Perspective. To hit intended performance targets, the X3 needs cubic volume. To maintain attractive proportions, it had to be tall. Where less volume suits, the mid/woofer might slot below the tweeter, the woofers each move one down and the cabinet end right above the planar membrane. On pure optics I'd prefer that imaginary shorter version. Logic simply dictates that the rear-slimming thus litre-squeezing cab would have to extend still deeper. And that would likely look unwieldy and almost certainly mess with scenarios that enforce close-wall placement for cosmetic or space reasons. The inevitable preference thus was for a tall mid/woofer. Hello equally tall soundstage.

Having previously tested a Børresen 0 and Z model, the X3's checkered carbon-skin drivers were a first. But I'd already written reviews for Raidho and Scansonic. They too had meant ceramic vs fiber-based drivers. The latter had expressed less intense transient weighting, more body and overall warmth. Would the X3 follow a similar path? Would comfort come first, speed second or third?

That's relevant when the original range to intro a then new Børresen brand was decisively speed first. It prioritized incisive attacks, snappy timing and crisp resolution. It had audiences key into ultra-sorted cavernous soundstaging and energetic fat-stripped readings. One might paraphrase said gestalt as electrostatic by feel but on high testosterone for superior dynamic impact. Think propulsive, quick and a bit lean.

WIth that range still in 2023's portfolio then tweaked to the max in the most radical M series, I actually thought it sensible were the X3 to really promote slightly shifted attributes. That would cover more ground and speak to somewhat less youthful listener preferences. After all, simply repackaging the same sound across multiple product families to differentiate on primarily price and looks seems less clever. One would obviously adhere to the overall established sonic mold, just tweak it enough to address a new audience. Incidentally, these woofers add in at 160Hz 1st-order hence right in the lower-mid/upper-bass transition or warmth region.

From prediction to perception. Using my smart xover's remote 'bypass' function to instantly compare ± sub and isolate room-mode contributions—with its 100Hz/4th-order entry, my sub's cardioid coverage eliminates two rooms modes—I was better able to appreciate how the rest of the X3's spectrum diverged from what I'm used to. Below 100Hz it predictably rode room gain with two hot spots. Quite apart from it, the warmth region too was set higher, textures were thicker, transients softer so drawn with a fatter tip. I also maintained listener awareness of box-sound remnants. Unless you've heard superior dipoles, those box cues are hard to explain though they're rather tacit in the recognition.

These big Danish speakers cast a big meaty sound which vis-à-vis my memories of the Aalborg factory systems and later Børresen loaners did resurrect my prior Raidho/Scansonic assessment. Like the softer warmer Scansonic carbon-fiber drivers had against the far harder diamond/ceramic Raidho cones, now the X3's flecked skins felt warmer, energetically more chilled and texturally rich than Børresen's metallic variants. Less adrenaline and res, more endorphins.

As such this really was more of an advanced comfort than explicit sound. Subjective resolution, startle factor and tangy lucidity had all stepped back together. Less extreme separation meant more outline filler, lower dynamic acceleration, less inner tension but more chunkiness. To be certain, these qualifiers apply relative to my general impression of earlier Børresen. Versus our IQ, an added offset was the lither airiness of the dipole Satori mid and the sparklier dipole Mundorf AMT. The Danish planarmagnetic had less of those qualities. The X3's overall sensitivity was also a bit lower.

Meanwhile taken on its own merit out of A/B comparison's neon light, it rather walked the Middle Path. It felt neither dark and heavy like Silent Pound's Challenge had; nor super lit up like certain B&W or a friskier Triangle can. Yet it remained a generous soundstage caster. Though I spotted the cabs acoustically, mechanically they felt quite absentee. That served very good depth layering. These were my first impressions when the departed Polish residents were still to mind. Let's see how or whether those impressions shifted over the longer haul as my ear/brain began to call the X3 the new status quo.

Not only do the sidewalls curve, so does the spine – inward for a change. It's not something even a skilled DIYer should be in a rush to attempt. Plus, the top slopes up toward the front and both front and rear rake back.

On another very important score, the gloss-white Danes got an enthusiastic thumbs up from my interior decorator. With bigger speakers that's not very common. Considered with a purely artistic not audiophile eye, most mature floorstanders bore my wife to tears. Not another big box. Yawn. Instead this time the Good Housekeeping seal of approval came down with a bang. 110dB! What cosmetic compression? Scandi chic, go!