A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

On the lighter side.......... a good laugh.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=1622

i drive a 50k car , do i think the car can be improve? in just about every category. do i like my car? yeah. Either we have reach sonic Nirvana or the bar are being set too low.

1.i think audiophiles and magazines have trouble accepting criticism. we don't think twice when a car magazaine critize a 70-80k car from mercede or bmw or whatever because it didn't handle right or the engine was noisy or whatever. yet when someone criticze a hi end component, people get too defensive. most of the mags i read like TAS and stereophile give rave review on most products. i can't remember how many time the magazine proclaim that this product can compete with some thing that sell for 2x .3x or whatever product. since most of us don't have access or time to listen to these product. let me kwno what the 2x 3x products you are comparing to, so i know what your compairng to.
2. what consititue a hi end/fidelity product. using the car ananlogy, even when magazine critize the mercede/bmw model, the reader can read the spec ie 0 to 60 mph accel. cornerning, interior space... etc.and still come away with a farily good ideal how the car perform. ( like bmw accelerate better that honda cvic )yet in audio community, there isn't standard sets of measurement that everyone agree to taht constitue high performance. just by saying it sound good to me doesn't cut it in my book. the product should be compare to a reference( reviewer's reference ). in what category is it better than your reference. clarity? bass, extension? so the novice reader like me have an ideal what he/she mean.
just my 2$

Why bother? Even if a reviewer says a speaker sucks, I still would take the speaker if it is musical to my ears. David Wilson is a very dedicated man. Even if his creation is flawed (which speaker isn't?), he will spend every effort to get the best compromise and to get the things right what he thinks are the most important.

Dear George et al,

My store was on Queen Street East, in "The Beaches". It was there from 1981 to 2001, though there were a few years I did not own it. First it was in "the basement", but from 1999 it was on the second floor, using part of my apartment. During the final two years it was part-time, weekends only. Adrian Low was my customer back in the 1980s. Thanks for the kind words.

On to Fremer's latest B.S. "defense" of his reckless charge.

(Funny he never mentioned his sending Phonogram the same letter before, as if it wasn't relevant. Note also how he views the Phonogram "subscribers" very differently than the "commoners" here and at Stereophile. No mention of too much "vino" either.)

Fremer- "Phonogram is a subscriber based list, not a public website but these distinctions matter little to him"

Salvatore- Fremer now wants you to believe that because Phonogram is "subscriber based" it is not in the "public" domain. That's beyond being a ridiculous claim. It's a total insult to the intelligence of the readers of this website.

If what Fremer stated was actually true, that would mean that every "subscribed" publication and newspaper, tiny or huge, including the New York Times and Stereophile itself, were not in the "public".

The Reality- As soon as you allow anyone (a third party) to read something, in print or on the web, for free or for a reasonable price, it is in "the public domain".

So, we have one more failed attempt by Fremer to shamelessly mislead the people he deeply feels are all "idiots". Yes, when he uses that word, one of his favorites, he's finally being very sincere.

On a personal note, I appreciate all the kind comments, but...

Unfortunately, I can't post here on a regular basis because of 1. Time Constraints and 2. I'm a slow writer, who edits almost obsessively to convey my impressions and feelings as best I can. Quick, accurate, written responses are not my strong-suit. However, requests made here for simple clarifications are fine, within reason.

Finally, I'm more than a week behind in my e-mails due to Hurricane Wilma and other matters.

As per Fremer's request, here's the link to his latest letters to me, where he threatens me with a "Libel Suit" and also sets some sort of record for personal insults per sentence.

www.high-endaudio.com/RR-FREMER.html

Cdc

My advice is to write a letter to the editor of Stereophile in order to ask your questions and to get a response in the proper fashion

R_F_ Sayles, I'm not. Once again Stereophile sidesteps my questions.

R_f,

I am entertained as well. Quite a few interesting people chiming in here.

.

I'm entertained, how about everyone else?!

Look folks. All of this is entertainment, OK? Just like professional sports and anything else in life that requires "spectation" on the part of the spectator, either visual or audible, or both. Stereophile, TAS, Hardesty and others are all about entertainment, and that is why I read them. If I get a little "philosophy" or "insight" in the process, and maybe it points me in a direction I want to go in terms of thinking, auditioning or purchasing, that's my choice. If I had no high end system, you can bet that I would find a way to make my JVC boombox satisfy my musical cravings.

Both Michael Fremer and Richard Hardesty have contributed to my education, evaluation and enjoyment of the "spectation" because they have influenced personal choices that I am satisfied with. I have respect for both of them. It is not easy being an entertainer. Neither is right, neither is wrong.

Buyer beware, for both entertainment and for purchases of so-called high end gear. And I did not fail to notice yet another dig at Krell from one contributor here...FASCINATING!

Jaybo,
Great response ! You hit alot of interesting points. I agree with your opinion that the the goal is to faithfuly reproduce the recordings. If you want a "live experience" buy better recordings. I hope people really think about what else you wrote. As an aside, the one "reviewer" who(IMHO)seems reliable is John Marks.- Jim

Love the Salvatore! He still thinks I wrote in as someone else to defend myself! Read his "reasoning" as to why it must so. But calling him "paranoid" is an insult. Now that's rich! over and out. Yes, I sent Phonogram the email I sent Salvatore so the subscribers could read it and enjoy it since most of the people there hold Salvatore in deep contempt. Phonogram is a subscriber based list, not a public website but these distinctions matter little to him.....BUT HE'S PROVEN THAT I'M A LIAR!!!!!!!

So yes, all of you, take the time to read what I sent Salvatore and yes, read his entire site. It's really a hoot. Now back to work. I have taken so many manufacturer bribes, and am so corrupt I must do my masters bidding or I might be rubbed out. No time to waste!

Arthur welcome to Audiogon.
I will sidestep with a question.Which store did you own in Toronto back in the day?I was puzzled and had a conversation with a fellow audiobuddy regarding this a while ago,he didn't know either.I am asking just out of curiocity.I was around when Adrian Low had a basement store on Spadina I believe before he made big with Audio Excellence on Bathurst/#7 and of course I knew Angie since she was at National Sound on Queen St,before she moved to Yonge north at American Sound.Where your store was located?
E-mail directly if you want.
I do find Fremer a little aggressive as well espesially since he is an industry personality.IMO.
No opinion on the Wilson's I can't afford them even used.
Regards
George

Arthur,
I've enjoyed your site for some time. It's important that SOMEONE points it out when the king,indeed,has no clothes. It's ok for people to spend their money anyway they want but they should be informed when a product is selling at a profit margin an order of magnitude above it's competitors. This actually is a marketing strategy to attract wealthy custumers who equate expense with quality. I believe that reviewers have an ethical responsibility to point this out to their readers. They may still want the " Wilson sound " but they should know that they are not ,infact, expensive speakers to produce. Reviewers should not underestimate how important their ratings are to potential customers. Look at what Parkers ratings do to wine prices. The subjective opinion of a single reviewer can quadruple (or more) the price of a bottle. If Stereophile gives a class A then it is included in the companies marketing campaign and MANY people buy based on this.Check out A-gons dicussion forums and see how many relate to the latest "buzz" created by magazine "reviews". This is acomplished because we are dying for someone to tell us what is good rather than doing the hard work ourselves and we are addicted to ratings so that we can compare ourselves to others. It seems to me that Wilson epitomizes this. If you truly love them by all means buy them . I just think you should be more fully informed. Jim

ok....mr.fremmer is a talented writer and simply worked within a flawed, yet approved, system to purchase speakers he loves. mr. hardesty pointed out that the speakers in question are overpriced and flawed(so far this is nothing new). roy halee bought a pair(what color?) and paid retail, which has nothing to do with the production quality of those old S&G records. the loudspeaker in question is simply a lightning rod for an industry that grows smaller and more isolated each day. 'pride-of-ownership' is an unspoken truth in the hi-end. it has nothing to do with the way a product sounds, but it is every bit as important to a consumer. i have always felt that the product in question was very well made, sounded pretty good, and cost more than a dozen pairs of loudspeakers combined that sounded every bit as good. in truth, recordings are made to sound like recordings, not a live experience. there is a 'cool' factor, and also a 'collector' appeal in the hi end which also has nothing to do with sound. a rogers ls3/5 for example(i don't have a pair)is immeasurably 'cooler' than the speaker in question. at the end of the day, what you have in your home(sometimes painfully so) is a reflection of who you are, and not exclusively based on quantifiable merit. it is a certainty that no one will wax poetic in ten years over the speaker in question like the rogers, the ohm, the dahlquist,the quad,the ar, the epi,the jbl, the corner horn,the spica, and hundreds more. the price tag and the paint job have sealed its fate.

Grooves - Questions Stereophile never answers. Could you be so kind as to let me know?
RE: coloration in speakers. In the interest of defining "coloration":
1) Why can't Stereophile measure / publish speaker distortion? The on-line mag SoundStage does.
2) Why can't Stereophile measure / publish right & left speaker matching in dB output?

RE: Ethics:
Even this month, JA says Stereophile has a "5 dealer rule" yet turns around and does a review of UpScale Audio's Prima-Luna amp. Stated number of dealers: 1.
Same thing when M-F gear was an Audio Advisor exclusive. What's up with that?

BTW:
My $17 Tang-Band W3-871s drivers (ELF 1.0 speakers / Denon UD-M31 mini system /Marantz CD-500) are so uncolored when a fire siren came on during a song my girlfriend came out of the bathroom - door was open - and asked where the firetrucks were going. This has happened to me numerous times with telephone ringing and a noise sounding like my kitchen timer. Even when I KNEW it was coming up on the CD, still got tricked.

So every speaker is colored. And every step I take causes the earth to changes its direction of rotation too.

I understand your point, just expect a lot more from a $20,000 speaker than a $200 speaker.

I decided to stop my subscription to Mr.Hardesty magazine when in issue 12 he killed both planars and electrostatic speakers. That was like a heart attack for me. I can reprint the text because I will infringe copyright law I guess.
Basically the opennes/trasparency we hear in planars seems to be called "Time smear". Now to hear that also wilson (cannot afford them but at any single fair I went they were between the best sounding speakers to my ears) are pointed by his , seems to be a bit too much.
Reading him carefully sounds like between the 3 main technology of speakers building 2 of them are just for stupids.
Cheers
Daniel

This makes interesting reading, but please, except for Fremer, for whom this IS his life, everybody needs to get one. Sit, back enjoy your equipment, and stop looking for external validation for how you spend your hard-earned dolars. All we nned to round out this thread is Romy the Cat.

David Shapiro

Arthur - interesting site that I was unaware of. I'm hesitant to take sides in this dispute, however I can certainly concede that the language used in Mr. Fremer's correspondence (if accurate) is very unprofessional. While he's not a professional athelete, I'm sure some folks, young or old look up to him in his position and I would expect better.

High end audio is a business. My guess is that it's neither as pure as MF suggests or as corrupt as you do. Thank goodness we all have the opportunity to listen/audition equipment ourselves.

dave wilson has always been fodder for audio critics. he made his reputation off the wilson wamm a product that is virtually non-existent. he charges outrageous prices for off the shelf drivers. those in the know see nothing expensive about the parts or construcution process. those in the know conitnue to rave on the wilson products from top to bottom of the line.

Wilson maxx graced the cover of both the absolute sound and sterophile recently. after all these years what did dave discover? a new supplier of drivers?

Is it a bit inconsistent? he can make it sound good with an ipod-but I have heard it with the best of krell,cj,arc. quite frankly I prefer a table radio.

The fact of the matter is dave is feeling the bite of the economy. he is not the first peddler of an expenswive audio product to suggest that all the money should be spent on his product. I remeber daves comment "I am not so much interested in the the audiophile but the person who can spend $10K for my speaker".

Reviewers whose ears I trust continue to rave over wilson speakers. I don't think they are bribed. There are makers of excellent products who can't get a review. It would be much easier to take a bribe for a good product.

The good thing is we can vote with our ears and our pocketbooks. If you buy a product based on reviews and exclusivty, eventually you'll stop listening and your friends will not come over anymore. that is the true test of a product. A test that the wilson products have failed miserably in my opinion. If they made your honor roll,congratulations!

Interesting thread

I for one own Wilson speakers and have moved up the chain having owned WP 5.1's, WP 6's, Maxx l's, X-1 Series lll and now X-2's (along with an XS and complete WATCH system)

I feel therefore I can speak with some degree of authority. There is simply no question that people love them or hate them but to bash Dave Wilson makes me feel that you guys are merely trying to say that your doniker is bigger than the that of the person who owns Wilson speakers.

I can tell you that with tube amps and/or proper solid state amps, Wilson speakers will sound and image better than anything on the market. Previously I was running Audio Research Ref 600 Mk lll's at 600 wpc and now I am running Lamm ML 2.1's at 18 wpc. Show me how many speakers are able to perform as well with such different amplification.

I agree totally with Michael Fremer. In the end everyone's question to themself boils down to what your ears hear when your ass is in the sweet spot in your room with your components as well as what your pocket book can afford...nothing more and nothing less. For some of you to accuse reviewers of being bought off or churning equipment on Audiogon are just as Michael Fremer says...you are idiots.

As for the esthetics of the speakers....beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but when the lights are off and it is my ass sitting in my room listening to Dave's speakers, I can tell all of you that I have reached audio nirvana. One man's passion is another man's poison. The fact that Dave Wilson is so successful and drives a Ferarri is OK by me because he has enriched my life with the love of music. He has brought reality of the soundstage to my listening room.

I credit Michael Fremer for having the brass cajones to say it as it really is here. He is an honest reviewer. For all of the others here who rant about Hardesty's "review" I would suggest you all do some critical listening. My door is always open to any interested audiophiles in the Bay Area who want to come for a listen.

Finally to the individual who suggested that Dave Wilson's test at CES 2 years ago (when he used an iPod and fooled us all)that the listeners were easily fooled and we didn't know much about critical listening, I can say that I was at that demo and I also feel I am a very critical listener..to that extent the iPod played through the Sophia system clearly bettered the B&W system.

I agree also with the comments of Skull posted above

More of Fremer's insults and lies. Everything he wrote has either no basis in fact, or is another pathetic personal attack. The details:

Fremer- "Arthur Salvatore, who is a bitter little man."

Salvatore- Fremer, who has never met me, feels compelled to make another personal insult, thus his use of the expression "bitter little man".

Fremer-"...I happened upon his indictment of the entire audio reviewing community"

Salvatore- That claim is a lie. "Entire"? I have recommended several magazines and websites for years now, including, ironically, Richard Hardesty's webzine! (See my Links File for other examples.)

Fremer-"I shot him a a rather pissed off email, which he chose to make public when it was not so intended."

Salvatore- That is another lie. A BIG LIE actually. The Truth- Fremer, himself, sent the exact same e-mail to Phonogram less than 6 minutes after he sent it to me. (Just check the Phonogram archives-October 29, 2000- for confirmation.)

In fact, I originally heard about Fremer's letter from a number of my (then) customers, who were also members of Phonogram. They had read it before I read it myself.

So, Fremer sends out his letter to hundreds, if not thousands of people, then accuses ME of making that same letter "public". (When I posted it almost two days later.) That blatantly false charge takes more than "nerve" folks.

Fremer- "if you choose to read and believe Mr. Salvatore's paranoid delusions, you risk ending up like him."

Salvatore- Wow? Now I'm "paranoid" because I pointed out that Stereophile's "reviews" are hardly critical.

First of many examples- They published 60+ CONSECUTIVE
"rave reviews" (2001-2), in which each and every component was "Recommended". So, if you feel those numbers are more than just a pure and astronomical coincidence, you "risk ending up like him" (that's me!).

Fremer- "My favorite part of his rant is where someone who I don't know wrote to defend me, and Salvatore makes it seem as if I had written that, using a psuedonym."

Salvatore- Please read the letters yourself (from "Jason Bergmann") and come to you own conclusion. (See the Links below.)

(Personally, I've never known a situation where "someone who I don't know" has made such an emotional commitment to an audio reviewer. Further, and this is priceless, this same passionate "defender" misspells Fremer's name (Fermer!?) something like 10 times in these same letters!)

Fremer- "If that alone doesn't convince of of how twisted, paranoid and narcissistic Salvatore is, then nothing will."

Salvatore- I get the sense here of someone who is so insecure, they feel that any type of lie and vicious personal attack is justified. ("twisted, paranoid and narcissistic")

Please go to the links below to get an uncensored picture of Michael Fremer, in his own words, and, as a bonus, an excellent example of what psychologists' term "projection".

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-FREMER.html

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-FREMER-A.html

My deep regret that this had to be my first e-mail to this website.

Best Regards, Arthur Salvatore

...not only speakers are all colored but our ears too.
Our ears are so complicated that none realy ever figured its curve of a freequency reception. So I agree with Mr Fremer on that part.

I can also assume that Maxx speakers can sound great(never heard them.

On the value part, they use ScanSpeak drivers that cost arround $35+- depending on freequency range. The building materials are also not the best that could be used. The freequency curve and limits measured also not in the best range...

If someone wants to bash Wilson than go ahead do so but explain it objectively.

However, if someone claims to be objective but throws in cheap shots directed at other peoples's integrity, it hardly makes that person objective.

If you really believe that any advertising makes someone corrupt than that is your right but its an extreme position. All people have an agenda whether its for advertising dollars or for other things. If you think Mr. Hardesty or anyone else is completely bias free than you are the biggest sucker. We are human and are built with conscious and unconscious bias.

I might like Wilson or I might like Porsche or I might like a fancy restaurant in NYC like "Per Se". This does not mean that I am right or wrong. Sure, I can buy all the ingredients that are in a fancy meal or all the pieces of a fancy car but that does not mean that I could put it together as well.

There are some people who just feel that the sum of the individual parts of any given thing should cost no more than those individual parts. Sorry assembly matters to some people. Sure build your own ipod from scratch and it will be cheaper but it most of us would rather have someone else build it for us. Same goes for my car and same goes for my steak dinner.

By the way there is a lot of talk about what things cost and what they are worth. Let's be honest, almost all audiophile equipment costs too much. Part of the reason is that its not mass produced so its more expensive to make. The other reason is that they have to charge more because they sell fewer of them and want to make a profit. If we lived in a better world than we could for instance produce a million high end speakers for a lot cheaper than the cost of only making 5,000 of them. If you want a good price than buy a mass produced product, if you love music which I reckon is what brings you to audiophile equipement and this website than you are overpaying for that love. Most of my friends would think a speaker is overprices for $2,500 let alone $10,000. So those that say the wilson speaker is crazy expensive for $40,000 don't consider that most people think their $2,500 speakers are almost as crazy expensive. If you got the money and a passion for something, you tend to spend your money on it. People spend millions on a painting that cost probably a dollar to make hundreds of years ago and would cost a couple hundred dollars to make nowaways.

Its fun to talk about what we like and what we don't like. Its not cool however when we attack the people we disagree with especially to impugn their integrity.

Let the love and criticism of the products fly with your reasons why but not because you think there is a cabal out there to swindle us or that 99% of us are dumb to buy a given product. I say that even though ashlee simpson new album is the #1 selling album in the country.

Michael

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.

I can't believe this thread is still going? Normally the powers that be would have pulled it by now. I guess the Wilson company hasn't emailed to complain yet. ;-)

(1) Assuming there is a good chance that someone at Wilson will read this thread, I would like to seize this opportunity to suggest that you reconsider the aesthetics of your products: in my opinion, the looks of your speakers are needlessly holding you back (X and Y need not = hideous and hilarious).

(2) Some here seem to be bothered by the style of Michael Fremer's response, believing that his words amount to name-calling and are unusually aggressive. Like frequent A-Gon contributor Jtinn (a friend whom I respect greatly) who sometimes gets criticized for his posting style, Mr. Fremer is a New Yorker (and if I'm not mistaken, originally from Brooklyn). In my experience, if someone spits in a New Yorker's eye, the response is swift and not pretty. Which is probably about right.

.

Here is more interesting reading where Hardesty discusses some speaker criteria he does like. It is a glowing interview of Pat McGinty. I will tell you that I own a set of Pat's speakers.

http://www.meadowlarkaudio.com/pdf/McGinty%20Interview.pdf

.

Fsarc; i did miss the perspective of Hardesty's Watchdog articles. He does not represent them as reviews.

my opinion is that his whole 'Watchdog' premise is very wrong-minded. Being the self-appointed 'audio police' without doing the in-depth listening work to support his conclusions is self-delusional at best; and mis-leading to the reader...which is worse.

If Hardesty wants to judge the factual content of review comments without in-depth documented listening then he should stick to making theoretical conclusions; and not confuse the reader with references to his listening experiences; which are not documented. Either his comments are actual reviews; or they are factual critiques.....but not both unless he wants to DO THE WORK OF A COMPLETE REVIEW including a description of his listening context.

He should have a disclaimer on his Watchdog articles which explains exactly his experience or lack thereof with the particular product.

when you make yourself judge and jury the price for credibility is high. no self-respecting magazine would make such strong statements without doing considerable homework and providing appropriate support for their conclusions.

I havent seen a bad review in a long time. But i see B&W pretty much on top of every page. Oh wait, Wilson sells speakers that cost more then someones house and odd enough just like B&W has TONS of advertising in their magazines. Kinda strange, really!

I dont trust reviewers for big magazines personally, i do trust the small guys who write freely in their own time for internet publications, and of course my ears. I would rather pay three times more for the magazines if they had no advertising in there. And i bet that the scores and reviews would be different!

-Flo

Let's see, Harley and Fremer had the product in house and lived with it (and with reference associated equipment), Hardesty was able to read Atkinson's measurements and hear it in small hotel rooms with 95 volts.

Wow, how is one to decide which to trust?

That was pretty brave of Mr Fremer to weigh in like that since most industry people who speak up here are savaged by the AudiogoNers who know so much more.

I have said for years that it is unwise to question the integrity of reviewers simply because they do it for a living. If I were in the position of needing open heart surgery I would prefer to have a professional do it! Even if that person had written in the JAMA or the NJM. Do you want a professional plumber to fix your pipes, or mechanic to fix your brakes? Why not get someone with experience to write reviews then?

I never understood the connection between advertising and corruption. Does that mean Newsweek and Time are both corrupt, okay so I picked a couple of bad examples!!!

People who complain about the corruption of writers in Stereophile or TAS will be the first to complain when the price triples due to the new policy of not accepting advertising.

Mr Fremer points out ONE example of companies or products that received a favorable review without buying it, but there are hundreds of other examples. These accusations simply ring hollow, like Wilson speakers!!! That was a joke!!!

It is very frustrating to see so many people who have NO experience with a product write as if they have some level of credibility. All too often people are tearing down a product they have never heard, or only heard in a poor enviroment, what is the point of this??? It is these people who are the liars, not the people who review for a living.

No magazine could survive if they simply gave a pass on or even worse, a good review to a poorly designed or executed product. Simply disagreeing with a persons opinion does not make them wrong, or the disagreer right! Is that a word?!?

Magazines would be a lot more useful and dare I say, productive if readers understood this and responded accordingly!

It's only a hobby!

Well another buncha "inneresting" posts. Sorry if I get exercised when my integrity gets questioned by folks who don't know me at all, but for those who object to that, tie your hands behind your backs and invite people to pummel you! I'm just not built that way, and I don't think defending myself means I can't take valid, reasonable and informed criticism. But when some people here and elsewhere just throw crap at people and institutions they don't know based upon their pathetic ignorance, I for one, either ignore it, or I respond strongly. That goes for Arthur Salvatore, who is a bitter little man.

One evening a few years ago, late at night after a few glasses of vino too many I happened upon his indictment of the entire audio reviewing community and I shot him a a rather pissed off email, which he chose to make public when it was not so intended. But I'll tell you this: if you choose to read and believe Mr. Salvatore's paranoid delusions, you risk ending up like him. My favorite part of his rant is where someone who I don't know wrote to defend me, and Salvatore makes it seem as if I had written that, using a psuedonym. If that alone doesn't convince of of how twisted, paranoid and narcissistic Salvatore is, then nothing will.

As for Hardesty's write-up, it was his tone that I most objected to. He was quite fair to me, and unlike some posters here, did not engage in personal attaacks. That level of bitterness and anger should set off a mild amount of skepticism in anyone's mind about his having an agenda of some kind. Why react with that level of intensity and vitriol? Dave Wilson doesn't make anyone buy his products, yet for some reason people do. Hardesty should have directed his anger at the "stupid public," and did a bit of that with his "carriage trade" remark. You know, I heard generations of Wilson products that I didn't like, but the recent ones I did. And that seems to be the general consensus.

Roy Halee, who was Paul Simon's engineer for all of the great S&G and solo albums owns Wilson Alexandrias. I believe he paid full price. He's a very good listener and has heard more live music and mastertapes than anyone reading this and I mean ANYONE. So I suggest you all put that in context of some of the comments here, and in context of Hardesty's dismissal of the MAXX2s.

No, I am not going to address every argument made by Hardesty about why a bumble bee can't possibly fly, er, I mean why the MAXX2s are a terrible speaker, in fact a fraud and why Dave Wilson is a charlatan, which is pretty much what that write-up says, but I will say this: if I were to rely solely on measurements, I would have chucked my turntable and my 10,000 records and switched to CD because using measurements, vinyl SUCK is INACCURATE, can't POSSIBLY sound like MUSIC etc. AND I can give you a dozen reasons why that's true. But you know what? I don't give a CRAP what the measurement show because when I sit down to listen, it's VINYL that sounds like real music, not CDs. In fact, vinyl despite the measurements always sounds more dynamic--even a guy like David Chesky who is in the CD business admits that.

And you know what else? Roy Halee, is a VINYL enthusiast. He has a Rockport System III Sirius. He's heard more master tapes and blah blah blah. Now that doesn't mean he's the last word or the final authority. I'm just suggesting to you that measurements are an important tool in assessing a speaker's neutrality and performance, but they aren't the END ALL AND BE ALL. The listening is that. And in the listening all of the measured and UNMEASURED factors blend together to create a sonic picture the ear/brain responds to.

So, for some reason, my ear/brain, Roy Halee's ear/brain and the ear/brains of all the other people who enthusiastically support what Wilson does, find the sound of his speakers enticing and worth the money. I tried to explain in my review part of what's involved in producing them and why they are expensive. Most of the money goes into producing the cabinets, it's true. But as with the Rockport Antares, something as seemingly mundane and sexless as building resonant-free cabinets does contribute mightily to performance.

I don't care if someone says the speakers sound like s....t to them. That's fine with me. What I do care about is if someone charges that I gave the speaker a good review because Wilson advertises in Stereophile and therefore I am corrupt. That person is an IDIOT. Excuse me for defending myself!

And if you go back and read my review, you'll see that I admit that other speakers have greater upper octave resolution than the MAXX2s and other speakers may image somewhat better, but every design, every scheme is a compromise in one way or another and the ART of speaker design, is how you arrange your compromises, and what choices you make. The science only takes you so far because the science proves that all designs are compromises.

It's funny, when I interviewed Halee back in the 80s, he listened for pleasure on Infinity IRS but owned WATT/Puppys too. "These," he said, pointing to the Wilsons, "tell me what's on the recording, but these," he said, pointing to the towering infernos, "are what I listen to for pleasure." Twenty years later, he feels Wilsons designs give him the pleasure.

Now, as for opalchip's follow up, you have every right to disagree with me, or think I'm deaf or whatever, but I'm sorry, you have no right, if you're a man, to hurl baseless charges as to my motives, my honesty or my integrity. Sorry, but that's the sign of a weasel, not a man--unless you have some evidence. If you think all audio reviewers are corrupt, then of course just don't read any magazines. And as I said before, if you think taking advertising 'taints' a magazine, well then you need to read Consumer Reports and take their audio reviewing seriously because they're not tainted. Enjoy your Bose system! But of course they are tainted! They are tainted at CR because they are wedded to their readers for total support and therefore you will find that they cater obsequiously to the demographics of their readers. They feed back to their readers' demographics and that creates a form of "corruption," though you might find it more benign than what advertising might or might not do to the integrity of reviewers. I'll state it again: I don't give a damn who does or does not advertise in Stereophile and the products I choose to review have nothing to do with advertising.

That said, let's get to the next distortion of what I wrote, I don't remember who responded to what I said about "all speakers being colored." That's all I wrote. OF COURSE there are different degrees of coloration and if you read my review of the new Audio Physic Calderas in the current issue, you will see that when a speaker sounds very colored, it cannot be denied and that's what I wrote and the measurements backed me up.

Someone else made the sweeping charge that reviewers never criticize strongly. What B.S. that is. Read my Caldera review or read my review of the Nottingham Deco turntable or the VYGER. It was not pleasant hurting those people but if you're afraid of doing so, don't be a reviewer. Sorry to defend myself again. That said, I try to steer clear of bad products in the first place. I'd rather write about good ones. I try to be selective but sometimes a bad one slips through and I don't pull punches. Of course if YOU think it's bad product and I don't, how about exercising a bit of restraint and chaulking it up to a difference of opinion instead of corruption?

As for the way the MAXX2s have been characterized here in terms of measurements, they did not measure as badly as some claim, and the measurements were done under difficult circumstances in my driveway. I suggest you go back and look at figure 5, which shows the in-room step response...it's pretty good if you ask me. The excess bass energy might look overwhelming in the chart but in the chair, the speaker's bass response in terms of quality is easily the best I have heard here and I will trade a slight perceived excess of high quality bass to anemic, bass shy performance or bloat (check out the 30K Caldera low end performance).

Measurements do tell you some things, but not everything. When I sit down to listen to my MAXX2s, I hear what they do wrong. After a while, you can hear what ANY speaker does wrong, and they all do wrong. At some point you have to make a choice. The problem readers and hobbyists have---and I've written this before---is that in order to make a choice, every other possibility usually has to be dismissed out of hand. That's just human nature. So the speaker YOU end up with is GREAT, and everything else SUCKS. Don't deny that because I read it here and on other forums all the time. This is insane partisanship....almost like politics.

I don't have that kind of relationship with any of the products I own, because I get to hear too many down here, and you easily hear the trade-offs in all of them. I don't get all "mystical" anymore and I certainly don't get like Mr. Hardesty, who could have made all of his points without going so far over the top.

Someone asked me to go through his charges and respond to them. Sorry! Not here. I don't see the point. He claims there's no midrange speaker because of the size of the two mid/bass-midrange drivers. Well, fine. Whatever, In the end I put on a violin record and if it sounds like a violin to me, I'm satisfied.

I tried to make clear in my original post that I bought the MAXX2s because in my room they sound more like live music than any speaker I've had here. Other speakers have imaged better, or perhaps resolved more on top, or whatever, but harmonically, and dynamically, the speaker/room interaction IN MY ROOM not IN A SET OF MEASUREMENTS, yields results that please my ears and don't suffer terribly when I get home from a concert and listen to recorded music.

As for the scale, which Hardesty says is all wrong, sorry, it sounds right to me, and judging by the responses of people at hifi shows, it sounds right to them too.

Finally to whomever wrote that he's waiting to see the MAXX2s for sale on Audiogon at a big profit to me. You know what? I should tell you to go back on Audiogon and find all the products I've bought and sold at a big profit. You won't find any. I'm not a "churner." What's more, Stereophile doesn't allow that. And I should go on and defend myself further. But I won't. Instead, I'll leave that person with the words of Dick Cheney to Pat Leahy on the Senate floor...and you know what those words were....

WAKE UP PEOPLE! He did not "review" the speaker. It is one of his "Watch Dog" articles which ARE NOT REVIEWS. If it was a "review" I would agree with all the comments above.

Again- read the intent of his "Watch Dog" articles.
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html

Please debunk his arguments in that context.

IMO, I see his basic premise as- if something costs $45,000 it better offer some advanced technology, and have somewhat sound engineering that will yield somewhat accurate measurements. In his opinion the Maxx 2 doesn't come close to those objectives.

Since the Maxx2 deviates from a "flat frequency response" (peaked midbass) and wires drivers out of phase with each other, he feels it can't begin to justify its price tag and be considered state of the art.

Should he listen to the speaker in his own room and system before making such broad based statements? Yes, but perhaps he feels he is "knowledgeable" enough that such an evaluation is not necessary based upon the actual design of the speaker and the brief listening encounters he had with the speaker.

I am not defending Hardesty, just trying to put his commentary in the right context. Two friends of mine whose opinions I respect heard the Maxx 2 stated it was one of the best speakers they have heard.

I also love reading Fremer's article every month in Stereophile. YMMV.

Well i thought i would join in too. I once heard a Wilson Watt Puppy about 5 years ago and it was my first High End experience. While i did remember that i found the sound very cold and dead sounding that the precision and depth really impressed me. I am now currently listening to diva's and wouldnt trade them for any other speaker out there but i am sure that if setup correctly that the Wilsons sound pretty good. For the money i am sure that they are not very good, but who can justify calling a 100K speaker a bargain.

-Flo

I for one have to agree with the review. I heard the Watt Puppy 6 and the Max and was not impressed at all. For that kind of money, the performance is a joke in my opinion. I am not saying its a bad speaker in general, but for the money its horrible. Of course, if you can afford it and the matching electronics then it is properbly not much for you. I had to bribe 2 reviewers here just to get them to listen to "the products". You invite them to dinner, then chat some more and ask what they want and give them something nice. And see there a nice glowing review is coming. Very sad! For us small fish in the see, the industr. sucks.

i used to be in charge of sales for a noteworthy manufacturer in the 1980's and we received moderately positive reviews in several publications. maybe i was an idiot, but i never participated in accommotion pricing for anyone other than an authorized retail, which in our glory days totaled 43 stores. any reviewer who would have wanted to keep our products would have received a NO. they would have had to go through the dealer network. i thought that showed at least a tiny bit of integrity. maybe if we would have been more "accommodating" we would still be making and selling some damn fine amps and speakers.

What MF has brought to our hobby with his tracking angle and Analog Corner contributions is most commendable. Few reviewers could match this accomplishment for the uplifting of analog and the superior source of the vinyl medium. Yet what strikes me a bit odd is his Don Quixote like quests to right the so called wrongs voiced by folks like Arthur Salvatore or some of the ”IDIOTS” on Audiogon? Mr. Fremer what possible “capital” do you intend on gaining from wrestling with …. As the adage goes, you will only come up covered in mud. I realize it’s not in your nature but sometimes saying less is more powerful.
We all have different ears and differing desires driving what we expect out of our personal Hifi systems. Emotions run high because of the very nature of what the medium invokes in most all of us, otherwise why bother. For me this forum (AudigoN) is a place to question the very ideas of what we are trying to accomplish here. Short of personal slander I find it a healthy exercise to share in this mutual ‘reality check’ experience. Not all that comes from an open forum such as this is fruitful, so it goes.
On the subject of this thread though short of the color of the paint on these (Wilson Audio) speakers I find the colors of the speaker sound itself to clash with my decorum.
If that wasn’t enough Dave Wilson’s interview in TAS (I stand corrected) December 2004 article entitled “The Cutting Edge, Playback systems; What is most important?” IMHO leaves me not appreciating the sounds that come from the man behind the speakers either. His premise (as a speaker producer, of course) is that an ipod and Wilson Sophia loudspeakers represent in the hierarchy of a high-end system a more suitable combination than say Ivor Tiefenbrun’s contribution of a Linn Lp12 and a modest grouping of components further down the chain of reproduction. Then at a CES of the time he duped the masses in what he refers to as an experiment by leaving them to believe that they are listening to a $25,000 dollar CDP through his speakers when in reality they are listening to an ipod. All that this stunt proves to me is that a group of Wilson observers happen to be incapable of hearing the difference. That should serve him well if they also have wallets fat enough to support his livelihood and I find no offense to a person making a good living for them selves. I don’t believe for a minute though that some of us would not have ferreted out this attempt of proving whatever it was that he was trying to prove. Yet I find it to be in a whole different spirit than what Ivor and Linn were out to prove decades ago when they ran double blind comparisons of the early Lp12 against other decks. For me a Wee Dram of Scotch will not quell this affliction, in the words of Ivor Tiefenbrun, “Well, I’m just taking medication after hearing that (laughs).”
Along time ago I let my ears guide me though to assemble my first Hifi system and as I gleaned little pearls of wisdom and listening experience I found that some folks such as Ivor and his principals seemed to give me back the greatest amount of satisfaction. There were and are a lot of ideas out there about Hifi and musical reproduction and we each have to prove out what makes sense and what is just more distortion to be eradicated. This all adds up to the buffoonery that begs for a forum like AudiogoN and demands some not so pleasant discourse in relief to the spectrum of colors being projected by our audiophile rags. For me personally over the years having listened to my share of Hifi equipment I have come to find that much of the choosing of a good reproduction system is about my ears and my personal likes, yet this in no way negates a hierarchy of practical science and coexistence with the laws of basic physics. Let’s keep the “art” (and I’m not referring to Art Dudley in as much as we all need to lighten up and laugh at our selves, which he is the master of) I digress, of it in perspective to the reality of our physical realm. Maybe the flat earthers are on to something. Happy listening and Cheers!

I'm of the school that appreciates hearing about what another person hears from a product. I am always interested in knowing the context of that experience; which includes time and circumstances with the product, ancilary gear, and previous writings and perspectives. I may consistently disagree with the judgement of a particular writer/poster/reviewer but i get value from that source if i can understand their perspective.

In the case of this thread, i have a major problem with Mr. Hardesty's viewpoint since he tells me nothing about the circumstances of his experience with the MAXX2. Forgetting about his many unfortunate personal attacks on the reviewers; i can't tell from his 'rant' what other factors may have influenced his judgements.

Did Mr. Hardesty have occasion to compare the MAXX2 in a system where he had listened to another comparable speaker? Room issues? Amp differences?

Mr. Hardesty seems to be a lazy guy that wants to draw attention without really doing the work. If he would have approached the MAXX2's with an open mind and some objectivity, explained his methodology and what he heard; and even came to the same conclusions; i would be appeciative and comfortable with his perspective.

I'm a subjectivist that while appreciating the why of things; somewhat resents being told that this or that design cannot sound good. I also don't like an 'all-knowing' tone......explain don't dictate.

Tell me what you hear and the context of that experience.

BTW, i have found that in some cases i have not had the same conclusions that Fremer has had from his speaker reviews; but i have found that his perspectives have been consistent and there have always been enough information to make sense of cause and effect of what he did write. He does the work.

I find conspiracy theorists to be simply 'full of it' and saying more about themselves than their intended targets.

The Wilson MAXX2? i have heard it 10 or so times; 2 friends have them; i have heard them at shows and dealers. I have heard them sound marginal and very good. They are not exactly my cup of tea but none-the-less are pretty good speakers. Were i to be tempted to go further than that i would need to spend considerable time with them in a familiar system. I do think that they perform fine in their general price range.

Samual, Hmmm, by constant stance, I mean Hardesty does conform to one type of engineering method that he feels gives the best chance to a speaker at reproducing the source accurately. Does time and phase coherency ring a bell. Also, he believes in sealed enclosures for bass. He doesn't "Bounce" for the flavor of the month. I haven't seen a lot change in speaker design for a long time. Most are rehash of old designs.
I think sticking with ones principles is a good idea. I couldn't disagree more with your statement he is not being helpful. I guess consumer education is a bad thing? He compares and points out flaws both audible and measurable. And not being truthful---not truthful to what---his long held beliefs and principals? You don't have to agree with the man but he does give the reasons behind his beliefs. And I'll say again, how many reviewers do that. Most describe how it sounds to them and damn the technology. If that is true, then all this becomes a moot point.
As for standard parts, read the watchdog, the drivers are off the shelf stuff. There's nothing high dollar or special here (as in no patented designs.) You would think at these lofty prices, there would be some special engineering or custom drivers or something out of the ordinary that Wilson could brag on other than a car finish.

I have listened to a lot of wilson speakers. I was unimpressed. I am sure someone could get them to sound good. At those prices it is not my problem. It sort of reminds with Infinity speakers. They never sounded good until a certain manufacturer used them to demo his amps. It reamins as one of my all time best systems. Of course the infinitys sold for a fraction of the wilson's price.
If I may- the emperor has lots of fancy clothes in his closet but every time I see him he is naked as a jaybird.

who qualifies for an accommidation price? where do we sign up?

Sean, Nice summary - or should I say essay :).

I agree with you most that when you read a series of reviews from most/some? reviewers you get a sense of what they like and what their listening tastes/biases are.

Me I have no idea what sam tellig or Ken Kessler listening biases are, except that everything sounds WONDERFUL with correlation to the music playing. my two cents

I think Hardesty is really on to something with his review. From now on, I am only reading reviews if they are based solely on the component's test-bench performance and engineering philosophy. I am sick and tired of having to read all those silly reviews where the reviewer has put time and energy into actually listening to the product before giving an assessment.

As I read Hardesty's article, I got the impression that he is not credible enough to write a well-thoughtout review of the product. Instead, he focusses on and criticizes other reviewers and the product's designer. Maybe he is afraid of what he might hear if he actually opened his mind to an in-home audition of a product that uses a different design philosophy than his own.

As for everyone that thinks that Hardesty is so great, we'll see what happens when he negatively reviews the components you have all carefully selected for your own systems. And, no, I don't own or particularly care for Wilson products. No doubt, though, Hardesty will eventually get around to criticizing the equipment that I do own. After all, my equipment will make an easy target since it is well-reviewed by the mainstream media.

Jeff

1) ALL speakers are pretty highly coloured to one extent or another. We all know this.

Having said that, there are certain design attributes that we know to work better than others IF measurable accuracy are a high priority. At the price that Wilson charges for their products, one would think that at least "some" of these design attributes "might" be incorporated into their products. Evidently, such is not the case. Nor is that true of MANY other multi-driver designs.

2) Measurements are taken so that we can somehow try to correlate what we hear with repeatable tests and try to figure out how they correspond to one another. When the measurements don't correlate with what we hear, we either aren't taking the tests correctly, testing for the right things and / or the test results aren't being properly interpreted. Either that or our listening skills might not be what we think they are.

3) Without comparitive listening AND controlled test procedures, we would all be in the dark ages of audio. We all know that some products can measure well and sound like crapola ( high negative feedback designs ) and that some products can measure poorly and still sound enjoyable. Speakers are a prime example, especially if the specific "quirks" of the speaker in question tend to cater to one's personal preferences and / or specific room anomalies.

4) Fremer basically states that he likes this product and that all other methods of testing / other's personal preferences / pricing matter not to him. As such, he buys, uses and recommends what he likes, regardless of what others think.

In some ways, this sounds a LOT like what i've been saying for many years i.e. one should buy and use what THEY like, as they will be the one listening to it. This is true even though i offer contrary points of view to what others may like / find to be desirable traits. In this regards, Fremer and i are more alike than different.

5) Fremer has been consistent in his reviews of products and the aforementioned stance that he states here. That is, he also liked and purchased the Cyberlight interconnects, which JA has stated were a technical nightmare and measured attrociously. Personally, i find the Cyberlights to be nothing less than an expensive joke / bad snake oil, but to each their own.

6) As i have stated many times over, one needs to learn how to interpret specs for themselves, understand what those spec's mean, how the spec's were derived and how they correlate to one might expect to hear. This helps to make one an informed consumer and gives them the ability to better wade through / interpret a "review" of ANY product.

7) Without the aid of understanding what is going on in a technical manner, one is at the mercy of what they read and want to believe in any "review:. Obviously, knowing the personal preferences of the specific reviewer and being familiar with their writing styles can also be a big help in that regard.

This is why i like reading Kal Rubinson's and John Marks reviews. I believe that i'm familiar with both their writing styles and what they seek in terms of sonics. On top of that, i also think that they are ethical individuals. Art Dudley also falls into this category, but his "personal preferences" and "belief system" are so different than mine, that i find it hard to relate most of the time. No bunnies for me : )

8) There should be some form of standards as to what is considered "acceptable" and unacceptable" in terms of the reproduction of music using "high fidelity" gear. Otherwise, it all boils down to personal preference with no form of accountability.

In that regard, points should be alloted in specific categories that are deemed most important for the type of equipment under review. One could then better assess whether or not the specific DUT ( Device Under Test ) might meet their needs based on the individual strengths and / or weaknesses based on their scoring in each individual category.

Every product is some form of a compromise. Being able to compare sonic strengths and weaknesses as the reviewer hears / sees them combined with repeatable test results would be FAR more informative than having to read several pages of hyperbole and prose.

9) Personally, i believe that JA's test results and listening skills make for a hard combo to beat. That is, as far as Stereophile reviewers go.

Having said that, that doesn't mean that i have the utmost faith in what he says, how he tests certain products ( a lack of consistency in some areas ) or that he doesn't sometimes soften things so as to be somewhat "cordial" to the manufacturer & potential advertiser. Nobody is perfect and JA at least tries to be a "gentleman" about things. That's more than i can say about myself : )

10) It cracks me up to think that people think that what Hardesty is doing is something new and / or revelatory. Moncrieff did all of the above i.e. calling other reviewers to task and pointing out why some 25+ years ago. In effect, Hardesty comes across as wanting to be the modern day Moncrieff / IAR. Having said that, i can understand why Hardesty might admire / want to emulate Moncrieff and the early days of IAR.

11) Multiple large diameter drivers that are physically spaced a measurable distance apart instantly introduce time, phase and frequency response abberations into the listening equation. Refer back to the first comment that i made and then look at the massive amount of speakers on the market that really aren't designed to operate as "high fidelity" products. Obviously, this includes a LOT of products outside of Wilson's.

12) Fremer put his money where his mouth is and Hardesty has too. They both buy & use ( probably at massively discounted pricing ) what they have recommended to others. As such, how can you fault someone for sharing their honest opinions, even if you completely disagree with them?

13) Listen to some tunes on YOUR "amazing" system that nobody else likes and can poke holes in and see how much you think their opinion is worth then. Then you'll start to realize that it's all a moot point.

Best wishes and good listening to all.... Sean
>

PS... If you notice, i didn't touch Harley's comments / position on this situation with a ten foot pole. That's because i personally find his reviews to be NOT worth getting that close to. Then again, none of that matters when i'm listening to one of my "amazing" systems and i'm quite certain that he feels much the same way about what i think or say : )

Rcprince, what is your opinion of Jarvi's work as new musical director of the NJSO? Have you attended any recent concerts? I agree that NJSO is an excellent orchestra. The hall at NJPAC is first rate, with an incredibly low noise floor, detailed with just enough warmth. Superior to Fisher Hall indeed.

Samuel
I'm starting to suspect this is some sort of an elaborate publicity stunt hatched to get this "review" site some free exposure and cook up some controversy. I don't know about you but I'd never heard of them previously up until this surreptitious link was posted! I've also never seen so many flatlanders, or flatliners or whatever you want to call these measurement objectivists crawling out of the woodwork in such vociferous quantities. Man, either Wilson must have pissed off an awful lot of folks or these guys want some attention! Just go listen to the speakers, people THEN form an opinion. Pathetic, methinks as most of the pogromers are speaking from ignorance and dictum not hands (ears) on experience.

Not only do I think you're right, Grant, and understand and appreciate that Mike Fremer should be defending his integrity, I know this guy who did this review did not listen to speakers he is debunking from the (very) few comments he actually did make pertaining to what approximates (?) listening comments to the actual speakers SOUND. They just flat out contradict my own experience and, I'm sure many of the above posters actual experiences of listening to them diametrically.

What i also find fascinating is that he doesn't reference Maxx2 but rather goes on and on about the Maxx. Perhaps this "perfectionist" had an older pair of the admittedly much improved versions? What a joke! This guy claims to be a perfectionist yet doesn't give context, gear he used, room,can't even write the model name correctly etc etc etc?

What would be really funny and perhaps even of interest and value is if every poster here described the context and partnering equipment, setting and time spent that they had in front of an actual pair of Maxx2's so we can actually develop some relevant discussions based on actual experience and not just what other people have written or some ridonculous objectivist dogma Repeat after me - any speaker that is not ruler flat, time and phase coherent ain't no speaker at all. It amazes me also that people can form opinions on a speaker or brand based on partnering with certain solid state amps that are known to be sterile, lean and uninvolving. In my opinion the speaker is letting you know what is happening upstream. Its a good sign to me of a great design when that effect is apparent as it demonstrates the opposite as well to a great degree. Anyone that's heard the Maxx's on a great tube amp would think they sound completely differently from someone who's heard them only on Spectral or Halcro. In fact, I've never heard a speaker that has been more chameleonlike demonstrating this effect more than the Maxx2.

I have to laugh out loud at what an easy target it is to attack the most successful high end speaker without actually listening to the product. Hilarious thread!

Oh, my disclaimer? I've actually heard them.

you realize, the most relevant and credible party here isn't getting the attention they deserve; their opinion on speaker preference and musicality should be duly noted by those who are considering what the skinny is on wilsons.

i cite: fremer's wife.

she's doubtless heard many speakers, and was probably horrified at the expense. but they (husband & wife) bought them, for the music.

rhyno

What a stupid comment. Grooves has answered 3 threads in 3 years and you claim he protests too much. Pull the other one.

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