2. speakers
  3. 151229-96

Why don't Joseph Audio Pearls get more love from the audio press?

From Neil Gader's Best of Show speaker segment from RMAF:

Best Sound (Cost No Object)

I could have gone Vandersteen, Wilson, or YG but my heart kept returning to the Joseph Pearl 3 with Berkeley Audio Design sourcing Doshi Audio power. Even in a smallish room the sound was effortless, and brimming with musicality and warmth. Take my money, please.

How is it that the Pearls, in any iteration, have -- unlike their smaller siblings -- gotten virtually no reviews from the audio press yet almost always garner lush praise from them at shows?  I just don't get it, unless Jeff can't make enough of them and is too stingy to give a pair to a reviewer for a couple months.  What gives???
soix

Showing 2 responses by soix

soix OP
8,655 posts
 
Yeah, but never the Pearls.  Strange. 
soix OP
8,655 posts
 
It's like reviewing the Sophias but not the Alexandrias.  Or the Quatros but not the Model 7.  Or the Q3 but not the Q7.  As far as everything getting a positive review, that's just a false argument IMHO.  As a former reviewer I can tell you that "crap" never bubbles up to the surface to get reviewed.  I reviewed dozens of products and only reviewed one that was a dog and reported it as such.  Look at the review sites as a funnel that only review stuff that is getting good buzz and you'll realize why most reviews are relatively positive.  Honestly, if you were publishing an audio review mag/website and heard something sounded like crap, would you want to review it?  C'mon.  Let's use a little common sense here.  Just saying every review is positive is just easy and shallow thinking.  Read what's written and you can get a lot from most reviews (except What Hifi -- they just suck and are useless IMO). 
More to discover