Last edited:
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Dynaudio Special Forty - Review & Measurements by Erin
- Thread starter VintageFlanker
- Start date
The Jupiter room was great for the couple of years until the Klippel NFS was released and made it obsolete. Oops.
Back to the speakers, KEF R3 Meta for 2.2k usd a pair is a far better measuring speaker and costs less. No brainer imo.
Back to the speakers, KEF R3 Meta for 2.2k usd a pair is a far better measuring speaker and costs less. No brainer imo.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #6
I never heard that the Special Forty was designed using the Jupiter room. The first speaker was supposedly Evoke, about a year after the Forty was released.
Done some reading. 2016 new R&D centre(Jupiter), 2017 S40 releases, 2020 introduced new finishes on S40. Could definitely have done something in between. Hope Erin reviews the Evoke, I have heard them and i am certain they dont measure that well too
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
Oh yes? The Evoke line sounds stellar AFAIC...Hope Erin reviews the Evoke, I have heard them and i am certain they dont measure that well too
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,172
- Likes
- 2,043
Not the best measurements but maybe interesting for some. Use discretion. Review measurements for comparison.
Evoke 10s vs Revel M16s
Taken from center, about 7 feet away. From when the Evokes were first released. I don't have them anymore so I can't provide better measurements or answer any questions about them really. Placement not optimal for rear port as these were quick measurements. Always a bit surprising to see that if the bass is there, the room determines the sound for any comparable speaker.
From what I remember, I was thoroughly impressed by the bass, especially for the size. About M16 levels, a feat in itself, with perhaps that same boost at around 100Hz making them sound like they have even more oomph. I thought they sounded quite nice, and they are gorgeous in white, but they were clearly not neutral, which is what I prefer. The drop off, exaggerated because of the tuning, was noticeable and not for me.
Evoke 10s vs Revel M16s
Taken from center, about 7 feet away. From when the Evokes were first released. I don't have them anymore so I can't provide better measurements or answer any questions about them really. Placement not optimal for rear port as these were quick measurements. Always a bit surprising to see that if the bass is there, the room determines the sound for any comparable speaker.
From what I remember, I was thoroughly impressed by the bass, especially for the size. About M16 levels, a feat in itself, with perhaps that same boost at around 100Hz making them sound like they have even more oomph. I thought they sounded quite nice, and they are gorgeous in white, but they were clearly not neutral, which is what I prefer. The drop off, exaggerated because of the tuning, was noticeable and not for me.
Well those were my subjective opinion. Of cos i could be wrong and there arent good measurements of them that i can find. I find them too bass/mid bass heavy. Those impression were 1.5 years ago so oh well we shall see if there are any klippel measured ones in the future.
2019 the NFS was released, 3 years after Jupiter.Done some reading. 2016 new R&D centre(Jupiter), 2017 S40 releases, 2020 introduced new finishes on S40. Could definitely have done something in between. Hope Erin reviews the Evoke, I have heard them and i am certain they dont measure that well too
Last edited:
SpanishPassion
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2021
- Messages
- 20
- Likes
- 36
Seems to me that they are fairly flat measuring speakers.
The Soundstage/NRC measurements from 2018 show stronger resonances around 550-750Hz: https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153
Stereophile's measurements found a large cabinet wall resonance and a port resonance around that range: https://www.stereophile.com/content/dynaudio-special-forty-loudspeaker-measurements
Erin's measurements don't show as big of a problem here. Around 2020, Dynaudio changed the finishes available. I wonder if they also changed some of the cabinet interior to reduce the port and wall resonances?
Stereophile's measurements found a large cabinet wall resonance and a port resonance around that range: https://www.stereophile.com/content/dynaudio-special-forty-loudspeaker-measurements
Erin's measurements don't show as big of a problem here. Around 2020, Dynaudio changed the finishes available. I wonder if they also changed some of the cabinet interior to reduce the port and wall resonances?
From Dynaudio
We actually have a NFS and used it for verification and improvement of the measurement setup for Jupiter. In the daily work we prefer to use the measurement system in Jupiter due to the following reasons:
1. It takes about 6-10 hours to get a measurement with the same accuracy we can achieve in Jupiter in approximately 20 mins.
2. We have found that loudspeakers with multiple acoustic sources (drivers and ports) require bespoke measurement setups specific to the speaker being measured. Investigating the required setup takes time and needs to be repeated for individual speaker models.
3. The height the NFS can measure is limited so we can’t measure our tallest speakers.
4. The requirement for material handling and leaving the lifting equipment attached for any speaker that weighs more than 5 kg is problematic. We have to make custom harnesses for each speaker to avoid acoustic reflections from the lifting equipment (very important for high frequency measurements).
In short we can get similar results with the NFS compared to Jupiter, it just takes significantly longer and is quite impractical with regards to the material lifting. We have spent quite some time looking at the measurement differences between differing measurement systems and we think Jupiter gives us the accuracy we need in a reasonable time frame
that's a reasonable guess... or the measurements may be less accurate....
This is due super conservative spec for NFS. I was very worried about this prior to purchase but the local rep assured me that the stand can handle far more than that. And they were right. I have put 110 pound/50 Kg speakers on the post with zero concern. It is extremely solid but just not wide. So I augment it with a larger plate. Unless one gets into 200+ pounds, I would not worry about it. Strange that they have not realized this after getting the unit.
The gain beyond 2.5 hours of measurements with NFS is quite minimal. I have done 4 hour scans with almost no extra benefit. On resolution, NFS brings 1 degree resolution. No way they are able to manually measure to that resolution with a microphone array. Or even horizontally.
tmtomh
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,033
- Likes
- 8,956
Those speakers certainly would not be my choice given the price and that measured frequency response.
However - and I'm just putting this out there, not necessarily arguing for it - just how nonlinear is it really, in practice? I ask because the difference between "estimated in-room response" and the actual measurements most of us get when we measure speakers in our actual rooms is quite dramatic: there are all kinds of + or - 2-3dB peaks and dips in real-world in-room performance, and so by that standard these speakers seem to have fairly linear response.
Of course I understand - and agree - that the goal is to start with a speaker whose anechoic response is as flat as possible and you can't count on your room to mask or counteract the speaker's inherent nonlinearities.
I'm just wondering how audible the flaws of a speaker like this - whose problem is mainly ragged-looking response within an overall okay-looking tilt/curve - might be in an actual room.
I really am just asking the question - for all I know such flaws could be glaring to most of us just by listening. But I wonder.
However - and I'm just putting this out there, not necessarily arguing for it - just how nonlinear is it really, in practice? I ask because the difference between "estimated in-room response" and the actual measurements most of us get when we measure speakers in our actual rooms is quite dramatic: there are all kinds of + or - 2-3dB peaks and dips in real-world in-room performance, and so by that standard these speakers seem to have fairly linear response.
Of course I understand - and agree - that the goal is to start with a speaker whose anechoic response is as flat as possible and you can't count on your room to mask or counteract the speaker's inherent nonlinearities.
I'm just wondering how audible the flaws of a speaker like this - whose problem is mainly ragged-looking response within an overall okay-looking tilt/curve - might be in an actual room.
I really am just asking the question - for all I know such flaws could be glaring to most of us just by listening. But I wonder.
Yeah, just quoting what they posted. Their biggest speaker Is the Confidence 60
146 lbs, 64 inches
Similar threads
