If you read all of Hardesty's early journals, you will easily see where he is coming from. He discusses ALL of his positions. The "Watch Dog" is his gripe piece. I think personally a speaker costing this much should be held to a lofty standard and Strereophiles measurements pretty much agree with Hardesty's opinions IMO. By the way, Hardesty has been at this a long, long time. I respect his opinions as I do others. However, he sure gives a more valid reasoning for his position than most any reviewer I've read. At least he has a constant stance and doesn't bounce around.
After reading all of these posts, I'm with a fellow above, I thought "Hi-end" was about reproducing the source as close as possible. If it's as most say, then hell, it doesn't matter what you buy (which it doesn't to me anyway.)
The Wilson speaker isn't accurate---that's an indisputable fact based on its design and measured results. It canot come close to duplicating the incoming signal. If one likes how it sounds and has the money, more power to them and happy listening. That's a chunk of change for something with standard parts and a massive cabinet. I guess some like furniture more.
As to MF, seems a nerve was struck and he doesn't take criticism very well. Someone who defends themself that hard over audio---hmmm. Dare I say insecurity? |
Not defending Hardesty (he's perfectly capable of doing that himself) but several things are being lost here. 1. His magazine is not online, it is by subscrption and a right costly one at that. 2) While all are posturing on his "Watchdog", he is not the one who posted it in this forum. He writes these for his subscribers who, having read his other "Journals" have a complete understanding where he is coming from.
He has gone to great lengths in his journals to explain himself and to validate his points. He has explained the "Watchdogs" in length which are not reviews as everyone seemed to think.
All I've gotten from this thread is some people think the Wilson's sound good and therefore justify their hefty price tag. I have not read one person defend the engineering of the speakers nor refute the accusations that the drivers are off the shelf stuff(which to me says Wilson put a lot into looks.)
If you have the money and want to spend it on these speakers, it's fine with me. Personally, I would like to know a little more about the design of these speakers.
I also have to admit that my bias says that a "Midrange" out of phase to the woofer and tweeter is audible. But that's just me.
As I said before, I guess engineering doesn't matter. As long as it sounds good, right? It's also funny that for a speaker to be noticed as "The best", it has to have a high price tag.
I suppose we could spend days refuting each other. If you own the speakers, yea, I guess you would be testy to criticism.
And just for information, Ayre, Aesthetix and others use the Vandersteen 3a Sigs in their soundrooms---
Jim White, Steve McCormack and others use these same speakers personally. My point being, you don't have to spend a fortune for a well designed "Reference" speaker. These guys use them because they let them hear what they need to hear. Reference can mean a lot. |
I have said many times throughout threads here on A'gon that I have a hard time finding a speaker that comes even close to reproducing the tonal qualities of a live sax. As a sax player for many years, it almost makes "High end audio" a moot point. Maybe this is why so many people have gone to the "Sounds good" school no matter what the technical aspects of the design may be. "Sounds good" is definitely in the ears of the beholder.
I went to 1st order speakers years ago because they seemed to capture more of the harmonic richness of instruments. While not perfect, that was my reasoning.
Maybe it is in the recording process. I have a friend who does recording for the local symphony. He tries to produce a recording as faithful to the original as possible. It still always falls short of the live performance even though he uses very well thought of mikes, etc.
I really feel we are still a long way off from reproducing a live event. Yeh, you can add tricks to the recording to help simulate the event such as artificial ambience and/or reverb.
I guess my thing is with the escalating prices of equipment, is it worth it after you reach a certain point? |
Gmood1, I did the samething. A friend of mines son is a professional drummer. After listening to him practice a while---wow, no way will any audio system capture what I heard. It really shows the dynamic limitations that are imposed on the audio chain. When a couple of acoustic guitars were added in for fun, well, you really see what's missing in home reproduction. |
Onhwy61, My friend has tried to catch the essence of the performance. You certainly can't recreate it from every perspective but I think he tries for what the average listener would hear in the center lower level of the better seating areas. However, I still think the reproduction chain should capture the "Sound" of real instruments to the point that they do sound realistic.
I'm well aware of "Artists" or recording engineers expression. That should still not mean that speakers can't reproduce instrumental tones properly even if the overall recording is questionable.
However, with what you have said, it stregthens my point. What are we trying to accomplish with high end audio since the whole thing is flawed and we don't have the "Absolute" standard. Nobody knows what the original event sounded like except from one perspective that they had when attending the event. It is a matter of interpretation.
Now, I do believe you can record individual instruments and you should be able to achieve a reasonable facsimily of that event, wouldn't you think? We have tried this and this is the basis for me using 1st order speakers. IMO, they sound closer to the individual instrument. |
Onhwy61,I cannot debate your statement as to recording equipment, etc. I know there are HUGE differences.
However, I would like to add that if you take a fairly close miked (on good equipment) recording of individual or groups of individual instruments, you can readily hear a difference in the final presentation played back on different speakers and/or designs.
I have tried this with sax, clarinet, flute, strings and acoustic guitars. By using the same recording (hence, placing the speakers on equal footing for direct comparison)I have noticed substantial differences in how the speakers in comparison handle harmonic structure and overall accuracy of tone.
Of course, I guess one could argue room effects due to radiational patterns of the speaker, equipment interface or whatever but they're substantial differences in the presentation.
It's amazing how drivers out of phase suddenly sound out of phase.
With the absence of any standard's, I guess one has to go with what they perceive as the most realistic, hence all the designs, etc. That's perfectly ok with me. Free enterprise is a wonderful thing and I for one would never want to hinder it. However, my thoughts do evolve around trying to find the most faithful reproduction based on what meager comparisons I can derive. |
I do agree my emphasis is more absolute I think what Onhwy61 says is probably true. The recording has so much to do with the end result and this is why I think some demo with certain recordings that favor a given speaker/design. I guess my goal is to have a speaker faithfully reproduce the recording for better or worse.
In this vain, I have found well designed 1st order time and phase coherent speakers to deliver over a wider range of recordings. But that's just me. Everyone is entitled and this debate will go on and on.
If a person likes the Wilson or whatever---great. They certainly overwhelm most rooms and sure have a lot of driver area. I wonder if shear driver area has an affect on perceived sound since a louder presentation usually sounds better to most? Given the cone area, you would certainly have more impact even at lower volumes. Shoot, I don't know! |
Samual, Hmmm, by constant stance, I mean Hardesty does conform to one type of engineering method that he feels gives the best chance to a speaker at reproducing the source accurately. Does time and phase coherency ring a bell. Also, he believes in sealed enclosures for bass. He doesn't "Bounce" for the flavor of the month. I haven't seen a lot change in speaker design for a long time. Most are rehash of old designs.
I think sticking with ones principles is a good idea. I couldn't disagree more with your statement he is not being helpful. I guess consumer education is a bad thing? He compares and points out flaws both audible and measurable. And not being truthful---not truthful to what---his long held beliefs and principals? You don't have to agree with the man but he does give the reasons behind his beliefs. And I'll say again, how many reviewers do that. Most describe how it sounds to them and damn the technology. If that is true, then all this becomes a moot point.
As for standard parts, read the watchdog, the drivers are off the shelf stuff. There's nothing high dollar or special here (as in no patented designs.) You would think at these lofty prices, there would be some special engineering or custom drivers or something out of the ordinary that Wilson could brag on other than a car finish. |
Now these last few comments are what confuse me. What is "High end" audio. Is it a bunch of expensive products that lay some claim to fame? No wonder Best Buy and Circuit City thrive. Why not? Their stuff sounds as good to their customers as this stuff sounds to us "Golden ears." What makes us so special? If we are in pursuit of what sounds good then I'm getting off this bandwagon. Where does all the other attributes fit in. Why test if you are going for something that sounds good to the individual. Just go out and find something pleasing. It seems to me that it renders this whole thread a mute point other than the digs at reviewers. What do we need them for anyway? If we want something that sounds good to use no matter how technically incorrect, how inaccurate or whatever, then we can bypass all this nonsense. What difference does it make if its got a 1st order, 2cd or 95th crossover. If it sounds good, it's justified even if it costs $40k. Is doesn't matter how it's built, right?
So, in closing, manufacturers should give up all this fancy crap and just make products that sound good. Quit spending so much on R&D and listen more. Come up with that silky smooth, bold sound that overwhelms the listener. Who cares if it's plus or minus 10db over the midrange. You really don't even need to test it. That doesn't matter, it sounds good! |
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. |
