Help with understanding measurements: Joseph Audio Pulsar

[SIY]

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.

You can. Now clearly, you can't distinguish two amps with different measurements by ear if the distortion, noise, and frequency response variations are below audible thresholds, but that doesn't go to your claim. There is 100% predictability of electronics from the measurements. I've asked repeatedly over the years for counter-evidence, but not surprisingly, those requests are met with silence, hand-waving, or foot-stomping.

 

[Tony C.]

You can.

With respect, there are varying degrees of audible distortion, and I do not believe that you would be able to listen to amps in a blind test which produce relative low levels, and be able to produce accurate, associated measurements.

 

[JustJones]

I had the Joseph Audio Perspective Graphene 2 and when I asked what was the biggest difference between the two versions he told me they redid the xovers. The graphene was just a protective coating to help against corrosion. They used seas drivers.

 

[SIY]

With respect, there are varying degrees of audible distortion, and I do not believe that you would be able to listen to amps in a blind test which produce relative low levels, and be able to produce accurate, associated measurements.

The phrase "below audible thresholds" is key. It is VERY rare to find amps that exceed it for distortion unless they're overdriven or are the exceptionally rare niche and expensive effects boxes posing as amps (like most SE-DHT, which might represent 0.05% of the market on a good day). And even there, the measurements will show what ears-only testing will reveal: fuzzy, poor definition, and non-flat frequency response.

For the vast, vast majority, this is a non-issue. So, still no counter-examples after a half century.

And this is more suited for the Measurements thread, not here. Sorry.

 

[MattHooper]

This thread somewhat illustrates the use and limitations of looking to measurements of speakers....for my purchases anyway.

I own the Joseph Audio Perspective speakers. From the measurements and the replies here I don't think there is anything that would have compelled me to seek them out over plenty of other speakers. And yet I found the brand to become one of my all time favorites, through having listened to them.

I'd first encountered Joseph Audio's flagship Pearl speakers producing among the most realistic sound I'd ever heard at an audio show. Some vocal harmony tracks were being played and I was startled at how "right" they sounded.
I did my "close my eyes, listen go the reproduced vocals compared to people talking in the room" - a test almost all systems would fail, as the reproduced voices would normally sound artificial or tonally/timbrally "off" from real voices. But, man, the voices coming from the Pearl's were just bang on to the timbre of human voices in the room, and with a very "unmechanical, human" presentation and tonality.

I was so impressed by this unusual encounter that when I got back from that audio show I visited a local dealer and listened to the Joseph Pulsar at a store, which displayed some of what impressed me in the larger speakers. I then listened to the floor standing Perspective models. I ended up buying the floor-standing Perspectives as, for me, they did what I liked from the Pulsars, but added "more" - bass, scale etc.

As I've mentioned before, what stuck out to me, among other things, was the combination of clarity and smoothness in the sound, a purity and sense of "lack of any obvious distortion or graininess." This was consonant with what various subjective reviews (and user reports) noted about the speakers as well. (This stood out to me, btw, from the show and store auditions, before I later read up on the brand).

A look at the measurements for the original Joseph Audio Perspective speakers on stereophile indicates a rising high end which, yes, does translate to some brightness or vividness in some cases. Only going on such measurements I would have likely ruled out the Perspectives because I have very sensitive ears to brightness - having tinnitus and especially hyperacusis which means sharp high frequencies can literally cause me pain. Fortunately I heard them first. While that rising high end could be notable on some material, the speakers almost never bothered my ears. The sound was soooo smooth and clean sounding - a subjective impression, at least, of low distortion - that it gave the sound a sense of "ease." Once I had the Perspectives in my home I actually had to be careful because, while vivid and detailed, the sound was so smooth I found I could turn them up to higher than normal volumes (for me) and not realize how loud it was. This, among their other fine characteristics IMO, have made them a purchase that has thrilled me for years now.

I certainly get that some here can glean some very relevant and helpful info from even the soundstage/stereophile measurements (even more if it were "Klippelled"). But for me it doesn't get me all the way to a purchase: I have to hear a speaker to see if I get along with it. Certain idiosyncracies may be flagged in measurements, but how audible or bothersome those are to ME relative to other possible characteristics I like, is something I want to hear for myself. Along a similar "but what does it actually sound like to the ear?" approach, I've found a number of subjective reviews (and some user/owner reports) on these speakers to be detailed and generally accurate in describing the sound I hear from the Joseph speakers.

 

[MattHooper]

I had the Joseph Audio Perspective Graphene 2 and when I asked what was the biggest difference between the two versions he told me they redid the xovers. The graphene was just a protective coating to help against corrosion. They used seas drivers.

Yes that's what I've heard. The Graphene is more of a catchy sales moniker, but Seas redesigned various aspects of the driver, motor etc, which apparently reaped some dividends and Joseph redid crossovers implementing them. The main purported difference is apparently in the bass, sounds a little more tight and powerful, supposedly. I heard the Graphene Perspectives briefly at a store and was impressed.

How did you like them? Sound like you own something else now, if so which speakers?

 

[JustJones]

It's been awhile since I had the Perspectives. I remember I enjoyed them they were an easy speaker to listen to, bit light in the bass. I moved to a condo and downsized getting active monitors. I've been through some different monitors including Genelec 8351b and Dutch and Dutch 8c. I have Focal Trio 11be now. Of the monitors I've tried these fit my needs better with a wider sweet spot as my wife likes to listen with me sitting on a couch in the living room. I have EQ them with a minidsp SHD and Dirac.

 

[MattHooper]

It's been awhile since I had the Perspectives. I remember I enjoyed them they were an easy speaker to listen to, bit light in the bass.

Agreed they are easy to listen to, but that's the first time I've ever heard anyone call them light in the bass! The Joseph speakers generally produce surprising bass depth and power for their size. But I guess the key part there is "for their size" because they are in the end quite small for floor standing speakers. But for me they hold their own quite well in the bass department against my larger Thiel 2.7 and 3.7s I owned.

I moved to a condo and downsized getting active monitors. I've been through some different monitors including Genelec 8351b and Dutch and Dutch 8c. I have Focal Trio 11be now. Of the monitors I've tried these fit my needs better with a wider sweet spot as my wife likes to listen with me sitting on a couch in the living room. I have EQ them with a minidsp SHD and Dirac.

I'm not surprised at those speaker selections for a member of this forum

I'm glad you found satisfaction even after downsizing.

Even more: I'm envious of anyone whose wife joins them for listening! A unicorn!

 

[JustJones]

Agreed they are easy to listen to, but that's the first time I've ever heard anyone call them light in the bass!

I had them in a huge room about 500 sq ft.

 

[MattHooper]

I had them in a huge room about 500 sq ft.

Ah, that gives some...Perspective

I figured that might be the case. I guess for bass/scale of sound, sometimes there's no replacement for displacement, as they say.

 

[NTK]

This thread somewhat illustrates the use and limitations of looking to measurements of speakers....for my purchases anyway.
...

Quoting Dr. Toole:

The brain is a marvelous instrument - ask and it will deliver . . . and who can possibly argue?

 

[MattHooper]

Quoting Dr. Toole:

No doubt. After all, the amount of things people are imagining around the world at any one time is staggering: there are people who think wearing a crystal cures their headaches and others who can visit alien worlds if they just hit the right level of meditation.

But then, how far do you want to push such a response for practical, real world purposes?

If our brains are so good at "delivering whatever we want" - in this case, if what is happening objectively/measurably between two different speakers is amenable to being so swamped and bypassed via sighted bias anyway - why should any prospective purchaser care about the measurements? Buy based on budget and aesthetics and you're good to go. ;-)

 

[NTK]

No doubt. After all, the amount of things people are imagining around the world at any one time is staggering: there are people who think wearing a crystal cures their headaches and others who can visit alien worlds if they just hit the right level of meditation.

But then, how far do you want to push such a response for practical, real world purposes?

If our brains are so good at "delivering whatever we want" - in this case, if what is happening objectively/measurably between two different speakers is amenable to being so swamped and bypassed via sighted bias anyway - why should any prospective purchaser care about the measurements? Buy based on budget and aesthetics and you're good to go. ;-)

And therefore the vast majority of the world's population is perfectly happy listening to "crappy gear".

My wife prefers listening to a boom box in the kitchen. Does that mean her appreciation of music is inferior to mine?

 

[MattHooper]

And therefore the vast majority of the world's population is perfectly happy listening to "crappy gear".

And why should that matter?

Why care about "good gear" if it has no real benefits when listening in the stew-bias of sighted listening? Analogy: Why pay for world class Japanese Kobe beef if you are just going to use it in your chili?

My wife prefers listening to a boom box in the kitchen. Does that mean her appreciation of music is inferior to mine?

Of course not.

 

[NTK]

And why should that matter?

The kitchen boom box sounds perfectly fine to her. The same way as your system sounds perfectly fine to you.

 

[MattHooper]

The kitchen boom box sounds perfectly fine to her. The same way as your system sounds perfectly fine to you.

Precisely the same in your situation too...right?

 

[NTK]

Precisely the same in your situation too...right?

Exactly. Circle back to Dr Toole's quote.

 

[MattHooper]

Exactly. Circle back to Dr Toole's quote.

Yup. (Though that actually avoided the question).

So...what are we doing here (on ASR) again?

(I've been hoping the issue I've being pointing to is obvious enough...about defaulting to the explanation of bias...)

 

[NTK]

Yup.

So...what are we doing here (on ASR) again?

(I've been hoping the issue I've being pointing to is obvious enough...about defaulting to the explanation of bias...)

Science.

Just like science gives me vastly superior information about what foods are good for me than my taste buds. But I don't leave my taste buds out when I pick what foods I am going to eat.

 

[MattHooper]

NTK,

I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I'm certain we generally agree on things.

It's just that your initial reply with the Toole quote at least implied that imagination was doing all the work in, for example, my speaker choice decisions. (If that wasn't the implication, I'm not sure about the relevance of the quote and you could elaborate).

My point is: that's a bit rash.

Science.

Ok, then you will want to be of a scientific mindset I presume when making claims. That would mean being quite cautious about what you can, or have, demonstrated.

It's always possible sighted bias will influence any impressions of a speaker. But you can't really know in many instances and for an individual if that is in fact the explanation (unless you've done the scientific tests with that individual). In other words, someone thinking scientifically isn't going to overreach what they actually know or have demonstrated in their explanations. Is there some way, for instance, where you can know that I don't in fact really like the actual sonic character of my Joseph speakers, and you know that it's all my imagination doing the work? Was there something inherently implausible in the claim, for instance from measurements (e.g. that I find the speakers to sound very clear and clean)?

Also; If for instance you are going to simply attribute what I take to be the "sound" of my speakers to sighted bias, do you think that knowing the measurements of your speakers somehow makes you escape the phenomenon of your sighted bias while listening?

Just like science gives me vastly superior information about what foods are good for me than my taste buds. But I don't leave my taste buds out when I pick what foods I am going to eat.

That makes sense, except it isn't really an analogy that addresses the issue.

I think the analogy I gave earlier is more apt: If we assume that the spices in a chili stew would tend to mask the difference in meat flavors and "quality of meat," then what sense would it make to care whether you have the world's "best" Kobe beef in there vs meat of "less quality," if the differences will simply be swamped by the chili spices? It wouldn't make sense, right?

Similarly as I've said...if we are going to follow through on implications...IF sighted bias was the overriding explanation for "why people hear what they think they hear" in speakers, and if we all listen in sighted conditions, why would it matter if you had speakers that "measure better" or not (or even pass blind tests more often)? If, under the conditions we'll actually listen to the speaker, we are just going to hear what we want or expect to hear...who cares, right? A speaker measures amazing, another really poor, but it doesn't really matter either way to sighted listening, right?

But I'm sure we agree that seems like a bit of an absurd conclusion.

Therefore, if you follow the logic back the other way, then to care about the quality of speaker (e.g. it's measurements) implies that we can indeed discern such quality differences under SIGHTED conditions as well - the conditions under which we will be using our speakers.

So you can't be so fast to just ascribe someone's impressions of a speaker to imagination (as your use of the Toole quote implied), just because sighted bias effects are possible. It's possible someone's impression of a speaker is almost entirely due to bias effects and "inaccurate," it's possible it's a mix of bias and apprehending real sonic characteristics, it's possible that it's a generally accurate impression of the sonics of the speaker.
Before implying or dismissing something as bias, it's best to have very solid grounds to do so. (Which is certainly possible - for instance, if you know the two cables compared by an audiophile measure the same, that certainly is good grounds for presuming reported sonic differences are bias effects, not apprehending real sonic characteristics).

Cheers.