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:
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.

I wonder how Jadis JA200s would sound on XVX.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: andromedaaudio
And what about the bass ron for the standalone xvx?
Apart from the fact that the 45 watt otl most likely cannot control the woofers optimaly as you already stated .
The woofers in the XVX are made of paper are they stiff enough for some real impact ?
Iirc the alexx woofers were already also made from paper which is a major difference compared to the previous fiberglass composite focal woofers used in the maxx 3 X2 (micros speakers)
And where kind of synominos for the brand
 
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.

I wonder how Jadis JA200s would sound on XVX.
OTLs hate low impedance, into the lowest impedance on this speaker the output would be quite low and likely compress or outright clip. A SET with similar power on an appropriate tap would fare better as would PP tube or SS amp at around 50 watts.
 
And what about the bass ron for the standalone xvx?
Apart from the fact that the 45 watt otl most likely cannot control the woofers optimaly as you already stated .
The woofers in the XVX are made of paper are they stiff enough for some real impact ?
Iirc the alexx woofers were already also made from paper which is a major difference compared to the previous fiberglass composite focal woofers used in the maxx 3 X2 (micros speakers)
And where kind of synominos for the brand
Nearly all the big pro woofers are doped paper and designed precisely to make big impact, so I don’t think paper is a problem.
 
And what about the bass ron for the standalone xvx?
Apart from the fact that the 45 watt otl most likely cannot control the woofers optimaly as you already stated .
The woofers in the XVX are made of paper are they stiff enough for some real impact ?
Iirc the alexx woofers were already also made from paper which is a major difference compared to the previous fiberglass composite focal woofers used in the maxx 3 X2 (micros speakers)
And where kind of synominos for the brand

I thought the bass reproduction in my friend's room was very satisfactory. But, interestingly, Wilson has been inching smaller over time on the diameter of the drivers in the big woofer modules.

When I think about the XVX, or when I post about it, I am basically assuming the Master Subsonics are part of the package. I like four column speaker systems, what can I say?
 
OTLs hate low impedance, into the lowest impedance on this speaker the output would be quite low and likely compress or outright clip. A SET with similar power on an appropriate tap would fare better as would PP tube or SS amp at around 50 watts.

Great point regarding OTL's and low impedance. Anti-cables makes a great autoformers that help with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morricab
I thought the bass reproduction in my friend's room was very satisfactory. But, interestingly, Wilson has been inching smaller over time on the diameter of the drivers in the big woofer modules.

When I think about the XVX, or when I post about it, I am basically assuming the Master Subsonics are part of the package. I like four column speaker systems, what can I say?
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.
 
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.
This really depends on planer roll off and transition frequency vs listening distance to dipole panels .

You dont necessarily have to be out front of the panels , unlike a typical monopole, this has been my experience ..
 
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.

I would agree that as a rule, subs are not ideal when placed behind the mains. but there is no guarantee that placing them in front is necessarily best. There are many factors to consider. Are the subs and mains the same brand and if so, it is assumed the manufacturer can make an optimal recommendation based on the system design and listening distance from the speaker. Ideally they can use impulse response and laser measurements to confirm equal arrival time at the listening position . If the brands between subs and mains are different, all bets are off. This is compounded if the amps are different and have different group delays. A good starting point is to keep the subs and main drivers in the same plane to begin, and then experiment. It may be that the best placement (i.e. equal arrival time for subs and mains) is a bit behind, a bit forward, or in the same plane. In my experience with a myriad of systems, there is no way to know this a priori. With dsp and impulse measurements, it's pretty straight forward to optimize. In analog systems, impulse measurements using the crossover frequency can still be used and are most likely the gold standard but even then, subjective sonic refinements can be very useful to dial things in to your liking.
 
OTLs hate low impedance, into the lowest impedance on this speaker the output would be quite low and likely compress or outright clip. A SET with similar power on an appropriate tap would fare better as would PP tube or SS amp at around 50 watts.

Yes, but we have exceptions such as the Atmasphere MA2 and MA3. The same way Ralph Karsten made an OTL that can supply current, SET designers could make a SET that could drive the XVX if they wanted.

If it was not for the terrible heat I would still own the MA2's.
 
I would agree that as a rule, subs are not ideal when placed behind the mains. but there is no guarantee that placing them in front is necessarily best. There are many factors to consider. Are the subs and mains the same brand and if so, it is assumed the manufacturer can make an optimal recommendation based on the system design and listening distance from the speaker. Ideally they can use impulse response and laser measurements to confirm equal arrival time at the listening position . If the brands between subs and mains are different, all bets are off. This is compounded if the amps are different and have different group delays. A good starting point is to keep the subs and main drivers in the same plane to begin, and then experiment. It may be that the best placement (i.e. equal arrival time for subs and mains) is a bit behind, a bit forward, or in the same plane. In my experience with a myriad of systems, there is no way to know this a priori. With dsp and impulse measurements, it's pretty straight forward to optimize. In analog systems, impulse measurements using the crossover frequency can still be used and are most likely the gold standard but even then, subjective sonic refinements can be very useful to dial things in to your liking.

Theoretically as the subs signal goes through a filter it becomes delayed and nothing can advance it, at best we can delay the mains using DSP. However it was never proved that such small delays in the very lows are audible or that subs in front sound better. I have tried the JL Audio CR1 / F113mk2 in front and behind the XLF's and there was not a magic difference between positions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sbo6
How is it a design limitation , you mean the SET design limitation ..

Not just SETs, no decent sounding tube amps can drive them properly, you need very high powered and high current SS amplification for these speakers to come to life and I don’t know of any that I like. I heard heard 4 major Wamm systems with so called latest greatest mega dollar amps and they all sounded kind of blah and none of the owners were happy. This was Brad’s point, high powered amps just aren’t musical even compared to mid powered solid state ones, never mind lower powered tube and SET ones.

david
 
How is this logical you select amps before knowing speaker load or sensitivity thats backwards ..

Agree ..Not to derail the thread “my” common sense is to start with the speakers I like and build backward up the chain. Yes I agree the back chain is very important but speakers to me are 50% of the system. I imagine Wilson audio would agree, see getting back on topic :)
 
Not just SETs, no decent sounding tube amps can drive them properly, you need very high powered and high current SS amplification for these speakers to come to life and I don’t know of any that I like. I heard heard 4 major Wamm systems with so called latest greatest mega dollar amps and they all sounded kind of blah and none of the owners were happy. This was Brad’s point, high powered amps just aren’t musical even compared to mid powered solid state ones, never mind lower powered tube and SET ones.

david

Sorry, this incorrect. There are WAMMs and XVXs out there being driven successfully and beautifully by tube amps.

I'd love to know where you heard 4 WAMM systems in owner's homes. Just color me skeptical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elliot G.
Sorry, this incorrect. There are WAMMs and XVXs out there being driven successfully and beautifully by tube amps.

I'd love to know where you heard 4 WAMM systems in owner's homes. Just color me skeptical.

I’m with Metaphacts here,“nothing but the facts ma’am,” on this one. Yes, please David please enlighten us...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fidelity88

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