That is why I said "my subjective opinion", just as well as what you just stated, that is your subjective opinion. Have a nice day.
Magico M9 vs. Magico Ultimate 3 Horn- Box vs. Horn! Which will be better? In which ways?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
On the contrary, to what many audiophiles believe, DSP and acoustic treatment is a very potent combination. I think that the main reason why DSP is underestimated by quite a few audiophiles in lacking transparency, is the quality of various frequency domain corrections are highly variable, and you can almost talk about a tradition where mediocre frequency correction is established as the norm. So it is not the DSP itself that gives some people the feeling that it is not sufficiently transparent, but improper use of the DSP itself.
For some strange reason many audiophiles seem to believe that fixing baffle step issues, driver issues and Allison effect issues (SBIR) using high power resistors, capacitors and inductors inside the speaker is as good as it can get. And that doing the same think in the digital domain (DSP) with far greater resolution and flexibility, and without the heat buildup and distortion associated with passive crossover components is a less puristic solution. Go figure.
For some strange reason many audiophiles seem to believe that fixing baffle step issues, driver issues and Allison effect issues (SBIR) using high power resistors, capacitors and inductors inside the speaker is as good as it can get. And that doing the same think in the digital domain (DSP) with far greater resolution and flexibility, and without the heat buildup and distortion associated with passive crossover components is a less puristic solution. Go figure.
Physical time alignment! Always pursue physical time alignment at this level. An ultra high-end speaker that does not have the ability to time-align drivers is a massive miss.
The problem with digital correction is that it’s a “band-aid” solution that comes with big dras backs.
First, forget about analog sources, as you are negating all the analog “magic” present on the vinyl record or tape - you converting not once, but twice, to and from digital.
Second, even with a digital source, you are now negating all the benefits of a high-end DAC, since you are converting back to digital and then back to analog.
Digital correction is great for a speaker or system that’s modest in price and wants to outperform; but when you are looking at six-figure++ systems, always go for a physical time, and phase, aligned system. It’s well worth the effort!
Interesting that you say this, the drivers in your multi-way driver speakers do not appear to be physically time aligned:
With such strong assured statements, care to pprovide the time alignment measurements.
Strong convictions often lead to exposure of deficiencies.
After hearing all the latest wilsons in Munich i beg to differ.
I dont want my speakers to sound like that
You mean because Wilson do spend a lot of time trying to time align their drivers yet they were universally poor sounding at Munich?
Yes they sounded very disappointing at the show
Thin unnatural even sharp at occasions .
Completely different voicing as to what i heard from the big wilsons many years ago .
May be i have changed thats also possible , my speakers are different now and my system has changed over the years
I m not really worried about time alignment in my designs .
May be somebody else thinks mine sound crap , everything is possible off course
Of course my horns are time aligned. Each horn/driver can be physically adjusted to ensure alignment at the listening position.
The Wilson XVX were voted Best in Show in Munich in the Nagra room.
Time and phase alignment is Speaker Design 101. For a $1000 speaker, it’s not feasible. But at $700K there’s no excuse. Are the M9 time-aligned? Don’t see how but maybe I’m missing something?
I have heard great things about the XVX...that said I have never heard them myself.
I am curious...having heard the X1 series, X2 and XLF...which of the older big Wilsons did you like better than what you heard from the XVX at Munich?
The ones with the Focal audiom woofers MAXX 2 Alexandria (they also have the Focal tw .)
Its been awhile so if i heard them now , i might have a different opinion .
The last wilsons i heard before munchen were WP 8 and WP 7 s .
I never heard the X1 or XLF
To my ears there is nothing wrong with the focal inverted dome tw .
I think the use of the new paper pulp woofers plays also a part .
No real bottom end so your focus is forced on higher freq s.
I think the Rockport Lyra , Kharma and Kroma were much better / balanced sounding.
Last edited:
Very interesting...I was surprised about the smaller cone area of the WAMM and XVX woofer section, but I am no designer.
At the same time, having heard all of the Titanium dome versions (X1, X2...all 5 versions), Maxx 1, 2 and 3 for the bigger Wilsons, I also found a lot to like...my favorite being the X1 Series 3 voice-wise, despite subsequent generations having better technical performance. That said, I found the XLF a more complete version of the X1 series 3 both voice-wise and technically by far. It felt the full 15-18-years newer as compared to the original X1s.
I will certainly listen to the XVX with great interest.
Just physically aligning drivers does not yield time nor phase alignment, other conditions need to be met as well . Wilson measurements have proven that over and over, none are time nor phase aligned (Not that it matters for SQ). That's a “Speaker Design 101” course
Last edited:
Best of show by whom? XVX is not truly time aligned…crossover is all wrong to get the phase right. No phase no time alignment…
Only really liked the old X1s… Heard two XVX setups in Munich … the one with Nagra was far from the best show sound…it sounded surprisingly lacking in big power and feeling of grand scale.
I too preferred the old Focal Ti inverted dome tweeter better.
Interesting, Morricab. I really really liked the X1 Series 3 the best and for years...could never get myself to love the X2s though I respect and admire many audiophiles who do and own them, and no doubt have gotten tremendous sound/music out of them. And also recognize they have some seriously strong technical merit when it came to how quiet the speaker was.
However, my very first thought at my very first experience with the XLF with a system I knew well in the same room as I had auditioned for years...was 'this is what the X1 was originally conceived to sound like'. It is an X1 voice made better, more solidly, more robustly, with greater resolve, more resolute and confident as well as more effortless.
That said, I have heard enormous praise for Darryl Wilson and his talent for designing speakers. And there are many new converts the other way towards Wilson because of his most recent designs, and so I am intrigued to hear the XVX for myself.
The XLF is a great speaker, IMHO miles ahead of previous versions. In a proper system with a quality set up it presents the coherency of a single panel electrostatic like the SoundLab A1 with great dynamics at full range. I loved the wat it can switch from an enormous soundstage spread far beyond the speakers to an intimate small acoustic space.
Me too--do you think it was the shot filled Tube trap in the magnet the "panacea?"
BruceD
Similar threads
- Sticky
