A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Interesting response by Mr. Fremer, but he doesn't address any of the specific criticisms made by Mr. Hardesty of the build quality, choice of materials (e.g. the choice of a rather large 7" midrange "woofer") and the problematic measured performance of the Wilson speakers.

Instead he seems to say that "ALL speakers are colored" and "choosing a speaker is like choosing a mate". And he basically repeats things like this over and over again in a variety of different ways. The unfortunate thing is that Mr. Fremer is a high-end audio reviewer and not a casual listener. I would hope that he is experienced and knowledgeable in ways that the casual listener is not, and would therefore be better able to address the specific issues raised by Mr. Hardesty, point by point.

I do not blame Mr. Fremer for lashing back at those who claim he is a "huckster" or somehow swayed by the manufacturers who advertise his magazine. If he is the honest man he claims to be, and I believe he is, he has every right to defend himself against such reckless charges.

It is interesting that Mr. Fremer talks about his relationship with some of the manufacturers and the difficulty of being "friends" with some who he has to write product reviews for. I would imagine all reviewers deal with that same issue.

At the same time, Mr. Hardesty is a high-end audio reviewer as well. Mr. Fremer, along with some of the other posters here, have called Mr. Hardesty's Watch Dog piece "a review". I don't find any indication that Mr. Hardesty himself considers his Watch Dog column a review. On the contrary, his Watch Dog column is often a response to another journalist's review of a given product. I also don't doubt that an experienced reviewer like Mr. Hardesty has had countless opportunities to listen to many of the Wilson speakers in a wide range of system configurations and rooms over the years including shows, manufacturers listening rooms and customers or friends homes. God knows, I am not a reviewer and I have heard Wilson models so many times that I couldn't even begin to count them.

It is therefore not valid to respond to Mr. Hardesty's comments simply by assuming he is somehow unqualified to make those comments. At the very least, anyone is qualified to look at the measurements of a Wilson speaker (including the measurements included in the Stereophile review in question) and point out significant problems. It is also perfectly valid for Mr. Hardesty to ask how a 7" Scanspeak woofer is able to provide the kind of midrange resolution and detail that is expected of a $10,000, $20,000 or $40,000 speaker system.

Lastly, the debate over the issue of steep-slope crossovers and time/phase distortion one is an interesting one for the whole industry. Mr. Fremer doesn't seem to have much interest in addressing Mr. Hardesty’s well documented statements about the consequences of this kind of speaker design to the integrety of the waveform. I think it is at least worth discussing.

Wilson speakers are unusually expensive and therefore deserve to be held to a very high standard. Mr. Fremer is a high-end audio reviewer for one of the two most respected audiophile journals and should also expect be held to a higher standard. His response to Mr. Hardesty seems to fall far short of this high standard. If “all speakers are colored” and “choosing the right one is just like choosing a mate”, then why would anyone need to read reviews from people like Mr. Fremer or Mr. Hardesty?

Opalchip's right on point.

Not only are none of the people here are willing to address the specific performance/measurement issues raised by Hardesty, but the responses from John at Wilson and Michael Fremmer completely ignore those tough questions. Is anybody who wants to defend Wilson capable of addressing those issues. Also, some of these issues apply to a majority of other so-called "high-end" loudspeaker designs.

Issues:

**Steep-slope crossover causes time/phase distortion and requires that midrange driver be wired out-of-phase with tweeter and woofer.

What if you had purchased a new high-end power amplifier and found that it inverted the phase of the midrange frequencies in relation to the rest of the spectrum. This would be laughably unaccceptable. Why isn't the same true in a loudspeaker?

How can a design like this accurately reproduce the waveform?

** Frequency response is less flat than many inexpensive designs. Why?

** How can a 7" woofer reproduce subtle detail in the upper midrange?

We have beat to death all of the issues related to whether or not Mr. Hardesty did enough homework before making his comments about the Wilson loudspeakers. There has also been endless discussion about who subjectively likes the sound of the Wilsons and who doesn't.

At the end of the day, if Mr. Hardesty is wrong about the flaws he finds in the Wilson loudspeakers, that should be easily demonstrated by someone responding point by point to the specific issues he raises. I am astonished that no one has been able to, or even attempted to, do this.

His points are clear and very specific. All of the responses which attempt to discredit Mr. Hardesty out of the gate without responding to the substance he raises seem like they are because (1) the problems are real and difficult to refute, and (2) those responding are not capable of understanding the technical aspects of the issues raised and are therefore incapable of giving any response other than, "I like the sound of the Wilson's and so does Blah Blah at XYZ studios."

Anyone?

Regarding measuring speakers in an anechoic chamber, a speaker’s job is to reproduce the sound of the waveform accurately. An anechoic chamber (or software that simulates a chamber) is needed to measure the direct sound that is coming from the loudspeaker without any interference from room reflections. While it is true that loudspeakers will eventually be listened to in a room which will affect the sound, the speaker’s job still remains exactly the same; to accurately reproduce the waveform. The best way to determine if the speaker is doing this is to measure it independently in a chamber.

If you want to deal with solving room acoustics problems you need to address the room itself via room treatments and modifications rather than by attempting to alter the waveform played through the loudspeakers- excepting the extreme low frequencies. The human ear/brain is very capable of recognizing when the direct sound coming from the loudspeakers of say a piano is altered or wrong. This distortion of the waveform in an attempt to pre-correct for room problems is simply going to compound errors rather than accomplish actual correction.

Getting back to Richard Hardesty’s critique of the Wilson speakers and how it relates to the current discussion of speaker measurements. How can a speaker be considered accurate when it completely distorts the waveform’s time and phase response. If the tweeter is “pushing” while the midrange driver is “pulling”, something is very wrong. If the instrument you are listening to is in a frequency range that needs to be handled by both drivers simultaneously (e.g. a piano), there will be a lack of coherence in the presentation. Even with instruments whos fundamental frequencies lie in the midrange, the upper harmonic content extends well into the treble (e.g. with a trumpet). In this case the speaker will be “spitting” and “sucking” at the very same time.