A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

bright yellow ones go nicely in any moderately sized listening room with a velvet painting of Elvis. even if they were what they are thought to be, cars should not be covered in wood veneer and loudspeakers should not be covered in automotive paint and clearcoat. long live the real stuff!

first of all, no wife in history ever 'insisted' that their audiophile husband buy 'another' pair of loudspeakers. secondly, the commercial publications don't really believe that reviews are any more than a means to an end. advertising dollars 'first' and entertainment 'second' are the only two criteria that serve any real purpose. reviews of a manufacturer's products in publications (that use advertising dollars from those very manufacturers as their lifeblood) are not completely objective-ever. the day the tough questions are asked about 'real' value, and adjectives like 'so-so' appear, the advertising stops. the hi end companies and the magazines/websites are in a business climate where they need each other like they need oxygen. the only two golden rules in this hobby are "your opinion is the only one that really means anything", and the second is "rule number one still applies, even if you're an idiot who wastes your hard earned money on an ubber-expensive 'anything' that hastens this industry's demise.

who qualifies for an accommidation price? where do we sign up?

i used to be in charge of sales for a noteworthy manufacturer in the 1980's and we received moderately positive reviews in several publications. maybe i was an idiot, but i never participated in accommotion pricing for anyone other than an authorized retail, which in our glory days totaled 43 stores. any reviewer who would have wanted to keep our products would have received a NO. they would have had to go through the dealer network. i thought that showed at least a tiny bit of integrity. maybe if we would have been more "accommodating" we would still be making and selling some damn fine amps and speakers.

a blind shootout between the wilson maxx and the latest generation of the bose 901(in glossy black) would be the right thing to do now. america would then know once and for all which sounds more like a theatre in new jersey.

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.

just trying to help this thread get to 200 responses. would selling a version that is primer only have a significent impact on the the selling price? is it wise to run them through a brushless wash, without the underbody option? what would vin deisel do?

i just had direct tv installed. the company fine-tuned my satellite to its enviroment. i now can use direct tv in a post with steinway.

ok....mr.fremmer is a talented writer and simply worked within a flawed, yet approved, system to purchase speakers he loves. mr. hardesty pointed out that the speakers in question are overpriced and flawed(so far this is nothing new). roy halee bought a pair(what color?) and paid retail, which has nothing to do with the production quality of those old S&G records. the loudspeaker in question is simply a lightning rod for an industry that grows smaller and more isolated each day. 'pride-of-ownership' is an unspoken truth in the hi-end. it has nothing to do with the way a product sounds, but it is every bit as important to a consumer. i have always felt that the product in question was very well made, sounded pretty good, and cost more than a dozen pairs of loudspeakers combined that sounded every bit as good. in truth, recordings are made to sound like recordings, not a live experience. there is a 'cool' factor, and also a 'collector' appeal in the hi end which also has nothing to do with sound. a rogers ls3/5 for example(i don't have a pair)is immeasurably 'cooler' than the speaker in question. at the end of the day, what you have in your home(sometimes painfully so) is a reflection of who you are, and not exclusively based on quantifiable merit. it is a certainty that no one will wax poetic in ten years over the speaker in question like the rogers, the ohm, the dahlquist,the quad,the ar, the epi,the jbl, the corner horn,the spica, and hundreds more. the price tag and the paint job have sealed its fate.