A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx


I enjoy reading this fellow (Richard Hardesty)

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PDF%20files/APJ_WD_21.pdf

.
g_m_c
WAKE UP PEOPLE! He did not "review" the speaker. It is one of his "Watch Dog" articles which ARE NOT REVIEWS. If it was a "review" I would agree with all the comments above.

Again- read the intent of his "Watch Dog" articles.
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html

Please debunk his arguments in that context.

IMO, I see his basic premise as- if something costs $45,000 it better offer some advanced technology, and have somewhat sound engineering that will yield somewhat accurate measurements. In his opinion the Maxx 2 doesn't come close to those objectives.

Since the Maxx2 deviates from a "flat frequency response" (peaked midbass) and wires drivers out of phase with each other, he feels it can't begin to justify its price tag and be considered state of the art.

Should he listen to the speaker in his own room and system before making such broad based statements? Yes, but perhaps he feels he is "knowledgeable" enough that such an evaluation is not necessary based upon the actual design of the speaker and the brief listening encounters he had with the speaker.

I am not defending Hardesty, just trying to put his commentary in the right context. Two friends of mine whose opinions I respect heard the Maxx 2 stated it was one of the best speakers they have heard.

I also love reading Fremer's article every month in Stereophile. YMMV.
Well another buncha "inneresting" posts. Sorry if I get exercised when my integrity gets questioned by folks who don't know me at all, but for those who object to that, tie your hands behind your backs and invite people to pummel you! I'm just not built that way, and I don't think defending myself means I can't take valid, reasonable and informed criticism. But when some people here and elsewhere just throw crap at people and institutions they don't know based upon their pathetic ignorance, I for one, either ignore it, or I respond strongly. That goes for Arthur Salvatore, who is a bitter little man.

One evening a few years ago, late at night after a few glasses of vino too many I happened upon his indictment of the entire audio reviewing community and I shot him a a rather pissed off email, which he chose to make public when it was not so intended. But I'll tell you this: if you choose to read and believe Mr. Salvatore's paranoid delusions, you risk ending up like him. My favorite part of his rant is where someone who I don't know wrote to defend me, and Salvatore makes it seem as if I had written that, using a psuedonym. If that alone doesn't convince of of how twisted, paranoid and narcissistic Salvatore is, then nothing will.

As for Hardesty's write-up, it was his tone that I most objected to. He was quite fair to me, and unlike some posters here, did not engage in personal attaacks. That level of bitterness and anger should set off a mild amount of skepticism in anyone's mind about his having an agenda of some kind. Why react with that level of intensity and vitriol? Dave Wilson doesn't make anyone buy his products, yet for some reason people do. Hardesty should have directed his anger at the "stupid public," and did a bit of that with his "carriage trade" remark. You know, I heard generations of Wilson products that I didn't like, but the recent ones I did. And that seems to be the general consensus.

Roy Halee, who was Paul Simon's engineer for all of the great S&G and solo albums owns Wilson Alexandrias. I believe he paid full price. He's a very good listener and has heard more live music and mastertapes than anyone reading this and I mean ANYONE. So I suggest you all put that in context of some of the comments here, and in context of Hardesty's dismissal of the MAXX2s.

No, I am not going to address every argument made by Hardesty about why a bumble bee can't possibly fly, er, I mean why the MAXX2s are a terrible speaker, in fact a fraud and why Dave Wilson is a charlatan, which is pretty much what that write-up says, but I will say this: if I were to rely solely on measurements, I would have chucked my turntable and my 10,000 records and switched to CD because using measurements, vinyl SUCK is INACCURATE, can't POSSIBLY sound like MUSIC etc. AND I can give you a dozen reasons why that's true. But you know what? I don't give a CRAP what the measurement show because when I sit down to listen, it's VINYL that sounds like real music, not CDs. In fact, vinyl despite the measurements always sounds more dynamic--even a guy like David Chesky who is in the CD business admits that.

And you know what else? Roy Halee, is a VINYL enthusiast. He has a Rockport System III Sirius. He's heard more master tapes and blah blah blah. Now that doesn't mean he's the last word or the final authority. I'm just suggesting to you that measurements are an important tool in assessing a speaker's neutrality and performance, but they aren't the END ALL AND BE ALL. The listening is that. And in the listening all of the measured and UNMEASURED factors blend together to create a sonic picture the ear/brain responds to.

So, for some reason, my ear/brain, Roy Halee's ear/brain and the ear/brains of all the other people who enthusiastically support what Wilson does, find the sound of his speakers enticing and worth the money. I tried to explain in my review part of what's involved in producing them and why they are expensive. Most of the money goes into producing the cabinets, it's true. But as with the Rockport Antares, something as seemingly mundane and sexless as building resonant-free cabinets does contribute mightily to performance.

I don't care if someone says the speakers sound like s....t to them. That's fine with me. What I do care about is if someone charges that I gave the speaker a good review because Wilson advertises in Stereophile and therefore I am corrupt. That person is an IDIOT. Excuse me for defending myself!

And if you go back and read my review, you'll see that I admit that other speakers have greater upper octave resolution than the MAXX2s and other speakers may image somewhat better, but every design, every scheme is a compromise in one way or another and the ART of speaker design, is how you arrange your compromises, and what choices you make. The science only takes you so far because the science proves that all designs are compromises.

It's funny, when I interviewed Halee back in the 80s, he listened for pleasure on Infinity IRS but owned WATT/Puppys too. "These," he said, pointing to the Wilsons, "tell me what's on the recording, but these," he said, pointing to the towering infernos, "are what I listen to for pleasure." Twenty years later, he feels Wilsons designs give him the pleasure.

Now, as for opalchip's follow up, you have every right to disagree with me, or think I'm deaf or whatever, but I'm sorry, you have no right, if you're a man, to hurl baseless charges as to my motives, my honesty or my integrity. Sorry, but that's the sign of a weasel, not a man--unless you have some evidence. If you think all audio reviewers are corrupt, then of course just don't read any magazines. And as I said before, if you think taking advertising 'taints' a magazine, well then you need to read Consumer Reports and take their audio reviewing seriously because they're not tainted. Enjoy your Bose system! But of course they are tainted! They are tainted at CR because they are wedded to their readers for total support and therefore you will find that they cater obsequiously to the demographics of their readers. They feed back to their readers' demographics and that creates a form of "corruption," though you might find it more benign than what advertising might or might not do to the integrity of reviewers. I'll state it again: I don't give a damn who does or does not advertise in Stereophile and the products I choose to review have nothing to do with advertising.

That said, let's get to the next distortion of what I wrote, I don't remember who responded to what I said about "all speakers being colored." That's all I wrote. OF COURSE there are different degrees of coloration and if you read my review of the new Audio Physic Calderas in the current issue, you will see that when a speaker sounds very colored, it cannot be denied and that's what I wrote and the measurements backed me up.

Someone else made the sweeping charge that reviewers never criticize strongly. What B.S. that is. Read my Caldera review or read my review of the Nottingham Deco turntable or the VYGER. It was not pleasant hurting those people but if you're afraid of doing so, don't be a reviewer. Sorry to defend myself again. That said, I try to steer clear of bad products in the first place. I'd rather write about good ones. I try to be selective but sometimes a bad one slips through and I don't pull punches. Of course if YOU think it's bad product and I don't, how about exercising a bit of restraint and chaulking it up to a difference of opinion instead of corruption?

As for the way the MAXX2s have been characterized here in terms of measurements, they did not measure as badly as some claim, and the measurements were done under difficult circumstances in my driveway. I suggest you go back and look at figure 5, which shows the in-room step response...it's pretty good if you ask me. The excess bass energy might look overwhelming in the chart but in the chair, the speaker's bass response in terms of quality is easily the best I have heard here and I will trade a slight perceived excess of high quality bass to anemic, bass shy performance or bloat (check out the 30K Caldera low end performance).

Measurements do tell you some things, but not everything. When I sit down to listen to my MAXX2s, I hear what they do wrong. After a while, you can hear what ANY speaker does wrong, and they all do wrong. At some point you have to make a choice. The problem readers and hobbyists have---and I've written this before---is that in order to make a choice, every other possibility usually has to be dismissed out of hand. That's just human nature. So the speaker YOU end up with is GREAT, and everything else SUCKS. Don't deny that because I read it here and on other forums all the time. This is insane partisanship....almost like politics.

I don't have that kind of relationship with any of the products I own, because I get to hear too many down here, and you easily hear the trade-offs in all of them. I don't get all "mystical" anymore and I certainly don't get like Mr. Hardesty, who could have made all of his points without going so far over the top.

Someone asked me to go through his charges and respond to them. Sorry! Not here. I don't see the point. He claims there's no midrange speaker because of the size of the two mid/bass-midrange drivers. Well, fine. Whatever, In the end I put on a violin record and if it sounds like a violin to me, I'm satisfied.

I tried to make clear in my original post that I bought the MAXX2s because in my room they sound more like live music than any speaker I've had here. Other speakers have imaged better, or perhaps resolved more on top, or whatever, but harmonically, and dynamically, the speaker/room interaction IN MY ROOM not IN A SET OF MEASUREMENTS, yields results that please my ears and don't suffer terribly when I get home from a concert and listen to recorded music.

As for the scale, which Hardesty says is all wrong, sorry, it sounds right to me, and judging by the responses of people at hifi shows, it sounds right to them too.

Finally to whomever wrote that he's waiting to see the MAXX2s for sale on Audiogon at a big profit to me. You know what? I should tell you to go back on Audiogon and find all the products I've bought and sold at a big profit. You won't find any. I'm not a "churner." What's more, Stereophile doesn't allow that. And I should go on and defend myself further. But I won't. Instead, I'll leave that person with the words of Dick Cheney to Pat Leahy on the Senate floor...and you know what those words were....
That was pretty brave of Mr Fremer to weigh in like that since most industry people who speak up here are savaged by the AudiogoNers who know so much more.

I have said for years that it is unwise to question the integrity of reviewers simply because they do it for a living. If I were in the position of needing open heart surgery I would prefer to have a professional do it! Even if that person had written in the JAMA or the NJM. Do you want a professional plumber to fix your pipes, or mechanic to fix your brakes? Why not get someone with experience to write reviews then?

I never understood the connection between advertising and corruption. Does that mean Newsweek and Time are both corrupt, okay so I picked a couple of bad examples!!!

People who complain about the corruption of writers in Stereophile or TAS will be the first to complain when the price triples due to the new policy of not accepting advertising.

Mr Fremer points out ONE example of companies or products that received a favorable review without buying it, but there are hundreds of other examples. These accusations simply ring hollow, like Wilson speakers!!! That was a joke!!!

It is very frustrating to see so many people who have NO experience with a product write as if they have some level of credibility. All too often people are tearing down a product they have never heard, or only heard in a poor enviroment, what is the point of this??? It is these people who are the liars, not the people who review for a living.

No magazine could survive if they simply gave a pass on or even worse, a good review to a poorly designed or executed product. Simply disagreeing with a persons opinion does not make them wrong, or the disagreer right! Is that a word?!?

Magazines would be a lot more useful and dare I say, productive if readers understood this and responded accordingly!

It's only a hobby!
Fsarc; i did miss the perspective of Hardesty's Watchdog articles. He does not represent them as reviews.

my opinion is that his whole 'Watchdog' premise is very wrong-minded. Being the self-appointed 'audio police' without doing the in-depth listening work to support his conclusions is self-delusional at best; and mis-leading to the reader...which is worse.

If Hardesty wants to judge the factual content of review comments without in-depth documented listening then he should stick to making theoretical conclusions; and not confuse the reader with references to his listening experiences; which are not documented. Either his comments are actual reviews; or they are factual critiques.....but not both unless he wants to DO THE WORK OF A COMPLETE REVIEW including a description of his listening context.

He should have a disclaimer on his Watchdog articles which explains exactly his experience or lack thereof with the particular product.

when you make yourself judge and jury the price for credibility is high. no self-respecting magazine would make such strong statements without doing considerable homework and providing appropriate support for their conclusions.
.

Here is more interesting reading where Hardesty discusses some speaker criteria he does like. It is a glowing interview of Pat McGinty. I will tell you that I own a set of Pat's speakers.

http://www.meadowlarkaudio.com/pdf/McGinty%20Interview.pdf

.