A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

If Hardesty really wants to leave his imprint on the audiophile world he should take his considerable knowledge and opinions and manufacture a speaker based thereupon. It's really easy to criticize the work of others, but it's a lot harder to actually step off you platform and get down and dirty in the marketplace. Dave Wilson took the leap and even if I don't love his products I deeply respect Wilson for his work. It says something about Wilson that he had the courage and confidence to start his business and the acumen to make it successful. Hardesty obviously relishes his role as the critics' critic, but where does it stop? Maybe I should start a webzine dedicated to criticizing the critics who criticize other critics, but what would that say about me?

The difference is sound resulting from the choice of microphone, its radiation pattern and physical placement is several orders of magnitude greater than the difference in sound between a well designed first order crossover/time aligned speaker and an equally well designed higher order/non time aligned speaker. I'm not saying that phase accuracy doesn't add to sonic realism, but that it's drawfed by arbitrary decisions made during the recording process.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's that big a difference between what Bigtree and I have said. It's more a matter of preference and emphasis. If the majority of your music collection was recorded using minimalist/purist techniques with a minimum number of mics, then I have no doubt that such recordings sound better on phase coherent designed speakers If you like opera, big band jazz, anything electronic/synthesized, reggae, classic rock, pop vocals or symphony recordings, all of which are typically recorded and mixed via multitrack with synthetic soundfields, then the benefits of phase coherent speaker designs are greatly minimized and their faults still remain. Since high quality recordings can be made using some many different techniques, it's not surprising that listeners have different opinions about what is realistic sound reproduction.

BTW, most minimalist recordings I've heard sound unimpressive on lo fi systems (boomboxes). No impact, overly distant somewhat indistinct sound. Some music just cries out for go old fashion compression/limiting.

I respect, but I don't particularly like Wilson speakers. That said, the "review" was unusually biased. Hardesty clearly has preconceived notions of what constitutes a good speaker and he slams Wilson for not following his lead. His main points are that the MAXX is not tonally/phase accurate and that they represent a poor dollar value. I agree with his first point, but I don't see it as a fatal flaw since there are many truly great speakers out there that are not phase coherent and have a tailored frequency response (BBC monitors, Sonus Faber, Proac, Monitor Audio Studio Series, etc.) As far as value goes, unless you can afford them, you're really not in any position to judge whether the MAXX is a good value or not. His comments about Wilson catering to the carriage trade misses the mark. Personally I can't think of any speaker or electronic component over $10,000 that isn't aimed at that market.

I don't find it clearly stated in the "review", but how many people think Hardesty actually listened to the speakers as opposed to simply reading the other publications' reviews?

If pressed for a response I would say I was in the "sounds good to me" school, but issues like this are never so clear cut. When I first came across Audiogon I would have place myself in the accurate reproduction camp, but two factors got me thinking. First, I developed a knowledge about studio recording techniques and came to the conclusion that it's virtually impossible to know exactly what the recording is supposed to sound like. There are just too many variables and artistic considerations involved in even a minimalist recording to really say what the recordings should sound like. Second, in looking at the virtual systems listed here on Audiogon I came to a deeper understanding of what real life audiophile systems were put together. I ultimately came to the realization that if you knew what you were doing, which presumes a good knowledge of audio equipment, the sound of live instruments and a the possession of a reasonably good ear, you could put together a wonderfully musical system that while not strictly accurate, still gets to the heart of the music. So much depends upon individual taste, both in equipment voicing and the particular type of music you play. One size will never fit all.

Bigtree, your recording friend may think he's trying to faithfully reproduce an original event, but ultimately he cannot. What is the original event? What he hears in center section from row DD? What the conductor hears at the podium? What it sounds like under the balcony? Who's to say, because the sound of the orchestra does sound radically different in each of these locations. The recording chain is by its very nature an editorializing process. A recording is not a piece of captured reality, but instead is a separate entity that through artificial means is an analogy of a distinctly separate event. It's not a trivial difference.