A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

OB, "To me the Maxx ll blows away the VR 9 at less money"

where did that come from? is it somehow directed at me? maybe you are simply trying to make a point about costs but your approach hits close to home and i just wonder what your intent is.

if you have read my posts here i have been firmly against Hardesty's rant as improper and unfair. i know that Kharma and Von Schweikert are not your favorite....as Wilson is not mine...but 'blow away'?

how about "it's not my cup of tea"....or...."i've only heard it at a show but it didn't float my boat".

what about the famous OB perspective of 'to each their own according to their tastes'?

to me this thread is about proper methodology; not personal taste. brutal comments (from self-appointed experts--i'm specifically NOT referring to you here) require considerable effort to justify! have you spent sufficient time with the VR9 to feel justified with that comment or is this like Hardesty?

we can start another thread regarding the MAXX II verses the VR9 if you like. i've heard the VR9's sound like crap and the MAXX II's sound very good.....and visa versa.

BTW, i love ya anyway.

;^)

Mike

there is nothing intended at you or yours, so please take a breath and stop taking things so personal.

My point is very simple---there is great discussion here about Wilson, Von Schweikert and Kharma as many members here have such gear.None of these speakers are anything more than a box, some wires, drivers and all of the R&D that goes into their production. I am happy to spend the money as are you because we share the passion. Nothing was directed at you. It just seems these 3 speakers seem to be the ones mentioned and I was using them, (INCLUDING MY OWN X-2's I MIGHT ADD),to serve as an example.
Luv ya too Mke.

It is a flavor thing. I respect you for yours and I am sure the same goes the other way. I read your posts. My point was that none of these speakers are worth what MSRP is, but I will say it again...it is all about our ears and our wallets. I respect you for Wilson not being your cup of tea and I am sure you feel the same about me and Wilson.

As I have said above, there is nothing in an X-2 that is worth $135K except for buying Dave Wilson at the pinnacle of his game.

Now every one needs to take a deep breath

Not defending Hardesty (he's perfectly capable of doing that himself) but several things are being lost here. 1. His magazine is not online, it is by subscrption and a right costly one at that. 2) While all are posturing on his "Watchdog", he is not the one who posted it in this forum. He writes these for his subscribers who, having read his other "Journals" have a complete understanding where he is coming from.
He has gone to great lengths in his journals to explain himself and to validate his points. He has explained the "Watchdogs" in length which are not reviews as everyone seemed to think.
All I've gotten from this thread is some people think the Wilson's sound good and therefore justify their hefty price tag. I have not read one person defend the engineering of the speakers nor refute the accusations that the drivers are off the shelf stuff(which to me says Wilson put a lot into looks.)
If you have the money and want to spend it on these speakers, it's fine with me. Personally, I would like to know a little more about the design of these speakers.
I also have to admit that my bias says that a "Midrange" out of phase to the woofer and tweeter is audible. But that's just me.
As I said before, I guess engineering doesn't matter. As long as it sounds good, right? It's also funny that for a speaker to be noticed as "The best", it has to have a high price tag.
I suppose we could spend days refuting each other. If you own the speakers, yea, I guess you would be testy to criticism.
And just for information, Ayre, Aesthetix and others use the Vandersteen 3a Sigs in their soundrooms---
Jim White, Steve McCormack and others use these same speakers personally. My point being, you don't have to spend a fortune for a well designed "Reference" speaker. These guys use them because they let them hear what they need to hear. Reference can mean a lot.

Man this is like watching "Clash of the Titans"

boy with rooms and gear like you guys have you would think you would be too busy enjoying it to post here, let alone get a bent about silly little comments....both of you close you eyes and imagine you have my gear...ok now when you are done laughing go have fun!

I understand both Mike's and Oneobgyn's responses. Mike's preferences are beyond reproach, incredible room, electronics and speakers that "do it" for him (I'm a secret admirer). Same holds true for Oneobgyn. THAT is what this is all about, shared passion, experience, and a commitment to what one believes to be the most accurate reproduction attainable--for them. Very few if any consumers buy based on "cache" or "status". Most of us buy speakers (especially) because we dig them. People that opine otherwise are plain insulting.

Opinions are cheap, everyone has one. When it comes to press or commercial opinion, however, in my opinion, a greater standard applies.

Stereophile, TAS and SoundStage all have consistent procedure. SP and SoundStage often include objective measurement alongside subjective opinion. All of these mags qualify their opinion by referencing their system, room, context, background, and often a direct or subjective comparison, This context informs their opinion and gives the reader more than superficial insight into how their opinions were formed. Thus, a reader can accept or discount a writers opinion with comparative ease. In addition, almost anyone who has read Michael Fremer, Marc Mickelson, Jeff Fritz or Robert Harley (all who praised the MAXX 2's and or X2's) has a frame of reference for their opinion because they are _accountable_ for their opinions. Any reader can judge what they write accordingly. Say what you will, but all those writers, IMO, have exemplary track records for if nothing else, consistency and shared context. These ideals are sorely lacking in Richard's article.

In Hardesty's case, he has no direct experience, except listening at "shows" and one dealer. He did not reference how he knows the Wilson design is essentially a "kit design" with "off the shelf" drivers and parts-- which I know to be false. He conducted exactly ZERO tests, parts inventory, special crossover exams or controlled listening evaluations, yet people treat him as a great "truth teller"? I'm sorry, but this really surprises me.

I'm a full supporter of a Hardesty trip to Wilson, as John offered, even though the outcome would be pre-determined, I'd feel better knowing an antagonist had rational context for his extreme opinions. And I would have NO problem with that.