jm lab grand utopia be--- any thoughts ?

I bought the Grande Utopia Be's only after an in-home audition. They sound light years better in my sound room than anywhere else I've heard them. And getting them to sound fantastic was a lot of work. Changes of toe in of an eighth of inch affect the sound. Not an easy task to muscle around 500 pound "grande dammes". The distance apart and from the surrounding walls is all critical, as are the associated electronics and cables. But I expected this from laboratory grade equipment. Once tuned in, they are magical, producing extremely natural timbre (my most important criterion for any loudspeaker - I used to spend 2 to 3 nights a week listening to live, unamplified music), dynamics, and soundstage. Room treatment is also important, and I could stand to do some more work there.

But to your question, are they better than the Novas? I have heard the Novas in 3 different forums, and I think they are very fine speakers. The presentation may be a bit more "forward" than the Grandes and somewhat less refined in the midrange, and the soundstage is not as huge. I came very close to buying the Novas as I think they offer a much better value than the Grandes. But I think the Grandes are better speakers...but are they worth the difference in price? I know it sounds impossible, but require an in-home audition before you buy. Only then will you know if they are worth it to you. Set up and associated equipment are critical for fantastic results, but I think well worth the effort.
As a side note, they have been absolutely trouble free and a joy to own.

By the way, I think JM Labs offers some superb sounding products in the lower price ranges. Methinks the high end offers disproportionate increases in sound quality as prices increase.

Hi Stevecham - I am puzzled by your indictment of the timbre of JM Labs products. As I said above, that is my priority in a speaker - and I find the timbre very accurate, natural and beautiful. And this based on many evenings in concert halls listening to live, UNAMPLIFIED music. I have been an audiophile for 36 years. I am trying to replicate the real thing as closely as possible. Perhaps your conclusion is based on a poor demo. Since I don't care to slam either of the two fine products you mention, I will say that one of those brands interested me and I found the mids and highs so hard as to be unlistenable. Again, probably a bad demo as both speaker brands you mention not only have a great reputation, but they couldn't have stayed business as long as they have by building a bad product.

My point is this - you must listen to a product in your home with your own equipment to determine whether it's going to work for you. And rejoice in the banquet table of products available to the audiophile! We don't all have the same tastes or priorities in music reproduction. If you enjoy your system, then count yourself a blessed man and enjoy the music. But why try to convince someone that JM Labs builds a bad product when many believe they build a great product? I am curious though, what you base your conclusion of timbral accuracy upon - are you a musician, or do you listen to a lot of live acoustic music such that you have the "real thing" as reference point when you buy audio equipment? If you do, you are doubly blessed to have built a system that replicates the live experience.

For others who may be reading my rambling on and on, I would caution that reproduction of a live jazz concert in an intimate acoustic is very different from the reproduction of a full orchestra playing full tilt with chorus and soloists. Some systems simply can't handle the big production, but do a really nice job on the jazz. If you're trying to replicate the experience of a rock concert, then I would suggest that you buy what sounds good to you on this music, as the "real thing" is amplified and played through speakers that probably wouldn't sound good in the home anyway. Again, buy a system that works for you, in your home, with the music you listen to.