Wilson MAXX


I had an opportunity the other day to compare Wilson MAXX 1 with WATT PUPPY 7 in a friend's house. Quite to my surprise, WATT PUPPY 7 was superior in almost all frequencies and I wonder how is it possible that MAXX which is almost 3 times more expensive sounded so dull compared to WATT PUPPY 7. The midrange was congested and tweeter lacked the icy impression and openness and bass was not tight and so on....
I am really confused how is it possible. My frinds who have MAXX and were present in the audition had the same feeling and I do not know if anyone has an answer since the set up and room acoustics were the same during the audiotion?
Thanks if anyone has an opinion!!
fpooyandeh
It may be too hard to beat what has become a classic - the Watt Puppy - even for the manufacturer.
Ratings are just ratings, and should be taken with care, but some years ago a German magazine preferred the Watt Puppy 7 with the Watchdog subwoofer to the MAXX2.
I auditioned the Max 3 and the Sashas in the same room with the same electronics at a dealer in Scottsdale. While both of these speakers are a couple of iterations beyond your original question, both my wife and I had the same experience and we prefered the Sashas. The Max played bigger, with a taller soundstage, and more bass impact. But the Sashas were much more coherent with better imaging and better overall tonal balance from bass through the treble. The room was about 20 X 25 X 9.

Room and set-up obviously play a key role. In spite of what some folks at Wilson say, I think you need a very large room for the Max and need to sit far enough away for the drivers to integrate properly.
Maxx 1 ,....watt/puppy version 7 , are you getting the point?
Technical designs are a process.