profI like reading Darko Audio's site.
Happy Listening!
Happy Listening!
Contemplating DEVORE SPEAKERS (and others)....LONG audition report of many speakers
BTW, Really cool binaural video report of the new Devore flagship prototype "O" speakers - a double system, two speakers per side with one doing the lower bass (presumably). I found the sound through the binaural recording on my headphones sounded really fantastic (relative to plenty of other binaural speaker recordings I've heard). A bit of bass bloom, but aside from that amazing. Link here: https://darko.audio/2018/10/earspace-w-devore-orangutan-reference-four-piece-system/ |
I'd guess the Reynauds can't be too bright, or owners may have complained (though I've heard another report or two from people who thought they were a bit too bright). I used to heard all the JM Reynaud speakers at a local store including the floor standers. Always liked, never loved. But that was quite a few years back now. I did spend quite a bit of time with the Offrande's, two separate auditions, going through all my music. I think they are going to be shown at the upcoming Toronto show so maybe I'll hear them again there. |
A little more time with Reynaud's and you'll find they aren't bright at all. They are somewhat forward, but to me that's akin to the immediacy of live music. I've never heard another speaker do it better. Maybe you should go listen to the new Abscisse or Orefeo Jubilees? They'll both give you more bass than Offrande's. |
I noticed a pair of JM Reynaud Offrande Supreme 2 speakers for sale on Audiogon. And at an excellent price. I have to admit that created a little tug of "should I?" That was one of the speakers that I still found intriguing after auditioning them and sometimes wondered how they would fair in my listening room. Also, I really don't like the normal light beachwood of the JM Reynaud Offrande speakers and those ones are stained darker, which I prefer. They are a promising combination of timbral warmth, clarity and liveliness. But...for various reasons...I must resist. Ultimately, they didn't leave as great an impression on me as the Devore and Joseph speakers. The Reynauds struck me as a bit bright and forward. Also, though the bass was very generous for a stand mounted speaker, I don't think it produced the quality of bass that I like. My Thiels 2.7s for instance, though larger and a three-way, have similar low frequency specs, but sound more authoritative, solid and controlled in the lower bass from what I heard during the Reynaud auditions. Still...if I had the time and money, it would be tempting to roll the dice on a good price for a second had pair like the ones on Audiogon. I do wonder about the re-sale issues. On one hand, a brand like JM Reynaud is fairly under the radar so doesn't have broad appeal for re-sale. On the other hand, those fans of that brand are very dedicated and enthusiastic, so perhaps they would sell reasonably quickly. It will be interesting to watch this sale and how it goes. |
HEADS UP for Devore Fans: From the Devore Fidelity Facebook page, it looks like Devore will be showing the new "all out" upgrade of the 0/96 speakers at the upcoming Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. Looks like a new tweeter, as well as what looks like a super tweeter, have been added, and some other interesting stuff going on at the backside in terms of weird-looking exhaust-pipe style ports. I’d love to hear that speaker! |
Wish I could update the thread with impressions of my new speaker. But still got nuthin'. As I indicated previous, I had finally decided after my last listening comparison that I'd go for the Joseph speakers. I had saved up partially for them over the last year, then just finished (arduously) selling and shipping my big Thiels. With money now in hand I was ready to pull the trigger on the Josephs and...bam!...had an issue come out of nowhere and took a huge unexpected hit to my finances. Put me back almost at square one, saving again. It's a cursed project. Meanwhile, the dealer for the Devore speakers is occasionally giving me updates, sweetening the pot with ever better prices on his demo model 0/93s for me. At this point I'd get the Devores for almost 1/2 of what I'd pay for the Joseph speakers! What an audiophile dilemma. Do you go for the speakers you finally figure you really wanted...though at more financial pain/longer wait? Or go for the better deal on the second place speakers that were also terrific? |
| Post removed |
No real update as an unexpected financial situation put a kink in my plans to purchase the new speakers immediately. Hopefully I can buy a pair within the next month or two. I’m still inclined toward the Joseph speakers, but I can drive myself crazy by making seemingly just as good a case in my mind for either the Josephs or Devores! Stupid brain! BTW, recently I heard some Mcintosh speakers. The dealer for one of the speakers I’ve been auditioning also sells Mcintosh and I immediately recognized them (in this case the XR100 speakers) from the array of tiny midrange drivers all around the tweeter (very Tekton-like design, before Tekton). I remember hearing a really big flagship pair of Mcintosh speakers at a high end emporium in the late 90’s or early 2000s. I was fascinated to hear a speaker taking such an odd many-little-drivers approach. I still vividly remember how they sounded: Awful. Just awful. Whitish, devoid of any tonal color, detailed but like viewing music through a grey metallic scrim. The epitome of "hi-fi" and uninvolving (for me). But this was a newer, smaller model. It was set up so I asked if they wouldn’t mind if I played a few songs on them. They happily obliged. Result: They sounded exactly like I remembered from the previous pair. Just awful. In the same way. I could barely wait to just get out of the listening chair and start doing something else interesting. Who buys those things? (And why do so many guys who buy Mcintosh seem obsessed with having to show the Mcintosh logo blaring in every possible way in their system - plaques, labels, even bloody screen-savers on their TV!) |
rothwea, You may well be right. Looking at the Super 9 specs, they are almost the same size exactly as the Joseph speakers, are spec'd a bit lower in the bass, and use bigger woofers. It's possible the Super 9's would strike just the right balance between what I like about the Joseph and Devore O speakers. Or...they could end up sounding like a neither here nor there compromise. I liked what I heard with the Gibbon X but found the bass overbearing. At this point I'd be frankly shy about asking to audition Super 9's given I feel I've taken enough of my dealer's time. |
Prof, I have been following this thread with interest. I went though my own speaker journey a while back (I use tube amplification). The Devore O's were the speakers I lusted after, partly for the richness you mention. But to my surprise, I opted for the Devore X's which I found worked better in my room, being less demanding to position, and offering a more insightful, natural & dimensional midrange while still delivering oodles of power & weight when the music called for it. I'm biased, but I can't help thinking the Super 9 is a gap in your extensive search. Good luck! |
I’m being a bit thick at the moment and don’t catch your meaning about "audit" with the Perspectives.When you audit a class in college, you take it for knowledge but not a grade. I was trying to be a wordsmith; I would love to learn how the JA Perspectives sound but I would not be in the market. Just so you know, the Devores are intended to work with smaller tube amps, often ones that don't use feedback. This places them in the Power Paradigm rather than the Voltage Paradigm- if you auditioned them with solid state, you may not be hearing everything they really do.Probably true as I have absolute respect in Ralph. I am an outlier. I am driving mine with the ~175 watt ARC Ref 150SE with and eight-pack of Tungsol KT150's. Negative feedback galore. "The water is warm, boys,,,"(O'Brother Where Art Thou) |
trelja, I already have delayed selling the thiels. I've had intentions to sell them for almost a year, and kept them this long....just in case. But as the 2.7s have done wonderfully over that time, I've weaned myself from the 3.7s and, really, they simply are too big. I only ever meant to keep them if I could come up with a way to wheel them in and out of my room, and that never worked out. And each time I have to deal with them - e.g. moving them around recently to take photos for my ad, I think "Ok, I'm done with speakers this large!" So although they are probably the best speakers I've had, I have no issue selling them at this point. |
@prof "my Thiel 3.7s are up for sale." Congratulations and kudos on the path you've taken and shared here with us, Rich! Have you given any thought to delaying the sale of the Thiels? Most likely you already know this, but I can tell you firsthand probably no disappointment or regret in audio rivals missing a beloved component |
Apropos of my speaker blathering, Stereophile actually has binaural recordings for both the Devore and the Joseph speakers. I’ve always been intrigued at how even video camera microphones actually capture *some* sense of a speaker’s sound (especially the relative sense, if the same microphone is recording various speakers).I remember first noticing this when I made my own video with the first Sony digital mini-cam with a stereo mic, at a CES show many years ago.I wandered in and out of various rooms at the show. When I played that video back on my computer at home (with decent speakers) I was amazed at how the sound actually captured a sense of what I remember hearing. Especially when the camera wandered from a room with some standard box dynamic speakers into the MBL room and on the video the sound changed in character much like I remembered when I filmed it: even on the video you could hear the sound go from a bit artificial, boxy and bulgy in one room, to sounding utterly open in the MBL room as if the camera had just wandered in to record a live performance. Anyway, along this line, Stereophile has been doing interesting stuff with their binaural recordings trying to "take us there" to hear what the reviewers are hearing. Here’s the links to the binaural videos of the Devore 0/93 speakers and the Joseph Audio Pulsars: https://www.stereophile.com/content/art-dudleys-new-listening-room-binaural-video https://www.stereophile.com/content/bed-stuy-ci%C2%B7n%C3%A9%C2%B7ma-v%C3%A9%C2%B7ri%C2%B7t%C3%A9 Although I’ve listened to them with headphones, even without headphones and just listening through the speakers of my iMac, I can perceive the character of each speaker is making some of it’s way in to the recording: from the Devore, that big, sparkly tone allied to warmth: guitars where you can sense the weight of someone actually picking and playing. From the Joseph speakers, that crystalline, smooth, purity and separation of instrumental and vocal tone. |
mapman, Thanks for the Ohm Walsh comment, and audition offer. I know I've heard Ohm Walsh speakers once before, a looong time ago, so it's just a vague memory. My MBL 121 omnis do a similar kind of thing - the MBLs are spectacular within their frequency range! (They still have the best tweeter I think I've heard in terms of combining incredible resolution in a natural way). |
fsconicsmith, That’s a great description of the Devore speakers, thanks! That’s pretty much what I heard. They pull off the tricky combo of being thick and rich, but not dark, but rather light, airy and fast in the upper mids. And boy I love synth stuff, so I’m sure the Devores would rock (and I did of course demo some synth stuff on them). I really like how the top end on the Devores can "pop" somewhat with excitement, yet without an ear-piercing quality. So as a synth for instance goes through an envelope and evolves from darker to having a brighter quality, the Devores really show that beautiful tonal brilliance and evolution of a synth line. The Joseph Perspective also have that same quality. The top end is so beautiful and sparkly. And they do synth really nice too, as they have a really juicy lower mid to bass region, and their crystal clear top end allows that sparkle. I put on one fun synth/dance track last time I heard the Perspectives - Korean Style from the Collateral soundtrack - and it completely blew me away. It sounded super rich and punchy, but the way the Perspectives combined an exquisite top end and midrange, the quality of the synths where like a churning rainbow of timbral colors. I played that track on the Thiels and while they are generally awesome for synth music (punch, focus, palpability, smoothness) they don’t have the timbral finesse of the Josephs. The Josephs in that respect sound more like a step forward, in terms of upgrading to a newer level of realism. But, yeah, I know what you mean about the Devores sometimes sounding like sound coming at you from speakers. Rush’s 2112 had that vibe - the layers of guitar were thick and satisfying, though somewhat stacked up much closer more coming-from-the-speakers, which gave me an old school listening to big honkin’ speakers in a dorm party vibe. 2112 on the Josephs showed more spatially layered separation of the guitar tracks. In the upper midrange the JA speakers sort of show more "new things" in the recording - I haven’t heard 2112 sound quite like that, and it would be in danger of being deconstructed into audiophile wispiness, if it weren’t for the generally very dynamic punchy quality the JA speakers also posses. Though if I had to choose which speaker ultimately nails the gestalt of that type of music, I’d hand it to the Devores. I’m being a bit thick at the moment and don’t catch your meaning about "audit" with the Perspectives. BTY, I’m certainly in to vinyl. In fact that’s mostly what I listen to, since I bought my Transrotor Fat Bob S w. Benz Micro Ebony cartridge. I’m bankrupting myself buying vinyl. As to the type of speakers I like; I like plenty of different speakers. But always with beautiful tone. Life sound sources have been my benchmark, because I can listen to someone sing, or play almost anything if it’s a live acoustic source - it’s just naturally beautiful and compelling. Both the JA and the Devores capture to my ears separate, very elusive qualities of real instruments; the purity and timbral spectrum of the JAs, the richness, body and upper frequency texture from the Devores. I figured by now I may have ordered my speakers (figuring the Josephs). But then then I just got a surprising immediate drain on my finances, AND I have to sell my Thiels. Selling can be such a bummer when buyers get flaky, express intent to buy, disappear etc. (I have numerous out of city offers, but I’m still trying to avoid shipping them if I can). Anyway, thanks again: your input is always welcome! |
Prof, I think I've said this before but the 0/93's really impress with synth bass heavy dynamic party music-e.g. LCD Soundsystem. John DeVore is a synth fan and that has some influence on the strong suits of his speakers. They will make you and anyone in the room start dancing like no other. But yes, they are a bit thick and lightning fast at the same time and they don't sound particularly revealing of inner detail nor do they image more than so-so. They throw a wide soundstage and will splash sound at you from unexpected directions when the recording possesses such information, but they for the most part sound like two boxes throwing sound at you. They are far from perfect. And yes, they look like plain tall wide and shallow boxes with a nice front baffle. I have owned several B&W and still like the original Matrix 805 circa 1995. Your writing has me itching to audit the JA Perspectives. "Audit" and not "audition". Btw, unlike you, I am a vinyl guy. I listen to digital only as a last resort. As I type this, I am listening to a hot-rodded Thorens TD124/Reed 3P combo with an Ortofon Cadenza Bronze and alternating it with a VPI Prime with a Soundsmith MIMC both fed into the same phono stage, a Manley Steelhead. The DeVores are shapechangers when hit with different sources. Once adjusted for proper loading on each cartridge, the Cadenza Bronze sounds airy and detailed and the Soundsmith is like a warm huggy bear and yet texture is spot-on with both. Strings sound palpable, voices sound like they are in the room with you. In summary, the DeVores are just good enough to not call attention to themselves. It sounds to me as though you like your speakers to be like the woman who walks into the room and makes the men briefly stare. |
atmasphere, Thanks for the input and info. I read the link; really interesting. I admit I remain skeptical about an ESL that doesn’t exhibit the ghostly quality I mention, just because I’ve been listening to them since the 90’s - I’ve heard the soundlabs (the hybrids and the giant full range model), Quads of all sorts, powered by all sorts of amplification, Martin Logans a million times, and I’ve never not heard the issue. Perception seems to change with the listener and what he is focusing on. I asked my friend if he missed anything from dynamic speakers in terms of the palpability and punch, and he said "no not at all, I think these things slam." But for me I think he was mostly reacting to feeling the powered dynamic subwoofers in his hybrid ESLs, where I can’t help focusing on the lack of body in the mids upward. This is one reason I’ve been quite curious to hear the Janszen electrostatics. I wonder if the sealed version of an electrostatic, as they use in their design, would finally "fix" that issue for me. |
@prof Sound Lab, IMO, makes the best ESLs and don't have that 'ghostly' quality to which you refer. You do have to put some power on them, and if its tube power, probably about 1/2 to 1/4 of the power you will need if using solid state (IOW, in most rooms a 100 watt or so tube amp will do the job, but to reach the same sound pressures, you would need a 400 watt solid state amp); this is due to the impedance of the speaker. Also, its useful to understand that ESLs don't work on the same principles as box speakers (this should be obvious... but), and one of the ways that they differ is that their impedance curve is not also a map of their efficiency (which is the case with most box speakers). As a result, the typical 'double power as impedance is cut in half' thing that most solid state amps do these days does not work on most ESLs- they tend to be too bright as a result and often sans bass impact. Neither fault just described is an actual fault of the speaker- its a problem with the interface between the two. If you want to know more, see: http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php |
Random thoughts.... Was over at a pal’s house listening to his Martin Logan ESLs (hybrids). I started with Quad ESL 63s, and early listening to Quad ESL 57s were formative in my younger days. I still love the 57s, and if there’s a set of electrostatic speakers around I have to sit down and listen. Nothing else quite sounds like an ESL. Whenever I’m at my friend’s place I listen to his Martin Logans because they are so musical, open, airy, transparent...with that interesting tonally warm color I hear from Martin Logan. That said, every time I listen to an ESL, especially a Martin Logan, especially any of the Martin Logan hybrids, I’m reminded again why I don’t care to go back to ESLs. It’s that wispy, ghostly sound. They are palpable in the sense of seeing right through the speakers into very detailed musical images. But they are not palpable in the sense of actual solidity and air moving density to those sonic images. It makes me impatient after a while as I want to feel the presence of the music, not just listen as if it’s in another room, or another dimension from me. I find that most attempts to mate dynamic woofers, especially every Martin Logan hybrid I’ve ever heard, only exacerbates this problem. When music with low end plays, I heard the presence created by the dynamic woofers, but moving up the frequency range the sound just becomes wispy, see-through, insubstantial and ghostly. Hearing dynamic drivers join the sound only emphasizes what the panels are not doing, and I always find it incoherent. If you are not particularly sensitive to this mismatch, I can see why dynamic woofers mated to an electrostatic can sound just fine. Some low drum and bass line kicks in and you feel the bass, so then it’s "yeah, this has punch!" But for me it’s just so unconvincing. I replayed a bunch of the same music on my system at home and for me it was so much more realistic and involving, the greater dimensionality, the roundness and solidity of the sonic images, the palpable air-moving energy from top to bottom. I can’t give that stuff up. And the Thiels sound essentially as boxless as the Martin Logans, but with more beef (better overall, actually, as I found the Martin Logans boxy/speakerly in the bass). I also paid attention to the tonal/timbral quality of voices and instruments on the Martin Logans and as usual I find them generally to "get things right" to quite a degree; clarity with warmth of timber. Some John Zorn had nice ringing, shining guitar lines, with percussion that popped nicely out of the mix around the guitars. Overall, though, I did find the MLs had something of a persistent tonal signature to where I was no longer surprised by how any voice or instrument sounded through them. To my ears, the Joseph speakers have a wider and more convincing tonal pallet, and with at least as much incisiveness and clarity. But aside from that, since I don’t own the speakers myself, I find them a wonderful place to visit, and always enjoy a listening session. |
@shardorne, I was never a fan of the B&W sound, especially back in the 90’s when they started their lower lines with those hideous kevlar drivers. If any speaker could define the derisive term "hi-fi" those would be it, IMO. So I was very surprised when I encountered a good listening session with some of the Nautilus speakers, which sounded to my ears surprisingly, tonally rich. But I would never buy a pair for various reasons - aesthetics, ergonomics in my room, price, and I’ve heard other speakers I like better. I’ve listened to Vivid speakers at shows and briefly demoed the Vivid Oval speakers (B1s I think). Very impressive on the audiophile checkmarks of detail, transparency etc. But the overall tone left me somewhat cold. (Though I’ve heard their larger speakers sound phenomenal at some shows). I notice that you are heavily influenced by certain tracks. It depends what you mean. I’ve emphasized some tracks here because I can’t write about all the songs I listened to in each audition. But when I audition a speaker I listen for a long while. At a minimum, I bring 12 CDs along with me burned with a large variety of music - funk, metal, prog rock, disco, classic jazz, fusion, folk, crooner music, Blue Note R&B, lounge music, classical, classical and acoustic guitar, a wide variety of movie soundtrack music, pop music from 60’s, 70’s, 80’s to contemporary, alt-pop, alt-rock, a wide variety of electronica/dance, etc. At the end the shop owners usually say something along the lines of "I’ve never seen someone play such a crazy and entertaining variety of music to demo speakers! That was awesome!" And inevitably they make lists of some of the stuff I played. I also make sure I play sources that go from audiophile-recording quality to crap, even distorted, and in between, to see how a speaker handles a wide range of source quality.I also have my own recordings I’ve made of instruments I own being played, my kids playing their instruments (sax, trombone), and familiar voices (e.g. wife). Though in these cases I didn’t bring them along. I used to use those to do modest live vs reproduced comparisons when I’d have a new speaker at my place. That was always quite revealing. As an obsessive, I’ve been doin’ this a long time :-) (Though if you look at threads in which I’ve said I’m more cautious about, say, cable differences etc, some people there are convinced it must be because I have ears made of cloth and I’m not good at discerning sonic differences). But yes there are some dear-to-me tracks that I adore not only as demo material but which I am crazy about. And if a speaker doesn’t make me feel those tracks, like other speakers I’ve loved have, then it’s not going to be the speaker for me. I’m happy with my Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS 2 tube pre-amp and plan to keep it, along with my CJ Premier 12 tube monoblocks. As to a speaker with a specific sonic character, I find all speakers have a specific sonic character. It matters to me what they are capable of *within that given sonic character.* The Devore speakers have a thicker-than-most sonic character, but then that is an aspect of real acoustic sounds that I find to be accurate - most speakers/sound systems tend to sound more reductive to me. The Joseph Audio speakers have a super smooth crystalline clarity character. But within that character, they produce just about the widest and most surprising range of timbral shadings and colors that I’ve heard. Thanks for your comments! |
dspringham, Yup, I'm known among my audiophile buddies as being able to out obsess them all, particularly when it comes to replacing speakers.(Not so much other gear). I experiment buying used speakers over the years, but when I'm really serious I go all out. I remember years ago when I was going to replace my Quad ESL 63/Gradient subwoofers, I went on a Speaker Odyssey, listening to speakers across north America!Some of my audio friends accompanying me on road trips. The Thiel 3.7s have been so good they were as close to an "end game" speaker as I've owned. Since I have to replace them, they put a lot of pressure on the other candidates. The Joseph Audio speakers were the only ones after long auditions (previous to this thread) that stood out, but were significantly expensive for me...and once I was getting close to being able to purchase them, well, then I had to leave no stone upturned to make sure I was going to not regret spending that money. I know myself, though, and whatever speakers I get, I'll notice the flaws over time. That's the "no perfect speaker" problem (though exacerbated by one's own criteria or mindset; if you have a different mindset, any old speaker can satisfy forever). And it's why I tend to own more than one speaker. Though the more I can get from one speaker, the less I have to bother setting up the other speakers. I've fallen for "beautiful tone" in a speaker before. But after a while you identify the character a speaker places on the sound, and then ask "ok, what's missing?" In the former case some old speakers with superlative tone (Hales Transcendence 5s) were missing some texture and palpability. The Thiels are a sort of long-range reaction to that - they have good texture, great palpability. And very good tone. The Devores go perhaps even a bit further than the Thiels in some respects, a step or two back on others. A worry could be that the Joseph speakers only beguile with beautiful timbre and tone...but once the shine of that wears off, are they still "fun?" Will they communicate the punch, drive, rhythm of all the music I like? Hopefully. They seem to to well there too. If not...the Devores are always waiting in the wings. And, wow, those spatial audio speakers look intriguing. Quite a departure from your Harbeths. And Harbeths are supposed to be a "destination" speaker that get people off the speaker merry-go-round.That's why I never believe accounts that any speaker is a destination speaker in any general sense; we all have our different criteria and experience. A lot of people think Quad ESL 57s got them off the merry-go-round and have settled with them. For others, the 57s were their starting point, not end point. I had the Harbeth SuperHL5 Plus and really enjoyed them, totally understanding why people love them. But, they weren't an end point speaker for me. (Though I can always sit down in front of a Harbeth speaker and swoon to the presentation). I like the funky looks of the Spatial X2. I'd go for a nice wood finish, personally. |
@prof Sorry I missed the point that you get confused between ATC and PMC. I agree that aesthetically both PMC and ATC are mainly about the sound without much if any effort with regard to fine aesthetics. Horses for courses. Good luck with your search. I think Nautilus or Vivid G1 might be more your thing....the Nautilus are quite small, the G1 are bigger. I notice that you are heavily influenced by certain tracks. A great speaker will be good on ALL tracks. Every individual track is imperfect (as they all boil down to the taste and setup of the individual mastering engineer) but on average the majority of tracks should ALL sound in good balance and superb with the right speaker. Be careful about selecting a speaker that plays only Rush 2112 sublimely...that album is an artistic masterpiece but is a bit thin sounding. You might be better served with a tube preamp to create the added warmth and size you so desire rather than a speaker with a specific sonic character. |
| Post removed |
Man, what a journey. I commend you on your patience and dedication to relentless due diligence. I must say I've really enjoyed this thread - feels like I'm watching one of my favourite reality shows. Please keep us posted as hopefully there will be more exciting "episodes" to come Fortunately for you there are actually dealers in your area that represent and stock these two prestigious brands. Not always the case in many markets (especially Canada - I'm in Edmonton). I notice you had Harbeths at one time. I've recently sidelined my 40.1's in favour of these; http://www.spatialaudio.us/m3-triode-master Quite a contrasting presentation comparatively speaking and thoroughly impressive and enjoyable. Now that I've had a taste I'm lusting after these; http://www.spatialaudio.us/x2-modular Good luck on your Thiel sale. Dave |
dspringham, I had been meaning to do an update. Yup, my Thiel 3.7s are up for sale.Here’s the story: I went back and listened to the Devore 93s again at length. When I first started playing tracks on the 93s it sounded really nice, but it wasn’t doing that special thing the JA speakers do with tone. The 93s had that average layer of just detectable grain that most speakers seem to show, that seems absent in the JAs, and I was missing the incredible timbral beauty and precision of the JAs. (This lack of grain/quietness and timbral precision is almost always remarked upon in reviews and reports of JA speakers). So I was thinking "Well, I guess I’m going with the JA speakers." But as I listened more and more, I started falling back under the spell of the Devores. That richness, combined with that open and sparkly sound, is it’s own claim to a "special" sound. I played the opening track from Basil Poledouris’ famously "muscular" Conan The Barbarian soundtrack, which opens with thundering kettle drums driving an augmented french horn section with piercing, souring lines over the percussion. The Devores just lived for this stuff - the horns blazing bright, but not hurting the ears, and that reach out and bloom quality of the bass put me among the kettle drums. It was very affecting. As some reviews have stated, the Devores seem to "let go" of the music easily, so every line being played in a piece seems to come forth out of the mix with enthusiasm. I was often becoming aware on the Devores of how various lines of rhythm and melody where being played and handed off from one section to another (e.g. hand off from horns to strings, etc). The Devores make a lot of musical sense, of what is happening in a piece. The openness and clarity in the upper mids/treble means the Devores always let a drum snare and cymbal pop through everything, and hence the Devores always dig out what the drums are doing, which makes them so rythmically engaging. The 93s produced the most realistic version of Joe Morello’s drum solo in St Luis Blues (Brubeck live in NYC) that I’ve heard. The 93s just nail that papery drum skin sound, and the drums sounded bigger, fatter, more substantially real-sized, with great timbral accuracy. The 93s once again pulled everything closer to me, making me feel more "among" the drums being played right in front of me, vs many speakers that produce that drum solo with more distance. Finally, the 93s just killed it on Rush’s 2112. They had tremendous - party-in-the-dorm punch with the opening guitar/bass/drum attacks.A real "wall of sound" with THICK layered waves of Alex Lifeson’s multi-tracked guitar textures. They dug out everything Niel Peart was doing on his kit really well. One thing that really left an impression was the "discovery of the guitar in the cave" section of 2112, where you hear Lifeson start gently tuning and tentatively playing the guitar, until the pace picks up into strumming the tune. What the Devores did there was give that distant guitar-in-cave sound actual heft. The texture, and the minute bits of effort between each note and strum, really struck a convincing, authentic impression of someone playing a guitar in front of me. And the 93s have just enough sparkle to make various picked notes stick out in a rewarding, shimmering fashion as you get with a real guitar. 2112 sound incredible on my Thiel 2.7s as well. in comparison it’s a bigger sonic picture on the Thiels, more cinematically scaled in terms of soundstaging, even if the sonic images within that soundstage are squeezed a bit smaller and tighter than the Devores give. So with the Thiels it feels a bit more like "I’ve entered the cave" to hear the performance, which is cool. The Devores give more sparkle, heft and a sense of "that’s a guitar playing right in front of me" sensation, though with less cinematic imaging, more foreshortened. I do wonder how big the soundstage might be if I could place the Devores where I have the Thiels. Also, while I really do prefer the aesthetics of the larger 0/96s (the 93s, though nicely veneered, strike me as more of a plain box), I think I may prefer the 93s over all, at least for my application. The bass generally seems more integrated and controlled, whereas the 96s can get more unruly, more often, needing more set up care. And the 93s seem to give essentially the same tonal attributes as the 96s otherwise. Anyway....after hearing the Devores again, and coming way confused again, I whipped back to give the Joseph Perspectives another quick spin to hear some of the tracks that really had impressed me on the Devores. And right away...I fell under the spell of the Perspectives again! (Dammit!)That TONE! And the Perspectives aren’t just a one trick pony doing timbral delicacy. That sophisticated upper frequency is allied to a juicy, punch, rich midrange and bass that really know how to party. They have a reach-out-and-grab you sense of dynamics, of drama. And their clarity also allows for drum snares, cymbals etc to pop through the mix with great clarity, to drive the sound. In fact I was very surprised when I played some Talk Talk again on the Josephs. The Devores just made those drums sound like a drum set right in front of me. But the Josephs had surprising punch and heft right in to the upper mids, so not only was the kick drum huge, the snare had great weight and punch too. So in it’s own way, the drums were super convincing on the Josephs too. Rush’s 2112 had plenty of great slam and enthusiasm on the Perspectives as well. They untangled Lifeson’s layers of electric (often paired with acoustic) guitars beautifully and timbrally, and even more spatially than the Devores. Though they could not match the thickness of the the Devores with the guitars. And while the Josephs gave a timbrally super clear, clean rendering of the guitar in the cave, it was a thinner version than I heard from the Devores. The Devores are just so good at maintaining instrumental size from the bottom all the way to the top of the frequency range. Something of a cincher for the Josephs was when I put on on Emilie Claire Barlow’s album Clear Day - that title song. (This is a fantastic album both musically and sonically - super rich in orchestration, big sonic images, her voice present and natural, some bombastic arrangements). It starts with xylophones playing a rythmic line, then a string section adding rythm, piano, bass, a horn blast, then the drums kick in. I was just utterly taken aback by the sound - the exactness of the xylophones, the beauty of the strings, the way the horns blasted with such perfect metallic ringing tone and every bit of reverb ringing off with no grain. The clarity of the dums, cymbals, the tonal authenticity of the piano. It was really a rainbow of tones that I couldn’t tear myself away from. So...I left pretty much back in to the JA camp. Pretty much settled on the Perspectives. In a way the Devores would be the safer bet - I think they just sound good with everything. The JA’s sound good with almost everything, spectacular on many things, and reveal weakness’s occasionally here and there. Plus they are more expensive. And I get trade in for my Thiels with the Devores. Plus I’d guess the Devores would be easier to re-sell if they didn’t work out. BUT...I’ve been chasing the JAs for so long, saving for them, and I’m under their spell every time I audition them, so I’m willing to roll the dice. And JUST when I was to push "go" on getting the Perspectives... ...I get some utterly depressing financial news slipped through my mail slot. Which throws all my plans in to disarray. :-( Such is life... |
Very good reviews and I agree with your comments for the speakers I have heard. If you want bass with clarity and great tone and slam then this can be a challenge in the current market (one note bass heavy and warm really sells). Try to audition ATC SCM 50 active towers. The bass will sound markedly different on every track (per the recording) and not have the sameness that many modern designs have. This is the same speaker that the late Gordon Holt eventually settled on after countless speaker auditions and a long love affair with large Soundlabs. In his opinion, they were one of the most realistic sounding speakers he ever heard. |
Well I really put the Joseph Audio Perspectives through their paces today! It had been over a year since I heard them and I wondered if my memory was still accurate regarding their sound. Turns out: yes! They are the most tonally ravishing speaker I’ve ever heard. Just a clear, clear almost uniquely grain-free sound that allows such tonal purity and saturation. There wasn’t a single cut I played on them that didn’t make me want to just keep listening to the whole track. That’s always a good sign. The nuances of metal, skin, various cymbals etc these speakers bring out in drums are amazing. Every new instrument or voice that appears on a track just sounds so tonally beautiful and individual, it just keeps me pinned to my seat mesmerized. They image and disappear really well, very deep wide soundstage. Hesitations are that the bass isn’t as controlled as my Thiels. The Thiels really spoil me in that regard. Also the sound is a bit smaller than the Thiels, and they lose a bit of heft in the upper registers. The Thiels are more consistently "thick and rich" from top to bottom, from sax, violins, woodwinds etc in the upper registers. I’d say the Thiels are more cohesive, coherent and "invisible" top to bottom over all. The Thiels also image with greater precision and produce more densely palpable images. Every time I come back from any speaker audition the Thiels never fail to impress me again. The Josephs are very neutral, even with a slightly rising top end (as per Stereophile measurements). But their absolute freedom from etch or grain make them easy to listen to, so you get the benefit of a super clearsound without the ouch factor. On the Josephs, acoustic guitars have more sparkle and individual character, even the character of every guitar string seems more individual. The Perspectives are phenomenal for voices but especially so for female voice. I think this is due to the lack of grain factor. Female voices are often more breathy (and I’m especially thinking of some Julie London, almost whisper-singing that I played).And breathy, upper range voice sounds tend to bring forth any grain or electronic artifacts in reproduced sound. When that scrim of whitening hash is cleared away, you get what sounds more like real breath from the singer, and female singers sound less hard, less mechanical. I had the same impressions last time I heard the Josephs. Female voices sound more particularly "female," the timbral difference from male voices being that much more exact. This also goes for massed strings. With no hash at all, you can hear "in between" all the strings playing so that each slightly different tone becomes audible, yet smooth. The effect is that when string sections soar, especially if the different sections are playing complex and evolving patterns rather than mirroring each other, there is a luxurious complexity and luxury to the sound that is ravishing. Although orchestras don’t sound as large as on the Thiels, I don’t know that I’ve ever experienced sound that was so close, tonally, to what I hear when attending live orchestras, just in terms of tonal nuance, delicacy, ease and bang on tonality. They are very special speakers IMO in this regard. If I can fault the Josephs a bit tonally, it's that they don't have that last bit of "texture" to the sound - the raspy bow on string, finger tips on guitar strings stuff. It's just, in a very subtle way, a bit glazed over. (Interesting as this very same combination of ravishing tonality with slightly reduced texture occurs on my older Hales speakers, which use similar SEAS drivers). The Thiels are somewhat better here. The Devores even better (in fact I remember that sense of texture on the Devores really sticking out). Bass is alive, big, rich and fun on the Perspectives. Sometimes it even reminded me of the bass from the Devore speakers - taught for the most part, but becomes bigger, bloomier and room filling when there’s bass down low. The Josephs have a bit more thin and reductive sound, so for instance electric guitar lines will be a bit thinner, less gutsy than on the Thiels.Though, tonally, more revealing and beautiful. The slightly more laid back sound of the Thiels makes it easier to crank rock. But the tonality of individual elements in a mix is more nuanced on the Josephs. Hmmm...things to ponder until I hear the Devore 93s again tomorrow.... |
So with a bit of time off work, I'm deciding on my speaker purchase this month, hopefully within the next 2 weeks. Tomorrow or Friday I intend to re-visit the Joseph Perspectives which I haven't heard in a long time now. Then it will probably be another listen to the Devores, and I'll decide if I'm buying which one....or neither and just selling my big Thiel 3.7s and sticking with what I have. Of course I'll report in this thread what I hear with the Joseph Perspectives. I'm curious if they will still beguile me, or if some of the shine will have worn off with all the speaker auditions since I heard them. |
| Post removed |
Yeah, that's a plus with the Devore, vs the much less efficient (84dB I think) Joseph speakers. Although the Josephs are supposed to play well with tube amps given their impedance. The Josephs sounded nice on my CJ amps at home. I have an old Eico HF-81 that I treasure and I'm sure that would be fun on the Devores. But aside from that, playing amps - tube amps of the quality I generally prefer - can be as expensive as playing with speakers, and I only have so much money for this obsession :-) I continue to be amazed how well my CJ 140W tube monos drive whatever speaker I put on them. My current Thiel 2.7s have such grip and impact from the bass upward with the CJs. That said, VAC amps have been on my radar for a long time. I'd love to try some VAC amps some day. |