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.

 

No, I don’t have experience with that one. I understand some people feel the old Joule Electras did not exhibit that leanness. But I also understand that nearby fire extinguishers were mandatory.

 

Many thanks for your wonderful feedback. May I ask what size is your friends room? I believe Robert Harley's review will be in the next issue of TAS.

Many thanks for your wonderful feedback. May I ask what size is your friends room? I believe Robert Harley's review will be in the next issue of TAS.

Oh boy, Harley is going to do another review of an audio product with the outcome being very favorable, like the best he has ever heard, top of the line, and highly recommended. No different than any other review in TAS or stereophile.

 

That’s why I no longer read TAS.

 

Thanks for the reply Ron.

Do you have any experience with the Graaf GM20 OTL, and if so did you find that leanness there as well?

I have owned the Graaf GM20 - used with proper speakers it was not lean at all. IMO what many people call OTL leanness is simply the distortion due to the inability of OTLs to supply current in low impedance loads. We could get more current using the GM20 strapped in mono with a dedicated wire assembly, but in my experience such system strongly affected their reliability.

BTW, I can't understand how the Einstein Silver Bullet OTL (OTL, 80W at 12 ohm) can power the Alexx. (from the Stereophile review : 1.44 ohms at 2.9kHz—the impedance remains at or below 3 ohms from 55Hz to 6kHz, and the electrical phase angle (dotted trace) exacerbated the drive difficulty in some regions of the audioband. The combination of 3 ohms magnitude and a phase angle of –44° between 56 and 59Hz will stress amplifiers, as will the combination of 2.2–2.6 ohms and a phase angle of +40° between 4 and 5kHz. Alexx owners need to match the speakers with amplifiers unfazed by very low impedances

 

IMO what many people call OTL leanness is simply the distortion due to the inability of OTLs to supply current in low impedance loads.

I loved the crystalline clarity and transparency of the Einstein OTL Silver Bullet amplifier on the Alexx V. I suspect this "see-through" clarity and transparency is common to OTL amplifiers. Unfortunately for me, I hear this as a kind of "leanness."

When I reported to Ralph Karsten that I appear to like the slight warmth of transformer-coupled tube amplifiers he said that I am enjoying their warm-sounding transformer haze (or words to that effect).

 

I have owned the Graaf GM20 - used with proper speakers it was not lean at all. IMO what many people call OTL leanness is simply the distortion due to the inability of OTLs to supply current in low impedance loads. We could get more current using the GM20 strapped in mono with a dedicated wire assembly, but in my experience such system strongly affected their reliability.

BTW, I can't understand how the Einstein Silver Bullet OTL (OTL, 80W at 12 ohm) can power the Alexx. (from the Stereophile review : 1.44 ohms at 2.9kHz—the impedance remains at or below 3 ohms from 55Hz to 6kHz, and the electrical phase angle (dotted trace) exacerbated the drive difficulty in some regions of the audioband. The combination of 3 ohms magnitude and a phase angle of –44° between 56 and 59Hz will stress amplifiers, as will the combination of 2.2–2.6 ohms and a phase angle of +40° between 4 and 5kHz. Alexx owners need to match the speakers with amplifiers unfazed by very low impedances

Thank you for your input as well. The Graaf is rated at 20W/channel, and I have heard it on a couple different speakers, including a set of early 2000's Martin Logan Odysseys, and it sounded euphoric, albeit not at high volumes but I do not listen at high volumes. It is my understanding the electrostatic panels can be difficult. So that is the background behind my questions. It seems the Einsteins at 80W per channel in mono block form would be similar but "more" all thing being equal. The best option of course would be to be able to hear all these units, but that isn't the case for most of us.

 

No, I don’t have experience with that one. I understand some people feel the old Joule Electras did not exhibit that leanness. But I also understand that nearby fire extinguishers were mandatory.

Joule Electras were considered by some to be even somewhat lush sounding.

I had the Silvaweld OTL reference monos that were also using the 6C33C output tubes (4 per mono) and they had that spooky transparency and were less lean than most other OTLs I heard; however, they were hot as hell and were a real pain to keep properly biased.

I also built a pair of Transcendent Sound Beast OTL monos and those sounded really good but were not happy on my electrostats and would go into oscillation that was a bit scary.

I heard the Einstein OTLs many times and they sound great but with that bit of residual leanness but OMG transparency.

I heard the Graaf GM20 only once on a pair of Reference 3a speakers and my memory was that it was great and the pair with Ref 3a was probably one of the better combos i have heard with a monitor speaker.

Maybe the best sounding OTL I heard was the Tenor Audio OTL monos (75 watt models) on a pair of Dynavox 3.1 horn speakers. That was totally phenomenal and probably the best non-SET amps I have heard (the Silvawelds were close when they were behaving). Their hybrid, which uses the same front tube end as the OTL, is really good but that OTL output stage just blows a SS output stage into the weeds.

Finally, heard Atmasphere a couple of times (but never their Novacron) but always found them a bit lean in tonality but superbly transparent

 

I loved the crystalline clarity and transparency of the Einstein OTL Silver Bullet amplifier on the Alexx V. I suspect this "see-through" clarity and transparency is common to OTL amplifiers. Unfortunately for me, I hear this as a kind of "leanness."

When I reported to Ralph Karsten that I appear to like the slight warmth of transformer-coupled tube amplifiers he said that I am enjoying their warm-sounding transformer haze (or words to that effect).

They don't have to be hazy...I know at least a few that are nearly as invisible as an OTL...but not quite. The transformer does impose some sonic signature on the sound but I don't necessarily think it is linked to the leanness but poor output transformers will make a more "warm and wooly" sound.

As mentioned, Joule Electra was more richly voiced without having output transformers...so OTL doesn't have to be lean.

 

Below is a post from Steve in 2010! Video interviewing among others Vladimir Lamm speaking about Wilson speakers as Steve says...

I see LL21, KJ Leisure have now got a pair of XVX on demo.

 

I see LL21, KJ Leisure have now got a pair of XVX on demo.

Good to know...thanks for that! I have heard the XVX at Absolute Sounds with Robert Koda reference amplification and DCS Apex full-stack digital and TA Opus cabling. Quite an experience!

 

Good to know...thanks for that! I have heard the XVX at Absolute Sounds with Robert Koda reference amplification and DCS Apex full-stack digital and TA Opus cabling. Quite an experience!

Wow! Could you sleep well that night? It is a system I would love to listen!

 

I have been taking my time to consider what I heard...in a room I do not know, but in a system where the amplification and cables are what we essentially drive with the XLF, and where the DCS Apex is based on the original Vivaldi stack which I have heard several times over the years (including with TA and XLF) but never auditioned at home. And of course, we brought our own CDs.

Overall, my main listening note is that the XVX presents a deceptively powerful, natural midrange. I am no techie but I have to imagine some part of that is due to the fact that they literally have more mid-focused cone coverage than before (an extra 4-inch dedicated cone per channel). I also heard a slightly different emphasis in bass (more upper bass emphasis rather than the great 'welly' down below...though it was very articulate down below...the key is this could have been the room so I would slightly discount this observation.)

Coming back to that deceptively powerful natural midrange, what it does in a smaller way is something akin to my first impression of hearing the big Genesis Ones...where the Genesis Ones presented a MASSIVELY powerful natural and effortless midrange, rendering big Wilsons, or Grande EM Utopias into something more like Sashas. The Genesis Ones' immense scale of air movement (or whatever the correct science is) gave an effortless grace you did not realize you were hearing unless you'd done an A/B comparison and realized how 'puny' other speakers sound...or unless you have really spent a lot of time with your big speakers and 'know' that they could never do what the Genesis Ones do in terms of that effortless scale beyond scale.

And so we come back to the comparatively diminutive XVX...it presents a significantly more powerful natural midrange, but where (unlike the Genesis Ones) in the absence of a direct comparison, you really need to process over and over what you are hearing to make proper mental notes and comparisons in your mind about it. For me, I do conclude on this first hearing that it is presenting a significantly more powerful, natural midrange which opens up lots of possibilities for scale and with the accompanying dual subs, REAL scale because the add foundation from the bass is matched by now a significantly greater mid and upper presentation.

In terms of the quality of that mids/upper, I think that the very very nuanced way Darryl designs his speakers combined with his commitment to add midrange air movement and further dedicated cones to that area has created a far more capable, powerful and effortless presentation of music that is combined with his own personal flair for natural organic tonal qualities and nuance. A very special combination indeed.

If one is looking for this, I find the XVX exceptional. For me personally, combined with the Wilson adjustability in the right artful and technical hands, the XVX is a champion, capable of taking on lots of comers (including from different technologies in cone and panel) and besting them either directly or in the overall package. (I have not enough experience in cones.) It has both a saturation of music color, detail and also intense alacrity that combined into one is deceptive in how powerful, deep, saturated and yet nuanced, and utterly instant it all is.

However, it is about priorities...and for me, I find that the nuance of the XLFs and their ability to scale is excellent...and for me, I remain more focused on driving the best out of the XLFs (plus see bass foundation below) than about what the XVXs can do better. The wonderful things they do better are not the ultimate priority for me at the moment. For me, all out scale at the lower end of the spectrum...the bass foundation...is where my head is at today because having experienced what happens when that scale is right (ie, the potential to transform sound in a way I have not found in mids/upper changes) my primary focus is on getting the XLFs to sing in the mids as beautifully as they can and then support that from underneath in the very deepest lower registers to give it great scale/foundation in terms of spacial cues and foundational bass power.

 

I have been taking my time to consider what I heard...in a room I do not know, but in a system where the amplification and cables are what we essentially drive with the XLF, and where the DCS Apex is based on the original Vivaldi stack which I have heard several times over the years (including with TA and XLF) but never auditioned at home. And of course, we brought our own CDs.

Overall, my main listening note is that the XVX presents a deceptively powerful, natural midrange. I am no techie but I have to imagine some part of that is due to the fact that they literally have more mid-focused cone coverage than before (an extra 4-inch dedicated cone per channel). I also heard a slightly different emphasis in bass (more upper bass emphasis rather than the great 'welly' down below...though it was very articulate down below...the key is this could have been the room so I would slightly discount this observation.)

Coming back to that deceptively powerful natural midrange, what it does in a smaller way is something akin to my first impression of hearing the big Genesis Ones...where the Genesis Ones presented a MASSIVELY powerful natural and effortless midrange, rendering big Wilsons, or Grande EM Utopias into something more like Sashas. The Genesis Ones' immense scale of air movement (or whatever the correct science is) gave an effortless grace you did not realize you were hearing unless you'd done an A/B comparison and realized how 'puny' other speakers sound...or unless you have really spent a lot of time with your big speakers and 'know' that they could never do what the Genesis Ones do in terms of that effortless scale beyond scale.

And so we come back to the comparatively diminutive XVX...it presents a significantly more powerful natural midrange, but where (unlike the Genesis Ones) in the absence of a direct comparison, you really need to process over and over what you are hearing to make proper mental notes and comparisons in your mind about it. For me, I do conclude on this first hearing that it is presenting a significantly more powerful, natural midrange which opens up lots of possibilities for scale and with the accompanying dual subs, REAL scale because the add foundation from the bass is matched by now a significantly greater mid and upper presentation.

In terms of the quality of that mids/upper, I think that the very very nuanced way Darryl designs his speakers combined with his commitment to add midrange air movement and further dedicated cones to that area has created a far more capable, powerful and effortless presentation of music that is combined with his own personal flair for natural organic tonal qualities and nuance. A very special combination indeed.

If one is looking for this, I find the XVX exceptional. For me personally, combined with the Wilson adjustability in the right artful and technical hands, the XVX is a champion, capable of taking on lots of comers (including from different technologies in cone and panel) and besting them either directly or in the overall package. (I have not enough experience in cones.) It has both a saturation of music color, detail and also intense alacrity that combined into one is deceptive in how powerful, deep, saturated and yet nuanced, and utterly instant it all is.

However, it is about priorities...and for me, I find that the nuance of the XLFs and their ability to scale is excellent...and for me, I remain more focused on driving the best out of the XLFs (plus see bass foundation below) than about what the XVXs can do better. The wonderful things they do better are not the ultimate priority for me at the moment. For me, all out scale at the lower end of the spectrum...the bass foundation...is where my head is at today because having experienced what happens when that scale is right (ie, the potential to transform sound in a way I have not found in mids/upper changes) my primary focus is on getting the XLFs to sing in the mids as beautifully as they can and then support that from underneath in the very deepest lower registers to give it great scale/foundation in terms of spacial cues and foundational bass power.

In your pursuit of possibly changing your Sub bass system, have you considered the new next generation Wilson Benesch infrasonic generators? i do like the fact they don't use a plate amp.

 

I have been taking my time to consider what I heard...in a room I do not know, but in a system where the amplification and cables are what we essentially drive with the XLF, and where the DCS Apex is based on the original Vivaldi stack which I have heard several times over the years (including with TA and XLF) but never auditioned at home. And of course, we brought our own CDs.

Overall, my main listening note is that the XVX presents a deceptively powerful, natural midrange. I am no techie but I have to imagine some part of that is due to the fact that they literally have more mid-focused cone coverage than before (an extra 4-inch dedicated cone per channel). I also heard a slightly different emphasis in bass (more upper bass emphasis rather than the great 'welly' down below...though it was very articulate down below...the key is this could have been the room so I would slightly discount this observation.)

Coming back to that deceptively powerful natural midrange, what it does in a smaller way is something akin to my first impression of hearing the big Genesis Ones...where the Genesis Ones presented a MASSIVELY powerful natural and effortless midrange, rendering big Wilsons, or Grande EM Utopias into something more like Sashas. The Genesis Ones' immense scale of air movement (or whatever the correct science is) gave an effortless grace you did not realize you were hearing unless you'd done an A/B comparison and realized how 'puny' other speakers sound...or unless you have really spent a lot of time with your big speakers and 'know' that they could never do what the Genesis Ones do in terms of that effortless scale beyond scale.

And so we come back to the comparatively diminutive XVX...it presents a significantly more powerful natural midrange, but where (unlike the Genesis Ones) in the absence of a direct comparison, you really need to process over and over what you are hearing to make proper mental notes and comparisons in your mind about it. For me, I do conclude on this first hearing that it is presenting a significantly more powerful, natural midrange which opens up lots of possibilities for scale and with the accompanying dual subs, REAL scale because the add foundation from the bass is matched by now a significantly greater mid and upper presentation.

In terms of the quality of that mids/upper, I think that the very very nuanced way Darryl designs his speakers combined with his commitment to add midrange air movement and further dedicated cones to that area has created a far more capable, powerful and effortless presentation of music that is combined with his own personal flair for natural organic tonal qualities and nuance. A very special combination indeed.

If one is looking for this, I find the XVX exceptional. For me personally, combined with the Wilson adjustability in the right artful and technical hands, the XVX is a champion, capable of taking on lots of comers (including from different technologies in cone and panel) and besting them either directly or in the overall package. (I have not enough experience in cones.) It has both a saturation of music color, detail and also intense alacrity that combined into one is deceptive in how powerful, deep, saturated and yet nuanced, and utterly instant it all is.

However, it is about priorities...and for me, I find that the nuance of the XLFs and their ability to scale is excellent...and for me, I remain more focused on driving the best out of the XLFs (plus see bass foundation below) than about what the XVXs can do better. The wonderful things they do better are not the ultimate priority for me at the moment. For me, all out scale at the lower end of the spectrum...the bass foundation...is where my head is at today because having experienced what happens when that scale is right (ie, the potential to transform sound in a way I have not found in mids/upper changes) my primary focus is on getting the XLFs to sing in the mids as beautifully as they can and then support that from underneath in the very deepest lower registers to give it great scale/foundation in terms of spacial cues and foundational bass power.

I believe you immediately, that the xvx sounds excellent, but without a reasonable on-site calibration service, I imagine it would be difficult because there are too many adjustment screws with the speaker. That can quickly degenerate into frustration if you don't know what you're doing.
there comes the second problem, the right amplifier, sorry, i prefer loudspeakers that make excellent music with a large number of amplifiers. with wilson i liked the sabrina or sasha better because they are easier to integrate and my ears play more homogeneously. is probably because they move heights, mids and bass closer together in ear height.
Nice exsample for that

 

I believe you immediately, that the xvx sounds excellent, but without a reasonable on-site calibration service, I imagine it would be difficult because there are too many adjustment screws with the speaker. That can quickly degenerate into frustration if you don't know what you're doing.
there comes the second problem, the right amplifier, sorry, i prefer loudspeakers that make excellent music with a large number of amplifiers. with wilson i liked the sabrina or sasha better because they are easier to integrate and my ears play more homogeneously. is probably because they move heights, mids and bass closer together in ear height.
Nice exsample for that

Yes, I agree that the door swings both ways...extreme adjustability also means it can go REALLY wrong if you dont know what you're doing (I dont)...so we leave it to Absolute Sounds, and they are masterful. Truly masterful.

As for amplification...I know that some of the Wilsons have been extremely easy loads and others extremely difficult. It seems the big Wilsons have moved from easy to hard beginning with the 6ohm, 95db X1/Grand SLAMM to the current XVX. Fortunately, for many reasons, I also focused my time after the 60-watt CJ MV60 amp to extremely musical high powered amps in order to have complete flexibility of speaker choice...particularly including the Rockport Arrakis.

So here we are...and listening to the Robert Kodas (235 Watts pure Class A into 4ohms) and the XVX. For a first listen, very promising.

 

In your pursuit of possibly changing your Sub bass system, have you considered the new next generation Wilson Benesch infrasonic generators? i do like the fact they don't use a plate amp.

Thank you! Remember hearing and reading great things about the original infrasonic sub from Wilson Benesch...will look into this one which I believe came out as a new version last year?

 

I believe you immediately, that the xvx sounds excellent, but without a reasonable on-site calibration service, I imagine it would be difficult because there are too many adjustment screws with the speaker. That can quickly degenerate into frustration if you don't know what you're doing.

If some one wants to read the excellent manuals with care the screw set up is extremely simple and logical. When my distributor brought the XLF's we prepared a sheet with the details of all the screw choices, it was a quick assembly. Surely having a dealer to do it is the easy way. But I think many WBF members are wanting to go through this type of work!

there comes the second problem, the right amplifier, sorry, i prefer loudspeakers that make excellent music with a large number of amplifiers. with wilson i liked the sabrina or sasha better because they are easier to integrate and my ears play more homogeneously. is probably because they move heights, mids and bass closer together in ear height.
Nice exsample for that

In fact, most amplifiers will drive the XVX - SE and tube amplifiers with limited current capacity and high output impedance are popular in WBF, but as soon as we go in the outer world they are the majority.

 

Yes, I agree that the door swings both ways...extreme adjustability also means it can go REALLY wrong if you dont know what you're doing (I dont)...so we leave it to Absolute Sounds, and they are masterful. Truly masterful.

As for amplification...I know that some of the Wilsons have been extremely easy loads and others extremely difficult. It seems the big Wilsons have moved from easy to hard beginning with the 6ohm, 95db X1/Grand SLAMM to the current XVX. Fortunately, for many reasons, I also focused my time after the 60-watt CJ MV60 amp to extremely musical high powered amps in order to have complete flexibility of speaker choice...particularly including the Rockport Arrakis.

So here we are...and listening to the Robert Kodas (235 Watts pure Class A into 4ohms) and the XVX. For a first listen, very promising.

yes... change to scanspeak focal no longer sells to outside companies and the production of the series is stopped. a pity very good efficiency and quality.
@microstrip
I would also do it myself because I have a measuring device but not everyone has it at home. with ears only works up to a certain point, then it's over. I bet a good lunch, I reverse polarity one of the three midrange drivers and you won't hear it. Therefore, listening to the super ...control is better

 

yes... change to scanspeak focal no longer sells to outside companies and the production of the series is stopped. a pity very good efficiency and quality.
@microstrip
I would also do it myself because I have a measuring device but not everyone has it at home. with ears only works up to a certain point, then it's over. I bet a good lunch, I reverse polarity one of the three midrange drivers and you won't hear it. Therefore, listening to the super ...control is better

I just read Martin Colloms review of the XVX...thorough as always and will undoubtedly re-read...though do not fully follow the technical discussions. That said, it certainly seemed clear he was basically describing the XVX as a 2ohm speaker, and he noted that even 4ohm-ready tube amps will have some hurdles ahead of them to really drive this speaker fully. There were multiple points across the spectrum where he was measuring in the 2+/- ohm load range.

 

I just read Martin Colloms review of the XVX...thorough as always and will undoubtedly re-read...though do not fully follow the technical discussions. That said, it certainly seemed clear he was basically describing the XVX as a 2ohm speaker, and he noted that even 4ohm-ready tube amps will have some hurdles ahead of them to really drive this speaker fully. There were multiple points across the spectrum where he was measuring in the 2+/- ohm load range.

Surely we need a tube design that can supply current - not all of them can do it. Curiously Martin Colloms amplifier reviews explicitly measured peak current and reported it - Stereophile does not list it, we have to compute it from their data.