Wilson Maxx 2


Anyone heard these and compared them to the originals? Curious what the specific sonic differences are compared to the originals, which I found somewhat interesting in many ways but ultimately flawed in comparison with most modern speakers of anywhere near their price range. Are they sensitive enough to be run with low powered SET's or do they crave higher power?
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xowl

Showing 2 responses by samuel



I owned the 7's and Sophias prior to purchasing the Maxx 2's, and have listened at length with the Alexandrias under very controlled conditions.

In my opinion, the 7's and Sophias represented a giant leap toward a more coherent and harmonically pure center, from earlier designs such as the WATT 6 and 5.1's. The MAXX 2's and X2's represent these fundamental changes in the larger Wilson designs. Along with the incredible dynamic scale they also possess a delicacy and harmonic purity that was missing in earlier iterations. Comparing the original MAXX 2's to the MAXX's, I'd say that the original models were cool and dry in the treble, and slightly forward and pronounced in the mid-upper bass. The MAXX 2's possess a richness and refinement in the treble that is clearly superior to the MAXX's and the X1's, and they present a more coherent whole.

I also find the MAXX 2's to be more precise at staging and imaging compared to the WATT 7's because the low-freq of the MAXX 2 paints the rear of the stage in a way the 7's and Sophias were incapable of.

I find it is no longer possible to categorize the Wilson speakers as many have in the past, as cold or analytical. To me they have evolved into complete performers and are on a par with the best speakers I've had up close experience with. Of course, personal preference is what drives us, but as a former Audio Physic owner (Caldera, Avanti, Virgo) I find the new Wilson models to be on a par in terms of tonal balance, timing and delicacy, and without peer in terms of dynamic shadings, immediacy and impact... JMHO
I cannot explain the difference in perception, other than to assume variables associated to systems/room differences etc.

I used the word coherent specifically to address the superb driver integration and phase-correct presentation that I hear with the 2's, not unlike my memory of the Kharma 1.0's I had in my home some years ago (coherence was the 1.0's strong-suit). Others that have visited recently commented on this performance attribute without a word from me, and were former detractors, as I was, of older Wilson designs (5.1's).

There is no question that in my set-up, the MAXX 2's layer images more precisely and offer more pinpoint center imaging --with proper scale, dimension and height than the 7's could. There is far better hall and ambient information present (and I used the WATCH with the 7's) and a more realistic rendition of the "event" or studio environment. One startling element was the way the 2's carried off resolving the weight, and fundamental harmonic, the tone of piano and voice. Different listeners, different times, commented on that as well.

Most of all, I simply forget the system when listening and enjoy the music in a way that connects me completely. The system relaxes and enervates -- and that's what all this is about.

The Alexandrias have subjectively more upper-freq air and mini-monitor-like low-level rez and image specificity. They also throw a more wrap-around-you stage, and distribute slightly more pitch defined mid/low bass and "touch" in the upper bass, but these are only gross impressions as I have not had them in my home, and unless I win lotto, never will.