A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Rysa4 I do totally agree with you,you will find out
the truth, the moment you own the gear that they
reviewed,well covered post.Right on the money.

i remember reading something like that in TAS where they interview the speaker designers from revel, mbl, magnepan and some other speakere i can't remember. each person talk about their philosophy , i thought thougth it was a great article.

"The writer of the article critical of the Wilson's really did come across as quite hostile to me as a true non-partisan in this one; but he did raise good points as well"
i second that, no one seem to want to address the issue he raise? maybe if he had say it nicely someone ( manufacture or reviewer ) would address the questions he raise? i think that would be a much more interested thread. david wilson is well respected speaker designer in the industry, i am sure there is a reason he choose to design it that way. it will be much more interesting and educational for the audiophile non-engineer to know. instead of attacking each other.

Rysa4, I understand your desire for an "objective standard" but why must it be an anechoic chamber?

The room in which I listen is no more an anechoic chamber than it is an aquarium (excepting the bottom feeders, of course). Why not put accelerometers on the drivers and measure their response in a vacuum?

Better yet, let's shoot speakers up to the International Space Station and test them in completely controlled environments free of the variables of gravity, density, atmospheric composition (some speakers sound best with pure O2 and a cigar), humidity, temperature and reality.

I believe "Stereo Review" nearly achieved that level of "objectivity" until they abandoned cigars.

"Why must it be an anechonic chamber?" Perhaps because it is the least prejudicial reference point?