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:
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.
Interesting. Are you saying that your subs are crossed at 6 dB per octave slop (1st order)? That would mean that they would be quite audible throughout the midrange. Unusual.
 
[Are you seeing my audio "bio" in this thread? If so I have no idea how the heck it got here. I cannot seem to delete it from this thread.

If you are not seeing what I am seeing I will delete this post.]
 
Interesting. Are you saying that your subs are crossed at 6 dB per octave slop (1st order)? That would mean that they would be quite audible throughout the midrange. Unusual.
only for the main tower. sub towers are only under 40hz. but the main towers are rolled off below 40hz.
 
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.
Because those designs are not time coherent and so placement of the woofers won’t make them more or less coherent…but if your speaker is time coherent putting the subs in the right location matters a lot.
 
Because those designs are not time coherent and so placement of the woofers won’t make them more or less coherent…but if your speaker is time coherent putting the subs in the right location matters a lot.
And which big passive loudspeakers you know are time coherent?
And if your answer is none, how would you know it "matters a lot"?
 
I think it appropriate time to re-post John Atkinson usual note 2 in speaker reviews:

"Footnote 2: I should clear up some readers' confusion about my use of the terms "time-coherent" and "time-coincident" with multiway loudspeakers. The latter means that the outputs of the drive-units arrive at the nominal listening/microphone position at the same time. The step response is therefore a right triangle—a vertical rise from zero with then a slow decay to the timeline. This is very difficult to arrange—the only dynamic speakers I have measured that were truly time-coincident have been various Spicas, Thiels, Dunlavys, and Vandersteens. By "time-coherent," I mean that when the crossover's phase shift in the crossover region and the different distances of the acoustic centers of the drive-units from the listening/microphone position are taken into account, the result is a step response where the decay of each unit's step smoothly blends with the start of the step of the next lower in frequency. To the ear, the difference between perfect time-coincidence and perfect time coherence is relatively minor. "
 
Why? So you can attempt to pick it apart…no thanks…
Was not my intent, I am looking for real information on the subject. As JA said, there are only a handful of loudspeakers he ever measured that can claim time coherency. All small, but Dunlevy, which is long gone. Such a buzz word, yet not much support for any claims made.
 
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
So your Wilson dealer will set the XVX up for you. Can’t buy them any other way, actually.

As far as amp pairing, the XVX are more sensitive (92 dB) than the Sabrina X (87 dB) or Sasha (91 dB), so the XVX are significantly easier to drive, not harder.
If you’re trying to justify reasons to not buy the XVX, cross these off your list. ;)
 
So your Wilson dealer will set the XVX up for you. Can’t buy them any other way, actually.

As far as amp pairing, the XVX are more sensitive (92 dB) than the Sabrina X (87 dB) or Sasha (91 dB), so the XVX are significantly easier to drive, not harder.
If you’re trying to justify reasons to not buy the XVX, cross these off your
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
The XVX need room to breath and do deserve top shelf everything. I auditioned them in 2 locations (2 different states in US). The first audition was poor do to the room and a very poor cobbled together choice of electronics. The second audition was spectacular with a great room and very good electronics. They deserve the best, its not called a system approach for nothing. Compared to less expensive Wilsons i think it highly depends on the room.
 

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 Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing