A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx


I enjoy reading this fellow (Richard Hardesty)

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PDF%20files/APJ_WD_21.pdf

.
g_m_c
R&D costs a lot and, for these top-performing audio components with limited production quantities, can be a considerable contribution to the total cost.

Glad the moderators are allowing this thread to continue...This place needed a bit of liveing up.
This thread is bogging down a bit, so I'll inject this, just to crank it up a bit :)

First off, (and I really don't intend this as a personal attack, but as info that readers should know) "Samuel" is not just a Maxx2 owner, but is an industry insider defending industry insiders. If I may quote him from an older thread for clarification, "I am a former consumer, reviewer and now marketing and sales person for a company that manufacturers, among other things, power cords". I don't know who he works for, but he hasn't mentioned perchance if they advertise in these magazines or benefit from the same reviewers he's defending.

Second, to talk "journalism" of sorts -
Samuel accurately says that reviewers are "are accountable for their opinions." Of course. But to who? To me and you? Not likely. Name a writer that got into trouble because the "public" didn't agree with yet another glowing review.

Many Audio mags are obviously not bothered by the ethical standards of traditional journalism. Washington Post reporters aren't offered discounts on Corn Flakes when General Mills gets a review of a new cereal. Ted Koppel doesn't interview Advertising Executives who decide, in turn, how much to spend at ABC next year. Consumer Reports, unquestionably, the most successful and useful "Review" publication ACCEPTS NO ADVERTISING at all.

The audio mags have a good thing going, and they do it as cleverly as possible. None of this is new, and they're aware of the persistent public suspicion over the buddy-buddy nature of the industry and the various "accomodations". So of course they throw in "weaknesses", "context", and measurements, etc. and the advertisers understand the unfortunate need for it - because otherwise the mags would be a laughing stock. But they finesse their way around any "negatives" a la JA's summary at the end of the Maxx2 measurements.

Ask yourself this - how often have you seen a straightforward recommendation NOT to buy a frequent advertiser's component, or to buy a competitor's product since it's sonically equal, but a much better value.

Perhaps more telling - how often do you see reviews of chronic NON-advertisers. You haven't seen many reviews of Tyler Acoustics, Oris Hornspeakers, Grounded Grid amplifiers, Granite Audio, Eclipse TD's by Fujitsu (amazing), and many others, now have you. Hmmmmm.... These are all strong companies with excellent products at attainable prices, and decent customer bases, that don't advertise and don't get the quid pro quo reviews.

The reason that these types of companies are so rarely "reviewed" has been asked of Stereophile repeatedly. About a year ago John Atkinson responded with, "It basically comes down to my feeling that a) a product's manufacturer is real..." b) the component is one to which it is worth devoting some of the magazine's always limited space.

Quite obviously these products are very worth devoting space to, and people would be thrilled to know about them, so it comes down to who they consider a "real" manufacturer. I think I have a pretty good idea what the criteria for "real" is.

Or how about articles on great vintage equipment (not necessarily cheap, either) that blows away newer stuff. Would that be helpful to readers? Is that not of major interest to most audiophiles. But you won't see it. BECAUSE, FACE IT, THAT'S NOT WHY THE AUDIO MAGS ARE THERE.

I don't think Stereophile (as an example) is evil, but I don't think they care less about journalistic theory practice. They have a great business and they do what's best for themselves - that's capitalism. And I'm not anti-captalism. I'm anti Naivism.

A real review with journalistic intent, that a Washington Post reporter, might write would point out that:

1. The Maxx2's are hella fun to listen to and to admire, but they are NOT nearly as "accurate" at reproducing the source signal as many other speakers, according to Stereophile's own AND other independent measurements and/or as an example:
2. At 1/3 of the retail price, Tyler Woodmeres, using very similar quality components, meticulous build quality, and even sporting a similar D'Appolito High/Mid configuration with 2 woofers for the bottom end, may be an alternative to consider.

Is a review that doesn't bring up those possibilities closer to Journalism or closer to Touting?

The three allowable comparisons/cliches that you WILL see in audio reviews because they won't offend anyone in the industry are:

1. THIS component "approaches" the quality of ones costing 50% more.
2. THIS component is much better than the similar DISCONTINUED model.
3. THIS component is UNDERSTANDABLY better (in certain ways) than a cheaper one from the same manufacturer.

(And I do believe we've seen all three in this thread.)

That's it for me - my wife is gonna kill me if I spend any more time on this one!
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?
The colouration of Wilson speakers I believe, is green.

From the Soundstage specs I referenced, Wilson Watt-Puppy has a lot more midrange distortion than Thiel 2.4's at 1/5 the price.

According to Fremer:
" The Rockport Antares delivered a but more delicacy and a unique "black hole" disappearing act.
"The MAXX . . . bass extension and resolve that would be difficult to improve on in any room. . . The ultimate in transparency has been sacraficed". . . "with the bottom end even more fully revealed".
So the Wilson is colored, lacks transparency, but does bass really good. Personally I'd take the Antares in a second what with the Esotar tweeter and Skaaning drivers and because bass is not my priority.
Waldner - I'd add that inviting Hardesty to the factory doesn't address any of his points either, save for possibly demonstrating the time (and therefore "cost") which goes into the cabinet construction. The cabinet construction though is a means to an end, that end being the sound of the speakers AND the measured results.