Three Myths About Wilson Audio
Few loudspeaker companies seem to engender more controversy than Wilson Audio. Before receiving the Wilson Maxx 3 for review—shameless plug: my write up appears in the August issue of the Absolute Sound—I was pummeled with various points of view about Wilson products. I didn’t pay them all that much heed, not because I didn’t respect the various points of view but because I wanted to find out for myself what all the fuss was about. If you look at my review, I think it’s safe to say you’ll find I was impressed by the performance of the successor to the Maxx2, the Maxx 3.
In auditioning the Maxx 3, I came to conclude that there are three central myths about Wilson. I didn’t include this in the review because I thought it might be too negative an approach. But upon reflection, I think it’s probably worth exploring these myths. So that’s what I would like to do here.
The first myth is that Wilson is simply (or merely) a rock ‘n roll speaker, capable of great dynamic peaks, boom, bombast, sizzle, and what have you. But when it comes to the subtle gradations, Wilson falls short. Well, not in the case of the Maxx. I was struck by its finesse and linearity. This came home to me, for example, on an LP of a Shostakovich string quartet. The Maxx preserved the most subtle crepitations of the violins, in large part, I suspect, because it is a fairly efficient loudspeaker at 90dB. Its efficiency also accounts for a relaxed and supple sound.
The second myth is that the Wilson tweeter is harsh and unrelenting. Again, this wasn’t so in the case of the Maxx 3. Yes, I would have liked a somewhat fuller sound in the transition from mids to highs. But really, this was a predilection on my part rather than a damning fault that I’d discovered. The treble is very linear, which means that it doesn’t have any peaks—at least as near as I could tell. Indeed, when I told a nonaudiophile acquaintance ( who happens to be an ardent lover of music) that Wilson loudspeakers are condemned by some as unmusical, he stared at me with a look of disgust mingled with incredulity.
The third myth is that Wilson loudspeakers have a bloated or souped up midbass. Not that I could tell. On the Maxx 3 and Alexandria loudspeakers, I was impressed by how taut and fast the bass emerged. Robert Harley has emphasized that the Alexandria sounds of a piece—the bass never lags behind the mids and highs.
Is the Maxx 3 the perfect loudspeaker? No way. It’s a precise loudspeaker that lacks some of the airiness of a planar. (I’ve been a Magnepan devotee for almost a decade.) And there may be speakers out there with more extended tweeters (although the Alexandria is rated to 45,000 hz.)
All I’m saying is that not only wouldn’t I condemn the Wilson loudspeaker out of hand, as some do, but I would also give it a careful audition if you’re considering a first-rate loudspeaker (Sonus Faber, Avalon, Magico, Kharma, Rockport, among others). At a moment when high end audio needs to spread the gospel more than ever, I sometimes can’t suppress the feeling that arcane debates about audio components have become akin to religious wars that outsiders cannot even begin to fathom. As for me, I’m going to go cue up a Bach cantata and enjoy the music emanating from either my Magnepan 20.1 loudspeaker or the Maxx 3 that’s here for another week or so.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Hi,
I agree that it is not helpful to bash speakers. However, your review could have been more useful to if you had compared it other speakers at that price point. Is there a reason you did not compare it to Magico, Kharma, Rockport, and the other speakers you mention? Your point would have been much easier to make, IMO.
Also, Fremer either owns the speaker or bribed Wilson for a long term loan. Since he can have just about anything, the speaker is probably at least ok, if not very good. Yes, one can read the review, but actions speak lounder than words. Those comparisons to other speakers would have been much more valuable to your readers...
I did briefly contrast the Wilson with the Magnepan. In my post, however, I was not trying to argue that Wilson was better than these other loudspeakers, simply that it has its own set of virtues, which I briefly enumerated.
Furthermore, I think it's most unfortunate that you raise the possibility of Michael Fremer, whom I did not mention in the post, having "bribed" Wilson. It's inconceivable to me that Fremer would offer, or Wilson accept, one.
I think your statement regarding Michael Fremer is ridiculous and irresponsible. I have dealt with him over the past years and assure you that he is a man of integrity and sincerity. I am not saying you have to agree with him, I am just saying that your accusations are totally unfounded and piss me off.
Regards,
Jonathan Tinn
Fremer has stated in print, multiple times, that he purchased the MAXX 2s.
Fremer has stated in print, multiple times, that he purchased the MAXX 2s.
Amen to the value of actually making comparisons. Not to make one a winner or the other a loser, but to give your readers some kind of reference point.
You write in the very first paragraph: "...I think it’s safe to say you’ll find I was impressed by the performance of its successor, the Maxx 3."
Successor to what? The Maxx 2? Clarification would help lend weight to your accolade.
I have never owned any Wilson speakers, but, having been in the professional A/V world (as both a reseller, custom installer and finally as a manufacturer) for many years, I have never once heard any of those so-called myths regarding the Wilson brand.
I noticed that as well. Many thanks. It should be corrected soon.
Jacob,
Thanks for the fine blog post. I think you've squarely identified the myths about Wilson speakers. Some of these were fairly earned by early generations of some of the models (e.g., the Watt 1 and Watt 2s that I owned had a, tweeter that was impossible to tame), but I think your post highlights the need for many of us to revisit various speakers in the Wilson line. They have evolved substantially over the years.
I appreciate your willingness to share your further thoughts about the speaker since your insightful review.
Hi Jim
Many thanks for the kind remarks. I think Wilson has indeed greatly improved their loudspeakers. The difference between the Maxx 2 and Maxx 3, for example, is palpable and immediate. When Dave Wilson played them side-by-side at his home, I instantly heard the fuller and more elegant presentation of the Maxx 3 versus its predecessor. Most impressive.
Interesting that my name gets dragged into this by "anonymous" and that he's accusing me of "bribing" Wilson for a long term loan. I bought the MAXX3s. In any case, Dave Wilson would no more offer a bribe than I would accept one.
Listen "anonymous," I am among ( the too few) reviewers who actually owns his audio system. I own every piece of gear in my system except for what's being reviewed at any given time.
I do no accept long term loans even when offered and that happens often. I don't like it and don't consider it ethical. The accommodation prices we are offered as reviewers are quite good and I feel obliged to invest in the industry I cover.
I bought the Continuum Audio Labs Caliburn turntable that I consider the best audio investment I've ever made. When I bought it five years ago, it retailed for $90,000. While I got a discount, it still cost me as much as a pretty nice car would cost. It took me two years to pay off the loan, much of which appropriately enough was covered by sales of my turntable set-up DVD. I've sold 10,000 of that one and still selling and the second DVD is doing well too. BTW: in five years of constant use (and abuse relative to how consumers would use a turntable), the Caliburn has been 100% reliable, which is what you should expect from any product costing that much, in my opinion. No one who's come down to listen to it, including manufacturers, has been any less than amazed by what it does.
That didn't stop some Vinyl Asylum wankers from actually speculating online about my financial worth, my wife's worth, what I must be doing "on the side" to afford the gear I own, etc. Yikes! Some people really need to get a life.
I find it appalling that there are reviewers out there, many of whom you are very familiar with, who own NOTHING in their "reference systems," though that's not as appalling as being accused of bribing a manufacturer. You really ought to think about what you post on this forum. Anonymity is no excuse for making such charges with no evidence whatsoever.
As for the MAXX3s, if you read my review you will note that I try to avoid hyperbole, that I didn't say they were "the best speakers in the world," or anything like that. I leave that kind of "writing" to others. However, they are among the best speakers I've ever heard at any price and like every other great speaker I've heard, they have both weaknesses and strengths, as did the MAXX2s, which I owned previously. On balance, they meet my needs as a music lover and reviewer.
The days of "king making" in high performance audio ended years ago as the industry has now matured. Those who insist upon trying to crown any product "king" today, or who take well-known basic designs and attempt to make them appear to be genuine innovations, look foolish and self-serving in my opinion.
As for the other comment criticizing JH's MAXX3 review for not comparing them to other speakers, how would you have him, or me go about doing that without having them all shlepped into his listening room? That's time and expense no one can handle.
I have heard all of those contenders but at audio shows and in showrooms and all are great speakers that do different things well while having distinct sonic characters--all speakers do. There is no "greatest" speaker. There is no "king." The idea that there is a "best" given that transducers are all compromised, flawed products that all sound different from one another--- is absurd. The great ones, the ones that are well-engineered will do certain things well---a baseline if you will--that separates out the top choices. All of the ones you cite are among them. I can give you my reasons for preferring the MAXX3s but what I prefer is irrelevant to what you prefer. You have to make your own choice, not to own "the best" speaker out there, because there's no such thing, but rather, the one that you prefer and that you can afford.
I expect to get Vandersteen's new state of the art speaker to review shortly. If it's better than the MAXX3 overall in my room, I'll write that. I already wrote that the Vandy Quattros imaged better than the MAXX2s so don't doubt my word on that.
The last poster claims he's never heard any of the "myths" about the Wilson brand. He hasn't been in my shoes, that's for sure. Every positive Wilson review brings hate mail. Yes, genuine hate mail aimed at Wilson. Cheap drivers in a fancy box. Or, the materials used are "outdated," or "Dave Wilson is not a speaker designer, Jim Thiel is a speaker designer," or Wilson speakers are not really serious audiophile speakers, they're for the "carriage trade," etc. Or Wilson speakers are not for "music lovers," or people who know what recordings really sound like wouldn't own Wilson speakers. I've heard all that stuff. Funny how Paul Simon's long time engineer Roy Halee (also recorded Dylan, The Byrds, The Lovin' Spoonful and many classical titles for Columbia "back in the day") owns Wilson Alexandrias. I guarantee you Roy didn't "bribe" Wilson or vice-versa. Halee is also an LP guy who doesn't like CDs at all. So it always gives me a good chuckle when the digiphiles say "You don't know what master tapes sound like" and blah blah blah. Roy does you can bet! In fact, Greg Calbi, who mastered "Graceland," visited recently and we played the album on the Caliburn thought the MAXXes. Greg said he heard things via the VINYL that he hadn't heard on the TAPE in his mastering suite circa 1985...which shows you that audio is getting better. Bye bye....
Mr. Fremer
I will start off by saying Im NOT a big fan of your vinyl fetish. Bob Ludwig has stated in print that the LP is the FURTHEST from the master tape, no IFS AND OR BUTS...I can send you the link.....but I will say you are one of the handful of reviewers that has integrity in that you own your entire system, pay for upgrades, and put your money where your mouth is.
The fact that you dont accept "loans" and you paid for every component you own is to be commended.
The poster was absolutely moronic and has alot of nerve making such claims with no factual basis.
I have heard all the Wilson speakers and I would say the only "myth" I might agree with is the midbass energy in the Maxxs is pretty noticible...at least to me. I really like the Sophias. I dont know why Wilson reviews create so much angst.
AnyWho, enjoy your turntable....Id MUCH rather have a yellow and black Corvette convertable, with enough money left over to buy a killer Naim or Meridian cd player.
I'm one of those reviewers who was critical of Wilson's mid-bass energy, especially in the W/P. It's one of the reasons I too really like the Sophia II ("the Wilson speaker for people who don't like Wilson speakers" I think I wrote) and the Duette.
That's changed. The latest crop of Wilson speakers have addressed this, certainly the ones I've been exposed to. The new Sasha (see Hi-Fi+ issue 67... you might have a long wait) uses the MAXX III tweeter and midrange and that - coupled with moving the crossover into the bass cab, apparently) has improved the mid-bass clarity considerably. I always respected the W/P design, and its improvements were seemingly all in the right direction, but this is the first one I've truly 'enjoyed' and 'liked' rather than 'admired'.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Michael Fremer -
2 things-
I am of the same mindset as Spendor Man regarding vinyl, but to each their own, but the Anonymous post is simply a moronic . Anonymous knows it too, that's why he's posted as Anonymous, no?
Your position on equipment ownership is laudable. It should be REQUIRED of all reviewers and until it is your profession's ethical standards and integrity will continue to be questionable. Again, kudos to you.
As a Byrds fan for over 30 years might I suggest you not include their recordings in support of Mt Halee's recording credentials, in my estimation, they suck sonically.
Sr. Fremer,
Gracias por su interesante respuesta a los criticos. What I learned from your response makes sense to someone like me, a stereo neophyte, that sound comes down to what pleases you rather than cost or hype. I was trapped in that way of thinking because...hey, if so and so says this is the best then it must be so--I didn't know enough to contradict him/her--and I still don't . After many trials and errors and many thousands of dollars later, my ears told me what sounded the best . And I agreed.
Saludos,
Rolando
I've been enjoying, agreeing with, and disagreeing with your writing fore years Michael. This is no exception. ( although I "agree" totally with your post.) What I enjoyed the most was hearing what recording industry veterans own. I sure would like to read more about what gear the guy's ( and gal's ) actually own, and why. That part of your post for some reason was most intriguing to me. Keep fighting the good fight! Although my tastes and budget are not the same as yours, I enjoy your writing.
Wilson is controversial for several reasons. One is their looks - not too many companies make their designs look like Darth Vader. Two is their sound - the harsh highs and over-blown images (over the years) turned many off. Then the exorbitant pricing - always WAY up with each new model . They were also one of the creators of the hyper-priced speaker (WAMM - 1980 and X-1 - 1994).
Another issue seems to be "best sound at show". If you have the biggest *room* at the show, you'll get more votes - hence best sound. Lastly, "My speaker is better than yours". At a show recently, Wilson (the man) compared one of his models to a competitor's - a design chosen because it *didn't* sound as good as his. I could have chosen a dozen a so models that outperformed Wilson (at that price point) and I think others could have also. But Wilson pulled off a stupid trick - to say the least.
Certainly, not all of these things angered *everyone*. But when you add them up, it seems clear why other speaker co. are not nearly as controversial........
Thanks for the post, Michael. I agree that anonymous posters should not hurl unfounded accusations. I also agree wholeheartedly with Jacob's comments about the sound of Wilson. I think the reason that Wilson is the target of so much criticism is that those doing the criticizing want to believe that they achieve the same level of sound quality as Wilson for a fraction of the price, which simply isn't true.
As with many other reviewers, I have access to just about any loudspeaker made, yet I've chosen to live with the X-2 on a long-term basis.
I've just written a synopsis of the X-2 for our upcoming Buyers' Guide issue, which I've posted below.
Wilson Audio Alexandria X-2 Series 2
$158,000
The new Series 2 Alexandria is quite simply the best all-around loudspeaker RH has heard in his room. It delivers stunning bass extension, truly effortless dynamics, and a palpable musical realism that elevate it to world-class status. The X-2’s bass is simply unrivaled in its stunning combination of extension, authority, transient fidelity, muscularity, finesse, and articulation. Despite the X-2’s sheer size and ability to reproduce the sound of an orchestra at full tilt with no sense of strain, this loudspeaker is capable of great delicacy and nuance. Small-scale music is well served by the X-2’s resolution of inner timbral detail, reproduction of fine transient information, and ability to scale image size based on the recording. This isn’t a big speaker that always sounds “big,” but rather one that changes character to reflect the original musical event. The modular design (the two midrange drivers and tweeter are in their own enclosures) and ability to move the midrange drivers and tweeters independently in two axes allow the X-2 to be optimized for any listening height or distance. (Moving the drivers forward or backward achieves time alignment; tilting the drivers optimizes dispersion.) The X-2’s very high sensitivity (95dB) allow it to be driven by moderately powered amplifiers and to realize its full dynamic potential. The build-quality and finish are as good as it gets; the X-2 is a work of visual art as well as musical art. It’s also backed by one of the high-end’s oldest and most established companies. Robert Harley’s reference and our Overall Product of the Year winner in 2008. wilsonaudio.com (186)
How do you award such high praise when you ain't heard other products from other companies, that will probably beat it for less money. Namely Legacy Audio. At that insane price I would bet, that the Legacy Helix would come out ahead, for less, I've experienced first hand Legacy products, smoke much more expensive stuff, so much so, the expensive stuff went up for sale and the Legacys moved in. Do real tests, side by side comparisons, Helix from Legacy versus anything. Since their (2nd best ),Whispers smoke anything, always.
I only get surprised when one brands every model gets amazing reviews and that includes, Audio Tekne, Audio Research, VPI and Wilson among many others. Some models must be great but every single one???? I have auditioned lots of speakers at detail including top of the line to lower models of Wilsons, Martin logan, Maggies, Quad, Sonus, and many more...... a brand name does not make all models the same. After reading the TAS description of the Wilson Sophia's I went for an audition, and didn't find them impressive at all. Other cheaper speakers sounded better to me. I think Amplifier/ component matching is super critical, and yes taste is a factor too. But every model of a brand outshining others.......I don't believe that. IMHO. I am not a reviewer....just an average audiophile.
Let's not forget that Harley likes pop, rock and the blues - music that Wilson seems to excell at. And only then at the reference-price level. Wilson gets beat by many others, in my view, when playing acoustic music.......
I think that M. Fremer makes an interesting point regarding long term loan and wether that is ethical or not. Is it just that M. Fremer is more well-healed than the average reviewer or do the writers in TAS have another view on this?
How many of the writers in TAS actually owns the gear they use? Can you Robert say something about this? As an example: Wayne Garcia uses as far as I know Kharma speakers and he his done that for a long time. JV uses ARC, Solution etc. Do they own the equipment they have for months/years or is it just some kind of clever marketing from the manufacturers?
Rgds
JP
Mr. Fremer clearly stated in his comment above that he took out a loan that took him two years to pay back for the Caliburn TT. Whether or not he is "more well-healed" is not for anyone to speculate on. If you have followed Michael's writing and reviewing over the years, it is very clear that he is not a "flavor-of-the-month" audiophile. The only equipment that comes and goes through his listening room are those items in for review. For example, in his review of the MAXX III, he says that the II he replaced, he had for 4 years. The same is true with his sources and front end components. It's very difficult to make accurate observations regarding how a component sounds if your "reference system" is a revolving door of equipment.
Was Michael ill, but now well-healed?
If he keeps selling his DVD's, he may become well-heeled.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Well, a raw nerve has been hit for sure. Mr. Fremer sounds like an honest guy, but his reputation is tainted by those around him.
No offence to Mr. Heilbrunn, but I read his review when it came out. I remember nothing about it other than the fact he liked it. He would have added a lot more value if he did schlep some of those other speakers to his house to compare and contrast, not necessarily look for the “best”. I also know that Mr. Fremer has the speaker in his home as part of a very expensive system.
Although not so in Mr. Fremer’s case per his post above, manufacturers understand very well that loaning their gear to a famous, influential personality for a long time who will call it a reference piece, and mention it month after month, speaks higher volumes than words written on a page in a review. Wes Phillips had the Conrad Johnson Act 2 preamp for about 2 years. It was stereophile product of the year for 2 years – until he had to give it back. Then he got the Ayre kx-r for a loan. He trashed the Act 2. The Ayre is now the 8 th wonder of the world! I wonder what stereophile's new best will be when a mint kx-r shows up an audiogon...
I agree with the other poster that the magazines should disclose the length of loan or limit all loans to 90 days and disclose ownership of their gear.
"Mr. Fremer sounds like an honest guy, but his reputation is tainted by those around him."
That sounds suspiciously like a self-sealing argument to me. I'm sure we could systematically move through every reviewer and have them all fit the "honest guy" profile, but none of this would disqualify the "reputation is tainted" suggestion.
I know the ACT 2; it is a remarkable preamp. I know the KX-R less well, but it too appears to be an excellent product, at the very least comparable to the ACT 2. You are assuming that the ACT 2 was replaced because of some hidden agenda about product loans... isn't it more likely that the KX-R is the better preamp in the reviewer's system?
Would this conclusion be subject to any difference if the reviewer had just sold an ACT 2 to buy a KX-R?
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
We have discussed the issue of ownership of equipment before, at length. There are many possible points to be made here, and I invite posters to clearly articulate their objectives. Of course, there is the objective of casting random, uninformed ethical criticisms of reviewers. But aside from that, there might be interesting thoughts that would improve the review process.
But let's discuss some real cases. I review products for The Absolute Sound. I own my reference system (mbl 101e x3, mbl 121, mbl 9008 A, mbl 6010D, Meitner CDSA etc). Jon Valin, who I'm visiting tomorrow, does not own the system I will be hearing. I'm slightly at a loss to explain why I'm a better reviewer than Jon, because of this. In fact, it appears to me that Jon has the advantage. I can't afford to upgrade my system. Jon, who has essentially no "permanent" reference system, can be comparing product 6 months from now with a reference that is more up to date than what I have (which is circa 2007). I visited Jon in 2007, and I know that what he has now as a reference involves ~zero components that were there two+ years ago.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
TM, with all due respect I think that you are missing (at least my point) here. Let me be clear about the fact that I think that TAS is a great magazine, also the reviews and the reviewers. Absolutely no complaints from me there.
I can also see the point that JV can change components without buying them in order to investigate the current state of the art, one cannot expect that he can buy all the goodies he has in for review. But in his situation we are not talking about long term loan as I see it, it is more like an ongoing project to investigate what is currently the best out there. A project I find highly interesting.
What I would like to see is the following:
In the associated equipment section in the reviews the reviewer should write what is on loan and what isn`t. Every product on loan/ long term loan must be explained by the reviewer on why he/ she has it for such a long time. As a regular reader of TAS I can easily pick out several "long term loans" I find questionable.
For a manufacturer it is quite "nice" and also important to have their products among the reference equipment of a TAS reviewer, it is in my opinion the best marketing one can wish for in high end audio. Because of that we the readers MUST know and have information about the long term loan situation among the TAS reviewers.
The 'loan vs own' dilemma is a very difficult one to resolve. There are extremely strong objections that can be levelled at both sides.
A reviewer who owns their own equipment often tends to use them in their reference system for longer than they really should (I've got one or two reviewers who bought equipment 10+ years ago and their main system comprises discontinued products) and the continued descriptions of the same products time and time again can make them sound like a fanboy.
A reviewer who doesn't own can often end up with a system made up of products from companies that are 'loan-friendly', but at least their system is made up of current products and is a constant work in progress. That must be tempered by the perception issue; JV's never-ending project to explore what's best in audio can just as easily be misread as an endless series of 'blags'.
In addition, a reviewer who loans is not limited by their own budget, which is a major consideration. Should we limit those who review Krells to those who can afford Krells? What if the best person for the job can only afford NAD in the real world. As high-end reviews tend to require a considerable back story of equally high-end ancilliary components, if we were to name those reviewers as 'loan-using' reviewers, would it really be 'naming', or 'naming and shaming' reviewers chosen for the accuracy of their conclusions and quality of their writing? Would we then end up selecting reviewers on the basis of wallet-depth alone?
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Uh, what is a "blag"? If I'm being "easily misread" I'd like to know how.
JV,
Sorry... being a bit British here. 'Blag' is one of those multi-purpose terms we use here to mean anyone of a dozen different things.
In this context, to 'blag' is to acquire products or services free of charge through influence or guile. "I blagged my way into the club," is a good example. Other uses include to rob, to annoy, to lie and to brag in a blog. You you can blag about a blag, while blagging about your blag in a blog.
And no, I don't think you are being easily misread, any more than any reviewer is easily misread. The misreading is an active and largely deliberate process, by those who seek to undermine high-end audio by any means. And that's my point - those who are keen to be hypercritical will find fault in the integrity of the reviewer whether they own everything, have everything on loan, or choose a path somewhere in between.
Which is why I think publishing the status of whether a reviewer owns or borrows their equipment, leaves the reviewer open to being damned if they do, damned if they don't. Whatever they do. Or don't.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
The notion that my old friend and colleague Michael Fremer raved about Wilson MAXX 3s in order to acquire them at a steeply discounted price is absurd. He wouldn’t do this. None of us would. The irony, of course, is that none of us needs to.
For instance, it was not that long ago that I was offered a superb component—one that I greatly admired—at about 8% of its retail price, with “terms” that would have allowed me to pay it off over a period of two years. (This kind of thing happens a lot, to be honest.) All I had to do was agree not to re-sell it for a year. I turned the offer down, as I have every such offer. But if I'm following AS correctly, acquiring this item at a price and on terms that no "civilian" could ever possibly come close to getting, as opposed to taking it on acknowledged loan as a reference (if I liked it well enough) and returning it when something better came along, might then in some (I confess, to me, less than clearcut) way put me in the moral catbird seat.
Of course, there's also this: What happens when the manufacturer touts this pennies-on-the-dollar "deal" with me as if it were equivalent to a full-retail purchase? Sure, we all sometimes get quoted in ads, but for some readers "JV liked it so well he bought it" might carry more weight than "JV liked it so well he made it his reference" or "JV thought it was the best of its kind he's yet heard" or whatever. (Wouldn't it be fairer if there were an asterisk after "bought it"?) And finally what happens if, after a year or so, I decide to sell it? How much do I ask? The pennies-on-the-dollar that I paid for it? Or do I turn a tidy profit? It is a quandary. On the other hand, there might also be a tendency to hang on to what you own past its "freshness date," as Alan Sircom said.
BTW, this is not to say that buying the equipment you prefer is a bad thing--just that it comes with its own set of complications and is not necessarily the slam-dunk preferable thing.
Of course, it could be said with equal justice (or injustice) that borrowing puts a reviewer in debt to the company/distributor that he is borrowing from—that a reviewer might be loath to praise a competitive product from another company for fear of alienating his “meal ticket” and, thereby, losing his loan. Speaking for myself, all I can say is that if something comes along that I think is better than my previous “top pick,” I say so—no matter what. For example. I was in love with the Magico Mini and Mini IIs for years, then I heard the Symposium Acoustics Panoramas at RMAF and after auditioning them in my listening room for several months--much as I adored the Minis and Magico speakers (and still do)--changed horses because the Symposiums were better, fuller-range speakers (as well they should've been for $80k more). This, BTW, is one advantage of "a never-ending project to explore what’s best” (which I thought, silly me, was the primary goal of this rag). It may make me look “blaggish” (which I take it is not a good thing) or downright capricious, but it also permits me to call it as I hear it on a regular basis—and at a level of performance that sometimes defines the state of the art. It also lets me regularly audition and blog/review equipment that may be unknown or little known but entirely worthy. (Indeed, in some small part, Robert's and my articles in TAS a few years ago helped Magico get the attention paid that it deserved. I also sincerely hope that my review of the $799 Odyssey Khartago--an amp I was unfamiliar with but others, like Alon Wolf, have long been high on--will help sustain interest in that genuine bargain and introduce it to a wider market).
I love reading these comments, but I have to take pause here and ask a very important question. What about the rest of us true music lovers, on rather restricted incomes, with families and expenses seriously limiting the ability to ever hear, much less own, any of the systems or individual components you speak so highly of? You guys banter around this stuff, buying and selling $158,000 speaker systems as frequently as some of us change our underwear. Where are the David Haflers of today, geniuses, who took on the big guys back in the day, to offer good sound for the masses at very reasonable prices? Are we, the audio unwashed, destined to only drool, as the well healed, and the privaledged, get to sample and ascend the steps to sonic nirvana? Most of us can't even relate to the values and characteristics attached to these escoteric pieces of gear, only to learn that they too have a limited half life, expiring with the newest and latest from the same manufacturer or others. I know how pissed I'd be if last year I spent (in my dreams) $160,000 (more than my house cost) on a speaker system, only to find that the manufacturer has come up with a better one this year..., and mine isn't worth doggie dodo anymore. What has happened to our focus, where good music was the objective and the right of all of us to be able to enjoy it. It seems that only the rich have golden ears..., or pockets lined with gold, as it were, and that the enjoyment of good music, pristinely presented, is their domain alone. Hey!..., we're hurting down here.
It's a very good point, but there are many good products on the market without the price tag that looks like an international telephone number. I think the point is that the cutting edge of audio (which is also the cutting edge of audio pricing) gets a lot of attention because the numbers are so vast.
Cambridge Audio is a perfect example of the good sound without megabucks price tags. TAS recently reviewed the 840E preamp and 840W power amp, which is a real giant killer, as in a $4,200 combo that can take on products that cost a lot more... and win. I also have the 640C CD player and 640A integrated amplifier in for test in an upcoming issue of Hi-Fi+. I don't know the US retail price, but these are not expensive products, yet they make very expensive sounds. NAD, Rotel, Marantz, Creek and many others make reasonably priced equipment that more than deliver the goods.
When it comes to speakers, same applies. No, you won't be able to find a pair of speakers that can do what the MAXXs can do for $30, or even $3,000, but there are some very fine designs that make a great sound without the great big price. Revel Concerta F12s for example.
Some of the latest low-budget equipment is extremely impressive in its ability to fight way above weight. Take the NAD C525BEE CD player and C325BEE integrated amp we checked out in 2007 - less than $700 worth of electronics, perfectly happy driving almost $2k's worth of ribbon-tweeter'd DALI Ikon 6 speaker. Throw in some good cable (perhaps not the cost-as-much-as-a-Boeing Nordost SPM we tried for fun) and you have very, very respectable performance without spending Mercedes money.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Really? Do you read TAS, or AVGuide.com or Stereophile, or Hi-Fi Plus or any of the other hifi publications? If you look on AVGuide.com in the last 2 hrs, Neil Gader just blogged about his first impressions of Simaudio i3.3 integrated and CD player. A few months back, he blogged about his initial impressions on Rotel's 15 series integrated and CD player ($1K each). I don't know how many times, RH has reviewed and recommended the Naim Nait 5i or the Cambridge Audio 840 series of products. JV, known for reviewing high end exotic gear (audio gear porn to most of us who will not be able to acquaint ourselves with such products beyond the pages of TAS and other mags), just reviewed the Odyssey Khartago, a power amp design under $1K. Chris Martens just came out with his recommendation for the Oppo BDP 83 universal player in Playback. If you open up the most recent issue TAS, with the Editors Choice Awards, there are 70 or so Editors Choice awards for products in the under $1K price range, excluding cables, headphones, and accessories. When you include those, there 100+ such products. There were too many to count in the $1k-$3K range - sorry I got bored. Same would hold true of Stereophile's Buyer Guide which clearly has *** marked for products that are extremely good value and punch way above their price point. TAS has an issue once a year where the reviewers each assemble their favorite 2ch system under $5K. There are plenty of products and audio companies (NAD, Rotel, PSB, Paradigm, etc...the Hafflers of today) that offer excellent audio quality at very real-world price points. Instead of bemoaning the lack of such offerings, please do the research (there's plenty of it to read), go out and listen to the products and enjoy that musical nirvana that you believe is so unattainable. I think it is. I apologize if I am being rude (I don't mean to be) but I am tired of reading the same old criticism, especially when it is not true.
I also have never heard the so-called myths about Wilson speakers. I have however formed my own opinions about Wilson speakers from listening to them. In one word, hideously over-priced. But certainly that is only my opinion. If I had purchased the first generation Alexandras for $125k and was not offered an "accommodation" upgrade to whatever level was the latest, I'd be pissed, but I'm not because i'd never spend that kind of coin in the first place and neither do reviewers. The whole accommodation thing is a farce. I know for a fact that many companies give their gear away or offer prices that really make a decision to buy totally divorced from reality. And that's whole problem. Mr. Fremer or any other employee of a publication, can pick from any number of manufacturers. Are they going to pick something they don't really like? I seriously doubt it but the risk involved in that purchase is minimal at best. We in the real don't have and will never have that luxury and while I am convinced the any reviewer sincerely loves their gear, I have to say so f*cking what. IOW, I don't put any stock in any reviewer saying they loved whatever so much they bought it simply for the fact that unlike the general populous they're not bound to a long term relationship and real world vestment in what they buy. Enough of that.
In response to RH's assertion that Wilson performance can't be bought at a fraction of the price, I respectfully call bullsh!t.
As far as the vinyl vs digital debate, imo, more depends on the process than the format. Vinyl has inherent limitations that cannot be explained away in subjective terms. 16\44.1 also has inherent limitations. So we get back to the real world again. What is the cost of extracting the nth degree of detail from vinyl? Without getting technical it's a boatload and more than I or 99.9% of people want to or can afford to spend. One last thing to consider, as much as certain people would like to believe, we don't live in an analog world. Quantum physics proves it. The foundation of our universe far more closely mimics a digital model. Given enough resolution, sampling frequency and skill, digital wins by a parsec.
David Haflers of today is VanAlstine. Coincidently can take th eold Hafler ckts and bring them up to date in maoder sonic bliss. www.avahifi.com And he has a large line of his own products, he just still puts them ckts into old Hafler chassis and even Dynaco. Why buy new chassis if the ones are still fine. I'll put my AVA/Hafler P500's up agaionst any amp out there, and it'll win. I run 4 P500/AVA Insight/OmegaStar EX ckts roughtly about 4800+ RMS watts capable, they never run out of musical bliss. And they didn't require refinacing my house to buy, Frank knows ckts, and makes music bliss. Magazines love to not mention him, since he will embarass their advertisers, that spend fortunes every month with glossy ads. www.avahifi.com Sonic bliss for smart people, that know how to spend audio dollar$.
Does MF still demagnetize VINYL, and hear improvements, of course "improvements", it always is improved, with every $2,000 absurdity. Wonder if the FTC should look into some claims by some mfgs?
Yes I still demagnetize vinyl. You should come over and listen. You'd hear a big difference but clearly your prefer a smug non-scientific answer, wherein you have not experienced it but choose to discount it. Sometimes observations lead to scientific discoveries, right Mr. Newton? I played a CD-R containing a recording from vinyl and then the same recording after demagnetization and such "fools" as Tim DeParavicini and mastering engineer and Tape Project principal Paul Stubblebine were willing to go on record confirming they easily heard the difference. So maybe you should back away from your cynicism and particularly your smugness.
I probably should take a listen of the magic vinyl. You ain't that far to travel to. I listened to the CD-R that JA sent to me a few others, no differences heard. And come on, I'm listening to a fairly superb setup, that brings out most anything in a recording. My ears also work very well, I get to listen to live music as much as possible, so I do kinda know what I can listen for and hear stuff. Some things are just based on knowledge about how stuff is and does. come on, if everyone had to "try" every dopey absurd idea, you would never have time to even eat. LOGIC plays into deciding what should be tried and what is just absurdity. ie. one logically thinks, it is not wise to put a firecracker up ones selectted body orrifice, because it probably wouldn't do any good. NOW, I have never tried it, so I am using LOGIC to decide that it is not something I should TRY and then discover, my first thoughts are correct, that it shouldn't be done. Ya gets my drift. And $2,000 is a tad rich for such quirky nonsense. I really wish you would publsih your hearing test results, so we could get a reference baseline for your incredible hearing.....since some of your claims border on absurd, or if your hearing is so superior to most, then the scientific test results would only help your cause. And just what is your cause anyway? You do realize that this is teh 21st century, and the vinyl LP, is hardly what is state of teh art in reproducing true hi fi closer to the original recordings, you do realize that don't ya? My KORG MR1000 or MR2000 runs cirles, rings, triangle and any other shape around the vinyl LP. On a decent VPI TT. Snap crackle popm, was not on the original recordings, nor do I hear that in live events. Speaking of which check out my friend, for some truly inspiring live great stuff, you are local come down to one of his shows, you'll be impressed. www.mattoree.com He even played for Les Paul's birthday some years back. Now Les Paul is another local great, amazing history that guy had. Les Paul did stuff based on what he heard and science, and facts.
And it's not "smugness" it's just being right most of the time. I've disproved many a beleif on the superioroty of things costing much more, and then the people who where shown the way, have become believers, and convinced there is so much BS in the audio products business. When $2,000 amplifers smoked the over hyped heavily promoted units, they where sold, along with some extremely expensive speakers, replaced by superior ones for 1/2 the price. Electronics proven to be grossly over priced, when compared side by side in listening with a few people in teh room, all with their own ideas, and they all left convinced, I was right all along, and the priecy over marketed stuff was replaced by pieces made for mortals, by truly well designed, and not grossly over priced nonsnesen. Better sound, through logic and reality based designed. I'd put money on it, and I know money spent correctly, gets better sound, more LIVE for less. I have disporoved all the cable BS, all the amplifer nonsense, and all the speaker BS. Logic and reality based thinking, brings it all together. When a pair os used speakers for $10K smoked the $40K list speakers using electronics that where one 3rd the price and much more robust and powerful, the proff is in the listening. We don't need no stinkin blue meters, all we needed was better ckts, bigger transformers in teh amps, and it sounds BETTER. And it wasn't subtle, my ears are better than yours, that's all. I know I can hear , and I know what I can't hear. And no one can hear teh sound of "demagnetizing" a vinyl record. It just doesn't happen. Lets get together, and listen, you can come here first on my stuff, it's cool. could be interesting, I don't bite. Ask Ja Alex, Ethan anyone, but I do prove my point. Better sound, less money, no BS. Better i mean LIVE, SLAM, IMPACT REAL.
First off, I am happy Jacob posted this. As well as pics on his room (I wish reviewers would do more of this, show the item in your setting vs just the product please)
I don't think it's negative just facing up to some "mis" perceptions that continually seem to circulate around Wilson. I to have been to Dave's house and heard the Maxx 2's vs the Maxx 3's. My Austin, Tx Wilson dealer had my order for the 3's before we got a block away from Mr Wilson's home. (Plus once you've seen their manufacturing facility, you know some serious r&d and precision tooling goes into their build).
The Maxx 3 is my 4th Wilson speaker (wp 6 and 8, Maxx 2 now 3). If others like different brands of speakers, wilson owners don't seem to bash them harshly. This is almost a symptom of other issues going in the US right now. You can see the anger in the healthcare debates. Why all the anger, this is a hobby that most of us sacrifice for.
If you can't hear demag'd vinyl, well I know I can. (umm demag'd, destat'd cds sound better to!) If you like cd's, they have some great virtues. I prefer vinyl. If Mr Ludwig say's it's the furthest from the source, based on what criteria? I am sure you can argue any point you want or take a quote of out the intend context.
Stop by my house. Listen to my vinyl setup and Maxx 3's. I'll even spin accoustic music ...
Are you familiar Mr Ludwig? If not look up his resume:
He has mastered over 6000 albums in every format possible. Compared to what is the Master Tape. He clearly state it is the most distinguishable
form the master. DSD being the closest, to the point of being impossible to distinguish it form the original.
http://www.musictap.net/Interviews/LudwigBobInterview.html
Quote:
"With high resolution digital, it is almost impossible to pick out the original from the copy, while with vinyl, one can ALWAYS pick out the original vs the vinyl playback!
Fine and Roy Halee, who is of equal stature to Bob Ludwig, who I know and respect, thinks otherwise. He thinks vinyl sounds closer to an analog source than does a CD. Both change the nature of the tape to some degree. In any field you can mention from sound to global warming experts will disagree. If you think trotting out Bob Ludwig's name and opinion closes the book on this argument, you are sadly mistaken.
Mikey:
I was not in anyway attempting to close the book. The arguement will rage on, trust me! I think you are a very dedicated reviewer, and you take your assignments very seriously. (The HT Photon cables and the broken Zanden aside )I feel you have a blemish free resume.
But you do pass you are very dogmatic when it comes to LPs.
When every mastering engineer from the 60s and 70s tells you the tape was sqaushed and rolled off before heading to vinyl...how can you consider this accurate????
I am not sure that the industry insiders understand how much distrust is out there about their industry and dealings. I think transparency will help eliminate that. ( I am sure some of these industry insiders hypocritically despise wall street for some of these same reasons. ) Why would it hurt to disclose the ownership status, show the room pictures, list all room treatments, state sonic signature preferances? So what if the guy owns a 20 y/o Bryston or a 10 y/o NAD?
Getting back to topic:
As for Wilson, I always thought their bass was exaggerated and too fast. Is it a myth or a desire on the part of wilson to assert that this is the "correct" way for the bass to sound? All rich, old guys who can afford Wilson may not know what "correct" bass sounds like, especially in a crappy room.
Also, their products seem to come out every 2 years. With WP8 it seems justified. Apparently, Magico and YG have been eating their lunch. Thanks to the magazine hype, btw! But it is a big problem wilson has. All the more reason to compare the Maxx to a similarly priced YG in the review.
I think everyone who works in the industry is aware of distrust in some circles. However, this distrust often cuts all ways. The concern with full disclosure is that it would fuel this distrust, rather than try to extinguish it. Whether we own or loan, we are still 'in the pay' of the manufacturers, it seems. It's a "do you still beat your wife?" scenario; you are damned, whatever the answer, by those who distrust the reviewers.
At its most extreme, I have been informed that the only way a magazine can hope to be responsible is to insist all its reviewers buy equipment at full retail from a dealer and have the invoices for these products made available for public investigation. Interestingly (or perhaps, unsurprisingly) this came from a dealer...
On Wilson bass: I think there's some exaggeration about the exaggeration of Wilson's bottom end, although the speakers often make a 'big' sound. In many respects, Wilson, Magico, YG and Avalon (among others) are all attempting to recreate an accurate simulacrum of what's on the disc; the fact that there's no one answer to this suggests that, although we've come a long way at getting good audio, there's still a long way to go.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Alan--ah, there's the rub. Whip out a musical instrument, play a few notes--and you'll hear the discrepancy immediately. Or just go listen to someone else playing. The surprising thing, to me, is that reproduction sounds as good as it does. But a chasm exists between live music and its reproduction--no matter how elaborate (or expensive) the system.
I don't know what all the ruccus is about. JH reviewed Wilson Maxx 3s and decided as a sidebar in this blog to address 3 common perceptions that audiophiles have about the sonic traits/characterisitcs of Wilson speakers in general. In his comments, he describes why he does no think these "myths" apply to the Maxx 3s at least and is careful to say that this holds true in the context of his listening sessions with his associated equipment in his room. I personally auditioned Wilson Sophia 2s and they were not to my liking (thought they were a bit analytical and not musically involving). But I recognize that as much of that impression could have been due to the associated equipment (which I was not familiar with), the speaker placement/setup, room, etc...I have not written off all Wilson speakers, I just know in that instance, those particular Wilson speakers did not do it for me. In a hobby, where much is written and spoken about system synergy being critical in putting together enjoyable/musical rigs, it dumbfounds me how audiophiles become so absolutist with their opinions about manufacturers and specific gear in particular. I am sure, with the right associated equipment, set up properly in the right system, the Wilson Sophia 2s (for purposes of carrying through my example) can be made to sing gloriously. That's all there is to it. Thanks JH for posting your comments and listening impressions. I do understand the point about trying to make comparisons across relevant benchmarks in that price range, but I also understand that the impracticalities (not to mention cost) of doing so with speakers of that size and cost. Audiophiles here assume that we are dealling with manufacturers that have the financial wherewithal to have multiple copies of their reference speakers on loan to multiple reviewers (or at audio shows etc...) at all times. That is simply not the case.
My only experience with the MAXX is the original version, which I heard powered by Krell amplification and source equipment. I thought the sound was horrible. Incredibly bright, clinical, harsh, etc. It sounded like the tweeters were spitting acid, and the midrange was as cold as ice. Probably the least pleasant high-end speaker I've ever heard, though at least some of the fault may have been from the Krells, which I've never liked.
The other really big disappointment was the JM Lab Grande Utopia Be. These speakers are massively hyped and cost some $100K, and yet when I heard them demoed against some rather pedestrian by comparison Dynaudio Confidence C4s, the Dyns just beat them silly. I've never heard a JM Lab speaker that sounded more than barely average. I don't understand the hype around the Utopia speakers at all.
I have to agree with Mr. Sircom; one is damned if you do or damned if you don't own your reference gear. At one point in my tenure, I owned 100% of my system and now probably own about 85% of my main system. It certainly doesn't matter to me whether Robert or anyone else owns the gear that they use for reference, provided they keep it at least long enough to establish a baseline by which to review other gear.
What a lot of audiophiles lose sight of in the midst of all this, is that reviewing high end gear succinctly is a JOB. It's not Christmas, with every day a new fun box to open and play with. I think most of the other reviewers here will agree with me that a reference system is a tool by which to evaluate other components to the best of your ability.
When one has accumulated enough seat time, it requires better gear to adequately describe what's going on with whatever comes in for review. Personally, I'm more in MF's camp on the subject of owning reference gear, but again, if I were in the market for a 50 thousand dollar speakers, I'd take more stock in a review written by a reviewer that has access to gear at that level every day, whether they've written a check for it or not. Someone that owns equipment a lot further down the food chain just doesn't have enough experience to adequately describe what's going on with the stuff at the top.
While the average audiophile is overly concerned about monkey business, the rest of us are moving heavy amplifiers and speakers, trying to get the next issue done.
So, the argument will probably rage on...
It difficult for us readers to avoid incredulity when we read over-the-top raves from reviewers who have not put their money where their mouth is, so ownership speaks to credulity and credibility IMHO. Reviewers are asking for our trust, to a degree, and if we trust them we use their assessments to help guide our purchases. It makes me feel more confortable buying something - especially something very expensive - if I know that Michael Fremer, Robert Harley, or Jacob Heilbrunn have actually parted with money of their own in order to purchase a reviewed product. That tells me that - despite the myriad choices they may have - they have chosen something to actually buy with their own money.
No matter how you slice it - that speaks volumes to credibility and believability.
Of course, a reviewer can't buy everything he/she likes. But that they have purchased products tells readers like me that they have a fundamental understanding of the value of money. Reading JV, for instance, I don't necessarily get that warm fuzzy feeling because it's understood that his system doesn't belong to him but is rather on super extended loan (at least that's what I've come to understand - though I may be wrong).
Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but I'm pretty certain I'm not the only reader who thinks like this. Those who own their reference gear just seem more believably engaged in the hobby than those who do not: as one of us, instead of talking from the outside (or from above, as some seem to).
There are - as ever - a couple of points to note, here. Perhaps the biggest one is the 'value of money' issue. Making value judgments about high-end products (not simply in audio... the same applies to fine wines, cars, pens, watches, musical instruments, trophy wives, houses, etc) are difficult to the point of absurdity. How people value a high-end product is fundamentally altered by the way they funded it. In the case of the Wilson MAXX 3, to one person, that might mark a once-in-a-lifetime investment, entailing ten years of saving and five years of debt. To another, it's not far from a discretionary purchase. Those two people may gain the same musical enjoyment from the loudspeakers, but their perception of the product's value will be very different.
Another problem that we face is the automatic bias that comes from the words "I bought it". Let's say I buy a product expensive enough that I have to find a way of funding it. Two years into a five-year funding, something better comes along. Under the terms of that funding, it may not be possible to trade in or trade up, so the better product is consigned to the "it was good, but he didn't buy it" pile. Also, if you have just spent several years paying off a product, you might be less disposed to start the whole process up again because a better, more expensive thing comes along on the day after the end of your loan term. So you wait... and wait. The better, more expensive thing also gets consigned to the "it was good, but he didn't buy it" pile.
As to the statement that those who own their reference gear seem more believably engaged in the hobby, there is another much darker side to this - inertia. Those who own a seemingly unchanging system might feel that nothing is likely to challenge their paid for system, because those components are already paid for. This circular logic was a mindset that blighted UK reviewing in the Flat Earth era in the 1980s. Reviews with not-so-hidden subtext of "I already own a turntable, why should I waste my time liking another turntable?", or worse "this product is good, but that would undermine the cheaper 'reference' I own, so let's destroy it in print" were not uncommon. This is perhaps why this aspect of accountability is so important in the US and is far less key in the UK.
My take on this is a pragmatic one; what gets in the way of the reviewing process the least is best. And that must be taken on a case-by-case basis. If a reviewer can afford to maintain a current system out of bought products with only a glancing blow to their bank account, good for them. If another one would end up in such financial difficulty that their quality of writing would suffer, then let them loan.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Well put, Alan.
Hi Alan,
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. My thought was only to illuminate how readers like myself judge the value of reviews, given that it is the readers who drive the industry via purchases - and the reviewers who drive the industry by influencing (intentionally or otherwise) the readers. Because reviewers ask us to believe, more or less, that they are "one of us," or at least began as hobbyists with a great love for music and audio, we readers tend to expect a certain commensurate amount of engagement and commitment to the hobby. Having that commitment and investment lends credibility to the opinion of a reviewer. Having an endless stream of product to opine upon, especially in the stratospherically priced category, without also having committed one's own funds to the attainment of such a system for one's self, signals to the reader a distance and detachment from the actual practicality of what it means in money to acquire the latest gear.
Therefore a rave review from someone who hasn't himself made this kind of commitment is qualified by the attendant detachment from the reality of having to part with one's own money.
At least that is how I review my reviewers.
Hi Ainsoph,
I don't see how a reviewer's committment swings on whether they own their systems; a music reviewer without committment is an ex-music reviewer, and no music reviewer buys their own review samples. They still buy CDs, though, just not the ones they end up reviewing. The same often applies in audio. As Jeff from TONEAudio (a fine publication, BTW) points out, he owns about 85% of the system he uses. I would be surprised if there's a reviewer that owns nothing in their audio system. But like many, I prefer not to identify what products are owned and what ones are on loan now. I've probably gone too far in the other direction, and no longer mention any of the products in my system (owned or loaned) unless they directly affect the product being tested.
There are many reasons for this. The most significant is the strong weighting "I bought it" statements have. If I put my name to a product that I decided to buy, that purchase can be looked upon as "recommendation+"; products that are reviewed, but not bought during the time I am named as an owner of a rival product can be viewed as "recommendation-". It may be that those products are as good or even better than the product the reviewer owns (for reasons I have stated earlier), but because it didn't come with an "I bought one" recommendation, the non-purchased product suffers because of it.
Think about this from your own reactions to the following thought experiment. The same reviewer writes up two preamplifiers in 'your' price band. The first one says "this is fantastic!", the second "this is fantastic - I bought one!". Can you say the second statement is not an influence? If the former is sold in the next state while the latter is sold in a store 20 miles away, would you bother to make the journey to hear the first now the reviewer owns the second?
Then, there's the abuse "I bought it" statements can bring, even when they aren't "I bought it" statements - I discovered one company used an insurance claim on a product damaged by couriers as "I bought one" in some of its international advertising. There is also no statute of limitations on "I bought it" and I've had manufacturers quoting "I bought it" statements made by me in advertising campaigns five years after it should be replaced with "I sold it", thereby causing a great deal of confusion in readers. And I've heard of a reviewer who proudly proclaimed that he had bought a loudspeaker from a brand that was later sold to a Pacific Rim company. This company attached the brand name to white goods across the Pacific Rim. Imagine the reviewer's surprise when he discovered he was well-known for being the "I bought it" guy for a microwave oven.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
......why should any reviewer receive accomodation pricing? Why don't you practice what you preach and purchase the gear that you use as a reference from
your local dealer, make your best deal, just like the rest of us. And I only have this to say about expensive speakers or gear, for that matter, anyone who spends 160K on speakers is a donkeys rear end. If you have that much money burning a hole in your pocket, why don't you give 80K to your local symphony - I'm sure they would give you a seat right up front - and give the other 80K to a worthwhile charity of your choice.
Fortunately, we live in societies where not everyone gets paid exactly the same amount of money for their daily work. In the readership of a high-end magazine, there will be readers who earn less than a typical reviewer, as much as a typical reviewer and some who make more in a month than all the reviewers put together might earn in a decade. In that last case, is it fair on the person who can afford very high end equipment never to be able to read about it because none of the reviewers can afford the attendant equipment required to perform the review? Of course, this is a perk of the job - that champagne lifestyle on a beer budget is a heady brew - but accommodation prices and long-term loans are a necessary part of a job where you are expected to drink Krug, on Coors money.
And if I had 160K burning a hole in my pocket, I'd gladly give the whole lot over to a venue that could arrange Jimi Hendrix to play another gig. Sadly, until that happens, I guess I'll have to keep trying to make the Experience experience better through better quality audio equipment. And for the record, those people I know who have bought six-figure systems are generally already patrons of the arts and generous donors to charity. They simply want the best things in life and are rich enough to afford them, whether that's a box at La Scala, a box of Cohibas or a box loudspeaker. Why is that such an ugly truth for so many? Is it jealosy?
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
.....Jealousy - I don't think so. I have no problem with a reviewer using equipment on a long term loan from a manufacturer. I just don't see a good reason for special pricing accommodations simply because a person is a reviewer for a hi-fi magazine. If a reviewer absolutely thinks that a particular piece of gear that he has had on loan is something that he can't live without, let him use the normal channels for the purchase.
You may be right about people who have 160K of disposable income, anyway, I hope you are.
Take care.
Bob
Bob,
A reviewer's need for owning a piece of equipment is driven by different motivators than those of most buyers. The equipment is not simply there for the reviewer's personal entertainment – the motivator behind the typical purchase of audio equipment – but additionally as a piece of test equipment. There's a useful, if somewhat left-field, parallel in home improvement. As a non-builder, I can buy tools and materials from my local Home Depot (that would be Homebase in the UK). Although the tools and materials will be identical to those owned by professional builders, they will cost the non-builder a lot more than they would cost the pro, who obtains them through 'the trade'. Granted, you don't tend to spend $100,000 on a tool belt, but the concept holds all the same. Personally, I think a brand like Versace or D&G are missing a trick here - the hand-tooled, diamond-encrusted, nappa leather signature tool belt 'for the man who has everything... to build'.
There are many who have posted on this thread that have no problems with accommodation prices for reviewers, but are uncomfortable with long-term loans. Your statement shows that the reverse is also true. I'm pretty sure there would be people uncomfortable with high-end magazines that insisted on a 'no-loan, buy at retail' policy, because the reviewers would end up using less than leading edge equipment. Its likely that there would also be people uncomfortable with reviewers relying on short-term loans for ancilliary and comparison equipment, as their reference point would be in a constant state of flux. So, I guess whatever a reviewer does, it's going to be wrong in some people's eyes.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Well. That makes it easy for you. Just buy the stuff that some of the reviewers have bought or can afford to buy. Or would u like JV and RH buy stuff so u can safely make a good purchase? Lol They don't need to buy a fararri or or an Ashton Martin for me to decide which one I want.
Which leads to the point I always like to make that a good review will describe the product and the sound of the product well enough so that you will want to seek it out for yourself and make your own decision.
A good review can only point you in the direction. You've still got free will and you shouldn't buy something just because any of us say so. It is always a good day though when someone who has bought a component that we've reviewed calls or emails to tell us that they did in fact hear pretty close to what we did....
Jeff Dorgay
Publisher, TONEAudio Magazine
tonepub [at] yahoo [dot] com
Jeff - I've read this before, but it has little to do with how lots of audiophiles buy the equipment. Lots of my local guys say the same thing, but look at what they're buying and it's the stuff that shows up in reviews.
Anyway - none of this changes my mind. And I'm sure it doesn't change yours or Alan's either. But at the end of the day, you guys are reviewers ... never mind me, I'm just a customer and a reader.
I don't get the "never mind me" thing....
How are any of us stopping you from buying the gear that you want?
It means he buys ur magazines as a customer and hense part of your pay, so as a customer service thing, if you could provide the information that is requested. I still don't understand how it helps to know who buys what? I'll buy what I like out of the choices given to me in my price bracket.
I've written about long-term loans many times, most recently as an editorial in Issue 169. Here is the text of that editorial:
A recent post on the reader forum at our Web site AVguide.com (main thread: “High-End Audio Industry;” sub-thread: “Reviewers, Manufacturers, and Prices”) suggests that the reviewing process is somehow corrupt because reviewers routinely accept long-term equipment loans. The forum-poster posits that reviewers provide favorably biased coverage to those manufacturers willing to leave the equipment in the reviewer’s home for an extended period.
I can see how this system might at first glance seem suspect. But a more considered and thoughtful analysis suggests that long-term equipment loans are not only essential to delivering accurate reviews, but serve the readers’ best interests. Moreover, a little insight into the reality of the relationship between reviewers, manufacturers, and review samples reveals that no favoritism or bias could possibly exist.
I start with the fundamental quandary that long-term loans solve: Reviewers need reference-quality equipment to accurately judge the component under review—reference gear that they couldn’t possibly afford to buy. It would be a great disservice to everyone involved (particularly readers) if reviewers tried to evaluate a piece of equipment in a system whose colorations obscured the qualities of the component under test. How could one evaluate a top-notch digital front-end, for example, if that front end were driving a low-resolution, less-than-transparent preamplifier and power amplifier? The greater the review system’s transparency, the more precise, detailed, and accurate the description of the component under review. Moreover, reviewers need access to the latest gear with which to make comparisons to the product being evaluated. Readers would not expect us to compare a new power amplifier to what we considered the reference five years ago. It’s simply impossible for reviewers to continually buy the latest reference-quality components—in every product category—so that we can do our jobs.
Long-term loans also benefit the reader in that they alert the reader to those products the reviewer believes to be of reference quality. If you see a product listed under a reviewer’s Associated Components month after month, you can be assured that the product is special. We’re exposed to a wide variety of gear; only the crème de la crème remains in the reference system. Sharp-eyed readers can identify the truly exceptional products among all those that pass through our listening rooms.
But what about the forum-poster’s assertion that this system is ripe for corruption? Do reviewers really give overly favorable assessments to those companies who agree to lend the equipment for months or even a few years?
Absolutely not, and here’s why. The reality is that reviewers have access to long-term loans on just about any product they want. I could pick up the phone right now and have virtually any piece of high-end audio equipment delivered to my home for an indefinite period. I don’t say that in a boastful way; it’s just the reality of the industry (which I believe is far too review-driven). In fact, there’s often a conflict with a manufacturer when a reviewer wants to return the gear; the manufacturer would rather see it stay in the reference system—and have the product mentioned every month. With reviewers having access to nearly any piece of equipment, there’s no incentive to provide biased coverage in a quid pro quo arrangement. Furthermore, why would a reviewer want to keep in his system any product that he or she didn’t believe was truly of reference quality? Remember that we don’t just use our systems as test beds for reviewing; our hi-fi systems also provide us with musical enjoyment when we’re not specifically conducting listening evaluations (which should be most of the time).
A key idea to making this system work is that the product is eventually returned to the manufacturer, either when the manufacturer wants it back, the product is discontinued, or when the reviewer is ready to move on to another product.
There will always be a few cynics who see this system as fundamentally corrupt, but the fact remains that long-term equipment loans are not only a win-win-win arrangement for readers, manufacturers, and reviewers, but essential to publishing accurate and informed product reviews.
I agree with this...I only ask that reviewers mention (on a side bar) what products are on loan.....
well, just assume every product listed by the reviewers of the Absolute Sound in their reference list is "long-term" loan.
i do not agree that long-term loans serve readers equally as much as they serve the reviewer. you can twist your explanation any way you would like, but putting your money where your mouth is- is the best recommendation you can give. Also, at the price level you guys choose to operate in, companies will sell you gear at 40 to 50 percent at list, and in some cases, much lower than that to get you to bite. Even though industry rates are much less than retail, spending your own money is the real recommendation. Plus, after your contract is up, you can sell if for a profit or at least for what you paid for it. Upgrade, just like the rest of us. If you can't afford it, perhaps it shouldn't be in your home.
Seems to me that long term loans serve the reviewer and the company suppling the product. Does it keep your reference fresh? Perhaps, but with all due respect, the angle you are taking is a bit condescending.
If putting your money on a product is the "real recommendation", but – as you point out – there are contracted periods where a reviewer cannot sell a product, doesn't that mean products reviewed in that contracted period are unable to receive a "real recommendation"? What happens if, six months into a two-year contract, a far better product comes along? The recommendation of that better product written by the reviewer - no matter how praiseworthy - can't be "the real recommendation" because the reviewer does not buy it at the time of the review. By the time the contract period expires, they can buy it, but who's going to care; the review was years ago? Ultimately, this could mean the better product gets the lesser recommendation. This is one of the reasons why I don't say "I bought it", even when I have bought products, and why I am reluctant to print what products are owned and what are loaned in a reviewer's line-up.
Also, what you see as a reviewer buying and selling products to buy and build a better system, others see as 'profiteering'. So, once again, you are damned whatever you do.
As for the "If you can't afford it..." statement: Does a magazine best serves its readership by reviewing products that its readers want to read about, or what the editorial team can afford? Personally, if I want to read a review of a Ferrari, I'm not particularly bothered whether or not the person sitting in the driving seat can afford it, I want to know how it performs. And that means I want the right person to review the product, not the person with the right bank balance. The same holds whether it's a Ford, a Lexus or a Wilson MAXX 3. You might find comfort in reviews that begin "Well, this was supposed to be a review of a Mark Levinson, but my heating system broke down last year and I had to sell my Krells to pay for it, so here's a Cambridge Audio instead." but I suspect for every one person who admired the reviewer for their integrity, there would be 20 calling for the Mark Levinson review.
In my case, for example, if I were to rely solely on bought products, I would naturally have to place a price ceiling on the equipment I reviewed, one that reflects the amount of money I could realistically afford to keep a number of systems refreshed (in fairness, I would have to own and run systems at different levels as well as the main high-end system, as there is little to be gained from examining the performance of a $500 integrated amplifier amidst $100,000-worth of source and speakers, and if you are going to be consistent about such things, you need to be, er, consistent). Most readers of Hi-Fi+ are not me; some may earn more, some may have smaller mortgages, some may have no mortgage and earn more than me. I write a significant amount of the content for Hi-Fi+. Which would be the greater disservice to Hi-Fi+'s readers: reviewing products and using components I cannot afford (but they can), or limiting reviews products to components that I can afford, but at a level below what many readers would consider a minimum standard?
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Kong - I agree with you. If a reviewer doesn't part with money for something along the way - if he doesn't actually own a rig, I just don't trust him. Maybe my thinking is flawed. fact is - I don't care if it's flawed - I have my own standards by which I judge a reviewer's opinion vs. the opinion of someone who actually owns the equipment (for instance) - having access to other audiophiles who own the equipment is way more useful to me (and I suspect to other audiophiles) than reading about the last, amazing, end-of-the-world reference (this month).
It's really tiresome to read the opinions of people who are missing a key component in their judgement: the shouldering of actual financial risk.
The smartest thing I have heard yet. But what do I know. My highest end components ever owned by me were IMF Mark 5's, Dynaco Mark 6's, Audio Research SP6B, and a McIntosh MR76 tuner, and a Magnavox CD player. Do any of these reviewers actually own there own equipment? How much a year do these jokers make anyway?
Well, Mikey and I win that game then.
I thought it was interesting that so many people have questioned how he "affords" his system. I see a reference system as tools. I spent years as a professional photographer only earning $50-60k a year, but having a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of cameras, lighting equipment, darkroom equipment, etc etc.
Now I earn a living doing this and I've made the same investment in my reference systems. I just make it a point to trade my gear up about every 2-3 years. And yes, I have a couple of things on loan, but still have enough gear to build three systems. Also keep a few extra amplifiers on hand for my other reviewers to do comparisons to as well.
But every now and then when I see a Porsche GT3 go by, I think HMMMMM.....
There is quite a difference between buying a DSLR, or medium format camera, and going out and buying a pair of Maxx 3's.
"What happens if, six months into a two-year contract, a far better product comes along? The recommendation of that better product written by the reviewer - no matter how praiseworthy - can't be "the real recommendation" because the reviewer does not buy it at the time of the review."
what happens if the company cannot afford to loan their flagship speaker or amplifier to a reviewer for a period of time longer than the review, is that product not "reference" quality? Magico and Rockport may not be able to loan RH a pair of Arakkis or Ultimate speakers because they are smaller companies. Does that mean that the Arakkis wouldn't replace RH's reference X-2 v2's?
We can run around this circle all you want, at the end of the day just say, " hey everyone, being a reviewer has its advantages". Thats a true statement. It is accepted that reviewers can buy at accommodation, that reviewers sign contracts for purchasing these product straight from the companies that build them, and that the reviewer can sell these speakers after their contract is up. These are guidelines that each and every reviewer, who purchases at accommodation prices, works within. What is wrong with having a static "reference"? When a reviewer uses these guildlines, their reference, IMHO, means more. Having the ability to set up a long term loan may influence the perception of the reviewers "reference" in the eyes of the reader. You have to understand that. Failing to do so is a flaw.
Well, then the Magico or Rockport speakers are on a level pegging with the speakers used as a benchmark in the test process. The end result is ultimately better for Rockport or Magico, because there's no sense of "well, he liked them... but not enough to buy them", which can be mistakenly attributed to someone still paying off a pair of expensive speakers.
But the important question remains; what best serves the readers? Establishing a review policy based upon the financial constraints of the reviewers, or one based on what people want to read about?
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
I find two things very interesting in all of this:
1. The original subject (Dispelling Wilson myths) has been completely forgotten in favor of a series of opinions on reviewers' equipment loans.
2. In the brief discussion that did occur about Wilson, only two people actual owned and or listened to Wilson equipment.
Thus proving once again that people will opine endlessly on things they know little or nothing about. Surely there has to be a better use of time.
well said
Very good points both. So to get us all back on target, here's some sad news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8200385.stm
Shame. Nice guy and we owe him a lot (not just the guitar).
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
I agree, but to add off, there is a certain unwillingness within high-end audio to make true comparative testing, It's fully understandable why, given the money and "feelings" involved, but frustrating to the consumer. Single-speaker reviews are less useful, adding to the audio paranoia. I recently heard a $1,500 speaker pair A-B compared to a well-known $50,000 speaker pair, and no surprise, the more expensive one sounded better at first. Add a small DSP correction box for $500 (home-built prototype) and a two minute microphone chirp-testing later, the $1,500 sounded clearly better than the $50,000 speaker! Tune a second DSP box for the $50,000 speaker and the two speakers sounded practically identical (A-B blind), unless driven very hard (>115 dB).
Is the *room* and lack of use of digital technology the big elephants in the room? Why don't we see more of these wonderful DSP boxes being tested? There is even free PC software you do it with and retune your (preferably loss-less FLAC) sound files off line!
There are some remarkable DSP devices available. Lyngdorf's room correction software built into its digital preamplifiers is an exceptionally good system, capable of leveling much of the loudspeaker playing field and certainly helping to sit the loudspeaker (whatever loudspeaker) in the room with more accuracy than many would expect.
Unfortunately, such products are at best met by a cruel silence from many audiophiles. At worst, you get calls for your head on a plate for daring to suggest DSP is a way to improve system sound. Many still have ultra-minimalist preamplifiers as their happy thought, it seems.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Gentlemen,
Your honor and integrity as reviewers is safe with me.
At the risk of being ignore or ridiculed for changing the subject, I would like to offer a different topic for discussion. Room acoustics. The pictures that accompany the article above are great and bring out an area that I feel still does not get enough attention in product reviews in general. In this case, we are talking about evaluating exceptional speakers. These speakers have radically different fundamental properties. “Planar” vs. “Box” evaluated in the same listening space. The reason I feel this is an appropriate topic for this thread is the fact that the room in the picture has had some considerable attention paid to it by assumedly JH. These pictures give the written review more context and I applaud you for it. My questions are this; what changes do you make to in your room to accommodate the differences in radiation patterns or tone balance between the Wilsons and the Maggies? Would you feel comfortable extrapolating any of these comments into generalities for the masses? Is the current set up in the pictures tuned specifically for the Wilsons? How differently are the surroundings set up when the Maggies are center stage? Or are the acoustic treatments fix for a one size fits all? Is the area between the amplifiers absorptive? It appears to be but I do not want to assume.
Many many years ago, I remember Stereophile doing a series where the reviewers went into detail of explaining their individual listening environments. I thought that was great and would love to see more of these types of discussions. I would like to see comments from reviewers of speakers discuss what they did on an individual basis to achieve the best sound they could in their rooms. This, to me, is as valuable as any accompanying spec sheet, electrical measurements, or graphs that typically are presented with a speaker review. I think we will all agree with the idea that a great system is more than the sum of its individual parts. There is a synergy between components and the load they carry or drive and nothing is more critical than the mating of a speaker with its surroundings. There is a lot of effort generally discussing what affects a speaker further upstream, (amplifiers, tubes, SS, cables, etc.) but surprisingly little discussing the effects of downstream. Imagine a review of a tone arm or cartridge without taking about the rest of the turntable set up and load it drives. Has there ever been a cartridge reviewed by Mikey where we were not told about everything in the signal path through to the preamp that could affect, or interact with its performance? And the effort he put into achieving it? (This is a plug in support for Michael specifically regarding this thread)
Net is we are all on a quest for the best sound we can achieve. I look to the reviewing industry for insight on this topic of room acoustics. We can all afford to learn. It’s free. Plus, the more we learn from an individual, the more we tend to trust them.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Mike
"I would like to see comments from reviewers of speakers discuss what they did on an individual basis to achieve the best sound they could in their rooms."
That is a very fine idea. Of course, such a thing generated from a UK magazine will have vastly different conclusions to that of a US magazine (we have lots of brick walls, and the smallest rooms on the planet, it seems - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7663488.stm), but it's something to consider.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
I find merit in most of the views expressed. I don't see a downside to disclosure of what is purchased and loaned. I do find a value to knowing what folks paid for. I wouldn't want any reviewer limited to only what they can pay for, and if I was a reviewer I'd likely keep around, on loan, as much equipment as I had room for, for a variety of comparison purposes. I don't find a problem with that. I find tremendous value in knowing what the reference system is. In an ideal world all audio afficionados would be able to constantly trade up to the ultimate system, even if it cost many times what we can afford. I know that is unrealistic. I begrudge nobody doing so, or buying at discount and selling at profit, for that matter. Transparency can hardly be a vice, granted the possible misinterpretations described by other posters. Finally, I wish there was some way I could afford the expensive equipment, I settle for reading about it, so please don't stop borrowing it and reviewing it. Maybe I can work for Magico when I retire :^)
WOW! This thread really has gone in some interesting directions. Does anyone remember where we started? LOL
First, about Wilson speakers... I've heard the Watt/Puppies (I forget which iteration), the Maxx 2 & Maxx 3, and the latest X2. I've heard them all playing acoustic music - mostly jazz, some classical. Disclaimer: I've heard them under excellent conditions. The W/P was set up & demo-ed by Dave Wilson himself. The other were set up & Demo-ed at Brooks Berdan (and Brooks is a set-up wizard - everything sounds it's best in his shop).
All of these Wilson models were impressive. The Maxx 3 sounds better than the Maxx 2, and the X2 (driven by huge VTL amps) was absolutely scary. Are they "the best speakers ever"? I don't know - I haven't heard 'em all. Are there other speakers which compete? Definitely. Are there better values? Absolutely! But Wilson's - with proper set-up & system synergy - are AMONG the best speakers I've heard.
NOW about reviewers, long-term loans, etc etc... I have great respect for RH, JV, HP, 'Mikey', et. al. I assume that they write their reviews with integrity, whether the gear in question is owned, on long-term loan, or short-term review samples. All that being said... I do NOT trust their reviews unconditionally, and never will. I don't even think that's their intention.
WHY? Because we all have different systems, different tastes, and different ears. Those venerable gentlemen often disagree with each other, so why would you take their advice on what to gear to buy instead of relying on your own ears? I've known people who buy items based on reviews, or on a quick listen at some show. They generally have money to burn, and you can meet them all on Audiogon, where they are selling barely-used gear that they quickly fell out of-of-love with.
Reviews' impressions are NOT meant as hard facts, nor as personal buying advice. They are simply the impressions of one or more critical listeners who have probably auditioned a much wider range of gear than you have. But they are not YOUR impressions. And YOUR satisfaction is all counts! If you want to know how something sounds, you must hear it yourself. And if you are considering spending your hard-earned cash, make sure you hear it in YOUR system, in YOUR room! Otherwise... be prepared for surprises, and not necessarily good ones.
So DO buy TAS (or your favorite mag) and read the reviews with interest...but something more casual than "Let me get my checkbook." interest. And remember that there are many outstanding pieces which have never graced the pages of these mags. They should never be your ONLY source (as much as the advertisers might like that).
Happy Listening to all!
I thought that I was at the hi-end with mostly older setups. I have always been curious of a comparison of one of my hybrids, say the Infinity IRS Beta mids/tweeter panels with a pair of Krell Reference mono Subwoofers with a $100k+ speaker.At what point are we chasing the Ultimate speaker into the point of diminishing returns with CASH? Yes, I have a pair of Wilson's known as the Watt Puppies Vs, but use them as rears in a smaller room. Sorry, I see sats or MTM configs on top of subs/woofers not as main speakers designed to be used in large spaces and have certain flaws. Today, if you move away from the masses, I feel that you are going to pay an order of magnatude higher in price, and should expect that the manufacturer is going to bring in something better in 3 to 5 years and thus your purchase product's value is going to drop. Its better than them going out-of-business and having no support, right? With the above said, I am in Silicon Valley and even with the different economic climate, our avg house price is high. If I were in a different area, then the prices of some of Wilson Audio products could equal the cost of a home. So, getting off track, will Wilson Audio hit a price point that they are pricing themselves out of the market and setting audio standards based on their price? I think so. I think that once a speaker is above a certain price point, it should be the best of something!. With my hybrid, my Krell subs are the best if the best, and yes with my older Betas they are one of the best in strings/violins, guitars type instruments. Their weakness is that in the largest of rooms, they need that space and still they don't play the loudest of all speakers. Other equip: IRS Vs, Revel Gems, IRS Gamma/Modulus, Krell KRC-HR, Krell 250Ms, VTL MB-450s, Sony BDP-S1, Pioneer Kuro, etc...
I am a mastering engineer and have used Wilson speakers for quite some time. (WP7). We cater mostly to audiophile labels such as HDtracks, FIM and PentaTone. We heard dozens of speakers and bought Wilsons because they gave the best representation of the source. We also purchased the Pass Labs XA-160 amps to mate with them. Both of these items were reviewed favorably by MF. Before we got the WP7, I had never heard any Wilson speaker that I liked and thought they were overpriced for what they sounded like.
We have now upgraded the Pass amps to the XA-.5 series and are now looking to upgrade the speakers. We can afford just about any speaker made and will be looking very closely at the Maxx3. Wilson speakers first started out as reference monitors for studio use. I know several mastering engineers that now use Wilson speakers because they represent the sound closest to the original source.
People in this business do get industry accomodation pricing, but our choice of equipment is more critical than the average audiophile because our livelyhood depends on it. If I make a 0.5dB adjustment to a client's project, I better be damn sure its the correct decision. I can't afford to make a bad decision. Mastering engineers get a bad rap as it is with the loudness wars and such. This is a tight knit industry and word travels fast. If I couldn't depend on the accuracy of Wilson speakers, I'd be one of the other 6 million americans out of work.
Regards,
Bruce A. Brown
Puget Sound Studio
Seattle, WA
Bruce, with all due respect, the W/P 7's are not very accurate, especially if you like to have substantial bass output below 80 Hz. Check the Stereophile measurements and you will see a steep drop off just passed 100 Hz. That doesn't mean that the in-room performance wouldn't be slightly better in the low end, but most people know that below 50 Hz, there isn't much. Check the measurements. Having said that, a Magico, a Rockport, or even a Revel speaker is a much more accurate speaker. If you just favor the sound the Wilson's create from your recordings, thats fine, but saying that they are accurate isn't very believable.
That's why they are paired with the WATCH Dog II subs and the rooms have some of the best acoustics in the Pacific NW.
Regards,
Bruce A. Brown
Puget Sound Studios
Seattle, WA
very impressed by the wilson speakers. how do i get a hold of them?
"Myths" notwithstanding, I think the Wilson sound is something that will engage you or not, and in a relatively short period of time. Some people prefer a Mercedes to a BMW or Audi. All three of their flagship models are relatively close in performance, but I guarantee you will respond to one more than the other two. It's the same with speakers. One person swears by Wilson, another thinks they suck, so you need to find the one that's really going to push your button at this price level.
If you are going to spend the amount of money for a pair of X-2's or Maxx 3's, I would hope you've done your homework to see what you prefer.
What I think is the most critical of anyone's review is whether they did a good enough job to describe the pair of speakers in question to help you. And it's certainly always interesting after the fact, to see how close the reviewers opinion matches with what your impression of the component in question.
Speakers costing what the Wilsons do, should not have such a big following of detractors.
Speakers costing what the Wilsons do will always have a big following of detractors. Especially if the brand is big enough to attract a lot of attention. It's the same in any field... watch the feeding frenzy that accompanies any new product launches from Leica cameras, for example.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Michael Fremer got it right. However, he should have gone a step further. There is no mention of Peter McGrath. Peter is an accomplished recording engineer, having made several recordings for Harmonia Mundi and others. He recorded the mosdt beautiful Mahler First I have ever heard. His master tapes are the reference David Wilson uses. It's no wonder Wilson speakers have evolved so well over the years.
It's no coincidence that Wilson speakers get criticized more than any other speaker out there. I have heard almost every speaker in Wilson's line as well as the different variations and to me they are the most overrated speaker in the industry, as well as some of the most over priced. Take the topic of this board, the Maxx 3. This speaker jumped from around $39,000 when it first debuted, all the way to $68,000 in five years... and it's only the third version! Dave Wilson also updates his speakers every two years, so by the time you get done breaking in your Watt/Puppy 7's, here comes the Watt/Puppy 8's at a significant increase in price. (However, in the case of the W/P Sasha the price came down... I'd really be pissed if I spent all that money on the W/P 8!) Dave Wilson also only has a 5 year warranty on his speakers while other speaker manufactures whose speakers are much cheaper (and outperform Wilson's) have a 10 year warranty. If you like Wilson speakers and have the money for 'um then go for it! However, I hope you truly love these speakers because the wise audiophile down the street probably has a whole system for what you paid for your Wilson's that will put a spankin' on those Watt/Puppy's!
Hi everybody,
I read all the dispute about speakers,reviewers and I suppose things will never be over because men are just men .
I know it sounds impossible to realize but could not we imagine away to come up with a review of the best speakers on earth(Wilson,Rockport,YG,JM Lab,etc)with their makers recommanded ancillaries in the same room AND with ALL the reviewers who count in the audio-world?
I think this could create another debate but I think we could have a list of these speakers strengths and weaknesses.
Should this be blind testing I do not know?
I just want to challenge you to try.
Regards to all the audio community.
A below than average audiophile who just loves music.
patrick
Hi Patrick,
I appreciate your concerns. But I suspect you are asking the impossible dream. Largely down to logistics.
Putting all the reviewers who count in the same room is rather like herding cats. We are also scattered to the four winds (and at least as many continents) and work for several competing magazines.
Then you have the problem of finding somewhere large enough to house these speakers (and their boxes) and the army of attendants, installers, fine-tuning experts and general handmaidens needed for each loudspeaker, which puts running more than two pairs of top speakers beyond most reviewers. Add to this the problem that many speakers take (or their manufacturers demand) a day to install and a day to strike down... and often a day's tuning, that many would likely sit in roughly the same position in room (which precludes having more than two pairs in the room at any one time), and - although most products work well with most other products - the fact that manufacturers might prefer different CD players, preamps, power amps, cables and tables to put their product in the best possible light. All of which would make such a large-scale comparison task next to impossible.
It would be a good idea to describe the strengths and weaknesses of each speaker, but once you get to this level, arguably the relative merits of each speaker are a reflection of the personal tastes of the listener (and the reviewer). So, (dropping the seemingly hot potato of WIlson for the moment) those who seek plenty of clarity and detail might choose a Revel Salon 2, while those that want a presentation that is more enveloping and harmonically rich might choose an Avalon Indra. Neither speaker is perfect (what is?), neither is flawed... they are different interpretations of what a really good speaker can do. The person who is wowed by one will likely be impressed but ultimately unmoved by the other. One of the difficulties a reviewer faces is trying not to let their own prejudices leak out into a review, because you may not share the same tastes in music (and musical reproduction ) as me. If we were to each list the strengths and weaknesses of products, we'd run the risk of making those prejudices less personal. It's a kick for me if someone says "I bought the Catastrophic Apocalypse because of Alan's review" but I'd hate to read someone saying "I bought the Catastrophic Apocalypse because Alan said it was better than the Disasterous Calamity", because that person may well be totally ill-suited to my recommendation, but would be totally besotted by the DIsasterous Calamity.
And I should never, ever be involved in the naming of products.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Let me first apologize and devulge that I am nowhere near the level of audiophile that many (if not most) of the writers/readers/posters on this site are, and certainly those who have posted here before me. However, I must inject an opinion that will undoubtedly draw unimaginable ire from many of you as it deals with an area of concern that many of you will find irrelevent but which I cannot overlook at this price point. And that is that I find Wilson Audio speakers to be some of the ugliest speakers that I have ever seen anywhere at ANY price point. Now I understand that 'ugly' can be completely acceptable in a product which is aimed at your ears and not your eyes. However, if a company makes a 'high-end' speaker which is an absolute visual train wreck (as every single Wilson Audio speaker is, without exception), then when it comes to sound that speaker must aurally be beyond reproach. What I hear instead is, well, reproach. Not only reproach, but here is an article written to defend said manufacturer who has apparently developed a reputation for having 'problem areas' which have even become 'myths'. Why would anyone actually buy these monstrosities if they have questionable sound a severely deformed (maybe Down Syndrome) cousin of R2D2's? Now I realize that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but these are really just too much.
-Tony
Oops! That 2nd to last sentence is supposed to say, "...questionable sound and look like a severely deformed...". Fingers moving too fast.
-Tony
This is a late post - just ran across JH note while responding to someone. First, the three "myths" JH mentions - we'll, I've NEVER heard those expressed re: Wilson's, at least by those that have heard and spent time with them in a system composed of equipment/peripherals of commensurate quality. I personally have spent hours with MAXX's, WP 7's and 8's and have owned Sophias for about 8 years now. Still find the entire Wilson line to be one of the VERY few that have created the emotional involvement with playback that I find essential to my enjoyment with recorded music. That's with tubed gear in general. I must say that because of their transparency, Wilson's or any other highly resolving speakers will sound "lifeless" or "dry" with the wrong components (or components that are not yet broken in). Case in point, I've had many a fine listening sessions with MAXX's coupled with ARC (as well as VTL) gear. Explosive dynamics, lifelike timbre reproduction, finesse when called for, etc. Yet, I last heard the MAXX's coupled with Boulder and found the playback very uninvolving (in a great listening room as well - the music was very detailed, just didn't have the lifelike "bloom" and energy with which I'm accustomed to my Sophia/ARC system, or the other W/P and MAXX installs that I refer to above. This is as it should be - the Wilsons are going to play back what they are fed. Harsh recordings will sound harsh; dry solid state components will produce dry reproduction; and so on. IMHO, coupled with the proper components, good clean power, resonance management, etc., the Wilsons cannot be beat by ANY speaker out their at or significantly above their respective price-points. No myth involved here. And there's not a single listening session I have in my own set-up where I don't break into a smile or shake my head in wonder at what beautiful music I hear reproduced - to me, that's the acid test of this whole hobby.
Happy Listening!