I can say I find even the lowly Pulsar a far more enjoyable sound
than any Wilson.
From the measurements alone, both speakers' in room response looks very good, the JA's pointy lower bass making it sound a tad lean overall... The Sabrinas show a dip in the presence region and a more uniform decay in the bass with a usefully low -10dB point, so you might find them a bit more forgiving than the JA. They both have low distortion measurements... BUT, that's all conjecture. You really need to listen to these yourself, ideally in your room, and if not, to emulate the sonic result with your equipment in your room. For my small room, I would go for the Sabrina Xs
|
There are plenty of haters, especially when talking about Wilson Audio speakers. You need to go and listen to the speakers to determine if you like the sound @soix … the dealer coming out to set up the speakers in your room after purchase is not a requirement, it’s part of the service you receive when you buy Wilson Audio speakers. Hardly a downside. If you know what you’re doing and you want to wrestle a 100+ lb speaker by yourself, no one will stop you. |
Welp, I'm a little surprised Wilson has returned to the 2.4kHz dip. This will give the illusion of extra detailed imaging. As for the brightness, look at the off-axis response. This is a speaker you can easily adjust by toe-in/toe-out. PS - I am neutral on Wilson's overall. I might even be a fan if they were significantly less expensive. |
I haven't heard SabrinaX but I heard Wilson's upper end model - I think it was DAW.. It was nice but I cannot afford that. I always loved sound of JA speakers, especially Perspective... Speakers from other brands are way too out of my budget or just meh sound. Another speaker I am smitten on is Gershman Avant Garde. I like small floor standing speakers to fit into a smaller living space. |
I listened to the SabrinaX at a local dealer last spring. I thought they sounded excellent, but I wasn’t wowed. The bass was fast, and there was more of it than I expected based on reviews and frequency roll off charts I’d seen. The mids were solid, and the highs were as well, without being fatiguing. The soundstage was wide and pretty deep. In general, the speakers were very articulate — I felt I was hearing everything in the signal, without smearing. The timbre was good. Also and significantly, I didn’t perceive any weaknesses — the speakers did everything well (apart from very low bass extension, of course). But I really wanted to be wowed, and for whatever reason I didn’t feel the magic. Perhaps I was having a bad ear day. I spent a couple of hours listening to some of my music, as well as music the dealer provided. The system was solid, and tracked what I have at home, with the exception of some 5-figure speaker cables — Valhallas, I think. I went back to the drawing board, researched a bunch more and two weeks ago took delivery of the Perspective2 Graphene. (Aaron at Now Listen Here has been great to work with, as was Jeff Joseph.) I’m very happy so far. I posted a few notes capturing my initial impressions on a thread started by Prof. You can find that if you want more. Actually, I strongly recommend you read the entire thread — it contains insightful commentary (by others) on a variety of speakers in the range you are looking at, including the Perspectives; I think DeVore is in the thread title. The listening session with the SabrinaX is too far in the past to make meaningful comparisons, but I feel the magic with the Perspectives. Or perhaps I’m feeling recency or purchase confirmation bias. In any case it’s working for me. I don’t think that either speaker would be a bad choice. They are both excellent. |
I was debating which to choose between Gershman Avant Garde and Wilson Puppy. I chose Gershman because of its size and weight. Wilson might have bigger sound, but my listening room is not that large. Gershman would need at least 100W high quality power amp. I have Plinius SA102 (125 Watts) and Quicksilver KT mono (100 Watts), but I feel a bit lack of power from both. More power like 200 Watts would make it more shine. |
Big +1. No emotional connection to the music — just reproduced sound in a clinical fashion. Not for me, and I’d take JA, Wilson, Usher, Vandersteen, ProAc, or Verity Audio in a heartbeat over B&W. |
Post removed |
@soix @prof @disc - your posts on JA Perspectives 2 certainly have helped me to make the decision. Although I didn't think my dealer had the speakers set up most ideal way, but going by what I heard at a show and online feedback from just about everyone on these speakers, I thought they'd serve me for many years with a highly enjoyable music. Surely I'll post my impression. Thanks everyone! |
Post removed |
I owned perspective 2's for a few years. Very good speakers. Moved on because my room is large and I couldn't get the scale and bottom end I wanted (I:m anti subwoofer). Went back to open baffle/dipole which is my preferred sound. If you have a small/medium sized room and want a dynamic speaker design (conventional drivers in a box), they work great. Very smooth, musical and non fatiguing. |
@joc3021 thanks for your feedback. My room size is about 13x25 ft. Setting them up against 13ft wall. What is your room size? I too was considering PAP Trio15 at one point but I was worried too many things could go wrong 😅 |
@joc3021 How would you compare the bass, mids, highs, and especially the soundstage/imaging with the Spatials? Thanks for any thoughts. |
I have x4 ultras. Bass is huge: deep,fast, tight and detailed. Speakers must be positioned optimally for this. Mine are 4 feet from back wall and about 3 from the side wall. Mids are good, detailed and clean without edge or brightness. I would say the Joseph's mids are a bit more rounded and human sounding, one of their strengths is their naturalness in this region. Spatials highs are phenomenal. I'm a big fan of the AMT driver. No conventional tweeter sounds as smooth, extended and detailed to me as this does. Scale is huge. Very immersive and enveloping (this is big for me, and conventional speakers don't do this in my experience). The dipole design and open baffle dispersion pattern have a lot to do with this. The Joseph's sound way smaller and constrained (as do all conventional designs). Getting rid of the box changes everything. Not everybody's flavor, but I can't go back. |
I have x4 ultras. Bass is huge: deep,fast, tight and detailed. Speakers must be positioned optimally for this. Mine are 4 feet from back wall and about 3 from the side wall. Mids are good, detailed and clean without edge or brightness. I would say the Joseph's mids are a bit more rounded and human sounding, one of their strengths is their naturalness in this region. Spatials highs are phenomenal. I'm a big fan of the AMT driver. No conventional tweeter sounds as smooth, extended and detailed to me as this does. Scale is huge. Very immersive and enveloping (this is big for me, and conventional speakers don't do this in my experience). The dipole design and open baffle dispersion pattern have a lot to do with this. The Joseph's sound way smaller and constrained (as do all conventional designs). Getting rid of the box changes everything. Not everybody's flavor, but I can't go back. |
More and more I read on box VS open baffle speakers, really comes down to type of sounds the listener prefers. Lot of cases for those who went from box speakers to OB ones, they immediately noticed sound characteristics @joc3021 mentioned. I have seen people posting that they came back to box speakers because OB doesn’t handle fleshed out mid range as the tweeter handles both upper n mids. I can’t validate those cause I never owned OB, but right now I am after a set of speakers that tells the truth without harshness in a relatively smallish package. I lived with big speakers for a while and they were just pain when it come moving them. I hope Perspective2s to be my destination speakers because they were significant financial commitment. However, should my preference change, I think Perspectives are easy to keep due to its size and add something different down the road. |