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:
A decade ago Peter McGrath used Lamm M2.1 with the MAXX3 - a 90dB/W speaker known to be hard to drive properly - at home and said great things about the pairing.

That same decade ago (actually 2012 & 2013) in the large Lamm room at CES, the MAXX 3s were driven with a pair of ML3s.

Lamm CES 2013 Maxx3 ML3.jpg
 
Thanks- great looking, but as far as I could see it is a classical pushpull design, not a SET.
View attachment 99407

VTL also manufactured a 1250W beast in the past, the Wotan. I almost got a pair long ago, they were being sold very cheap 50 km away from me. But fortunately the weight and size forced me in reason ... I stayed with the MB750 for long, just 12 power tubes each, half of the Wotan.
When want clean amplification at 200watt you need more power i think under 0.5% distortion even large set amps are already 10 times higher.
if there are such set amps at all the output transformer is huge filled with oil for isolation. there is no needle eye.
20221025_065001.jpg
 
I am not addressing bridging, that needs phase inversion. I am addressing connecting the independent windings in series, running the amplifiers in parallel. As long as we do not have feedback from the output transformer, the secondary is floating, making this possible.

If the amps could handle current then you’d would have a 16ohm - 32ohm tap depending on config.
 
for the people the set 20 watts is not enough. PWL amps exceptional component quality. go to poland.
 
when Dave Wilson and Vladimir Lamm were alive , it was nice If they designed/corporate together to have best matching between WAMM or Alexandria and a special model of Lamm for Alexandria.
Both Lamm and Wilson were great designers but the main problem is matching of amplifier and speaker.
imagine Lamm had a special amplifier only for Alexandria , wow

I think matching sometimes is more important than each component. the best sound come from best matching , Living Voice deigned his horn with kondo 300b pushpull. TAD designed his amplifier for R1.
 
when Dave Wilson and Vladimir Lamm were alive , it was nice If they designed/corporate together to have best matching between WAMM or Alexandria and a special model of Lamm for Alexandria.
Both Lamm and Wilson were great designers but the main problem is matching of amplifier and speaker.
imagine Lamm had a special amplifier only for Alexandria , wow

I think matching sometimes is more important than each component. the best sound come from best matching , Living Voice deigned his horn with kondo 300b pushpull. TAD designed his amplifier for R1.
Or, what if Dave Wilson had designed a speaker specifically for the ML2 or ML3? Would he be able to get past his biases to do so?? Lamm had already demonstrated that he was not absolutely married to SET given he designed a line of push/pull hybrids, which to my ears don't sound nearly as good as the SETs but at least he tried... one would think those hybrids would be the perfect marriage for Wilson...but are they??
 
Or, what if Dave Wilson had designed a speaker specifically for the ML2 or ML3? Would he be able to get past his biases to do so?? Lamm had already demonstrated that he was not absolutely married to SET given he designed a line of push/pull hybrids, which to my ears don't sound nearly as good as the SETs but at least he tried... one would think those hybrids would be the perfect marriage for Wilson...but are they??
Dave Wilson was not a horn designer and dynamic driver full range speakers are not good for Lamm ML3.
For SET amplification the only way is quad amping and designing 4 pairs of custom ML3 for bass/midbass/mid/high and a solidstate for sub bass.

two Solidstate Monoblock for Wilson Subwoofer under 40hz
two ML3 optimized for bass 40hz - 100hz -> bass driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midbass 100hz - 500hz -> midbass driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midrange 500hz - 5000hz -> midrange driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midrange 5000hz - 20000hz -> HF driver WAMM


it will be dream system with no dynamic loss
 
Last edited:
Dave Wilson was not a horn designer and dynamic driver full range speakers are not good for Lamm ML3.
For SET amplification the only way is quad amping and designing 4 pairs of custom ML3 for bass/midbass/mid/high and a solidstate for sub bass.

two Solidstate Monoblock for Wilson Subwoofer under 40hz
two ML3 optimized for bass 40hz - 100hz -> bass driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midbass 100hz - 500hz -> midbass driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midrange 500hz - 5000hz -> midrange driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midrange 5000hz - 20000hz -> HF driver WAMM

Two different amplifiers (and totally different amplifier topologies), and four amplifiers of the same model each with a different tuned circuit, suggests a mess to me.

From where does the strength of your dogma arise?

A blanket statement such as “dynamic driver full range speakers are not good for Lamm ML3” is, to me, incorrect on its face. This is a matter of sensitivity and impedance matching. It is not a matter of universal maxim.
 
Ron

please be kind and let here be peaceful , Peoples have different ideas and you can share your opposite ideas, please regard different views.

if you think ML3 is good for Wilson WAMM then many audiophiles never find this combination perfect. my friend listened to WAMM twice and not liked it.

using crossover between pre and power and bi-amping or quad amping is very good approach for increasing dynamics/Scale and separation.

did you have any experience with multi amping ?
 
Or, what if Dave Wilson had designed a speaker specifically for the ML2 or ML3? Would he be able to get past his biases to do so?? Lamm had already demonstrated that he was not absolutely married to SET given he designed a line of push/pull hybrids, which to my ears don't sound nearly as good as the SETs but at least he tried... one would think those hybrids would be the perfect marriage for Wilson...but are they??

The best amplifier I’ve ever heard on a Magico speaker was the hybrid Lamm M1.1. It was on my difficult to drive Magico Q3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph
Dave Wilson was not a horn designer and dynamic driver full range speakers are not good for Lamm ML3.

I heard the full range dynamic speaker Mitsubishi Diatone on the SET Lamm ML2. It sounded unbelievably good. Perhaps the best sound I’ve ever heard from a cone speaker.
 
if you think ML3 is good for Wilson WAMM then many audiophiles never find this combination perfect. my friend listened to WAMM twice and not liked it.

using crossover between pre and power and bi-amping or quad amping is very good approach for increasing dynamics/Scale and separation.

did you have any experience with multi amping ?

Suggesting that I think ML3 is good for Wilson WAMM is disingenuous, and far from what I wrote.

Yes, I have had some experience with multi-amping. I, personally, have no problem sonically with solid-state on the woofer and tubes on the midrange and tweeter. (In general I am not very sensitive to sonic discontinuities.) But plenty of audiophiles do not care for the sound resulting from mixing amplifiers in the same system.

In your proposed system I think I am counting four (4) crossovers. In general I am of the view that adding crossovers — and the discontinuities that come with them and the parts and circuitry they require — makes it harder to achieve a holistic sound, does not increase organicness, and does not improve emotional engagement.
 
Last edited:
Dave Wilson was not a horn designer and dynamic driver full range speakers are not good for Lamm ML3.
For SET amplification the only way is quad amping and designing 4 pairs of custom ML3 for bass/midbass/mid/high and a solidstate for sub bass.

two Solidstate Monoblock for Wilson Subwoofer under 40hz
two ML3 optimized for bass 40hz - 100hz -> bass driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midbass 100hz - 500hz -> midbass driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midrange 500hz - 5000hz -> midrange driver WAMM
two ML3 optimised for midrange 5000hz - 20000hz -> HF driver WAMM


it will be dream system with no dynamic loss
Dear Amir,
Over the past 24-25 years I’ve done many installations with Lamm ML2 and ML3 amps, try a pair of Kharma Midi Exquisites with the ML3 and hear how well they work together.

david
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amir
Dear David
I love both Lamm ML3 and Kondo 300B and I told before these two amplifiers are absolute king of High End Tube Amplifiers. I have listened to kharma Midi Exquisite over 100 times with Vitus 50w Class A and dCS Scarlatti , the sound was very good in small to medium size rooms when AC quality was good. I know This model of Kharma has good sound with Vitus Class A amplifier. I did not Listened to Kharma/Lamm ML3 and I agree you this combination is good but what I think about good sound is different to perfect sound.
I agree you Kharma/ML3 is very good but I can not believe the dynamics/pace/scale is perfect.
I have listened to many many systems drived by Single ended tube amplifiers and some of those installation sound was very good is some area but not never perfect in dynamics.
I like musical/Magical sound but perfect sound is not about only Musicality.

dynamics to me means big scale, super fast jump , slow decay , feeling unlimited power in music , deep bass , right sense of timing pace and separation, life , energy.
You can not hear what i described in most systems because perfect dynamics is very AC quality dependent. Most audiophiles use high impedance wall AC supply shared between many different loads.
Audiophiles do not care about dynamics because dynamics is not very important to ears.
Tone , harmonics , frequency extension , transparency is more important for audiophiles and dynamics is the last priority for them.



Ron Resnick
I did not have good sound from bi-amping of two different amplifier , I know it is awful and some even believes biwire cables are not good for sound but I believe quad amping or tri amping or bi amping when both speaker (wilson) and amplifier (lamm) designers work together could give us good result. I did not say 4 different amplifier is good for wilson wamm.
I think proper multi amping of SETs will help alot for having perfect dynamics.
putting crossover after power amplifier is not good idea . It is better to put crossover between pre and power , it will help alot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MadFloyd
Dear David
I love both Lamm ML3 and Kondo 300B and I told before these two amplifiers are absolute king of High End Tube Amplifiers. I have listened to kharma Midi Exquisite over 100 times with Vitus 50w Class A and dCS Scarlatti , the sound was very good in small to medium size rooms when AC quality was good. I know This model of Kharma has good sound with Vitus Class A amplifier. I did not Listened to Kharma/Lamm ML3 and I agree you this combination is good but what I think about good sound is different to perfect sound.
I agree you Kharma/ML3 is very good but I can not believe the dynamics/pace/scale is perfect.
You should try the Kharmas with an all Lamm system fed by a proper analog front end, you might change your mind.

I have listened to many many systems drived by Single ended tube amplifiers and some of those installation sound was very good is some area but not never perfect in dynamics.
I like musical/Magical sound but perfect sound is not about only Musicality.

dynamics to me means big scale, super fast jump , slow decay , feeling unlimited power in music , deep bass , right sense of timing pace and separation, life , energy.
Agree, many SE amplifiers leave quite a lot to be desired, I'm only talking about Lamm.

david
You can not hear what i described in most systems because perfect dynamics is very AC quality dependent. Most audiophiles use high impedance wall AC supply shared between many different loads.
Audiophiles do not care about dynamics because dynamics is not very important to ears.
Tone , harmonics , frequency extension , transparency is more important for audiophiles and dynamics is the last priority for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amir

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