A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

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.

its funny that none of the Wilson bashers have anything to say about the fact that reputable companies such as audio research, lamm, and vtl use and endorse wilson speakers.

I fully expect some audiogoner will also suspect that these companies are also in on the conspiracy or are poor judges of music and speakers.

Face it, the company you keep says a lot about your products. If Dave Wilson and his company was not up to snuff than I doubt that these reputable companies would showcase their products with his speakers.

these products are overpriced but so is almost all audiophile equipment.

the wilson speakers SOUND might not be your cup of tea but thinking that all of the people that own it are simply fools with tin ears is DUMB.

oh yeah by the way, some people people on audiogon seem more interested in the don quixote pursuit of perfect accuracy instead of the pursuit of the most enjoyable system possible. For those people, would you prefer a
a stereo system that excites you and make you want to listen for hours daily or would you prefer one that an engineer writes in a review or report is the most accurate system in the world but you do not like as much. I am willing to bet some of you would keep the most accurate system in the world even if over time it still did not give you the enjoyment of some other "less" accurate system. Do you really automatically think that the most accurate system is necessarily the most enjoyable? In the finaly analysis, trust your ears not your slide rule

I am writing here as Michael Fremer not as a Stereophile employee. In fact, I am not a Stereophile employee. I write for the magazine but not as a salaried employed. I am happy to say that when I speak for myself I can use any language I wish and as between using words like "suck" and "crap" and having my honesty impugned and the rest of the insults some hurl here, I think "suck" and "crap" and the rest pale by comparison. AND GOSH DARN IT, balance twenty years of columns and reviews with a few 'craps' and 'sucks' and I get accused of not knowing how to write. Yo! Take the cork out of your butt two channel Ben and lighten up!

>>>>"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."<<<<<<

Irrefutable? You've got to be joking! I must have missed the part where he had disassembled the speakers, named and photographed all the specific parts and their exact costs, and proven his "claims" stating "technically modest design"

All Richard did was read a review and measurements that _someone else_ performed, and offered often melodramatic, unqualified opinion, period. Oh, and he's heard the speakers at shows and a dealer, whom he _claims_ has the best room in the country... And again, he knows this how?

The Vandy 5a's are by comparison, a super speaker? Anyone that cares to put ANY product under a microscope can poke holes in a design till the cows come home (sorry, I'm from Wisconsin). They might not be accurate or evenhanded gripes but when there's a will and an agenda, there's a way!

My, but you've got a conspiracy theory for everything, haven't you! Knowing the people behind these exemplary companies would shed a whole new light... oh but I forgot, you _don't know_ any of these people-- but that doesn't stop you from claiming they make marketing-driven decisions that run counter to what their ears tell them. Really, you should rethink all the baseless, unfounded comments you make, before you make them, as they undermine everything else you write.

So, Meadowlark, Vandy, GMA, Dunlavy's, those all rank as superior designs? By whose yardstick? . I have nothing against any of those current and former companies. I'm sure some of them make/made decent products. I wouldn't even think of commenting on them however, because I don't have extended experience with them, in _my home_.

I guess I need to find a forum where the level of discourse it not so far over my head. Enjoy your "it's all a conspiracy, party".