2. speakers
  3. 1402937816

JA Perspecitve Stereophile review

Just read the review and am scratching my head a bit so wondering what you guys think. Although Atkinson recommends them in the end it comes with some big caveats in terms of less than stellar bass and a boost in the presence range that he termed "hot." Looking at the frequency response graph it does show a boost in that region on the graph and relative to a couple other speakers, but I've listened to many JA speakers in many settings -- including the Perspectives -- and "hot" is not a word I would attribute to any of them so I find this very curious (nor can I recall any other review of a JA speaker where they're called hot or bright sounding). I know it's relative and personal preferences, etc., but still. Also, not too much said about imaging/disappearing, which I've always found to be a competitive strength particularly with JA speakers so surprised that wasn't more of a standout although he does generally find imaging to be a positive.

Also curious is that Atkinson is usually pretty good at providing direct product comparisons and given he just had the Vandersteen Treos in house I find it strange he didn't compare the two or compare anything else to the Perspectives directly (although I guess we could infer the Treos or maybe the Giya G3, but I'd find direct comparisons much more useful here). What's more, he mentions stiff competition from several other speakers he lists in the conclusion section (including the Treos) and all of them are 30% to 60% cheaper than the Perspectives. Taking all this together and reading between the lines as we must do when reading these reviews, I can't help but view this as a backhanded slap against the Perspectives.

Lastly, I have to say while I generally respect Atkinson I sometimes wonder if his measurements sometimes bias his findings. Don't get me wrong, I think he's probably writing what he hears, but you can almost look at his graphs and predict a good bit of what he'll find upon listening. Obviously measurements matter but the skeptical side of me just finds the correlation a bit too tight.

Anyway, I just found the review a bit surprising and disappointing given my past experience and just looking for some other, er, perspectives on this. And no I don't own JA speakers (although I'd love to) and no affiliation with JA whatsoever.
soix
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,229 posts
 
The review wasn't an over the top rave, but it was overall very positive. The way I took the review was that Stereophile thought the Perspective was a very good performing loudspeaker, but it's not a particularly high value. Not when compared to other brand's $5k loudspeakers, nor when compared to the Pulsars. Atkinson regularly responds to question on the Audio Asylum website. Go there and ask him for more info.
timrhu
2,779 posts
 
I read it a couple days ago and was a bit puzzled by it as well. The review did not seem positive to me even though he recommended it with caveats. I had the feeling he was a bit shy about recommending it with the less expensive Revel speaker in the same issue.
soix OP
9,585 posts
 
Agree with Rcprince about the questionable pulling of the review from Eric Lichte. He implies that it's due to the boost in the presence region, but given the size of the room I suspect it's more due to bass integration issues. Again curious since the Revels seemed to work perfectly there. Hmmm. Where I might disagree is that although Atkinson may take the measurements after the listening is done, I question whether it affects what he eventually writes in the review. Again, a very high correlation for me. And fussy to room interaction? How can Jeff Joseph consistently earn high marks at shows if this is the case? Surely a reviewer with months of time can do a better job than a day or two in a hotel room -- no??? Joseph uses Bel Canto Class D amps in a lot of their show demos, and if they don't make the speakers sound "on the lean side" I wonder why they sounded that way with the MBL amps (and presumably the Pass amps as well given his overall assessment). Again, just doesn't make intuitive sense to me given my experience.

Onhwy61, the review was certainly not a rave as there were no superlatives I could see throughout the review. And I'd take out the "very" from "very positive" and "very good performing" in my assessment of the review. At best he seemed to deem them "good performers." And I think you're being kind when you say "not particularly high value." It pretty plainly paints the Perspectives as a relatively poor value given the review of the Revels (and his comments on their respective measurements) and the other speakers mentioned in the conclusion paragraph.

We all know these reviews are what they are, but I'd also bet that both Atkinson and Lichte heard what they heard. So, what I find myself wondering is, were these just bad reviewing circumstances or are the Perspectives a rare miss on the part of Joseph Audio and maybe in need of some tweaking? The Perspectives are strong contenders among others for my "end all be all" speakers (albeit maybe eventually augmented with a couple subs), so I'm very curious about this less than stellar review.
dodgealum's avatar
dodgealum
1,404 posts
 
By modern Stereophile standards I consider the review an outright pan. These are speakers that apparently could not be made to sound good in Lichte's room, had a tweeter that failed and needed to be replaced and then performed unevenly in Atkinson's room. IMHO, a read between the lines points to a flawed speaker that was difficult to recommend, particularly at the asking price. On the other hand, I'm not sure anything written in Stereophile means all that much these days so, to sum up--it was a pan but so what?
roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,011 posts
 
I just read it the night before last as I was listening to music before bed. I have never heard them, but have heard the Pearls a few years back, which I thought were very nice.
I have read so much hype and enthusiasm for the Perspectives, I was also surprised at the review. Atkinson seemed like he was either struggling to say something/anything was exceptional about them, or deliberately writing the review in such a way as to subliminally warn the reader that these speakers were not all that they could be.
As far as Jeff Joseph was concerned, he seemed to be trying to make a panicked attempt at a positive response that wouldn't sound bitter or desperate. He self-consciously used every out of context positive quote that he could cull
from the review.
Tepid would be a kind word for my overall impression of the review.
More to discover