I dont think that is at all what the author was saying. I think he was stating that poor recordings sound like what they are. He did NOT say you can only hear audiophile recordings on it. In the context of his wider review, I further think he was basically saying it is an excellent and transparent transducer which is great news.
Chronosonic XVX.
- Thread starter Joe P
- Start date
As I mentioned, most recordings sounding like crap is a failure of modern box speaker designs. These designs have been championed by the likes of John Wilson- Atkinson. A whole generation of audiophiles have learned that taste, and many are stuck in their own paradigm of taste so that they cannot step outside of it.
Check out this thread: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...tion-of-music-vs-audiophile-vocabulary.25027/
And let me quote Art Dudley to help make the point:
In a recent Stereophile review of the Klipschorn speaker (https://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-klipschorn-ak6-loudspeaker), Art Dudley nicely summarizes what that thread is about:
"...
In the years since the Klipschorn's debut, loudspeaker technology has progressed in many ways. Speakers that sound timbrally neutral and uncolored are much more common today, as are speakers with consistent and effective dispersion across their operating range. Thanks to the pioneering work of people like Jon Dahlquist, Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen, and John Fuselier, physical time alignment of drivers in a dynamic loudspeaker system is virtually a given these days, and the problem of baffle edge diffraction has been identified and smacked upside the head. The result is a great selection of loudspeakers that offer apparently flat frequency response, superb stereo imaging, and great airiness and transparency.
And what did we give up to gain such easy access to all those things? Natural-sounding dynamics. Impact. Pluck. Snap. Body—especially body. And soul."
Of course bad recordings sound bad. That's always the case on a transparent speaker. But fortunately there are very few really bad recordings. On my rather transparent Reference 3A box speakers there are many recordings that sound great, most other recordings sound well listenable, and really bad recordings sound bad.
I like many posts of yours, Caesar, but I guess you are now just trolling.
Yes, Tektons are outstanding. But I respectfully disagree with you on Zu.
Zu excels exactly at what Wilson XVX's weakness is - emotionally compelling sound on bad recordings.
Here's a thread describing the essence of Zu: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/zu-loudspeakers.27476/
And for those who don't find Zu to their taste, they have a 60 day money back guarantee.
Please! Don't blame the messenger. See reality as it is. Analytical transparency of modern box speakers is not the same as musical transparency.
I'm talking about musical transparency. I don't even know what analytical transparency is supposed to mean.
I don't know, but aren't speakers supposed to convey what's on the recording, and not embellish it? Isn't that why folks seek the high-end, as opposed to more mundane stuff?
I don't think he mentioned specifically WHICH bad recording he was referring to, on purpose.
Yes, a bad recording has to sound bad. That's the whole point. The writer meant to convey that that was a truthful-to-the-source speaker, that does not embellish it in any way.
99% of my listening is to "bad recordings", and Wilsons are delightful on them, with analog or digital.
Zu? You gotta be kidding.
I don't think he mentioned specifically WHICH bad recording he was referring to, on purpose.
Yes, a bad recording has to sound bad. That's the whole point. The writer meant to convey that that was a truthful-to-the-source speaker, that does not embellish it in any way.
99% of my listening is to "bad recordings", and Wilsons are delightful on them, with analog or digital.
Zu? You gotta be kidding.
I am with you. Further, I have found bad recordings continue to IMPROVE in impression as our system has improved in transparency, detail retrieval and lowered noise floor. I am talking Blues from the 1920s and 1930s which are pretty brutally static-y and scratch-y recordings. I am guessing it is exactly because the system has greater transparency, more detail retrieval that it finally manages to dig out details and convey them so that at least you can finally hear the music details alongside the scratchiness...whereas before the static was most of you heard.
Caesar, I admire your chutzpah, promoting Zu on the Chronosonic thread. The great thing about combining these two brands is that you can hear them at their respective factories in Utah.
I think Caesar's argument on pristine recordings versus the rest is hugely relevant. Just what are figurehead spkrs like the XVX and Magico M9 meant to do w recordings not in the stellar category?
I think Caesar's argument on pristine recordings versus the rest is hugely relevant. Just what are figurehead spkrs like the XVX and Magico M9 meant to do w recordings not in the stellar category?
Not sure I read anywhere that the speaker is not conducive to listening to streamed music. Me thinks it is your total misinterpretation of his liking listening to Sinatra at the Sands
caesar IMO this is your MO. You love to raise $hit and the way you misquoted this review is IMO shameful.
the speakerrs are designed to play music Marc. What do you think.... that they are tuned for only pristine recordings.
to me this is a speaker that is colored and doesn’t sound natural. Not anything I would ever buy
Well Steve, maybe when I hear less than pristine recordings played at the Wilson and Magico rooms I've been to, then I can answer your Q.
On bad recordings sounding bad...i have no problem with that, because frankly, i have yet to come across a speaker of any kind that can take a 1927 recording of blues and make it sound like Bob Ludwig recorded/mastered it yesterday. But what i DO want from that 1927 recording is to extract every bit of musical detail, nuance, echo and string pull I can...so that AT LEAST I get to hear as much of the music on the recording as possible.
And THAT is where I have to say the latest generation of named speakers (Wilson, Magico, Rockport) have done a GREAT job in making that possible. So it makes bad recordings (which still sound bad) sound as fantastic as they can under the circumstances of probably having 50% static and 50% singing. Yes, these speakers sound brilliant when they play audiophile recordings, but honestly, it is with the 90% of ordinary recordings where they sound fantastic and bring out as much of the music off the recording as possible where I have enjoyed hearing some of the latest generation of great high end speakers.
This predictable patterns also foresees than someone will read the article and refer to it in audioforums, promoting the brand.
For my mind saying a speaker is good because it makes a bad recording sound good is just illogical in the definition of a good speaker. Don't people want speaker to play music. I have zero issues with the comments of the reviewer and I understand the point he was making. We have heard others say the same thing differently such as "the speaker is brutally honest"
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |