder to drive but lower noise floor and more resolved and accomplished in its ability to present the signal in a completely controlled way.

The classic paradigm and semantics of "harder to drive" are outdated since long. Nowadays it is possible to have excellent amplifiers with high sound quality that can deliver the needed higher current, independently of speaker impedance.

Surely if people want the characteristic sound signature of some low power tube amplifiers or typologies as SET and high dynamics, such speakers are not adequate.

Surely , it a matter of preference, but the XLFs are now an old design (2012-2020) and, despite the high price, several hundreds were sold during eight years. Fortunately we can read detailed opinions from reviewers, owners and people that listened to them along this time in the net.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I have been on record for a long time saying electronics first because they have a bigger impact on getting a realistic sound. Then find the best speakers to work with the amp(s).

I find that for me the amp/speaker combination ultimately sets the foundation of the system… then working on source and infrastructure and implementing the system brings it together for good or for not so good.

But after many years of listening to horn based systems I really couldn’t go back to a box and cone speaker as a primary listening choice because it ultimately boxes the sound in too much for the music I play or go to electrostatic or back to ribbon panel for primary speaker for the amp choices it requires and ultimately the expectation that I’ve come to have about the more essential realism in dynamics and in the horns effortlessness in tracking the scale and more quicksilver and more natural and lifelike shifts in music’s flow and angular immediacy that horns can do… all the speaker types have fundamental strengths and constraints that our music preferences will play upon or reveal I figure.

If I wasn’t playing dominantly acoustic instrument based music and played a lot more electronic and synthetic instrument based music where sound comes down to more as you like it parameters instead of benchmarks you can work towards when referencing live acoustic performance then realistically that wouldn’t be as critical for me and perhaps details and individual elements of hifi attributes would play out more and likely satisfy me instead. For me the type of music and developed expectations about what you are listening for really does make these distinctions either highly critical or relatively moot.