Do higher end subwoofer cables make for a sound quality improvement?

[sbo6]

sbo6, I know that it may be difficult to believe, but over the years I have collected a tremendous number of bass blasts in my music collection, and I appreciate your comment, but take the M9 for example. I would take a bet that the XVX would easily, and I mean easily best it as far as overload resistance. I don't understand why, but it is extremely impervious to overload. On heavy bass, I mean really heavy bass, the woofers hardly even move, even when you are a foot away trying to see at least a little movement. This is simply a fact. I asked Robert Harley if he had ever seen his woofers move (excursion) and the answer was no. I can't speak for other massive speakers and nothing is impossible, in the real world, with any kind of bass blast or extremely heavy low frequency transient, the XVX is essentially indestructible, 100%. I don't think it has much to do with the size of the woofers or the surrounds. The woofers simply have almost zero excursion for all intents and purposes. Perhaps someone might have an explanation. I can attest that without the Thor the XVX will produce amazing bass. There's nothing malfunctioning.

This is why you can run it full range. There is no subwoofer including two Thors, that can keep up with an XVX. You can have any subs you like, run the XVX full range, and never worry about overload. The subwoofer will go long before the XVX.

Thanks for your input. I come from a technical background, so allow me to shed some light.

It doesn't matter whether the drivers are from Wilson, Magico or any other company, they're all subject to the same laws of physics. Those laws specific to drivers and in particular, bass drivers output include Fmax (excursion capability) and cone size as key enablers to bass output (of course motor structure, cabinet size / design, XO matter too). If you want to see your XVX woofers physically move, run a ~25Hz test tone at ~90DB. That moderately - sized 10" woofer in particular should be visibly oscillating even if it's below the port tuned frequency. If it's not, then there's an inefficiency in the motor structure and / or the crossover or a limitation in the design. Again, it's physics which doesn't care about one's fondness for a brand of loudspeaker.

Also, (again with physics, not a brand bias in mind) a Magico M9 with twin 15" woofers employing larger motor structures and significantly more cone surface area vs. the XVX, all else being equal will deliver much higher SPL at lower distortion. For reference: the XVX woofers surface area = ~192 sq ", the M9 = 353.4 sq", over 1.5X the Wilson. To put things in perspective on how capable the M9 is in bass versus the Wilson XVX, the M9s mid - bass driver (2x11") are essentially the same surface area of Wilson's woofers. That's before even considering the 2 x 15" woofers. Net - they aren't even in the same league, a better woofer capability comparison would be XVX vs Magico M6 with 3: 10.5" woofers.

I hope this helps provides a more objective and scientific view.

 

[Charles S]

Thanks for your input. I come from a technical background, so allow me to shed some light.

It doesn't matter whether the drivers are from Wilson, Magico or any other company, they're all subject to the same laws of physics. Those laws specific to drivers and in particular, bass drivers output include Fmax (excursion capability) and cone size as key enablers to bass output (of course motor structure, cabinet size / design, XO matter too). If you want to see your XVX woofers physically move, run a ~25Hz test tone at ~90DB. That moderately - sized 10" woofer in particular should be visibly oscillating even if it's below the port tuned frequency. If it's not, then there's an inefficiency in the motor structure and / or the crossover or a limitation in the design. Again, it's physics which doesn't care about one's fondness for a brand of loudspeaker.

Also, (again with physics, not a brand bias in mind) a Magico M9 with twin 15" woofers employing larger motor structures and significantly more cone surface area vs. the XVX, all else being equal will deliver much higher SPL at lower distortion. For reference: the XVX woofers surface area = ~192 sq ", the M9 = 353.4 sq", over 1.5X the Wilson. To put things in perspective on how capable the M9 is in bass versus the Wilson XVX, the M9s mid - bass driver (2x11") are essentially the same surface area of Wilson's woofers. That's before even considering the 2 x 15" woofers. Net - they aren't even in the same league, a better woofer capability comparison would be XVX vs Magico M6 with 3: 10.5" woofers.

I hope this helps provides a more objective and scientific view.

I understand your points, but you should read Martin Colloms review of the XVX in Volume 15 / Number 3 July - Sept 2021 Hi Fi Critic and you will understand what I am maintaining.

MC: "There were many standout results, but this one caught my eye: at a truly body-shaking 110dB/m at 24 Hz and with inaudible harmonic distortion, the test set showed a superb result of less than 1.5% distortion for both second and third harmonics, and no others of relevance."

When I run a 25 Hz test signal through my XVX at a high level but not 110 dB there is barely any woofer movement, and the tone is quite audible. This is simply a fact.

MC: "Dropping the power to a still audibly thundering 2.83 V (1W nominal) the24Hz distortion figure was truly exceptional at just 0.2% for both second and third, and the rest of the harmonics were not worth recording: this was for a very pure sounding bass tone at a hefty 92dB SPL."

MC: "While the output was rolling off a little below 20Hz, it still sang well at 15Hz with less than 2% THDand, with only the 5th harmonic of note, at a still excellent 0.6%, of quite inaudible distortion (1W). Of the many readings taken up to 200Hz, these at 92dBSPL, the average distortion was 0.2% of 2nd and0.15% of 3rd harmonic, though with a momentary narrow band reversal at 100Hz to 0.1% for 2nd and1% for 3rd."

MC: "My best estimate of the low frequency extension is -6dB at 11Hz, which is very low and confers an unusually fine phase response at low frequencies, supportive of good musical timing, which we also confirmed during the listening sessions."

Now I can tell you again that with the most monumental bass blasts that I have the XVX does not overload or even come close. Wilson knows how to design speakers. The M9 IMO will be significantly more susceptible of LF overload than an XVX. The XVX is designed to run full range with Subsonics that go down to 10Hz and the Subsonics will give up before the XVX.

 

[bonzo75]

I understand your points, but you should read Martin Colloms review of the XVX in Volume 15 / Number 3 July - Sept 2021 Hi Fi Critic and you will understand what I am maintaining.

MC: "There were many standout results, but this one caught my eye: at a truly body-shaking 110dB/m at 24 Hz and with inaudible harmonic distortion, the test set showed a superb result of less than 1.5% distortion for both second and third harmonics, and no others of relevance."

When I run a 25 Hz test signal through my XVX at a high level but not 110 dB there is barely any woofer movement, and the tone is quite audible. This is simply a fact.

MC: "Dropping the power to a still audibly thundering 2.83 V (1W nominal) the24Hz distortion figure was truly exceptional at just 0.2% for both second and third, and the rest of the harmonics were not worth recording: this was for a very pure sounding bass tone at a hefty 92dB SPL."

MC: "While the output was rolling off a little below 20Hz, it still sang well at 15Hz with less than 2% THDand, with only the 5th harmonic of note, at a still excellent 0.6%, of quite inaudible distortion (1W). Of the many readings taken up to 200Hz, these at 92dBSPL, the average distortion was 0.2% of 2nd and0.15% of 3rd harmonic, though with a momentary narrow band reversal at 100Hz to 0.1% for 2nd and1% for 3rd."

MC: "My best estimate of the low frequency extension is -6dB at 11Hz, which is very low and confers an unusually fine phase response at low frequencies, supportive of good musical timing, which we also confirmed during the listening sessions."

Now I can tell you again that with the most monumental bass blasts that I have the XVX does not overload or even come close. Wilson knows how to design speakers. The M9 IMO will be significantly more susceptible of LF overload than an XVX. The XVX is designed to run full range with Subsonics that go down to 10Hz and the Subsonics will give up before the XVX.

Interesting that he has kept (at least the quoted part in your post) to objective stuff like measurements and not provided his own personal subjective listening impressions

 

[sbo6]

I understand your points, but you should read Martin Colloms review of the XVX in Volume 15 / Number 3 July - Sept 2021 Hi Fi Critic and you will understand what I am maintaining.

MC: "There were many standout results, but this one caught my eye: at a truly body-shaking 110dB/m at 24 Hz and with inaudible harmonic distortion, the test set showed a superb result of less than 1.5% distortion for both second and third harmonics, and no others of relevance."

When I run a 25 Hz test signal through my XVX at a high level but not 110 dB there is barely any woofer movement, and the tone is quite audible. This is simply a fact.

MC: "Dropping the power to a still audibly thundering 2.83 V (1W nominal) the24Hz distortion figure was truly exceptional at just 0.2% for both second and third, and the rest of the harmonics were not worth recording: this was for a very pure sounding bass tone at a hefty 92dB SPL."

MC: "While the output was rolling off a little below 20Hz, it still sang well at 15Hz with less than 2% THDand, with only the 5th harmonic of note, at a still excellent 0.6%, of quite inaudible distortion (1W). Of the many readings taken up to 200Hz, these at 92dBSPL, the average distortion was 0.2% of 2nd and0.15% of 3rd harmonic, though with a momentary narrow band reversal at 100Hz to 0.1% for 2nd and1% for 3rd."

MC: "My best estimate of the low frequency extension is -6dB at 11Hz, which is very low and confers an unusually fine phase response at low frequencies, supportive of good musical timing, which we also confirmed during the listening sessions."

Now I can tell you again that with the most monumental bass blasts that I have the XVX does not overload or even come close. Wilson knows how to design speakers. The M9 IMO will be significantly more susceptible of LF overload than an XVX. The XVX is designed to run full range with Subsonics that go down to 10Hz and the Subsonics will give up before the XVX.

Please re-read the article. He states, "It was quite extraordinary to find that, when driven by the Chronosonic XVX, this room measured uniformly down to a very low 15Hz -3dB, and was estimated at only -6dB down by 10Hz."

Net - the LF response below 20Hz is from room gain. This makes sense as Wilson specs the speakers at 20Hz–30kHz ±2dB, so it's flat down to ~23Hz.

Again, your words and love affair with Wilson doesn't change physics - 1: 10" and 1:12" woofer, all things being equal will NOT play as low and as loudly as 2:15" woofers. Which is why Wilson recommends subs with the XLF and why Magico does not. These speakers are not in the same class with bass performance. That, is a fact.

 

[Charles S]

Interesting that he has kept (at least the quoted part in your post) to objective stuff like measurements and not provided his own personal subjective listening impressions

I appreciate your comment very much. I owned a Genesis II system in the 1990's that I kept for 10 years despite its obvious shortcomings, of which there were many because I loved the bass. I used 2 of the bass amps to get a dual power supply. it was my introduction to the "big bottom". The subs weighed 400 pounds apiece. It had 4 12" woofers per box and servo bass. However, it was quite limited ultimately in its abilities at 20 Hz and below. if you want a double CD album that will challenge any system including an M9 try "In a Quiet Cathedral" by Todd Wilson and get back to me after you blow up your subwoofers. I searched the literature for music with 20 Hz and below passages. My next foray was a Krell MR subwoofer with dual 15" drivers for which I paid 30K. I was disappointed in its ability to play 18 Hz notes at decent levels. Neither of these systems could remotely play this album at satisfying levels. The XVX laughs at it. My next speaker was a Wilson Maxx3. It was with the Maxx3 that I began to realize just how rugged big Wilson speakers were. I ditched the Krell MR sub for my first Thor because it couldn't remotely keep up with the Maxx3. Run full range the Maxx 3 could run through Quiet Cathedral at a high level without overload. The Thor could keep up with the Maxx3.

Next was my Alexx. I looked at the woofers and thought they were quite anemic looking, and Wilson has changed from their trusty Focals to very plain Jane looking woofers. Peter McGrath assured me that Alexx woofers were even more rugged than the Maxx3 and they were. My first Thor could barely keep up with my Alexx, and by that, I mean that my Thor would go before my Alexx when playing "Quiet Cathedral" at a high level. But the room would literally begin to disintegrate. You would never want to play anything that loud and I discovered that my Thor was vastly underpowered using a MC601mono amp. Now with my new custom Thor I use a MC2.1KW. The improvement is amazing.

Next was the XVX. As I have mentioned, I have many albums with extremely low frequency bass, down to 5 Hz. I always worry about the Thor, never the XVX. I 100% agree that its woofers look unremarkable and aren't large but nevertheless, it is almost impossible to overload it. I say "almost" but on any album that I own, even at levels that I would never play in my room and with which my Thor might very well give up, the XVX remains unperturbed.

It's an extremely rugged speaker that you can run full range with your choice of subwoofers without concern for overload.

 

[sbo6]

Next was the XVX. As I have mentioned, I have many albums with extremely low frequency bass, down to 5 Hz.

Curious what content is at 5 Hz? A pipe organ lowest note is 16Hz. Do you use for HT?

 

[sbo6]

Now I can tell you again that with the most monumental bass blasts that I have the XVX does not overload or even come close. Wilson knows how to design speakers. The M9 IMO will be significantly more susceptible of LF overload than an XVX. The XVX is designed to run full range with Subsonics that go down to 10Hz and the Subsonics will give up before the XVX.

BTW, since you mentioned Robert Harley previously, here's what he had to say about the Magico M9 that he reviewed in May 2022. Note that he had already reviewed the Wilson XVX in Dec 2020.

"Overall, I have to say that the Magico M9 is the best-sounding loudspeaker I’ve heard. It represents the ultimate realization of the accumulated knowledge and sophisticated technologies Magico has developed over the past 25 years, along with some remarkable innovations that push the M9’s performance to an unprecedented level."

 

[Al M.]

BTW, since you mentioned Robert Harley previously, here's what he had to say about the Magico M9 that he reviewed in May 2022. Note that he had already reviewed the Wilson XVX in Dec 2020.

"Overall, I have to say that the Magico M9 is the best-sounding loudspeaker I’ve heard. It represents the ultimate realization of the accumulated knowledge and sophisticated technologies Magico has developed over the past 25 years, along with some remarkable innovations that push the M9’s performance to an unprecedented level."

The M9 is also twice as expensive.

 

[sbo6]

The M9 is also twice as expensive.

Yep, no doubt, which is partially why I said earlier that XVX vs. M9 is an unfair comparison, the M9 is much, much bigger and better.

M8 vs. XVX or M6 vs. XVX is a better compare.

 

[Elliot G.]

Have you heard an M9? M7?

 

[microstrip]

(...) all else being equal (...)

I hope this helps provides a more objective and scientific view.

I am not taking sides, but it seems to me all else was NOT equal.

BTW, my position is that, if you have a large enough room, any speaker benefits from subs.

 

[sbo6]

I am not taking sides, but it seems to me all else was NOT equal.

BTW, my position is that, if you have a large enough room, any speaker benefits from subs.

Exactly my point, which apparently was not comprehended.

Also, agreed, subs aren't just about completing the lowest octave, but about mitigating room modes. Sometimes larger speakers exacerbate this problem and require subs more than smaller speakers. Most folks don't seem to get this, the old, "My speakers are SOOOO BIG they do better than any sub can!". ;-).

 

[microstrip]

The M9 is also twice as expensive.

And also needs subs: (From the previously quoted Harley review)

"I spent about eight hours listening to the M9 over two days. I heard the pair of M9s by themselves, and then augmented with two Magico Titan subwoofers ($32k each). Why would the massive M9 need a subwoofer? It doesn’t; the room needs the subwoofer, as do all rooms, even a reference-quality room such as the one in Magico’s factory. The multiple sources of bass distributed throughout the room drive the room’s resonant modes more uniformly for smoother and more linear low-end response."

BTW, as far as I know the price of the price of the Klippel Near Field Scanner is 100k euro not a quarter of a million as said in the review. Many high-end manufacturers use it, even reviewers ... .

 

[sbo6]

And also needs subs: (From the previously quoted Harley review)

"I spent about eight hours listening to the M9 over two days. I heard the pair of M9s by themselves, and then augmented with two Magico Titan subwoofers ($32k each). Why would the massive M9 need a subwoofer? It doesn’t; the room needs the subwoofer, as do all rooms, even a reference-quality room such as the one in Magico’s factory. The multiple sources of bass distributed throughout the room drive the room’s resonant modes more uniformly for smoother and more linear low-end response."

BTW, as far as I know the price of the price of the Klippel Near Field Scanner is 100k euro not a quarter of a million as said in the review. Many high-end manufacturers use it, even reviewers ... .

All speakers need subs, most owners just don't know it yet. ;-)

 

[Lee]

And also needs subs: (From the previously quoted Harley review)

"I spent about eight hours listening to the M9 over two days. I heard the pair of M9s by themselves, and then augmented with two Magico Titan subwoofers ($32k each). Why would the massive M9 need a subwoofer? It doesn’t; the room needs the subwoofer, as do all rooms, even a reference-quality room such as the one in Magico’s factory. The multiple sources of bass distributed throughout the room drive the room’s resonant modes more uniformly for smoother and more linear low-end response."

BTW, as far as I know the price of the price of the Klippel Near Field Scanner is 100k euro not a quarter of a million as said in the review. Many high-end manufacturers use it, even reviewers ... .

The low level information from subs enhances the imaging. It's about the space, not the bass.

 

[treitz3]

Well, it's about the bass too...but agreed. The foundation is extremely important to the end result.

Tom

 

[DaveC]

I understand your points, but you should read Martin Colloms review of the XVX in Volume 15 / Number 3 July - Sept 2021 Hi Fi Critic and you will understand what I am maintaining.

MC: "There were many standout results, but this one caught my eye: at a truly body-shaking 110dB/m at 24 Hz and with inaudible harmonic distortion, the test set showed a superb result of less than 1.5% distortion for both second and third harmonics, and no others of relevance."

When I run a 25 Hz test signal through my XVX at a high level but not 110 dB there is barely any woofer movement, and the tone is quite audible. This is simply a fact.

MC: "Dropping the power to a still audibly thundering 2.83 V (1W nominal) the24Hz distortion figure was truly exceptional at just 0.2% for both second and third, and the rest of the harmonics were not worth recording: this was for a very pure sounding bass tone at a hefty 92dB SPL."

MC: "While the output was rolling off a little below 20Hz, it still sang well at 15Hz with less than 2% THDand, with only the 5th harmonic of note, at a still excellent 0.6%, of quite inaudible distortion (1W). Of the many readings taken up to 200Hz, these at 92dBSPL, the average distortion was 0.2% of 2nd and0.15% of 3rd harmonic, though with a momentary narrow band reversal at 100Hz to 0.1% for 2nd and1% for 3rd."

MC: "My best estimate of the low frequency extension is -6dB at 11Hz, which is very low and confers an unusually fine phase response at low frequencies, supportive of good musical timing, which we also confirmed during the listening sessions."

Now I can tell you again that with the most monumental bass blasts that I have the XVX does not overload or even come close. Wilson knows how to design speakers. The M9 IMO will be significantly more susceptible of LF overload than an XVX. The XVX is designed to run full range with Subsonics that go down to 10Hz and the Subsonics will give up before the XVX.

Just to add on, XVX port tuning frequency is 21 Hz, the speaker can't play lower that at higher SPLs without excessive excursion, but at and above 21 Hz the excursion will be much lower than a sealed box or open baffle design. I don't know if the XVX is high passed at the tuning frequency, but many bass reflex designs are to prevent damage to the woofers if you attempt to play material below the tuning frequency at high SPLs. There is literally no possibility the XVX can play down to 10 Hz without significantly reduced output, high distortion, and/or woofer damage. There's nothing special about the way Wilson does bass reflex, it's the same as any other br cab.

Personally, I prefer bass reflex over sealed or OB bass because the excursion is lower and hence harmonic distortion is reduced with most woofer designs, it also reduces intermodulation distortion if the woofer happens to be crossed over above subwoofer frequencies. I think OB bass is ridiculous due to inefficiency and a sealed box is also, but sealed boxes have their place due to how small they can be vs a properly designed ported box, that matters a lot for some applications. IDK why Wilson won't use 15" woofers as I believe they are the best size, but it does require a large cabinet.

 

[Vangelis]

The low level information from subs enhances the imaging. It's about the space, not the bass.

Yes, that is exactly correct, and perfectly described.

 

[sbo6]

Just to add on, XVX port tuning frequency is 21 Hz, the speaker can't play lower that at higher SPLs without excessive excursion, but at and above 21 Hz the excursion will be much lower than a sealed box or open baffle design. I don't know if the XVX is high passed at the tuning frequency, but many bass reflex designs are to prevent damage to the woofers if you attempt to play material below the tuning frequency at high SPLs. There is literally no possibility the XVX can play down to 10 Hz without significantly reduced output, high distortion, and/or woofer damage. There's nothing special about the way Wilson does bass reflex, it's the same as any other br cab.

Personally, I prefer bass reflex over sealed or OB bass because the excursion is lower and hence harmonic distortion is reduced with most woofer designs, it also reduces intermodulation distortion if the woofer happens to be crossed over above subwoofer frequencies. I think OB bass is ridiculous due to inefficiency and a sealed box is also, but sealed boxes have their place due to how small they can be vs a properly designed ported box, that matters a lot for some applications. IDK why Wilson won't use 15" woofers as I believe they are the best size, but it does require a large cabinet.

They don't use 15" because then buyers with deep pockets wouldn't feel as obligated to buy their expensive add on subs. ;-)

 

[sbo6]

Just to add on, XVX port tuning frequency is 21 Hz, the speaker can't play lower that at higher SPLs without excessive excursion, but at and above 21 Hz the excursion will be much lower than a sealed box or open baffle design. I don't know if the XVX is high passed at the tuning frequency, but many bass reflex designs are to prevent damage to the woofers if you attempt to play material below the tuning frequency at high SPLs. There is literally no possibility the XVX can play down to 10 Hz without significantly reduced output, high distortion, and/or woofer damage. There's nothing special about the way Wilson does bass reflex, it's the same as any other br cab.

Personally, I prefer bass reflex over sealed or OB bass because the excursion is lower and hence harmonic distortion is reduced with most woofer designs, it also reduces intermodulation distortion if the woofer happens to be crossed over above subwoofer frequencies. I think OB bass is ridiculous due to inefficiency and a sealed box is also, but sealed boxes have their place due to how small they can be vs a properly designed ported box, that matters a lot for some applications. IDK why Wilson won't use 15" woofers as I believe they are the best size, but it does require a large cabinet.

Sealed and ported both have their + and -. Don't forget, sealed have a gentler roll off (more LF output), ported drop off like a rock.

Another justification whereby the XVX can't come close to any appreciative output below the port tuned Freq at ~21Hz.