A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

I agree with a lot of what you say, Bigtee. There is tremendous time and phase coherence with Audio Physic speakers, though I think it silly to ascribe the sum total of theirs, or other speakers performance merely to 1st order crossovers.

I have owned and enjoyed virtually the entire AP line (when Joachim Gerhard designed the speakers) from the Virgo all the way to the Calderas. I have also enjoyed the Vandy 5a's in many systems I have listened with, both at friends, dealers and shows. I think Richard, Pat McGinty (Meadowlark), Joachim and many other 1st-order engineers would agree that there are _many_ other design variables to consider after the crossover, cabinet design being a big one.

Obviously, Dave Wilson takes design and measurement seriously, or they would never have achieved the broad level of success with reviewers, top recording professionals, Dealers, electronics manufacturers and consumers that they have. Companies such as Audio Research, Balanced Audio Technologies, LAMM, VTL and countless others take their systems very seriously, and all have selected the MAXX 2's or X2's as their reference.

I agree that what any one company or studio uses means little or nothing to audiophiles, but when you have a virtual consensus among top manufacturers, recording artists, studios and reviewers, well, either it's a colossal conspiracy, or Wilson is doing something right--you pick.

The common denominator in this extraordinarily long thread is summed up in one sentence in your post: " Shoot, I don't know!"

No one in this 242 post thread has offered _any_ negative direct experience with not only the MAXX 2, but the Sophia, Watt 7 or any other Wilson design.

I am not a Wilson apologist, or a blind raving fan. I was not a fan of_any_ of their previous designs before the Sophia. The WATT 5, WATT 6, WITT etc were not my cup 'o tea.

I am not touting the MAXX 2 as the "best" or anything close to that. I simply feel it ridiculous for people to expend so much energy offering opinion with literally _NO_ direct experience--including Hardesty.

I purchased the MAXX 2's because they are incredibly accurate (for me) in reproducing a broad range of music. I think JMLab, Verity, Magnepan, Kharma, Vandy, Von Schwiekert are also speakers worth considering based on my direct or nearly direct experience.

If any of these companies products had been singled out and dumped on the way the MAXX 2's were, I would have the same issues. If ever there is an absolute rave or an absolute trash, there should be more accountability for the writer to qualify their experience. I acknowledge, the fact that I spent my hard-earned dollars on the MAXX 2's after an extensive audition, to be a contibuting factor in my responses. But who else here has qualified their opinion to ANY degree? I don't see a soul.

This topic has been beat to death. Let's let it go.

Regarding measuring speakers in an anechoic chamber, a speaker’s job is to reproduce the sound of the waveform accurately. An anechoic chamber (or software that simulates a chamber) is needed to measure the direct sound that is coming from the loudspeaker without any interference from room reflections. While it is true that loudspeakers will eventually be listened to in a room which will affect the sound, the speaker’s job still remains exactly the same; to accurately reproduce the waveform. The best way to determine if the speaker is doing this is to measure it independently in a chamber.

If you want to deal with solving room acoustics problems you need to address the room itself via room treatments and modifications rather than by attempting to alter the waveform played through the loudspeakers- excepting the extreme low frequencies. The human ear/brain is very capable of recognizing when the direct sound coming from the loudspeakers of say a piano is altered or wrong. This distortion of the waveform in an attempt to pre-correct for room problems is simply going to compound errors rather than accomplish actual correction.

Getting back to Richard Hardesty’s critique of the Wilson speakers and how it relates to the current discussion of speaker measurements. How can a speaker be considered accurate when it completely distorts the waveform’s time and phase response. If the tweeter is “pushing” while the midrange driver is “pulling”, something is very wrong. If the instrument you are listening to is in a frequency range that needs to be handled by both drivers simultaneously (e.g. a piano), there will be a lack of coherence in the presentation. Even with instruments whos fundamental frequencies lie in the midrange, the upper harmonic content extends well into the treble (e.g. with a trumpet). In this case the speaker will be “spitting” and “sucking” at the very same time.

Again, are you referencing measurements someone else performed, or your own?

Michael Fremer posted that the MAXX 2's measured near perfectly in his room. I acknowledge that JA's measurements, taken outside, showed some flaws. Who was there from this site? Who is it that can verify the measurements independently?

I'm tired of individuals posting theory based on someone elses mearsured assesments.

Do the work. Perform your trials. Then report what your experience. So far, that paradigm, one that seems dear to A-Gon posters, is sorely lacking.

This site, as long as I've been following it, seems to be about shared experience and anecdotal posts. Where are the first hand posts related to Wilson, much less the MAXX 2's in this thread? The answer is obvious.

Grant

Grant, Haven't heard the Maxx in my room so I've have tried to avoid knocking them other than the published test results and I'm in another camp as for design. I have heard a lot of "Good" sounding speakers over the years and they weren't all 1st order. I do agree that it takes more than just a 1st order crossover. Vandersteen has gone to a lot of engineering trouble to address other parameters he deems important. I use the 5a's so I am coming from that perspective in mentioning him directly.
As for who owns the Wilson's, I'm a consumer and look at it from a consumers prospective. Others have other agenda's. For example, studios are in another world for what they do. They have huge biases. Same for dealers. Electronic's people look at things differently.
It's as I said before as an example, Ayre uses the Vandersteen 3a Sigs, not because they are the best speaker but because they let them hear what they need to hear. Hansen had his on speaker designs that were right pricey and not 1st order. Steve McCormack uses them personally. Jim White at Aesthetix has a pair.
Everyone has a preference and you have yours.
As for reviewers, I'll let them defend themselves. That's their fight. Hardesty said what he thought was true and he certainly had the right just as Fremer and others have their style. He just doesn't answer to an editor. As you said about the other posters, I've really not seen anyone refute him with evidence either, other than blasting his style. So it works both ways. I would advise someone to read more of his work before blasting him and/or ruling him a nut. He's knowledgable and technically oriented just as some other reviewers. I surely can't say he has the best people skills but he did sell audio for years and has wrote a lot of stuff. So---we're all back in the same boat. Spend your money how you want. I think the jist is as I feel, sonically and technically, the Maxx SHOULD be held to a higher standard at its cost point.
You can buy the Vandersteen 5a at a starting price of $15,000 depending on finish. I'm also not into looks and don't see value in fancy finishes unless you are out to impress.

Prior to reading this thread i recently contacted John Atkinson Editor of Sterophile Magazine about this vary article. I agree with much of what he says here ( see below) as many people Mr Hardesty included criticise products they have never even heard. I have not included my portions of the email due to space on the thread but my questions touched on the many favorable reviews of Wilson speakers of late and the romaticism many reveiwers are applying to Wilsons products. Keep in mind folks Wilson speakers are built to a very high standard, even though they modify Focals drivers in house these are still outsourced drivers and add extra production cost to there products that are passed on to you. Have you all ever considered that Maybe just Maybe Wilson speakers cost so much more than there competitors not because they are light years better than the competition but because there in house overhead and production cost is so much higher than ( Focal Jm Labs ) and (B&W) as these two company's have much larger distribution and R&D capabilites in plain english they produce there own drivers and sell them to other manufactures at a profit.

>Mr. Atkinson, I ran across this article regarding Wilson Audio speakers, which raised some excellent questions regarding the integrity of reviewer’s findings when Wilson products are reviewed.<



Thank you for contacting me about this matter. I was aware of Richard Hardesty’s criticisms. However, he fails to mention what I certainly feel to be an important point: that he has never auditioned the Wilson speakers under familiar circumstances. By contrast, both Michael Fremer and I have done so. I did mention the midrange coloration in my section of the review, as well as the fact that it was less obtrusive than I have expected. I also found the Wilson’s presentation of low frequencies to be the best I have experienced in Michael Fremer’s room.



I am puzzled by Mr. Hardesty’s comments about the Wilson midrange units being really “woofers.” I suspect this is sophistry. Also, Mr. Hardesty makes no reference to the fact that the Wilson’s have very low disrotion, which translates into a very wide dynamic range.



Thanks for writing with your concerns.



John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile