A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

when industry insiders are privy to special pricing(and terms), it should be something 'of record'. the details on a transaction or the relationship between a writer and a brand should be spelled out. credibility takes years to establish and unfortunatley one weak moment to destroy. if i dearly love a product and the people who make it, i am in no position to write objectively. the reviews in question were indeed biased to say the least. the watch dog article simply pointed out the monumental flaws in the process. if hardesty takes the bait at wilson and then rethinks his position, he would be considered a hypocrite, yet the bait has been availble, and taken by many who really could care less about 'the industry' and 'the hobby' as long as they get what they desire. unfortunately we all regret purchases from time to time(some very expensive). don't trust your ears, trust your concience. the hi end expression 'cost-no-object' has more than one meaning.

Samuel, what exactly in the Hardesty article do you consider "nonsense"?

Audiokinesis,
You state that as an amature speaker designer you were unable to make a 1st order crossover speaker sound good. That doesn't suprise me. The pro designers however, do them just fine. Think GMA, Audio Machina, Harmonic Precision, Zu, Gallo etc

For the record - I'm not taking potshots at Samuel. He seems like a very nice, intelligent, and reasonable person and an asset to this discussion. I tend to play the devil's advocate on Audiogon when no one else is doing it and I was just pointing out that he comes from a particular point of view which clearly has interests on one side of the fence, so to speak. Nor am I implying that ANY manufacturer/marketer of audio equipment is involved in what some people keep calling "conspiracy". That's not a word I've ever used here. Advertising and promotion is what equipment makers and suppliers are SUPPPOSED to do, and what consumers EXPECT them do to. If someone (e.g. Stereophile) is willing to help them even further because they advertise, then by all means, why shouldn't they take the help in the form of a review or any other way.

It's the MEDIA that, IMO, isn't doing things quite the way that consumers should expect of them. It's possible that the structure of the whole business/marketing "foodchain" is so "normal" to the media people that they're in denial as to why they're really there, who is paying them to be there, and that they do have unwritten, ingrained rules that they must follow to keep that pay coming in.
But enough on that - I'm just saying that my skepticism has nothing at all to do with the "production" side of the industry, and that Samuel seems like a fine person to me - he just brought up a couple more points that I felt like running with (mostly because it was a slow day at work).

My biases tend to run parallel to RH's. That's probably why I don't subscribe. What's the point of hearing your own echo. That said, I 've enjoyed the dynamic capabilities of Watt/Puppies driven by Krells playing big band jazz immensely. Manufacturers have criticized the power reviewers have in this industry for some time now. Now we have reviewers reviewing each other. Hmmn, interesting. I think I like it.