A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

ok....mr.fremmer is a talented writer and simply worked within a flawed, yet approved, system to purchase speakers he loves. mr. hardesty pointed out that the speakers in question are overpriced and flawed(so far this is nothing new). roy halee bought a pair(what color?) and paid retail, which has nothing to do with the production quality of those old S&G records. the loudspeaker in question is simply a lightning rod for an industry that grows smaller and more isolated each day. 'pride-of-ownership' is an unspoken truth in the hi-end. it has nothing to do with the way a product sounds, but it is every bit as important to a consumer. i have always felt that the product in question was very well made, sounded pretty good, and cost more than a dozen pairs of loudspeakers combined that sounded every bit as good. in truth, recordings are made to sound like recordings, not a live experience. there is a 'cool' factor, and also a 'collector' appeal in the hi end which also has nothing to do with sound. a rogers ls3/5 for example(i don't have a pair)is immeasurably 'cooler' than the speaker in question. at the end of the day, what you have in your home(sometimes painfully so) is a reflection of who you are, and not exclusively based on quantifiable merit. it is a certainty that no one will wax poetic in ten years over the speaker in question like the rogers, the ohm, the dahlquist,the quad,the ar, the epi,the jbl, the corner horn,the spica, and hundreds more. the price tag and the paint job have sealed its fate.

I decided to stop my subscription to Mr.Hardesty magazine when in issue 12 he killed both planars and electrostatic speakers. That was like a heart attack for me. I can reprint the text because I will infringe copyright law I guess.
Basically the opennes/trasparency we hear in planars seems to be called "Time smear". Now to hear that also wilson (cannot afford them but at any single fair I went they were between the best sounding speakers to my ears) are pointed by his , seems to be a bit too much.
Reading him carefully sounds like between the 3 main technology of speakers building 2 of them are just for stupids.
Cheers
Daniel

Look folks. All of this is entertainment, OK? Just like professional sports and anything else in life that requires "spectation" on the part of the spectator, either visual or audible, or both. Stereophile, TAS, Hardesty and others are all about entertainment, and that is why I read them. If I get a little "philosophy" or "insight" in the process, and maybe it points me in a direction I want to go in terms of thinking, auditioning or purchasing, that's my choice. If I had no high end system, you can bet that I would find a way to make my JVC boombox satisfy my musical cravings.

Both Michael Fremer and Richard Hardesty have contributed to my education, evaluation and enjoyment of the "spectation" because they have influenced personal choices that I am satisfied with. I have respect for both of them. It is not easy being an entertainer. Neither is right, neither is wrong.

Buyer beware, for both entertainment and for purchases of so-called high end gear. And I did not fail to notice yet another dig at Krell from one contributor here...FASCINATING!

Jaybo,
Great response ! You hit alot of interesting points. I agree with your opinion that the the goal is to faithfuly reproduce the recordings. If you want a "live experience" buy better recordings. I hope people really think about what else you wrote. As an aside, the one "reviewer" who(IMHO)seems reliable is John Marks.- Jim

I'm entertained, how about everyone else?!