A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

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?

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.

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.

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, 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.