A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Khrys, Am I to understand that technology can't be developed despite less than ideal circumstances or that technology can't be improved by better testing procedures? Instead of asking for a guess as to the results of an experiment after being subjected to non-specific paramters, why not offer the answer? While your at it perhaps you can offer why it may be germaine to this discussion? I'll admit it, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that one might extrapolate a serious medical diagnosis by observing confusion between a second year student and a philospher and, that's the best part? If your response depends on some sort of personal attack, you needn't bother.

I didn't have time to read all the posts but I offer this to you. I have been selling and installing high end for 25 years and I was a Wilson dealer once. I have noticed that when people are exposed to true magic they all agree on what sounds incredible. What happens most often is either people have different things they are willing to compromise on when they can't have the best OR more often they have never heard magic, only expensive stuff they should like and don't trust what they are hearing. When you live with magic, the system makes your ears a lot better than before and you know you have magic when you become hyper critical and you still love the system that you thought was incredible.
With all that said, I have never heard any Wilson including the WAMM's sound incredible. Big, powerful, tall, yes but never incredible. Like so many in our industry, Dave Wilson has enough knowledge and experience to design a great product but does not have that 6th sense to design beyond understanding like a hand full of true artists that exist.
Just my humble opinion.

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.

Take a look at these!! HA HA HA, just when we thought its possible that wilson could be a questionable value in audio, look at this... You have to be totally kidding me, I have a new respect for wilson after I found out the market would support these. 50,000 a pair!

http://show.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/shm.pl?preatube&1099069721&item&Holm_audio&4&5&6&http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fs_srch.plQQANYAAAApurlsrchAAEXYAAstAAAAAAmanley

Hi Nilthepill,

Sorry for the confusion created, I should have been more specific. The Wilson MAXX and the X-2's are the ONLY cone speakers I've ever heard that have the speed of horns, if anyone has ever heard horns they will attest to their incredible response speed ... wilsons can match them here IMHO.

Nilthepill - the quote in my thread is from Amperidian, not mine. If you want education, may I suggest that this forum is the last place on earth to find answers. Just skim the sophomoric posts :-) On the other hand, it is great entertainment!

Aw com'on Larry, were're just having some fun. BTW, your right.

Khrys, because an anechoic chamber is the most neutral place for such references. Such a room doesn't skew the measurements. Discounting the obvious but impractical preference of having manufacturers measure their speakers in ones own listeneing room, where would you prefer your potential speakers measurments made: in some one elses room, a bowling alley, a porta-potty, where?

guys,

kill the thead and go home and get some sleep. The majority of us don't give a d++m about Wilson speakers because we can't afford them

Skushimo, Could you educate me on how Wilson cone designs can match horn design? This is not sarcastic question. I really am clueless other than my understanding that some people prefer horn sound. Thanks. Well with this post we have made 200 posts!!

Amperidian - "I'm not a Wilson Audio owner or fan, but their speakers are among the few cone designs that can match horns in the frequencies where the horns excell. Not perfect of course, but they deserve some credit at least."

This is so funny! Wilson's are almost as good as horns, for only 5x the price...

It is also very funny how emotional people are on this subject. I have heard the big Wilsons sound very good, and also very bad. The Wilson aesthetics and finish quality are wonderful (IMO). But to all of the Wilson apologists here: wake-up! There are equal and better sounding speakers commercially available at much lower MSRP.

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.

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?

Unsound is correct of course. You need a standard reference point for comparison. So KHRYS poster, your cigar filled space station where you have your speakers is unique to you as a listening environment and speaker results there mean nothing ( similar to your post) in the way of useful information.

My example of an anechoic chamber is only a point; meaning--hey- these were the frequency responses of these 6 speakers in an anaechoic chamber- its something we can all look at in an apples to apples way. BTW- Testing frequency responses in an anechoic chamber is pretty standard stuff for speaker manufacturers- Khrys- sorry you didn't know that. Wilson stuff should be tested in the same way. Quality manufacturers need not fear comparisons like this.

"Why must it be an anechonic chamber?" Perhaps because it is the least prejudicial reference point?

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.

i remember reading something like that in TAS where they interview the speaker designers from revel, mbl, magnepan and some other speakere i can't remember. each person talk about their philosophy , i thought thougth it was a great article.

"The writer of the article critical of the Wilson's really did come across as quite hostile to me as a true non-partisan in this one; but he did raise good points as well"
i second that, no one seem to want to address the issue he raise? maybe if he had say it nicely someone ( manufacture or reviewer ) would address the questions he raise? i think that would be a much more interested thread. david wilson is well respected speaker designer in the industry, i am sure there is a reason he choose to design it that way. it will be much more interesting and educational for the audiophile non-engineer to know. instead of attacking each other.

Rysa4 I do totally agree with you,you will find out
the truth, the moment you own the gear that they
reviewed,well covered post.Right on the money.

Well. I got no beef in this. I was at CES last Year and will likely be this year and so I get to hear room after room of high end stuff with a wide variation in price.

I do think that reviewers speaker reviews can be and in fact are biased by advertising dollars. This doesn't mean folks lie; it does mean that negatives are couched and underemphasized and positives overly glorified. I saw this even with my own speaker line that I personally own ( and paid for). In addition, while we all like differently colored speakers ( or types of sounds so to speak) I'd like to see some objective comparisons to a standard, such as response curves in anechoic chambers. I think its a good piece of data among others.

The writer of the article critical of the Wilson's really did come across as quite hostile to me as a true non-partisan in this one; but he did raise good points as well.

Hi Songwriter72,

As an amateur I did build other true first-order crossover two-way speakers that sounded pretty good (though power handling was compromised), but those did not measure "flat" on-axis.

I use a combination of mechanical and electrical roll-off to get a first order transition between some of the drivers in my one commercial offering, though the region of overlap isn't broad enough for me to call it a "true first order" crossover. And I pay more attention to the power response than to the on-axis response.

Duke

My biases tend to run parallel to RH's. That's probably why I don't subscribe. What's the point of hearing your own echo. That said, I 've enjoyed the dynamic capabilities of Watt/Puppies driven by Krells playing big band jazz immensely. Manufacturers have criticized the power reviewers have in this industry for some time now. Now we have reviewers reviewing each other. Hmmn, interesting. I think I like it.

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.

It's too easy to criticise any spkr based on some (often incomplete) data as it's easy to condone a spkr because "I like it" and use the same data to support that view. In reading Mr Hardesty's article it seems to me that, in part, there is an attempt to "demask" the brand Wilson through a criticism of the product -- as in, "the big brands sell you products that are not all they're made out to be". "I'll prove why... "(follows analysis on inaccuracy of reproduction).

Home use spkrs in general are a bit more complicated than this argument would suggest. Duke put it very well & succintly above:

it turns out that what the human hearing mechanism has a high tolerance for and what it has a low tolerance for does not neatly coincide with what is easily and commonly measured and/or calculated

I also have some (little) experience of "designing" & diy-ing spkrs and would add that -- to make things worse -- this "hearing mech's" tolerances vary with spl and mood (& other things). For that matter, the spkr's performance also varies with spl (& a score of other things). And it's good if the product is well finished and looks good.

So, a lot is the result of designers' choice; I'm not enamoured by the Wilson spkrs I have heard -- I like the small Sophia -- BUT would hardly conclude that Mr Wilson is clueless as per spkr design & a master at furniture design:) Whether there's a midrange or not, or the xyz driver is wired out of phase with the rest... I dunno (xover maybe?), ask Wilson. Or, don't buy the product -- this is a market economy, after all (whether or not it's a "capitalistic society" as mentioned above, is another matter).

OTOH, if one wonders "what am I really getting for all that money" the probable answer is "a big Wilson". Fair enough --no? If Mr Wilson want an upmarket positioning for his brand, why not? Branded products in supermarkets sell at a premium, why not at the hi-end auditorium?
After all, even I find that many Wilson products have sonic similarities -- so maybe people buy that, despite what some of us and Mr Hardesty have to criticise about certain technical properties.

Samuel, what exactly in the Hardesty article do you consider "nonsense"?

Audiokinesis,
You state that as an amature speaker designer you were unable to make a 1st order crossover speaker sound good. That doesn't suprise me. The pro designers however, do them just fine. Think GMA, Audio Machina, Harmonic Precision, Zu, Gallo etc

For the record - I'm not taking potshots at Samuel. He seems like a very nice, intelligent, and reasonable person and an asset to this discussion. I tend to play the devil's advocate on Audiogon when no one else is doing it and I was just pointing out that he comes from a particular point of view which clearly has interests on one side of the fence, so to speak. Nor am I implying that ANY manufacturer/marketer of audio equipment is involved in what some people keep calling "conspiracy". That's not a word I've ever used here. Advertising and promotion is what equipment makers and suppliers are SUPPPOSED to do, and what consumers EXPECT them do to. If someone (e.g. Stereophile) is willing to help them even further because they advertise, then by all means, why shouldn't they take the help in the form of a review or any other way.

It's the MEDIA that, IMO, isn't doing things quite the way that consumers should expect of them. It's possible that the structure of the whole business/marketing "foodchain" is so "normal" to the media people that they're in denial as to why they're really there, who is paying them to be there, and that they do have unwritten, ingrained rules that they must follow to keep that pay coming in.
But enough on that - I'm just saying that my skepticism has nothing at all to do with the "production" side of the industry, and that Samuel seems like a fine person to me - he just brought up a couple more points that I felt like running with (mostly because it was a slow day at work).

A core issue in the design of audio equipment is, "what really matters?"

Not everything that can readily be measured matters. For instance, total harmonic distortion measurements have essentially no correlation with perceived sound quality, but certain mathematical weightings of THD measurements do.

Years ago as an amateur speaker designer I decided to build a speaker that attained the Holy Grail - namely, time and phase coherence (true first order crossover with drivers aligned on a sloped baffle) along with flat frequency response (accomplished over several days of crossover refinement). As I got closer and closer to "flat" response, the speakers sounded worse and worse. But I pressed on, unquenchable in my faith that when I got to the Promised Land, the Angels would Sing. Finally, I achieved the impossible: A two-way loudspeaker that measured plus or minus .75 dB from 45 Hz to 10 kHz, 1/3 octave pink noise (it went higher, but I didn't trust my measurements up there, and in retrospect probably shouldn't have trusted them under 200 Hz). How did it sound? Terrible! Possibly the worst sounding speaker I had ever made. The imaging was holographic, though.

Now, since then I've heard loudspeakers that measure very close to flat that sound good, and others that sound awful. So I can't reliably say that flat response sounds good or bad. And, which "flat" measurement are we talking about? On-axis, 30 degree listening window, front hemispherical, omnidirectional (power response), in-room or anechoic, and at what distance?

Time and phase response is an issue I read about quite a bit in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society years ago. My recollection is that, at that time, the research did not support the thesis that time and phase coherence was audibly significant on music program material. I don't think it's a bad thing, and I do think it helps imaging and probably dynamics, but a lot of experienced audio engineers don't think it's worth the compromises imposed.

I have my pet theories as to what characteristics and measurements correlate well with perceived sound quality (and my tomorrow's theory may be different from my today's). David Wilson has his, and Richard Hardesty has his. As an aside, who's to say that the exquisite craftsmanship of the Wilsons doesn't contribute to their enjoyment? In the restaurant industry, "presentation" (how the food looks) is an important issue. If it tastes like steak but looks like a dog t#rd, some people are going to be put off by it. (If the price is right, I might not care what it looks like; I've been known to have a hard time enjoying a first-class steak thinking of how much it costs - why, you could buy a set of tip-toes for that!!).

But back to "what really matters". I'm not convinced that David Wilson is clueless on that front, nor am I convinced that Richard Hardesty is. I think that in many cases advances in the area of understanding "what really matters" have not kept pace with advances in technology, so that in and of itself advanced technology doesn't promise any better results. My recent association with an industry professional who is doing core research into "what really matters" has convinced me that there is a great deal yet to be learned in this area, for it turns out that what the human hearing mechanism has a high tolerance for and what it has a low tolerance for does not neatly coincide with what is easily and commonly measured and/or calculated.

Duke

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.

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.

Opalchip why are you taking potshots at Samuel? Why can't a Wilson Maxx2 owner and "industry insider" defend his choice? ... seems like none of us could possibly defend our points of view then, because we don't all own the perfect equipment?

I own some powercords made by Samuel's company and can tell you that they are among the best in the world, and his identity is not that hard to find out ... just go and surf the websites of the leading 4 powercord manufacturers in North America (Elrod, Transparent Audio, Shunyata, Purist Audio Design) and you'll see the examples he used in the post you quoted will show up on his website. I've never met Samuel in person but I do have great respect for his products, and I consider them to be among the best out there. His top of the line powercords have never failed to impress me and it shows all the R&D that went into developing them because to my ears they sound amazing ... and yes, Wilson Audio does use them in their test room and so does Halcro (who actually provides them with their amps) ... I guess samuel knows a thing or two about high end audio and his opinions are - to a certain degee - driven by his vast experience.

I'm not a Wilson Audio owner or fan, but their speakers are among the few cone designs that can match horns in the frequencies where the horns excell. Not perfect of course, but they deserve some credit at least.

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.

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.

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?

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!

Amperidian what you dont know, we listen to music
why we are reading this forum, and typing our
2 cent opinions,most of the audiophiles I know,while
they are listening, they are on Audiogon site.So
we are ok.

Well to tell you the truth anyone that spends 45,000 on any speaker especially of Conventional design would be kidding themselves if they do not believe buying 2 or Even 4 of the Top subwoofers built today at 3-5000.00 a piece matched with many pairs of your choice full range tower speakers at 10,000-15,000 a pair or even cheaper could not compete with match or completly beat these wilson speakers or any like this, at least if they were 20 driver line arrays or something I could agree closer on the cost, that is the only real point I see of the whole Watchdog article. I mean truly you could BUILD an entire wing on your house designed as a near perfect acoustic environment and still have your choice of multiples of combinations or straight tower speakers that could rival the limits of standard dynamic drivers at 7" and 13" I'm sorry, but its fact I don't care what they make the cabinet out of. But again maybe the magic these create in a more compact package and Aesthetic features are what some people are looking for.

Not defending Hardesty (he's perfectly capable of doing that himself) but several things are being lost here. 1. His magazine is not online, it is by subscrption and a right costly one at that. 2) While all are posturing on his "Watchdog", he is not the one who posted it in this forum. He writes these for his subscribers who, having read his other "Journals" have a complete understanding where he is coming from.
He has gone to great lengths in his journals to explain himself and to validate his points. He has explained the "Watchdogs" in length which are not reviews as everyone seemed to think.
All I've gotten from this thread is some people think the Wilson's sound good and therefore justify their hefty price tag. I have not read one person defend the engineering of the speakers nor refute the accusations that the drivers are off the shelf stuff(which to me says Wilson put a lot into looks.)
If you have the money and want to spend it on these speakers, it's fine with me. Personally, I would like to know a little more about the design of these speakers.
I also have to admit that my bias says that a "Midrange" out of phase to the woofer and tweeter is audible. But that's just me.
As I said before, I guess engineering doesn't matter. As long as it sounds good, right? It's also funny that for a speaker to be noticed as "The best", it has to have a high price tag.
I suppose we could spend days refuting each other. If you own the speakers, yea, I guess you would be testy to criticism.
And just for information, Ayre, Aesthetix and others use the Vandersteen 3a Sigs in their soundrooms---
Jim White, Steve McCormack and others use these same speakers personally. My point being, you don't have to spend a fortune for a well designed "Reference" speaker. These guys use them because they let them hear what they need to hear. Reference can mean a lot.

"Dave Wilson at the pinnacle of his game"? ... are you sure? ... that he won't put out an X-3? ... c'mon OB, let's be frank about it.

We all love DIFFERENT gear ... now can we all at least agree on that and just end this slander.

It's so silly.

Why do people get sooo worked up .... take a break .... and go listen to some music .... and return nice and relaxed!

WHEW

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.

Man this is like watching "Clash of the Titans"

boy with rooms and gear like you guys have you would think you would be too busy enjoying it to post here, let alone get a bent about silly little comments....both of you close you eyes and imagine you have my gear...ok now when you are done laughing go have fun!

Mike

there is nothing intended at you or yours, so please take a breath and stop taking things so personal.

My point is very simple---there is great discussion here about Wilson, Von Schweikert and Kharma as many members here have such gear.None of these speakers are anything more than a box, some wires, drivers and all of the R&D that goes into their production. I am happy to spend the money as are you because we share the passion. Nothing was directed at you. It just seems these 3 speakers seem to be the ones mentioned and I was using them, (INCLUDING MY OWN X-2's I MIGHT ADD),to serve as an example.
Luv ya too Mke.

It is a flavor thing. I respect you for yours and I am sure the same goes the other way. I read your posts. My point was that none of these speakers are worth what MSRP is, but I will say it again...it is all about our ears and our wallets. I respect you for Wilson not being your cup of tea and I am sure you feel the same about me and Wilson.

As I have said above, there is nothing in an X-2 that is worth $135K except for buying Dave Wilson at the pinnacle of his game.

Now every one needs to take a deep breath

OB, "To me the Maxx ll blows away the VR 9 at less money"

where did that come from? is it somehow directed at me? maybe you are simply trying to make a point about costs but your approach hits close to home and i just wonder what your intent is.

if you have read my posts here i have been firmly against Hardesty's rant as improper and unfair. i know that Kharma and Von Schweikert are not your favorite....as Wilson is not mine...but 'blow away'?

how about "it's not my cup of tea"....or...."i've only heard it at a show but it didn't float my boat".

what about the famous OB perspective of 'to each their own according to their tastes'?

to me this thread is about proper methodology; not personal taste. brutal comments (from self-appointed experts--i'm specifically NOT referring to you here) require considerable effort to justify! have you spent sufficient time with the VR9 to feel justified with that comment or is this like Hardesty?

we can start another thread regarding the MAXX II verses the VR9 if you like. i've heard the VR9's sound like crap and the MAXX II's sound very good.....and visa versa.

BTW, i love ya anyway.

;^)

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

Chanliz,
My "mommy" is dead. I buried her three years ago. As per my last post I was responding to a personai attack which in effect called me ignorant of capitalism and suggested that I investigate socialized medicine just because I held a position which dissagreed with his. I hope you can understand how that would strike a guy whos in medicine and who was an econ major.Perhaps I should have resisted the urge to respond but I did not and thats that. As for your "comment" which appears to be written to hurt me personaly I guess I just feel dissapointed in you. Please, no more personal attacks . Lets stick to dissagreements about music reproduction and treat everyone with respect.-Jim

"i heard the x-1 before not but cup of tea , but i thought it sounds pretty good, is it the best spearke in the world, i don't know , ihaven't heard all the top speakers in the world."

I owned X-1's before I bought the X-2. I love the X-2 and almost certainly will never buy another speaker. Having said that however, had the MAXX ll been available before the X-2 I would have sold my X-1's and bought the MAXX as they are so much better at 1/2 the price.

forget about measurements ,parts quality and whatever other nonsense.if the ultimate test is your ear and if it sound good to you then it must be good.then why the heck are we reading these magazines/reviews? however if hardesty feel that wilson is not a good design , maybe he should offer a specific make/model that he thinks is better or just as good as the wilson for less moeny. and maybe the magazine or somebody and do a shootout and tell us what they think. or dare i say, do a double blind test, see which speaker people prefered.i heard the x-1 before not but cup of tea , but i thought it sounds pretty good, is it the best spearke in the world, i don't know , ihaven't heard all the top speakers in the world.

>>>"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.

Geez, a lot of responses about a speaker only 10 people in the country will buy. (O.K., maybe 15.)

I'm waiting for the educated here to tell me that the VR9's at $60K are worth that or the Kharmas at $85-115K are worth it? Or how about the X-2's at 4135.

As I said it is all about our ears and our wallets.

To me the Maxx ll blows away the VR 9 at less money. But of course that is my opinion

Now as far as John Giolas from Wilson not answering direct questions, I say "give me a break"--he invited Hardesty to Provo to tour the plant and make decisions afterwards.What more would a thorough reviewer want?