A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

I really don't think the point was to discredit directly anything accept, that are you being sold 45,000 worth of speaker? Unfortunately, I have learned as many people have that to get attention to any certain subject you may have to show pretty negative forwardness to make a point, crack a couple Eggs if you will... Its a Warning to one that may believe they are really getting a speaker or any equipment near the cost of 50% down payment on an exotic car basically. I totally agree any one is free to spend as much as possible to find the truth and happiness in the audio world no doubt, But I think this article was Harsh but made that way to show some truth about Snake oil being sold, that's it, And I think the point was made, however the attacks on certain individuals are another story, but the fact is do I really care what any reviewer says, they all may have certain motives beyond the music, who is to judge, that point is dead. Believe in a product, but break it down into the real world cost is the whole Real point of that article, even if they sound fabulous. To some extent we are all being sold "Status" do you need a Mercedes equal to a honda accord to get to work?

Richard, I am good friends with Luke Manley from VTL as well as Dave and Terry from ARC, just as you say you are.

I think it relevant to note that both Audio Research and VTL _own_ the Wilson MAXX2's and consider them ABSOLUTE references for listening to their own products--which also explains why they chose to SHOW with them at CES. And Brooks? He carries the Wilson line because he BELIEVES in them. So it would seem, that even within your self appointed circle of friends, you are way out on a limb. But that's the point isn't it? You know better 'cause you're so 'derned smart.... :)

I don't think anything John wrote was out of line, and it seemed appropriate to the circumstance. He's even invited you to visit! Don't drink the kool-aid, though, eh? I think posting John's comments and invitation made your ranting look all the more baseless.

IMO, it's rather classless to POST e-mail correspondence, but in this case I'm glad you did.

No one's defending the Wilson speakers as "the greatest", nor arguing with your absolute right to be a dissenting voice and write your contrary opinions. It's just that you offered no qualification for your opinion other than breaking down measurements _someone else_ conducted, and correlating it (rather humorously) to your admittedly casual listening experiences. If you want to tear something down so completely, there should be a higher standard of shared context and personal effort involved, at least from my perspective.

I suggest you take up John's offer. Not that ANYTHING will ever change your mind, but at least you'll do yourself a favor and come across more credibly. And that appears to me, to be what you crave the most.

Unfortunately there's been an obvious trend for a long time in the corporate news media. The "bottom line" is Job #1, Market Share is Job #2, and reporting, a necessary evil subservient to #1 and #2, is targeted to the lowest common denominator with the highest net worth. They're running sports updates and MTV length "news" segments on Nightline now, and Koppel is "leaving", because ABC wants to compete with the David Letterman show. The New York Times has so little regard for editorial accuracy that we end up with one scandal after another out of their News Desk. Even the Village Voice is now owned by a media conglomerate and a consortium of investment banks.

If you really think that Stereophile and other big audio mags are any different, because their real mission is to provide unbiased, complete, and accurate audiophile information, advertisers be damned - well then, you're probably part of their target audience.

Wow! I want to work for Stereophile. My silly employer actually requires that I conduct myself in a professional manner, especially when making written responses. For some reason my employer believes that the Internet is a poor medium to use for conveying personal or negative feelings that relate to my profession. I think it's cool how Stereophile allows their reviewers to us words like, "SUCK", CRAP", "IDIOT" and "PISSED OFF" while representing their company in an open forum over the Internet. Darn! I wonder why my employer makes such a big deal about professional conduct. I guess it has something to do with integrity and representation. It seems like my employer is concerned with the whole "image thing." Like the public, you know, "consumers" and "target audience", might think poorly of the product my company markets just because I (a humble employee) might act like a selfish child and make a fool out of myself over a medium such as the Internet. Oh well, I do value my job. I just wish my employers were more "cool" like Stereophile. Gosh, I thought you needed to know how to write in order to write for a national publication. Hum. Go figure.

re: VTL/ARC

The fact that they may use these as reference speakers (for now) doesn't necessarily mean anything except that:
1. Manufacturers need to know how their stuff will sound with the other popular speakers/equipment of the day.
2. VTL and ARC are marketers, too - how would they "look" to the deep-pocketed Stereophile audience (i.e. their target market) if their references were the more accurate Meadowlark, Dunlavy's, GMA's or Vandersteen 5a's? Those are not Sexy - especially if they're no longer in business.
3. Who says that guys who build amplifiers necessarily have ears any different/better than the general population. There's no doubt that a lot of people like listening to Wilsons, so why shouldn't they. That's not Hardesty's point.

What Hardesty says is irrefutable (and you don't have to be very "smart" or knowledgable to understand it) - The Wilsons are made with inexpensive off-the-shelf parts and are technically modest designs that make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to be true a "reference" (as in REPRODUCE THE SOURCE ACCURATELY) transducer. There is simply no argument to be made against him.

Wilsons are built nicely, finished nicely, and it's not wrong if you absolutely LOVE the "sound" - but it's not what the old school audiophile considers Reference. I love to I crank up my DBX expander, use Impact Restoration and pump up the punchy midbass with an EQ for certain recordings - but I wouldn't claim it's audiophile reference. It's fun as hell to listen to, but I sure wouldn't want my speakers doing it automatically without my permission.

As to these people who harp on whether Hardesty had a pair at home to "review" - You don't have to fly a plane with one only wing missing to know that it's a bad idea. You don't have to drive a Ferrari with 3 wheels to know that a 4-wheeled VW will outcorner it. You don't have to hear a 96k sample rate recording to know that it sounds better than the same session recorded simultaneously at 48k and then downsampled to 44.1k. Speaker design is not as complicated a mystery as high-end marketers would like everyone to believe. Accuracy is predictable and measurable - and to a some degree, obtainable. Coloration is not so predictable - hence the vast choices in what type you can purchase. And yes, expensive coloration DOES sound better than cheap coloration.

It's not lost on anyone in the industry that almost every speaker builder who produces (near) flat frequency response, time and phase coherent designs has gone out of business. "Flat" doesn't sell speakers. Punch and Sizzle does. Even if a Zillion people love Wilsons' sound, that in NO way invalidates any of Hardesty's points.