A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

I'm entertained, how about everyone else?!

R_f,

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

.

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

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

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

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.

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$

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.

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

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

Thanks Oneobgyn, good suggestion. That didn't work. Actually the credit for these questions goes to Klaus at Audio Asylum. He did write to Stereophile and was ignored. He was ignored online when asking Stereophile reviewer's the same questions. So I guess I'm taking up the battle flag. I could write a letter to the editor myself but it would go in the trash. So at least if I post online people get to see it, even if (when) I am ignored.
A1126lin, you have a good point. What we need is an Audio Ten Commandments. Ultimately all we have now is subjective feelings, irregardless of what the measurements are. It would be good for audio in general and probably get more people involved.
Imagine real life without laws or the Ten Commandments to guide us. Total chaos and anarchy. That's what hi-end audio is right now. No wonder it's such a convoluted mess.

IMHO Wilson = Rolex. A hi-end luxury brand. For people buying Rolex, keeping good time is probably a secondary reason. Should be the same with Wilson. Nothing wrong for Wilson to take the marketing position of a luxury brand.
The misrepresentation IMO starts when reviewers somehow equate the high price of Wilson with a commensurate improvement in sound quality.
Fremer has been quite open in that he rates stuff on his subjective opinion which may be fine for him but does little to say if **I'll** like the product or more importantly, help me with my audio-nervousa condition ;-). So we have the blind leading the blind. What good is that? I think the Bible says somewhere about justice being served when the liars start believing their own lies and end up destroying themselves by their own web they weave. No I'm not calling Fremer a liar, but I do think reviewers who weave a web of subtle deception end up believing their own deception in the end. Fooling themselves so to speak.
Heck how many people (myself included) convince themselves what the you is the best. Then go out and compare everything to what they currently own and when it sounds different = it must be wrong.

Being Sunday I'll part with this:
"Beware, don't always be wishing for what you don't have. For real life and real living are not related to how rich we are."
Luke 12:15

audio perfectionist website updated with the below:

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html

Postscript to Watch Dog #21
Following the posting on this web site of my Op Ed piece, which exposes the Wilson Maxx for the inaccurate and overpriced product that it is, I received a hateful email rant from John Giolas of Wilson Audio. For the amusement (and amazement) of readers of Audio Perfectionist Journal, the Giolas tirade appears below, just as I received it, in its original raw and unedited form. The squeamish are forewarned that Giolas has spewed forth quite a vehement mouthful. Read on at your own risk!

In particular, notice that Mr. Giolas has opted to attack me and my readers personally while his letter offers absolutely nothing to rebut my comments about the Wilson speakers.

The message I received from Michael Fremer was more civil but he completely misinterpreted the purpose of a Watch Dog article so I chose to respond to many of his points. First the email message from Mr. Giolas, next the email message from Mr. Fremer and then my response to Fremer's message.

Mr. Giolas' message:

From: [email protected]
Subject: Audio Perfectionist?
Date: October 27, 2005 10:48:02 AM PDT
To: [email protected]

Mr. Hardesty:

I have read, from time to time and from a safe distance, your ongoing missives specifically directed and targeted at Wilson Audio. Since you exist at the lunatic fringe (both literally and figuratively) and since you in no way affect the well being of Wilson, I have largely ignored your tirades. For me, life is too short to intentionally expose myself to negativity and hatred, especially when it is so baseless and silly. Your writing (both specifically related to Wilson Audio and as a whole) is so utterly misinformed, misleading, bellicose, arrogant, and cynical, it has been impossible for me to take you very seriously.

I have to admit, though – a little like western culture’s absorption with serial killers – your bitterness and hatred are both fascinating and disturbing to me. Your writing (and I assume your personality) fits the evangelical zealot prototype perfectly. You write in absolutes and proclamations, thumping your podium in self-righteous indignation; as if you, somehow, have been endowed with a great secret knowledge that you benevolently pass onto your simple-minded congregation. With religious certainty and with false benevolence, you broadcast and delineate “technological facts” to the great unwashed. All the while, you avoid conveying any relevant experiential process. Like all effective cultist evangelists, you remain vague on the actual facts, circumstances, and evaluation process. To you, the “truth” is information you control, a tool to further your agenda. You are audio’s version of Jim Jones.

It is profoundly ironic, given your obvious lack of journalistic ethics, that you engage in such a boisterous attack of the audio media. You openly bash the mainstream press while engaging in an approach that has no validity, no concerted process, no discipline, and no credentials. Your writing is so redolent with irrational religiosity and so tainted with undisclosed agendas that it amazes me that you actually have the audacity to comment on other journals. Alas, I recognize the sad truth that in today’s world any angry zealot can find an audience.

My first instinct was to counter, line by line, the myriad of inaccuracies and misrepresentations regarding Wilson products, its culture, the reviewers, and its constituency of clients with a well reasoned rebut. My experience tells me that this would be a little like arguing religion with a cultist zealot. It would truly be a waste of my time.

What I do want to tell you is that I find it sad that anyone would engage in behavior that benefits no one and is destructive to all that participate. Like Jim Jones, you invite your readers to drink the poison of your hatred and misinformation. You and your kind are cancerous to an industry I love – an industry built on the love of music, not the paranoid disdain of others.

It is also sad to me that you are somehow connected to Richard Vandersteen, a man who I respect and admire (I have owned many of his products, including two versions of the 5). I am dismayed that he might somehow share in or be involved with your nuttiness.

A very good friend of mine once gave me very good advice. She said don’t jump in the pool if you know it’s filled with sharks. So, since it is self-defeating and self-destructive to me, I refuse to read anymore of your stuff.

And while I risk getting a leg chomped by stupidly sticking it in the pool, I would like to invite you to come visit the Wilson Audio factory; come see for yourself the engineering process, the care of execution, the passion that we have for music that drives us to do what we do. Come listen to the MAXX Series 2 at my home, properly set up with great ancillary gear.

Then, at least, you could rant with some level of credibility.

John Giolas

Wilson Audio

Mr. Fremer's message:

From: [email protected]

Subject: MAXX2
Date: October 27, 2005 6:37:42 PM PDT
To: [email protected]

Richard:

I enjoyed reading your review of the MAXX2s. I especially liked the way you put quotes around the sarcastic words "mystical and mysterious" to describe the cabinet materials, when I don't think anyone used those words except you of course, nor did the reviewers mention imply that there was anything about the materials that were the least bit "mysterious" or especially "mystical" other than the marketing expression "X" or whatever Wilson calls it, which I care little about.

Then, of course, in the next sentence you acknowledge that the accelerometer measurements showed "pretty good performance" from the cabinets (an understatement, of course).

That's just one example of your hardly "objective" "review." It wasn't really a review at all. You don't talk about where you even might have listened to the speakers or how actual music sounded on it. Or how that music differed from what you hear live. But that's okay because the tone of your review was so off the chart that no one reading it could possibly find it objective. So in the end you just hurt your own cause whatever that might be.

I can tell you that in my room, the MAXX2s sound more like what I hear at the symphony, which I attend once a month at Avery Fisher Hall (no need to dump on the hall here) than any other speaker I've had in my room and that everyone who's come down to listen---audiophile and non audiophile--- loves them. "Accurate"? There are none. All speaker have colorations of one kind or another as do all recordings as do most rooms.

In the real world, there's a reason people respond to the MAXX2s at hifi shows and in store demos and in homes. It has nothing to do with the "carriage trade," or with them being not as well informed as you. It has everything to do with high performance in many areas, perhaps some compromises in others, which all speakers have, that happen to work out very well in the case of the MAXX2s. Speaker design, and indeed recording music, has always been and probably will always be a combination of art and science. I'm not sure you recognize that.

People recognize the sound of music..they are not deluded. Your attitude is very poor and it sinks your cause, whatever it might be....

Sincerely,

Michael Fremer

My reply to Mr. Fremer:

Michael,

I have never reviewed the Wilson Maxx speakers. The piece that you read is a Watch Dog, an Op Ed piece of sorts, that is critical of the reviews of the Maxx in Stereophile and TAS. I encourage you to visit my web site for a complete explanation of the purpose and tone of Watch Dog articles. http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/watchdog.html

I review products only after listening to them in my own system. I do, however, criticize the reviews printed in magazines that pretend to be consumer advocates, but aren’t. My critiques are based on the material that is printed in the magazines and my listening experiences at shows and stores and in the homes of friends.

I try never to personally attack the people involved, only their comments and opinions (unlike some in our industry, as evidenced by the email message that I forwarded to you).

If I may, I’d like to address your points one by one.

If Wilson isn’t alluding to mystical properties by calling something “material X” I’d like to know what he is doing and I’ll bet the truth is out there. I know what the components in these speakers cost and I’m sure you can build one hell of a box for $40K even if pretty good performance is an understatement (and I don’t believe that it is)!

I agree that this isn’t much of a review because it’s not a review at all! I don’t agree that it lacks objectivity. I believe that there is far more objective information in my critique than in both magazine reviews combined. A novice would assume these are high tech, accurate speakers after reading the reviews. I contend they are neither. They provide an artist's conception of what music sounds like, not a reproduction of the recording as I advocate.

I am a classically trained musician. I don’t need to travel to recalibrate my ears because I listen to my own playing (not particularly good) on my own grand piano (quality commensurate with my skills) every day. Yes, I listen to lots of other live music, too.

I count as my friends Brooks Berdan of Brooks Berdan, Ltd., Luke Manley of VTL, and Dave Gordon and Terry Dorn of ARC. I have attended every CES show since the beginning. I have heard Wilson speakers of all types in many different settings with a significant assortment of associated components. I have compared the Wilson Maxx 2 to the Vandersteen Model 5a in the same ARC room at T.H.E. (CES) in 2004 and 2005. I have heard the Wilson speakers with my preamp (7.5) in various VTL demonstrations. The best demonstration of Wilson speakers I’ve heard was in what is perhaps the best room in the country, located at Brooks Berdan, Ltd. in Monrovia, California.

There are, of course, objective measurements of speaker accuracy and engineering competence. That’s why your editor at Stereophile publishes measurements and comments about these measurements with your reviews. All engineering is a balance of compromises but, in my opinion, art should always be applied in addition to competent design, not as a substitute for it.

Wilson makes products that people like and he’s been successful doing it. As clearly stated in my Watch Dog article, I fully support this. To reiterate, I believe that informed consumers should buy whatever they like. And I believe that reviewers have an obligation to provide the information necessary to inform consumers. That, Michael, is my cause. What’s yours?

Richard Hardesty

The source of lot of useless audiogon back & forth is when motives are questioned. All is conjecture at best, though one can never know. The same thing can said for most professions whose value add is supposed to be consultancy, advice etc...especially where there is no standard data to be benchmarked up against. So why don't we just drop the whole discussion altogether and just stick to the MAxx2 itself? Obviously there are differing opinions and the more discussion on the sound quality or character there is, the more other may be able to gain value from it, whether they agree or disagree. Let's stick to the subject.

I you can afford the Wilson Maxx then you have a pretty good life, I dont know if they are good or bad I am sure they are really impressive, some may knock them out of jealousy, others may just think it doesnt take that much money to make a speaker that works well.
At any rate even if they do suck the folks who buy them dont think so, and if they have that much money....who cares or feels sorry for them if they didnt make the right choice?...after all who really knows what the right choice is anyway??
I really cant see why people take time to hate these speakers, they are so expensive that it is not practical for most to even think about them, let alone knock those who have them, life is too short.

although i'm not a Wilson zealot; i think Mr. Giolas has it about right. Mr. Hardesty's writing says more about Mr. Hardesty than about the products he describes.....and thanks to Mr. Hardesty for showing us Mr. Giolas's letter.

If Mr. Hardesty truely is after truth......and not just attention....he should accept Mr. Giolas's offer; visit Wilson; do the damn work......and write about what he sees and hears.....what a novel approach that would be for Mr. Hardesty.

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?

I really don't think the point was to discredit directly anything accept, that are you being sold 45,000 worth of speaker? Unfortunately, I have learned as many people have that to get attention to any certain subject you may have to show pretty negative forwardness to make a point, crack a couple Eggs if you will... Its a Warning to one that may believe they are really getting a speaker or any equipment near the cost of 50% down payment on an exotic car basically. I totally agree any one is free to spend as much as possible to find the truth and happiness in the audio world no doubt, But I think this article was Harsh but made that way to show some truth about Snake oil being sold, that's it, And I think the point was made, however the attacks on certain individuals are another story, but the fact is do I really care what any reviewer says, they all may have certain motives beyond the music, who is to judge, that point is dead. Believe in a product, but break it down into the real world cost is the whole Real point of that article, even if they sound fabulous. To some extent we are all being sold "Status" do you need a Mercedes equal to a honda accord to get to work?

Richard, I am good friends with Luke Manley from VTL as well as Dave and Terry from ARC, just as you say you are.

I think it relevant to note that both Audio Research and VTL _own_ the Wilson MAXX2's and consider them ABSOLUTE references for listening to their own products--which also explains why they chose to SHOW with them at CES. And Brooks? He carries the Wilson line because he BELIEVES in them. So it would seem, that even within your self appointed circle of friends, you are way out on a limb. But that's the point isn't it? You know better 'cause you're so 'derned smart.... :)

I don't think anything John wrote was out of line, and it seemed appropriate to the circumstance. He's even invited you to visit! Don't drink the kool-aid, though, eh? I think posting John's comments and invitation made your ranting look all the more baseless.

IMO, it's rather classless to POST e-mail correspondence, but in this case I'm glad you did.

No one's defending the Wilson speakers as "the greatest", nor arguing with your absolute right to be a dissenting voice and write your contrary opinions. It's just that you offered no qualification for your opinion other than breaking down measurements _someone else_ conducted, and correlating it (rather humorously) to your admittedly casual listening experiences. If you want to tear something down so completely, there should be a higher standard of shared context and personal effort involved, at least from my perspective.

I suggest you take up John's offer. Not that ANYTHING will ever change your mind, but at least you'll do yourself a favor and come across more credibly. And that appears to me, to be what you crave the most.

Unfortunately there's been an obvious trend for a long time in the corporate news media. The "bottom line" is Job #1, Market Share is Job #2, and reporting, a necessary evil subservient to #1 and #2, is targeted to the lowest common denominator with the highest net worth. They're running sports updates and MTV length "news" segments on Nightline now, and Koppel is "leaving", because ABC wants to compete with the David Letterman show. The New York Times has so little regard for editorial accuracy that we end up with one scandal after another out of their News Desk. Even the Village Voice is now owned by a media conglomerate and a consortium of investment banks.

If you really think that Stereophile and other big audio mags are any different, because their real mission is to provide unbiased, complete, and accurate audiophile information, advertisers be damned - well then, you're probably part of their target audience.

Wow! I want to work for Stereophile. My silly employer actually requires that I conduct myself in a professional manner, especially when making written responses. For some reason my employer believes that the Internet is a poor medium to use for conveying personal or negative feelings that relate to my profession. I think it's cool how Stereophile allows their reviewers to us words like, "SUCK", CRAP", "IDIOT" and "PISSED OFF" while representing their company in an open forum over the Internet. Darn! I wonder why my employer makes such a big deal about professional conduct. I guess it has something to do with integrity and representation. It seems like my employer is concerned with the whole "image thing." Like the public, you know, "consumers" and "target audience", might think poorly of the product my company markets just because I (a humble employee) might act like a selfish child and make a fool out of myself over a medium such as the Internet. Oh well, I do value my job. I just wish my employers were more "cool" like Stereophile. Gosh, I thought you needed to know how to write in order to write for a national publication. Hum. Go figure.

re: VTL/ARC

The fact that they may use these as reference speakers (for now) doesn't necessarily mean anything except that:
1. Manufacturers need to know how their stuff will sound with the other popular speakers/equipment of the day.
2. VTL and ARC are marketers, too - how would they "look" to the deep-pocketed Stereophile audience (i.e. their target market) if their references were the more accurate Meadowlark, Dunlavy's, GMA's or Vandersteen 5a's? Those are not Sexy - especially if they're no longer in business.
3. Who says that guys who build amplifiers necessarily have ears any different/better than the general population. There's no doubt that a lot of people like listening to Wilsons, so why shouldn't they. That's not Hardesty's point.

What Hardesty says is irrefutable (and you don't have to be very "smart" or knowledgable to understand it) - The Wilsons are made with inexpensive off-the-shelf parts and are technically modest designs that make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to be true a "reference" (as in REPRODUCE THE SOURCE ACCURATELY) transducer. There is simply no argument to be made against him.

Wilsons are built nicely, finished nicely, and it's not wrong if you absolutely LOVE the "sound" - but it's not what the old school audiophile considers Reference. I love to I crank up my DBX expander, use Impact Restoration and pump up the punchy midbass with an EQ for certain recordings - but I wouldn't claim it's audiophile reference. It's fun as hell to listen to, but I sure wouldn't want my speakers doing it automatically without my permission.

As to these people who harp on whether Hardesty had a pair at home to "review" - You don't have to fly a plane with one only wing missing to know that it's a bad idea. You don't have to drive a Ferrari with 3 wheels to know that a 4-wheeled VW will outcorner it. You don't have to hear a 96k sample rate recording to know that it sounds better than the same session recorded simultaneously at 48k and then downsampled to 44.1k. Speaker design is not as complicated a mystery as high-end marketers would like everyone to believe. Accuracy is predictable and measurable - and to a some degree, obtainable. Coloration is not so predictable - hence the vast choices in what type you can purchase. And yes, expensive coloration DOES sound better than cheap coloration.

It's not lost on anyone in the industry that almost every speaker builder who produces (near) flat frequency response, time and phase coherent designs has gone out of business. "Flat" doesn't sell speakers. Punch and Sizzle does. Even if a Zillion people love Wilsons' sound, that in NO way invalidates any of Hardesty's points.

I am writing here as Michael Fremer not as a Stereophile employee. In fact, I am not a Stereophile employee. I write for the magazine but not as a salaried employed. I am happy to say that when I speak for myself I can use any language I wish and as between using words like "suck" and "crap" and having my honesty impugned and the rest of the insults some hurl here, I think "suck" and "crap" and the rest pale by comparison. AND GOSH DARN IT, balance twenty years of columns and reviews with a few 'craps' and 'sucks' and I get accused of not knowing how to write. Yo! Take the cork out of your butt two channel Ben and lighten up!

its funny that none of the Wilson bashers have anything to say about the fact that reputable companies such as audio research, lamm, and vtl use and endorse wilson speakers.

I fully expect some audiogoner will also suspect that these companies are also in on the conspiracy or are poor judges of music and speakers.

Face it, the company you keep says a lot about your products. If Dave Wilson and his company was not up to snuff than I doubt that these reputable companies would showcase their products with his speakers.

these products are overpriced but so is almost all audiophile equipment.

the wilson speakers SOUND might not be your cup of tea but thinking that all of the people that own it are simply fools with tin ears is DUMB.

oh yeah by the way, some people people on audiogon seem more interested in the don quixote pursuit of perfect accuracy instead of the pursuit of the most enjoyable system possible. For those people, would you prefer a
a stereo system that excites you and make you want to listen for hours daily or would you prefer one that an engineer writes in a review or report is the most accurate system in the world but you do not like as much. I am willing to bet some of you would keep the most accurate system in the world even if over time it still did not give you the enjoyment of some other "less" accurate system. Do you really automatically think that the most accurate system is necessarily the most enjoyable? In the finaly analysis, trust your ears not your slide rule

>>>>"What Hardesty says is irrefutable (and you don't have to be very "smart" or knowledgable to understand it) - The Wilsons are made with inexpensive off-the-shelf parts and are technically modest designs that make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to be true a "reference" (as in REPRODUCE THE SOURCE ACCURATELY) transducer. There is simply no argument to be made against him."<<<<<<

Irrefutable? You've got to be joking! I must have missed the part where he had disassembled the speakers, named and photographed all the specific parts and their exact costs, and proven his "claims" stating "technically modest design"

All Richard did was read a review and measurements that _someone else_ performed, and offered often melodramatic, unqualified opinion, period. Oh, and he's heard the speakers at shows and a dealer, whom he _claims_ has the best room in the country... And again, he knows this how?

The Vandy 5a's are by comparison, a super speaker? Anyone that cares to put ANY product under a microscope can poke holes in a design till the cows come home (sorry, I'm from Wisconsin). They might not be accurate or evenhanded gripes but when there's a will and an agenda, there's a way!

My, but you've got a conspiracy theory for everything, haven't you! Knowing the people behind these exemplary companies would shed a whole new light... oh but I forgot, you _don't know_ any of these people-- but that doesn't stop you from claiming they make marketing-driven decisions that run counter to what their ears tell them. Really, you should rethink all the baseless, unfounded comments you make, before you make them, as they undermine everything else you write.

So, Meadowlark, Vandy, GMA, Dunlavy's, those all rank as superior designs? By whose yardstick? . I have nothing against any of those current and former companies. I'm sure some of them make/made decent products. I wouldn't even think of commenting on them however, because I don't have extended experience with them, in _my home_.

I guess I need to find a forum where the level of discourse it not so far over my head. Enjoy your "it's all a conspiracy, party".

What a hoot of a thread !
This audio talk sure gets serious at times.
I do hope all the fun doesn't fly out the transparent window and we can keep some humor here.
TRICK OR TREAT & HAPPY HALLOWEEN !!

Now these last few comments are what confuse me. What is "High end" audio. Is it a bunch of expensive products that lay some claim to fame? No wonder Best Buy and Circuit City thrive. Why not? Their stuff sounds as good to their customers as this stuff sounds to us "Golden ears." What makes us so special? If we are in pursuit of what sounds good then I'm getting off this bandwagon. Where does all the other attributes fit in. Why test if you are going for something that sounds good to the individual. Just go out and find something pleasing. It seems to me that it renders this whole thread a mute point other than the digs at reviewers. What do we need them for anyway? If we want something that sounds good to use no matter how technically incorrect, how inaccurate or whatever, then we can bypass all this nonsense. What difference does it make if its got a 1st order, 2cd or 95th crossover. If it sounds good, it's justified even if it costs $40k. Is doesn't matter how it's built, right?
So, in closing, manufacturers should give up all this fancy crap and just make products that sound good. Quit spending so much on R&D and listen more. Come up with that silky smooth, bold sound that overwhelms the listener. Who cares if it's plus or minus 10db over the midrange. You really don't even need to test it. That doesn't matter, it sounds good!

I'm still entertained!

Only thing is, this sounds way too much like freedom of speech here fellows... considering the current administration.

Cheers!

Yeah it's been quite funny and entertaining.The Agon staff must not be a fan of Wilson either. Normally threads like this don't last long around here.LOL
I'm not going to dawg out the Wilson speakers. But I must agree a speaker used as a reference that cost this much should measure well also.. nuff said.

Trick or Treat!

Hey Karmapolice,
Yes everyone is entitled to enjoy music as they see fit and yes Wilsons are used in lots of setups. My only point is that they have attained status because of their price and because of their particular controversial colorations. A budy who is a highend retailer(> 30yrs) has a sideline of cloning speakers. After pulling apart Wilson WP's I can tell you that they are kit speakers being sold at a very high markup.( yes I know they aren't max2's but Wilson continues to use kits) So,does this matter ? I think it does. Consider almost any other purchase of yours. Would you be comfortable paying $700,000 for a $200,000 house ? How about $1800 for a suit that is not made as well as a $800 suit ? Most people shop with an idea of fair value. In the case of audio equipment this means a retail to cost ratio of about 5/1. Where luxury items (cost no object)vary from this is that there is an assumption that the most expensive is the best and people are willing to pay for this luxury. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Certain "manufacturers" take advantage of this fact and price accordingly.If you like the sound,fine. Who could argue with that ? I think its "dumb" to pay these manufacturers anything when they are clearly taking advantage of your need to own "the best" by selling at multiples of 5/1.

I am a big fan of Thiel and Meadowlark, owning a pair of CS6s and Kestrel 2s, and though I believe I hear and enjoy the benefits of time and phase coherent speakers I ave to tell you folks about an experience that still qualifies as the best I've yet heard in playback.

It was at the 1998 Son et Image show in Montreal, Quebec and the equipment was Watt/Puppy 5 (?) powered by Classe Omega monoblocks and a Levinson preamp and CDP. It was a big band CD and when my girlfriend and I sat on the floor to listen (because the room was packed) we both swore that it was a live band in the room. That is the only time I have ever had that experience save for the real thing.

So, hey Dave Wilson at least got it right that time in that room in that configuration. Can I get it with my system? Perhaps if I spent more time with it.

I am not a fan of Wilson's speakers, but hey guys and gals, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Stevecham, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we just want to give the baby a bath!

everybodies rippin on wilson for supposedly taking advantage of people by using kit drivers & over charging customers but the plain truth is if these speakers didnt sound good to buyers then they would not buy them.

im sure there are some buyers who buy them for status symbols but there are also alot of other guys who have pinched pennies (like me) & saved their asses off to be able to afford them & these types of buyers dont buy for status they buy what they liked the sound of & what they think will sound best in their rigs.

hell 100% of the gear i run has been completely dismissed by the elite audophile population as being unresolving & over priced but i surely didnt spend that kinda cash to impress anybody, i bought what i liked the sound from & im sure there are plenty of wilson owners who did the same.

people who listen to ANY reviewer without ever hearing the gear in question in their own home & start making decisions as to what sounds bad or is priced to high is a fool,the same can be said for people who say all kinds of things (good & bad) based on what they have heard at dealers,if you have not heard these things in your own home then you are not qualified to give them a review!

whenever i see people rippin apart uber $$$ high end gear i always get the same mental pic in my head of a guy sitting in front of a chineese made $400 intergrated tube amp from ebay hooked up to altec 14's thinking he has found all the answers.

has anybody else ever noticed that most of the gear bashers never post a pic of anything they own or listen to?

mike .

A lot of people ask why there's not more women or more of their friends involved in this hobby. Reading through this thread, I see why. I think that at it's price point, it would be pretty obvious that the Wilson Maxx simply doesn't suck. While it may be one person's cup of tea, I can see that it might not be another persons. Everyone will have their different opinions about it and that's fine, but I think that it's the way these viewpoints are expressed that keeps non-audiophiles away. For example, there is way too much chest-pounding and drum beating from the opposing camps of this argument. On the one hand there's the conspiracy advocates who think that any reviewer must be on the take if they happen to like the product under review and god forbid if they buy it, it is only further proof of the ties that bind. On the other hand, there is the reviewer who is supposedly so adept at the english language, but is so high on his audiophile horse that he is only able to hurtle insults at those who disagree with his gospel words. Any constructive discussion of the speakers merits is lost in the arguments. I truly believe that when non-audiophiles see what this "hobby" is becoming and how people act towards each other, they will be turned off further. (Okay, back to Oprah now).

Mike.

"POP!" Wow! I do feel better. You were right Mr. Fremer!
Actually, I thought that Mr. Hardesty's article was a bit unprofessional in the way he made such an issue of criticizing the reviews and opinions of you and other reviewers rather than concentrating more on the performance and musicality of the product. Your response to Mr. Hardesty was appropriate and done in a professional manner. My sarcasm stems from the fact that you chose the Audiogon market to vent your frustrations on; in my opinion, a poor choice. Stereophile is a very niche oriented publication. One would have to assume that the Audiogon “market” is indeed a priority target group. I concede that you are a better writer than my previous thread suggested. However, my twenty years in PR tells me you may have made a costly mistake. One that I believe merits a reprimand. There is always the possibility that all this "controversy" will bolster Stereophile’s marketing efforts, albeit a pretty risky strategy.

Thank you for your advice though. I really do feel better!

a blind shootout between the wilson maxx and the latest generation of the bose 901(in glossy black) would be the right thing to do now. america would then know once and for all which sounds more like a theatre in new jersey.

"Accuracy," as defined by Stereophile's founder and Chief Tester, J. Gordon Holt, is "The degree to which the output signal from a component or system replicates the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate system reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound."

Each of us should purchase what gives us the most pleasure. However, accuracy can mean only one thing. I think JGH got it right when he wrote that several years ago.

Yeah, they sound much better in glossy black; in any other color they wouldn't be a match for the Wilsons. You have a finely tuned pair of eyes and ears.

Aldavis: Well spoken like a good socialist! 5/1 ratio.. so you are saying capitalism shouldn't exist.. So Ford and GM shouldn't make 20k profit on each SUV? I bet you believe in national health care too.. Why don't you hop across the border for Canadian health care (don't expect to find specialist for free)....and wait in line. If you don't like it; you won't buy it and vote with you pocketbook!! just like his online magazine that I will not be subscribing to..
Ranting and reviewing without listening (show conditions don't count since he has no control of what they play or how it is setup...) Condemning all designs (Electrostatic and Planar designs don't work either according to this Preacher...) He reminds me of college professor discussing theory but not living it reality..... Maybe he can get another grant from his congregation, but we wouldn't want him to research any new designs or listen to anyone elses ideas because those can't work!!! I didn't realize audio was so finite...

The only absolute is I will continue to buy what I like when I listen to it personally and sell everything else on agon.

Cytocycle and bigjoe,
Now thats funny ! My undergraduate was in economics. I spent time in sales. Now I am anethesiologist having trained at one the the finest U.S. programs. 11 years into private practice and dealing with the business of medicine on a day to day basis after having seriously studied world economics I doubt that you can teach me much about healthcare economics OR capitalism.
Ordinarily I don't mind manufacturers imposing a special "tax" on rich people seeking what we euphamisticly call "pride of ownership". In this forum ,however, I was trying to point out that Wilsons price is way above any sane intrinsic valuation and that better can be had for much less because I thought it might be HELPFULL to someone. Bigjoe - My "system" includes Wilson-Benesch Chimera speakers(burled walnut) $23,800 retail , Gryphon Antileon signature amp $24,000 retail, CJ 16s2 pre $8500 (soon to be Act 2 14'000 retail) hardly a "chinese integrated" from ebay. I chose these because I loved them.Other than the CJ there was precious little marketing and no reviews to "guide" me. As an aside, these are all real manufacturers. Also, as an aside, I think the tone of this discussion (calling people you disagree with socialists or denigrating their gear when you have NO KNOWLEDGE of either) is beneath us .I for one am here to help and to learn -period. If I have offended any I am sorry - Jim

Rhb, thats a very good information,Ive been wondering
what accuracy means, in terms of audio.Finally I do
agree on this definition.
I dont own Wilson though, but I did hear them on some
occasion, they do sound good to my ears, and look good
to my eyes.
As an audiophile, I like to know how speakers are being
built,what parts they use,because couple of years ago
my friend bought a cd player for 3k, when he open it,
He told me, If he knew whats inside,He will never pay
3k for it.Just a caution I guest.

Early this summer my wife and I had a chance to listen to the Wilson MAXX2 premiere at Overture's in Wilmington DE. Robert Harley was also there. All three of us were sitting listening along with some others. The Meridian representative was spinning the CDs. I personally thought like Hardesty the bass definition was something to be desired, but who am I to be critical? My wife who has hearing like a cat, thought the highs were excellent and not tiring. But in the end it did not excite me or her in any meaningful way. I have heard both the Sophia and the WATT/Puppy and both had the same bass difinition problem.
I guess like Hardesty I want honesty in a speaker, in some ways the Wilson's are bold and over the top, but are they my definition of high end? No

The one thing that I do not understand is Robert Harley's take on this speaker because he pronounced this a great speaker. Which if this is true, it is a 180 degree switch, because prior to this his liking was the Avalon Acoustics sound which is about as different as you can get from Wilson Audio. Two entirely different sounds!!!

Don't worry dudes..... The Avalon Isis is probably going to be reviewed soon.....and the winner of best sound is....
to be continued and continued and continued.....ain't audio great!!!

Hey if nothing else most speakers are good for firewood in the end :*)

Matrix, not the Wilsons.
It's their handicap.

Matrix, I am afraid that the Wilson speakers are not made from wood, but from a resinesque X material. I am also afraid that if you burned them, you might get poisoned from the off gassing of the X material.

I am always interested how guys like G_m_c continue to stir up the pot

I would like to ask the so called "informed" here whether in their opinion other higher priced speakers such as Von Schweikert at $60K a pop contain $60K worth of parts? Or how about the Kharmas which at $85-$110K have that much in parts. Heck, IMO the Kharmas don't even have any bass, so what's the fuss about Wilson? I would take the Maxx ll over the VR9 or Kharma any day of the week. Oh and I wasn't sure that the dealer wasn't allowed to make some profit in this country. How much margin would people fathom there is in the MAXX ll or the VR 9. I would bet that there is more in the VR9 than in the Wilson. I have been to Provo and toured the factory and watched these speakers being produced, as well as also saw all of the man hours used to build these speakers. My X-2's took over 2 weeks to produce. Last I took note, a high end Mercedes, Porsche or BMW rolls off the production line in a matter of days. The quality control that goes into the production of any Wilson speaker is second to none. Heck, I will be the first to admit that there aren't $135K of parts in my X-2's. However I will draw a line in the sand when challenged by the so called naysayers here about Dave Wilson. He has done more for high end audio than any other speaker manufacturer. Perhaps we shouldn't factor in the years of R&D that he put into the production of his speakers as that is obviously worth nothing to you DIYrs. What I bought therefore was Dave's work effort. I feel that I bought the culmination of everything he has done heretofore--essentiallly Dave at the pinnacle of his work effort.
This is a flavor thing and I have said over and over, that when all is said and done it all boils down to our ears and our wallets...nothing more. Personally I have owned countless high end speakers over the years and for me and my tastes and listening enjoyment Wilson speakers are what stir my juices. The aforementioned Kharmas and VR9's are simply not "my" cup of tea at $60K, and IMO the MAXX ll at $45K is a far better buy. I read about how "a speaker gets out of the way of the music". I am still trying to understand what that means but I see it posted here time and again. Each of our purchases should only be about one person and that is "me" the buyer . All too often it seems that the incessant posts here on audiogon and other forums seem to be begging validation from the collective. I am probably evey bit as guilty. What are we trying to accomplish. IMO it gets down to more than pride of ownership but rather how "our" system becomes "us". We all need to get a life and start enjoying the music rather than bashing other people or manufacturers

The Hardesty "review" (if you can call it that is a joke. I laud John Giolas from Wilson Audio for having sent the E-mail to Hardesty. I know John as well as the rest of the staff at Wilson Audio. They are all first class gentlemen for whom I have great respect. John is perhaps the most soft spoken individual I have ever met so for him to send that e-mail puts him in my highest regard.

I will say again, for me, Dave Wilson has enriched my life with the love of music and I have no regrets for having bought and owned the WP 5.1, WP 6, Maxx l, X-1 and now X-2 as well as the XS and completes WATCH system. Personally I feel the MAXX ll is underpriced by some of the standards in speaker prices in the market today. Go ahead G_m_c bash away. I have drawn my line in the sand.

Just a thought... I wonder if Mr. David Wilson has read these posts....any thoughts from the big gun...nespas ??

Okay, here are distortion measurements for Wilson.
sophia
watt/puppy 6
watt/puppy7
Only got acess to this fats computer for a few minutes so no time to comment.

aldavis.

i wasnt refering to you in particular with the ebay rig but since you brought it up there are alot of guys on this site who contribute nothing except to jump in & bash other guys gear & its always the same,no feedback,no system pics,no threads of their own,only answers to questions about gear they dont own.

there are also a few who feel the best way they can contribute here is to tell us about their education kinda like a peacock struttin around showing everybody in sight just how cool his feathers are.

call me an uneducated moron but i still dont get where your going with all of this.

mike.

darn, I FINALLY "get" this thread. Why did I even waste my time making serious posts?

This never ends does it? Although my experience is limited to the Sophias and WP7s, and unlike Fremer or Oneobgyn they were definitely NOT my cup of tea, I do not agree with the quasi claim that if a speaker does not use exotic expensive materials nor has some new cutting edge propierty technology, it cannot be considered as Reference product. What baloney. This does not just pertain to speaker, or even audio products. Materials, technology, etc are a means to an end, not the end and thus cannot define it. Just look at the stock market for example: some companies may have the best technolgy etc...but does that make them blue chips or perform well? Not if it does not translate into earnings power which is what matters. Likewise, discussion on materials or tech are indeed useful and interesting but in terms of finding out how particular speaker, for example, has certain sound attributes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Instead if Hardesty first really auditioned the speakers, listening to them, found them problematic somewhow to him, then investigated the contruction of the speaker, and tried to explain how perhaps certain design rules or parts etc would have contributed to his unsatisfactory exp with the MAXX2s, the commentary would have been far more relevant and credible...even if you disagreed.

whats up with AlDavis.....I am sure his mommy is proud of him, but do we really care?