A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

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

It's too easy to criticise any spkr based on some (often incomplete) data as it's easy to condone a spkr because "I like it" and use the same data to support that view. In reading Mr Hardesty's article it seems to me that, in part, there is an attempt to "demask" the brand Wilson through a criticism of the product -- as in, "the big brands sell you products that are not all they're made out to be". "I'll prove why... "(follows analysis on inaccuracy of reproduction).

Home use spkrs in general are a bit more complicated than this argument would suggest. Duke put it very well & succintly above:

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

I also have some (little) experience of "designing" & diy-ing spkrs and would add that -- to make things worse -- this "hearing mech's" tolerances vary with spl and mood (& other things). For that matter, the spkr's performance also varies with spl (& a score of other things). And it's good if the product is well finished and looks good.

So, a lot is the result of designers' choice; I'm not enamoured by the Wilson spkrs I have heard -- I like the small Sophia -- BUT would hardly conclude that Mr Wilson is clueless as per spkr design & a master at furniture design:) Whether there's a midrange or not, or the xyz driver is wired out of phase with the rest... I dunno (xover maybe?), ask Wilson. Or, don't buy the product -- this is a market economy, after all (whether or not it's a "capitalistic society" as mentioned above, is another matter).

OTOH, if one wonders "what am I really getting for all that money" the probable answer is "a big Wilson". Fair enough --no? If Mr Wilson want an upmarket positioning for his brand, why not? Branded products in supermarkets sell at a premium, why not at the hi-end auditorium?
After all, even I find that many Wilson products have sonic similarities -- so maybe people buy that, despite what some of us and Mr Hardesty have to criticise about certain technical properties.

when industry insiders are privy to special pricing(and terms), it should be something 'of record'. the details on a transaction or the relationship between a writer and a brand should be spelled out. credibility takes years to establish and unfortunatley one weak moment to destroy. if i dearly love a product and the people who make it, i am in no position to write objectively. the reviews in question were indeed biased to say the least. the watch dog article simply pointed out the monumental flaws in the process. if hardesty takes the bait at wilson and then rethinks his position, he would be considered a hypocrite, yet the bait has been availble, and taken by many who really could care less about 'the industry' and 'the hobby' as long as they get what they desire. unfortunately we all regret purchases from time to time(some very expensive). don't trust your ears, trust your concience. the hi end expression 'cost-no-object' has more than one meaning.

Samuel, what exactly in the Hardesty article do you consider "nonsense"?