I can't answer your question, but somewhat related: I have the Joseph Perspective graphene speakers and just recently I was able to hear the Sonus Faber Olympica nova 3 speakers for a little while at a local AV store. I'd been wanting to hear new SF speakers for a long time. They were hooked up to a Mcintosh tube amp, playing a selection of jazz and light vocals (of course...)
I'd first spent time listening to some B&W speakers in another room. I kind of enjoy the B&W sound "on first glance" because it really is so open and airy, and they've done a great job at reducing box signature, so it's all very well controlled. Man do you ever hear in to the recording! Cymbals have a nice pop out of the mix sparkle, things sound well separated. After a while though I do miss some richness as I notice the B&W sculpted sound bit of a "smile" EQ).
My first impression of the SF speakers was that they were less overtly airy compared to the B&W. However, to my surprise, they seemed perhaps even better at separating out all the elements in the mix, and giving each it's spotlight. Cymbals which tended to be brighter and thinner on the B&W were fuller, rounder, bigger, more convincing on the SF.
A recording of acoustic guitar, piano, sax and drums was very well sorted out and very clean and clear on the SF. Though it certainly wasn't an overtly rich sound at all, as often attributed to SF, at least the SF of old. If anything I'd say there was an emphasis on the leading edge and not tons of body to each instrument. A bit reductive. Though there was a nice solidity to the sound, a solidity to the leading edge of piano notes, snare, sax, guitar picking, which helped drive the music.
Soundstage seemed constrained between the speakers. Depth was "good to great" - at first I felt it was a bit shallow, but then when I got to certain positions, I heard the central piano image recede quite well behind the speakers. Drums had nice snap and drive.
The only two negatives that struck me were:
1. It wasn't quite "my" timbre for a speaker. I liked that the SF didn't have to edge in to brightness in order to sound so clean and vivid, and I would not describe the sound as "dark" per se, but I wasn't quite getting the woody golden timbre I like to hear from acoustic guitar, the sort of burnished brass tone colour when I hear sax etc. So it was a bit timbrally off than what i prefer.
2. The bass was a bit overbearing and seemed emphasized. It lacked the precision and control that the rest of the frequency spectrum had, so in the bass it sounded more "speakerly" than the rest of the range. I wondered how much this had to do with the set up (they were several feet from the back wall) or amp. But I noticed on more than one review the possibly-over-rich-bass was mentioned for these speakers.
Ok, my point in mentioning all this was to compare it to what I hear from the Joseph speakers at home. The Perspectives have the same Joseph house sound as the Pearls, so...
What I'm getting at home is an incredibly disappearing act from the speakers, a wall-melting sense of depth, sonic images that can seem to come from well beyond the corners of the room, and yet nice palpability and precision in the imaging.
I don't know if the SF would pull off quite this much of a "magic act" even in the same place as my Perspectives. I suspect not from what I heard...but you never know for sure.
Timbrally, the Perspectives give me that rich woody timbre from acoustic guitar, string instruments, that golden brassy glow for sax, trumpet etc. They are very rich sounding from the lower mids down, not overly so, but it's closer to a sensual sound vs the tighter sound I heard from the SF. Bass is very well controlled from the Perspectives, and has a reach-out-and-feel-it quality, without the sense of slight bloat I heard from the SF. Drum cymbals have a more brassy tone than the silvery tone I heard from the SF. And overall the Josephs sound more airy and extended.
(A bunch of this is influenced by my CJ tube amps, but this is still mostly in keeping with what I would hear when auditioning the Joseph speakers in the store with other amps).
I'd characterize the Joseph sound as having a vividness like the SF, sorting out everything in the mix as well, though in a slightly more suave, smooth, relaxed fashion. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what you are looking for.
The pluses I would give to the SF over my Joseph speaker set up is that SF sounded to me a bit more evenly bodied from the upper bass up to the top.
The Joseph speakers have an incredible clarity give a nice insciveness to the higher frequencies. However, as you move up from the lower mids, the sound does lose a bit more body, so things like upper female voices, then wood blocks, drum cymbals, will tend to be rendered thinner and dynamically a bit laid back.
I like the timbre of the Josephs for drum cymbals...but the SF sounded more convincing in terms of the body and fullness it maintained for drum cymbals.
With the Josephs, I find it's the kick drum - which you really feel - and the snare work that drives the rhythm in drum parts. With the SF I think the cymbals would also pop out with more force, and drive the rhythm as well.
Does all this translate in terms of the speakers the OP wants to compare?
I can't say. But...I figured I'd offer my impressions in case they were of any help.
Cheers.
