A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

The colouration of Wilson speakers I believe, is green.

From the Soundstage specs I referenced, Wilson Watt-Puppy has a lot more midrange distortion than Thiel 2.4's at 1/5 the price.

According to Fremer:
" The Rockport Antares delivered a but more delicacy and a unique "black hole" disappearing act.
"The MAXX . . . bass extension and resolve that would be difficult to improve on in any room. . . The ultimate in transparency has been sacraficed". . . "with the bottom end even more fully revealed".
So the Wilson is colored, lacks transparency, but does bass really good. Personally I'd take the Antares in a second what with the Esotar tweeter and Skaaning drivers and because bass is not my priority.

Waldner - I'd add that inviting Hardesty to the factory doesn't address any of his points either, save for possibly demonstrating the time (and therefore "cost") which goes into the cabinet construction. The cabinet construction though is a means to an end, that end being the sound of the speakers AND the measured results.

Opalchip why are you taking potshots at Samuel? Why can't a Wilson Maxx2 owner and "industry insider" defend his choice? ... seems like none of us could possibly defend our points of view then, because we don't all own the perfect equipment?

I own some powercords made by Samuel's company and can tell you that they are among the best in the world, and his identity is not that hard to find out ... just go and surf the websites of the leading 4 powercord manufacturers in North America (Elrod, Transparent Audio, Shunyata, Purist Audio Design) and you'll see the examples he used in the post you quoted will show up on his website. I've never met Samuel in person but I do have great respect for his products, and I consider them to be among the best out there. His top of the line powercords have never failed to impress me and it shows all the R&D that went into developing them because to my ears they sound amazing ... and yes, Wilson Audio does use them in their test room and so does Halcro (who actually provides them with their amps) ... I guess samuel knows a thing or two about high end audio and his opinions are - to a certain degee - driven by his vast experience.

I'm not a Wilson Audio owner or fan, but their speakers are among the few cone designs that can match horns in the frequencies where the horns excell. Not perfect of course, but they deserve some credit at least.

Any response regarding the "specific" technical issues Richard raises should be Wilson's decision and responsibility to respond to. Given Richard's "extreme" POV and agenda, it is no surprise that _ANY_ company in a similar position would demur to avoid treating such nonsense as credible.

The second any counterpoint is offered, or technical info is explicated, Richard will use it to promote that he in fact IS a legitimate critic. I think his classless posting of John's e-mail to him, says more that I ever could about his agenda.

Yes, I am an "industry Insider" ( as you frame it and as I admitted earlier in the thread). Does that invalidate my opinion? I am the marketing and sales manager for Shunyata Research. How, exactly, does that disqualify me from having a legitimately stated opinion based on MY experience? I have not been one sided, or defensive towards others opinions. I am also, gasp, a MAXX 2 owner, which may in your mind, further disqualify m. Another point I openly disclosed.

What's lost here, is that Richard H. himself is representing a commercial enterprise that he stands to profit from. His opinions right or wrong, are for sale. And who among us will deny that controversy sells. Just LOOK at this thread! Especially when taking pot-shots at established companies and media outlets. It's no shock that this stirred controversy on AGon.

People can decide for themselves. I am neither defending nor promoting anything here, other than the use of reason in deciding whether the opinions expressed in Hardesty's article were derived in a credible manner. I disagree with the manner in which he arrived at his conclusions, others do not, It's really as simple as that. We can all decide for ourselves.

You can frame conspiracy into anything you desire (and obviously do), People that KNOW me, know that I am honest and not driven by conspiracy, relationships, or agendas. Most other high-end companies, professionals, and yes, media, are not corrupt or agenda driven either, _in my experience_. It's not in their best interests to be in anybody's pocket. You disagree. I'm comfortable with people deciding for themselves, as I do

You have every right to your opinion, as I do mine. We disagree. I have no problem with that and have not personalized anything with my opinions in this thread or others. Apparently, you seek to tie me in with some type of conspiracy, which has become a theme of yours. I have spoken enough in this thread that observers can decide for themselves whether I am part of some hypocrisy, or simply someone who has opinions based on personal experience.

Your call. No ill will intended. Let's leave it at that.

A core issue in the design of audio equipment is, "what really matters?"

Not everything that can readily be measured matters. For instance, total harmonic distortion measurements have essentially no correlation with perceived sound quality, but certain mathematical weightings of THD measurements do.

Years ago as an amateur speaker designer I decided to build a speaker that attained the Holy Grail - namely, time and phase coherence (true first order crossover with drivers aligned on a sloped baffle) along with flat frequency response (accomplished over several days of crossover refinement). As I got closer and closer to "flat" response, the speakers sounded worse and worse. But I pressed on, unquenchable in my faith that when I got to the Promised Land, the Angels would Sing. Finally, I achieved the impossible: A two-way loudspeaker that measured plus or minus .75 dB from 45 Hz to 10 kHz, 1/3 octave pink noise (it went higher, but I didn't trust my measurements up there, and in retrospect probably shouldn't have trusted them under 200 Hz). How did it sound? Terrible! Possibly the worst sounding speaker I had ever made. The imaging was holographic, though.

Now, since then I've heard loudspeakers that measure very close to flat that sound good, and others that sound awful. So I can't reliably say that flat response sounds good or bad. And, which "flat" measurement are we talking about? On-axis, 30 degree listening window, front hemispherical, omnidirectional (power response), in-room or anechoic, and at what distance?

Time and phase response is an issue I read about quite a bit in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society years ago. My recollection is that, at that time, the research did not support the thesis that time and phase coherence was audibly significant on music program material. I don't think it's a bad thing, and I do think it helps imaging and probably dynamics, but a lot of experienced audio engineers don't think it's worth the compromises imposed.

I have my pet theories as to what characteristics and measurements correlate well with perceived sound quality (and my tomorrow's theory may be different from my today's). David Wilson has his, and Richard Hardesty has his. As an aside, who's to say that the exquisite craftsmanship of the Wilsons doesn't contribute to their enjoyment? In the restaurant industry, "presentation" (how the food looks) is an important issue. If it tastes like steak but looks like a dog t#rd, some people are going to be put off by it. (If the price is right, I might not care what it looks like; I've been known to have a hard time enjoying a first-class steak thinking of how much it costs - why, you could buy a set of tip-toes for that!!).

But back to "what really matters". I'm not convinced that David Wilson is clueless on that front, nor am I convinced that Richard Hardesty is. I think that in many cases advances in the area of understanding "what really matters" have not kept pace with advances in technology, so that in and of itself advanced technology doesn't promise any better results. My recent association with an industry professional who is doing core research into "what really matters" has convinced me that there is a great deal yet to be learned in this area, for it turns out that what the human hearing mechanism has a high tolerance for and what it has a low tolerance for does not neatly coincide with what is easily and commonly measured and/or calculated.

Duke