A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Opalchip's right on point.

Not only are none of the people here are willing to address the specific performance/measurement issues raised by Hardesty, but the responses from John at Wilson and Michael Fremmer completely ignore those tough questions. Is anybody who wants to defend Wilson capable of addressing those issues. Also, some of these issues apply to a majority of other so-called "high-end" loudspeaker designs.

Issues:

**Steep-slope crossover causes time/phase distortion and requires that midrange driver be wired out-of-phase with tweeter and woofer.

What if you had purchased a new high-end power amplifier and found that it inverted the phase of the midrange frequencies in relation to the rest of the spectrum. This would be laughably unaccceptable. Why isn't the same true in a loudspeaker?

How can a design like this accurately reproduce the waveform?

** Frequency response is less flat than many inexpensive designs. Why?

** How can a 7" woofer reproduce subtle detail in the upper midrange?

Geez, a lot of responses about a speaker only 10 people in the country will buy. (O.K., maybe 15.)

I'm waiting for the educated here to tell me that the VR9's at $60K are worth that or the Kharmas at $85-115K are worth it? Or how about the X-2's at 4135.

As I said it is all about our ears and our wallets.

To me the Maxx ll blows away the VR 9 at less money. But of course that is my opinion

Now as far as John Giolas from Wilson not answering direct questions, I say "give me a break"--he invited Hardesty to Provo to tour the plant and make decisions afterwards.What more would a thorough reviewer want?

>>>"Geez, a lot of responses about a speaker only 10 people in the country will buy. (O.K., maybe 15.)"<<<

I assume you are kidding. Just related to people I know, let's see: Audio Research, VTL, LAMM, two editors at SoundStage, our company owns two pair, and then there are the consumers I know who've bought either the X2's or MAXX' 2's that number in the dozens.

I have NO problem with Hardesty having a contrary opinion or writing a negative article. Listen, no one in this thread is bashing Wilson detractors. There are detractors of every speaker ever made.

The SP measurements are what they are. One set of measurements taken by an individual, albeit a very skilled person. According to Michael, there were also in-room measurements taken that were exemplary. Also, the NRC measurements of other Wilson designs posted at SoundStage.com seem to denote a well designed product.

I agree, first order designs have great merit. I'm a big fan of the Joachim Gerhardt designed Audio Physic products of yore. Calderas, Virgos etc.

I'm neither a Wilson apologist or rank protagonist, just an interested observer that believes that if a "writer" decides to TRASH a product completely, the way Hardesty did, there should be an empirical process followed. Conducting ones own investigation, conducting ones own measurements, conducting ones own controlled listening within their OWN room, Explicated specific parts used that are claimed to be "off the shelf", supporting the "rip off" theory.

Or have we become so lazy as readers and reporters, that a re-hash of someone else's reporting is fine? As long as it provides fodder for internet ranting, it appears not many care.

Sad.

forget about measurements ,parts quality and whatever other nonsense.if the ultimate test is your ear and if it sound good to you then it must be good.then why the heck are we reading these magazines/reviews? however if hardesty feel that wilson is not a good design , maybe he should offer a specific make/model that he thinks is better or just as good as the wilson for less moeny. and maybe the magazine or somebody and do a shootout and tell us what they think. or dare i say, do a double blind test, see which speaker people prefered.i heard the x-1 before not but cup of tea , but i thought it sounds pretty good, is it the best spearke in the world, i don't know , ihaven't heard all the top speakers in the world.