Any monitors clearly better than Pulsars?

no matter how refine the pulsar are, they sound small with no real bass.

That may certainly be your opinion, but I'd say it would be quite misleading to people curious about the Pulsars.

They are renowned for their bass output for a stand mounted speaker and for sounding bigger than they are.  People who write show reports - from reviewers to audiophiles on forums - regularly report being stunned at the "size" of the sound and bass depth.
The soundstage review, for instance, points this out:

The bass was phenomenal, and seemingly went much lower than the Pulsar’s stated low-end limit of 42Hz.
The Pulsars imaged and soundstaged better than almost any other speakers I’ve ever heard, minimonitor or floorstander. The manual indicates that the buyer should expect the soundstage to extend about a foot in front of and behind the speakers. In my room, the soundstage began just behind the Pulsars and went incredibly deep and wide; images floated entirely free of the cabinets.

Although, like most minimonitors, the Pulsars didn’t produce life-size images, what they did produce was larger than most -- maybe 80% life-size -- and, like their bass response, could fool me almost completely with some recordings.

the reviewer did say exactly what I said about the pulsar.. not life size imaging (sound small) , and limited bass response. :" Although, like most minimonitors, the Pulsars didn’t produce life-size images, what they did produce was larger than most -- maybe 80% life-size -- and, like their bass response, could fool me almost completely with some recordings."

I disagree that they create impressive bass, and I guess this is truly subjective. for me impressive bass is a 12 inch, 15 inch or 18 inch in a 100l cabinet. even the reviewer agree: only with certain recordings the bass presentation didnt bother him.

Pulsar are made for jazz and chambers, at low volume. the distortion figures at 90 db is tremendous just like any 5 inch midbass.
7000$ for that? the 805 d3 is just a better allrounder, and id argue even more detailed, with better tone and definitely better bass, ability to play much louder and its cheaper.

murphythecat

So your complaint is that a stand mounted monitor doesn’t sound like a big speaker with 12 t o18 inch drivers and a big cabinet.

I’m not sure exactly how helpful or enlightening this input is in a thread about monitor speakers, asking for monitor comparisons to the Pulsar.

And of course your idea of what the Pulsar is "made for" is merely subjective. Many have found it, and similar performing stand mounted speakers, to be very compelling on all types of music (I auditioned everything from Van Halen to Earth Wind And Fire on the Pulsars and found them wonderful on such music. Michael Fremer remarked that he was surprised by the Pulsar with rock, mesmerized in fact).
Again, just providing some counterpoint to your subjective impressions.

Prof,

Op question is: " any-monitors-clearly-better-than-pulsars"

as I find the pulsar very limited in bass extension or bass punch, and find the imagize size giving a very small window, Ive recommended:
805 D3 and Harbeth 30.2 which I think are clearly better then Pulsar.

murphythecat,


We all have our preferences.

I'm familiar with the Harbeth 30.2 (auditioned it, heard it many times) and owned the Harbeth SuperHL5plus.

I love Harbeth, but wouldn't put the 30.2 above the Pulsar at all, certainly NOT for bass punch and extension. I mean, the Harbeth is rated only down to 50Hz and the Pulsar down to 42Hz.  The stereophile measurements clearly show the Pulsar's bass extension beating the Harbeth 30.  So I'm confused as to why that's making your recommendation "because the Pulsars don't have the punch/bass extension.'

The Pulsar even measures deeper bass extension than your recommended 805 D3!

And...again...the Pulsars have virtually made their name on putting out more, and better bass than most monitors.

So, all I can say it that your perspective is pretty anomalous on this issue.  Maybe it's what you perceived upon hearing the Pulsars in a certain set up, but there's more objective evidence that your recommendations don't exactly make sense in light of your critique of the Pulsar.