A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Just picked up on this thread 9 yrs late.lol Does anyone have the original article? The link on the initial thread has expired.

I have listened to them and the Alexandria, and found neither to my liking.

This may be less a reflection of Wilsons, than a statement on the way most loudspeaker much larger than the norm prove unable to put forth a convincing portrayal of the music to me.

For what it's worth, I consider the Sashas truly exceptional loudspeakers.

Interesting read. I have listened to the MAXX IIs and Sophia IIs and with the correct associated gear, they are excellent speakers. Over priced, that is not for me to decide. I can also agree that without the correct assocaited equipment, they can sound very poor. Most of the dealers that I have heard them at had unfortunately had very poor sound. It wasn't until hearing them at a friends home and switching some components in and out did we hear their potential.

Happy Listening.

Very interesting thread.

I wonder 6 or so years later if anyone's opinion's or tastes have changed :-).

I see the audioperfectionist is no more and Wilson has gone from strength to strength, but probably no less controversial

Go figure ,

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/29/292811.html

I didn't listen to the MAXX, but I did listen to the Sophia model and they were thin, very bright, and didn't image well. The build quality was excellent, although I'm not a fan of the shiny finish but if you are, wow.

I hoped that they were as good as people's comments as I need a carrot on the end of the stick for my Quatro wood signature II speaker replacements. The sophia just isn't it.

Brutal is right.

I've read some of Hardesty's articles a few years ago and enjoyed them and even had the pleasure to meet him at CES earlier this year.

At the very least, Hardesty brings up some interesting points. How valid or invalid they may be matters little to me. I will say that this is not the first time I've heard such statements about the Wilsons.

But considering the risks of a review like this I seriously doubt Hardesty didn't "do his damn homework" as somebody above exclaimed.

I could be wrong but I think the audioperfectionist is Hardesty's primary source of income. Regardless, for him to write such an insincere review is professional suicide.

Forget whether he's right or wrong. If he wrote this with even a hint of a "get even" attitude as another put it, he's probably done.

If he's sincere but sincerely wrong, he has potentially seriously damaged his reputation.

If he's right but with wrote with ill-motives, he has potentially seriously damaged his reputation.

If he's right and wrote with proper motives, he's a real standup guy willing to risk his profession and there's going to be a lot of angry customers.

In other words, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the odds are not in Hardesty's favor to pen such an unfavorable review.

Certainly Hardesty realizes this. Even if others don't.

-IMO

Bigtee, I agree.

As most of us did, I purchased on sonics alone. I don't entertain, I have a large dedicated room designed by Rives that only myself and my 6 and 8 year old girls see. Finish and aesthetics are decidedly secondary to the point of inconsequence. I respect and admire Richard Vandersteen and the 5a's, They are great speakers. want more?

Mr Hyde-----

OK, I admit to being a superficial schmuck, driven by gloss and appearance. I paid a premium for speakers merely because they looked cool and stood tall, and my surfer bud's respect me better --and the gals, well, they fall over at the sight of my monolithic Wilsons--It's all in the name, dude.

Although the sound is terrible, it gives me an excuse to post in audio threads, arguing with people that post opinion with no direct experience, crapping on products they know little to nothing about.

peace.

:-) just for fun

Richard has auditioned the speakers in familiar surroundings. He is one of Brook Berdan's best friends and has speant time with the speakers.

Ah, that word "sophistry" again. Philospher, Brit for sophomore, just what thought is trying to be conveyed by the use of this word. I never thought I would come to be so aware of the abiguity of this word till this thread.

I'd certainly like to be able to hear every speaker of consideration in my home but the best I can do is go to stores, go to CES or the like, occasionally demo at friends homes, and of course read articles of interest.

It is important to me to have some basic data including frequency responses in an anechoic chamber tested environment for the reasons described in several of the above posts. It is NOT the only determinant, but it allows one basis of comparison. I do measure as best as I can in my own home for a variety of reasons after I purchase.

I'd like to see that done for the Wilson speakers as well as part of any review article. Its pretty basic. Why not include the info? perhaps the tests have in fact been done! I did think Mr Hardesty's article was hostile in tone but did raise some good points as well.

Prior to reading this thread i recently contacted John Atkinson Editor of Sterophile Magazine about this vary article. I agree with much of what he says here ( see below) as many people Mr Hardesty included criticise products they have never even heard. I have not included my portions of the email due to space on the thread but my questions touched on the many favorable reviews of Wilson speakers of late and the romaticism many reveiwers are applying to Wilsons products. Keep in mind folks Wilson speakers are built to a very high standard, even though they modify Focals drivers in house these are still outsourced drivers and add extra production cost to there products that are passed on to you. Have you all ever considered that Maybe just Maybe Wilson speakers cost so much more than there competitors not because they are light years better than the competition but because there in house overhead and production cost is so much higher than ( Focal Jm Labs ) and (B&W) as these two company's have much larger distribution and R&D capabilites in plain english they produce there own drivers and sell them to other manufactures at a profit.

>Mr. Atkinson, I ran across this article regarding Wilson Audio speakers, which raised some excellent questions regarding the integrity of reviewer’s findings when Wilson products are reviewed.<



Thank you for contacting me about this matter. I was aware of Richard Hardesty’s criticisms. However, he fails to mention what I certainly feel to be an important point: that he has never auditioned the Wilson speakers under familiar circumstances. By contrast, both Michael Fremer and I have done so. I did mention the midrange coloration in my section of the review, as well as the fact that it was less obtrusive than I have expected. I also found the Wilson’s presentation of low frequencies to be the best I have experienced in Michael Fremer’s room.



I am puzzled by Mr. Hardesty’s comments about the Wilson midrange units being really “woofers.” I suspect this is sophistry. Also, Mr. Hardesty makes no reference to the fact that the Wilson’s have very low disrotion, which translates into a very wide dynamic range.



Thanks for writing with your concerns.



John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Grant, Haven't heard the Maxx in my room so I've have tried to avoid knocking them other than the published test results and I'm in another camp as for design. I have heard a lot of "Good" sounding speakers over the years and they weren't all 1st order. I do agree that it takes more than just a 1st order crossover. Vandersteen has gone to a lot of engineering trouble to address other parameters he deems important. I use the 5a's so I am coming from that perspective in mentioning him directly.
As for who owns the Wilson's, I'm a consumer and look at it from a consumers prospective. Others have other agenda's. For example, studios are in another world for what they do. They have huge biases. Same for dealers. Electronic's people look at things differently.
It's as I said before as an example, Ayre uses the Vandersteen 3a Sigs, not because they are the best speaker but because they let them hear what they need to hear. Hansen had his on speaker designs that were right pricey and not 1st order. Steve McCormack uses them personally. Jim White at Aesthetix has a pair.
Everyone has a preference and you have yours.
As for reviewers, I'll let them defend themselves. That's their fight. Hardesty said what he thought was true and he certainly had the right just as Fremer and others have their style. He just doesn't answer to an editor. As you said about the other posters, I've really not seen anyone refute him with evidence either, other than blasting his style. So it works both ways. I would advise someone to read more of his work before blasting him and/or ruling him a nut. He's knowledgable and technically oriented just as some other reviewers. I surely can't say he has the best people skills but he did sell audio for years and has wrote a lot of stuff. So---we're all back in the same boat. Spend your money how you want. I think the jist is as I feel, sonically and technically, the Maxx SHOULD be held to a higher standard at its cost point.
You can buy the Vandersteen 5a at a starting price of $15,000 depending on finish. I'm also not into looks and don't see value in fancy finishes unless you are out to impress.

Again, are you referencing measurements someone else performed, or your own?

Michael Fremer posted that the MAXX 2's measured near perfectly in his room. I acknowledge that JA's measurements, taken outside, showed some flaws. Who was there from this site? Who is it that can verify the measurements independently?

I'm tired of individuals posting theory based on someone elses mearsured assesments.

Do the work. Perform your trials. Then report what your experience. So far, that paradigm, one that seems dear to A-Gon posters, is sorely lacking.

This site, as long as I've been following it, seems to be about shared experience and anecdotal posts. Where are the first hand posts related to Wilson, much less the MAXX 2's in this thread? The answer is obvious.

Grant

Regarding measuring speakers in an anechoic chamber, a speaker’s job is to reproduce the sound of the waveform accurately. An anechoic chamber (or software that simulates a chamber) is needed to measure the direct sound that is coming from the loudspeaker without any interference from room reflections. While it is true that loudspeakers will eventually be listened to in a room which will affect the sound, the speaker’s job still remains exactly the same; to accurately reproduce the waveform. The best way to determine if the speaker is doing this is to measure it independently in a chamber.

If you want to deal with solving room acoustics problems you need to address the room itself via room treatments and modifications rather than by attempting to alter the waveform played through the loudspeakers- excepting the extreme low frequencies. The human ear/brain is very capable of recognizing when the direct sound coming from the loudspeakers of say a piano is altered or wrong. This distortion of the waveform in an attempt to pre-correct for room problems is simply going to compound errors rather than accomplish actual correction.

Getting back to Richard Hardesty’s critique of the Wilson speakers and how it relates to the current discussion of speaker measurements. How can a speaker be considered accurate when it completely distorts the waveform’s time and phase response. If the tweeter is “pushing” while the midrange driver is “pulling”, something is very wrong. If the instrument you are listening to is in a frequency range that needs to be handled by both drivers simultaneously (e.g. a piano), there will be a lack of coherence in the presentation. Even with instruments whos fundamental frequencies lie in the midrange, the upper harmonic content extends well into the treble (e.g. with a trumpet). In this case the speaker will be “spitting” and “sucking” at the very same time.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Bigtee. There is tremendous time and phase coherence with Audio Physic speakers, though I think it silly to ascribe the sum total of theirs, or other speakers performance merely to 1st order crossovers.

I have owned and enjoyed virtually the entire AP line (when Joachim Gerhard designed the speakers) from the Virgo all the way to the Calderas. I have also enjoyed the Vandy 5a's in many systems I have listened with, both at friends, dealers and shows. I think Richard, Pat McGinty (Meadowlark), Joachim and many other 1st-order engineers would agree that there are _many_ other design variables to consider after the crossover, cabinet design being a big one.

Obviously, Dave Wilson takes design and measurement seriously, or they would never have achieved the broad level of success with reviewers, top recording professionals, Dealers, electronics manufacturers and consumers that they have. Companies such as Audio Research, Balanced Audio Technologies, LAMM, VTL and countless others take their systems very seriously, and all have selected the MAXX 2's or X2's as their reference.

I agree that what any one company or studio uses means little or nothing to audiophiles, but when you have a virtual consensus among top manufacturers, recording artists, studios and reviewers, well, either it's a colossal conspiracy, or Wilson is doing something right--you pick.

The common denominator in this extraordinarily long thread is summed up in one sentence in your post: " Shoot, I don't know!"

No one in this 242 post thread has offered _any_ negative direct experience with not only the MAXX 2, but the Sophia, Watt 7 or any other Wilson design.

I am not a Wilson apologist, or a blind raving fan. I was not a fan of_any_ of their previous designs before the Sophia. The WATT 5, WATT 6, WITT etc were not my cup 'o tea.

I am not touting the MAXX 2 as the "best" or anything close to that. I simply feel it ridiculous for people to expend so much energy offering opinion with literally _NO_ direct experience--including Hardesty.

I purchased the MAXX 2's because they are incredibly accurate (for me) in reproducing a broad range of music. I think JMLab, Verity, Magnepan, Kharma, Vandy, Von Schwiekert are also speakers worth considering based on my direct or nearly direct experience.

If any of these companies products had been singled out and dumped on the way the MAXX 2's were, I would have the same issues. If ever there is an absolute rave or an absolute trash, there should be more accountability for the writer to qualify their experience. I acknowledge, the fact that I spent my hard-earned dollars on the MAXX 2's after an extensive audition, to be a contibuting factor in my responses. But who else here has qualified their opinion to ANY degree? I don't see a soul.

This topic has been beat to death. Let's let it go.

I do agree my emphasis is more absolute I think what Onhwy61 says is probably true. The recording has so much to do with the end result and this is why I think some demo with certain recordings that favor a given speaker/design. I guess my goal is to have a speaker faithfully reproduce the recording for better or worse.
In this vain, I have found well designed 1st order time and phase coherent speakers to deliver over a wider range of recordings. But that's just me. Everyone is entitled and this debate will go on and on.
If a person likes the Wilson or whatever---great. They certainly overwhelm most rooms and sure have a lot of driver area. I wonder if shear driver area has an affect on perceived sound since a louder presentation usually sounds better to most? Given the cone area, you would certainly have more impact even at lower volumes. Shoot, I don't know!

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 wonder what would be the best way to confirm Onhwy61 and Bigtee's copmelety different view on Microphone selection and placement. Say if you close mike instruments like Bigtee suggests IN a anechoic chamber and play back in two different philosophy systems (time aligned, phase coherent, 1st order cross over designs v/s say wilson's), How would be the comparision then? Or Record with same close mike set up in a properly design hall and play it back again with two different systems in the SAME hall, how would the two systems sound. Or the question is which one would sound more realistic in both options? I would think the former one would sound closer to reality.

I do agree that very good recording using right mikes, right technique (like Mapleshade for example) does make a huge difference ( That is why Mapleshade recordings still sound good in as Mapleshade says in $50 boom box) as but colored system would be still evident if this recording is played back on these two systems.

Onhwy61,I cannot debate your statement as to recording equipment, etc. I know there are HUGE differences.
However, I would like to add that if you take a fairly close miked (on good equipment) recording of individual or groups of individual instruments, you can readily hear a difference in the final presentation played back on different speakers and/or designs.
I have tried this with sax, clarinet, flute, strings and acoustic guitars. By using the same recording (hence, placing the speakers on equal footing for direct comparison)I have noticed substantial differences in how the speakers in comparison handle harmonic structure and overall accuracy of tone.
Of course, I guess one could argue room effects due to radiational patterns of the speaker, equipment interface or whatever but they're substantial differences in the presentation.
It's amazing how drivers out of phase suddenly sound out of phase.
With the absence of any standard's, I guess one has to go with what they perceive as the most realistic, hence all the designs, etc. That's perfectly ok with me. Free enterprise is a wonderful thing and I for one would never want to hinder it. However, my thoughts do evolve around trying to find the most faithful reproduction based on what meager comparisons I can derive.

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 have remembered this reviewer from many years ago in the S. Calif. area where I was raised.At the time he was using the top of the line Sound Lab A-1's I beleive with a SOTA Subwoofer which I can't recall,But the sound quality was very accurate and extremely musical in its recreation.
It was obvious he spent a great deal of time matching the ELS's with proper tube gear as well ,and you walked away from his show room Spellbound to say the least.

hi,

Live is live, I spend as much time as possible there. Audio reproduction is audio reproduction a distant second IMHO. But to keep trying to find that which is close, that's the fun of the chase, isn't it ?

good listeing

Larry

Gmood1, I did the samething. A friend of mines son is a professional drummer. After listening to him practice a while---wow, no way will any audio system capture what I heard. It really shows the dynamic limitations that are imposed on the audio chain. When a couple of acoustic guitars were added in for fun, well, you really see what's missing in home reproduction.

After listening to a good friend and his son two nights ago.
As they played their drum kits. I have yet to hear a speaker capture that kind of dynamics..I doubt that system exist.

The sound pressure levels in the room had to exceed well over 100 dB. His son at only 6 yrs old ran me out of his room. The intensity of the cymbals was more than my ears could bare. I've come to a conclusion that a long time drummer's hearing has got to be jacked up.LOL
There's no way you can play drums regular like I heard the other night for several hours at 110dB and still have decent hearing after a few years.

Strings seem the easiest instruments to imitate.Well except for the Bass and Cello. Some speakers make them sound bloated and draaaaawn out.
The Paino's over tones aren't too bad or the key strikes..but the weight of the piano seems difficult to duplicate on most systems.

I agree with Bigtee on the 1st order,phase correct or time aligned speakers. I haven't heard any other type speaker come as close to imitating certain instruments. Scale is a different story as most if not all systems would run out of steam before they could get that part right. It's a tough pill to swallow but measurements do play a part in getting the correct timbre and decay of instruments if the recording allows it.

Onhwy61, My friend has tried to catch the essence of the performance. You certainly can't recreate it from every perspective but I think he tries for what the average listener would hear in the center lower level of the better seating areas. However, I still think the reproduction chain should capture the "Sound" of real instruments to the point that they do sound realistic.
I'm well aware of "Artists" or recording engineers expression. That should still not mean that speakers can't reproduce instrumental tones properly even if the overall recording is questionable.
However, with what you have said, it stregthens my point. What are we trying to accomplish with high end audio since the whole thing is flawed and we don't have the "Absolute" standard. Nobody knows what the original event sounded like except from one perspective that they had when attending the event. It is a matter of interpretation.
Now, I do believe you can record individual instruments and you should be able to achieve a reasonable facsimily of that event, wouldn't you think? We have tried this and this is the basis for me using 1st order speakers. IMO, they sound closer to the individual instrument.

I like this guy Hardesty too. I also agree with what he says about freedom in the marketplace. Anyone should be able to make something and sell it for whatever they want. But, would you really buy these speakers based upon a review? After being out of the audiophile shopping mode for 15 years, I walked into a room at the S.F. CES show that had the Sophia's playing. I had never heard of Wilson's speakers. I loved the sound. After researching them and finding out the price, I shopped elsewhere and found speakers that did the trick for me for much less. Still, some people do not have the same concerns about money as I do. They are free to spend as much as they can, and as studies have shown, the brain responds to external stimuli based upon its perception of the source. So, maybe for people with unlimited budgets, the Wilson Maxx speakers do sound better. Hah!

David

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.

I have said many times throughout threads here on A'gon that I have a hard time finding a speaker that comes even close to reproducing the tonal qualities of a live sax. As a sax player for many years, it almost makes "High end audio" a moot point. Maybe this is why so many people have gone to the "Sounds good" school no matter what the technical aspects of the design may be. "Sounds good" is definitely in the ears of the beholder.
I went to 1st order speakers years ago because they seemed to capture more of the harmonic richness of instruments. While not perfect, that was my reasoning.
Maybe it is in the recording process. I have a friend who does recording for the local symphony. He tries to produce a recording as faithful to the original as possible. It still always falls short of the live performance even though he uses very well thought of mikes, etc.
I really feel we are still a long way off from reproducing a live event. Yeh, you can add tricks to the recording to help simulate the event such as artificial ambience and/or reverb.
I guess my thing is with the escalating prices of equipment, is it worth it after you reach a certain point?

a few years ago my brother-in-law and his friend visited my home. my brother-in-law is a fairly good amatuer trumpet player and his friend is a professional jazz trumpeter. they brought their trumpets.

after dinner we retired to my dedicated 2-channel system room and proceeded to have them accompany Miles Davis on the 45rpm vinyl of Kind Of Blue.

it was great fun and an unforgetable evening.

the vinyl held it's own. i'm not saying that the live instruments did not have advantages but they were not staggering. the guys were able to play 'with' the recorded music; not over the top of it.

my system and especially my vinyl is much better now. i wonder how it would sound. BTW, this is actually somewhat on-topic....as my system then (5 years ago) included Wilson Watt/Puppy 6.0's with Levinson #33 amps.

the great thing about the trumpet is that the scale of the instrument works in a typical listening room.

"the wilson max is the 901 of today"

with one hell of an escalation factor!

.

the wilson max is the 901 of today

Unsound

As a pretty poor trombone player myself in the past I can confirm this to be true. Trombones when they are *leant* on can really be very dynamic - equally true of trumpets and parts of the percussion section.

I guess that's why the orchestra only has very few of us and a boat load of strings!

Also you may find your recording of the trombone was taken at say 40ft if it was in an large group and your room might not be that big!

Good to see the the discussion has moved toward the live instruments

:o)

I need to step in again. I had a system that in the room it was placed sounded as good as an instrument in playing in the same room. Or it did over half the time as long as it was a good recording. The trade offs are worth it though because I have heard live instruments sound horrible do to the room they are in. These are the times that make up for the times my system didn't sound as good. The real problem is that musicians today think they can buy a few thousands of dollars worth of digital recording equipment and get close enough to a good recording studio. Our systems were already way ahead of the recording industry and just like the way digital made new audiophiles worse, it is now making the music industry worse. It already made the Cell phones worse. I have so many customers today who have never heard analogue before and it does make their ears worse. I tell them if they want to know what digital sounds like, listen to a fax machine.

Many times in the past, people have said to me that their systems are really close to the sound of real live unamplified music. Its when I proceed to play my Taylor next to their system do their jaws drop... NOT even close.
That is one of my pet peeves about the audio hobby today, many reviewers hold a particular piece of equipment up on a pedestal,so the public believes it is capable of reproducing music; especially since it costs tens of thousands of dollars. What the reviewers never seem to do is hold the piece to the highest standard as a reference.
When Harry coined the term 'The Absolute Sound' I for one felt that this standard was one that would make reviewers and the public realize how inadequate all equipment is and that with that in mind, no real exultations would be forthcoming ( except in regards to other available equipment perhaps). Today it seems that several reviewers and magazines are happy to stipulate a piece of equipment has amazing abilities. Compared to other available equipment maybe, but compared to live sound...NOT IMHO.

Just a thought on playing live music next to a rig. I had a friend walk into my home with his trombone in hand. He commented that the rig was playing loud. I told him my aim was to reproduce the sound of the live performance to scale. He then proceeded to take his horn out and play along. To his astonishment he said he could not effectively play soft enough to properly accompany the sound eminating from my system.

So true Daveyf. I also realize often while listening to my system that yeah the guitar, or violin, or piano or a human voice is very palpalable but then I think does it really compare to the real live sound, the answer is USUALLY no. But at times, on very well recording, the answer could be yes. For example on my system well recorded drum kit or a piano really sounds real, at a very high volume from other room or ouside the house. But when I hear the teenage girl band practicing thier band in their garage across my house, my drum kit pales in comparision by a half mile ;). Even with thier garage door closed these three sisters, one friend and one brother band's sound is so dynamic, so clear. My dunlavy V's and two Classe CA-400's does as good as a job they can but....

Now is there a system out there (be it Wilson's top spekaers-here is Wilson content to be consistent with this thread topic) that were to be placed in my neighbor's garage and played same sessions that they ususally play on this system and if I were to listen in my front yard, would it ever sound same? or even closer? I highly doubt it.

i just had direct tv installed. the company fine-tuned my satellite to its enviroment. i now can use direct tv in a post with steinway.

Oysters in May pose risk of Vibrio Vulnicus infection. So definitely don't send any results until after Septenber. Regarding the Herring Festival, could you apprise us of any particularly red ones worth chasing?(other than anechioc anarchism).We have the nets And the will and the way. We are otherwise ready as well.

In reference to Allison and his woofer loading. Unity Audio made the PARM system where the subwoofers had Marble slabs at a specific distance for tuning, then you had to locate it a certain distance from a solid object in the room creating the second tuned frequency. This of course made the room the actual tuned speaker enclosure. LOL

As though I'm the only relentless one here. Ah, yes and we finally come back to the Wilsons, individually tuned, but, unfortunately with out a proper anechoic baseline. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. You may have to wait until after May, when I indulge myself at the Oyster Bar in NYC during the Holland Herring Festival for those test results. Best Regards.

Intersting thread, having never heard the Max 2's so I would never presume to comment on their sound quality.
One of the things I learnt over 25 years ago when I got into this hobby ( that's what it is BTW, nothing more/nothing less) was to listen to the speaker or any piece of equipment for that matter before making any purchase decisions about it.
Without question, once a piece of equipment is acquired, psycholigically the customer needs to defend the purchase decision. Still, I have always believed that everyone has a different take on what sounds like music to them.. which is why this hobby is interesting.
Reading magazine articles is fun, but one would be idiotic( for want of a better term) (perhaps ignorant would be better) to make a large purchase decision based upon someone else's preference and beliefs. IMHO if a consumer cannot hear a particular piece of kit, then DON'T buy it till you do..Simple.
Now, fads in this hobby come and go, remember the clocks that were supposed to clean up wall noise...0:) But again IMHO what might remain a constant is the difference between the sound of live unamplified music and reproduced. Recently, I have been feeling that all the speakers I have heard are indeed colored as Mr. Framer points out.
This of course in contrast to live unamplified music. It never takes me very long to show a critical listener or even a non-critical listener the difference between my Taylor 6 string and a reproduction through a system of a guitar. A world and again IMHO a WORLD of difference. The question is what I feel makes the difference vs. what another listener feels makes the difference. Both are valid opinions and both are possibly right and both are possibly wrong.
One of the things that perhaps should be emphasized more in the magazines that are part and parcel of this hobby is the difference that the reviewer feels the piece compares to the 'Absolute Sound'
Oops, that term had to slip into here somewhere, but I really feel that Harry had the thing right all those years ago when he coined the term. Not so sure that today the readers or the writers in this hobby are so cognisant of the difference, but again maybe a small suggestion is to go out when you put together your ideal system and buy/borrow almost any decent real instrument and pluck/blow/hit/tap/whatever and see how close you feel you have come to this mark....Maybe not..

Unsound you are relentless, a trait I admire, but we've dribbled beyond logic long ago.

But for the record, Wilson does individually tune the MaXX to every environment in which it is placed, just like Steinway.

And I wait with bated breath for the anechoic testing results of surround sound. Or is this anachronism only relevant to stereo?

Khrys, your question is valid. Though anechoic chambers are not standardized which of course compromises the very point of it all, they at least an attempt to neutralize conflicting interactions that may skew the baseline measurements. I think it's probably safe to say that most anechoic chambers are fairly similar above 200 Hz. As far as being the being the most removed from its intended usage, at least it is fairly consistent and allows the device under test to be tested as a device. Once we know how the device performs, we can adjust for the environment with some tangible knowledge. If surround sound ever fullfills its promise reflected sound may turn from being a troubling benefit to just a troubling bane. I'm not exactly sure why you keep refering to the 1940's. Are you suggesting that computer modeling eliminates the need for anechoic chambers? That may well be true, but, even the models may need some sort of reference and/or calibration. As far as the fewer compensatory devices needed being better. Well, in a perfect environment (anechoic chamber?) that might be the ideal way to go. Truth is, that in order to get recorded music at all requires a significant amount of compensatory devices to begin with. Perhaps error prevention/corection should be considered a natural part of the process. Please remember that when a Steinway recieves it's final tuning it's in the very environment in which it will be heard. Wouldn't it be nice if we had that luxury with our speakers? Not very likely. Heck, your suggestion for Steinway to test their instruments in an anechoic chamber as part of their development, is sound advise to me.

Unsound, since neither anechoic chambers nor the measuring equipment nor the techniques used are standardized, how can that possibly be a baseline? All anechoic measurements tell you is the singular "performance" of a speaker in a singular environment that could not be more removed from its intended usage.

Our understanding of acoustics has progressed significantly since 1940 but old "standards" die hard.

Sound as we experience it is naturally reflective and therefore IMHO the fewer the compensatory devices (passive, electronically processed or whatever) necessary to allow a transducer to sound natural the better.

When Steinway voices its instruments with anechoic chambers or they carpet Carnegie Hall I'll capitulate and jump into the void.

Khrys and Duane, now we're getting some place. Your points are well taken. Yes, there doesn't seem to be any current criterion for an "anechonic" chamber. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. A speakers anechonic measurments are not the end to end all, hardly. Anechonic measurments really only offer us a baseline. A damn good one though, perhaps, better than any other means. Certainly one shouldn't use those measurments alone in evaluating a potential speaker. Klipsh, some Linn's and others are designed to work best in other than an anechoic chamber. The Dunlavy's are a very good example of anchoeic vs. real room. As Sean has pointed out in previous threads the top most woofer will reflect very differently than the lower woofer in most typical rooms. Very different than in an anechoic chamber. That doesn't mean that the anechoic measurements are useless. It just suggests that the room may need specific treatment to replicate a proximity to those measurements. At least with the Dunlavy's one has a basis to start establishing what that room treatment might entail. Roy Allison had interesting products to address these very issues. Some Allison speakers actually slanted a down firing woofer onto a built in platform so as to consistantly replicate to some degree what he was aiming for despite room variences. Yes, our ears are the the best devise for establishing sonic value, but those very ears in an anechonic chamber will perform better than in most other situations and allow for a reference point to compare to in real working evnviorments. As for reflected sound some designs such as Thiel are actually desiged to be listened to off axes and are measured as such in an anechoic chamber. The influence of the room may become less and less of an issue in the near future with the emergence of products such as the TacT. As to whether the overall sound correction to the reflected sound corrupts the initial primary sound, well, I just don't know. There may be a technological answer for this question in the future. Then again it may be moot.

Anechoic chambers while useful for finding problems are not useful in telling sound quality because 40% of the sound you hear is the sound reflected to you from the off axes signals. Because of this, the speaker that reflects with the most natural sound wins by a long shot. Case in point is Dunlevy. These speakers measure great in an anechoic chamber but the reason they don't sound good in a real room is their off axes reflected sound was + or - 12 db.

Unsound, no personal attack meant. Of course technology can be improved by better testing procedures which is why I think 2005 computer models have suplanted 1940 anechoic chambers.

Rysa4, I agree that a "standard" of reference is useful but the fact that no two anechoic chambers are alike precludes them from being it. The volume of an anechoic chamber alone will dramatically alter the measurements of any given speaker and that is only one of many non-controlled variables in the equation. It seems that some anechoic chambers are more anechoic than others. Imagine that.

Scott, my posts are often meant to be humorous sophistry but I would be flattered to have them mistaken as the naivety of a sophomore. And the 'M' is in fine voice.

To all: If you could choose ANY speaker system with only one "reference" would you use its anechoic frequency response or the ears of a trusted listener?

Khrys - if you mean sophist in the modern, derogatory sense, ok. But most posts are not even worthy of sophistry, they are simply naive and sophomoric.

How is the Steinway? I never tire of mine.

Scott
(a cretinous audiofool)

Khrys- I don't feel that you are comparible to a sophist or a speaker philosopher. A bit grandiose! WE are discussing being able to agree upon a standard evaluation of speaker frequency responses across speakers that could be included in reviews as a basis for comparison. Very straight forward; you talk of cigar filled space stations and sophists. Pretty ridiculous.

Anechoic chmabers are usuful because they can be reproduced as testing sites across geography. Your listening room cannot.