A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

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.

you realize, the most relevant and credible party here isn't getting the attention they deserve; their opinion on speaker preference and musicality should be duly noted by those who are considering what the skinny is on wilsons.

i cite: fremer's wife.

she's doubtless heard many speakers, and was probably horrified at the expense. but they (husband & wife) bought them, for the music.

rhyno

1) ALL speakers are pretty highly coloured to one extent or another. We all know this.

Having said that, there are certain design attributes that we know to work better than others IF measurable accuracy are a high priority. At the price that Wilson charges for their products, one would think that at least "some" of these design attributes "might" be incorporated into their products. Evidently, such is not the case. Nor is that true of MANY other multi-driver designs.

2) Measurements are taken so that we can somehow try to correlate what we hear with repeatable tests and try to figure out how they correspond to one another. When the measurements don't correlate with what we hear, we either aren't taking the tests correctly, testing for the right things and / or the test results aren't being properly interpreted. Either that or our listening skills might not be what we think they are.

3) Without comparitive listening AND controlled test procedures, we would all be in the dark ages of audio. We all know that some products can measure well and sound like crapola ( high negative feedback designs ) and that some products can measure poorly and still sound enjoyable. Speakers are a prime example, especially if the specific "quirks" of the speaker in question tend to cater to one's personal preferences and / or specific room anomalies.

4) Fremer basically states that he likes this product and that all other methods of testing / other's personal preferences / pricing matter not to him. As such, he buys, uses and recommends what he likes, regardless of what others think.

In some ways, this sounds a LOT like what i've been saying for many years i.e. one should buy and use what THEY like, as they will be the one listening to it. This is true even though i offer contrary points of view to what others may like / find to be desirable traits. In this regards, Fremer and i are more alike than different.

5) Fremer has been consistent in his reviews of products and the aforementioned stance that he states here. That is, he also liked and purchased the Cyberlight interconnects, which JA has stated were a technical nightmare and measured attrociously. Personally, i find the Cyberlights to be nothing less than an expensive joke / bad snake oil, but to each their own.

6) As i have stated many times over, one needs to learn how to interpret specs for themselves, understand what those spec's mean, how the spec's were derived and how they correlate to one might expect to hear. This helps to make one an informed consumer and gives them the ability to better wade through / interpret a "review" of ANY product.

7) Without the aid of understanding what is going on in a technical manner, one is at the mercy of what they read and want to believe in any "review:. Obviously, knowing the personal preferences of the specific reviewer and being familiar with their writing styles can also be a big help in that regard.

This is why i like reading Kal Rubinson's and John Marks reviews. I believe that i'm familiar with both their writing styles and what they seek in terms of sonics. On top of that, i also think that they are ethical individuals. Art Dudley also falls into this category, but his "personal preferences" and "belief system" are so different than mine, that i find it hard to relate most of the time. No bunnies for me : )

8) There should be some form of standards as to what is considered "acceptable" and unacceptable" in terms of the reproduction of music using "high fidelity" gear. Otherwise, it all boils down to personal preference with no form of accountability.

In that regard, points should be alloted in specific categories that are deemed most important for the type of equipment under review. One could then better assess whether or not the specific DUT ( Device Under Test ) might meet their needs based on the individual strengths and / or weaknesses based on their scoring in each individual category.

Every product is some form of a compromise. Being able to compare sonic strengths and weaknesses as the reviewer hears / sees them combined with repeatable test results would be FAR more informative than having to read several pages of hyperbole and prose.

9) Personally, i believe that JA's test results and listening skills make for a hard combo to beat. That is, as far as Stereophile reviewers go.

Having said that, that doesn't mean that i have the utmost faith in what he says, how he tests certain products ( a lack of consistency in some areas ) or that he doesn't sometimes soften things so as to be somewhat "cordial" to the manufacturer & potential advertiser. Nobody is perfect and JA at least tries to be a "gentleman" about things. That's more than i can say about myself : )

10) It cracks me up to think that people think that what Hardesty is doing is something new and / or revelatory. Moncrieff did all of the above i.e. calling other reviewers to task and pointing out why some 25+ years ago. In effect, Hardesty comes across as wanting to be the modern day Moncrieff / IAR. Having said that, i can understand why Hardesty might admire / want to emulate Moncrieff and the early days of IAR.

11) Multiple large diameter drivers that are physically spaced a measurable distance apart instantly introduce time, phase and frequency response abberations into the listening equation. Refer back to the first comment that i made and then look at the massive amount of speakers on the market that really aren't designed to operate as "high fidelity" products. Obviously, this includes a LOT of products outside of Wilson's.

12) Fremer put his money where his mouth is and Hardesty has too. They both buy & use ( probably at massively discounted pricing ) what they have recommended to others. As such, how can you fault someone for sharing their honest opinions, even if you completely disagree with them?

13) Listen to some tunes on YOUR "amazing" system that nobody else likes and can poke holes in and see how much you think their opinion is worth then. Then you'll start to realize that it's all a moot point.

Best wishes and good listening to all.... Sean
>

PS... If you notice, i didn't touch Harley's comments / position on this situation with a ten foot pole. That's because i personally find his reviews to be NOT worth getting that close to. Then again, none of that matters when i'm listening to one of my "amazing" systems and i'm quite certain that he feels much the same way about what i think or say : )

I have listened to a lot of wilson speakers. I was unimpressed. I am sure someone could get them to sound good. At those prices it is not my problem. It sort of reminds with Infinity speakers. They never sounded good until a certain manufacturer used them to demo his amps. It reamins as one of my all time best systems. Of course the infinitys sold for a fraction of the wilson's price.
If I may- the emperor has lots of fancy clothes in his closet but every time I see him he is naked as a jaybird.