@kenjit - Manufacturers generally have to charge 4x the cost of the product to make money if selling through a dealer network. I'd bet Joseph loosely follows this. Those drivers alone aren't cheap.
New Joseph Audio Pulsar Graphene 2
Just wanted to update my prior thread where this topic may have gotten lost. As many of you may know by now, Joseph Audio has come out with the new Pulsar Graphene 2. This new iteration of the venerable Pulsars has a graphene coated magnesium midrange-woofer cone, and the drive motor, suspension system, etc., have been revamped. From what I have been told, the upgrade is pretty significant ... the sound is fuller and has greater ease, yet is very resolved. Jeff Joseph advises that an upgrade path will be available for existing owners of the Pulsars, too. Also, note that the price quoted in the Soundstage piece was in Canadian dollars ... Jeff informs me that the price in USD is $8,999 per pair. I am eager to hear the new Pulsars.
Showing 16 responses by soix
But the only difference between these $9000 speakers and $1000 speakers is that it uses a $200 woofer vs a $50 woofer. @kenjit -- What are you talking about??? The cost of speakers has a lot more to it than just drivers. The original Pulsars are $7700/pr. The new ones are $9k for a difference of $1300/pr. or $650 per speaker. Divide that by four and it tells you the new drivers probably cost about $160 more per driver, which seems very possible. If you have a problem with this math, build your own and let's see how they compare to the Pulsars. Jeez. |
I dunno. You guys seem to be implying that this is a 2nd order crossover that's crossed over relatively low in the high frequencies, and that this is what creates the magic. That seems like an over-simplification to me, and I don't know if it's what the crossover does with phase or whatever, but there aren't many speakers that disappear or image like JA speakers. I don't know if your giving the JA crossover its due. |
@kenjit "the best way to do infinity slopes is active. its hard enough doing 4th order using passive. The use of passive crossovers has no advantages. That alone diminishes the quality. You need to eliminate that passive crossover first before you judge the quality of these joseph audios. Then you can actually judge how much cabinet coloration there is and how much detail the drivers produce without worrying about what the crossover is doing." Um, I don’t even know what to say to this. Are you just making this stuff up in your own mind? Almost all speakers use passive crossovers. What planet are you from? Please get off this site for the benefit of us all. |
I always thought JA's reviews of speakers curiously always perfectly reflected his measurements. I've always been of a mind that he lets his measurements unduly influence his reviews. After all, it's much easier to justify and defend your observations when measurements back you up. Me, I'd rather have a reviewer do their listening and form their conclusions before seeing any measurements. That's what I did because I wanted to give my honest observations without being influenced by what I "should" hear from measurements. |
Why would ANYONE buy a pair of monitor speakers at this price range rather than a full range speaker costing the same amount? @larry5729 -- because "more" isn't always "better." Go hear the Pulsars before you assess their value based on size alone. Plus, the Pulsars produce prodigious bass for their size such that they get pretty close to many floorstanders. Again, go listen before you judge. @audiotroy -- don't waste your time with Kenjit. His reasoning and logic are extremely flawed and distorted as per prior threads, and his head is like a brick wall so no chance of getting through. Don't encourage him by trying to debate him -- it's fruitless and it just derails this thread for no reason. |
I’m thinking in reworking the crossover Jeff may have shelved down the upper mids/lower treble in the Perspective 2 just a tad as that seems to be one area where the house sound differed between the original Pulsars and Perspectives -- and the Pulsars seemed to have a smoother overall response. Make any sense @markalarsen? |
@rlb61 -- I was referring to the Perspective, not the Pulsar. @prof -- very interesting, er, perspective. Wonder if maybe now the Perspective 2 is the most linear of the bunch? @nyaudio98 -- we get it. You don't like JA and prefer other speakers. Good for you. Now get out of our sandbox and go piss elsewhere. |
Here ya go. Used pair of Pulsars for $4300 incl shipping. Send to JA for upgrade, $6600 for Pulsar 2s (plus shipping to and from JA). https://tmraudio.com/speakers/bookshelf-monitors/joseph-audio-pulsar-bookshelf-speakers-gloss-black-... |
I was recently informed by a well known speaker designer that the reason graphene and other new coatings are being used is to keep the cones themselves from self destructing. So now you will be paying more so the product you buy lasts longer. Okay some logic there but let’s not fall for the ’Improved SQ’ claims.@gadios — Given what others who have actually heard and/or owned both versions have said, I’d say you have been misinformed. BTW, I — and I’m sure others here — would love to know which speaker designer told you this stuff. And, as far as I know, Seas drivers haven’t been known to “self destruct” over time so that reasoning sounds totally absurd. Maybe you should listen for yourself rather than just accepting as truth what someone else says, especially someone who probably has not done an A/B comparison between the two versions. |
They do have a bigger sound and go lower in the bass, but there’s no holographic feeling.Bingo! Totally different sound/experience and journey. I’d try something like a Raven or other tube amp with the Pulsars as a potential best of both worlds compromise. But I’m a huge JA fan so maybe I’m not the best person to make alternative suggestions. Best of luck with this. |