Wilson Audio Chronosonic XVX First Impressions

I just spent over six hours today listening to my friend's new Wilson Audio Chronosonic XVX loudspeakers. Consistent with being blown away by the Master Chronosonic + Master Subsonic system at Maier Shadi's demo in Santa Monica, and consistent with a couple of reports by people who auditioned at Maier's both the Master Chronosonic and later the XVX and preferred the XVX, I am here to report officially that I think the XVX is now my favorite conventional cone driver speaker system. I think I prefer the XVX even to my longtime favorite dynamic driver loudspeaker, the mighty Rockport Arrakis.

Prior to the XVX, my friend had the Alexx. The height alone of the XVX over the Alexx affords the system the height and scale and grandeur I always notice and appreciate from very tall loudspeakers.

I don't know why the XVX is an order of magnitude better -- next level better -- than the Alexx. But I am certain that it is.

I think the XVX is the first dynamic driver speaker of which I was very aware that you can hear seemingly almost everything at fairly low listening volumes. It doesn't need to be played loudly to be heard comfortably.

In much the same way that people like to applaud their digital playback systems by saying "it sounds like analog," dynamic driver loudspeaker aficionados like to say their cone speakers have "electrostatic-like transparency." Believe me, if most dynamic driver speakers had "electrostatic-like transparency" we would not need electrostatic speakers.

As somebody who loves electrostatic speakers I have always been aware that speakers of other topologies are one or two steps less transparent than electrostatic speakers. I feel like the XVX truly has "electrostatic-like transparency" -- at least credibly so, and more so than any other cone speaker I've ever heard.

Just like I felt about the Master Chronosonic the XVX gives one the sense of unlimited dynamic capability. There is a limitlessness and an effortlessness to the sound that I do not hear from other box speakers. Other heroically inert box speakers sound tightly wrapped or button-downed by comparison -- like some portion of the sound is trapped in the box and having trouble freeing itself. The XVX sounds open somehow -- a sonic presentation I associate with planar speakers, not with big box speakers.

I know, I know, I know. I am thinking and saying the same things you are: these are meaningless statements as you can't compare loudspeakers in different systems from fault-prone memory; you will never be able to hear an XVX versus a Rockport Arrakis, or an XVX versus a VSA Ultra 11, in the same room with the same associated components at the same time, etc., etc. I know, and I agree with you.

All I am saying is that if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to buy a dynamic driver loudspeaker system for my personal system and cost was not a factor. . . I would say take the gun away from my head. Then I would tell you I will order XVX + Master Subsonics.

Without intending to be coy, I couch this is terms of "the XVX is the box speaker I would I buy if I had to buy a box speaker for myself" rather than "the XVX is the best box speaker I've ever heard," because I cannot hear the Von Schweikert Audio Ultra 11 and the Evolution Acoustics MM7 and the Rockport Arrakis and the YG XV in the same room in the same system as the XVX + Subsonics. So it just does not make any sense to declare, and it is analytically defective to declare, that the XVX is the best speaker I have ever heard.

My view that if I had to buy a box speaker I would buy the XVX + Subsonics is a combination of what I heard from the XVX, what I vaguely remember from hearing these other other speakers in other systems, and my slight prejudice against ceramic drivers which I would be worried I might find uncomfortable over a long period of time. (I would worry the same about beryllium drivers and about diamond encrusted drivers.)

I have owned only planar loudspeakers my entire life. I literally couldn't bear to listen to Wilson Audio speakers with metal dome tweeters. I have never been a big fan of Wilson Audio speakers in general. But I thought I heard magic from Maier's demo of the Master Chronosonic, and my experience today proves that that inkling was correct.

I don't know how or what Daryl Wilson did to achieve it, but I am reporting that to my ears the XVX is a very, very special speaker. It is a stunning achievement in dynamic driver loudspeaker design specifically, and in loudspeaker design in general.

PS: Assuming they physically fit in Michael Fremer's listening room, I have no doubt that Michael will upgrade his Alexx to XVX. He might go in not wanting to upgrade, but after hearing these there is no way he's going to be happy without the XVX.

 

No! That's simply beyond my means and space. I could manage the XVX. My wife approved (!), my financial advisor approved (said take some profit and enjoy).

Congratulations! The 468 dart/XVX combination would be my dream team. Btw.: Once used the XVX level probably hard to roll them out of the room if Wilson asks you for a review of Alexx Vs.

If your Caliburn once makes too much trouble age-related we will see where your top-notch TT review tour ends after SAT and AFZ. Maybe OMA K3 will be the contender...

 

Thanks, Mr. Jazz. That is even more exciting. Look forward to reading the review then.

 

Ron,

Happy VTL Siegfried II owners should ask the question: is the Siegfried II compatible with the EPDR of the XVX's? It is lower than 1 ohm at 450 and 3450 Hz.

I would bet you that the Siegfried II can drive properly every current production loudspeaker of which I am aware except MBL 101E Mk. II and MBL X-Treme.

 

Ron,

Happy VTL Siegfried II owners should ask the question: is the Siegfried II compatible with the EPDR of the XVX's? It is lower than 1 ohm at 450 and 3450 Hz

How is the impedance graph ??
When the review is up on the net i ll read it too .

 

I ve read the review , they seem to have made quit an impression .
Surprised however that these 10,5 12,5 inch paper cones delivered the deepest / cleanest bass ever in the room.

 

. . . Surprised however that these 10,5 12,5 inch paper cones delivered the deepest / cleanest bass ever in the room.

Larger cabinet size + smaller driver diameter, perhaps?

 

M fremer also owned the XLF in that room and those 13 inch - 15 inch woofers have most likely a bigger cabinet / need substantial more volume then the XVX.
They also move more air / have more membrane surface so you should have more perceived bass impact .
Another thing ( in my view) is that although paper is unbeatable for the mid range in its ability to naturally dampen membrane resonance .
It flexes to much as a cone when you have to displace really low bass freq with a large cone surface , the amount of air they need to displace is considerably larger , which put much more stress on the cone to be able to behave as a " piston " .
Maybe they have added more paper layers , i dont know but it suprises me
Mine have a special nomex / kevlar honey comb structure to give extra strength , i would think that the Focal audiom XLF woofers ( fiberglass composite or something like that ) would be stiffer and should be able to give more perceived bass impact .

An example of a membrane with a double layer / honey comb structure (not paper )

 

How is the impedance graph ??
When the review is up on the net i ll read it too .

Tough! Wilsons continue to be harder and harder to drive. All of those drivers, splitting midranges, etc. just sums up to a very difficult speaker to drive. Now, admittedly the folks dropping $300k on speakers have the funds to spend on Dagostinos.

 

I just read the measurements yes quit a hard to drive speaker , but future audiophiles can then say indeed , my speakers NEED top amplification to sound at their best (at least a pair of relentless or 3050 s )
Just kidding quit a lot of amps will match as sensitivity is fine , its only that 1,5 ohm impedance dip, but i m quit sure CAT amps has an answer for that
Freq response wise , my own design beats 2 in the graph incl XVX regarding flatness
The Sonus faber is very flat overal like mine but they all slope down quit a lot.
The XVX has quit a suck out at 800 hz , a high freq downslope is mostly interpreted by the listener as neutral perceived balance , so not a real issue , although i like my speakers flatter i think this will sound slightly dull to me ,but i think the 2 brands in the graph do this on purpose , because customers like it.
On my next design i will probably also put the tweeter resistor external so customers can adjust if they like
By the way it takes only a small deviation of the measurement position to measure a dip or a bump , so if you do just 1 measurement its not the full picture, thats why moving speakers can make quit a difference
Id love to hear them one day.
But still i think dave wilson designed the wamm of which this is a derivative as a 2 tower system so incl subsonics .
M fremer didnt have the room for subs , but it seems he liked the bass as is.

In the 3 colour graph that J atkinson took ( a 1/6 octave smoothed measurement of the response ) it shows that through room influences there are more then 10- 15 db deviations as seen from 40 hz to 200 hz , and this is with a very good constructed speaker , all those flat bass freq . graphs people show of their system hardly mean anything , mostly fabricated copy paste with cheap tools imo.

JA took 20 measurements in different positions which is enough to get a good picture of the speakers response,.
But in my measuring experience its not only below 400 hz that you will start to see 1 - 2- 3 db bumps and dips when moving the mike half a meter up or down or sideways at the listening spot
The 800 hz dip is most likely a XVX " character "

As taken from the review .

Fig.2 shows the Wilson Chronosonic XVXs' spatially averaged in-room response. Using FuzzMeasure 3.0 (now owned by Røde Microphones), a Metric Halo MIO2882 audio interface operating at 96kHz, and an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, I averaged 20 1/6-octave–smoothed spectra, individually taken for the left and right speakers, in a rectangular grid 36" wide by 18" high and centered on the positions of the listener's ears. This tends to average out the peaks and dips below 400Hz that are due to the room's resonant modes.

 

Tough! Wilsons continue to be harder and harder to drive. All of those drivers, splitting midranges, etc. just sums up to a very difficult speaker to drive. Now, admittedly the folks dropping $300k on speakers have the funds to spend on Dagostinos.

May be wilson made a deal with Dan dagostino so he could sell more amps

 

I just read the measurements yes quit a hard to drive speaker , but future audiophiles can then say indeed , my speakers NEED top amplification to sound at their best (at least a pair of relentless or 3050 s )
Just kidding quit a lot of amps will match as sensitivity is fine , its only that 1,5 ohm impedance dip, but i m quit sure CAT amps has an answer for that
Freq response wise , my own design beats 2 in the graph incl XVX regarding flatness
The Sonus faber is very flat overal like mine but they all slope down quit a lot.
The XVX has quit a suck out at 800 hz , a high freq downslope is mostly interpreted by the listener as neutral perceived balance , so not a real issue , although i like my speakers flatter i think this will sound slightly dull to me ,but i think the 3 brands in the graph do this on purpose , because customers like it.
On my next design i will probably also put the tweeter resistor external so customers can adjust if they like
By the way it takes only a small deviation of the measurement position to measure a dip or a bump , so if you do just 1 measurement its not the full picture, thats why moving speakers can make quit a difference
Id love to hear them one day.
But still i think dave wilson designed the wamm of which this is a derivative as a 2 tower system so incl subsonics .
M fremer didnt have the room for subs , but it seems he liked the bass as is.

In the 3 colour graph that J atkinson took ( a 1/6 octave smoothed measurement of the response ) it shows the room influences have more then 15 db deviation as seen from 40 hz down to 200 hz , and this is a very good constructed speaker , all those flat bass freq . graphs people show of their system hardly mean anything , mostly fabricated copy paste with cheap tools imo.

JA took 20 measurements in different positions which is enough to get a good picture of the speakers response,.
But in my measuring experience its not only below 400 hz that you will start to see 1 - 2- 3 db bumps and dips when moving the mike half a meter up or down or sideways at the listening spot
So the 800 hz dip is most likely a XVX " character "

As taken from the review .

Fig.2 shows the Wilson Chronosonic XVXs' spatially averaged in-room response. Using FuzzMeasure 3.0 (now owned by Røde Microphones), a Metric Halo MIO2882 audio interface operating at 96kHz, and an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, I averaged 20 1/6-octave–smoothed spectra, individually taken for the left and right speakers, in a rectangular grid 36" wide by 18" high and centered on the positions of the listener's ears. This tends to average out the peaks and dips below 400Hz that are due to the room's resonant modes.

Just to point that I have used Parasound JC-1's with great success with the XLF and at less an US dealer has been presenting the XVX with the new Parasound JC1+ with succces.

We were told that the CAT amplifiers sound great in the XVX - see http://www.theaudiobeat.com/equipment/wilson_audio_chronosonic_xvx_subsonic.htm .

 

Just to point that I have used Parasound JC-1's with great success with the XLF and at less an US dealer has been presenting the XVX with the new Parasound JC1+ with succces.

We were told that the CAT amplifiers sound great in the XVX - see http://www.theaudiobeat.com/equipment/wilson_audio_chronosonic_xvx_subsonic.htm .

Yes i know , i ve read the marc mickaelson review , i bought my CAT JL 2 sign partly because of his favourable review , i havent regretted it .

But to be honest i think i d like a speaker with a bit higher impedance when in use with most tube amps .
For that " Jump factor "

 

Tough! Wilsons continue to be harder and harder to drive. All of those drivers, splitting midranges, etc. just sums up to a very difficult speaker to drive. Now, admittedly the folks dropping $300k on speakers have the funds to spend on Dagostinos.

It has most likely to do with the sensitivity ( efficiency ) of the woofers used in the WAMM / XVX as its the woofers efficiency and how they are internally wired which will later determine the overall spec of the speaker.
I ve explained my thoughts about it in this thread

Has anyone heard of Dan D'agostino Relentless Power Amplifier compared to Boulder 3050?

Is that so ? And where do they "cut " the freq band . Is there a filter after the preamp ? Most high end pre s dont have a low freq sub output afaik

www.whatsbestforum.com

This latest WAMM design (XVX) is off course the culmination of dave wilson s time aligment design philosophy.
My guess is dave wilson wanted paper being used also more in the the low freq band and then use the subsonic towers for real low end impact .
May be dealers of : wilson / lamm/ set lovers could ask wilson to design a high eff / high imp version of the XVX .
The X1 was very easy to drive they have all the knowledge in house off course , in speaker design its all about choices / priorities

 

Nice XVX add on the whatsbestforum , but damn daryll change the shoes

 

Tough! Wilsons continue to be harder and harder to drive. All of those drivers, splitting midranges, etc. just sums up to a very difficult speaker to drive. Now, admittedly the folks dropping $300k on speakers have the funds to spend on Dagostinos.

I heard them at JS Audio in Bethesda, MD driven by a Boulder 3060, the sound was effortless. I heard them at Audio Salon with the D'Agostino Momentums. For D'Agostino, probably need the Relentless to get to effortless. It would be interesting to hear how they do with Class D amps.

 

I just spent over six hours today listening to my friend's new Wilson Audio Chronosonic XVX loudspeakers. Consistent with being blown away by the Master Chronosonic + Master Subsonic system at Maier Shadi's demo in Santa Monica, and consistent with a couple of reports by people who auditioned at Maier's both the Master Chronosonic and later the XVX and preferred the XVX, I am here to report officially that I think the XVX is now my favorite conventional cone driver speaker system. I think I prefer the XVX even to my longtime favorite dynamic driver loudspeaker, the mighty Rockport Arrakis.

Prior to the XVX, my friend had the Alexx. The height alone of the XVX over the Alexx affords the system the height and scale and grandeur I always notice and appreciate from very tall loudspeakers.

I don't know why the XVX is an order of magnitude better -- next level better -- than the Alexx. But I am certain that it is.

I think the XVX is the first dynamic driver speaker of which I was very aware that you can hear seemingly almost everything at fairly low listening volumes. It doesn't need to be played loudly to be heard comfortably.

In much the same way that people like to applaud their digital playback systems by saying "it sounds like analog," dynamic driver loudspeaker aficionados like to say their cone speakers have "electrostatic-like transparency." Believe me, if most dynamic driver speakers had "electrostatic-like transparency" we would not need electrostatic speakers.

As somebody who loves electrostatic speakers I have always been aware that speakers of other topologies are one or two steps less transparent than electrostatic speakers. I feel like the XVX truly has "electrostatic-like transparency" -- at least credibly so, and more so than any other cone speaker I've ever heard.

Just like I felt about the Master Chronosonic the XVX gives one the sense of unlimited dynamic capability. There is a limitlessness and an effortlessness to the sound that I do not hear from other box speakers. Other heroically inert box speakers sound tightly wrapped or button-downed by comparison -- like some portion of the sound is trapped in the box and having trouble freeing itself. The XVX sounds open somehow -- a sonic presentation I associate with planar speakers, not with big box speakers.

I know, I know, I know. I am thinking and saying the same things you are: these are meaningless statements as you can't compare loudspeakers in different systems from fault-prone memory; you will never be able to hear an XVX versus a Rockport Arrakis, or an XVX versus a VSA Ultra 11, in the same room with the same associated components at the same time, etc., etc. I know, and I agree with you.

All I am saying is that if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to buy a dynamic driver loudspeaker system for my personal system and cost was not a factor. . . I would say take the gun away from my head. Then I would tell you I will order XVX + Master Subsonics.

Without intending to be coy, I couch this is terms of "the XVX is the box speaker I would I buy if I had to buy a box speaker for myself" rather than "the XVX is the best box speaker I've ever heard," because I cannot hear the Von Schweikert Audio Ultra 11 and the Evolution Acoustics MM7 and the Rockport Arrakis and the YG XV in the same room in the same system as the XVX + Subsonics. So it just does not make any sense to declare, and it is analytically defective to declare, that the XVX is the best speaker I have ever heard.

My view that if I had to buy a box speaker I would buy the XVX + Subsonics is a combination of what I heard from the XVX, what I vaguely remember from hearing these other other speakers in other systems, and my slight prejudice against ceramic drivers which I would be worried I might find uncomfortable over a long period of time. (I would worry the same about beryllium drivers and about diamond encrusted drivers.)

I have owned only planar loudspeakers my entire life. I literally couldn't bear to listen to Wilson Audio speakers with metal dome tweeters. I have never been a big fan of Wilson Audio speakers in general. But I thought I heard magic from Maier's demo of the Master Chronosonic, and my experience today proves that that inkling was correct.

I don't know how or what Daryl Wilson did to achieve it, but I am reporting that to my ears the XVX is a very, very special speaker. It is a stunning achievement in dynamic driver loudspeaker design specifically, and in loudspeaker design in general.

PS: Assuming they physically fit in Michael Fremer's listening room, I have no doubt that Michael will upgrade his Alexx to XVX. He might go in not wanting to upgrade, but after hearing these there is no way he's going to be happy without the XVX.

 

It was prescient.

 

A video about the JS Audio Chronosonic XVX/Boulder system. As he says, effortless.

 

Anyone know where I could hear this speaker in NYC area or south Florida? I remember when I first got into the hobby hearing the original Wamm demonstrated by Dave Wilson. It was memorable.

 

Anyone know where I could hear this speaker in NYC area or south Florida? I remember when I first got into the hobby hearing the original Wamm demonstrated by Dave Wilson. It was memorable.

I remember the original wamm well and still have a brochure on them.these speakers would still beat many modern speakers easily.