Chronosonic XVX.

[Zeotrope]

Henry is not correct. Time alignment is defined as time coherence in the article. Read it again

 

[LL21]

Henry is not correct. Time alignment is defined as time coherence in the article. Read it again

Interesting. In lay terms, what is the difference?

 

[Mdp632]

Magico News for Fall 2019 — Magico Loudspeakers (magicoaudio.com)

This simple change in driver geometry is not the only example of design choices that may seem benign but lead to eventual disappointment. Many other topologies excel in one specific area, but create problems elsewhere.

• In an attempt to achieve time alignment, setting individual drivers back from the listener creates physical steps in the front of the speaker. This will lead to diffraction, which according to listening tests is far worse than the unproven benefits of any physical alignment. True time coherence is itself an elusive goal. Crossovers introduce significant, frequency dependent delays. Minimizing those delays leads to big compromises in nonlinear distortion. Even impulse-response waveforms that purport to demonstrate time alignment at one listening position say little or nothing about overall speaker performance.
• D’Appolito or MTM driver configurations have great sensitivity and make for easy driver placement. But they suffer from unsmooth directivity that additional engineering just can’t fix.
• Line arrays have low distortion and great dynamics. But their very narrow directivity severely restricts placement.
• Side-firing woofers can make for narrow, attractive cabinets. But a low cutoff frequency results in a very inefficient crossover – negating a key benefit of large drivers: reducing intermodulation distortion in the midrange.

As in so many areas of life, when it comes to loudspeaker design, you can’t get something for nothing. Everything has a price. If you count yourself among Nietzsche’s “people who want to believe,” you may be willing to overlook these performance penalties. But if you “want to know,” you’ll approach loudspeaker choices with your eyes wide open.

---

* Much of the loudspeaker marketing behind time coherence has been misleading. To begin with, there’s never been any scientific proof that time/phase coherence improves perceived sound quality. In addition, true coherence requires meeting two conditions: 1) a first-order acoustical crossover, that is, a perfect 6 dB-per-octave slope from the designated bandpass; and 2) the physical alignment of the drivers’ acoustical centers, which, unless a concentric driver is used, only achieves coherence at one sweet spot in 3D space. Just moving drivers around is not enough. In fact, such designs ensure performance losses. If a first-order crossover is not used, any driver movement will require crossover realignment to keep the proper phase relations among drivers at the crossover points.

There have been honest attempts at such designs, including some that do meet the basic conditions. However, even when designs meet these criteria, sound quality suffers.

• A 6 dB-per-octave slope in a typical three-way design means that the bass drivers will be only about 18 dB down at 2 kHz – playing right into tweeter territory. And the tweeter will play into the bass region. This introduces big, easily audible increases in intermodulation, second harmonic and third harmonic distortion. An accurate 6 dB-per-octave crossover is also very complex, with many parts that themselves degrade sound quality and introduce time delays. A simpler crossover using non-pistonic drivers is possible. But non-pistonic cone movement increases distortion and destroys musical nuances.
• Staggering drivers, in order to align them in a stepped baffle creates tremendous diffraction. While the supposed benefits of time coherence are unproven, the audible distortions of diffraction are very real.

The unavoidable tradeoffs of even a “successful” time- and phase-aligned design also include tilted drivers firing at the listening position asymmetrically, limited vertical dispersion and reduced power handling. After weighing all these tradeoffs against the lack of evidence that alignment actually contributes to sound quality, our decision to reject time- and phase-alignment was easy.

 

[LL21]

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.

Henry is not correct. Time alignment is defined as time coherence in the article. Read it again

Interesting...if there is a difference in lay terms, what is it? Saw the Magico quotation above as well in #1003, so curious to read more.

 

[Zeotrope]

Magico News for Fall 2019 — Magico Loudspeakers (magicoaudio.com)

This simple change in driver geometry is not the only example of design choices that may seem benign but lead to eventual disappointment. Many other topologies excel in one specific area, but create problems elsewhere.

• In an attempt to achieve time alignment, setting individual drivers back from the listener creates physical steps in the front of the speaker. This will lead to diffraction, which according to listening tests is far worse than the unproven benefits of any physical alignment. True time coherence is itself an elusive goal. Crossovers introduce significant, frequency dependent delays. Minimizing those delays leads to big compromises in nonlinear distortion. Even impulse-response waveforms that purport to demonstrate time alignment at one listening position say little or nothing about overall speaker performance.
• D’Appolito or MTM driver configurations have great sensitivity and make for easy driver placement. But they suffer from unsmooth directivity that additional engineering just can’t fix.
• Line arrays have low distortion and great dynamics. But their very narrow directivity severely restricts placement.
• Side-firing woofers can make for narrow, attractive cabinets. But a low cutoff frequency results in a very inefficient crossover – negating a key benefit of large drivers: reducing intermodulation distortion in the midrange.

As in so many areas of life, when it comes to loudspeaker design, you can’t get something for nothing. Everything has a price. If you count yourself among Nietzsche’s “people who want to believe,” you may be willing to overlook these performance penalties. But if you “want to know,” you’ll approach loudspeaker choices with your eyes wide open.

---

* Much of the loudspeaker marketing behind time coherence has been misleading. To begin with, there’s never been any scientific proof that time/phase coherence improves perceived sound quality. In addition, true coherence requires meeting two conditions: 1) a first-order acoustical crossover, that is, a perfect 6 dB-per-octave slope from the designated bandpass; and 2) the physical alignment of the drivers’ acoustical centers, which, unless a concentric driver is used, only achieves coherence at one sweet spot in 3D space. Just moving drivers around is not enough. In fact, such designs ensure performance losses. If a first-order crossover is not used, any driver movement will require crossover realignment to keep the proper phase relations among drivers at the crossover points.

There have been honest attempts at such designs, including some that do meet the basic conditions. However, even when designs meet these criteria, sound quality suffers.

• A 6 dB-per-octave slope in a typical three-way design means that the bass drivers will be only about 18 dB down at 2 kHz – playing right into tweeter territory. And the tweeter will play into the bass region. This introduces big, easily audible increases in intermodulation, second harmonic and third harmonic distortion. An accurate 6 dB-per-octave crossover is also very complex, with many parts that themselves degrade sound quality and introduce time delays. A simpler crossover using non-pistonic drivers is possible. But non-pistonic cone movement increases distortion and destroys musical nuances.
• Staggering drivers, in order to align them in a stepped baffle creates tremendous diffraction. While the supposed benefits of time coherence are unproven, the audible distortions of diffraction are very real.

The unavoidable tradeoffs of even a “successful” time- and phase-aligned design also include tilted drivers firing at the listening position asymmetrically, limited vertical dispersion and reduced power handling. After weighing all these tradeoffs against the lack of evidence that alignment actually contributes to sound quality, our decision to reject time- and phase-alignment was easy.

You are combining two separate things. Furthermore, you don’t need both (although Wilson has addressed both with the XVX):

Again from Footnote 2:
• "time-coherent"means when the crossover's phase shift in the crossover region and the different distances of the acoustic centers of the drive-units from the listening/microphone position are taken into account, the result is a step response where the decay of each unit's step smoothly blends with the start of the step of the next lower in frequency.
• "time-coincident" means that the outputs of the drive-units arrive at the nominal listening/microphone position at the same time.

To the ear, the difference between perfect time-coincidence and perfect time coherence is relatively minor.
This means that it’s important to achieve at least one of the two, it’s not necessary to have both.

 

[LL21]

You are combining two separate things. Furthermore, you don’t need both (although Wilson has addressed both with the XVX):

Again from Footnote 2:
• "time-coherent"means when the crossover's phase shift in the crossover region and the different distances of the acoustic centers of the drive-units from the listening/microphone position are taken into account, the result is a step response where the decay of each unit's step smoothly blends with the start of the step of the next lower in frequency.
• "time-coincident" means that the outputs of the drive-units arrive at the nominal listening/microphone position at the same time.

To the ear, the difference between perfect time-coincidence and perfect time coherence is relatively minor.
This means that it’s important to achieve at least one of the two, it’s not necessary to have both.

Very helpful reading! Thank you.

 

[andromedaaudio]

You are combining two separate things. Furthermore, you don’t need both (although Wilson has addressed both with the XVX):

Again from Footnote 2:
• "time-coherent"means when the crossover's phase shift in the crossover region and the different distances of the acoustic centers of the drive-units from the listening/microphone position are taken into account, the result is a step response where the decay of each unit's step smoothly blends with the start of the step of the next lower in frequency.
• "time-coincident" means that the outputs of the drive-units arrive at the nominal listening/microphone position at the same time.

To the ear, the difference between perfect time-coincidence and perfect time coherence is relatively minor.
This means that it’s important to achieve at least one of the two, it’s not necessary to have both.

Besides all the technical info you re copy pasting did you have listen to the XVX and what did you think ?
My favourite large commercial speaker is the Kharma Midi grand and there all drivers are mounted in the same plane .
I personallly think KISS is fine in this case ( keep it simple stupid ), i dont think its something to worry about , and if it was a big issue all non wilson audiophiles have a hearing issue

 

[Al M.]

Magico News for Fall 2019 — Magico Loudspeakers (magicoaudio.com)

This simple change in driver geometry is not the only example of design choices that may seem benign but lead to eventual disappointment. Many other topologies excel in one specific area, but create problems elsewhere.

• In an attempt to achieve time alignment, setting individual drivers back from the listener creates physical steps in the front of the speaker. This will lead to diffraction, which according to listening tests is far worse than the unproven benefits of any physical alignment. True time coherence is itself an elusive goal. Crossovers introduce significant, frequency dependent delays. Minimizing those delays leads to big compromises in nonlinear distortion. Even impulse-response waveforms that purport to demonstrate time alignment at one listening position say little or nothing about overall speaker performance.
• D’Appolito or MTM driver configurations have great sensitivity and make for easy driver placement. But they suffer from unsmooth directivity that additional engineering just can’t fix.
• Line arrays have low distortion and great dynamics. But their very narrow directivity severely restricts placement.
• Side-firing woofers can make for narrow, attractive cabinets. But a low cutoff frequency results in a very inefficient crossover – negating a key benefit of large drivers: reducing intermodulation distortion in the midrange.

As in so many areas of life, when it comes to loudspeaker design, you can’t get something for nothing. Everything has a price. If you count yourself among Nietzsche’s “people who want to believe,” you may be willing to overlook these performance penalties. But if you “want to know,” you’ll approach loudspeaker choices with your eyes wide open.

---

* Much of the loudspeaker marketing behind time coherence has been misleading. To begin with, there’s never been any scientific proof that time/phase coherence improves perceived sound quality. In addition, true coherence requires meeting two conditions: 1) a first-order acoustical crossover, that is, a perfect 6 dB-per-octave slope from the designated bandpass; and 2) the physical alignment of the drivers’ acoustical centers, which, unless a concentric driver is used, only achieves coherence at one sweet spot in 3D space. Just moving drivers around is not enough. In fact, such designs ensure performance losses. If a first-order crossover is not used, any driver movement will require crossover realignment to keep the proper phase relations among drivers at the crossover points.

There have been honest attempts at such designs, including some that do meet the basic conditions. However, even when designs meet these criteria, sound quality suffers.

• A 6 dB-per-octave slope in a typical three-way design means that the bass drivers will be only about 18 dB down at 2 kHz – playing right into tweeter territory. And the tweeter will play into the bass region. This introduces big, easily audible increases in intermodulation, second harmonic and third harmonic distortion. An accurate 6 dB-per-octave crossover is also very complex, with many parts that themselves degrade sound quality and introduce time delays. A simpler crossover using non-pistonic drivers is possible. But non-pistonic cone movement increases distortion and destroys musical nuances.
• Staggering drivers, in order to align them in a stepped baffle creates tremendous diffraction. While the supposed benefits of time coherence are unproven, the audible distortions of diffraction are very real.

The unavoidable tradeoffs of even a “successful” time- and phase-aligned design also include tilted drivers firing at the listening position asymmetrically, limited vertical dispersion and reduced power handling. After weighing all these tradeoffs against the lack of evidence that alignment actually contributes to sound quality, our decision to reject time- and phase-alignment was easy.

These arguments seem convincing to me.

 

[Zeotrope]

Besides all the technical info you re copy pasting did you have listen to the XVX and what did you think ?
My favourite large commercial speaker is the Kharma Midi grand and there all drivers are mounted in the same plane .
I personallly think KISS is fine in this case ( keep it simple stupid ), i dont think its something to worry about , and if it was a big issue all non wilson audiophiles have a hearing issue

For sure perfection doesn’t exist and compromises need to be made. For me it’s a fundamental tenant that all frequencies should arrive at your ears at the same time. After all, we are trying to reproduce a point source (eg, human voice, trumpet, etc) where all frequencies do emanate from one source.
It’s like having a car with wheels that are not a perfect circle.

Of course it may make sense to forego time alignment/coincidence in favor of other things which can make a more positive impact on sound — but at a price of $750K?! That’s a big compromise to be made.

 

[Zeotrope]

I thought the XVX sounded great. The tone of female voices was not as realistic as with my midrange horns (RCA 1443 on a conical horn) but overall the XVX are on my shortlist for a 2nd media room in the next year or two.

It’s tough to compare against anything else as the system I heard it in was using an inferior music streamer and DAC to my own, and the larger room undoubtedly played a role as well.

 

[andromedaaudio]

but overall the XVX are on my shortlist for a 2nd media room in the next year or two.

I have got good news for you then , they are about halve the price as what you think they cost

 

[Zeotrope]

I have got good news for you then , they are about halve the price as what you think they cost

The M9 you mean?
The XVX are not 50% off retail new, I can assure you of that. If someone knows otherwise, please PM me. Thanks

 

[andromedaaudio]

The M9 you mean?
The XVX are not 50% off retail new, I can assure you of that. If someone knows otherwise, please PM me. Thanks

The XVXs are more like around 350 afaik , i thought we were talking about those in this thread

 

[Zeotrope]

The XVXs are more like around 350 afaik , i thought we were talking about those in this thread

We are. I don’t understand your comment- that they cost 50% less. What are you trying to say?

 

[andromedaaudio]

We are. I don’t understand your comment- that they cost 50% less. What are you trying to say?

I misunderstood you , with 750 $ you meant the Magico M9.
The XVX is 329 $, i have never heard the M9 , may be they will be in munchen this year , would love to hear them

 

[Zeotrope]

I see now. I am curious to hear the M9 as well, although I’m never going to spend that much on speakers, and I don’t usually like to hear things I can’t afford

 

[Rhapsody]

M9 will NOT be at Munich, this year or probably any year. But I guarantee that the Magico room will be very interesting.

 

[bonzo75]

Just after 31 mins he explains how he is recording it and how phone recordings give a good idea of he actual. He records at 24/48.
At 33 mins Michael Fremer plays a recording of his system.

 

[HenryD]

Underwhelming, even for YT...
Thanks for posting.

 

[PeterA]

Just after 31 mins he explains how he is recording it and how phone recordings give a good idea of he actual. He records at 24/48.
At 33 mins Michael Fremer plays a recording of his system.

I watched this video a while ago. It's pretty cool that MF posted a video of the sound of his system and of the speakers that are the subject of this thread. Kudos for that. The in-ear microphones are interesting. What does the graph on his phone shown during the system video creation represent? Is it a dB sound pressure plot over time? I would love to hear some more challenging music. The sound of the system video reminds me of Jay's system videos and is pretty much what a lot of system videos sound like. I wonder if it represents the sound of his system. It sounds quite different from the videos you post, Ked. What do you think?