emailists,
Correct. I do sound design (not a mixer - editor) for film/tv, so yes was referencing room tones and air tracks. I'm often either mixing and matching room tones I provide, or matching the room tone audible in between the dialogue in the production track . Especially if they are keeping the original dialogue recording and there is an artifact, e.g. room hum or the very particular buzz of the lights in that room, I will try to match it. Same with exterior "air tracks" - I may have to select or adjust tracks I place in to exactly match the timbre of something in the dialogue tracks, be it background traffic, an industrial hum of some sort, or any other artifacts.
Sometimes I'm balancing and carefully mixing up to 60 separate tracks of sound or so - minute volume changes, eq, processing to make some stand out, some blend in. It always cracks me up when a fellow audiophile has no other resort but to try to diagnose someone's hearing acuity over the internet to call his ability to perceive audible differences in to question. Especially someone in my vocation. I'd love to see how some self-designated golden ears who profess to hear differences with every tweak would do if their ability were *really* put to test in my editing seat ;-)
|
celo,
I kept writing the same thing over and over again making myself think if
I really got paid by Jeff to write:)
Ha, I've had the same feeling as I've written so much about the JA speakers for quite a while here, and elsewhere.
I think if he paid me to write for
speakers that I didn’t like, I would have hated my job
That's how I felt. I did a little audio reviewing in the late 90's and had no interest in reviewing speakers I didn't...or even might not like. So I only took the gig if I could write about the speakers I wanted to write about. Basically, I wanted to select out the speakers that excited me so I could tell others about those speakers. The slightly paradoxical thing for me is that I simultaneously love audio and checking out high end gear, but when it comes to "would I want to own this?" - particularly speakers - the list is vanishingly small. It is the rare speaker that has a magic factor for me. Most hold my interest just long enough to get a gist, and then I don't feel compelled to keep listening. It's the ones that keep my butt immobilized wanting to hear track after track that are keepers. (Which of course is how many other audiophiles feel about auditioning equipment). The Joseph Perspectives did this every single time, without fail. I have a friend who reviews who is much more suited to being an audio reviewer. He can appreciate a much wider range of equipment. Whereas most of the speakers he reviews have me interested for moments, and then I wouldn't want to have to keep listening to them much longer. |
@radiohead99
Great user report.
And wow, nice speaker list of the ones you let go. I'm curious what you'd have to say about the PAP Horn1 speakers. They seem very different from the Josephs.
I agree on your assessment of the Joseph sound. It's so rare to hear a speaker that has as open, sparkling an vivid upper frequencies which are at the same time so relaxed and smooth. I have sensitive ears and worried somewhat that the vividness of the Joseph Perspectives, especially the originals that I bought, might be fatiguing over time. I found the opposite. I was able to listen more comfortably to loud levels than probably any other speaker I've owned. The Perspective2s would be even more comfortable, from what I've read and what I heard.
And, as you mention which I've said as well, the JA speakers seem to do well with a wide range of music because they have that exquisitely refined midrange and highs which give you wonderful tone for acoustic music, but also that juicy, punchy bass that keeps the fun factor for rock, funk, pop or whatever.
There's a track on the Collateral Soundtrack - Korean Style - that I heard on the Perspectives years ago and it completely grabbed me with it's swirling array of synths punching in and out, going through envelope filters that move the sound from thin/bright to opening up to lush and thick. This is where that beautiful timbral pallet of the Josephs paid dividends beyond acoustic music. That track is just so vivid and juicy on the Perspectives. I haven't found another speaker that quite does it justice like the Perspectives - it's "fine" on other speakers but "wow that sounds amazing!" on the Perspectives.
|
pops,
The CS6 was one of my favorite all time speakers (I had them for a while, long ago). I’m still a Thiel guy. I don’t see getting rid of my 2.7s any time soon.
I love having the Joseph speakers too, though.
Obviously no speaker is perfect and I can, like others, pick nits in every speaker I own. But having said that, I get obsessive when researching speakers before a prospective purchase. I have probably bookmarked everything someone said on the internet about the Joseph speakers :-)And I don’t think I have ever seen as close to that much consensus of approval about a speaker brand anywhere else (that I’m aware of).
It's not like everyone wants to *own* a Joseph speaker of course. But whether it’s reviews, or user reports, or show reports, whether in "objectivist" or "subjectivist" audio forums, and from users of all different types of speakers from panel to horn, people who have heard the Joseph speakers almost always say how impressed they were.Almost any other speaker I can think of seems more divisive.
|
Thanks erik. I admit I’m still somewhat in the weeds though, as I guess you can’t give a definitive answer and it will be just a play-and-try situation.
I have just been a bit worried if the new model was "harder to control" in the bass region or something for my amp. My current perspectives a nicely controlled in the bass and *just on the edge* of overwarmth in some situations, so I was trying to understand if I upgrade whether I should anticipate any bass issues.
As to the top octave balance, I did hear a slightly more relaxed sound from the Graphene version. (Occasionally I wondered "too relaxed?")Having read JA’s Perspective2 review/measurements I went in knowing the top had a slightly less extended balance but was happy that this didn’t lead to a "darker" sound, at least from my limited exposure. It still seemed vivid and open sounding where it counts.
|
@erik_squires
In the measurement section of of JA's review of the updated Perspective 2Graphene, JA makes this comment: the Perspective2’s plot of impedance magnitude and electrical phase against frequency (fig.1) suggest that the speaker is an easy load for the partnering amplifier to drive. However, while the Perspective’s minimum magnitude was 6.27 ohms at 135Hz, the Perspective2’s minimum was a little lower, at 5.36 ohms at 139Hz. The bass impedance peak was also greater, at 34.4 ohms at 59Hz compared with 15.6 ohms at the same frequency for the original speaker. https://www.stereophile.com/content/joseph-audio-perspective-loudspeaker-perspective2-grapheneCan you enlighten me: What, if any, consequences would this have for driving the Perspective2 vs the original version? I use the CJ Premier 12 tube monoblocks. Are there any implications as to the Perspective2s being harder to drive or whatever vs the originals (which I own)? Thanks. |
Thanks for contributing the info, rlb61!
As I hope to be a future owner of the Perspectives, I wonder if Jeff will update those at some point.
|
I'm not sure in which Joseph Audio review I read this, but somewhere Jeff Joseph mentioned that he now slopes the tweeter more gently at the crossover point - somehow whatever he was doing apparently allowed him to crossover his tweeter at a lower frequency which he said works better.
|
I find the SEAS drivers interesting. I’m wary of presuming that drivers will have a particular "sound" in of themselves. And yet I find that one of my favourite speaker brands of old - Hales, which use the similar SEAS drivers to the JA speakers - seem to share a real DNA in their sound. I owned the Hales Transcendence 5 speakers at one point, and still own the Hales Transcendence 1 monitors (and a Hales center channel) using those same SEAS drivers and I’ll never forget first hearing the Hales transcendence speakers in a store. Metal drivers back then (mid to late 90’s) had a rep for sounding a bit hard and metallic (deservedly or not).But the Hales speakers sounded super smooth, rich, organic and with an eerie timbral believability that just grabbed me. I’d rarely heard a speaker that could produce such a believably wide array of timbral signatures. And a notable quality of the sound was a pristine smoothness and lack of etch or hash.
My only quibble that arose over time with the Hales is that they could be a bit dynamically reticent and that smoothness/clarity lack of hash could sometimes seem a bit too smooth. There was just a bit of glaze over the sound, so for instance there wasn’t quite the in-the-room texture of a bow on a violin or cello string.
The only other speakers I’ve heard that sound like the Hales are the JA speakers. They have that super smoothness combined with richness and clarity, and a signature "lack of grain/etch" sound. And if I have any quibble with the JAs, it’s that like the Hales they can sometimes have just a bit less texture than some other speakers. Though it’s not to as great degree as the Hales speakers.
But the Hales and JA speakers share such a special signature, and given their mid/woofer drivers are both SEAS and look so similar, it’s hard not to intuitively attribute something to the character of the SEAS drivers.A special blend of grain-free clarity and warmth.
|
soix,
Agreed. That was one weird post!
|
theres no evidence these speakers are better than a diy pair at a fraction of the cost. or is there? Can you figure out why DIY speakers are a fraction of the cost of retail speakers? Even IF they happen to be as good? Can you figure out why cooking for yourself at home is cheaper than ordering at a restaurant, even if you can make a meal that tastes as good as the restaurant meal? |
Thanks for the info astewart!
Ugh. On one hand I was hoping Jeff would do an upgrade on the Perspectives as I've been angling to own a pair of Perspectives. Was about to buy a pair in the summer when tragedy hit.
Now that he's updated them, before I could buy a pair of the original, I may not ever be able to afford the new higher price. Sigh....
|
I just read this announcement about the Perspective on Joseph Audio Facebook: April 12, 2019
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - WORLD PREMIERE - Perspective2 Graphene! Suite 1521 at the Axpona show.
Building on the original Perspective design, the New Perspective2 now
includes Graphene coated Magnesium woofers that have been completely
re-engineered using Finite Element Analysis. What has me a little puzzled is that it only mentions a coating/re-engineering of the woofers. Whereas the Pulsars upgrade supposedly goes beyond replacing woofers to re-engineered motors etc.I would have thought that if the Perspective upgrade went beyond just a new coating on the woofers that it would be mentioned as well. ? |
markalarsen,
Yes I know. I just find it odd that IF the updates for the Perspectives go well beyond merely a new coating on the drivers, that that information isn't included in the announcement of the new Pulsar 2.
I mean, audiophiles always want as much as they can get for their money in upgrades, which is why audio companies are typically at pains to depict upgrades with as much significance as possible. So "new woofers with entire new motor system" would sound much more exciting and appealing than just "woofers with a new coating." Which is why I"d expect such details to be part of an upgrade announcement.
|
|
|
Thanks for that, Mark! Sounds exciting. I’m so glad your upgrade seems to be working out for you.And you are in a particularly rare position to comment. I doubt we'll see many others who have had the chance to live with both the original and the upgraded Perspectives.
Interesting about the Perspective 2s being slightly more efficient in your experience. Having looked at what Eric said, and some DIYers discussions about those new drivers, I was under the impression that efficiency should have gone down a bit (a db or two).
Erik?
|
fsonicsmith
I certainly would not argue with what you find movingly musical or not. I’ve sat next to people who loved the sound of a speaker where I was left uninvolved.
(In fact just today I listened to the big flagship Monitor Audio speakers and some Magicos and they just didn’t do it for me).
You know I love both the Devores (that you own) and the Joseph speakers. I get why a DeVore owner wouldn’t go for the JA sound - they are really different. And that’s what drove me nuts deciding between them: I like both but they are so different!
Unlike you I find myself completely trasnsfixed by the Perspectives. I’ve listened to them for up to 7 hours straight (auditioning at home) and never got enough of them. If I had found them to be strictly “audiophile speakers” for the head I wouldn’t be enthusiastic. But what won me over in initial store demos is how well they played absolutely every genre I could throw at them, from classical, to jazz, to van halen, to The Commodores, to electronica, whatever. They satisfied my audiophile side in terms of transparency and tonal accuracy, but had dynamics, juicy mids and rich punchy bass that made them a “fun” speaker as well.
They certainly weren’t perfect. Occasionally the bass could be a bit overblown, and they don’t have the same papery, filled out organic tone as the Devores, but I did find them a head AND heart speaker. |
|
fsonicsmith
That’s surprising. Especially the comment about missing midrange magic. I thought the midrange of both 0/96 and 0/93 had some magic. I heard them on Nagra SS amps and a tube amp I can’t remember.
I use Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks and they tend to give any speaker I own a good helping of midrange magic :)
As for the new JA speakers...
The impression I’m getting from the Stereophile show report comment and from markalarsen, is of a somewhat smoother, mellower presentation from the Perspective 2s.
The original was super smooth in terms of having zero grain or etch, and I think that let them get away with having a generally rising response in the top end without it being obviously bright. But sometimes, yeah, they could bite. That was one of Stereophile’s gripes with the Perspectives.
I’m very curious how the new Perspectives would measure, if anything has changed about the trajectory of the upper frequencies.
As long as the new Perspectives don’t sound "dark" (because their tonality was so dialed in), I’d think a smoother high end with better low end grip would make them almost ideal.
|
rlb61
I understood mark to be saying he preferred the original pulsars over thethe old LSAs, not over the new pulsars. I presumed he referencing the old Pulsars simply because he hasn't heard the new ones.
|
Fwiw, the new lsa monitors are better then the joseph audio pulsars. **pssst: In your opinion. I haven't heard them so don't have an opinion. But having heard much of the competition, I'm a tad skeptical. People who like the JA speakers tend to be hooked by some particular aspects of their sound that are hard to find in other speakers. Another speaker may be in someone's opinion "better" but it might not do what the Josephs do for some of us.That's what I found when I compared them to lots of other speakers. (In fact, I'd take the Pulsars...or Perspectives...over many other highly lauded speakers. I just listened to $40,000 Magicos and would take the JA speakers of them...just because they push my buttons in a way the Magicos don't). |
Keep in mind that to many the sound they are “hearing” is entirely in
their heads. No relationship, whatsoever, to the way some components
actually sound. Beware of judgments like “push my buttons“ or “foot
tapping” or even the holy word “musicality”. If people can only describe
their “feeling” when they listen, there is zero value to their input. Nice. While I have some agreement with that, as your comment was clearly aimed at my post.... I was quite obviously not attempting to "review" any of those speakers, but making a particular point. I have a long thread detailing the sound I heard from many speakers, including particularly detailed descriptions of Joseph and Devore (and Magico A3 btw) speakers that I've auditioned. Spoiler: The Magico A3 speakers also didn't push my buttons ;-) |
Like I said, your descriptions are fictional at best. No correlation to how these speakers actually sound, only to how YOU hear them. Thanks for one of the more hilarious posts of recent memory. Of course that’s how the speakers SOUNDED to me. But if you want to say that my hearing is so eccentric or my acuity regarding sound is so poor as to produce useless or inaccurate descriptions of how those speakers sounded in the auditions, there’s more evidence in that thread against your claim, than you have for it.The majority of people who commented praised the accuracy of my descriptions based on comparing it to their own experience. My job involves recording and manipulating sound all day long, constantly listening for similarities literally between the "air" of a room, the timbre of one vocalisation vs another, and minutely adjusting sonic parameters constantly to produce large or minute differences, or make two disparate noises sound the same. If my perception of sound were as unreliable as you imply, I literally could not have worked in my field for 30 years. But, hey, from your computer chair....someone has pronounced a less than happy opinion upon hearing a Magico speaker, the Bat Signal went up....time to swoosh in and diss that person. It’s a tired act, science"cop." |
audiotroy,
I don't begrudge your opinion about the Perspectives, or the Paradigm speakers at all. If the Paradigms sound better to you, even with cheaper amps, awesome! I found the Paradigm Personas to be a really excellent speaker.
But in the same vein of comparing gear combinations: I have an old pair of Thiel 02 speakers, which cost just a few hundred bucks circa early 80s, and hooked up to a lil old Eico HF81, that meager combo gives me more listening pleasure than I got from the Paradigms.
Horses for courses...
(I'm not saying that sound is purely subjective of course - we could still talk in more objective terms about which speaker is more full range, has higher resolution, different dispersion, smoother frequency response etc.But when it comes to personal evaluations, what "beats" some other gear is pretty subjective).
|
I’ve gone on record that I am for dealers contributing to the forum.
But frankly its just a bummer how this turned in to another audiotroy thread, full of the usual pumping up of the Paradigm speakers and finding every opportunity to list more of his fine inventory. Saves going to his web site I guess, but it’s just a drag that a Joseph Audio thread is taken over by this stuff.
|
audiotroy, If someone speaks ill of the Paradigm speakers a thread predictably becomes an audiotroy-defends-paradigm thread, sprinkled with items you sell. For instance in this thread: Our current line up of high quality integrated amplifiers includes Naim,
Micromega, Anthem, Nad Masters, Synthesis, T+A and a few others
..........
We sell the Quad Z2 monitor a $2,000.00 speaker with proprietary drivers
and they sound amazing, their ribbon tweeter is extraordinary, we would
be happy to go against a LSA product any day of the week, I didn't come to this thread to read more about your inventory. You contribute some good stuff, but there's also a reason why you have a reputation among some here for being reflexively self-promotional. |
Kenjit is extolling the virtues of a cheap LSA loudspeaker we heard them and they were indeed very good, how can we draw comparisons to other products in a similar price point that perform to a very high level without naming them? We go out of our way to constantly seek out very high dollar for sound products stating Quad is giving a comparison of an excellent product that competes with LSA for similar money. Sure. How can you enter an audiophile forum to comment on other products, without constantly comparing them to products you sell while extolling their virtues? As Yoda might put it: "A convenient problem, you have." |
As I mentioned earlier, Mark would be a pretty valuable resource for threads like this, as he's the only one in a position to have compared the old version with the new Graphene versions.
I look forward to any more detail Mar provides down the line as he gets a handle on the new Perspectives.
On that note: Question for Mark:
You mentioned the new Perspective were smoother. The stereophile show report mentioned the Perspectives giving a mellower presentation than his home speakers. And rlb61 says he's been told the new versions have greater "ease" to the sound.
So I'm curious if the new perspectives are mellower than the previous versions. Do they lack any of the "aliveness" or dynamics or has some of that been rubbed away?
|
soix,
I was wondering exactly the same thing.
I also wondered if perhaps the new Pulsars smooth out the slightly "overwarm mid bass" (as reported in Stereophile).
One of the reasons I changed direction from the Pulsars to the Perspectives when auditioning the JA speakers is that, as great as the Pulsars were, I could detect that bit of midbass coloration, especially in lower male voices. The Perspectives seemed more linear in that part of the frequency response.
Not sure Jeff Joseph would deliberately smooth away that midbass warmth as it may be part of what makes the Pulsars sound so complete and rich for their size, on lots of music.
|
Mellow is not a good word to describe them. They are richer and
simultaneously more detailed. They are more accurate and detailed,
while being silky smooth and dynamic. Thanks again Mark! |
I had very seriously contemplated buying second hand Josephs and decided I couldn't do it at this time, financially and for some other reasons. Just really bad timing for me.
To take the sting out, some part of my rationalization was also adding up the cost of buying used, shipping, then shipping to JA, updating....and the cost getting ever closer to a new pair of the JA 2 speakers. JA speakers are such eye-candy "audio jewelry" in terms of build quality and looks I do like the idea of buying pristine new speakers.
That said, I can see why it would also make sense to grab a pair of original perspectives second hand. They are amazing speakers as they are, you get them much cheaper then new, then if you find you really love them later on when finances permit you can have the updated to the new version.
So, I can spin the idea of buying used or new either way. But if you don't absolutely need the latest update right away and like the idea of getting a JA speaker for less money, second hand sure seems to make a lot of sense if you can find them.
|
What exactly is the matter with you nyaudio?
|
@goldprintaudio
I’m curious too. How would you describe the sonic difference in the new models? |
djones51,
Thanks for the info.
I think a speaker can sound "subjectively" more sensitive for a number of reasons. One could simply be slightly altering the tonal balance with a fuller bass, so it can sound more complete at slightly lower volume levels, or you feel the bass more at the same volume levels as the old version, giving the subjective impression it’s moving more air at the same volume level.
I’m sure there are other technical aspects understood by others for why a speaker may sound more sensitive than it actually is.
I have a pair of Waveform Mach MC monitors, rated at only 84.5dB sensitivity. But they sound more dynamically alive, within their frequency limits, than pretty much any other speaker I own, including higher sensitivity speakers.
|
That all sounds like good stuff goldprintaudio!
|
I fully respect you going by your own experience Mark.
In my experience, I've heard the Perspectives hooked up to various very expensive amps with wildly expensive cabling etc. Yet I thought they sounded better when I had them in my system for audition at home (I use old Conrad Johnson amps, but cheap interconnects, plain old Belden 10awg speaker cable, no after market AC cables, etc).
This is pretty consistent with many other similar experiences.
First time I heard Quad ESL 63s my mind was blown. Even though they were being powered by a saved-from-a-garbage Dynaco ST70 amp and no-name cables. The difference that I heard compared to anything I'd heard before was due to the quality and character of the speakers.
I just came back from listening to music at my friend's house. He's a reviewer. Has something like $50,000 worth of the most highly lauded interconnects, speaker cables, AC cables, $20,000 phono stages, all that kind of thing. Sounded great. But I think what I have at home sounds "better," despite my non-audiophile-approved cheaping out on cables etc. I attribute this to the importance of speaker choice, positioning/room acoustics, and then choice of amp, source....
We all have our own path :)
|
As I mentioned, I just came from listening to music on my friend’s system. He has a really excellent and neutral-sounding pair of monitors, and a killer front end source. The clarity and detail is really amazing.I think it would tick many of the boxes that impress most audiophiles.
But as I listened, as good as the sound was, it just didn’t do what I hear when I listen to the Joseph speakers. Each instrument was very clear and detailed and spatially well represented, but ultimately each instrument, be it a drum set, guitar, bass, voice...all sounded like they were being produced by the same material - woofers, tweeters etc. Not in a lack of coherence way, but timbrally.
When instruments like an electric piano piled up on acoustic guitar, other synths, bass, vocals, what the Joseph speakers do for me is truly separate out the timbral qualities - the electric piano will be completely distinct in it’s tonal character, the specific colors of an acoustic guitar will shine through, the exact nature of the metal bits of a drum kit vs the skin, it all comes in to clear, tonal relief as if a sort of scrim of homogenizing silt I hear with most speakers is wiped away.
And I think this is something that, when you notice and care about it, become a bigger thing for you than maybe for others. That’s why I just pay little attention to "X speaker is WAY better than the Joseph" speakers (or other speakers I like) because, maybe they DO outperform them in certain areas. But I have no idea if they produce the *specific character* of sound that I like in the Joseph speakers. I don't know if the person recommending these "better" speakers actually hears or cares specifically about what I do. And having auditioned and heard a mind-numbing number of speakers, I’m pretty confident that the odds are that another speaker, even if great in some respects, aren’t going to recreate the quality I like in the Joseph speakers.
(BTW, that doesn’t mean I think the Joseph speakers have perfected the loudspeaker. I like qualities in other speakers as well. I’m just saying that what I like in Joseph speakers tends not to be found in the competition to my ears).
|
mark,
Cool.
If I were to list anything in the "con" vs "pro" side of the ledger, based on my various auditions of the Perspectives at stores and my home, and comparing to other speakers I like, I'd say:
1. The bass.
Aside from the beautiful mids and highs, bass is actually one of the things I loved from the Perspectives. It has a great, juicy tone and texture. Love bass synths, bass guitars through the Perspective. (Especially Jaco! I'd never heard Jaco's bass sound that beautiful).The bass also "swells" beautifully and warmly for dramatic parts in classical and soundtrack music.
My one criticism was that at the very bottom of the range, it could be a bit loose, a bit "puffy." I'm used to living with some Thiel speakers that are just bang on in the bass, pitch, control, sound almost perfect. So other speakers have a tough time competing.
If the Perspective 2s improve on that issue, that would be awesome.
2. Fullness.
The great thing about the Joseph sound is the combination of analytical-levels of detail that don't come off as analytical. Part of this is due to how the highs and upper mids are so clean and free of exaggerated etch or grit. But another is that Joseph has beautifullly voiced warmth and fullness in to the tone, so they sound much richer than you'd expect from a stand mounted or small thin floor standing speaker.
Still.
They do not have overall as thick, rich and filled out sound as some other speakers I really like - e.g. my Thiels, Devores, Harbeth). Guitars have more clear, ringing leading edge on the Josephs than those other speakers, but less of the size and body. If the new models have somehow increased the sense of fullness of sound through the whole spectrum (not just the bass/upper bass) that would be something. But I think the design and physics really places limits on how far that can go, so I'm not expecting miracles there.
|
If anyone is actually in touch with Jeff Joseph, it would be great to get some confirmation, or disinformation as to whether the sensitivity of the speaker has changed. Mark suggests from his experience the 2 version seems a bit more sensitive. It would be nice to have that confirmed.
|
@markalarsen
Do you have the Talk Talk album Colour Of Spring?
If so try playing the first track. It’s one of my test tracks for speakers. The production and sound quality is amazing and that track is great as it starts with a pristine drum beat and individual instruments come in.
I played that track on the Perspectives at my house and honestly thought “I don’t know if reproduced sound gets better than this!” |
Hi Gordon,
It’s great to get an update on how those Pulsars worked out for you.
I recognize your journey from the What’s Best forum. I’m a fellow MBL owner - I still own the MBL 121 monitors. (And Thiels, and other speakers).
I think owning the MBLs is one reason why I am more inclined towards the Perspectives over the Pulsars. I already own a pretty elite-performing monitor for when I want that.
I notice that very often the emotional component of listening to the Joseph speakers is mentioned by those who hear them. I agree. I think it’s that elusive combination of sometimes hair-raising transparency and detail combined with a smoothness and richness, that makes the speakers both communicate the aliveness and directness of music while also communicating the warmth and smoothness and richness of the real thing.
|
I dropped in to an audio store that I was passing by today and listened briefly to the Paradigm Persona speakers (which I’d auditioned last year more extensively). Nice. Clear. Didn’t move me at all. There are certain speaker brands that, if they are playing, I simply can’t not listen. In "it" factor that seems to speak to what my brain craves. Paradigm-type speakers don’t seem to grab me in the same way. They are just to me another really competent, transparent sounding high end speaker, in a marketplace with tons of competent, transparent sounding high end speakers.
The JA speakers have an "it" factor for me, for the reasons I’ve described earlier.
|
Few rooms are ideal to evaluate speakers. Even the homes of many audiophiles. I can get a good gist of the character of a speaker when listening in a store, so long as the set isn’t terribly compromised. (The speakers I heard today sounded pretty much as they did in a previous audition in a dedicated room). the it factor is distortion. youre identifying a characteristic that is there on all tracks you play through the josephs. Funny...live acoustic music seems to have a similar "it" factor when I listen to it ;) A true high end speaker has no identifiable characteristic. In someone’s dream world perhaps. In reality, every single speaker I’ve ever heard, bar none, has ultimately homogenized the sound of reproduced music. |
Agreed bubinga. I too have probably read everything anyone has said about the Pulsars/Perspectives on the web (part of being obsessed with a speaker I want to buy). The comments about hearing the speaker in shows, demos, friends, or owners are *almost* universally positive to one degree or another. Usually very positive. Certainly reports from shows indicate almost universal praise. As this writer put it: - "I bet if I could get all the attendees for the three days of Axpona in one room and asked who likes Joseph Audio speakers over 95% would raise their hands."
https://audio-head.com/joseph-audio-announces-updates-to-his-pulsar-and-perspective-loudspeakers-axp... |
Again, nyaudio98...what's the matter with you?
This is a thread on the topic of the new Joseph Audio speakers.
Everyone knows other competing speaker brands exist. No one cares what you think is better. Start another thread if you want to talk about other speakers.
Did you actually pass the capcha tests before posting?
|
I've also never liked a narrow sweet spot. And it's not only about allowing more than one listener to experience good sound. I find if a sweet spot is really narrow it's just bothersome in of itself.
It's why, when plasma and LCD TVs were duking it out years ago I much preferred plasma, which looked essentially the same from all angles, where the LCD technology shifted tonal/colour/contrast balance when you moved even a bit off axis. Something about the sheer finickiness and unsteadiness of that effect irked me.
Similarly I dislike head-in-a-vice speakers, Martin Logan stats being a perfect example (I've heard the majority of ML models and my pal has ML hybrid stat speakers). The "illusion" is just so easily collapsed with even mild movement of the head.
So pretty much all speakers I have bought over the years have maintained similar soundquality/imaging over a relatively wide sweet spot. (Audio Physic, Thiel CS 3.7/2.7, Waveform, Hales, MBL and many others).
Though I still harbor background thoughts of Devore speakers some day, one sticking point was the more directional high frequencies for those speakers (due to the beaming of the woofer and waveguided tweeter).
The Joseph speakers are a good match for my circumstances as I have some pretty limited set up possibilities in terms of distance to the listener (between 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 feet or so). The Josephs are flexible and don't need much distance at all to sound coherent.
|
fleschler,
Honestly I wouldn't be expecting the Joseph speakers to have the same kind of low-level-listening performance as something like a 98db efficient speaker. In fact if anything I found the Joseph speakers could use some volume to get them to open up dynamically.
Mark reports more satisfactory performance at low listening levels for the "2" version, so that sounds promising. I'd certainly welcome that.
|
astewart,
Going from previous experience, your observations are spot on.
|
Wow, "clearer" would certainly be impressive given the already super clear sound of the original Perspectives.
Mark, can I take it that you still find the bass well balanced with the rest of the sonic spectrum? I bass gets too prominent that can bother me.The original Perspectives generally worked well in my 15' x 13' room (with a large opening to a hallway on one side), though with occasionally more bloom/bloat than say, my big Thiel speakers. I wonder if the Perspective2 bass would have altered in a way that is more likely to overpower my room...or perhaps go the opposite way and give even tighter bass.
|
