A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Samual, Hmmm, by constant stance, I mean Hardesty does conform to one type of engineering method that he feels gives the best chance to a speaker at reproducing the source accurately. Does time and phase coherency ring a bell. Also, he believes in sealed enclosures for bass. He doesn't "Bounce" for the flavor of the month. I haven't seen a lot change in speaker design for a long time. Most are rehash of old designs.
I think sticking with ones principles is a good idea. I couldn't disagree more with your statement he is not being helpful. I guess consumer education is a bad thing? He compares and points out flaws both audible and measurable. And not being truthful---not truthful to what---his long held beliefs and principals? You don't have to agree with the man but he does give the reasons behind his beliefs. And I'll say again, how many reviewers do that. Most describe how it sounds to them and damn the technology. If that is true, then all this becomes a moot point.
As for standard parts, read the watchdog, the drivers are off the shelf stuff. There's nothing high dollar or special here (as in no patented designs.) You would think at these lofty prices, there would be some special engineering or custom drivers or something out of the ordinary that Wilson could brag on other than a car finish.

I'm of the school that appreciates hearing about what another person hears from a product. I am always interested in knowing the context of that experience; which includes time and circumstances with the product, ancilary gear, and previous writings and perspectives. I may consistently disagree with the judgement of a particular writer/poster/reviewer but i get value from that source if i can understand their perspective.

In the case of this thread, i have a major problem with Mr. Hardesty's viewpoint since he tells me nothing about the circumstances of his experience with the MAXX2. Forgetting about his many unfortunate personal attacks on the reviewers; i can't tell from his 'rant' what other factors may have influenced his judgements.

Did Mr. Hardesty have occasion to compare the MAXX2 in a system where he had listened to another comparable speaker? Room issues? Amp differences?

Mr. Hardesty seems to be a lazy guy that wants to draw attention without really doing the work. If he would have approached the MAXX2's with an open mind and some objectivity, explained his methodology and what he heard; and even came to the same conclusions; i would be appeciative and comfortable with his perspective.

I'm a subjectivist that while appreciating the why of things; somewhat resents being told that this or that design cannot sound good. I also don't like an 'all-knowing' tone......explain don't dictate.

Tell me what you hear and the context of that experience.

BTW, i have found that in some cases i have not had the same conclusions that Fremer has had from his speaker reviews; but i have found that his perspectives have been consistent and there have always been enough information to make sense of cause and effect of what he did write. He does the work.

I find conspiracy theorists to be simply 'full of it' and saying more about themselves than their intended targets.

The Wilson MAXX2? i have heard it 10 or so times; 2 friends have them; i have heard them at shows and dealers. I have heard them sound marginal and very good. They are not exactly my cup of tea but none-the-less are pretty good speakers. Were i to be tempted to go further than that i would need to spend considerable time with them in a familiar system. I do think that they perform fine in their general price range.

Sean, Nice summary - or should I say essay :).

I agree with you most that when you read a series of reviews from most/some? reviewers you get a sense of what they like and what their listening tastes/biases are.

Me I have no idea what sam tellig or Ken Kessler listening biases are, except that everything sounds WONDERFUL with correlation to the music playing. my two cents

who qualifies for an accommidation price? where do we sign up?

I think Hardesty is really on to something with his review. From now on, I am only reading reviews if they are based solely on the component's test-bench performance and engineering philosophy. I am sick and tired of having to read all those silly reviews where the reviewer has put time and energy into actually listening to the product before giving an assessment.

As I read Hardesty's article, I got the impression that he is not credible enough to write a well-thoughtout review of the product. Instead, he focusses on and criticizes other reviewers and the product's designer. Maybe he is afraid of what he might hear if he actually opened his mind to an in-home audition of a product that uses a different design philosophy than his own.

As for everyone that thinks that Hardesty is so great, we'll see what happens when he negatively reviews the components you have all carefully selected for your own systems. And, no, I don't own or particularly care for Wilson products. No doubt, though, Hardesty will eventually get around to criticizing the equipment that I do own. After all, my equipment will make an easy target since it is well-reviewed by the mainstream media.

Jeff