A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

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.

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)

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?