A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

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

I'd certainly like to be able to hear every speaker of consideration in my home but the best I can do is go to stores, go to CES or the like, occasionally demo at friends homes, and of course read articles of interest.

It is important to me to have some basic data including frequency responses in an anechoic chamber tested environment for the reasons described in several of the above posts. It is NOT the only determinant, but it allows one basis of comparison. I do measure as best as I can in my own home for a variety of reasons after I purchase.

I'd like to see that done for the Wilson speakers as well as part of any review article. Its pretty basic. Why not include the info? perhaps the tests have in fact been done! I did think Mr Hardesty's article was hostile in tone but did raise some good points as well.