A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

FWIW- Mr. Hardesty's "Watch Dog" is NOT a review of the Maxx 2 as some are misinterpreting here. To understand the purpose and intent of his "Watch Dog" articles I suggest you read it in his own words.

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html

He also doesn't accept advertising for his Audio Perfectionist Journals so I'm not sure why some are suggesting he probably tried to get Wilson to advertise, they turned him down, hence the scornful "review" of the Maxx 2. This scenario is not even close.

Whether someone agrees with him or not, he is simply offering his opinion and expertise on what he feels constitutes and accurate reproduction of the recorded signal, NOT live music. He makes his beliefs and philosophies well known and elucidated in his Journals.

If Mr. Fremer and his wife are extremely happy with the sound of the Maxx 2s, then that is all that matters. I think Mr. Hardesty is being critical of Mr. Fremer and Mr. Harley as "reviewers", where he feels they are misleading or leaving out critical information about the Maxx 2s that an "informed" reader should know about.

This hobby is so full of great music and equipment, both of which many talented people devote their lives to, that it is silly to believe there will be an "absolute" that everyone will agree upon. Freedom of choice- with the ability to make informed decisions, and deciding for YOURSELF what sounds good is all that should matter at the end of the day.

You can find a "forum" on just about every product or hobby out there- all with the same differing opinions and "expertise" that banters back and forth here.

If you read all of Hardesty's early journals, you will easily see where he is coming from. He discusses ALL of his positions. The "Watch Dog" is his gripe piece. I think personally a speaker costing this much should be held to a lofty standard and Strereophiles measurements pretty much agree with Hardesty's opinions IMO. By the way, Hardesty has been at this a long, long time. I respect his opinions as I do others. However, he sure gives a more valid reasoning for his position than most any reviewer I've read. At least he has a constant stance and doesn't bounce around.
After reading all of these posts, I'm with a fellow above, I thought "Hi-end" was about reproducing the source as close as possible. If it's as most say, then hell, it doesn't matter what you buy (which it doesn't to me anyway.)
The Wilson speaker isn't accurate---that's an indisputable fact based on its design and measured results. It canot come close to duplicating the incoming signal. If one likes how it sounds and has the money, more power to them and happy listening. That's a chunk of change for something with standard parts and a massive cabinet. I guess some like furniture more.
As to MF, seems a nerve was struck and he doesn't take criticism very well. Someone who defends themself that hard over audio---hmmm. Dare I say insecurity?

Me thinks Grooves protests too much.

This thread has now entered the realm of the surreal. I expect to see a post from Rod Serling any time now.

Bigtee: Anyone that has a "constant stance", and doesn't "bounce around" regarding sound and music, isn't being truthful or helpful IMO. "Standard parts"? And you have this information from where? Never mind, a redundant question...

Not accepting advertising means _nothing_ other than a potential marketing angle to separate oneself from "commercial magazines". I can think of several net and print magazines that use the "we don't accept advertising" ploy, and they uniformly have their own agendas, just less obvious. If you're going to throw big stones at others, it's critical to play the "I have no agenda" card. That, in and of itself, is a marketing 101 tactic that too many accept out of hand. The FAR more important teller, as in most businesses, are --relationships. And many of the "we-don't" club, have them--in spades.

There are countless motives outside of ad money, and no one is without an agenda that pens a one-dimensional (whatever you call it) article like Richard's.

In the end however, he absolutely has a right to his opinion, and if he actually listened to the MAXX 2's and didn't like them, more power to him-and his supporters. He didn't however, make it clear that he listened, or in what context--and however anyone wishes to spin that, it IS relevant and was left out. It IS significant and the omission of THAT relevant info cuts into the credibility of his opinion. Unless one set of measurements that he endlessly spun and did not CONDUCT, constitutes flawless reasoning.

Hanging one's hat on Stereophile's measured performance in describing the MAXX 2's as grossly flawed is not at all wise IMO. The speakers are enormous. Several measurements could not apparently be made as planned-- as stated in the article. Also, I believe Michael stated that their "in room" measured response was exemplary.

All I know is that 20, 30 and 40 year professionals in this business consider the MAXX 2's a reference quality transducer in a subjective sense, myself one of them. I believe far more in that, and my own impressions, than I do in one independent set of measurements, and one hard-baller with a personal or political agenda.

Are the people at VTL, Audio Research, LAMM, SoundStage, BAT, Stereophile, TAS and many others all deluded and horn-swaggled---, or better yet for the net gang: "bought off"? That's a lot of buying-off, and a conspiracy of EPIC proportions!

Are the USA's finest dealers, Sound Components, Audio Advice, Definitive, Overture, Progressive, Innovative, CSA, LA Audio, Music Lovers etc a poor judge of quality? Are they all on, er, payola? Or more likely, do they believe in a product that is well built, and performs better than others in the price class they have been exposed to? That must be some deck of cards, eh? JFK proportions, I'd wager. Keep in mind, these dealers have had Wilson long before any press surfaced. I know because I know all of these dealers.

I'll say this, there are many excellent yet diverse speakers on the market that give us all choices: , Sonus Faber, Avalon, Avante Garde, JMLab, Verity, Martin Logan, Magnepan, Totem, B&W, Lumen White and countless others--the list is endless--and I'd bet not a one would meet Sir Richard's standard of measured quality.

Why would anyone want to limit our choices, call names or deride a product they DO NOT have intimate knowledge of? IMO, that begins to limit MY choice, even if in a small way. I want to increase my array of choices in EVERY product category.

I think the recent positive press the MAXX 2's and X2's have received from SoundStage, Stereophile and TAS is well earned as is their endorsement among manufacturers of electronics--based on my direct experience. Others are free to disagree. These magazines have to protect their integrity, and penning a good review of a BAD product isn't too good for biz--ad rev or no.

But for some individuals trying to build a rep and looking for attention-especially on net forums, penning an "expose" of a product that has been praised elsewhere, can make all the difference.

JMHO

Grant

What a stupid comment. Grooves has answered 3 threads in 3 years and you claim he protests too much. Pull the other one.