A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Pdffiles/Model%205A%20Reprint.pdf

FWIW- Mr. Hardesty's "Watch Dog" is NOT a review of the Maxx 2 as some are misinterpreting here. To understand the purpose and intent of his "Watch Dog" articles I suggest you read it in his own words.

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html

He also doesn't accept advertising for his Audio Perfectionist Journals so I'm not sure why some are suggesting he probably tried to get Wilson to advertise, they turned him down, hence the scornful "review" of the Maxx 2. This scenario is not even close.

Whether someone agrees with him or not, he is simply offering his opinion and expertise on what he feels constitutes and accurate reproduction of the recorded signal, NOT live music. He makes his beliefs and philosophies well known and elucidated in his Journals.

If Mr. Fremer and his wife are extremely happy with the sound of the Maxx 2s, then that is all that matters. I think Mr. Hardesty is being critical of Mr. Fremer and Mr. Harley as "reviewers", where he feels they are misleading or leaving out critical information about the Maxx 2s that an "informed" reader should know about.

This hobby is so full of great music and equipment, both of which many talented people devote their lives to, that it is silly to believe there will be an "absolute" that everyone will agree upon. Freedom of choice- with the ability to make informed decisions, and deciding for YOURSELF what sounds good is all that should matter at the end of the day.

You can find a "forum" on just about every product or hobby out there- all with the same differing opinions and "expertise" that banters back and forth here.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! He did not "review" the speaker. It is one of his "Watch Dog" articles which ARE NOT REVIEWS. If it was a "review" I would agree with all the comments above.

Again- read the intent of his "Watch Dog" articles.
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html

Please debunk his arguments in that context.

IMO, I see his basic premise as- if something costs $45,000 it better offer some advanced technology, and have somewhat sound engineering that will yield somewhat accurate measurements. In his opinion the Maxx 2 doesn't come close to those objectives.

Since the Maxx2 deviates from a "flat frequency response" (peaked midbass) and wires drivers out of phase with each other, he feels it can't begin to justify its price tag and be considered state of the art.

Should he listen to the speaker in his own room and system before making such broad based statements? Yes, but perhaps he feels he is "knowledgeable" enough that such an evaluation is not necessary based upon the actual design of the speaker and the brief listening encounters he had with the speaker.

I am not defending Hardesty, just trying to put his commentary in the right context. Two friends of mine whose opinions I respect heard the Maxx 2 stated it was one of the best speakers they have heard.

I also love reading Fremer's article every month in Stereophile. YMMV.