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.

 

I've been wondering about Shakti's tall Avalons as well, with the MTM >5' off ground.

I heard the Isis many times in a not so big room. While it felt a bit strange to see the tweeters way up there, I did not feel the stage is annoyingly high.

 

i wonder why it was to a lesser extent with the XLF/X2...is it because the XVX tweeter/mids are physically higher...or is it because the setup of the speakers to listening positioning was not done correctly?

For example, from memory, when we listen to piano recordings where one would expect the piano to be lower than a standing artist, or acoustic bands...it feels to be at around the right height though frankly I would have no idea if this placement was 'artifact' or not anyway.

Lifelike size of soundstage and images on it are hallmarks of XVX and WAMM. Look at the picture of me assembling the XVX above (Post #147). If you were to record me standing between the speakers and speaking, my mouth would sound as if it is above the tweeter, as it should in this example. It will also sound as if it was higher than the listening seat, which has a 36" ear height in that example. Were I to sit in a chair between the speakers at the same height as the listener and record my voice, playback would put me below the tweeter and at the same level as the listener. What would not change between the two examples is the replication of the size of the room in which the recordings were made.

However, any number of set up misalignments can cause things to sound oversized or overly high. Assuming that the speakers and the listening position are properly chosen, the nomograph settings are correct for the specific installation, speakers spiked precisely and leveled side to side and front to back, improper adjustment of the rear firing tweeter will cause the speaker to sound higher and more diffuse than the recording portrays. But that's not on the XVX. That's a set up issue. In the installation in Post #147 above the beam across the room required a rear firing tweeter setting well below where the rear tweeter is normally calibrated. Leave that level set too high and the image is pulled up toward the beam.

 

Lifelike size of soundstage and images on it are hallmarks of XVX and WAMM. Look at the picture of me assembling the XVX above (Post #147). If you were to record me standing between the speakers and speaking, my mouth would sound as if it is above the tweeter, as it should in this example. It will also sound as if it was higher than the listening seat, which has a 36" ear height in that example. Were I to sit in a chair between the speakers at the same height as the listener and record my voice, playback would put me below the tweeter and at the same level as the listener. What would not change between the two examples is the replication of the size of the room in which the recordings were made.

However, any number of set up misalignments can cause things to sound oversized or overly high. Assuming that the speakers and the listening position are properly chosen, the nomograph settings are correct for the specific installation, speakers spiked precisely and leveled side to side and front to back, improper adjustment of the rear firing tweeter will cause the speaker to sound higher and more diffuse than the recording portrays. But that's not on the XVX. That's a set up issue. In the installation in Post #147 above the beam across the room required a rear firing tweeter setting well below where the rear tweeter is normally calibrated. Leave that level set too high and the image is pulled up toward the beam.

Thank you. That is very clear...and of all the setups of various Wilsons I have liked the most, they have consistently been done by Pedro of Absolute Sounds. Fantastic reproduction of nuance, detail, dynamics both macro and micro...and particularly not experienced super-sized imagery or 'odd location' soundstaging (though I have heard both with Wilsons before). Thus, I have always credited that towards setup.

One of the long-standing strengths of the Wilson design is its remarkable adjustability and flexibility (which includes accommodating personal tastes as well)...and thereby it stands that in the wrong hands, this adjustability can also go wrong.

 

Thank you. That is very clear...and of all the setups of various Wilsons I have liked the most, they have consistently been done by Pedro of Absolute Sounds. Fantastic reproduction of nuance, detail, dynamics both macro and micro...and particularly not experienced super-sized imagery or 'odd location' soundstaging (though I have heard both with Wilsons before). Thus, I have always credited that towards setup.

One of the long-standing strengths of the Wilson design is its remarkable adjustability and flexibility (which includes accommodating personal tastes as well)...and thereby it stands that in the wrong hands, this adjustability can also go wrong.

We at Wilson think the world of Pedro.

 

I heard the Isis many times in a not so big room. While it felt a bit strange to see the tweeters way up there, I did not feel the stage is annoyingly high.

The heigth of the soundstage, as played by the Avalon Isis, sounds correct. The tweeters seems a bit high but the upper part of the speaker seems slightly turned down and that works very well.
Shakti has the Avalon Osiris, which have a different layout.

 

The heigth of the soundstage, as played by the Avalon Isis, sounds correct. The tweeters seems a bit high but the upper part of the speaker seems slightly turned down and that works very well.
Shakti has the Avalon Osiris, which have a different layout.

the Osiris tweeters are also turned down. The Mid/Tweeter Module as such can be adjusted to a certain degree as well.
Not the same sophisticated design Wilson has applied to the XVX, but at least some fine tuning to the listener position is possible.

 

We at Wilson think the world of Pedro.

Yes. A rare combination of super-deep technical knowledge, work ethic and very accurate instincts about how people like to hear their sound. He is also incredibly down to earth while being a maven at the same time.

 

Yes. A rare combination of super-deep technical knowledge, work ethic and very accurate instincts about how people like to hear their sound. He is also incredibly down to earth while being a maven at the same time.

And I'm certain Ricardo keeps him very well fed!

BruceD

 

When a reviewer has different speakers in his own dedicated listening room with the same, or substantially the same, associated components I think only business and advertising considerations deter interesting -- and significantly valid -- reporting of comparative listening impressions.

While I agree with you, more than business and advertising considerations are in play.

It takes a lot of time and effort to move speakers around (espec large ones), achieve optimal set-up, then go through multiple critical listening and note-taking sessions. You're not going to do a quickie A/B/A with the likes of the XVX - a questionable approach to begin with. I'd say you need at least two 3-5 day sessions with each speaker. Then there's the actual review write-up likely in multiple iterations. And photography.

I'd guess to do a proper comparison it probably doubles the amount of time and that needs be fitted in with the publication schedule and RH's duties as editor. Of course that's all possible - after all, it is what they do - but I suggest that monetary oriented speculation is not the first place to look to explain the absence of a comparison. Fwiw, I have never ever, not once, been told to do a comparison, do a specific comparison or to not do any comparison. Nor to arrive at a particular conclusion. I agree that comparisons make reviews much more informative and are to be encouraged.

 

(...) It takes a lot of time and effort to move speakers around (espec large ones), achieve optimal set-up, then go through multiple critical listening and note-taking sessions. You're not going to do a quickie A/B/A with the likes of the XVX - a questionable approach to begin with. I'd say you need at least two 3-5 day sessions with each speaker. Then there's the actual review write-up likely in multiple iterations. And photography. (...)

And you are not touching the critical question - which system should be used to evaluate both top speakers? RH listened to the XVX with the Constellation Audio top amplifiers Hercules II monoblocks and Altair II - an excellent match with Wilson, the best ever listening I had of XLF's was with this system. Even the Virgo III / Centaur II sounded very good in my system. But I have listened to other great speakers with Constellation Audio and it was not a good match.
IMHO 90% of the time comparisons just evaluate the compatibility between pieces of equipment. Even the influences of cables can completely distort the comparative conclusions.

Some audiophiles have a need of comparisons, absolutes and rankings to feel safe in this hobby - IMHO unfortunately such thing does not exist in the high-end. Reviews should inform and catch our interest to listen and evaluate, something that RH did in his review. And for those that do not have $335k to invest in a pair of speakers the review is good entertainment.

 

And you are not touching the critical question - which system should be used to evaluate both top speakers? RH listened to the XVX with the Constellation Audio top amplifiers Hercules II monoblocks and Altair II - an excellent match with Wilson, the best ever listening I had of XLF's was with this system. Even the Virgo III / Centaur II sounded very good in my system. But I have listened to other great speakers with Constellation Audio and it was not a good match.
IMHO 90% of the time comparisons just evaluate the compatibility between pieces of equipment. Even the influences of cables can completely distort the comparative conclusions.

Some audiophiles have a need of comparisons, absolutes and rankings to feel safe in this hobby - IMHO unfortunately such thing does not exist in the high-end. Reviews should inform and catch our interest to listen and evaluate, something that RH did in his review. And for those that do not have $335k to invest in a pair of speakers the review is good entertainment.

Thank you for this post.

That is the interesting, yet sometimes also frustrating, thing about this hobby: It all depends on the context, as you say.

It's not just speakers, which really can be the hardest item in terms of context, one might think. There are some threads on this forum where certain people claim that certain DACs just blow away all others.

But that of course depends on matching of tonality with the rest of the system, personal taste, and personal listening priorities -- which attributes does the listener rank the highest? So those proclamations have to be taken with a huge block of salt, not just a grain of it.

Just recently, in other systems, I have been confronted with the fact just how much evaluation of preamps depends on the matching with amps (especially if they are not of the same brand) : to a very uncomfortable degree, that is.

Some people want fast and easy answers. There are none in the high end.

 

But if the speaker doesnt come to you .... you have to go to the speaker
.......
I think somebody who is knowledgeable and experienced and i m sure somebody who buys some of these big systems is( at least i hope ) im sure its not his first speaker .
After the initial set up with manufacturer assistance ,come back to the owner after a couple of weeks/ months for a 4 - 6 hour listening visit .

I think with most of these expensive systems the manufacturer will come and help with installing , like wilson .
I do think owners might wanna move a bit themselves as its a thing you cant do 100 % right in the first day .
And pick the fruits of his/ her /their labour later .
John atkinson was always clear in what he could and could not measure / achieve with large speakers .
Which is a good / honest approach imo.
And made for a good review despite limitations .

Although these 2 tower systems are even bigger.
Or make a report at the manufacturer listening room also nothing wrong with that .

And at least some FR response measurements should be made .
For a complete review.

Comparing these systems at the same time seems undoable to me.

For for example a EA MM7 review/comparison a visit to mike lavigne seems very worthwhile imo .
Or a visit to the EA manufacturer whatever .

Wilson and magico get already enough attention .

 

(...) And at least some FR response measurements should be made .
For a complete review. (...)

I think that a set of data on the impedance modulus and phase versus frequency and real efficiency measurement would be even more useful. FR without complete dispersion can be very misleading.

 

I think that a set of data on the impedance modulus and phase versus frequency and real efficiency measurement would be even more useful. FR without complete dispersion can be very misleading.

Sure the more the better, impedance graph also very important.
Independantly measured from the manufacturer .
JA measurements are / were always pretty good

 

Thank you for this post.

That is the interesting, yet sometimes also frustrating, thing about this hobby: It all depends on the context, as you say.

It's not just speakers, which really can be the hardest item in terms of context, one might think. There are some threads on this forum where certain people claim that certain DACs just blow away all others.

But that of course depends on matching of tonality with the rest of the system, personal taste, and personal listening priorities -- which attributes does the listener rank the highest? So those proclamations have to be taken with a huge block of salt, not just a grain of it.

Just recently, in other systems, I have been confronted with the fact just how much evaluation of preamps depends on the matching with amps (especially if they are not of the same brand) : to a very uncomfortable degree, that is.

Some people want fast and easy answers. There are none in the high end.

Al I think this is one of the best things about this hobby, that just buying great components doesn’t at all promise a great system.

It’s why it takes so much to build and refine a great system that will do all that you need (and what this is so often is not always what then others need).

Buying the best buys a certain comfort of quality but the magic is always ultimately in the mix.

Matching parts into wholeness and getting them to play all of a piece together takes long experience and is a bit more like a great orchestration or great conducting. It is for all of us the true great work in this pursuit.

 

Some audiophiles have a need of comparisons, absolutes and rankings to feel safe in this hobby - IMHO unfortunately such thing does not exist in the high-end.

To speak in microstripese: I think you're missing an important point.

A review without any comparison can only speak in absolute terms and does so without reference. "Even in congested passages the ABC speaker exhibited cleaner articulation in the mid-bass."

Comparisons are not just for audiophile feelings of safety. They create context for comprehension.

Imagine if all reviews offered no comparison. The vast majority of component comments on this forum involve comparison. The notion "What's Best" inherently calls for comparison.

 

To speak in microstripese: I think you're missing an important point.

A review without any comparison can only speak in absolute terms and does so without reference. "Even in congested passages the ABC speaker exhibited cleaner articulation in the mid-bass."

Comparisons are not just for audiophile feelings of safety. They create context for comprehension.

Imagine if all reviews offered no comparison. The vast majority of component comments on this forum involve comparison. The notion "What's Best" inherently calls for comparison.

+1 Tim, the best kinds of comparison seem to me to be very specific in context and in being essentially criteria based. Your example above was a great way to show how comparisons can be used to assist quite a deal in our understanding of differences.

The summative comparisons ultimately then about which gear is then preferred can also be of interest but for me is not always as helpful as more specific references to explain the very nature of the differences.

 

"Some"audiophiles have a need of comparisons, absolutes and rankings to feel safe in this hobby.

Probably true.

And for those that do not have $335k to invest in a pair of speakers the review is good entertainment.

Absolutely true regardless of having $335k or not.

Anyhow imo a review with comparison is often far more beneficial than one without.

Tang

 

While I agree with you, more than business and advertising considerations are in play.

It takes a lot of time and effort to move speakers around (espec large ones), achieve optimal set-up, then go through multiple critical listening and note-taking sessions. You're not going to do a quickie A/B/A with the likes of the XVX - a questionable approach to begin with. I'd say you need at least two 3-5 day sessions with each speaker. Then there's the actual review write-up likely in multiple iterations. And photography.

I'd guess to do a proper comparison it probably doubles the amount of time and that needs be fitted in with the publication schedule and RH's duties as editor. Of course that's all possible - after all, it is what they do - but I suggest that monetary oriented speculation is not the first place to look to explain the absence of a comparison. Fwiw, I have never ever, not once, been told to do a comparison, do a specific comparison or to not do any comparison. Nor to arrive at a particular conclusion. I agree that comparisons make reviews much more informative and are to be encouraged.

I agree, Tim. But I was thinking more modestly. I was thinking less about contemporaneous A/B comparisons than I was about how the previous loudspeaker Robert reviewed in the same room compares on the same music tracks with the same associated components as the loudspeaker system he is reviewing presently.

This requires no additional movement of speakers -- just some thoughtful recollection about how the same recordings are reproduced by two different speakers. And yet we see very little of even this kind of no additional work required comparison.

 

I was thinking less about contemporaneous A/B comparisons than I was about how the previous loudspeaker Robert reviewed in the same room compares on the same music tracks with the same associated components as the loudspeaker system he is reviewing presently.

Yes, I now understand the point you are making, and that makes sense.

That's raises a question I've always grappled with. Should a review discuss equipment the writer does not currently have but may have covered in the past?

Heck, I was criticized by a forum member for doing a detailed contemporaneous comparison because the amount of effort it took to switch equipment might cause me to experience "hearing memory loss" because it would for him.

And I've seen other writers criticized for using a piece of gear they heard several months ago (or even years ago) as a comparison with a component they have now for the same sort of reason. But some published writers such as Mickelson and Fremer do it regularly with cartridges and amplifiers and it can be informative and effective because they are informative and effective writers. It's done casually on the forum all the time.

Given the large thorough scope of Harley's coverage of the XVX and subwoofers - 14 full columns of text - I suspect a comparison might, in that case, actually be distracting or make the review way too long for his readers. A worthy comparison of a comprable speaker would/should? add at a minimum another full column or more. And require a fair amount of 'nuance'. His review does keep the reader focused on the XVX. Maybe he felt a product of the relative significance of the XVX deserved that focus - I don't know.

On the other hand, how often will the opportunity come up to compare even just two $350k+ speaker systems? So yes, you could it say it was an opportunity lost. (I seriously doubt we'll read any comparison reviews with the new WAMM.) I have no idea what was the last speaker RH covered in that general price range. And again yes, manufacturers probably would not like it. But I doubt it was not done for monetary/business reasons. I doubt anyone would stop advertising in TAS because their product was used in a TAS Harley review unless it was trashed, and he would not do that.

But it woulda been fun to read - a gargantuan review.