jm lab grand utopia be--- any thoughts ?

For what it's worth, I heard the demos of these at the NY 2004 show (set up as a theater with an audience) and thought the the nova-be's were a little bass heavy and forced, but, curiously, the giant grands were more balanced and relaxed and refined. I remember a Mick Jagger solo & thought the vocals on the grands were very natural and 3D. They do not sound overwhelming despite their size.
Again, this was just show conditions, but I really thought the grands were in a different league than the novas. So I guess you get what you pay for with JM Labs. (I actually thought that, again from previous visits to the NY show, that the old Utopias & Mezzo Utopias had more listenable bass than the the new nova BEs.)
I've got Kharma 3.2s, just to let you know where my taste in speakers lies. I really can't stand loose or pushy bass.

I have heard these at shows in San Francisco and in Montreal a few years ago. At the SF show the demo was Dark Side of the Moon's "Money" track. I was not impressed. They simply did not rock, nor were they convincing. My wife looked at me and asked, "what's all the excitement about?" And how can anyone justify the cost of these when they don't even accurately convey the harmonic structure of timbre contained in the signal from any amp? I shudder to think of how the money that would go into a pair of these could instead buy a pair of Thiel CS7.2s or Vandersteen 5As some top notch electronics and sources with plenty left over for cabling and media. And all for one pair of these speakers. No way they are worth it.

I have Thiel CS6s and Vandersteen 2Ces, not top of each manufacturers' lines but darn sure more accurate than anything made by JM Labs, so, like Rgs92 above, you know where my taste in speakers lies. I really can't stand inaccurate harmonic content of timbre.

rgs 92-- i appreciate your candid comaprison between the novas and the grands. the novas do have some tendency to bloat the bass. hence the search.... :-)

stevecham-- well, what can i say-- we all have our tastes in what musical timber should sound like. i think that the new be line from jm lab is one of the better ones in capturing that elusive timber, but that's my take on them. thanks for you input ,really.

I bought the Grande Utopia Be's only after an in-home audition. They sound light years better in my sound room than anywhere else I've heard them. And getting them to sound fantastic was a lot of work. Changes of toe in of an eighth of inch affect the sound. Not an easy task to muscle around 500 pound "grande dammes". The distance apart and from the surrounding walls is all critical, as are the associated electronics and cables. But I expected this from laboratory grade equipment. Once tuned in, they are magical, producing extremely natural timbre (my most important criterion for any loudspeaker - I used to spend 2 to 3 nights a week listening to live, unamplified music), dynamics, and soundstage. Room treatment is also important, and I could stand to do some more work there.

But to your question, are they better than the Novas? I have heard the Novas in 3 different forums, and I think they are very fine speakers. The presentation may be a bit more "forward" than the Grandes and somewhat less refined in the midrange, and the soundstage is not as huge. I came very close to buying the Novas as I think they offer a much better value than the Grandes. But I think the Grandes are better speakers...but are they worth the difference in price? I know it sounds impossible, but require an in-home audition before you buy. Only then will you know if they are worth it to you. Set up and associated equipment are critical for fantastic results, but I think well worth the effort.
As a side note, they have been absolutely trouble free and a joy to own.

By the way, I think JM Labs offers some superb sounding products in the lower price ranges. Methinks the high end offers disproportionate increases in sound quality as prices increase.

Ozy, my questions:

Can you help me understand why anyone would want to hear timbre and harmonic content that is anything but accurate as possible upon transducing the signal fed by the amplifier?

I mean, why would you want to hear only some of the harmonic content of a clarinet, for example, that is contained on the recording? Why would you not want the speaker, which we all agree is the critical motor that conveys the musical content at the final stage of music reproduction, to provide you with as much as possible by minimizing harmonic conent loss due to phase errors, intentionally imparted by the speaker designer?

Why anyone would choose a speaker that does this intentionally, by design, and that is the key issue here, is something I simply cannot fathom, unless most simply do not understand what they're missing.

I truly belive that as you get better at listening and enjoying all there is on recordings, both good and bad, these things become ever more important. If you learn to hear them, they do matter. But to be fair, this also requires spending time with speakers that, by design, demonstrably present as much harmonic phase accuracy that timbre is built upon at the current level of the state of the art.

And just why in heck does JMLab (and Wilson) have to charge such large $um$ at the top of their product lines to not even care to address nor even attempt to achieve this? So, in the end I have to conclude that extremely expensive, inaccurate timbre is preferred by some hobbyists called audiophiles? I find that simply fascinating. Perhaps the process of accurate timbre appreciation is just a matter of time...but in the end, more will find, as I did, that it does matter.