Wilson Audio Chronosonic XVX First Impressions

I just spent over six hours today listening to my friend's new Wilson Audio Chronosonic XVX loudspeakers. Consistent with being blown away by the Master Chronosonic + Master Subsonic system at Maier Shadi's demo in Santa Monica, and consistent with a couple of reports by people who auditioned at Maier's both the Master Chronosonic and later the XVX and preferred the XVX, I am here to report officially that I think the XVX is now my favorite conventional cone driver speaker system. I think I prefer the XVX even to my longtime favorite dynamic driver loudspeaker, the mighty Rockport Arrakis.

Prior to the XVX, my friend had the Alexx. The height alone of the XVX over the Alexx affords the system the height and scale and grandeur I always notice and appreciate from very tall loudspeakers.

I don't know why the XVX is an order of magnitude better -- next level better -- than the Alexx. But I am certain that it is.

I think the XVX is the first dynamic driver speaker of which I was very aware that you can hear seemingly almost everything at fairly low listening volumes. It doesn't need to be played loudly to be heard comfortably.

In much the same way that people like to applaud their digital playback systems by saying "it sounds like analog," dynamic driver loudspeaker aficionados like to say their cone speakers have "electrostatic-like transparency." Believe me, if most dynamic driver speakers had "electrostatic-like transparency" we would not need electrostatic speakers.

As somebody who loves electrostatic speakers I have always been aware that speakers of other topologies are one or two steps less transparent than electrostatic speakers. I feel like the XVX truly has "electrostatic-like transparency" -- at least credibly so, and more so than any other cone speaker I've ever heard.

Just like I felt about the Master Chronosonic the XVX gives one the sense of unlimited dynamic capability. There is a limitlessness and an effortlessness to the sound that I do not hear from other box speakers. Other heroically inert box speakers sound tightly wrapped or button-downed by comparison -- like some portion of the sound is trapped in the box and having trouble freeing itself. The XVX sounds open somehow -- a sonic presentation I associate with planar speakers, not with big box speakers.

I know, I know, I know. I am thinking and saying the same things you are: these are meaningless statements as you can't compare loudspeakers in different systems from fault-prone memory; you will never be able to hear an XVX versus a Rockport Arrakis, or an XVX versus a VSA Ultra 11, in the same room with the same associated components at the same time, etc., etc. I know, and I agree with you.

All I am saying is that if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to buy a dynamic driver loudspeaker system for my personal system and cost was not a factor. . . I would say take the gun away from my head. Then I would tell you I will order XVX + Master Subsonics.

Without intending to be coy, I couch this is terms of "the XVX is the box speaker I would I buy if I had to buy a box speaker for myself" rather than "the XVX is the best box speaker I've ever heard," because I cannot hear the Von Schweikert Audio Ultra 11 and the Evolution Acoustics MM7 and the Rockport Arrakis and the YG XV in the same room in the same system as the XVX + Subsonics. So it just does not make any sense to declare, and it is analytically defective to declare, that the XVX is the best speaker I have ever heard.

My view that if I had to buy a box speaker I would buy the XVX + Subsonics is a combination of what I heard from the XVX, what I vaguely remember from hearing these other other speakers in other systems, and my slight prejudice against ceramic drivers which I would be worried I might find uncomfortable over a long period of time. (I would worry the same about beryllium drivers and about diamond encrusted drivers.)

I have owned only planar loudspeakers my entire life. I literally couldn't bear to listen to Wilson Audio speakers with metal dome tweeters. I have never been a big fan of Wilson Audio speakers in general. But I thought I heard magic from Maier's demo of the Master Chronosonic, and my experience today proves that that inkling was correct.

I don't know how or what Daryl Wilson did to achieve it, but I am reporting that to my ears the XVX is a very, very special speaker. It is a stunning achievement in dynamic driver loudspeaker design specifically, and in loudspeaker design in general.

PS: Assuming they physically fit in Michael Fremer's listening room, I have no doubt that Michael will upgrade his Alexx to XVX. He might go in not wanting to upgrade, but after hearing these there is no way he's going to be happy without the XVX.

Wilson-XVX.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think your comment is very important for who are going for big Wilsons.
I like Wilson Audio top lines like Wilson WAMM but The challenge of Wilson Speakers is finding a match amplifier with both power/drive and musicality and this is hard to find.
New Wilsons (like XVX) are less efficient (around 7db) than old wilsons (like alexandria I) and this problem is more evidence.
Dave Wilson used 450W VTL monoblock in his showroom. VTL new power amplifiers have adjustable feedback control if I am not mistaken.
I think the only way is going for high power low feedback tube amplifiers like big VTL and cut-off frequency under 38Hz for main speaker and using Wilson Subwoofers under 38Hz.

most Wilson owners do not think about adding Wilson Subwoofers but I think adding wilson subwoofer will help alot.

I believe properly setup Wilson WAMM + Wilson Subwoofer will give us very very good Music experience.
Hi Amir,
There are two approaches, speakers to match the electronics or vice versa. I was in the latter camp owning many inefficient difficult to drive speakers that limited my choice of amplifiers to only high powered ones until I hit the proverbial brick wall with that choice, high powered amplifiers simply didn't sound as good as some of the 50w> ones I heard, those system had magic and naturalness that. IMO and IME never found a high powered amplifier at any price that sounds natural or particularly engaging, irrespective of topology, in fact I even prefer SS amplifiers over tube variants I owned when going that route with inefficient difficult to drive speakers.

I'm not interested in defining or discussing anyone's system preference, my only point is that there's a difference in overall sound and musical experience with a competent lower powered amplifier vs a competent high powered one. For clarity my definition of lower powered is under 50w and competent design topology is pure Class A operation, not pseudo, redefined, reimagined etc.. High powered 200watts and up, any topology. I classify 50-200w amplifiers as mid powered. Of course this is simple classification other's might/will disagree which is fine me.

david
 
Last edited:
XVX is 90+ dB efficient but presents punishing impedance load so needs high current delivering amps. I drive mine with darTzeel NHB 468s. I visited Dave Wilson numerous times and never saw VTL 450s there. He had Siegfrieds but mostly used D’Agostino amps. Whoever wrote that WAMM owners are unhappy is silly.
I wrote it Michael in context of systems and owners I met. I highly recommend you call up the unhappy owners and find out why and which other high end systems they own.then put your argument forward; that they're silly because Fremer the Great said so!

david
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tima
Hi Amir,
There are two approaches, speakers to match the electronics or vice versa. I was in the latter camp owning many inefficient difficult to drive speakers that limited my choice of amplifiers to only high powered ones until I hit the proverbial brick wall with that choice, high powered amplifiers simply didn't sound as good as some of the 50w> ones I heard, those system had magic and naturalness that. IMO and IME never found a high powered amplifier at any price that sounds natural or particularly engaging, irrespective of topology, in fact I even prefer SS amplifiers over tube variants I owned when going that route with inefficient difficult to drive speakers.

I'm not interested in defining or discussing anyone's system preference, my only point is that there's a difference in overall sound and musical experience with a competent lower powered amplifier vs a competent high powered one. For clarity my definition of lower powered is under 50w and competent design topology is pure Class A operation, not pseudo, redefined, reimagined etc.. High powered 200watts and up, any topology. I classify 50-200w amplifiers as mid powered. Of course this is simple classification other's might/will disagree which is fine me.

david

Hi David
I agree you but there are many things that should be considered.

I always told best approach is going for tube/horns like Kondo/Living Voice if you want emotion/soul of music but there are good Solid-state/dynamic Driver Speakers that are very powerful, very accurate and transparent .

for example TAD reference system (D600/C600/M700/R1) or Wadax/Tidal La Assoluta/Vitus MP-M201 are very Transparent and Real . if you have good AC power then you feel power of music in these systems. yes they have less emotion than kondo/living voice but they have more power and are better when the music want rock you.

I do not want choose one to other and I believe I should have both systems for different type of music. for example Roger Waters (Rock music) in TAD and Shajarian Vocal in Living Voice/Kondo.

I have TAD Reference System and I would like order Living Voice/kondo, I should have both systems in my home.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hogen
The XVX is really a nominal 2 ohm loudspeaker as one of the measurement guys stated in a review overseas. The sensitivity is a red herring. Tube amps need not apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tima and bonzo75
(...) are my speaker as easy a load as 97db 7 ohm might indicate? who knows?

IMHO this point it is still not well understood or settled and deserves more attention. It is fundamental to understand all your comments.

we did 400-500 posts back 4 years ago on this subject and beat it to death. i get it. all the usual suspects came back to make the same points. :rolleyes:

And we can expect that will come back regularly until we have proper answers ... :cool:
 
The XVX is really a nominal 2 ohm loudspeaker as one of the measurement guys stated in a review overseas. The sensitivity is a red herring. Tube amps need not apply.

The WAMM's are known to have an impedance similar to the XVX and the VTL Siegfrieds are a great match with them. The more powerful CAT's are also known to sound great in the XVX. Tubes does not mean SET triode ...

Many older Wilson designs also had low impedance and sounded fabulous with Audio Research gear using the 8 ohm tap, that was many times preferred to the 4 ohm tap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tima and Amir
Hi Amir,
There are two approaches, speakers to match the electronics or vice versa. I was in the latter camp owning many inefficient difficult to drive speakers that limited my choice of amplifiers to only high powered ones until I hit the proverbial brick wall with that choice, high powered amplifiers simply didn't sound as good as some of the 50w> ones I heard, those system had magic and naturalness that. IMO and IME never found a high powered amplifier at any price that sounds natural or particularly engaging, irrespective of topology, in fact I even prefer SS amplifiers over tube variants I owned when going that route with inefficient difficult to drive speakers.

I'm not interested in defining or discussing anyone's system preference, my only point is that there's a difference in overall sound and musical experience with a competent lower powered amplifier vs a competent high powered one. For clarity my definition of lower powered is under 50w and competent design topology is pure Class A operation, not pseudo, redefined, reimagined etc.. High powered 200watts and up, any topology. I classify 50-200w amplifiers as mid powered. Of course this is simple classification other's might/will disagree which is fine me.

david

David,

Constellation Audio had similar reserves around high power amplifiers, so they solved the problem intelligently - their power amplifiers use several equal amplifiers connected in series, something that does not affect sound quality.

Let us use our imagination. Assuming we choose to operate the amplifier without any feedback If we connect the output windings of the output transformer of four ML3 in series using the 4 ohms taps we get a 128W composed amplifier with an output impedance of 16 ohm. Should we assume it sounds poor?

Just to say that IMHO if designers wanted to design a medium/high power amplifier with SET sound they could do it easily. They do not do it because they think there is no market for it.
 
IMHO this point it is still not well understood or settled and deserves more attention. It is fundamental to understand all your comments.
why are details about the efficiency and impedance curve of my MM7's important? what is the relevance? fundamental?
And we can expect that will come back regularly until we have proper answers ... ?
what is the relevance of ML3's and the dart preamp? why do we need proper answers. haven't we moved on from that?

where are we hoping to get with this info?

not trying to be argumentative but don't see where this goes.
 
Last edited:
why are details about the efficiency and impedance curve of my MM7's important? what is the relevance? fundamental?

Well, unless we have the data all comments about matching are just audio gossip and nothing can be concluded about the ML3 except that you prefer your DartZeels.

what is the relevance of ML3's and the dart preamp? why do we need proper answers. haven't we moved on from that?
No,we have not, as shown by this thread ... ;) Surely you now do not need proper answers, I bough your ML3's, but I am now trying to sell them and anyone interested in the ML3's looks for the answers.

where are we hoping to get with this info?

We must hope that you manage to get it. After all, you are the major source of information on the MMSeven - Stereophile never carried a formal review of any of their speakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph
what is the relevance of ML3's and the dart preamp? why do we need proper answers.”
ml…the relevance is the lack of the appropriate gain in the dart preamplifier to drive the ML3 amplifiers. It is simple physics ML, the signal presented to ML3s via the dart preamplifier was degraded by over 1/2 of what the Lamm LL1 provides to the ML3…you were driving with your foot firmly planted on the brake; of course :).

dart gain ~11dB
LL1 or LL1.1gain ~17.43
This 6dB + difference, brutal.

Simply, you were trying to place a square peg into a round hole; therefore, making a convenient uninformed confirmation bias.

The lower gain dart preamplifier is designed to appropriately complement the dart amplifiers and synergistically provide a nice sounding solid-state solution.

BTW, I believe that you were the one, again, bringing up your poorly designed experiment as a misleading datapoint.

MS has a good question regarding the impedance curve if your mm7. Is there one available?

vbw,
a
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph and ddk
Just to say that IMHO if designers wanted to design a medium/high power amplifier with SET sound they could do it easily. They do not do it because they think there is no market for it.

Forgive me for responding to this slightly off-topic line of discussion, but my personal amplifier “fantasy” alternative to high-power push-pull is an SET amplifier in the 120 watt to 150 watt range. There is a market for this, and manufacturers do make this product:

SET:
Audio Music 833S Ultima (130w)
NAT Magma HPS (170w)
Trafomatic Drina (140w)
Wavac 833 (150w)

PSET:
Allnic A-10000 (100w)
MastersounD PF-100 Litz (120w)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bonzo75
David,

Constellation Audio had similar reserves around high power amplifiers, so they solved the problem intelligently - their power amplifiers use several equal amplifiers connected in series, something that does not affect sound quality.

Let us use our imagination. Assuming we choose to operate the amplifier without any feedback If we connect the output windings of the output transformer of four ML3 in series using the 4 ohms taps we get a 128W composed amplifier with an output impedance of 16 ohm. Should we assume it sounds poor?

Just to say that IMHO if designers wanted to design a medium/high power amplifier with SET sound they could do it easily. They do not do it because they think there is no market for it.
Francisco,
I can only go by what’s available and what I’ve experienced not make any assumptions what 4 wired up ML3s would be capable of. I have no opinion of Constellation’s connecting of amplifiers for additional power but I have an opinion regarding their sound quality, for me it’s among the least appealing sonically “high end” labeled electronics I’ve heard; we measure success in different terms.

david
 
Last edited:
ml…the relevance is the lack of the appropriate gain in the dart preamplifier to drive the ML3 amplifiers. It is simple physics ML, the signal presented to ML3s via the dart preamplifier was degraded by over 1/2 of what the Lamm LL1 provides to the ML3…you were driving with your foot firmly planted on the brake; of course :).

dart gain ~11dB
LL1 or LL1.1gain ~17.43
This 6dB + difference, brutal.

Simply, you were trying to place a square peg into a round hole; therefore, making a convenient uninformed confirmation bias.

The lower gain dart preamplifier is designed to appropriately complement the dart amplifiers and synergistically provide a nice sounding solid-state solution.

BTW, I believe that you were the one, again, bringing up your poorly designed experiment as a misleading datapoint.

MS has a good question regarding the impedance curve if your mm7. Is there one available?

vbw,
a
Doesn’t make sense to me as 11db is normal gain and the ML3 has a 26db input sensitivity so isn’t tough to drive to full signal?
 
not make any assumptions what 4 wired up ML3s would be capable of.

+1

The high-power SET amplifier manufacturers I cited in Post #413, above, apparently believe that stringing together several low to medium wattage SET amplifiers is not the right way to go.
 
ml…the relevance is the lack of the appropriate gain in the dart preamplifier to drive the ML3 amplifiers. It is simple physics ML, the signal presented to ML3s via the dart preamplifier was degraded by over 1/2 of what the Lamm LL1 provides to the ML3…you were driving with your foot firmly planted on the brake; of course :).

dart gain ~11dB
LL1 or LL1.1gain ~17.43
This 6dB + difference, brutal. (...)

Physics will tell us that we just have to turn the level button a little more, but we shall be able to have the full electrical power with the DartZeel preamplfier,

However, our illusionary perception of power, soundstage and envelopment is due to psycho-acoustics and it is here that the DartZeel preamplifier can fail to bring the ML3 is its full glory . I have owned/or hosted the two versions of the NH18 and IMHO it fails to supply the illumination, the space, some lushness and the bass extra authority needed to make the ML3 sound fully alive.

Please note that I am not ranking or addressing which preamplifier is "better, :eek: just which complements better the ML3!
 
Forgive me for responding to this slightly off-topic line of discussion, but my personal amplifier “fantasy” alternative to high-power push-pull is an SET amplifier in the 120 watt to 150 watt range. There is a market for this, and manufacturers do make this product:

SET:
Audio Music 833S Ultima (130w)
NAT Magma HPS (170w)
Trafomatic Drina (140w)
Wavac 833 (150w)

PSET:
Allnic A-10000 (100w)
MastersounD PF-100 Litz (120w)

As far as I could see from a few available measurements some of these amplifiers are simply euphonic high distortion adders after 30-40W. Some people love them because they use them with high efficiency speakers and typically ask them to peaks around 5W.
 
Francisco,
I can only go by what’s available and what I’ve experienced not make any assumptions what 4 wired up ML3s would be capable of.

Thought experiments can be a source of interesting discussions and sometimes unexpected progress in a subject, your experience would be valuable. Anyway this particular subject transcends this thread I will probably start a separate thread about it soon.

I have no opinion of Constellation’s connecting of amplifiers for additional power but I have an opinion regarding their sound quality, for me it’s among the least appealing sonically “high end” labeled electronics I’ve heard; we measure success in different terms.

david

Yes, we know we have very different preferences.
 
+1

The high-power SET amplifier manufacturers I cited in Post #413, above, apparently believe that stringing together several low to medium wattage SET amplifiers is not the right way to go.

No, some promote using an high power RF triode in non linear zones and not supplying proper specifications to consumers. Fortunately Lamm does just the opposite - they supply comprehensive sets of measurements with their electronics - people know what they get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tima

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing