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.
