Chronosonic XVX.

[tobiasrankin]

I have heard them in the same system. They are quite different sounding. I’m sure that doesn’t help at all.

how so?

 

[microstrip]

@microstrip ”This subject was clearly explained in Stereophile Wilson Audio reviews by John Atkinson in the measurements section. The reviews are available at their site”

Hmmm…. I checked two of his Wilson reviews and didn’t see anything on this. This is a quote from Fremer’s review of the XVX:
The heart of the speaker, though, is a version of the micrometer-based aluminum-and–stainless steel gantry system developed for the WAMM, which allows precise time alignment of the mid- and upper-frequency drivers relative to each other and the drivers below. In a conversation with Jason Victor Serinus, the late Dave Wilson described the goal of the system as achieving "synchronicity of the alignment of the leading edge of the transient."

While flat–front-baffle speakers fixed at 90° from vertical can have an error of hundreds of microseconds, Wilson explained to young Jason, the WAMM's micrometer/gantry system allows for adjustments down to about 2µs. "It's nice if you have phase coherence, but it is not necessary," Wilson said in his chat with JVS. "What I'm interested in is the synchronicity of the leading edge of each note."

Someone earlier asked about the point of time alignment if it can be changed: the point is to time align at the listening position. So you align the mid and high drivers to align in time at the listening position.

Please see note 2 - https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-alexx-v-loudspeaker-measurements

The interesting point is that when we set the distances according to their calculated tables the sound becomes more focused and more clear, IMO definitively more realistic.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Well, I'm probably deaf too. We don't have horns and SETs, that's why.

Thats because we like to have quality gear

I wouldnt even be in high end audio if i had to listen to most of the stuff the Horn / Set crowd is peddling

 

[HenryD]

I come back to the lack of time alignment then. At more than 2X the price, that’s a major trade-off pill to swallow.
(Time alignment is not ‘’marketing fluff” as some think it is: ideally, all frequencies should reach your ears at the same time. Simple. Makes sense. When a violin is playing, all frequencies emanate from the same point…).

Oh it is clearly a ‘’marketing fluff”. Please read: https://www.stereophile.com/features/100/index.html
JA explains what is a time-coherent loudspeaker.
his conclusion: " Fig.11 shows a good step response produced by a time-coherent, three-way loudspeaker, with the outputs of the three drive-units adding in-phase at the microphone position. There are not that many speakers that produce this good a step response. Of the speakers I have measured for Stereophile, only about 10—models from Quad, Thiel, Dunlavy, Spica, and Vandersteen—have step responses this good."

Note that no published Wilson step response measurement has ever been time-coherent.

 

[Ron Resnick]

(Time alignment is not ‘’marketing fluff” as some think it is: ideally, all frequencies should reach your ears at the same time.

Some speakers are time-aligned; some are not. Many people have their proprietary pet reasons why they prefer direct drive or rim drive or belt drive in turntables.

It is the elevation of dogma and theory over implementation and practice. I go by what I hear. I think implementation and practice trump theory.

 

[andromedaaudio]

As already mentioned in another thread i think splitting up the midrange like is done in the XVX is a risky endavour .
The wilsons i liked most had either a 6 or 7 inch mid connected to the tweeter .

 

[Al M.]

Thats because we like to have quality gear

I wouldnt even be in high end audio if i had to listen to most of the stuff the Horn / Set crowd is peddling

Well, I haven't heard everything and keep being open-minded. I'll hear a promising horn/SET system this year.

As far as audio shows go, most of the systems sound sub par, for reasons extensively discussed on WBF. But that holds for cone speaker systems as well. So I wouldn't go by that, except take note of systems that stand out even under those circumstances.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I heard quite a few nice set ups in munchen , with good SQ .
A lot of demonstrators went all out to get the most out of what they had to work with .
Thats why i ll go again , its by far the best show i ve been


Off topic but the VIVA Nuda horn / VIVA amps did some things very good.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Well, I haven't heard everything and keep being open-minded. I'll hear a promising horn/SET system this year.

As far as audio shows go, most of the systems sound sub par, for reasons extensively discussed on WBF. But that holds for cone speaker systems as well. So I wouldn't go by that, except take note of systems that stand out even under those circumstances.

I have listened to Sets long time before i ever posted on WBF( i have owned a Zanden 300 B myself) , i was there in The Hague when the audiotorium opnened in 2005 , a brand shop specific to only Audio note UK gear .
You could start with base line Sets and speakers and upgrade all way to the toplines .
I ve listened to countless sets

 

[PeterA]

Thats because we like to have quality gear

I wouldnt even be in high end audio if i had to listen to most of the stuff the Horn / Set crowd is peddling

Well, I'm probably deaf too. We don't have horns and SETs, that's why.

This is a thread about Big Wilsons. What do horns and SETs have to do with the topic? Why are you and Al M denigrating the preferences and systems owned and described by Bonzo, Brad, Jeffrey, Tang, Audiophile Bill and others? What is the point?

 

[bonzo75]

This is a thread about Big Wilsons. What do horns and SETs have to do with the topic? Why are you guys denigrating the preferences and systems owned and described by Bonzo, Brad, Jeffrey, Tang, Audiophile Bill and others? What is the point?

He is complete troll I ignore him

 

[jeff1225]

Thats because we like to have quality gear

I wouldnt even be in high end audio if i had to listen to most of the stuff the Horn / Set crowd is peddling

There are many ways to skin a cat. Some of the best systems I've heard are horn/set, and also some of the worst. One of my biggest complaints about audiophiles are the absolutists. There is no absolute way to achieve audiophile nirvana.

 

[Al M.]

There are many ways to skin a cat. Some of the best systems I've heard are horn/set, and also some of the worst. One of my biggest complaints about audiophiles are absolutists. There is no absolute way to achieve audiophile nirvana.

Indeed, there is no absolutism to be had, since every system is a compromise (including mine); that is more or less the case on any level of expenditure. The art for each system owner is to find the compromise that satisfies them personally, without regard to other persons' preferences. Everyone's preferences are different, that's why we audiophiles have all different, often vastly dissimilar, systems. The ways to achieve audiophile nirvana are manifold and individual to each person.

 

[Zeotrope]

Oh it is clearly a ‘’marketing fluff”. Please read: https://www.stereophile.com/features/100/index.html
JA explains what is a time-coherent loudspeaker.
his conclusion: " Fig.11 shows a good step response produced by a time-coherent, three-way loudspeaker, with the outputs of the three drive-units adding in-phase at the microphone position. There are not that many speakers that produce this good a step response. Of the speakers I have measured for Stereophile, only about 10—models from Quad, Thiel, Dunlavy, Spica, and Vandersteen—have step responses this good."

Note that no published Wilson step response measurement has ever been time-coherent.

That’s not what he’s saying at all! Read it again.This is not even a review of the XVX, so it’s an irrelevant post for this topic!

He says it’s difficult to arrange time coherence. Wilson provides the necessary adjustments and tools, which makes it possible — in addition to the design, of course.

 

[Zeotrope]

If you actually read the review and don’t only cut and paste your desired parts to create the narrative you’re trying to push, it’s clear that he states that the mic was placed too close to achieve proper time coherence:
To be fair, the geometry of the upper-frequency drive-unit outputs had not been optimized for this relatively close microphone distance. Fig.6, therefore, shows the Alexx V's step response at the position of JCA's ears. (Ignore the boundary reflections after 11.5ms in the trace.) The decay of the tweeter's step now blends smoothly with the negative-going upper-midrange step, though there is still a slight discontinuity between the two midrange steps. This suggests that the lower-midrange drive-unit should have been moved forward one notch in the gantry to give optimized time-domain performance.

And again this is not even an XVX review which has loads more time alignment capabilities than these Alexx units.

 

[microstrip]

If you actually read the review and don’t only cut and paste your desired parts to create the narrative you’re trying to push, it’s clear that he states that the mic was placed too close to achieve proper time coherence:
To be fair, the geometry of the upper-frequency drive-unit outputs had not been optimized for this relatively close microphone distance. Fig.6, therefore, shows the Alexx V's step response at the position of JCA's ears. (Ignore the boundary reflections after 11.5ms in the trace.) The decay of the tweeter's step now blends smoothly with the negative-going upper-midrange step, though there is still a slight discontinuity between the two midrange steps. This suggests that the lower-midrange drive-unit should have been moved forward one notch in the gantry to give optimized time-domain performance.

And again this is not even an XVX review which has loads more time alignment capabilities than these Alexx units.

The Wilson positioning tables are recipes to obtain optimal time performance of their speakers according to their sound objectives. They were determined by pulse measurement techniques carried at the factory. In fact, for the higher performance (and price ... ) speakers Wilson include the amplifier time delay in their calibration.

DIY people designing digital active speakers using separate DACs to feed each amplifier could easily built such kind of speakers - delaying a digital signal is a child affair, even using analog electronics. Before you ask, no I am not considering three more dCS Vivaldi DACs ...

 

[HenryD]

If you actually read the review and don’t only cut and paste your desired parts to create the narrative you’re trying to push, it’s clear that he states that the mic was placed too close to achieve proper time coherence:
To be fair, the geometry of the upper-frequency drive-unit outputs had not been optimized for this relatively close microphone distance. Fig.6, therefore, shows the Alexx V's step response at the position of JCA's ears. (Ignore the boundary reflections after 11.5ms in the trace.) The decay of the tweeter's step now blends smoothly with the negative-going upper-midrange step, though there is still a slight discontinuity between the two midrange steps. This suggests that the lower-midrange drive-unit should have been moved forward one notch in the gantry to give optimized time-domain performance.

And again this is not even an XVX review which has loads more time alignment capabilities than these Alexx units.

Sorry, I don't think you understand the concept of time-coherent speaker. You obviously didn't even read the link I sent (Hint; its not a review ). Anyway, have it your way, this is a waste of time.

 

[Zeotrope]

Indeed! Although I’m not a fan of adding digital delay and room correction - you lose a lot by converting to and from analog.
When the source is digital and the conversion happens digitally, for example in a multi channel processor like a Trinnov, that’s different. I wouldn’t apply it anywhere else.

 

[HenryD]

The Wilson positioning tables are recipes to obtain optimal time performance of their speakers according to their sound objectives.

LOL, can't argue with that, you should have been a politician.

 

[KeithR]

Sorry, I don't think you understand the concept of time-coherent speaker. You obviously didn't even read the link I sent (Hint; its not a review ). Anyway, have it your way, this is a waste of time.

Henry is correct - time alignment is not time coherent. Wilson would agree. And none of these are really phase coherent except at the crossover point. Quite different from what Alon talks about in his interview- as outside Vandy and Thiel there really aren’t many outside single driver speakers. Evolution Acoustics is more in that direction and prioritizes phase coherency.