High End Passion and Craftsmanship For Sure . . . But Also Occasionally High Cost and Unreliable?

[Charles S]

I'm listening to Tambourine man. It's hitting 300 plus watts easily. You would swear Bob Dylan was on stage in the room and I'm in the front row. it's that good. You must own an XVX to understand the speaker.

 

[Charles S]

I listen to a lot of live performances. My soundstage height is exactly on the performer, not sure who. It's the Highwaymen DVD. There's heavy bass and the Thor is fully engaged at 200 watts. However, you would never know it. As far as believability is concerned, a perfect sound stage is critical and believe me it's at live performance sound levels.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...not doubting the sound at all, Charles, but put a pin in that for a tic. It looks mighty and mighty awesome. Holy Mackerel.

 

[thedudeabides]

I asked my good friend at Wilson about 2 years ago how XVX treble compared to the Alexx V in his opinion. His reply was that Alexx V treble was not even in the same ballpark with XVX treble. The XVX is a light year better than any other Wilson speaker and will be for years to come.

Years to come? With all due respect and given Wilson's history, a dubious claim at best.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The XVX is a light year better than any other Wilson speaker and will be for years to come.(...)

Years to come? With all due respect and given Wlson's history, a dubious claim at best.

Probably the claim is enthusiastically hyperbolic, as most or our audiophile claims. But I have no problem saying that I still prefer the XLF to other Wilson Audio speakers, except the WAMM and probably the XVX, that I have not yet listened.

New Wilson speakers have surely improved medium, transparency, precision and bass definition. But overall none of them has the scale, bass depth and easiness of drive of the XLF, aspects that I valuate a lot.

Apparently it took ten years to Wilson to create the XVX, that betters the XLF. Charles S surely knows about it ...

 

[Lee]

Probably the claim is enthusiastically hyperbolic, as most or our audiophile claims. But I have no problem saying that I still prefer the XLF to other Wilson Audio speakers, except the WAMM and probably the XVX, that I have not yet listened.

New Wilson speakers have surely improved medium, transparency, precision and bass definition. But overall none of them has the scale, bass depth and easiness of drive of the XLF, aspects that I valuate a lot.

Apparently it took ten years to Wilson to create the XVX, that betters the XLF. Charles S surely knows about it ...

I am very familiar with the XLF. The XVX imho is light years ahead.

 

[PeterA]

I am very familiar with the XLF. The XVX imho is light years ahead.

Isn’t the old Alexandria X2 the most sensitive? I think that one opens up more amplifier choices.

 

[microstrip]

I am very familiar with the XLF. The XVX imho is light years ahead.

We should expect it. I wrote the same about the WAMM.

 

[Lee]

Isn’t the old Alexandria X2 the most sensitive? I think that one opens up more amplifier choices.

I don’t know. That was before I became familiar with Wilson sound.

 

[microstrip]

Isn’t the old Alexandria X2 the most sensitive? I think that one opens up more amplifier choices.

Curiously the measured difference was minimal and the X1 and X2 have lower impedance peaks than the XLF. Probably you are addressing the older Grand SLAMM, that had a minimum impedance magnitude of 6.4 ohms and true 95dB/W. I owned the X2 before getting the XLF - the XLF is light years ahead of the X2, as people are saying.

 

[PeterA]

Curiously the measured difference was minimal and the X1 and X2 have lower impedance peaks than the XLF. Probably you are addressing the older Grand SLAMM, that had a minimum impedance magnitude of 6.4 ohms and true 95dB/W. I owned the X2 before getting the XLF - the XLF is light years ahead of the X2, as people are saying.

Perhaps. I’m thinking of the speaker Rockitman and Steve Williams have.

 

[Lee]

Curiously the measured difference was minimal and the X1 and X2 have lower impedance peaks than the XLF. Probably you are addressing the older Grand SLAMM, that had a minimum impedance magnitude of 6.4 ohms and true 95dB/W. I owned the X2 before getting the XLF - the XLF is light years ahead of the X2, as people are saying.

Just call me Buzz Lightyear.

 

[treitz3]

Perhaps. I’m thinking f the speaker Rockitman and Steve Williams have.

Peter, I have known you for some time. This comment is, shall I say.....surprising.

Tom

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I have known you for some time. This comment is, shall I say.....surprising.

Tom

You lost me Tom. Don’t they have the Alexandria X2? As I say, I may be mistaken, as I don’t know the history of the big Wilson speakers that well.

Wilson Audio | Alexandria X-2 Series 2

 

[treitz3]

Perhaps. I’m thinking f the speaker Rockitman and Steve Williams have.

Sorry, Peter. This may be due to a mistype. I read this as "F" the speaker that they have.....in not a polite manner, if you know what I mean.

Tom

 

[PeterA]

Sorry, Peter. This may be due to a mistype. I read this as "F" the speaker that they have.....in not a polite manner, if you know what I mean.

Tom

Typo. O for “of the speaker…”. Edited

 

[Charles S]

Probably the claim is enthusiastically hyperbolic, as most or our audiophile claims. But I have no problem saying that I still prefer the XLF to other Wilson Audio speakers, except the WAMM and probably the XVX, that I have not yet listened.

New Wilson speakers have surely improved medium, transparency, precision and bass definition. But overall none of them has the scale, bass depth and easiness of drive of the XLF, aspects that I valuate a lot.

Apparently it took ten years to Wilson to create the XVX, that betters the XLF. Charles S surely knows about it ...

Hi Microstrip, very good to make your acquaintance. I got my dealer upset with me for not buying an XLF. I came very close. I think it's a wonderful speaker, though I haven't heard it. It was Dave Wilson's last speaker, other than the WAMM and I know that he was extremely satisfied with its sound. DW also designed my Thor. Some don't know that he designed the Thor for mono, horizontal lie, music position. It was meant to be used with the XLF. The Thor was meant as a replacement for the XS, which was too heavy and impractical.

The XVX is slightly taller than the XLF and you would think that given my room, the XLF would be a better fit. However, the XVX has a narrower silhouette than the XLF and actually is a much better fit for my room. With subwoofer systems it is the blend that is most important to me. And i have achieved a perfect blend. There is no question that the XVX bass is slightly slower with my MC3500. It's Mcintosh tube bass. it's extremely pleasing to my ears. The Thor is slightly slower than a Subsonic but has considerably more output and because of its much higher sensitivity, may pick up extremely low-level subsonic notes better than a Subsonic. I don't know. Running my Thor tube/SS/SS with my MC2.1KW being the power amp, speeds the Thor up, so the slowed down XVX and the speeded-up Thor blend perfectly. I get a McIntosh tube bass down to 10Hz. In the 30-50 Hz range, the bass is different in quality, not in quantity. It's not until you get below 30 Hz that the Thor really dominates the XVX.

The XVX measures -3 dB at 16 hz at 110 dB. I suspect my Thor increases this to + 10-20 dB, so i could be + 15 dB at 16 Hz, I don't know. I never heard a 20Hz note I didn't like. I think you have a great speaker in the XLF. If it could have fit in my room easily, I'm sure I'd have bought one.

Charles


Charles Updated System: Wilson McIntosh Audioquest

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

 

[PYP]

Synergistic Research’s Innovative Pricing Strategy: Delivering Premium Performance at Half the Cost

You are exactly correct— it is not simply what the “market will bear.“

At SR we base our pricing on a multiple of material and labor. Then we seek to undercut a competitor’s product that represents an industry standard for a particular product price point by half. In other words, when developing and fine-tuning a new product, based on a multiple of material and labor, the final price needs to come in at half of what a competitor’s product would that represents a parity for performance.

For example, if we come out with a $1,000 cable, it needs to compete favorably against $2,000 cables. Similarly, a $3,500 line conditioner needs to compare favorably against a $7,000 line conditioner, and so on. If we’re not there yet, we need to continue to develop the product until its performance is equal to or greater than a product that it will compete against at twice its price.

This strategy ensures strong sales throughout the product’s lifespan and elevates the overall brand image among consumers.

Ted Denney
CEO and lead designer Synergistic Research Inc.

does that also apply to the tweak you are holding in your photo?

 

[Ted Denney III]

does that also apply to the tweak you are holding in your photo?

His name is Steve, he’s my baby boy

 

[Argonaut]

Whatever next , Kittens … An orphan perhaps !