Help with understanding measurements: Joseph Audio Pulsar

[arthur1260]

hi folks, could someone please have a look at these measurements and let me know what are the problems?

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - NRC Measurements: Joseph Audio Pulsar Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com

 

[nerdoldnerdith]

There's a weird suckout at ~750Hz. Not huge, but noticeable. The tweeter starts to beam at 5kHz. There is some baffle diffraction at 4-5kHz. The frequency response slopes up and will sound bright in a room. The price is way too high.

 

[Trouble Maker]

My take is it's really hard to read those graphs (without being an expert).

But to my non-expert eyes looks overall not great.

• a few spots of directivity issues
• likely a little bright, hot/higher in the high freq
• Low sensitivity
• Just OK distortion, but maybe not a-typical for 2 way bookshelves.

It's hard for me to look at the general market and imagine a $7700 2 way passive bookshelf that's not so far past the point of diminishing return that it won't be an "audiophile" type of product sold on things like tuning flavor, a story or 'high end' finishes.

 

[arthur1260]

thanks for the replies, I was looking at the Revel 206 and it also didn't look too clean to me, but I'm not very good at understanding these measurements, just noticed they got good reviews: https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153
I also noticed more THD stuff on the Pulsar

 

[dc655321]

The speaker could benefit from improved xover design and (importantly!) a waveguided tweeter.
There is a port (or electrical) resonance visible at ~750Hz.
Reasonable bass extension and linearity though...

And it's pretty!

But not $7k pretty. Just no...

 

[Beave]

Stereophile also reviewed and measured, here: https://www.stereophile.com/content/joseph-audio-pulsar-loudspeaker-measurements

Resonance at 750-800Hz is a port resonance, as seen in Stereophile's Fig. 3.

Sensitivity is low, but impedance is high.

Bass extension is good but that's always a tradeoff with sensitivity when dealing with a small bookshelf speaker.

Tweeter level seems a bit too hot compared to woofer level. Listening a little off axis could negate this somewhat.

Dispersion is fairly wide and even until tweeter starts beaming around 5kHz.

Woofer and tweeter are both expensive Seas Excel models. Speaker is very expensive due to costly parts and low volume production.

 

[arthur1260]

Thanks a lot for the insights!
How would you compare this to Kef Reference 1?

 

[Tony C.]

Whoa! Both of those sets of measurements, and the review, are from years ago, and relate to an earlier model. If you want to compare the Pulsar to current speakers, it's the Graphene 2 version, which presumably measures differently.

 

[arthur1260]

Indeed, however I couldn’t find measurements for Pulsar 2, and I understood there is not a huge difference between the previous and the graphene drivers.

 

[Tony C.]

Well, with due respect, these speakers – both versions, in fact – have been exceptionally well reviewed, and not only by publications. My point is not to suggest that they don't have flaws, but rather that it would, at least to my mind, be dubious to dismiss them on the basis of measurements alone.

 

[sq225917]

Tony, Do you think measurements or a reviewers opinion will tell you more about how these will sound in a given situation?

 

[Tony C.]

I don't think that there is a simple answer to that question. Measurements can be valuable, of course, but they don't tell the whole story, and in particular with regards to synergy with other components, and/or the listening space.

 

[SIY]

Well, with due respect, these speakers – both versions, in fact – have been exceptionally well reviewed, and not only by publications. My point is not to suggest that they don't have flaws, but rather that it would, at least to my mind, be dubious to dismiss them on the basis of measurements alone.

The measurements aren't bad. Not perfect, but not bad. Traditionally, JA speakers used a very steep crossover and I'd guess from the measurements, that's still the case. If they were in my room, I'd put a little downtilt in EQ, but that's easy to do.

 

[Shadrach1]

There isn't a simple answer I agree. It's a point of irritation to me that often so called objectivists; of which I consider myself to be, will insist on missusing the saying that measurements can tell the whole story of how a collection of electronics will sound to the listener.
What measurements can tell you is how a piece of equipment will perform. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that equipment that measures to a particular set of criteria will sound better than equipment that doesn't.
The word synergy isn't really very helpful when it comes to audio reproduction. Making sure each componant can work correctly with the other componants in the chain, which can only be done through measurement is the synergy of an audio system.
The listening space as you suggest has a huge impact on how a sound reproduction system will sound. Only measurement can tell one what areas of this need addressing.

But, what measurements can't tell one, not yet anyway, is how the listener will percieve any changes to the system.
It's the listener, rather than the equipment, that we can't measure adequately to fully predict their response to a particular sound.

There isn't a solution to the listener who states "if it sounds better to me then it is better". The reasons it may, or may, not sound better are irrelevant in this case; one can't argue with the statement.
This big disadvantage for those who adhere to the view the statement states is they are bound on an endless journey trying this and trying that, all at some expense, until they find a setup that satisfies all the criteria they employ to judge the betterness of their system.

I don't like the sound of the Harman curve on some equipment. With some equipment if one rectifies one deviation from the curve (Harman in this case) another problem can arise elswhere particulalry with loudspeakers in a room.

Have faith in the measurements is all I can write. True they won't tell you everything but they will tell you how each piece of equipment performs and that is an excellent starting point. One can look at the measurements, accept that say the Harman curve is the current standard of proof for listener preference and rule out equipment that does not meet your criteria. It's a lot easier than trying to get a meaningfull demonstration at a sales outlet (Hi Fi dealers/consultants) are sales outlets) or borrowing some friends kit for a few days.

 

[sq225917]

Synergy is just the art of ameliorating one fault with another.

 

[Tony C.]

Synergy is just the art of ameliorating one fault with another.

This is precisely the type of "contribution" that tends to make those who are not dogmatic objectivists roll their eyes. The reason is that the assertion implies that faultless sound reproduction should necessarily be the goal of all audiophiles, while the truth is very different.

Why do you imagine that tube amplifiers, and Pass SS amplifiers, are so popular? Do you somehow imagine that if the users of such components were to be exposed to more neutral amps, tears would begin to flow, and they would immediately understand the errors of their ways?

It's fine to argue that measurements can show distortion, etc., and I agree that can have real value. But even if there were a "faultless" speaker design, it is very unlikely that any but a few would be able to afford to own a pair. So by definition, all audio systems (and rooms) are less than perfect, and as such, attempting to refine system synergies is a perfectly sensible pursuit.

 

[BlackTalon]

Synergy is just the art of ameliorating one fault with another.

plus there is the room. All of that affects the final sound product. It just reinforces why 'use your ears' for a single component isn't the most efficient method. Too many other factors affect what you actually hear.

 

[SIY]

There isn't a simple answer I agree. It's a point of irritation to me that often so called objectivists; of which I consider myself to be, will insist on missusing the saying that measurements can tell the whole story of how a collection of electronics will sound to the listener.

It may irritate you, but indeed for electronics, the measurements will absolutely predict the sound. They may not predict the "sound," i.e., user reaction with peeking and priming, but the actual sound, absolutely. No-one has ever demonstrated the contrary even with nearly 50 years of special pleading and evidence-free assertion.

 

[Tony C.]

t may irritate you, but indeed for electronics, the measurements will absolutely predict the sound. They may not predict the "sound," i.e., user reaction with peeking and priming, but the actual sound, absolutely

The assertion doesn't irritate me, but I don't believe it, either.

If it were true, then you would be able to listen to amps in a blind test, and produce accurate, associated measurements.

I do believe that you can see through measurements that a given amp is not perfectly neutral, and that you may be able to make some general assumptions based on the data. I do not, however, believe that you could necessarily characterize accurately how the distortion would sound.

 

[Shadrach1]

It may irritate you, but indeed for electronics, the measurements will absolutely predict the sound. They may not predict the "sound," i.e., user reaction with peeking and priming, but the actual sound, absolutely. No-one has ever demonstrated the contrary even with nearly 50 years of special pleading and evidence-free assertion.

I thought this was pretty much what I wrote.

You can measure for performance but listener preference prediction is not an exact science particulary when sighted.