JA Perspecitve Stereophile review


Just read the review and am scratching my head a bit so wondering what you guys think. Although Atkinson recommends them in the end it comes with some big caveats in terms of less than stellar bass and a boost in the presence range that he termed "hot." Looking at the frequency response graph it does show a boost in that region on the graph and relative to a couple other speakers, but I've listened to many JA speakers in many settings -- including the Perspectives -- and "hot" is not a word I would attribute to any of them so I find this very curious (nor can I recall any other review of a JA speaker where they're called hot or bright sounding). I know it's relative and personal preferences, etc., but still. Also, not too much said about imaging/disappearing, which I've always found to be a competitive strength particularly with JA speakers so surprised that wasn't more of a standout although he does generally find imaging to be a positive.

Also curious is that Atkinson is usually pretty good at providing direct product comparisons and given he just had the Vandersteen Treos in house I find it strange he didn't compare the two or compare anything else to the Perspectives directly (although I guess we could infer the Treos or maybe the Giya G3, but I'd find direct comparisons much more useful here). What's more, he mentions stiff competition from several other speakers he lists in the conclusion section (including the Treos) and all of them are 30% to 60% cheaper than the Perspectives. Taking all this together and reading between the lines as we must do when reading these reviews, I can't help but view this as a backhanded slap against the Perspectives.

Lastly, I have to say while I generally respect Atkinson I sometimes wonder if his measurements sometimes bias his findings. Don't get me wrong, I think he's probably writing what he hears, but you can almost look at his graphs and predict a good bit of what he'll find upon listening. Obviously measurements matter but the skeptical side of me just finds the correlation a bit too tight.

Anyway, I just found the review a bit surprising and disappointing given my past experience and just looking for some other, er, perspectives on this. And no I don't own JA speakers (although I'd love to) and no affiliation with JA whatsoever.
soix
@markalarsen 

"But this is just one example of JA's biases." You are referring to John Atkinson, not Joseph Audio, correct?

Hah! Sorry for the confusion! :) Yes. 
Atkinson's said his measurement indicated that "the Perspective's tweeter is balanced a little hotter than the Pulsar's, though its response is even overall." 

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/joseph-audio-perspective-loudspeaker-measurements#4AXoXOpCvHU0vR...

Interesting, because they have the same tweeters.

Yep, the tweeter level and even the shape of it's output is controlled by the crossover, and ultimately the speaker designer. I could easily adjust that on any of the 3 different models I listen to at home. 

The overall balance also matters a great deal. It's not just what the tweeter is doing but what the bass is doing, as well as the crossover point and therefore radiation pattern, so it is important to hear speakers for yourself, in an environment similar to your own. 

This may have been JA's failing in the case of the Diamond's. He set them up with poor bass, and he attributed it to excess mid/treble energy. 

Best,

E
I should also point out, treble balance can be affected by room acoustics. including what’s on the floor between and behind the speakers. Most audiophiles are into first reflections, but try throwing some blankets around. :) 

Between the drivers, crossover and room is where most of this balance is achieved.

Best,

E