It was a clear, explicit, defined threat against one's personal security, safety, and well being and has no place in this forum I have also been the subject, target, and focus of hate and threats in this group and it is despicable, vile, and unacceptable.
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.
483 responses Add your response
Back on track: the horizontal off-axis response on the Perspective2s is excellent. My Perspective2s are in a large room used for multiple purposes. They sound great no master where you are sitting, standing or walking around. There sound-the-corner test from “Get Better Sound” passes with high marks. The reason I mention this is that it is a huge advantage over electrostatic speakers. I love Sound Labs and Sanders 10e, but the sweet spot is very narrow, sometimes like placing your head in a vice. You move half a foot and the SQ is lost. |
I only read up to page 5, but I have to chime in. I spent a week in Newport NJ which is adjacent to Jersey City. Jersey City was okay, Newport was superior. I felt relatively safe in Jersey City downtown at night. I'm from Los Angeles and was a commercial real estate appraiser for 32 years. I know when I should stay away from an area. Jersey City was okay to me. Long Island City is undergoing a Newport like reconstruction. Maybe the adjacent Queens area will evolve to be more like Jersey City. The discussion which includes posters who think that 2 way speakers should be cheaper because they are less expensive to manufacture lack bottom end and dynamic sound are out to lunch. My friend who is a cable manufacturer has a smaller size listening room 18X15X8 and filled on the front and side walls with gear and LPs. He built a pair of quazi-folded/transmission line monitors with a dome tweeter and 5" mid-woofer. His bass response is down to 27 Hz -2 db. You can almost feel the deep bass. Imaging is superb. Dynamics are as much as the room allows for. My 5 way Legacy speakers have a bigger sound in a much bigger room. They don't image as well, don't have as extended highs and the bass drops off rapidly under 30 Hz despite 6-12" woofers. His design, materials and execution are obviously superior to $13K speakers retail. Why shouldn't he sell his speakers for at least half as much? I've heard some outstanding monitor speakers in moderate size rooms. Why can't more large speakers sound as good? I've heard big speakers I crave for but are really expensive ($50K+) (P.S. Never heard a Magico speaker I want after hearing them 15+ times, never want to go back to stats after 20 years, 5 pairs, don't want inefficient speakers). |
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. |
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. |
I waited 3 years until I decided to purchase a new TV, a 75" Sony 940C over the LG OLED, both top of the line. The Sony gives me at least 30 degree excellent picture quality and combined with the size, five people can easily have a great picture 12' away. (The LG had issues with brightness limitations and judder). Prior to that, I purchased plasmas over LCDs for my parents because the LCDs looked worse and had limited viewing angles. I really hated the head in a vise ML Quests and only slightly better larger Monolith IIIs. I should audition the Joseph Pearl 3s if they also have a wide listening area, good imaging and depth. Although they are low in sensitivity, they have an easy impedance. I would use my 130 W tube monoblocks with ample current to drive them. I just hope that they have a wide dynamic range and that I could enjoy listening at quiet levels as well as loud levels (like I do with 98db efficient Legacy Focus). |
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. |
@fleschler I second prof's comment above. The Pearl 3s really shine when they get juice (your 130W tube monos is plenty of power) but they need the volume up somewhat--it doesn't need to be outlandish but you've probably been spoiled on low-level listening with your highly efficient speakers. Everything else (wide listening area, imaging and depth) is positive. |
@fleschler The fletcher Munson curve (ISO 226:2003) is the primary problem with low level listening. I have no scientific explanation why the perspective2s sound so much louder than the measured 2+ dB. I think this positively impacts lower level listening. Next time I hear is the pearl3s, I will come home and listen to the perspective2s at a similar low level volume and report back. BTW, We purchased an LGOLED TV. You made the right decision but maybe not for the right reason. The LGOLED TV is subject to burn in, similar to the problem plasma TVs experienced. |
I don't listen to my audio systems at low levels, but a minimum of 70 db to a max about 100 db on rare peaks. Sometimes I have friends and want to have music as background levels but retaining the tonal richness and dynamic contrasts. I hope to hear the Joseph speakers at the June LA/Orange County Audio show. Luckily, both of my parents high end Panasonic plasma TV haven't developed burn-in, after about 8-10 years use. Yes, the LG burn-in issue was a consideration from show and news logos staying on for 1/2 hour to 2 hours. |
It is becoming clear that "low volume" is not sufficiently quantified. IMO the Perspectives and Pearl 3s sound their best when they pass the 65dB level as displayed on my Rowland Corus preamp. I'm running Rowland M925s (430W per channel at 8 ohms). I generally listen with the Corus set in the 66-75 dB range. Above that I need to be alone in my house because the music is going to dominate the rest of the house--and that rarely happens. So if low level volume is in the 60s dB range--I agree the Josephs sound great. Lower than that, they sound good--but in my system I don't they are performing at their peak. |
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. |
From the Absolute Sound AXPONA repot on electronics: Best Demos Depends what you’re into...fully immersive, in-the-room presence, or the visceral impact of sonic thrills over transparency? MBL 101 Es or Børreson 05/Aavik Acoustics or the Synergistic Research/Magico/United Home Audio room. The Joseph Audio/Rowland/Cardas Audio room also deserves a nod for fine sound and analog purity. Only the reviewer covering under $20K speakers missed them. |
Stereophile from Munich Audio 2019 on the Perspective2: This was my first sound demonstration at High End 2019, and it was a doozy: The soundstage was super-enormous and super-transparent. The bass was invisible until it appeared, and then it was succinct and as big as it needed to be. Tone character was spot-on, and images were precisely drawn. https://www.stereophile.com/content/joseph-audio-speakers-alluxity-and-doshi-electronics-purist-cabl... |
Thanks Mark. Certainly a promising show report! Note that stereophile’s editor mentioned in the comments section that John Atkinson has a follow up review of the Perspective2 coming in the July issue. I’ll be VERY interested in that review as his earlier review of the Perspectives raised some eye-brows, seemingly a luke-warm review. As mentioned earlier in this thread Stereophile is also reviewing the Pulsar2s. |
I have not heard the Pulsar's but can comment on the Pulsar 2's as I am a proud new owner of them. All I can say is they are a stunning standmount speaker. The amount of bass that comes out of them is surprising. It just does everything right. From not to bright hi's and excellent mids to tight bass and large soundstage. I am using these in a room that is 15x12 with 8ft ceilings to an open staircase. They replaced PMC Twenty5.26's, which are great speakers in their own right. The Pulsar 2's just work better in my room. I am a bass guy so I added a PMC Twenty sub and I am floored by the sound. Best decision I made so far in this hobby wa going to the Pulsar 2's. |
Great, thanks for letting us know darren. I get the feeling the new graphene models will have upped the popularity of the Joseph Pulsar/Perspective speakers. I'm really intrigued by what JA at Stereophile will have to say about the new Perspectives in the July issue. Apparently he's already written the review. |
kenjit, You can often find John Atkinson of Stereophile describing various deficiencies or oddities he's hearing in a speaker, whether he's reviewing it, or explaining his measurements. JA expressed clear reservations about the performance of the original Joseph Audio Perspectives - found them a bit too bright/unforgiving in the upper frequencies, and found the bass to be less defined than he'd like. So I'm curious if he will find the new version sounds different in those parameters. |
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. |
JA at Stereophile is the last person whose hearing I would trust. Disagree. I know dissing JA is a hobby horse of yours, but I find him to be quite perceptive. The measurements of the Perspectives showed characteristics (e.g. rising treble response, bass node at least in his room) that matched his subjective report pretty well. (He also often hears artifacts, ratified in his measurements, that his other reviewers sometimes miss). |
JA is really good at measuring, which makes the fact that he can barely interpret his own measurements more than a little frustrating. He likes speakers that sound like hearing aids, and he is not above making up shade. If he hears things others miss, it’s probably because he made it up. Feel free to like or dislike the Pulsars as you see fit, but using JA's opinion as to sound quality is not something I'd ever recommend. |
erik, Then how do you explain that JA found the Perspectives to be on the bright, unforgiving side, and his later measurements (taken afterwards) supported what he perceived? He correctly perceived what his measurements later showed. And he didn’t like the brightness. Having auditioned the original Perspectives numerous times, and in my own room as well, I found JA’s review quite perceptive - he heard what I heard. I could find the Perspectives brighter and a bit more "scrunch down my ears" on material that don’t sound as bright on many other speakers. I also found the bass could be a bit "woofy" at the bottom. Obviously that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t buy them, as I’m clearly enamored by the Perspectives. I think the way the Perspectives manage to sound so smooth and free of grain or etch allows them to have that rising top end without the usual costs of uncomfortable treble found in other speakers. So in most cases what you get is a superb sense of clarity, aliveness and detail retrieval, but sometimes that rising top end does show itself. That’s one reason why I’m intrigued by comments by Mark and others that the speaker’s top end and midrange sounds even smoother and more refined in the new model. And with tighter bass. If Joseph Audio has managed to keep what I love about the Perspectives while addressing those concerns, that would be just the ticket. As JA was pretty much the only reviewer who reported exactly those characteristics, I’m glad he’s the one doing the follow up review. I've found JA to be among the most perceptive, straight-shooting reviewers in the subjective reviewing trade. |
Prof - If you like JA that’s fine. Follow him to the ends of the earth. I find his descriptions curiously slanted towards B&W as his reference, and if it sounds like that it is good and if not, it’s bad, and they aren’t that neutral sounding, objectively or subjectively. As for me, I don’t need JA to tell me what a good speaker is. As my blog has shown, he likes a particular type of ragged treble, which to those of us who haven't lost much of our hearing, is a hearing aid. If your tweets match this odd signature, he’ll praise it, and otherwise pooh pooh it. JA is exactly why DIYers give High End audio such a bad wrap. He has crap taste, bad hearing and we’d never deliberately build anything he thinks is superb. Essentially JA has lost his hearing and wants you to hear like he does, and for the most part he's accomplished it. |
@erik_squires B&w are very flat speakers. Used in Abbey road as a reference point. JA says There appears to be a slight excess of on-axis energy centered on 10kHz, but the response trend through the region covered by the midrange unit and tweeter is otherwise very flat. https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-nautilus-801-loudspeaker-measurements-part-2 we’d never deliberately build anything he thinks is superb. Have you read the kef blade review he did? They are very flat sounding speakers. |
Essentially JA has lost his hearing and wants you to hear like he does, and for the most part he’s accomplished it. You can’t possibly mean that the speakers I like has been decided by my reading what JA has written....can you? I mean, it couldn’t be that I have heard the speakers in question, before JA did his review, and found he reported what I heard? I liked the Perspectives more, it seems, than JA did. He raved much more about speakers that leave me cold. I also love the Devore speakers which JA would never want to own.
Really? Atkinson has raved about the Revel Salon2 speakers, stating: John Atkinson wrote: That the Salon2 can offer such resolution along with the ability to play at high levels with full-range low frequencies, and has a neutral, uncolored midrange, and offers superbly well-defined and stable stereo imaging, and has silky-smooth top octaves courtesy its beryllium-dome tweeter, and features sonic coherence from bottom to top of the audioband, makes it both a Class A speaker in Stereophile’s "Recommended Components" listing, and gave me no choice but to make it my "Editor’s Choice" for Stereophile’s 2008 Component of the Year. And enough of the magazine’s reviewers agreed with me that the Salon2 was also voted Joint Loudspeaker of 2008. The Revel speakers certainly do not fit this standard B&W wonky frequency response profile you insist JA favors to the exclusion of more neutral speakers. Are you saying you DIYers would never build anything like the Revel speakers that JA found to be superb? That would say more about you guys, than JA ;-) This is why, when I actually look at the breadth of Atkinson’s comments and reviews, I find that you need to cherry-pick your examples in order to support your thesis, ignoring instances (as you are again downplaying his Perspectives review) that don’t support your view of him. Anyway, been through this before. That’s my last comment on that, back to the Joseph Audio discussion. |
Interesting debate. I owned B&W 803Ds 20 years ago, too long ago to say anything meaningful about them now. Whatever the reviewers say about them, I have heard the new models at shows, and they do nothing for me. No review would make me consider buying them. Without listening to a speaker in your own home, everything else is an approximation. Show conditions in the US are difficult. Dealer show rooms are better. Reviews should be viewed as leads. |
I’m going to leave my prior work on this subject here, and then stop. The OP deserves to have this thread focused on the original topic. Not my personal views on the reliability or lack of a particular reviewer. Here: https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/05/stereophile-reviews-data-doesnt-lie.html and here we show he’s not sticking to his own claims: https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/12/stereophile-data-part-ii.html and here is a great example of JA not understanding the data he’s’ looking at. NOT the first time: https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/09/stereophile-slanders-crystal-cable.html Last posting I make in this thread. Anyone wanting to discuss, we need to take it to another thread out of courtesy. As always, please please buy what you like. It's your money. Enjoying what JA enjoys won't upset me one bit. Just don't ask me to support a claim he's all that knowledgeable or unbiased. He IS the bias. |
When it comes to speakers and electronics, JA measurements correlate to what he hears. The Revel Salon2 speakers review indicated that the speaker is ruler flat (compared to other speakers) and sounds that way. His review of two amps (I think one was a Cary amp) indicated that the tubed amp had 10%+ distortion at rated power, high levels of distortion at a few watts while the other amp was nearly perfect in measurement. However, the reviewer found the tube amp to be more musically enjoyable. He laid the cards on the table and let the listener determine if that's what he/she prefers. I wouldn't trust reviews for purchasing speakers or electronics. They are a guide though. I wouldn't own Magicos, Wilsons or B&Ws and I've heard dozens of their models. Absolute Sound loves Magicos. |
It looks like this website will be reviewing the new Perspective 2: https://www.monoandstereo.com/2019/05/alluxity-and-joseph-audio-at-munich.html |
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. |
