A brutal review of the Wilson Maxx

Onhwy61,I cannot debate your statement as to recording equipment, etc. I know there are HUGE differences.
However, I would like to add that if you take a fairly close miked (on good equipment) recording of individual or groups of individual instruments, you can readily hear a difference in the final presentation played back on different speakers and/or designs.
I have tried this with sax, clarinet, flute, strings and acoustic guitars. By using the same recording (hence, placing the speakers on equal footing for direct comparison)I have noticed substantial differences in how the speakers in comparison handle harmonic structure and overall accuracy of tone.
Of course, I guess one could argue room effects due to radiational patterns of the speaker, equipment interface or whatever but they're substantial differences in the presentation.
It's amazing how drivers out of phase suddenly sound out of phase.
With the absence of any standard's, I guess one has to go with what they perceive as the most realistic, hence all the designs, etc. That's perfectly ok with me. Free enterprise is a wonderful thing and I for one would never want to hinder it. However, my thoughts do evolve around trying to find the most faithful reproduction based on what meager comparisons I can derive.

I wonder what would be the best way to confirm Onhwy61 and Bigtee's copmelety different view on Microphone selection and placement. Say if you close mike instruments like Bigtee suggests IN a anechoic chamber and play back in two different philosophy systems (time aligned, phase coherent, 1st order cross over designs v/s say wilson's), How would be the comparision then? Or Record with same close mike set up in a properly design hall and play it back again with two different systems in the SAME hall, how would the two systems sound. Or the question is which one would sound more realistic in both options? I would think the former one would sound closer to reality.

I do agree that very good recording using right mikes, right technique (like Mapleshade for example) does make a huge difference ( That is why Mapleshade recordings still sound good in as Mapleshade says in $50 boom box) as but colored system would be still evident if this recording is played back on these two systems.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's that big a difference between what Bigtree and I have said. It's more a matter of preference and emphasis. If the majority of your music collection was recorded using minimalist/purist techniques with a minimum number of mics, then I have no doubt that such recordings sound better on phase coherent designed speakers If you like opera, big band jazz, anything electronic/synthesized, reggae, classic rock, pop vocals or symphony recordings, all of which are typically recorded and mixed via multitrack with synthetic soundfields, then the benefits of phase coherent speaker designs are greatly minimized and their faults still remain. Since high quality recordings can be made using some many different techniques, it's not surprising that listeners have different opinions about what is realistic sound reproduction.

BTW, most minimalist recordings I've heard sound unimpressive on lo fi systems (boomboxes). No impact, overly distant somewhat indistinct sound. Some music just cries out for go old fashion compression/limiting.

I do agree my emphasis is more absolute I think what Onhwy61 says is probably true. The recording has so much to do with the end result and this is why I think some demo with certain recordings that favor a given speaker/design. I guess my goal is to have a speaker faithfully reproduce the recording for better or worse.
In this vain, I have found well designed 1st order time and phase coherent speakers to deliver over a wider range of recordings. But that's just me. Everyone is entitled and this debate will go on and on.
If a person likes the Wilson or whatever---great. They certainly overwhelm most rooms and sure have a lot of driver area. I wonder if shear driver area has an affect on perceived sound since a louder presentation usually sounds better to most? Given the cone area, you would certainly have more impact even at lower volumes. Shoot, I don't know!

I agree with a lot of what you say, Bigtee. There is tremendous time and phase coherence with Audio Physic speakers, though I think it silly to ascribe the sum total of theirs, or other speakers performance merely to 1st order crossovers.

I have owned and enjoyed virtually the entire AP line (when Joachim Gerhard designed the speakers) from the Virgo all the way to the Calderas. I have also enjoyed the Vandy 5a's in many systems I have listened with, both at friends, dealers and shows. I think Richard, Pat McGinty (Meadowlark), Joachim and many other 1st-order engineers would agree that there are _many_ other design variables to consider after the crossover, cabinet design being a big one.

Obviously, Dave Wilson takes design and measurement seriously, or they would never have achieved the broad level of success with reviewers, top recording professionals, Dealers, electronics manufacturers and consumers that they have. Companies such as Audio Research, Balanced Audio Technologies, LAMM, VTL and countless others take their systems very seriously, and all have selected the MAXX 2's or X2's as their reference.

I agree that what any one company or studio uses means little or nothing to audiophiles, but when you have a virtual consensus among top manufacturers, recording artists, studios and reviewers, well, either it's a colossal conspiracy, or Wilson is doing something right--you pick.

The common denominator in this extraordinarily long thread is summed up in one sentence in your post: " Shoot, I don't know!"

No one in this 242 post thread has offered _any_ negative direct experience with not only the MAXX 2, but the Sophia, Watt 7 or any other Wilson design.

I am not a Wilson apologist, or a blind raving fan. I was not a fan of_any_ of their previous designs before the Sophia. The WATT 5, WATT 6, WITT etc were not my cup 'o tea.

I am not touting the MAXX 2 as the "best" or anything close to that. I simply feel it ridiculous for people to expend so much energy offering opinion with literally _NO_ direct experience--including Hardesty.

I purchased the MAXX 2's because they are incredibly accurate (for me) in reproducing a broad range of music. I think JMLab, Verity, Magnepan, Kharma, Vandy, Von Schwiekert are also speakers worth considering based on my direct or nearly direct experience.

If any of these companies products had been singled out and dumped on the way the MAXX 2's were, I would have the same issues. If ever there is an absolute rave or an absolute trash, there should be more accountability for the writer to qualify their experience. I acknowledge, the fact that I spent my hard-earned dollars on the MAXX 2's after an extensive audition, to be a contibuting factor in my responses. But who else here has qualified their opinion to ANY degree? I don't see a soul.

This topic has been beat to death. Let's let it go.