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.

 

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.

This is out of my depth of understanding. Going back to the review by Martin Colloms, I recall it was something like 4 different frequencies along the spectrum where he measured 1.5-2 ohms resistance...so his conclusion was this is practically a 2.5ohm speaker...and suggested focusing on amps with peak capability of 50a - 100amperes of peak output.

 

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.

Yes it is certainly possible. I once heard a prototype of a tube amp designed by Allen Wright from Vacuumstate to specifically drive 1 ohm Scintillas. It was at Christoph’s back when he had a fully refurbished pair.

 

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.

Early audion silver night 300b pushpull have 2 ohm tap 9hz- 57khz at 20 watt.
really heavy output transformer I think they can handle the load up to a certain volume.

 

Early audion silver night 300b pushpull have 2 ohm tap 9hz- 57khz at 20 watt.
really heavy output transformer I think they can handle the load up to a certain volume.View attachment 99845View attachment 99846View attachment 99848

I doubt it. However, the Music Reference RM100 had a 1 ohm tap, which might have worked.

 

Haha okay

But what has Dr kurt muller to do with it .
Guys and that counts for every manufacturer if scanspeak designed the unit at least give them the credit .
And dont pretend its your design View attachment 84622

Dr. kurt müller manufactures the cones, spider for about 80% of all speaker manufacturers worldwide. no matter whether it written on it scanspeak or accuton.

Dr. Kurt Müller – Engineering Creates Sound

www.kurtmueller.com

 

I doubt it. However, the Music Reference RM100 had a 1 ohm tap, which might have worked.

The ohm tap just refers to the ratio of the windings of the output transformer - although a lower value means more current is also assumes lower voltage. But the critical parameter is output impedance - these low power tube amplifiers typically have significant output impedance - of the order of 2 to 5 ohms, meaning they can not drive the XVX.

Also the manufacturer quoted sensitivity of the speaker is not the efficiency - we can't use it directly to estimate speaker loudness with these tube amps.

 

Upon reading Martin Colloms' article again, he appears to combine his measurements of intense phase angle with the actual resistance...where it appears in 5 different parts of the spectrums there are both difficult phase angles and resistance where he suggests each of these 5 areas is akin to a 1+ohm rating? He does open this entire section of his review by saying that Wilson make no apology and are very transparent about the difficult load of this speaker...while Colloms also makes clear he finds this speaker spectacularly spellbinding in a way he had not heretofore possible.

 

Upon reading Martin Colloms' article again, he appears to combine his measurements of intense phase angle with the actual resistance...where it appears in 5 different parts of the spectrums there are both difficult phase angles and resistance where he suggests each of these 5 areas is akin to a 1+ohm rating? He does open this entire section of his review by saying that Wilson make no apology and are very transparent about the difficult load of this speaker...while Colloms also makes clear he finds this speaker spectacularly spellbinding in a way he had not heretofore possible.

Surely they are a though load - last year Stereophile measurements also showed it. But people are using successfully using them with adequate tube amplifiers - the VTL Siegfried II and ARC high power being some of them.

 

Surely they are a though load - last year Stereophile measurements also showed it. But people are using successfully using them with adequate tube amplifiers - the VTL Siegfried II and ARC high power being some of them.

I have no doubt. But I do think unlike earlier big Wilsons (X1s) where some of the lower-powered amps were able to drive them, today we are focusing on high current, high power. Mainly high current given that their efficiency is quite good?

 

I have no doubt. But I do think unlike earlier big Wilsons (X1s) where some of the lower-powered amps were able to drive them, today we are focusing on high current, high power. Mainly high current given that their efficiency is quite good?

The efficiency is not particularly good, the sensitivity is good. Although for amplifiers with high current capacity this is not relevant for users, for tube or limited current amplifiers the situation is very different.

Remember that a 2.83 VRMS voltage will generate 4W of power in a 2 ohm load.

 

The ohm tap just refers to the ratio of the windings of the output transformer - although a lower value means more current is also assumes lower voltage. But the critical parameter is output impedance - these low power tube amplifiers typically have significant output impedance - of the order of 2 to 5 ohms, meaning they can not drive the XVX.

Also the manufacturer quoted sensitivity of the speaker is not the efficiency - we can't use it directly to estimate speaker loudness with these tube amps.

Read the review in Stereophile. The output impedance on the 1 ohm tap is only about 0.12 ohm. It delivers a lot of current but voltage of course drops and only about 20 watts are available (instead of 100 at higher impedances). Still would get a tough speaker to perhaps behave better...might not sound better though...I have found most tube amps sound better off the 8 ohm tap for whatever reason.

 

You need extremly good output transformer to beat the beast of speaker.But I would take a solid state amp that sounds similar. e.g. pass aleph 0 mono amps.

 

You need extremly good output transformer to beat the beast of speaker.But I would take a solid state amp that sounds similar. e.g. pass aleph 0 mono amps.View attachment 100018

Well that's really the problem...they DON'T sound similar...not if you are sensitive to the real sonic differences between SS amps that KIND OF sound like tubes and tube amps.

 

Well that's really the problem...they DON'T sound similar...not if you are sensitive to the real sonic differences between SS amps that KIND OF sound like tubes and tube amps.

for me they are the exception amplifiers in hifi history pass aleph 0 like krell ksa 50 or gryphon s 100 i could live with them perfectly i would not miss anything with them. they have a special tone that today's devices no longer have in my opinion. that's why i build myself make the sound i love.
P.S my tip use a tube source and pre

 

for me they are the exception amplifiers in hifi history pass aleph 0 like krell ksa 50 or gryphon s 100 i could live with them perfectly i would not miss anything with them. they have a special tone that today's devices no longer have in my opinion. that's why i build myself make the sound i love.
P.S my tip use a tube source and pre

The best amp I have heard with a transistor output stage is the NAT Symbiosis SE, which is a single transistor on the output and a tube input and driver stage. Ran hot as hell but was very close to a good SET in many ways...just not in the very best ways...

The Sphinx Project 14 and 16 were also very good hybrids and I owned a 14 for many years before I finally moved over completely to SET.

 

my secret tip innovative audio se transistor. dynamic, great sound colors open view in the music.

Audio & HiFi gebraucht kaufen | kleinanzeigen.de

Kleinanzeigen: Audio & HiFi gebraucht kaufen - Jetzt in Kassel finden oder inserieren! - kleinanzeigen.de

m.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de

 

A lot harder to integrate though. Btw. If you want good time alignment the woofer columns need to be in front of the main speakers not behind them. Stavros did this right in the Aries Cerat room last year wher he put the subs like 4 meters in front of the main speakers (long folded horns you know) so the Deep bass reached your ears at the same time as the rest of the wave. With your planars you shouldn’t be too far out in front with the woofer tower but somewhat.

Depends on the xover point.

 

Einstein Silver Bullet OTL's 45 watts into 4 ohms were running out of breath. This power level in my opinion is just wrong on these speakers. Unless you're playing only "girl/boy with guitar" I personally would forget about driving these with anything less than 100 to 200 watts (and robust watts at that due to the MartinLogan-like impedance dip).

I think high-power push-pull tubes (especially ones able to be switched into triode mode like ARC and VTL) are good medicine here. VAC should also be wonderful.

If had these speakers I would use my VTL Siegfried IIs.

FWIW I've heard the VTL Siegfried IIIs many times on Arrakis and also CH Precision's best monos as of ~3 years back and it wasn't close, the CH P. was better on all fronts. The VTLs were a reproduction, the CH P. reminded me of a live band when I used to gig many years back, incredibly fast, dynamic - in a phrase, more real. The owner now has the CH P. 10 series which I've yet to hear which I'm told is another quantum leap over the previous CH P. amps.

 

If you want good time alignment the woofer columns need to be in front of the main speakers not behind them. With your planars you shouldn’t be too far out in front with the woofer tower but somewhat.

Then why do Gryphon and Evolution Acoustics place the woofer tower next to and in line with the midrange/tweeter tower on a radius from the listener?

Why does Genesis Advanced Technologies place the woofer towers behind the midrange/tweeter towers?

I assume these loudspeaker companies know about driver time alignment. This tells me there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

 

Then why do Gryphon and Evolution Acoustics place the woofer tower next to and in line with the midrange/tweeter tower on a radius from the listener?

Why does Genesis Advanced Technologies place the woofer towers behind the midrange/tweeter towers?

I assume these loudspeaker companies know about driver time alignment. This tells me there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

not all crossovers are adjustable for time and phase alignment, or "need" to be. Gary's Genesis's do have those adjustments to optimize the location of the bass towers. my Evolutions use a passive first order crossover and so if the bass towers are equi-distant from the listener then you do get a proper time and phase aligned wave launch. but according to my speaker designer having the bass towers behind the passive towers is not a problem, it's just less ideal. not all rooms are wide enough to allow for side by side towers (so they can breathe) considering the mass of the MM7 towers.

large dynamic speaker systems with extreme amounts driver surfaces all have to choose their compromises. some use bass drivers on the sides, twin towers, triple towers, or are LFE limited and meant to be used with subs.