I have heard them in the same system. They are quite different sounding. I’m sure that doesn’t help at all.
how so?
I have heard them in the same system. They are quite different sounding. I’m sure that doesn’t help at all.
@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.
Well, I'm probably deaf too. We don't have horns and SETs, that's why.
Oh it is clearly a ‘’marketing fluff”. Please read: https://www.stereophile.com/features/100/index.htmlI 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…).
(Time alignment is not ‘’marketing fluff” as some think it is: ideally, all frequencies should reach your ears at the same time.
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.
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 guys denigrating the preferences and systems owned and described by Bonzo, Brad, Jeffrey, Tang, Audiophile Bill and others? What is the point?
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.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 absolutists. There is no absolute way to achieve audiophile nirvana.
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!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.
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.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.
LOL, can't argue with that, you should have been a politician.The Wilson positioning tables are recipes to obtain optimal time performance of their speakers according to their sound objectives.
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.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.