New Joseph Audio Pulsar Graphene 2
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. |
