A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

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

Unsound is correct of course. You need a standard reference point for comparison. So KHRYS poster, your cigar filled space station where you have your speakers is unique to you as a listening environment and speaker results there mean nothing ( similar to your post) in the way of useful information.

My example of an anechoic chamber is only a point; meaning--hey- these were the frequency responses of these 6 speakers in an anaechoic chamber- its something we can all look at in an apples to apples way. BTW- Testing frequency responses in an anechoic chamber is pretty standard stuff for speaker manufacturers- Khrys- sorry you didn't know that. Wilson stuff should be tested in the same way. Quality manufacturers need not fear comparisons like this.

just trying to help this thread get to 200 responses. would selling a version that is primer only have a significent impact on the the selling price? is it wise to run them through a brushless wash, without the underbody option? what would vin deisel do?

Unsound, how is an anechoic chamber a less prejudicial reference?

Rysa4, sorry you missed the joke: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Jaybo, Vin would only use an anechoic wash then hand buff the finish until it reflected DC.

Amperidian - "I'm not a Wilson Audio owner or fan, but their speakers are among the few cone designs that can match horns in the frequencies where the horns excell. Not perfect of course, but they deserve some credit at least."

This is so funny! Wilson's are almost as good as horns, for only 5x the price...

It is also very funny how emotional people are on this subject. I have heard the big Wilsons sound very good, and also very bad. The Wilson aesthetics and finish quality are wonderful (IMO). But to all of the Wilson apologists here: wake-up! There are equal and better sounding speakers commercially available at much lower MSRP.