Is a "Review" of a Component in an Unfamiliar System in an Unfamiliar Room Really a Review?

[PeterA]

This implicitly raises an interesting question. Without meaning to quibble about the words, maybe there is a spectrum:

"in-home review": review of an unfamiliar component in a very familiar system in a very familiar room

"impressions review" or "impressions report": report on an unfamiliar component in a somewhat familiar system in a somewhat familiar room as a result of repeat listening sessions

"visit report": report of an unfamiliar component in an unfamiliar system in an unfamiliar room. I think this should not be styled as any kind of report on a singular component in that system.





Visiting a familiar system in a familiar room once or twice a week for months seems like a pretty valid full review situation.

Perhaps this is something in between an in-home review and an impressions report?

Are you suggesting a new category of listeners who share their opinions: impression reporters. Does it matter if those opinions are shared on a forum or published in a glossy magazine? Are the opinions of those who receive renumeration more or less valuable?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Are you suggesting a new category of listeners who share their opinions: impression reporters.

No, not at all. I'm talking about professional reviewers and part-time regular reviewers, and pondering what is the most accurate and intellectually honest way to describe the factual context of different types of reviews.

Are the opinions of those who receive renumeration more or less valuable?

Isn't that up to the individual readers of the various types of writers of reviews to decide?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

No, not at all. I'm talking about professional reviewers and part-time regular reviewers, and pondering what is the most accurate and intellectually honest way to describe the factual context of different types of reviews.


Isn't that up to the individual readers of the various types of writers of reviews to decide?

not sure it's helpful to push some sort of review rating system, or organized ranking of reviews or reviewers. way way too many shades of grey. even for individual reviewers. even the best, most credible, through reviewers approach some gear relatively casually, doing a mini listen or abbreviated review. other times they have it in their systems for a year or two. and give it the full court press.

occasionally a serious reviewer does a soft piece as much marketing as review.

i realize it's tempting to try and find some sort of template to hold up, but my sense is just approach each review with an open mind and then take what is given and use what content is there to use.

for instance, Martin Colloms did an XVX review at a dealers private showroom over two days. how are we to view that sort of approach? we have a reviewer with the highest credentials, but it's a limited time and not in his reference room. but it's very much a serious review. but maybe we like Fremer's XVX review better that was in his own room......and extended time.....maybe still on going? but maybe we judge Fremer's room is smaller so it's not as useful?

in my mind they are both serious high level reviews. on par. but what if someone less credible than Mr. Colloms does a two day at dealer review? how would that rate? to me we can't predict how it might rate, only how it does rate. we might give the one from Mr. Colloms more consideration and actually read it. maybe from another reviewer maybe not. but the other one could be better.

i think these type questions are settled in the mind of the reader, and while we here on WBF can judge and take our shots, there are too many variables to all agree. and in my mind each one stands alone, for me to judge.

 

[andromedaaudio]

My feeling about the start of those review / reviewer threads lately is the fact that reviewers simply feel a bit ignored on WBF .

 

[LL21]

not sure it's helpful to push some sort of review rating system, or organized ranking of reviews or reviewers. way way too many shades of grey. even for individual reviewers. even the best, most credible, through reviewers approach some gear relatively casually, doing a mini listen or abbreviated review. other times they have it in their systems for a year or two. and give it the full court press.

occasionally a serious reviewer does a soft piece as much marketing as review.

i realize it's tempting to try and find some sort of template to hold up, but my sense is just approach each review with an open mind and then take what is given and use what content is there to use.

for instance, Martin Colloms did an XVX review at a dealers private showroom over two days. how are we to view that sort of approach? we have a reviewer with the highest credentials, but it's a limited time and not in his reference room. but it's very much a serious review. but maybe we like Fremer's XVX review better that was in his own room......and extended time.....maybe still on going?

in my mind they are both serious high level reviews. on par. but what if someone less credible than Mr. Colloms does a two day at dealer review? how would that rate? to me we can't predict how it might rate, only how it does rate.

i think these type questions are settled in the mind of the reader, and while we here on WBF can judge and take our shots, there are too many variables to all agree. and in my mind each one stands alone, for me to judge.

To that very point, Martin Colloms does address this directly in the review:

"...Regrettably my own listening room was not up to this heroic review project as it is served by a compact staircase and is also two floors up from street level. I opted to spend the days required to listen and measure at the Absolute Sounds private studio in Wimbledon. Here I was given a free run of reference grade music sources, electronics, cables, and in particular a full alignment for the Chronosonic XVX speakers, which were already well run in. My measuring system goes in four transit cases and is relatively transportable, and that came too – together with my 3TB music HDD, an original BBC LS3/5a and a few LPs, which were supplemented by Qobuz HD streaming of familiar music tracks...."

and also

"...You never know what to expect from the combination of a different room, different placement, and accessories, and not least the local audio system. In particular, this room had been finetuned to even out dominant coupled modes using a number of discrete frequency absorbers based on Tube Trap technology. In such smaller rooms these can provide the sensation of a much larger space promoting essentially uniform bass lines, and this was the case here. It shows just what can be done when working with the XVX, while noting that the room compensation aspects will inevitably and unavoidably address some issues that may be inherent in the loudspeaker itself...."

 

[Mike Lavigne]

To that very point, Martin Colloms does address this directly in the review:

"...Regrettably my own listening room was not up to this heroic review project as it is served by a compact staircase and is also two floors up from street level. I opted to spend the days required to listen and measure at the Absolute Sounds private studio in Wimbledon. Here I was given a free run of reference grade music sources, electronics, cables, and in particular a full alignment for the Chronosonic XVX speakers, which were already well run in. My measuring system goes in four transit cases and is relatively transportable, and that came too – together with my 3TB music HDD, an original BBC LS3/5a and a few LPs, which were supplemented by Qobuz HD streaming of familiar music tracks...."

and also

"...You never know what to expect from the combination of a different room, different placement, and accessories, and not least the local audio system. In particular, this room had been finetuned to even out dominant coupled modes using a number of discrete frequency absorbers based on Tube Trap technology. In such smaller rooms these can provide the sensation of a much larger space promoting essentially uniform bass lines, and this was the case here. It shows just what can be done when working with the XVX, while noting that the room compensation aspects will inevitably and unavoidably address some issues that may be inherent in the loudspeaker itself...."

for sure; his thoroughness is one big reason he is credible. and so is the review.

 

[LL21]

for sure; his thoroughness is one big reason he is credible. and so is the review.

I agree...i have kept number of Martin Colloms' reviews over the years and also received advice from him directly in the past...always thorough, insightful and helpful. And most importantly, correct in the end.

 

[andromedaaudio]

To that very point, Martin Colloms does address this directly in the review:

"...Regrettably my own listening room was not up to this heroic review project as it is served by a compact staircase and is also two floors up from street level. I opted to spend the days required to listen and measure at the Absolute Sounds private studio in Wimbledon. Here I was given a free run of reference grade music sources, electronics, cables, and in particular a full alignment for the Chronosonic XVX speakers, which were already well run in. My measuring system goes in four transit cases and is relatively transportable, and that came too – together with my 3TB music HDD, an original BBC LS3/5a and a few LPs, which were supplemented by Qobuz HD streaming of familiar music tracks...."

and also

"...You never know what to expect from the combination of a different room, different placement, and accessories, and not least the local audio system. In particular, this room had been finetuned to even out dominant coupled modes using a number of discrete frequency absorbers based on Tube Trap technology. In such smaller rooms these can provide the sensation of a much larger space promoting essentially uniform bass lines, and this was the case here. It shows just what can be done when working with the XVX, while noting that the room compensation aspects will inevitably and unavoidably address some issues that may be inherent in the loudspeaker itself...."

Lloyd did you hear the XVX yourself by now , its a long time out already .
The best review is your own assessment , that has become very clear to me over the past 3- 4 years .

Hearing things for yourself might shatter expectations and vice versa

 

[Mike Lavigne]

My feeling about the start of those review / reviewer threads lately is the fact that reviewers simply feel a bit ignored on WBF .

in a time of influencers, and blogs, and youtube, and all the forum social media noise, actual serious reviews get lost. but they are there just under the surface and do still have some credibility. but the bar has raised for attention. they can't just throw it out there. it's got to be useful and relevant.

maybe we can do better at pointing out good ones, giving credit where it's due. we are better off with high quality formal reviews i think that dig deep. something to balance all the surface 'look at me' 'click here' stuff.

 

[Elliot G.]

in a time of influencers, and blogs, and youtube, and all the forum social media noise, actual serious reviews get lost. but they are there just under the surface and do still have some credibility. but the bar has raised for attention. they can't just throw it out there. it's got to be useful and relevant.

maybe we can do better at pointing out good ones, giving credit where it's due. we are better off with high quality formal reviews i think that dig deep. something to balance all the surface 'look at me' 'click here' stuff.

Maybe we just have ( not trying to be politically incorrect ) too many chiefs and too few Indians ( lmao)

 

[Robh3606]

I believe that it is invalid to go to an unfamiliar room and listen to a system composed entirely of unfamiliar components and claim to isolate the sound of one of those component and characterize one's comments on that one component as a "review."

Umm OK so I guess any reviews of equipment at shows is a complete waste of time?

Rob

 

[Charles S]

I dont know about your subwoofer .
But regarding the XVX , .... if they use scanspeak woofers as i think they do the free air resonance freq FS @ 23 hz is about where the party stops.
it can be minus -3 - 6 db - 9 db depending on the designparameters/room

Andromeda, the XVX has had extensive measurements by Martin Colloms in HiFiCritic Volume 15 / Number 3 July - Sept 2021:

"My best estimate of the low frequency extension is -6dB at 11Hz, which is very low and confers an unusually fine phase response at low frequencies, supportive of good musical timing, which we also confirmed during the listening sessions."

"There were many standout results but this one caught my eye: at a truly body-shaking 110dB/m at 24 Hz and with inaudible harmonic distortion, the test set showed a superb result of less than 1.5%distortion for both second and third harmonics, and no others of relevance."

"Dropping the power to a still audibly thundering 2.83 V (1W nominal) the 24Hz distortion figure was truly exceptional at just 0.2% for both second and third, and the rest of the harmonics were not worth recording: this was for a very pure sounding bass tone at a hefty 92dB SPL."

"While the output was rolling off a little below 20Hz, it still sang well at 15Hz with less than 2% THD and, with only the 5th harmonic of note, at a still excellent 0.6%, of quite inaudible distortion (1W). Of the many readings taken up to 200Hz, these at 92 dB SPL, the average distortion was 0.2% of 2nd and 0.15% of 3rd harmonic, though with a momentary narrow band reversal at 100 Hz to 0.1% for 2nd and1% for 3rd."

I can attest to the fact that the XVX is impregnable at extremely low frequencies. It cannot be overloaded. I have low frequency SACD's (example: The Philadelphia Orchestra/Christopher Eschenbach/Oliver Latry, Organ/Camille Saint-Saens Symphony No.3 "Organ"/Francis Poulenc "Organ Concerto"/Samuel Barber "Toccata Festiva" Ode 1094-5) that are absolutely rife with devastating low frequencies, both at extremely high SPL's and extremely low SPL's. The XVX is absolutely dominated by my Thor at the 25 Hz and below LF, but it is never remotely near overloading.

Sealed box systems like the M7 either have no output because they are rolled off because of a suitably high resonance frequency, or these systems will distort like crazy, like the Thiel CS5i in the 1990's or the Gen II's that I owned. I owned both and replaced the CS5i woofers several times on LF material an XVX would laugh at, but which many sealed box systems of today wouldn't. Also, the huge 400-pound servo subs of the Gen II's would distort on similar material at high volumes but I never had to replace a woofer. My Thor/XVX system has tremendously more low frequency capability/output than a Genesis II, even with dual sub amps. I have never overloaded my Thor. Which is the stronger, the XVX or the Thor? No doubt it is the XVX. The XVX simply cannot be overloaded. On "regular" extremely low heavy bass material, I have never seen the woofer move at volume levels that are incredible.

If I owned an M7 I would employ dual Magico Titan subs, but they would need be run through the digital crossovers inside the subs to protect the speaker from my numerous cd's and SACD's that have terrific 20 Hz and below material. I suspect that between 10 and 25 Hz my bass is boosted by at least 15 dB, probably more. I don't employ any EQ of any kind, and the LP filter on my ActivXO analog electronic crossover is at 30 Hz, 18 dB per octave roll off above 30 Hz. I have a perfect blend above 30 Hz. So, I would not run the M7's full range but rely on the Titans to handle this kind of bass boost at extremely low frequencies. I am sure my listening experience would be absolutely superb. Previously I said that I don't like sealed box systems. That's a bit strong. I would modify my statement to, "I prefer a ported bass system, to a sealed box bass system."

Charles

Charles Updated System: Wilson McIntosh Audioquest

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

 

[Ron Resnick]

Umm OK so I guess any reviews of equipment at shows is a complete waste of time?

Rob

I think "complete waste of time" goes too far.

Professional reviewers at the magazines who report on exhibit rooms at audio shows themselves do not consider those reports about brief sessions in exhibit rooms to be real "reviews." Those reviewer themselves consider their time at shows visiting a large number of rooms to be just kind of quick impression reports.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Andromeda, the XVX has had extensive measurements by Martin Colloms in HiFiCritic Volume 15 / Number 3 July - Sept 2021:

"My best estimate of the low frequency extension is -6dB at 11Hz, which is very low and confers an unusually fine phase response at low frequencies, supportive of good musical timing, which we also confirmed during the listening sessions."

"There were many standout results but this one caught my eye: at a truly body-shaking 110dB/m at 24 Hz and with inaudible harmonic distortion, the test set showed a superb result of less than 1.5%distortion for both second and third harmonics, and no others of relevance."

"Dropping the power to a still audibly thundering 2.83 V (1W nominal) the 24Hz distortion figure was truly exceptional at just 0.2% for both second and third, and the rest of the harmonics were not worth recording: this was for a very pure sounding bass tone at a hefty 92dB SPL."

"While the output was rolling off a little below 20Hz, it still sang well at 15Hz with less than 2% THD and, with only the 5th harmonic of note, at a still excellent 0.6%, of quite inaudible distortion (1W). Of the many readings taken up to 200Hz, these at 92 dB SPL, the average distortion was 0.2% of 2nd and 0.15% of 3rd harmonic, though with a momentary narrow band reversal at 100 Hz to 0.1% for 2nd and1% for 3rd."

I can attest to the fact that the XVX is impregnable at extremely low frequencies. It cannot be overloaded. I have low frequency SACD's (example: The Philadelphia Orchestra/Christopher Eschenbach/Oliver Latry, Organ/Camille Saint-Saens Symphony No.3 "Organ"/Francis Poulenc "Organ Concerto"/Samuel Barber "Toccata Festiva" Ode 1094-5) that are absolutely rife with devastating low frequencies, both at extremely high SPL's and extremely low SPL's. The XVX is absolutely dominated by my Thor at the 25 Hz and below LF, but it is never remotely near overloading.

Sealed box systems like the M7 either have no output because they are rolled off because of a suitably high resonance frequency, or these systems will distort like crazy, like the Thiel CS5i in the 1990's or the Gen II's that I owned. I owned both and replaced the CS5i woofers several times on LF material an XVX would laugh at, but which many sealed box systems of today wouldn't. Also, the huge 400-pound servo subs of the Gen II's would distort on similar material at high volumes but I never had to replace a woofer. My Thor/XVX system has tremendously more low frequency capability/output than a Genesis II, even with dual sub amps. I have never overloaded my Thor. Which is the stronger, the XVX or the Thor? No doubt it is the XVX. The XVX simply cannot be overloaded. On "regular" extremely low heavy bass material, I have never seen the woofer move at volume levels that are incredible.

If I owned an M7 I would employ dual Magico Titan subs, but they would need be run through the digital crossovers inside the subs to protect the speaker from my numerous cd's and SACD's that have terrific 20 Hz and below material. I suspect that between 10 and 25 Hz my bass is boosted by at least 15 dB, probably more. I don't employ any EQ of any kind, and the LP filter on my ActivXO analog electronic crossover is at 30 Hz, 18 dB per octave roll off above 30 Hz. I have a perfect blend above 30 Hz. So, I would not run the M7's full range but rely on the Titans to handle this kind of bass boost at extremely low frequencies. I am sure my listening experience would be absolutely superb. Previously I said that I don't like sealed box systems. That's a bit strong. I would modify my statement to, "I prefer a ported bass system, to a sealed box bass system."

Charles

Charles Updated System: Wilson McIntosh Audioquest

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

" My best estimate " ???

Some out of phase rumble may be .
Let M Collumns explain on WBF how a woofer can produce in phase Bass below the FS,

 

[Charles S]

" My best estimate " ???

Some out of phase rumble may be .
Let M Collumns explain on WBF how a woofer can produce in phase Bass below the FS,

Of course you are are more technical than I. When I read a review like his, I know that he has rendered his best effort. Not everything he says will be accurate or make sense. Owning an XVX I can attest that it by itself will produce incredible bass and I can attest that I have never seen the woofers hardly move, even with incredible bass blasts. The XVX is an incredibly rugged loudspeaker and so is capable of running in the same league with any set of subs. The Thor is simply the sub I use. You might prefer a much larger sub or subs in a larger room. If you do, I can reassure you that you will be able to run the XVX full range. I believe there is a significant advantage to my arrangement, because the simpler the better and from 25 Hz up, the XVX is King of the Hill in regards to bass, in my humble opinion.

Charles

 

[andromedaaudio]

Of course you are are more technical than I. When I read a review like his, I know that he has rendered his best effort. Not everything he says will be accurate or make sense. Owning an XVX I can attest that it by itself will produce incredible bass and I can attest that I have never seen the woofers hardly move, even with incredible bass blasts. The XVX is an incredibly rugged loudspeaker and so is capable of running in the same league with any set of subs. The Thor is simply the sub I use. You might prefer a much larger sub or subs in a larger room. If you do, I can reassure you that you will be able to run the XVX full range. I believe there is a significant advantage to my arrangement, because the simpler the better and from 25 Hz up, the XVX is King of the Hill in regards to bass, in my humble opinion.

Charles

King......
You haven t heard what this baby can do/ produce
This one can literally frighten you while watching movies when you open them up ( and yes i ve heard the XVX with SUBS)

 

[LL21]

Lloyd did you hear the XVX yourself by now , its a long time out already .
The best review is your own assessment , that has become very clear to me over the past 3- 4 years .

Hearing things for yourself might shatter expectations and vice versa

Absolutely I have. I heard it within the first year of its launch in the same room as Martin Colloms...this time set up with Robert Koda K15EX and K160 Monos, Transparent Audio Opus cabling expressly for me (very kind of them)...so the amplification and cabling I understood. Source: DCS Vivaldi Apex. Albums I knew.

It is an exceptional evolution of the original design DW launched in July 1994...I not only have the review from MC on that one...I also owned an X1 from 1994 for 10 years. The XLF was the first of the ensuing series that fully convinced me to move across from the original X1 series. It took that mean years of work...18 years of evolution.

The XVX is a more accomplished, resolved and ability-to-be-intimate speaker than the XLF. That said, despite 1-2 opportunities to trade the XLF in towards the XVX, I have not gone forward. The XLF is an exceptionally good speaker, traded for our trusty X1 plus a surprisingly manageable sum (this was a factory refurbished speaker...so essentially new but largely broken in) that was far less than most of the new Wilson line up. And it really has responded well and revealed the strengths of the Robert Koda electronics as they came in.

At this level of performance, going 'up' materially for me would probably mean something quite extreme like the AG Trio G3 which is just a huge physical undertaking. Some of the big panels I am intrigued about...but like Steve Williams' excellent adage of old...is it better or just different?

So for now, the XVX is truly an exceptional speaker but its not the quantum leap (for me) that inspires me to do the trade-in. Perhaps next time I hear it, I will be more inspired. The thing I admire most is floor-wise how compact the big Wilsons are...again, in comparison with AG Trio which is spectacular but...whew...huge on the floor area. Even panels while thin typically are placed well out from the wall and generally much wider than the XLF.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Different opinions then .
For me it would be RP lyra , Kharma exquisite Midi Grand
Coherence wins anytime for me

And the best of all ...... FM acoustics Big system incl sub

 

[LL21]

Different opinions then .
For me it would be RP lyra , Kharma exquisite Midi.
Coherence wins anytime for me

And the best ...... FM acoustics Big system incl sub

Would be intrigued to hear the FM system with sub.

As for Rockport, I am a HUGE fan of the Arrakis and without question, I would love to find a passive Arrakis (ie not the 2nd generation which would require ANOTHER set of Robert Koda Monos, another set of Opus speaker cables and ANOTHER set of Opus ICs.)

I genuinely expected to go Arrakis from X1...but in speaking with a dealer who had a trade-in available (interestingly the original Arrakis owner was trading in for the XVX at the time!)...I started measuring space, how much more cable, the prospect of another set of Gryphons (we were driving Gryphon Mephisto at the time)...and I realized, it was just too much cost, too much heat, too much aggravation...all of our cables are in specially placed underfloor conduits so you dont see any cables. We would have had to open up the floor to create even larger conduits to accommodate another full set of Opus cables.)

Regarding its brother, the Altair 2, I really liked the Altair 2, but definitely wished for greater scale and power (big Wilson+).

 

[andromedaaudio]

Would be intrigued to hear the FM system with sub.

This system can scale up like no other cone design can .
Superfast risetime