A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Some of you guys really don't get it - Absolute Sound, Stereophile, etc. are old-fashioned hucksters, plain and simple. They are big businesses that have no agenda other than selling adspace - NONE. The fact that Fremer and pals can write reasonably well, know a modicum of theory, and a lot of jargon, does not make their ears any better than anyone elses, including the average Audiogon'r - and it certainly doesn't make their ethics any stronger. If you actually read Hardesty's publications you will see that he has no ulterior motives, other than making a living by giving advice on how to achieve excellent audio reproduction. If Wilson's were great speakers, in his opinion, he'd say so.

The irrefutable reality about Wilsons, and a lot of the newer crop of speakers, is exactly what Hardesty says. They're not designed to reproduce the original recording faithfully, but to EQ it in such a way that people with more money than ears take the bait. The "boom and sizzle", as Hardesty calls it. And as he also points out, you can like "boom and sizzle" AND the Wilsons, and there's nothing wrong with that - but THEY ABSOLUTELY CANNOT REPRODUCE THE RECORDING ACCURATELY, period! No argument. Because they don't even attempt to - it's demonstrably inherent in the design. Which doesn't mean they won't impress your buddies with sizzling cymbals and slammin' bass.

So the question comes down to what you consider to be the "audiophile" quest:
1. the pursuit of absolute purity in reproduction OR
2. Impressive Sound, which in our younger days we'd get by pushing in the "Loudness" button.

What Hardesty, and many others, are saying is that the Wilson style of speakers simply has the Loudness button built in and flipped to "on".

Personally, I'd rather have absolutely flat, phase and time correct speakers as a starting point. Without that, how can you possible call it "audiophile". You can call it High End, you can enjoy the Bling, your friends can say WOW, but it ain't audiophile in my book.

It's not that "flat" is what I enjoy all the time either. There are electronics which can be added into the chain (such as DBX 5BX, EQ, and even subharmonic synth.) to pump up or tone down certain recordings or media, a little or a lot, on demand. And believe me, the electronics can do it with far more effectiveness and versatility than a Wilson Sophia.

So I also disagree with "audiophiles" who say that processing the signal to make it more enjoyable is unacceptable or "wrong". If I enjoy it more, I win. But having a fixed version of it built into the speaker makes no sense.

So I very much agree with the Hardesty camp that Flat, Time and Phase Correct HAS to be the holy grail, at least as a starting point, for serious listening.

Just an opinion that I find hard to dispute after listening to the speakers and the man behind them.

"David Wilson’s speakers aren’t accurate transducers
but you can’t fault his business acumen. He sells a
line of products, which are all essentially 7-inch two way
satellites sitting atop passive woofers in fourth order
vented boxes, for exorbitant prices and he has
managed to enlist the major magazines to aid his
efforts."

Mr. Wilson is the same fellow who exclaimed in an interview recently in Stereophile that speakers are the item to drop the largest amount of money on first, in an audio system. So much for his credibility IMHO. Oh that's right, you sell speaker for a living! As Ivor Tiefenbrun responded in the same article "where is my medicine?"

Cheers!

I have read this thread with much amusement. Look, choosing a speaker is like choosing a mate. They are all different and most of us cannot understand anyone else's tastes, with a few exceptions. Fer instance: I don't find Angelina Jolie all that hot, so what? That's my taste. Who's gonna argue and why bother?

EVERY speaker is "colored." Every single one. Go to a hifi show and skip room to room. They all sound different. Some are less colored than others and some are just plain bad. They sound and measure so. And guess what? Every recording and every mastering job is "colored" one way or another. Speaker design like recording, is part art and part science. Always has been, always will be. If you fixate on either one, you'll probably end up with a bad design because the recordings aren't perfect. There is no standard as there is in say television.

That said, some of the posts here are intelligent, and some are truly idiotic. The ones claiming that I or any other reviewer is somehow 'interested' in who's advertising in the magazines for which we write, or that somehow what we write is 'tainted' by the advertising, are truly imbecilic and insulting. I don't give a rat's ass who's advertising in the magazine and who's not. When I read that, I think back to VPI on the cover of Stereophile with "product of the year." VPI has never spent a penny advertising in Stereophile. As for the poster who called us "hucksters," you buddy, are an IDIOT. I'm not trying to sell anyone anything except the fun or being in this hobby. We need more people in it not fewer.

My capital is my reputation and that is what I protect, not the magazine's advertisers. Any poster who who thinks otherwise about me, or any other reviewer in this is an IDIOT. PERIOD. I don't like being called corrupt by some IDIOT who doesn't know me.

On the other hand, no doubt we are people, and people make friends in a very small industry and it is very important to be able to separate the two when writing a review. For instance, I am friendly with the owner of Musical Fidelity. I don't hide it. And I own his products. I BOUGHT THEM. I could buy whatever i want and get the same reviewer accommodation from any company. But I reviewed these products before knowing the guy and was impressed. I still am. I still own them. That didn't stop me from writing that Krell's Standard SACD player SMOKED my MF Tri-Vista, or that MF's CD Pre-24 digital preamp downconverted 96k/24 bit inputted digital. I was the only reviewer in the world who found and noted that. I didn't have to write that, since no one else noticed, and the guy is MY FRIEND, but I DID write it, because it's the truth and it's what I found.

That's the kind of honest professional I like to think I am. I try. So when I read some jerk-off questioning my honesty, I don't like it. Question my hearing? I don't care. I am just a guy listening to hi-fi just like you. I make no pretenses about having "golden ears" or better ears than anyone else. I do have a great deal of listening experience live and recorded and I try hard.

As for the MAXX2s, I bought them. I love them. I didn't buy them to kowtow to Wilson or Dave Wilson. I bought them because they blew me away and they still do. My wife INSISTED I buy them, she liked them so much--and even at at accommodation price, they set me back plenty. I haven't heard any speaker deliver the bottom end extension or dynamics that they do, and the rest sounds pretty damn good too. Perfect? No. And that's what I wrote. I've heard better HF resolution and air, and somewhat better imaging. In fact, until a speaker I just finished reviewing, I'd not heard better imaging than what I heard from Audio Physic Virgos, which cost 5 grand. Yes, I gave something up sonically to own MAXX2s, but I got some other things no other speakers deliver.

Believe me, when speakers parade through your room almost monthly , you come to understand that they are ALL colored, and all are compromised one way or another. One friend of a friend was dying to visit my room so I let him come, having the feeling that he was there to "prove" that my system was no good. I had WATT/Puppy 7s then---the first Wilson speaker I liked. After five minutes he said "Your system is COLORED!" I replied "Of course it is! So is yours!" "OH NO," he replied, "I have NAIM speakers. They are not colored." RIGHT!!!!!

Anyway, the Wilson MAXX2s do NOT have "sizzling" highs, and yes, they do have "slammin'" bass, as in, it's what I hear live. I'll take that over flabby, anemic bass anytime. That's my preference.

I found it interesting that one poster says he heard the MAXX2s driven by Halcros to sound drab and uninvolving (or something to that effect). I couldn't agree more! But driven by ARC or Musical Fidelity electronics they sound anything but, as another poster wrote. That's one reason I bought them. I consider them a useful reviewing tool. Perfect? No, but the inroom response measurements proved to me that they make a reliable reviewing tool while being endlessly enjoyable to listen to.

I just spent three days driving them with a $600 Outlaw Audio stereo receiver!

I wish people here would stop making absolute rules and regulations for others, and engaging in smear campaigns against people with whom they disagree. As for Hardesty's diatribe, I found it dripping with contempt and hatred. How can anyone find that review "objective," even though it was littered with "objective" ideals?

I responded to Mr. Hardesty's review with this:

Richard:

I enjoyed reading your review of the MAXX2s. I especially liked the way you put quotes around the sarcastic words "mystical and mysterious" to describe the cabinet materials, when I don't think anyone used those words except you of course, nor did the reviewers mentioned imply that there was anything about the materials that were the least bit "mysterious" or especially "mystical" other than the marketing expression "X" or whatever Wilson calls it, which I care little about.

Then, of course, in the next sentence you acknowledge that the accelerometer measurements showed "pretty good performance" from the cabinets (an understatement, of course).

That's just one example of your hardly "objective" "review." It wasn't really a review at all. You don't talk about where you even might have listened to the speakers or how actual music sounded on it. Or how that music differed from what you hear live. But that's okay because the tone of your review was so off the chart that no one reading it could possibly find it objective. So in the end you just hurt your own cause whatever that might be.

I can tell you that in my room, the MAXX2s sound more like what I hear at the symphony, which I attend once a month at Avery Fisher Hall (no need to dump on the hall here) than any other speaker I've had in my room and that everyone who's come down to listen---audiophile and non audiophile--- loves them. "Accurate"? There are none. All speaker have colorations of one kind or another as do all recordings as do most rooms.

In the real world, there's a reason people respond to the MAXX2s at hifi shows and in store demos and in homes. It has nothing to do with the "carriage trade," or with them being not as well informed as you. It has everything to do with high performance in many areas, perhaps some compromises in others, which all speakers have, that happen to work out very well in the case of the MAXX2s. Speaker design, and indeed recording music, has always been and probably will always be a combination of art and science. I'm not sure you recognize that.

People recognize the sound of music..they are not deluded. Your attitude is very poor and it sinks your cause, whatever it might be....

Sincerely,

Michael Fremer

Realize a Wilson speaker is just the run of the mill Audiophile design ie. Scan speak, dynaudio, focal kit style drivers which are all great in there own right, but can be had in a million different configurations from 90% of the high end manufactures and Kits... Its a Basic 1-2-3 design, D'appolito, with phase inverted mid-bass drivers, running thru over complex yet not the highest quality filters(crossovers), this approch has more or less dominated audio for the last 15 years and it sells, thats IT!!

Its not that it is a bad speaker, but you are simply paying wilson for an Over-elaborate cabinet with Ferrari finish, and to some this what they feel is high end, and have had this design driven into their heads, 7" drivers, dome tweeter, 24db slope(linkwitz), 6db slope, dome tweeter, 13" multimagnet Focal driver blah, blah... Thats fine, But if you want true inovation and Truly your moneys worth that you can not buy or have designed by "Madisound" for 1/10th the cost check out Zu Cable's Definitions.... They are from the GROUND up a DUAL 10" Full range drive system, covering all the Frequency bands with ZERO crossover in front of them, a Super tweeter, and 4 count'em 4 10" Active woofers in addition to the 2 10" full range drivers, the materials, Drivers and everything are High quality, built to blow you away, Very simple design and all the money is into true inovation of a specific design and quality components, NOW don't get me wrong there are many out there that are great speaker companies, and in NO way am I saying ZU cable is the only one With Full range drive systems, crossoverless covering the Entire Audio range from 16hz to 25,000khz, but they are putting it into a resonable cost and Quality package, Yes I have heard them and Yes they blow away the Congested restricted Feel of the Snobby type audiophile speakers, including the wilsons in my opinion... Get what your money is worth, but if you have it to burn buy all the Krell, Wilson and however else can sell you the most impressive looking package your heart desires..

Zu definition.... 101 db efficient, 6 10" drivers, 2 supertweet's... Cost 4500.00 each, thats worth the pile of parts alone, check them out.. this is not an advertisment but a serious wake up call when I heard and saw the attempt they made with this speaker system...

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/zu2/definition.html

extended review and update :)
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/zu5/definition.html

I'm glad to see Michael Fremer weighing in and weighing in strongly. I think it's quite unfair to him to assume that his positive evaluation of a speaker is because he is corrupt. It's so unfair, and it's unfair precisely because it's a non-rebuttable allegation. It's too blanket.

The inescapable madness of discussing this hobby is that people can't even agree on the meaning of a term like "accurate." And even if they can agree IN WORDS on what "accuracy" in a speaker means, their ears often don't agree when they sit down at the same time to listen to the same speaker. (So forget about listening to the same speaker with different associated equipment, in different rooms, with different musical preferences and different listening histories to compare the present speaker against. And totally forget about it if I don't agree with your definition of "accuracy" or if I don't rank "accuracy" that highly among my preferences.)

And by the way, when did all these audiogoners become socialists such they are so quick to charge corruption whenever commerce is involved?

Just because Hardesty runs no ads in his mag does not mean he's more "objective." He could have his own quirks and biases and limitations that are present even without commerce figuring in.

Hardesty would be much better off acknowledging his preferences and biases in sound (we all have them) and then explaining why his preferences are the way to go.

Michael Fremer is honest enough to say that every speaker is "colored" or flawed. For that, he wins a lot of credibility from me.