The Official Dynaudio Speakers Thread

[Twm1988]

Ok BigAl, I see what you mean on the WhatHifi review of the Arcam 400.

When I say I like warmer more musical I just mean not bright, clinical or dry. Just something smoother but with good timing and fast and agile sound that is still detailed for movies. I just meant that “musical” does not necessarily mean an AVR plays music well, but that the AVR has qualities like timing and agility and precision or a sort of cohesion that work with film soundtracks, whether its heavy action effects or dialogue driven movies/tv shows. That’s all I meant.

What you said about the Anthem being richer but with a little sparkle ontop sound good. I find that my H/K can be a bit vague in the mid-high frequencies. Still smooth and warm but lacking a bit of detail subtlety. Sounds like the anthem may work on that aspect really well.

I also see you guys have Bryston and Naim power amp’s with both your Totems and Dyn’s. Do you find it improves the sound quality over just the AVR, or does it primarily let you drive the speakers louder safely and with less distortion?

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Twm1988

Ok BigAl, I see what you mean on the WhatHifi review of the Arcam 400.

When I say I like warmer more musical I just mean not bright, clinical or dry. Just something smoother but with good timing and fast and agile sound that is still detailed for movies. I just meant that “musical” does not necessarily mean an AVR plays music well, but that the AVR has qualities like timing and agility and precision or a sort of cohesion that work with film soundtracks, whether its heavy action effects or dialogue driven movies/tv shows. That’s all I meant.

What you said about the Anthem being richer but with a little sparkle ontop sound good. I find that my H/K can be a bit vague in the mid-high frequencies. Still smooth and warm but lacking a bit of detail subtlety. Sounds like the anthem may work on that aspect really well.

I also see you guys have Bryston and Naim power amp’s with both your Totems and Dyn’s. Do you find it improves the sound quality over just the AVR, or does it primarily let you drive the speakers louder safely and with less distortion?

Callas has an Integrated amplifier used as is power amp with HT bypass. This is sort of the setup I am looking at getting for myself although my Bryston is a tremendous unit I would like to avoid having to power both my AVR and Power amp at once.

The Bryston brings tons of headroom and truly makes the HT experience a great one, The Arcam only powers my 2 surrounds. It definitely improve the performance a lot, I get better dynamics in big action scenes but the Bryston amp does not come cheap. A lot of people have added some Emotiva Amps to their setup with great appreciation, those amps are the real deal when it come to price to performance ratio. The Arcam is no slouch and does not distort easily, it's just in general when most AVRs are called for with high current demands their power Supply struggles providing all the needed power but Arcams, Anthems and NAD are pretty darn good at it so truly the deliver more than satisfactory performance in any multi channel applications.

Callas can tell you about how is Naim XS improved the Performance with the HT experience.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by Twm1988

Ok BigAl, I see what you mean on the WhatHifi review of the Arcam 400.

When I say I like warmer more musical I just mean not bright, clinical or dry. Just something smoother but with good timing and fast and agile sound that is still detailed for movies. I just meant that “musical” does not necessarily mean an AVR plays music well, but that the AVR has qualities like timing and agility and precision or a sort of cohesion that work with film soundtracks, whether its heavy action effects or dialogue driven movies/tv shows. That’s all I meant.

What you said about the Anthem being richer but with a little sparkle ontop sound good. I find that my H/K can be a bit vague in the mid-high frequencies. Still smooth and warm but lacking a bit of detail subtlety. Sounds like the anthem may work on that aspect really well.

I also see you guys have Bryston and Naim power amp’s with both your Totems and Dyn’s. Do you find it improves the sound quality over just the AVR, or does it primarily let you drive the speakers louder safely and with less distortion?

Like Big Al said, I use a naim integrated amp, for movies i use it's AV gain input which let's it act as a power amp and the volume is controlled by the surround sound receiver. For music I don't have to turn the AVR on and I just play music from either my CD player straight to the Naim or I use my MacBook to play computer files using an external dac.

Naim has an almost tube-like mid-range, with a smooth but extended top-end, and a bottom end attack to die for(IMO).

I was like you and HT was my main priority but once I bought the dyns I really ramped up my music listening. The naim amp I heard at a buddies house and just fell in love with it.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

Like Big Al said, I use a naim integrated amp, for movies i use it's AV gain input which let's it act as a power amp and the volume is controlled by the surround sound receiver. For music I don't have to turn the AVR on and I just play music from either my CD player straight to the Naim or I use my MacBook to play computer files using an external dac.

Naim has an almost tube-like mid-range, with a smooth but extended top-end, and a bottom end attack to die for(IMO).

I was like you and HT was my main priority but once I bought the dyns I really ramped up my music listening. The naim amp I heard at a buddies house and just fell in love with it.

Naim Products rule some may argue their minimalist approach but man I love their sound so much wanted the XS with the Forests not I really hope to change that Bryston for a SN-2 or a Master Class IA-4 from Sugden.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

Naim Products rule some may argue their minimalist approach but man I love their sound so much wanted the XS with the Forests not I really hope to change that Bryston for a SN-2 or a Master Class IA-4 from Sugden.

well.... minimalist approach sure, but if you notice, Dyns are often times considered minimalists looking also. But its all about the sound in the end... of course I wouldn't want something completely ugly, but simple elegance is fine with me.

[Bguy]

Hi Callas,
I know you had a good experience with the excite x16 in the past and I'll appreciate your help.
I have a Naim nait XS2 powering a Dynaudio dm2/6 and I would like to upgrade the 2/6 for a bigger sound.
don't get me wrong I like th dm2/6 punch and energetic sound but I'm after a little more punch and still maintain the fast transients that the 2/6 have.
I'm listening to rock, metal, industrial, heavy electronic music, but I also like to listen to female voices and easy listening music.
at the moment I'm considering the dm 2/7 and the Excite x16 (discontinued but I can still buy it new).
I cannot demo neither one of them, the dm 2/7 have rave reviews but I prefer to climb up to a higher series.
how do you compare the x16 to the dm2/7?
is the x16 "sluggish", "slow" and not exciting compare to the dm2/7?
I know that the x16 have larger woofer than the 2/7, is this the reason that reviewers describe the x16 as sluggish and not balanced?
how do they compare in the mid freq? how is their soundstage?
Thanks,
Guy

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Bguy

Hi Callas,
I know you had a good experience with the excite x16 in the past and I'll appreciate your help.
I have a Naim nait XS2 powering a Dynaudio dm2/6 and I would like to upgrade the 2/6 for a bigger sound.
don't get me wrong I like th dm2/6 punch and energetic sound but I'm after a little more punch and still maintain the fast transients that the 2/6 have.
I'm listening to rock, metal, industrial, heavy electronic music, but I also like to listen to female voices and easy listening music.
at the moment I'm considering the dm 2/7 and the Excite x16 (discontinued but I can still buy it new).
I cannot demo neither one of them, the dm 2/7 have rave reviews but I prefer to climb up to a higher series.
how do you compare the x16 to the dm2/7?
is the x16 "sluggish", "slow" and not exciting compare to the dm2/7?
I know that the x16 have larger woofer than the 2/7, is this the reason that reviewers describe the x16 as sluggish and not balanced?
how do they compare in the mid freq? how is their soundstage?
Thanks,
Guy

Why not consider a used pair of Focus 110?

What price point can you get the X-16 and DM 2/7 for?

That may have some weight in the scale. Callas maybe able to give a you a better answer then I can since I have not heard X-16 and it is true a lot of reviewers taught the X-12 were better balanced but I think for me I would like the extra slam of the X-16 over the X-12 I currently own.

The DM Series seems to be more balanced overall also over the previous Audience line so I would think the 2/7 is great but one thing the X-cites got going for them is the beautiful real wood veneer if that counts for anything for you.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by Bguy

Hi Callas,
I know you had a good experience with the excite x16 in the past and I'll appreciate your help.
I have a Naim nait XS2 powering a Dynaudio dm2/6 and I would like to upgrade the 2/6 for a bigger sound.
don't get me wrong I like th dm2/6 punch and energetic sound but I'm after a little more punch and still maintain the fast transients that the 2/6 have.
I'm listening to rock, metal, industrial, heavy electronic music, but I also like to listen to female voices and easy listening music.
at the moment I'm considering the dm 2/7 and the Excite x16 (discontinued but I can still buy it new).
I cannot demo neither one of them, the dm 2/7 have rave reviews but I prefer to climb up to a higher series.
how do you compare the x16 to the dm2/7?
is the x16 "sluggish", "slow" and not exciting compare to the dm2/7?
I know that the x16 have larger woofer than the 2/7, is this the reason that reviewers describe the x16 as sluggish and not balanced?
how do they compare in the mid freq? how is their soundstage?
Thanks,
Guy

I read all the reviews, and I think you're talking about the review from HiFi Choice. It seemed to me that they just picked apart the speaker, and IDK why. Id have to ask if they had a pair that was broke-in or not. Every other review you will read whether What HiFi, Secrets of a HT HiFi, they seemed to enjoy both the bass and its level of detail you get from the woofer.

I had only a good experience with them, I thought that the 2/6s were faster, and yes I do think thats partially due to the smaller woofers size, however theres alway a little trade off from one speaker to the next. I never felt that speed or pace were lacking. Ive been looking at Agon and that dealer that has a few new speakers left that are brand new thinking that it would be awesome to get the Gloss White pair for a second setup. The DM 2/7s will actually have punchier bass, they use the famed 75mm voice coil that really improves punch, this should also give it a little better speed also due to the larger voice coil able to move the driver faster. Now why buy the X16s over the DM2/7s, you will get better mid-range detail, great highs and upper mids from the tweeter, transients between the mid/woofer and tweeter should be just as quick, and improved, the crossover components of the Excites are better then what you get in the DMs. Bass is good on the X16s, forceful and quick(yes a little slower then say the X12, DM2/6, DM2/7) but I enjoyed the bass. There are still things about the X16s that I miss in terms of its tonal characteristics and overall musical nature. Which is why I keep thinking about the X16s on Agon. I changed to the Focus 160s (now the 260s) because the I still wanted more dynamics, the Focus bass is stronger and faster, it also has more top-end dynamic extension, along with a clearer more transparent sound and providing even greater micro detail and micro dynamics.

If you're really looking into upgrading and considering the amp you have, have you see these? Hard to refuse for the price.

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/mon...-48085-troy-mi

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

I read all the reviews, and I think you're talking about the review from HiFi Choice. It seemed to me that they just picked apart the speaker, and IDK why. Id have to ask if they had a pair that was broke-in or not. Every other review you will read whether What HiFi, Secrets of a HT HiFi, they seemed to enjoy both the bass and its level of detail you get from the woofer.

I had only a good experience with them, I thought that the 2/6s were faster, and yes I do think thats partially due to the smaller woofers size, however theres alway a little trade off from one speaker to the next. I never felt that speed or pace were lacking. Ive been looking at Agon and that dealer that has a few new speakers left that are brand new thinking that it would be awesome to get the Gloss White pair for a second setup. The DM 2/7s will actually have punchier bass, they use the famed 75mm voice coil that really improves punch, this should also give it a little better speed also due to the larger voice coil able to move the driver faster. Now why buy the X16s over the DM2/7s, you will get better mid-range detail, great highs and upper mids from the tweeter, transients between the mid/woofer and tweeter should be just as quick, and improved, the crossover components of the Excites are better then what you get in the DMs. Bass is good on the X16s, forceful and quick(yes a little slower then say the X12, DM2/6, DM2/7) but I enjoyed the bass. There are still things about the X16s that I miss in terms of its tonal characteristics and overall musical nature. Which is why I keep thinking about the X16s on Agon. I changed to the Focus 160s (now the 260s) because the I still wanted more dynamics, the Focus bass is stronger and faster, it also has more top-end dynamic extension, along with a clearer more transparent sound and providing even greater micro detail and micro dynamics.

If you're really looking into upgrading and considering the amp you have, have you see these? Hard to refuse for the price.

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/mon...-48085-troy-mi

OMG this would be a huge upgrade

[BigAl87]

Steve go for the X-16 in Gloss white they have such great class

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by callas01

I read all the reviews, and I think you're talking about the review from HiFi Choice. It seemed to me that they just picked apart the speaker, and IDK why. Id have to ask if they had a pair that was broke-in or not. Every other review you will read whether What HiFi, Secrets of a HT HiFi, they seemed to enjoy both the bass and its level of detail you get from the woofer.

I had only a good experience with them, I thought that the 2/6s were faster, and yes I do think thats partially due to the smaller woofers size, however theres alway a little trade off from one speaker to the next. I never felt that speed or pace were lacking. Ive been looking at Agon and that dealer that has a few new speakers left that are brand new thinking that it would be awesome to get the Gloss White pair for a second setup. The DM 2/7s will actually have punchier bass, they use the famed 75mm voice coil that really improves punch, this should also give it a little better speed also due to the larger voice coil able to move the driver faster. Now why buy the X16s over the DM2/7s, you will get better mid-range detail, great highs and upper mids from the tweeter, transients between the mid/woofer and tweeter should be just as quick, and improved, the crossover components of the Excites are better then what you get in the DMs. Bass is good on the X16s, forceful and quick(yes a little slower then say the X12, DM2/6, DM2/7) but I enjoyed the bass. There are still things about the X16s that I miss in terms of its tonal characteristics and overall musical nature. Which is why I keep thinking about the X16s on Agon. I changed to the Focus 160s (now the 260s) because the I still wanted more dynamics, the Focus bass is stronger and faster, it also has more top-end dynamic extension, along with a clearer more transparent sound and providing even greater micro detail and micro dynamics.

Wow! Just wow!

[rded]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

Wow! Just wow!

Yep! Steve knows way more than Wilfried Ehrenholz, CEO of Dynaudio! That's why he is the HiFi expert!

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by rded

Yep! Steve knows way more than Wilfried Ehrenholz, CEO of Dynaudio! That's why he is the HiFi expert!

I love this part:

it also has more top-end dynamic extension, along with a clearer more transparent sound and providing even greater micro detail and micro dynamics.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

I love this part:

The wonders of cutting and pasting!

[Twm1988]

BigAl, I am pretty sure you used to have a H/K 254/354 receiver running your totems before the Arcam. Since I am obviously very familiar with the H/K sound and am possibly headed in the Arcam direction, could you describe the difference in sound quality you experienced between the two receivers?

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Twm1988

BigAl, I am pretty sure you used to have a H/K 254/354 receiver running your totems before the Arcam. Since I am obviously very familiar with the H/K sound and am possibly headed in the Arcam direction, could you describe the difference in sound quality you experienced between the two receivers?

Such better midrange and highs and much better PRAT on the Arcam receiver vs the HK, The highs seem to be tamed down on the Arcam but Arcam is not the smoothest of all by all means but it does offer much better dynamics and more humph factor than the HK, The HK as you know is not all that bad sounding. Arcam offer much better electrical damping resulting in much better control in the low end. The Arcam will aso provide a bigger wider soundstage and more separation.

Here's what I meant when I said they are build with music in mind first.

Arcam Introduces its AVR750, AVR450 and AVR380 home cinema receivers - YouTube

[Twm1988]

That's an interesting video. I see what you mean... we know what instruments should sound like, so build a machine that can reproduce those sounds as close as possible, and everything else will also follow.

I agree about the h/k sound quality, you can do much worse for sure. You mentioned that of all the receivers you listened to, the Arcam was the only one that delivered music that well. What other avr's did you audition before you went with Arcam? Were there any other's that were close to the Arcam sound?

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Twm1988

That's an interesting video. I see what you mean... we know what instruments should sound like, so build a machine that can reproduce those sounds as close as possible, and everything else will also follow.

I agree about the h/k sound quality, you can do much worse for sure. You mentioned that of all the receivers you listened to, the Arcam was the only one that delivered music that well. What other avr's did you audition before you went with Arcam? Were there any other's that were close to the Arcam sound?

I did listen to Arcam, Pioneer Elite SC and the higher end Yammys at the time they did not have , also audition a Cambridge Audio Azur and Anthem and Arcam came on top for me as a musical stand point as I truly needed the something that was going to give me the best possible musical experience. I hate to say one is better than another an so on I just go with what I feel sounds best to my ears.

Problem here is I did not get to compare the Cambridge with the same speakers I did with Arcam for instance as the Cambridge dealer sold Dalis and Dynaudios. It's extremely difficult to asses gear in different environements with different associated equipement but at least I got to hear Yammys, Anthem and Arcam at the same dealer and the way the music was delivered by Arcam just made all the sens in the world to me to go with it.
I am not sure what other manufacturer out ther could actually translate music in such great fashion with their AVRs.

This is a quote from sound and vision about measured numbers of the AVR400:

Arcam’s FMJ AVR400 yielded a Top 10 set of test bench numbers for A/V receivers, with noise, D/A linearity, and frequency response all essentially perfect and nearly spot-on the theoretical minimums for our real-world performance tests based upon “dithered silence.” Power was just as impressive, especially considering the Arcam’s 90-watts-per-channel rating. It bested spec by a good 2 dB in most tests and still produced 98 watts, steady-state, with all 7 channels driven to the clip point, without offering to spark, smoke, or shut down, though it did get plenty hot after a few such runs. This is substantially more than all but a few receivers I’ve encountered, including those rated for 150 watts per channel and more.

Just says a lot abut true power and built quality of the unit despite the specs.

[Twm1988]

I'm curious how NAD compares to Arcam too, seeing as they have a similar 'music first' mindset.

Have you ever been able to hear a NAD receiver, even if it wasn't at the same time as Arcam? Or have you only heard the NAD separates/integrated amps?

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Twm1988

I'm curious how NAD compares to Arcam too, seeing as they have a similar 'music first' mindset.

Have you ever been able to hear a NAD receiver, even if it wasn't at the same time as Arcam? Or have you only heard the NAD separates/integrated amps?

I only got to hear some entry level stereo receiver and entry level integrated and surprisingly enough they seem to sound brighter than what Callas would suggest vs other brands but he got to try the Nad AVRs that retail significantly higher than what I heard from NAD products. I do not have enough experience with NAD to judge.

The only one thing that comes to my attention is in general Sound and Vision Arcam receivers always get 5 stars for audio performance while NAD got some 4 and 4.5 stars for what ever that means, I think you should audition and judge for yourself honestly.