New Joseph Audio Pulsar Graphene 2

It’s approximately a 15% increase over the original Pulsars. So, when one factors in costs of labor, materials, R&D, marketing, distribution, etc., it’s really not too bad, IMHO. Besides, the market will determine whether the price is right.

No ... he mentioned the Pulsars only.

I think John Atkinson said that SP planned to do a follow up on the new Pulsars. Presuming that he does his typical measurements, we should be able to compare both versions. I’m not sure that the graphene is the big deal here ... I think it’s probably more the new drive motor and other internal improvements. Also, I would think that with improved internals comes a further refinement of the already excellent Modafferi crossover.

@roxy54 ... prices on many consumer items have risen significantly in recent years. With the Pulsars, as with all of Jeff’s products, the high quality is there. So, I understand well that one gets what they pay for. This hobby has some crazy prices ... almost $200K for some speakers, $35K for a pair of cables, etc. ... it’s nuts! So, even with an approximate 15% increase in the new Pulsars, Jeff’s pricing is not crazy given the improvements offered. Comparatively speaking, the increase can be viewed as reasonable given lesser competition at higher price points.

@kenjit ... I can buy a Timex or a Rolex. They both perform the same function, but it’s a matter of consumer preference. It’s the same with a $1K speaker versus a $9K speaker ... your preference will dictate your purchase. Prior to purchasing the Pulsars, I considered cheaper speakers; however, other than price, the Pulsars ticked off everything I wanted in a monitor, particularly the sound. So, I bit the bullet and bought them, and I have never regretted doing so.

If Jeff says that graphene covers the cones, then I would take that to be the truth. I have found Jeff to be an honest and forthright guy, and I believe his representations without hesitation.

@erik_squires ... Well, we certainly disagree on the purported simplicity of the xover and Jeff’s integrity. Here’s a link to the initial patent application for the xover by Modafferi ...https://patents.justia.com/patent/7085389

It doesn’t appear to me to be a simple second order xover, and I believe that Jeff has improved it over time. JA’s measurements in SP are not always the final explanation.

"theres no evidence these speakers are better than a diy pair at a fraction of the cost. or is there?"

This line of reasoning makes little sense. Most anything one makes themselves will be cheaper than that made by someone else.

FYI, I believe that Jeff will be offering an upgrade path for owners of the Perspectives. He told me already that he will be doing that for current owners of Pulsars. So, I don't think that many folks will be trading in their JA's any time soon.

@markalarsen ... Mark, did you get your original Perspectives upgraded or did you purchase new ones? Also, on a percentage basis, how much of an improvement was there over the original Perspectives? When it comes to audio equipment, I try to be cognizant of the law of diminishing returns. Thanks.

@markalarsen  ... in what way do you prefer the original Pulsars over the Graphene 2 Pulsars? Since you appear to like the Graphene 2 Perspectives over the originals, why wouldn't the same be true of the newer Pulsars?

I read it differently. Perhaps Mark can provide clarification.

"We could have gotten better sound with warmer cables (sic) AQ does not a good match make with these components."

There ya have it. That appears to be an admission that tone controls are required for those particular high priced components. Audio equipment is like a spouse or significant other ... you take them as you find them, and don’t try to change them.

@audiotroy ... I guess the definition of "real music" is in the ears of the listener.

Gotta admit ... that's a good analogy.

@audiotroy ... With all due respect, to me, synergy in audio concerns compiling a system having similar sonic attributes between components. It’s a challenge, but is very doable, and it sounds great when achieved. This differs markedly from collecting a hodgepodge of components having divergent sonic attributes, and then attempting to remediate the problem (e.g., a shrill sounding system) by using cables as tone controls. While I wasn’t at AXPONA this year, I think your comment concerning a warmer sound admits or implies that the pairing of components with the Personas lacked synergy.

I have heard the Personas previously and have found them to be on the clinical side. Certainly, those who enjoy a hyper-neutral or thin sound might find them acceptable. I do not. That doesn’t make them bad speakers, they’re just not my cup of tea.

As the OP here, I find it mindboggling that my thread about the new Pulsars has devolved into a retailer's defense of products he sells as well as extolling the purported virtues of Jersey City (Bleh!). Can we  now all simply play nice in the sandbox and return the topic of this thread? Thanks to all.

"Too expensive" is a relative term. I listened to A LOT of different speakers before I bought the Pulsars. The Pulsars and the rest of the JA line sounded the way I like to hear music. As a musician, I know how instruments should sound, and the Pulsars convey a realism that I have found lacking in other speaker brands. The Pulsars ain’t cheap, but cheaper speakers that were hawked as being "really good for the money" just didn’t do it for me. 

@soix ... I'm not necessarily sure that reworking the xover in that way is such a good thing. The original Pulsars have a liveliness which is very seductive. Eliminating that may not be an improvement.

@djones51 ... is Jeff doing the upgrades already? What was the price for upgrading your Perspectives?

@markalarsen ... very glad to learn that you are satisfied with the new Perspectives. I am really curious to hear the new Pulsars to see whether there is a "need" to upgrade my originals or whether the point of diminishing returns has been reached. Enjoy your new Perspectives!

That would bring the total cost to $10K (i.e., $7,700 list plus $2,300 for the upgrade). Yikes! It's likely cheaper to buy a brand new pair and sell the existing ones.

"OK JA speakers are way over priced and cheaper ones are a huge step up but after all its MY money I have wasted so get over it and move on."

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

@goldprintaudio ... since you have heard both, on a percentage basis, what's the extent of the upgrade over the original? 5%, 10%?

@goldprintaudio ... Thanks! That's exactly what I wanted to know.

@goldprintaudio ... I guess what I'm asking is ... is a night and day difference, or is it a slight improvement?

"But I think the design and physics really places limits on how far that can go, so I’m not expecting miracles there."

My suspicion from this entire discussion is that the Graphene 2’s may be a moderate improvement over the originals. Not that there is anything wrong with that and, in a perfect world, I might just go for the upgrade; however, in this imperfect world, I’m leaning toward sticking with the originals (at least for now) given that: (a) the sound of my original Pulsars (purchased new last year) are frickin’ amazing; (b) I need to hear the Graphene 2’s to confirm or not confirm my suspicion; and (c) typically, I like to see how things shake out over some period of time after new models/upgrades are offered. I may ask Jeff if I can stop by at some point to hear the new ones.

No problem. As I said earlier, I'm gonna wait until this upgrade shakes out a bit. Given the numerous reviews about how great the original Pulsars sound, and based on my own experience to that effect in my room with my system, I think it's gonna take a lot to convince me that the upgrade is a significant improvement. We shall see. 

@astewart8944  ... what did you perceive the sonic differences to be between the original Pulsar and the Pulsar 2?

@markalarsen ... oh, crap!!!!! 😉

I agree. Threats, whether actual or implied, have no place here.

One of the reasons I love the Pulsars is the horizontal off-axis response ... almost any position is a sweet spot. I had the original B&W N804s for many years, and the horizontal off-axis response was awful ... move a millimeter in any direction and everything collapsed. The Pulsars are in a completely different league.

With the right power amp, the Pulsars sound terrific at low levels.

As I recall, JA did have some reservations about the original Perspectives, but I think it had more to do with the components with which they were tested. The review of the original Pulsars was mostly unequivocal as compared to that of the original Perspectives, which I found to be more in line with the issue of component matching than anything endemic to either speaker. After all, both of them use/used the same tweeter and midrange/bass units. IIRC, Jeff’s "Manufacturer’s Comment" sidestepped JA’s criticisms of the Perspectives almost completely, most likely because there was nothing wrong with them inherently, and it made little sense to make a mountain over a molehill with respect to the use of complementary components.

@erik_squires ... LMFAO!

In the final analysis, I think all that’s important is whether a component sounds good ... distortion and other of JA's measurements be damned.

So, here's my confusion ... the original JA's got rave reviews as do the new ones. So, does that mean or imply that, comparisons notwithstanding, the originals now are less terrific than they were previously?

Sometimes, I wish I hadn't started this thread.