New Joseph Audio Pulsar Graphene 2

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.

Look at the Stereophile CJ Premiere 12 chart.  The simulated speaker load they use is pretty close to what the Pulsars have.  Shows about 0.5 dB boost.

Perfectly manageable with placement, and of course, in a good room. :)

So with respect to the original post, as an owner of original Pulsars interested if anyone can comment with respect to discernible acoustic differences between the original Pulsars and their latest revision?
Remain amazed by the pictures these small speakers are capable of painting, but if the revisions can offer even more and the difference is quantifiable (my call),  I'd very much like to know.
Todd

Bumping this thread - anyone  have more comments on the Perspective2 in the last year?  I'm hoping to hear them soon, or maybe after the pandemic. Had to bump the thread when I read this.  :)
<Keep in mind that to many the sound they are “hearing” is entirely in their heads.>
Actually, *everyone* is hearing a sound that is entirely in their heads. It's just sound waves until the brain processes it.  IMO, if people cannot describe their “feeling” when they listen, there is close to zero value to their input.

IMO, if people cannot describe their “feeling” when they listen, there is close to zero value to their input.

Personally, I have no use for people describing their "feelings" when describing audio gear.   If they can relay how it sounds, that's helpful.But emotional reactions completely vary between people - I can be utterly unmoved by a speaker that makes someone else swoon.(And that's also why "sounds like music" is the most useless phrase in all of audio reviewing).

Personally, I have no use for people describing their "feelings" when describing audio gear.   If they can relay how it sounds, that's helpful.But emotional reactions completely vary between people

I'm sure you're probably right, and if I did more extensive and careful comparisons, I might be able to articulate the differences (as you did so very well in another thread.)   I find that I really struggle with A/B comparisons, and it's hard to describe the differences in sound.  I've listened to many systems at dealers, and one visit to RMAF, and heard systems that are shockingly expensive and probably technically excellent, but that left me unmoved.

But sometimes a system really works for me, and I get a powerful emotional reaction, an audio nirvana experience that I can't explain in technical terms.  It's that experience of pure joy that's really hooked me on high end audio.  Of course, part of that might be my mood and other things going on in my head at the time that allow or prevent me from having that experience.

Has anyone compared the prospective 2 and the pearl 20.20 with an audition?   I heard the former at CAF and fell in love.   They might be the only speaker that can pry my Thiel 3.6 and cs6 out of my system.

i have a large room and although the prospectives blew me away they were in a very small room.  Wondering what the step up factor would be with the Pearls.    

Im kinda thinking a 36K Speaker will be a substantial improvement over a 13K speaker but hey thats just me.

@riaa
I disagree. I haven’t heard the Pearls but more expensive doesn’t mean better IMO. I have heard $100K speakers that didn’t impress me at all. The best speakers I have heard so far at any price is the Perspective2s. I hope I can afford them one day. Probably would be my last speakers that I purchase. 

Celo, So you think Joseph Audio would make their 36K Speaker sound inferior to their 13-15K Model?? Do you have an ounce of common sense at all? Im not surprised with your vast intellect and reasoning skills that you cant afford a pair of the perspectives.

^^^ Well...that was snippy!


celo’s point is not unreasonable.


Many audiophiles, myself included, have listened to various speakers within a company's line, and have found that certain designs hit a sweet spot to our ears. In other words, I may find a model in the mid/upper range that pushes all my buttons, and while the bigger, more expensive model may sound bigger, it may not necessarily sound "better" to my ears. Adding ever more complexity doesn’t determine better sonics.It certainly CAN, but doesn’t always.


Now, whether this is the case with Joseph Audio I can’t say. I heard the Pearls once, with limited content and they were amazing. And Jeff Joseph is a heck of a speaker designer, so I would not be surprised if the Pearls outperform the Perspectives.


But celo was making a general point that on principle is valid: bigger and more expensive does not automatically entail better. Many of us have direct experience of this, so it’s best not to assume.

@riaa 

I see no point in discussing ideas with people who talk like a little kid. If you grow up, then we can talk.

Not necessarily moniker too long to copy.
With a little more experience with high end equipment you will understand, especially with speakers.  But thanks for the worthless feedback.  

@prof thanks for explaining it like you explain to a little kid. My fault that I thought he was smart enough to understand me. Kids are kids, I know! 

A forum member has the upgraded JA Perspectives listed for sale on the other site.  If I were in driving distance of KY I'd be loading them into my van right now. :)  Really eager to try these speakers, and the next RMAF is another 15 months away, at a minimum.

riaa_award_collectors_on_facebook
So do you actually disagree with the point that bigger and more expensive doesn't mean "better?"

Like celo, I've heard $100,000 speakers that I would never take over my Joseph Perspectives (or my Thiel 2.7s).   Surely you can agree with that main point?

And if you can dial down the confrontational attitude a bit...

You own the Pearls?  How do you like them?

And I would be interested in knowing that long list of speakers you own.

I was merely pointing out the Pearl vs Perspectives in my initial post...2 Speakers. Celo took it down an entirely different road which wasnt my intention nor do I understand WHERE it came from.

Im from New Jersey/New York area. We all have attitudes...see POTUS.
I dont use my Pearl’s. They need more room to breathe than I can offer at this time. Will probably cash them in or trade in the near future.

Ok, thanks.  What are your other speakers?  Sounds like you have quite a collection.
(I had 7 pairs of speakers not long ago, but I've been cutting down).

I have found that the expensive speakers are, at times, a little too honest and revealing of what you are feeding them... including the quality and mastering of the recording/source.  So if your media isnt top notch the expense is wasted and actually detracts from the overall enjoyment and perception.

So yes, less expensive speakers can “sound” considerably better than their more expensive counterparts.

Anyone who cant agree with that is fooling themselves and doesnt understand as much, or has experienced as much, as they think they do.

Has anyone compared the prospective 2 and the pearl 20.20 with an audition?   I heard the former at CAF and fell in love.   They might be the only speaker that can pry my Thiel 3.6 and cs6 out of my system.

i have a large room and although the prospectives blew me away they were in a very small room.  Wondering what the step up factor would be with the Pearls.

@pops I've heard both but in a different room, different systems, different times. Not very meaningful impression. But, Pearl 20.20 being driven my top of the line Doshi and reel-to-reel SOTA front end sounded better than Perspective 2. The later was being driven by much more modest system. But the difference was less than you'd expect.

Jim Smith (author of Get Better Sound), recently sold off his mega buck Tannoy system and replaced it with the Perspective 2s. You can see his room here: https://www.audioshark.org/audioshark-members-systems-101/my-roomplay-reference-sound-room-18528.html.

The room looks really big. I don't think Perspectives will have any problem filling a large space. It comes with a foam liner in the port that you can remove to extend bass frequency and impact. I think in a medium room Perspective 2 would have an advantage over Pearl and may actually sound little better.

@riaa. Toe to toe LOL.  you win virtually.  

Have you ever tried otherwhatsapp?

I some how missed this post from a few months ago, but I've been a fan of Joseph speakers for years, and a dealer now for a little over 10 years.  I have both the Pearl 20/20 and Perspective2s setup for demo (as well as Pulsar2s).  

The Perspectives are flat out awesome speakers in my opinion, and would be perfect for large majority of systems out there.  With that said, there is no doubt that the Pearls offer a much fuller sound with quite a bit more low end response and detail.  

In the end, both are fantastic speakers.  I would suggest listening to both and see which you prefer!

I'd been waiting forever for one of the top audio mags to finally review The Pearls, just out of curiosity.  They were finally reviewed recently in The Absolute Sound.  (Unfortunately I found the review to be fairly lame and not very well written).

There's simply no way a traditional 2-way mini-monitor is worth $9k. If I wanted a premium DIY build I could get that for a quarter of that price.

There's simply no way a traditional 2-way mini-monitor is worth $9k.

"Worth" is of course subjective.

If I wanted a premium DIY build I could get that for a quarter of that price.

Of course, that goes without saying.  It has always been the case that you can have something much cheaper if you put the work in doing it yourself.


When buying an audio product you are paying for the many years of building experience and experimentation from the builder that led to the performance of the product, and for their overhead, what they need to run the business, shipping, advertising etc.   Nothing new here.


Whenever people say 'that's a rip off because I can get it much cheaper doing it myself" it reminds me of people who attack fine dining "Look at those small portions!  I could have a way cheaper meal that would be more filling just cooking at home!"


Kinda misses the point to say the least.   It depends what you value.I highly value "being cooked for" and the feeling of going to a nice restaurant and trying dishes that I would never put the effort in to making.  Other people don't.  Likewise, I'll pay what I can afford for a speaker that looks and sounds exactly as I want, because I'm not remotely interested in turning speaker-making in to my own hobby.My free time is far more valuably (to me) spent on other things I like as well.

just bought a pr of the Pulsar Gs. awaiting arrival. Am looking forward to seeing them run in and what can he done to optimize them.

Question to folks with experience listening to JA (or owners): did you ever have the chance to compare them to Klipsch Heritage, like Forte IV or Cornwall IV? If yes could you describe your experience?
I own the Pulsar 2G and have had major issues with low bass and standing waves, until I rotated my room around so that the Pulsars fire down the long wall, problem solved. I’ve had quite a few emotional listening sessions since, amazing holographic imaging! However, on the journey, I stumbled upon Decware Zen 2w amp, and I was very intrigued, so I’ve been thinking about going down the high sensitivity speaker way, but where I live the selection is limited to Klipsch. I’ve been testing a pair of Forte IV, but not quite convinced:-) They do have a bigger sound and go lower in the bass, but there’s no holographic feeling. 

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. 

Using my Pulsar 2's with a Pass XA25.  In my medium sized room sound is wonderful.  Sound Anchor stands help as well.

I think a Luxman might work well also.

Higher power tubes should work as well.

Have no intention of swapping out the JA's.

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 e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AS i've mentioned often here, I have the Thors MTM which has the W18E001, The Original Pulsars I believe has the EX001. 
This new Seas Graphene EX001 has  a  superior cone material and a  titanium voice coil. IMHO its the worlds finest midwoofer made. Although Scan speak has some incredible/phenomenol midwoofers at $1000 each = $2G's/pair.
Madisound   should be stocking the Graphene  from what they told me some weeks ago, $500  each and well worth the cash, based on how wonderful the E001;'s sound.
Thing is the JA's use the Millennium tweeter. The db is too low for my taste.
I am nota  fan of any dome tweets. 
For all range mids i use a FR. But will hang on to the W18E001's for bass, up to 1200hz.
I don't want to take away from JA's fine product, but here you can easily do a  DIY with the same Graphene , with the W22 at near same price as the W18Graphene. 
How does the W22Grap compare with Scan's massive midwoofers..I have no idea.
I am a Seas fan, so I'd go Seas over Scan. Scan no doubt will go deeper,almost like a  sub sound, but thats not what I want.. I think the GrapW22 is more a  *musical bass* vs Scan's.= More softer, but rich and full for sure.
JA employing the Graph is a huge bonus over the EX001, 
And anyone with a  original EX001 can very easily swap out for the Graph. 
Last note, if you are going Graph, I highly recommend going with Mundorf SESGO caps only in the woofer. If you can not afford those go Silver Supreme. 8, 10, or 12 uf as prefence. 
This will really *Hot Rod* your Graphene for max performance. 
Graphene worlds finest midwoofer made today. 

talllica13 posts04-08-2019 6:22pm
. Without question they have been rated and still one of the best sounding speakers in the world (yes very true)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Worlds best due to Seas Engineered product, not anything to do with JA labs. 
The Seas Excel line of Midwoofers are indeed the worlds best sounding, along with Scanspeak's top of the line which are 2X's the price as Seas.

I prefer Seas Graphene over the Scanspeak. 
Now as for the Seas tyweeter, I'd say its the best dome tweeter, having not heard their newest Cresendo, which my guess is out shoots the Millennium 
But as I've said many times here, I've dumped all dome tweeters in place of
a  4 inch FR($200/pair) + Magnovox 1963 horn tweeter(rare/under $100). 
This combo far superior to any dome/Seas/Scanspeak midrange/tweeter. 
The FR/horn completely totally annihilates all dome tweeters in the 2k-15k hz. 
Domes are dinasaurs. 
The best sounding speaker in my opinon is a  
W22 Graphene /Mundorf SESGO
+ 
Vox 5 Inch FR, well if you got the extra cash a AER FR. But thats a  10 inch thus making the W22 completely un-necessary. 
Nothing would come even close. (excluding the incredible FC's)