A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx


I enjoy reading this fellow (Richard Hardesty)

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PDF%20files/APJ_WD_21.pdf

.
g_m_c
Take a look at these!! HA HA HA, just when we thought its possible that wilson could be a questionable value in audio, look at this... You have to be totally kidding me, I have a new respect for wilson after I found out the market would support these. 50,000 a pair!

http://show.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/shm.pl?preatube&1099069721&item&Holm_audio&4&5&6&http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fs_srch.plQQANYAAAApurlsrchAAEXYAAstAAAAAAmanley
Anechoic chambers don't skew the measurements?
Dipole, point source, line source, transmission line, ported, bass reflex and electrostat speakers are all subjected to 1940s "technology" without "bias"?
Take a guess which one tests best with archaic parameters.
Cretins often confuse sophists with sophomores:-):-):-):-);-)!!!!!!!!? And the best part is that they don't even know.
I didn't have time to read all the posts but I offer this to you. I have been selling and installing high end for 25 years and I was a Wilson dealer once. I have noticed that when people are exposed to true magic they all agree on what sounds incredible. What happens most often is either people have different things they are willing to compromise on when they can't have the best OR more often they have never heard magic, only expensive stuff they should like and don't trust what they are hearing. When you live with magic, the system makes your ears a lot better than before and you know you have magic when you become hyper critical and you still love the system that you thought was incredible.
With all that said, I have never heard any Wilson including the WAMM's sound incredible. Big, powerful, tall, yes but never incredible. Like so many in our industry, Dave Wilson has enough knowledge and experience to design a great product but does not have that 6th sense to design beyond understanding like a hand full of true artists that exist.
Just my humble opinion.
Khrys, Am I to understand that technology can't be developed despite less than ideal circumstances or that technology can't be improved by better testing procedures? Instead of asking for a guess as to the results of an experiment after being subjected to non-specific paramters, why not offer the answer? While your at it perhaps you can offer why it may be germaine to this discussion? I'll admit it, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that one might extrapolate a serious medical diagnosis by observing confusion between a second year student and a philospher and, that's the best part? If your response depends on some sort of personal attack, you needn't bother.
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.