Stevecham, have you seen these so called mediocre drivers being modified and installed at the Wilson factory? I am amazed in the opposite direction, at just how little craftsmanship and quality you get for the buck from other manufacturers. I have owned many speakers and appreciated them all, but Wilson speakers recreate the real thing better than almost any other I've heard. Of course some people don't desire realistic playback...they would rather hear a nice version of the real thing instead. Just so you don't mistake me for an elitist, one of my other favorites is the Totem Forest speaker.
Does the Audio Perfectionists bias need adjusting?
My systems have included many reference products from Levinson, Krell, Sonic Frontiers, Wadia, Dunlavy, B&W, Magnapan, CJ, Rotel, Anthem, Totem, Wilson, ARC, Martin Logan, Dalquist, McIntosh, etc... Music range is vast with emphasis on classical, 20th century and jazz.
I would just like to ask how someone such as Hardesty can get away with running a site that allows no direct feedback or discourse, utilizes other peoples reviews for data and pseudo-experiencial examples, promotes certain brands heavily, and propogates falsehoods about highly repsectable audio companies. He also assumes that he knows exactly how each of the original recording sessions sounded, because any system that makes them sound other than what he understands them to sound like is trash! What? I owned much of the gear Mr. Hardesty speaks of and I can say that most of it was fine stuff when used properly. One experience I can share is when I moved from Dunlavy's to Wilson speakers after having frequented Boston Symphony Hall....Uh, no contest folks...the Wilsons were by far more realistic in thier portrayel of the real thing. I grew up with Bozak B-313's and suffered through the Flat Ammplitude phase of the high end industry until some manufacturers began actually listening to their designs again before putting them to market. The design by theory crowd has done more to drive away potential customers more so than the design by ear folks...afterall, we listen with our ears and not our theories.
I would just like to ask how someone such as Hardesty can get away with running a site that allows no direct feedback or discourse, utilizes other peoples reviews for data and pseudo-experiencial examples, promotes certain brands heavily, and propogates falsehoods about highly repsectable audio companies. He also assumes that he knows exactly how each of the original recording sessions sounded, because any system that makes them sound other than what he understands them to sound like is trash! What? I owned much of the gear Mr. Hardesty speaks of and I can say that most of it was fine stuff when used properly. One experience I can share is when I moved from Dunlavy's to Wilson speakers after having frequented Boston Symphony Hall....Uh, no contest folks...the Wilsons were by far more realistic in thier portrayel of the real thing. I grew up with Bozak B-313's and suffered through the Flat Ammplitude phase of the high end industry until some manufacturers began actually listening to their designs again before putting them to market. The design by theory crowd has done more to drive away potential customers more so than the design by ear folks...afterall, we listen with our ears and not our theories.