This thread has now entered the realm of the surreal. I expect to see a post from Rod Serling any time now.
Bigtee: Anyone that has a "constant stance", and doesn't "bounce around" regarding sound and music, isn't being truthful or helpful IMO. "Standard parts"? And you have this information from where? Never mind, a redundant question...
Not accepting advertising means _nothing_ other than a potential marketing angle to separate oneself from "commercial magazines". I can think of several net and print magazines that use the "we don't accept advertising" ploy, and they uniformly have their own agendas, just less obvious. If you're going to throw big stones at others, it's critical to play the "I have no agenda" card. That, in and of itself, is a marketing 101 tactic that too many accept out of hand. The FAR more important teller, as in most businesses, are --relationships. And many of the "we-don't" club, have them--in spades.
There are countless motives outside of ad money, and no one is without an agenda that pens a one-dimensional (whatever you call it) article like Richard's.
In the end however, he absolutely has a right to his opinion, and if he actually listened to the MAXX 2's and didn't like them, more power to him-and his supporters. He didn't however, make it clear that he listened, or in what context--and however anyone wishes to spin that, it IS relevant and was left out. It IS significant and the omission of THAT relevant info cuts into the credibility of his opinion. Unless one set of measurements that he endlessly spun and did not CONDUCT, constitutes flawless reasoning.
Hanging one's hat on Stereophile's measured performance in describing the MAXX 2's as grossly flawed is not at all wise IMO. The speakers are enormous. Several measurements could not apparently be made as planned-- as stated in the article. Also, I believe Michael stated that their "in room" measured response was exemplary.
All I know is that 20, 30 and 40 year professionals in this business consider the MAXX 2's a reference quality transducer in a subjective sense, myself one of them. I believe far more in that, and my own impressions, than I do in one independent set of measurements, and one hard-baller with a personal or political agenda.
Are the people at VTL, Audio Research, LAMM, SoundStage, BAT, Stereophile, TAS and many others all deluded and horn-swaggled---, or better yet for the net gang: "bought off"? That's a lot of buying-off, and a conspiracy of EPIC proportions!
Are the USA's finest dealers, Sound Components, Audio Advice, Definitive, Overture, Progressive, Innovative, CSA, LA Audio, Music Lovers etc a poor judge of quality? Are they all on, er, payola? Or more likely, do they believe in a product that is well built, and performs better than others in the price class they have been exposed to? That must be some deck of cards, eh? JFK proportions, I'd wager. Keep in mind, these dealers have had Wilson long before any press surfaced. I know because I know all of these dealers.
I'll say this, there are many excellent yet diverse speakers on the market that give us all choices: , Sonus Faber, Avalon, Avante Garde, JMLab, Verity, Martin Logan, Magnepan, Totem, B&W, Lumen White and countless others--the list is endless--and I'd bet not a one would meet Sir Richard's standard of measured quality.
Why would anyone want to limit our choices, call names or deride a product they DO NOT have intimate knowledge of? IMO, that begins to limit MY choice, even if in a small way. I want to increase my array of choices in EVERY product category.
I think the recent positive press the MAXX 2's and X2's have received from SoundStage, Stereophile and TAS is well earned as is their endorsement among manufacturers of electronics--based on my direct experience. Others are free to disagree. These magazines have to protect their integrity, and penning a good review of a BAD product isn't too good for biz--ad rev or no.
But for some individuals trying to build a rep and looking for attention-especially on net forums, penning an "expose" of a product that has been praised elsewhere, can make all the difference.
JMHO
Grant
|
Richard, I am good friends with Luke Manley from VTL as well as Dave and Terry from ARC, just as you say you are.
I think it relevant to note that both Audio Research and VTL _own_ the Wilson MAXX2's and consider them ABSOLUTE references for listening to their own products--which also explains why they chose to SHOW with them at CES. And Brooks? He carries the Wilson line because he BELIEVES in them. So it would seem, that even within your self appointed circle of friends, you are way out on a limb. But that's the point isn't it? You know better 'cause you're so 'derned smart.... :)
I don't think anything John wrote was out of line, and it seemed appropriate to the circumstance. He's even invited you to visit! Don't drink the kool-aid, though, eh? I think posting John's comments and invitation made your ranting look all the more baseless.
IMO, it's rather classless to POST e-mail correspondence, but in this case I'm glad you did.
No one's defending the Wilson speakers as "the greatest", nor arguing with your absolute right to be a dissenting voice and write your contrary opinions. It's just that you offered no qualification for your opinion other than breaking down measurements _someone else_ conducted, and correlating it (rather humorously) to your admittedly casual listening experiences. If you want to tear something down so completely, there should be a higher standard of shared context and personal effort involved, at least from my perspective.
I suggest you take up John's offer. Not that ANYTHING will ever change your mind, but at least you'll do yourself a favor and come across more credibly. And that appears to me, to be what you crave the most. |
>>>>"What Hardesty says is irrefutable (and you don't have to be very "smart" or knowledgable to understand it) - The Wilsons are made with inexpensive off-the-shelf parts and are technically modest designs that make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to be true a "reference" (as in REPRODUCE THE SOURCE ACCURATELY) transducer. There is simply no argument to be made against him."<<<<<<
Irrefutable? You've got to be joking! I must have missed the part where he had disassembled the speakers, named and photographed all the specific parts and their exact costs, and proven his "claims" stating "technically modest design"
All Richard did was read a review and measurements that _someone else_ performed, and offered often melodramatic, unqualified opinion, period. Oh, and he's heard the speakers at shows and a dealer, whom he _claims_ has the best room in the country... And again, he knows this how?
The Vandy 5a's are by comparison, a super speaker? Anyone that cares to put ANY product under a microscope can poke holes in a design till the cows come home (sorry, I'm from Wisconsin). They might not be accurate or evenhanded gripes but when there's a will and an agenda, there's a way!
My, but you've got a conspiracy theory for everything, haven't you! Knowing the people behind these exemplary companies would shed a whole new light... oh but I forgot, you _don't know_ any of these people-- but that doesn't stop you from claiming they make marketing-driven decisions that run counter to what their ears tell them. Really, you should rethink all the baseless, unfounded comments you make, before you make them, as they undermine everything else you write.
So, Meadowlark, Vandy, GMA, Dunlavy's, those all rank as superior designs? By whose yardstick? . I have nothing against any of those current and former companies. I'm sure some of them make/made decent products. I wouldn't even think of commenting on them however, because I don't have extended experience with them, in _my home_.
I guess I need to find a forum where the level of discourse it not so far over my head. Enjoy your "it's all a conspiracy, party". |
Richard favors, I am told, the Vandersteen 5a's and other like designs, which are credible, long-standing industry supported products-- as are Wilson designs.
There is room for both, and they are different enough that there will be spin in both directions. I just believe that expounding on measurements that you _did not_ conduct is flawed reasoning for trashing ANY product.
This isn't about promotion or defense, it's about fairness and editorial integrity. Period.
Grant
|
I understand both Mike's and Oneobgyn's responses. Mike's preferences are beyond reproach, incredible room, electronics and speakers that "do it" for him (I'm a secret admirer). Same holds true for Oneobgyn. THAT is what this is all about, shared passion, experience, and a commitment to what one believes to be the most accurate reproduction attainable--for them. Very few if any consumers buy based on "cache" or "status". Most of us buy speakers (especially) because we dig them. People that opine otherwise are plain insulting.
Opinions are cheap, everyone has one. When it comes to press or commercial opinion, however, in my opinion, a greater standard applies.
Stereophile, TAS and SoundStage all have consistent procedure. SP and SoundStage often include objective measurement alongside subjective opinion. All of these mags qualify their opinion by referencing their system, room, context, background, and often a direct or subjective comparison, This context informs their opinion and gives the reader more than superficial insight into how their opinions were formed. Thus, a reader can accept or discount a writers opinion with comparative ease. In addition, almost anyone who has read Michael Fremer, Marc Mickelson, Jeff Fritz or Robert Harley (all who praised the MAXX 2's and or X2's) has a frame of reference for their opinion because they are _accountable_ for their opinions. Any reader can judge what they write accordingly. Say what you will, but all those writers, IMO, have exemplary track records for if nothing else, consistency and shared context. These ideals are sorely lacking in Richard's article.
In Hardesty's case, he has no direct experience, except listening at "shows" and one dealer. He did not reference how he knows the Wilson design is essentially a "kit design" with "off the shelf" drivers and parts-- which I know to be false. He conducted exactly ZERO tests, parts inventory, special crossover exams or controlled listening evaluations, yet people treat him as a great "truth teller"? I'm sorry, but this really surprises me.
I'm a full supporter of a Hardesty trip to Wilson, as John offered, even though the outcome would be pre-determined, I'd feel better knowing an antagonist had rational context for his extreme opinions. And I would have NO problem with that.
|
Any response regarding the "specific" technical issues Richard raises should be Wilson's decision and responsibility to respond to. Given Richard's "extreme" POV and agenda, it is no surprise that _ANY_ company in a similar position would demur to avoid treating such nonsense as credible.
The second any counterpoint is offered, or technical info is explicated, Richard will use it to promote that he in fact IS a legitimate critic. I think his classless posting of John's e-mail to him, says more that I ever could about his agenda.
Yes, I am an "industry Insider" ( as you frame it and as I admitted earlier in the thread). Does that invalidate my opinion? I am the marketing and sales manager for Shunyata Research. How, exactly, does that disqualify me from having a legitimately stated opinion based on MY experience? I have not been one sided, or defensive towards others opinions. I am also, gasp, a MAXX 2 owner, which may in your mind, further disqualify m. Another point I openly disclosed.
What's lost here, is that Richard H. himself is representing a commercial enterprise that he stands to profit from. His opinions right or wrong, are for sale. And who among us will deny that controversy sells. Just LOOK at this thread! Especially when taking pot-shots at established companies and media outlets. It's no shock that this stirred controversy on AGon.
People can decide for themselves. I am neither defending nor promoting anything here, other than the use of reason in deciding whether the opinions expressed in Hardesty's article were derived in a credible manner. I disagree with the manner in which he arrived at his conclusions, others do not, It's really as simple as that. We can all decide for ourselves.
You can frame conspiracy into anything you desire (and obviously do), People that KNOW me, know that I am honest and not driven by conspiracy, relationships, or agendas. Most other high-end companies, professionals, and yes, media, are not corrupt or agenda driven either, _in my experience_. It's not in their best interests to be in anybody's pocket. You disagree. I'm comfortable with people deciding for themselves, as I do
You have every right to your opinion, as I do mine. We disagree. I have no problem with that and have not personalized anything with my opinions in this thread or others. Apparently, you seek to tie me in with some type of conspiracy, which has become a theme of yours. I have spoken enough in this thread that observers can decide for themselves whether I am part of some hypocrisy, or simply someone who has opinions based on personal experience.
Your call. No ill will intended. Let's leave it at that.
|
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
|
I agree with a lot of what you say, Bigtee. There is tremendous time and phase coherence with Audio Physic speakers, though I think it silly to ascribe the sum total of theirs, or other speakers performance merely to 1st order crossovers.
I have owned and enjoyed virtually the entire AP line (when Joachim Gerhard designed the speakers) from the Virgo all the way to the Calderas. I have also enjoyed the Vandy 5a's in many systems I have listened with, both at friends, dealers and shows. I think Richard, Pat McGinty (Meadowlark), Joachim and many other 1st-order engineers would agree that there are _many_ other design variables to consider after the crossover, cabinet design being a big one.
Obviously, Dave Wilson takes design and measurement seriously, or they would never have achieved the broad level of success with reviewers, top recording professionals, Dealers, electronics manufacturers and consumers that they have. Companies such as Audio Research, Balanced Audio Technologies, LAMM, VTL and countless others take their systems very seriously, and all have selected the MAXX 2's or X2's as their reference.
I agree that what any one company or studio uses means little or nothing to audiophiles, but when you have a virtual consensus among top manufacturers, recording artists, studios and reviewers, well, either it's a colossal conspiracy, or Wilson is doing something right--you pick.
The common denominator in this extraordinarily long thread is summed up in one sentence in your post: " Shoot, I don't know!"
No one in this 242 post thread has offered _any_ negative direct experience with not only the MAXX 2, but the Sophia, Watt 7 or any other Wilson design.
I am not a Wilson apologist, or a blind raving fan. I was not a fan of_any_ of their previous designs before the Sophia. The WATT 5, WATT 6, WITT etc were not my cup 'o tea.
I am not touting the MAXX 2 as the "best" or anything close to that. I simply feel it ridiculous for people to expend so much energy offering opinion with literally _NO_ direct experience--including Hardesty.
I purchased the MAXX 2's because they are incredibly accurate (for me) in reproducing a broad range of music. I think JMLab, Verity, Magnepan, Kharma, Vandy, Von Schwiekert are also speakers worth considering based on my direct or nearly direct experience.
If any of these companies products had been singled out and dumped on the way the MAXX 2's were, I would have the same issues. If ever there is an absolute rave or an absolute trash, there should be more accountability for the writer to qualify their experience. I acknowledge, the fact that I spent my hard-earned dollars on the MAXX 2's after an extensive audition, to be a contibuting factor in my responses. But who else here has qualified their opinion to ANY degree? I don't see a soul.
This topic has been beat to death. Let's let it go.
|
Bigtee, I agree.
As most of us did, I purchased on sonics alone. I don't entertain, I have a large dedicated room designed by Rives that only myself and my 6 and 8 year old girls see. Finish and aesthetics are decidedly secondary to the point of inconsequence. I respect and admire Richard Vandersteen and the 5a's, They are great speakers. want more?
Mr Hyde-----
OK, I admit to being a superficial schmuck, driven by gloss and appearance. I paid a premium for speakers merely because they looked cool and stood tall, and my surfer bud's respect me better --and the gals, well, they fall over at the sight of my monolithic Wilsons--It's all in the name, dude.
Although the sound is terrible, it gives me an excuse to post in audio threads, arguing with people that post opinion with no direct experience, crapping on products they know little to nothing about.
peace.
:-) just for fun |
With no mention of context, comparison, system or anything remotely related to a frame of reference? What possible value to anyone can that review be?
9/10's of the "review" was his opinion of measurements someone else performed, and counter-comments taking issue with professional opinion. Taking well-aimed pot-shots at review opinion is a hobby unto itself for some, and Mr. Hardesty is simply trying to make a business out of it. He will definitely develop a fan-base with many forum participants that revel in promoting the idea of media corruption at every turn. Claiming advertising bias (without any knowledge of this) seems to discount the fact that Fremer _bought_ the speakers, although I'm sure Richard H., with all his "inside knowledge" will claim they were a "gift"....
I purchased the MAXX 2's after personal audition--in my home. I have formerly owned Audio Physic Calderas, Virgos and Avantis, and other "phase correct" "first-order" "small-driver" speakers.
I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't care for Wilson speakers, though the Wilson line has changed dramatically for the better(IMO) in recent years, starting with the Sophia. I did not care for the 5's, 3.2's etc.
Any speaker can sound bad or good at shows/dealers, it's really a crap shoot and almost totally dependent on system/room context and personal tastes/bias.
I wonder, how many Wilson-haters in this thread have actually listened carefully to them in their homes (maybe there are some, but I'm betting not many), or have they simply formed an anecdotal opinion from listening at a show or dealer?
I've heard Wilson's sound bad at shows and dealers, and can say the same for all the speakers I've heard at shows and dealers. Any speaker can sound hideous in a given context and glorious in others. Had I not taken Audio Physic speakers home, I would NEVER have purchased them based on how they sounded at my dealer.
Why did Hardesty so casually mention his listing impressions correlating to his overly dramatic technical spouting without ANY mention of where and with what system-- as if that had no relevance? Context is everything with speakers. He went into his rant (that was no review) with an ultra clear agenda, and played a connect-the-dot game with his unqualified impressions--all two sentences of them.
I don't understand why so many people see things in this hobby as black and white, bad or good, a great value, or hideously overpriced? Why are so many ready to condemn others for making a calculated personal choice at a given price? When it comes to the selection of a loudspeaker there are almost as many opinions, variables and biases as there are customers!
Offering _judgment_ about any speaker's _value_ or someone else's personal choice, or how much they should or shouldn't spend, or whether that disqualifies them as a music-lover, or makes them a moron--all suggested in this thread, seems rather pointless and shortsighted. But hey, that's just my personal opinion, and because I bought the speakers, that makes me almost as biased as Mr. Hardesty. :)
|
>>>"Geez, a lot of responses about a speaker only 10 people in the country will buy. (O.K., maybe 15.)"<<<
I assume you are kidding. Just related to people I know, let's see: Audio Research, VTL, LAMM, two editors at SoundStage, our company owns two pair, and then there are the consumers I know who've bought either the X2's or MAXX' 2's that number in the dozens.
I have NO problem with Hardesty having a contrary opinion or writing a negative article. Listen, no one in this thread is bashing Wilson detractors. There are detractors of every speaker ever made.
The SP measurements are what they are. One set of measurements taken by an individual, albeit a very skilled person. According to Michael, there were also in-room measurements taken that were exemplary. Also, the NRC measurements of other Wilson designs posted at SoundStage.com seem to denote a well designed product.
I agree, first order designs have great merit. I'm a big fan of the Joachim Gerhardt designed Audio Physic products of yore. Calderas, Virgos etc.
I'm neither a Wilson apologist or rank protagonist, just an interested observer that believes that if a "writer" decides to TRASH a product completely, the way Hardesty did, there should be an empirical process followed. Conducting ones own investigation, conducting ones own measurements, conducting ones own controlled listening within their OWN room, Explicated specific parts used that are claimed to be "off the shelf", supporting the "rip off" theory.
Or have we become so lazy as readers and reporters, that a re-hash of someone else's reporting is fine? As long as it provides fodder for internet ranting, it appears not many care.
Sad.
|
