A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

That Mr. Hardesty has named his journal eponymously with Mr. Wilson's subwoofer is more than telling: Axes are clearly grinding. The few who are able to procure MAXX IIs are unlikely to be dissuaded by his "opinion". But the rest of us will surely thank him for reminding us of how blessed we are to be precluded from the option.

Anechoic chambers don't skew the measurements?
Dipole, point source, line source, transmission line, ported, bass reflex and electrostat speakers are all subjected to 1940s "technology" without "bias"?
Take a guess which one tests best with archaic parameters.
Cretins often confuse sophists with sophomores:-):-):-):-);-)!!!!!!!!? And the best part is that they don't even know.

Rysa4, I understand your desire for an "objective standard" but why must it be an anechoic chamber?

The room in which I listen is no more an anechoic chamber than it is an aquarium (excepting the bottom feeders, of course). Why not put accelerometers on the drivers and measure their response in a vacuum?

Better yet, let's shoot speakers up to the International Space Station and test them in completely controlled environments free of the variables of gravity, density, atmospheric composition (some speakers sound best with pure O2 and a cigar), humidity, temperature and reality.

I believe "Stereo Review" nearly achieved that level of "objectivity" until they abandoned cigars.

Unsound, how is an anechoic chamber a less prejudicial reference?

Rysa4, sorry you missed the joke: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Jaybo, Vin would only use an anechoic wash then hand buff the finish until it reflected DC.

Unsound, no personal attack meant. Of course technology can be improved by better testing procedures which is why I think 2005 computer models have suplanted 1940 anechoic chambers.

Rysa4, I agree that a "standard" of reference is useful but the fact that no two anechoic chambers are alike precludes them from being it. The volume of an anechoic chamber alone will dramatically alter the measurements of any given speaker and that is only one of many non-controlled variables in the equation. It seems that some anechoic chambers are more anechoic than others. Imagine that.

Scott, my posts are often meant to be humorous sophistry but I would be flattered to have them mistaken as the naivety of a sophomore. And the 'M' is in fine voice.

To all: If you could choose ANY speaker system with only one "reference" would you use its anechoic frequency response or the ears of a trusted listener?

Unsound, since neither anechoic chambers nor the measuring equipment nor the techniques used are standardized, how can that possibly be a baseline? All anechoic measurements tell you is the singular "performance" of a speaker in a singular environment that could not be more removed from its intended usage.

Our understanding of acoustics has progressed significantly since 1940 but old "standards" die hard.

Sound as we experience it is naturally reflective and therefore IMHO the fewer the compensatory devices (passive, electronically processed or whatever) necessary to allow a transducer to sound natural the better.

When Steinway voices its instruments with anechoic chambers or they carpet Carnegie Hall I'll capitulate and jump into the void.

Unsound you are relentless, a trait I admire, but we've dribbled beyond logic long ago.

But for the record, Wilson does individually tune the MaXX to every environment in which it is placed, just like Steinway.

And I wait with bated breath for the anechoic testing results of surround sound. Or is this anachronism only relevant to stereo?

Oysters in May pose risk of Vibrio Vulnicus infection. So definitely don't send any results until after Septenber. Regarding the Herring Festival, could you apprise us of any particularly red ones worth chasing?(other than anechioc anarchism).We have the nets And the will and the way. We are otherwise ready as well.