LOL, again sciencecop? This didn’t go terribly well for you last time you tried hanging on to an indefensible claim against evidence to the contrary, concerning specific speakers with which you apparently had no experience. (Remember your trying to help defend that ludicrous claim that Harbeth’s only produced "50% resolution"?)
(I'm editing this because I just saw that sciencecop has said he DID hear the JA speakers. Which I'm glad to hear...even though I admit to being a bit skeptical about his claims).
It turns out those WITH EXPERIENCE listening to the JA speakers can report back what they actually sound like, and your hypothesis that they won’t sound clean remains unvalidated. Subjective testing for the AUDIBLE nature of the design - User and Reviewer reports - provide evidence against your claim.
I’ve heard them. Your speculation about their sound is wrong.
That goes for John Atkinson who, I’m betting has vastly more experience than you do in having extensive listening time with many different speaker designs, measuring them, and correlating measurements to their audible effects. He listened to them, measured them, and DID NOT hear the problems you claim. Rather, his subjective report supports my, and many other people’s, experience with the JA speakers sound.
In Stereophile, Atkinson pointed out that any cone break up modes were "well suppressed" by the crossover. He also wrote in the measurement section:
"The Perspective’s cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.9) is superbly clean, with the first breakup mode of the woofers’ cones, indicated by the cursor position, well suppressed. "
When he wrote of the sound his descriptions included: (with the first amp) "
very clean and articulate," (He emphasized VERY).
Also:
"The Joseph speakers’ midrange clarity and lack of coloration, along with their well-controlled dispersion, was very sympathetic to recordings of the human voice."
And this is echoed over and over in reviews (and show reports) of the Joseph Audio sound as particularly "quiet/clean." Anyone who has heard both the Perspectives and the JA Pulsars knows they have the same essential "house sound" with the Perspectives adding more base.But that JA achieves a midrange purity is a theme one finds over and over again by people WHO HAVE SPENT TIME listening to the brand.
As Steven Stone wrote in his JA Pulsar review in The Absolute Sound:
The first thing I noticed about the Pulsars was their midrange purity and lack of grain.
And:
Of all the Pulsar’s sonic attributes, the one that impressed me the most was the high level of discernability. What I mean by discernability is, how easy is it to listen into the mix and pick out exactly what parts you want to concentrate on? The higher the level of discernability, the easier it is to do this. The Pulsars made it easy to recognize the essential banjoness of a banjo on Paul Curreri’s “Once Up Upon a Rooftop” [California Tin Angel Records]. Even when a harmonica is added to the mix, it’s easy to tell where the banjo stops and the harmonica starts.
Michael Fremer wrote of the Pulsars:
"the picture was clear and clean from top to bottom of the audioband, producing a highly resolved, three-dimensional, pinpoint placement of images against a velvet-black backdrop."
And:
"The Pulsar’s high-frequency performance was sweet yet fast and airy, and minus even the slightest hint of edge, etch, or glare. In fact, the Pulsar was among the least mechanical-sounding speakers I’ve ever heard, regardless of price"
Herb Reichert of Stereophile also commented on these particular aspects of the JA sound.
As did the review in Soundstage.
And user and show reports declare over and over impressions of a clean, clear, timbrally convincing and gorgeous midrange from the JA Pulsar and Perspective speakers.
Now, either you recognize that people who have actually heard the design report they are clean and clear, or it seems you’ll have to resort to something like "Well, then, all those listeners had crappy hearing or perception!" Aside from being a mere bald assertion without evidence, that would be an obvious attempt at hanging on to a hypothesis (that X had subjectively detrimental effects) in SPITE of evidence to the contrary (where many discerning listeners did not find this problem audible, and no one has in fact reported otherwise).
And that wouldn’t be terribly reasonable, much less scientific, right?
