2. speakers
  3. 1402937816

JA Perspecitve Stereophile review

Just read the review and am scratching my head a bit so wondering what you guys think. Although Atkinson recommends them in the end it comes with some big caveats in terms of less than stellar bass and a boost in the presence range that he termed "hot." Looking at the frequency response graph it does show a boost in that region on the graph and relative to a couple other speakers, but I've listened to many JA speakers in many settings -- including the Perspectives -- and "hot" is not a word I would attribute to any of them so I find this very curious (nor can I recall any other review of a JA speaker where they're called hot or bright sounding). I know it's relative and personal preferences, etc., but still. Also, not too much said about imaging/disappearing, which I've always found to be a competitive strength particularly with JA speakers so surprised that wasn't more of a standout although he does generally find imaging to be a positive.

Also curious is that Atkinson is usually pretty good at providing direct product comparisons and given he just had the Vandersteen Treos in house I find it strange he didn't compare the two or compare anything else to the Perspectives directly (although I guess we could infer the Treos or maybe the Giya G3, but I'd find direct comparisons much more useful here). What's more, he mentions stiff competition from several other speakers he lists in the conclusion section (including the Treos) and all of them are 30% to 60% cheaper than the Perspectives. Taking all this together and reading between the lines as we must do when reading these reviews, I can't help but view this as a backhanded slap against the Perspectives.

Lastly, I have to say while I generally respect Atkinson I sometimes wonder if his measurements sometimes bias his findings. Don't get me wrong, I think he's probably writing what he hears, but you can almost look at his graphs and predict a good bit of what he'll find upon listening. Obviously measurements matter but the skeptical side of me just finds the correlation a bit too tight.

Anyway, I just found the review a bit surprising and disappointing given my past experience and just looking for some other, er, perspectives on this. And no I don't own JA speakers (although I'd love to) and no affiliation with JA whatsoever.
soix

Showing 10 responses by prof

prof
3,506 posts
 

That review has always struck me as a bit odd.  Not that it wasn't an accurate account of what John heard.   But I did long auditions of the Pulsar, and then the Perspectives first at my dealer.  In both cases never did either strike me as bright nor did I have the least fatigue - and brightness can fatigue my ears easily as I have some tinnitus to deal with.  

In fact, the Perspectives if anything could sometimes strike me as bit on the darker side.

I auditioned the Perspectives at home, with my CJ premier 12 amps and they sounded ravishing, tonally, and transparent.  Bass was generally excellent, though occasionally a bit "puffy." 

But I heard tonal purity of a level I rarely encounter elsewhere, hence I've been saving my money for a pair some day (unless something else comes along first...and it might have...).

Relative to my Thiel 3.7s, the Perspectives were a bit darker sounding.

prof
3,506 posts
 
I have two JL Audio 110 subs and the JL CR-1 crossover, which I'm trying with my Thiel 2.7s.   If they work well I figure I'd use them with the Josephs if I get those as well.  (I also have the Dspeaker Anti-node on hand, in case I want to room-eq the low pass signal).
prof
3,506 posts
 
markalarsen,

No problem in criticizing the Thiels of course, but I can tell you they certainly are not bright by nature. They are incredibly smooth, the smoothest upper frequencies Thiel ever achieved, and smoother than the vast majority of speakers I know of. I have tinnitus with bouts of hyperacusis so bright or aggressive sound will never stay in my house. I can listen to the 3.7s endlessly and never get ear fatigue because of how smooth they sound (of course, helped by my CJ amps and a room with well controlled reflections).

My pal, who reviews, always thought Thiels were too bright but finds the 3.7s at my place anything but bright and fatiguing.

In fact, sometimes I even wish for a bit more "zing" to the upper frequencies!

Between the JA Perspectives and the Thiels, I find the Thiels upper frequencies a bit more integrated and coherent (the 3.7s are, in my home, the most coherent dynamic speaker of any size I’ve ever heard).
But the actual high frequency quality of the Perspectives, and JA in general, strikes me as more refined, pure and grain-free.

(BTW, I have older Hales transcendence speakers with metal tweeters and they are particularly non-fatiguing as well. I have not found the "metal tweeters sound like metal and are fatiguingly bright" thing to be an issue for many years now, vs in the 90’s when that may have been more true. I’ve had my ears burned by soft dome tweeters as well as metal, so I can never predict from the material what a speaker will sound like. Both my 3.7 and 2.7 Thiels, despite having all metal drivers, put out among the most organic sound - capable of round, soft, rich, delicate, as I’ve ever heard from a speaker. Which is why it’s been so hard to replace the Thiels, and why up until recently only the JA speakers
were, to my ears, contenders).

(BTW, I'm right now writing up a long post detailing all the speakers I auditioned, and my reactions, in looking for a replacement for my too-large Thiel 3.7s)


prof
3,506 posts
 
Actually the Perspectives are tricky in smaller rooms - the bass can overwhelm and they need good breathing space.  See JA's measurements.
prof
3,506 posts
 
markalarsen,

I’m not sure what you are referring to in terms of RMAF and 10 minute listening sessions.

I had the Perspectives in my own home for several days (they were trickier to set up than my bigger Thiels). Atkinson of course reviewed them at his own home and measured their interaction in his room (trickier than some other speakers, showing a bass hump).

Of course room interactions are critical, that's obvious. :-)
prof
3,506 posts
 
johnk,

I don’t see the bias you mention from Atkinson (and I’m a long time reader). In the measurements for instance he calls it as he sees it, though usually - and this is for almost every speaker - he gives a "glass half full" reading in the summation.

The prickly back and forth between JA and Alan Shaw over the Harbeth 40 measurements doesn’t suggest JA gives British brands an easy ride. In fact, he said after measuring the deliberate resonant character of the Harbeth that such a design approach "makes him uncomfortable." So JA certainly wasn’t just allowing a "built in" version of what JA would normally think to be a flaw, to just pass him by.


prof
3,506 posts
 
erik,

Can you explain what you take to be JA's preferred "high end sound?"

prof
3,506 posts
 
markalarsen,

Ah, got it.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.
prof
3,506 posts
 
erik,

Interesting link. Though I didn’t leave fully convinced of your thesis.
You mentioned a typical bump at 11kHz, but that doesn’t seem to be terribly relevant to hearing loss with age, the relevant loss tending to occur between 2K and 8K.

Also, apropos of the Joseph Audio speaker reviews, Fremer raved about the Pulsars, Atkinson also admired them, and they seem to measure quite flat in the mids upward.

Atkinson does complain somewhat of an unforgiving treble in the Perspectives, but the measurement tend to back him up showing a rising treble response, does it not?
prof
3,506 posts
 
Most audiophiles are into first reflections, but try throwing some blankets around. :)

On that subject...

I enjoy playing with acoustics, generally speaking. Always have. I remember in my late teens taking some really cheap small speakers and loading them into room corners, augmenting this by actually putting them in a type of box/shelf. It turned the tiny speakers in to monsters that cast a huge sound with the impression of big bass. It never failed to blow away my pals.

When I go on vacation and all I have is my iPhone for music, I’ll play around with putting it on different surfaces. Throw it on a bed and the sound becomes smooth and mellow, less tiny and electronic. Or I may place it into the well of a desk, turning it into an acoustic amplifier for a bigger louder sound.

In my current listening room, which was designed with the help of an acoustician, I can play to some degree with the liveness or deadness of the room, by shifting around some thick curtains - e.g. over first refection points, or off, or over other points (my curtain track allows the curtains to slide or be bunched anywhere along the full side walls and back walls).

I recently purchased one of these:

https://www.acousticgeometry.com/products/curve-diffusor/

And first placed it at the first reflection point near my left speaker (which is close to the fireplace, over which I usually pull a thick curtain that kills the reflection hash). I didn’t care for it at the first reflection point - made things a bit harder sounding than I liked (though it was technically speaking closer to the speaker than you normally want a diffusor).

However, playing with it around the room was really interesting! I found one spot actually just to the rear of the left speaker which seems to both lock in the focus of the images, especially centered images, and give a bit more solidity and liveness to the sound without giving up the organic timbre I’m used to. So now it’s become a permanent part of the system.




More to discover