Chronosonic XVX.
- Thread starter Joe P
- Start date
I have heard there is a 6 hours waiting list for the speakers sweetspot during covid 
I think they have to make the munich show 10 days straight next year to give everybody a listen .
I think they have to make the munich show 10 days straight next year to give everybody a listen .
Agree...piano recording, complex orchestral, live acoustic and deep house/electronica...those are the ones I listen to most to evaluate...and then I leave the rest of the recordings to sound how they sound.
Wow...I did not know that. Bigger, more complex...and you need a ladder to touch the top (or at least i certainly do!) I have heard the Genesis 1.2s before...the closest I have come to hear your IRS Vs...insane. A truly memorable experience.
The problem with audio is :
There is no actual finishline , so declaring yourself a winner when there is no actual finishline is kinda hard / imposible .
One can keep running /searching though
Kedar is the winner. He knows what is best and he knows what is worst. And he tells others what is what. He also knows the finish line he just has not bought it yet.
Can electronics cause this too ..?
I have heard WA on VTL, also on DAG and Krell , years ago Spectral , they all sounded different , i thought VTL not a good match thick and too warm sounding ..
Don't ask models thats too much to remember now
Can electronics cause this too ..?
I have heard WA on VTL, also on DAG and Krell , years ago Spectral , they all sounded different , i thought VTL not a good match thick and too warm sounding ..
Don't ask models thats too much to remember now
That's analogous to what I meant with Magico being transparent to electronics etc.:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/chronosonic-xvx.28704/page-30#post-660204
Agreed that the bigger the Wilson, the worse the coherence. DAW is the best I’ve heard in that department.
I also hear different instruments from different drivers, no matter what bigger Wilson setup I’ve heard. You can’t unhear it once you notice.
We all have our favorite speakers and components but let's be fair - Zu Audio isn't even close to playing in the same league as Wilsons. And that may be why they may seem emotionally compelling on bad recordings, because there's not nearly as much to lose WRT sound quality versus Wilson.
Interesting take, my assessment based on hearing Wilsons and Magicos is somewhat similar but I think you're more black or white in your comparisons; I'm less polarized, to each his own.
FWIW - before purchasing speakers last year I listened to quite a few brands and models including Wilson and Magico and I have friends with Wilsons set up quite well IMO. What I've learned is - it depends on the model and series however there are some general audible themes.
Wilsons:
- Cons:
- Wilsons have improved on driver <-> driver coherence over the past years especially with the larger models.
- All Wilsons to some degree have an emphasis on mid - bass.
- Wilsons other than the larger models do not exhibit effortlessness at higher SPLs (like heard with horns and bigger Vivids)
- Pros:
- Very dynamic speakers, any size, more so with larger models.
- Excellent imaging. Spacial cues can be superb if set up properly and with complementary gear.
- Strong powerful articulate bass, remind me of high quality studio monitors back in my amateur recording days. Some may call it overblown bass, to each his own.
- Slightly warm sounding (see midbass bump above), some like it some don't.
Magicos:
- Cons:
- Can sound lean depending on associated gear and room setup. One person's lean is another's accurate. M series rectifies this.
- Can exhibit less than tight and strong bass unless exceptional amplification is applied.
- Pros:
- Dynamics are excellent with great gear, lots of power required
- Driver coherence is exceptional - of one cloth if set up correctly.
- Very good imaging (not as spot - on as Wilson)
- With the M series - phenomenal realism (tonal accuracy, balance), effortless at higher levels.
Both brands are top performers and there is no perfect loudspeaker but what excites me is the breadth of newer contenders over the past ~10 years (Vivid, YG, Evolution Acoustics, Raidho, etc.) which pushes the more traditional brands to deliver better more competitive speakers (including Vandersteen, Von Schweikert, Wilson). It's all good!
Last edited:
I've read this from you, Keith, several times. I recall the first time when I thought hmmm... interesting. So I listened to one of my Alexia Series 2 for individual instruments coming off individual drivers. And yes, sitting a couple feet away from a speaker I could hear, for example, woodwinds coming from the mid-range and not from the woofers.
When I went back to my listening chair I did not hear woodwinds coming off the midrange of that one speaker. I heard them between eleven-thirty and two o'clock in the sound field. Stereo imaging was working. I tried forcing myself to listen to individual speakers - that didn't work so well. I thought about disconnecting one channel, then I thought that's not how I listen or why I bought the speakers.
While I generally believe we hear the same sounds very similarIy, I suppose this may be an example of subjectivity in how we process what we hear. Perhaps there is a greater susceptibility of time arrival differences. I don't doubt your description of your experience. My case is just the opposite, once I heard individual instruments from a driver (which you cannot unhear), from the listening position it was nigh impossible for me to hear them like that again.
When John Giolas set up the Alexia 2s per the Wilson method, I watched how he moved them in v. small increments. There came a point when I and Marc Mickelson (who was also there) both said to John, almost at the same time: 'John you made them disappear.' Their proper position became even more obvious when he moved them out of that position. I find the greatest improvement from the original Alexia to the series 2 is their substantial improvement in timing, likely the result of their finer grained physical positioning of drivers. This is an improved area for all the recent models.
I am not astonished. Our own prejudice and negative bias are strong parts of this hobby. Once we have a negative experience our minds focus on it and keeps telling us about it.
Physically the sound comes from the center of the cone. If you make a frequency sweep you should be able to locate the source of the sound along the frequencies. However as soon as music starts our brain will teach us how to ignore it.
In my room the XLFs sound as seamless as the SoundLab's if properly amplified. However used with a very poor source or amplification with distortion we start listening to the elevated tweeter or the medium units.
One of my best audio experiences include the famous Dynaudio Consequence One - the large Dynaudio with great speaker units in reverse alignment, the tweeter was at floor level . In a 80 square meter large room there was only music , every frequency came from the musicians. I later got them, and as soon as we were more than 3.5 meters away from them properly set the tweeter disappeared, perfectly blending with the music. Later a good friend who loved them in my room got them, but sold them very fast - the tweeter at ground level made him nervous!
In this hobby bias and training are intrinsically bound, they rule our preferences and we must train to get more from stereo than it was technically supposed to give us.
I think this is largely correct, but don't you think (as I do) that these prejudicial presumptions we develop about things are -- if we are alert to them and intellectually honest -- highly self-rebuttal and self-correcting?
Once I decided I didn't care for the Wilson metal dome tweeter (unless driven by Lamm electronics, somehow) I was aware of that sound every time I heard Wilson metal dome tweeters. But once Wilson switched to soft dome tweeters -- problem completely solved for my ears.
If I hear a little bit of sibilance I don't personally care from a vdH cartridge, and the owner adjusts VTA and eliminates the sibilance, my mind does not begin manufacturing and imputing sibilance which my ears tell me is no longer there.
KeithR once did an A/B comparison with an isolation transformer listening to his system with the device both in and out of his system, hoping he could prove that it wasn't adding any value so he could sell it. His prejudice/hope was rebutted when he realized the device made a positive sonic difference he couldn't ignore.
I am sure that come the time Wilson makes a speaker which does not trigger Keith's particular driver incoherence sensitivity, he will realize it and acknowledge that the problem is no longer apparent.
Ron, your point assumes Keith has heard Wilson only once. I am sure he has heard it many times, and so have I and so have many others who whatsapp me but don't feel comfortable discussing here. And I have no horse in the race (unless you say I make these posts just to irritate micro
So maybe the prejudice is actually a fact, and it is the side that is prejudiced not to hear the lack of coherence that should work on their bias. Some things just are, so please don't explain them away with preference or bias.
So maybe the prejudice is actually a fact, and it is the side that is prejudiced not to hear the lack of coherence that should work on their bias. Some things just are, so please don't explain them away with preference or bias.
I think Keith's view is a preference. This is getting a bit philosophical, but this preference is, to Keith, a fact. It is a "fact" to you and to Keith and to the people who are WhatsApping you in agreement. Obviously it is not a "fact" to Wilson speaker buyers who do not hear the characteristic which Keith finds objectionable.
I think it is a preference as well as a prejudice. But prejudice is probably too strong a word. I don't care for flatbed pick-up trucks. But does it make any sense to say I am "prejudiced" against flatbeds?
I am not at all suggesting Keith is not hearing the driver incoherence he reports. I am suggesting that he is not in some way permanently prejudiced against Wilson speakers such that he will think he keeps hearing this phenomenon even though a new Wilson speaker does not, even to Keith's ears, exhibit this characteristic.
When Keith auditions a new Wilson speaker he may have a sonic prejudice against the speaker (based on hearing this characteristic in different Wilson speakers over a long period of time), but I am suggesting this is a rebuttable presumption. If the speaker does not exhibit, to Keith's ears, the offending characteristic of hearing the separate drivers, I do not think his mind will impute prejudicially that he does.
Last edited:
This hobby includes audiophiles from all camps, those with bias that will never be altered, those with bias that can be somewhat altered and some with minimal / no bias that accept what they hear as objectively as possible. I know folks who will always believe that metal drivers sound "tinny" and ML panels sound "like plastic" but I bet a dollar if you blindfolded them their bias would fade away.
Ron, your legal training is shining through. You have no difficulty speaking for someone else. If I were sitting in the jury box, I would request to hear from Keith directly. Absent that, I would not know what to think about what he thinks.
Last edited:
Similar threads
