Grimm Audio LS1BE- why so expensive?

[sigbergaudio]

Depends on the music but a lot of the time they are. A tracks mix can be part of an artists vision just as much any other aspect of the song, the engineering side of things works in tandem, not apart of the creative side.

They are not part of it in the sense that the sound quality is not inherently limited by the monitors, which seemed to be implied in earlier posts.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Not if you are just buying truextent foil from matereon. Which is what pretty much everyone is doing other than Revel with Ultima2 or TAD with their beryllium drivers, which are vapor deposition types. If you are just buying beryllium foil from Brush Wellman it’s relatively inexpensive, say around $150 for a 1” tweeter in bulk. This is the same stuff that goes into high end Focal’s Be speakers and headphones, including the $4000 Utopia headphones. Almost everyone is just engaging in insane markup outside of the few parties that are actually manufacturing their own drivers through vapor deposition because beryllium has been associated with expensive drivers for a long time.

150$ bulk for a tweeter is not relatively inexpensive in absolute terms, it's definitely in the higher end of the price scale. You'll find OEM drivers that cost 20-30$ in any number of high end speakers. But I'll agree it's relatively inexpensive for a beryllium driver.

 

[fineMen]

They are not part of it in the sense that the sound quality is not inherently limited by the monitors, which seemed to be implied in earlier posts.

This can never have been implied because the term "sound quality" is, conventiently, not defined.
Your understanding of the before written is to my biggest astonishment fundamentally wrong.

The sound engineer has monitors of type A. He records and mixes so that the sound via A is optimal.

The consumer has type B loudspeakers, whose characteristics differ from those of type A. Necessarily, the consumer does not enjoy the optimum produced in the studio.

This is a logical conclusion that does not require any further precondition and cannot be discussed.

A previous assumption was that the sound engineer would have enough experience to tune the sound over A in such a way that the sound would not be optimal over A, but would then become optimal over B. But what about a consumer who uses type C speakers?

The latter is an attempt to save a long-established concept by means of completely untenable assumptions: That the "improvement" of loudspeakers can and must be pushed infinitely far in order to save the "deeper original" of the recording, which is captured independently of the taste judgments of the sound engineer.

In this case of an argument, the sound engineer is supposed to abstract the sound, i.e. recognize it, and manipulate it without being confronted with it in a concrete way.
It is also a generally lived myth that special people, namely audiophiles, can recognize at almost any time how good or how poor a reproduction system is. However, a sound memory required for this does not exist. The hollow term of a "sound quality" poses the focus point for literally endless blah bla blah. And more blah. More? Sure, my pleasure!

If one gives up these intellectually desperate attempts to save cost-intensive pseudo-solutions for a stupid market of unsuspecting fools, the studio monitor is of course decisive for the sound in the result. Even the sound engineer becomes part of the signal chain. His daily state of earwax colors the sound of the recording. Because he works against it in the mix.

*****

To come back to my argumentation here, that You appear to have missed completely.

I assumed LS1 is of type A (studio) - yes, in many aspects. Good one.
If LS1's price is justified by special features, would it become by these features a type B/C (high-end rubbish) thing - no, nothing that would actually depart from A too far, especially nothing "better". Good one.
Final Q: by which features then is LS1 worth the asking price - nil, price is literally exclusive. Too bad.

add: low number of product with high mark-up gives same profit as high number of product with lesser margin. You'll always find a real enthusiast to buy it, promised.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I disagree with a number of things in your post(s), but it seems fair to assume I'm not going to get through here. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[bo_knows]

This can never have been implied because the term "sound quality" is, conventiently, not defined.
Your understanding of the before written is to my biggest astonishment fundamentally wrong.

The sound engineer has monitors of type A. He records and mixes so that the sound via A is optimal.

The consumer has type B loudspeakers, whose characteristics differ from those of type A. Necessarily, the consumer does not enjoy the optimum produced in the studio.

This is a logical conclusion that does not require any further precondition and cannot be discussed.

A previous assumption was that the sound engineer would have enough experience to tune the sound over A in such a way that the sound would not be optimal over A, but would then become optimal over B. But what about a consumer who uses type C speakers?

The latter is an attempt to save a long-established concept by means of completely untenable assumptions: That the "improvement" of loudspeakers can and must be pushed infinitely far in order to save the "deeper original" of the recording, which is captured independently of the taste judgments of the sound engineer.

In this case of an argument, the sound engineer is supposed to abstract the sound, i.e. recognize it, and manipulate it without being confronted with it in a concrete way.
It is also a generally lived myth that special people, namely audiophiles, can recognize at almost any time how good or how poor a reproduction system is. However, a sound memory required for this does not exist. The hollow term of a "sound quality" poses the focus point for literally endless blah bla blah. And more blah. More? Sure, my pleasure!

If one gives up these intellectually desperate attempts to save cost-intensive pseudo-solutions for a stupid market of unsuspecting fools, the studio monitor is of course decisive for the sound in the result. Even the sound engineer becomes part of the signal chain. His daily state of earwax colors the sound of the recording. Because he works against it in the mix.

*****

To come back to my argumentation here, that You appear to have missed completely.

I assumed LS1 is of type A (studio) - yes, in many aspects. Good one.
If LS1's price is justified by special features, would it become by these features a type B/C (high-end rubbish) thing - no, nothing that would actually depart from A too far, especially nothing "better". Good one.
Final Q: by which features then is LS1 worth the asking price - nil, price is literally exclusive. Too bad.

add: low number of product with high mark-up gives same profit as high number of product with lesser margin. You'll always find a real enthusiast to buy it, promised.

This can never have been implied because the term "sound quality" is, conventiently, not defined.
Your understanding of the before written is to my biggest astonishment fundamentally wrong.

The sound engineer has monitors of type A. He records and mixes so that the sound via A is optimal.

The consumer has type B loudspeakers, whose characteristics differ from those of type A. Necessarily, the consumer does not enjoy the optimum produced in the studio.

This is a logical conclusion that does not require any further precondition and cannot be discussed.

A previous assumption was that the sound engineer would have enough experience to tune the sound over A in such a way that the sound would not be optimal over A, but would then become optimal over B. But what about a consumer who uses type C speakers?

The latter is an attempt to save a long-established concept by means of completely untenable assumptions: That the "improvement" of loudspeakers can and must be pushed infinitely far in order to save the "deeper original" of the recording, which is captured independently of the taste judgments of the sound engineer.

In this case of an argument, the sound engineer is supposed to abstract the sound, i.e. recognize it, and manipulate it without being confronted with it in a concrete way.
It is also a generally lived myth that special people, namely audiophiles, can recognize at almost any time how good or how poor a reproduction system is. However, a sound memory required for this does not exist. The hollow term of a "sound quality" poses the focus point for literally endless blah bla blah. And more blah. More? Sure, my pleasure!

If one gives up these intellectually desperate attempts to save cost-intensive pseudo-solutions for a stupid market of unsuspecting fools, the studio monitor is of course decisive for the sound in the result. Even the sound engineer becomes part of the signal chain. His daily state of earwax colors the sound of the recording. Because he works against it in the mix.

*****

To come back to my argumentation here, that You appear to have missed completely.

I assumed LS1 is of type A (studio) - yes, in many aspects. Good one.
If LS1's price is justified by special features, would it become by these features a type B/C (high-end rubbish) thing - no, nothing that would actually depart from A too far, especially nothing "better". Good one.
Final Q: by which features then is LS1 worth the asking price - nil, price is literally exclusive. Too bad.

add: low number of product with high mark-up gives same profit as high number of product with lesser margin. You'll always find a real enthusiast to buy it, promised.

We discussed something similar in this thread. Feel free to take a look and see if what I said makes any sense to you.

Research on reflections

btw. you could also avoid the unwated reflection by fireing into the wall like this: today we have DSP so the FR could be made as good (if not better) as with direct sound+reflections. on a side-note: this would make the stage even wider as standard reflective triangle, since the phantom...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[fineMen]

We discussed something similar in this thread. Feel free to take a look and see if what I said makes any sense to you.

Research on reflections

btw. you could also avoid the unwated reflection by fireing into the wall like this: today we have DSP so the FR could be made as good (if not better) as with direct sound+reflections. on a side-note: this would make the stage even wider as standard reflective triangle, since the phantom...

audiosciencereview.com

Sure, the never ending story. That is why it is called "The Circle of Confusion". It never ends, but never progresses to anywhere.

May I admit that it confuses me how shallow the understanding of the consequences of "spinorama" and "score" thing is? On one hand the spinorama is interpreted by a fraction of a dB. Heated discussion if this or that deviation from straight perfect would be objectionable to the "critical listener". We all listen critically every time, right? Because this is the very purpose of my personal "perfect stereo".

On the other hand, as You mention "room reflections" with the given link: Nobody (except me, but was ignored) ever mentioned the necessary shift in tonality if reflections are muted. Hence changing the intended balance in the original mix. Result is, no "high fidelity" anymore? Let alone the incapability to grasp the idea, that reduced reflections make the room virtually smaller ... ;-) How does it compare to mounting bookshelf-speakers on a bookshelf? A mystery indeed.

I regain my peace of mind with a very simple assumption. People just do not want to be liberated from the vicious circular thinking. It would separate them from their hobby. Which is to listen "critically" for no good reason other than not being into music that much.

If it would be possible to be satisfied even with a proletarian "standard", what is left? No higher any more, nothing "better" to crave for, no final but unreachable purity, nothing to feel better about, no discrimination against others, the unknowing.

No bad feelings

(edit: where I come from it is said that the engineer works on a problem until she might say "Good enough!" This point is reached with a quasi standard regarding monitors, studio inventory, and home equipment, courtesy of Toole/Harman/Olive. Optimising is done in reducing the effort to get there, namely cost and footprint. But that task is way out of the capabilities of the common audiophile, discussing his next purchase on the vanity fair. What about the sound quality of Q-tips? A/B double blind test!)

 

[mar1o]

I build a LS1 by myself. Obviously my interpretation of the design is a bit different. One design goal was it should look independent from the origin design and fit my taste . But nonetheless i stick to the origin dimensions of the original. Because of my design decisions, i had to put the electronics in a seperate aluminum case. It was my first diy speaker project and so i tried to keep outgoings low without compromising the design goals too much. For example i used Icepower amps and a Auverdion Aurora DSP instead of Hypex ncore and dsp. Maybe not as good as the ncore in measurements, but still solid and loved by many people. I even added two 10“ subs, but this time i didn‘t use the same driver of the SB1 or LS1s. I also reused pretty simple MDF enclosures. Only matched the color and put a copper design element on it.
Overall it wasn‘t a cheap project, even tough i bought used stuff, when there was an opportunity. Rule of thumb manufacturers used to multiplicate the value of all comopents by 4x - 6x. When i would do it, i would be near the LS1a/LS1 range.

I assume, that when you change to the custom Be-DXT-tweeter and a more costly ceramic like cabinet finish/build. Also do engineering to refine the electronics. It already adds plenty of extra costs. In the point of view of a relative small manufacturer, the price tag may be ok. But of course it is still a premium pricing. Normally the last few percent of performance necessitate a disproportionate amount of resources.

 

[Sal1950]

I build a LS1 by myself.

A very handsome build, nice job!

 

[Puddingbuks]

@mar1o nicely done!

Could you post more pictures of the building process?

 

[mar1o]

@mar1o nicely done!

Could you post more pictures of the building process?

I have posted very few here https://www.diy-hifi-forum.eu/forum/showthread.php?22311-LS(de-Mar-)1 . It‘s a german forum. I didn‘t documented it very well, but i can look for some more pictures.

Edit: More Pictures…

 

[AudioJester]

Wow, thats brilliant.
The greatest satisfaction is listening to a system you built yourself!

 

[Emlin]

Wow, thats brilliant.
The greatest satisfaction is listening to a system you built yourself!

Only if you wish to pander to your biases.

 

[AudioJester]

Only if you wish to pander to your biases.

Lol.
If you think I was referring to objective sound asessments you really dont get it.....

 

[mar1o]

I just want to mention, that for example the Seas Excel Woofer W22EX001 cost a bit more than 200€ per unit in Germany, when I first thought about to build the LS1 by myself. For the DXT tweeter the price was approx 50€ each. At the moment the woofer costs more than 400€ and the tweeter also doubled its price. I don't want to argue for the premium pricing. Just want to say, that some components got crazy expensive in a few years.

The latest revision of the Seas Excel W22, the W22NX001 (with a machined magnesium cone!), even costs 1200-1300€ per pair. I don‘t know if Grimm Audio puts them into the LS1be. Probably would make most sense, when the LS1be is just used as a 2 way system. W22NX001 has got more linear excursion and can handle more short and long term power, what would help to bring distortion especially in the low end down.

 

[johnwto]

Wow, what a great thread. I wanted to chime in as I bought a set a few months ago.

When buying hi-end anything don't even try to justify the cost. Is a Bugatti Chiron worth a list price of $3m? Is a Salvator Mundi worth $400m?? And is a house in Beverly Hills worth $100m??

The answer to these questions is 'maybe'. If you can afford it and it brings pleasure to you then it's worth it. If it brings you no pleasure then it's not.

As for the why are they so expensive, it's simple economics. Companies like Grimm/Ferrari/Patek Philipp etc do not mass produce product. They need to have very high margins to make money. Their production costs are very high as everything is hand made and not just run through a line in China. There is NOTHING cheap about these speakers, every single part is very well built. It looks expensive, it feels expensive, it's clearly well made.

The Grimm's have spectacular sound and as much as I wanted Kii's an A/B test just didn't hold up. The Grimm's were better. But the Grimm's were better to me and the music I like. They may not sound better to you, so just buy what you love and what you can afford.

Are the Grimm's 3x better than the Genelec's? That's for you to decide. Listen to them side by side and see. The PMC MB3's are $90k, are they worth 3x more than the Grimm's? Beats me, I have never heard them. The subject of worth and value is very subjective.

I also use these for work so I needed something very accurate and the design works perfectly for my set up. I got the higher studio version. Well actually that's all BS- I just wanted some really nice speakers and used work as an excuse

When I first got them I was not blown away immediately but after about a week my ears got acclimatized and I was so astounded. I couldn't care less about any stat, spec or what anyone thinks, some songs make the hairs on my arms stand up and other you can just 'feel' the emotion in the song. I have sat on the couch, in front of the speakers with my girlfriend and listened to a solid hour of songs. Some of the songs she can't hold back the tears- these are emotional speakers. Even though they are ultra clean they are still able to invoke a strong sense of emotion.

Sometimes these speakers will startle me with a thunderous cymbal or make make me laugh at how detailed they are. I can hear fingers coming off the strings in a bass guitar or hear the gentle tapping of the hammer on a piano. It's pretty wild, the more you listen the more you hear.

When using them for work and mixing I get the the most accurate detailed sound that let's me set the right mix and effect for each track. They are versatile.

The customer service from Grimm is BEYOND incredible. When I got them, Eelco Grimm sent me a message as he wanted to make sure I had them set up correctly and the room was properly treated. The packaging on these was also amazing but I found a very small scratch on the bottom of the main speaker. You wouldn't be able to see it unless you looked underneath and had light on it. It was a light scratch in the paint maybe 2mm long. Eelco told me to send it back for repair at his expense. I didn't bother because it's so tiny and he sent me $500 to get it fixed locally. Just an amazing experience all around.

Bottom line is nobody can say whether these are worth $30k or not. It's your money so you will have to decide for yourself but in the high end audio world there are many more expensive speakers than these that to my ears do not sound as good.

 

[Ilkless]

Wow, what a great thread. I wanted to chime in as I bought a set a few months ago.

When buying hi-end anything don't even try to justify the cost. Is a Bugatti Chiron worth a list price of $3m? Is a Salvator Mundi worth $400m?? And is a house in Beverly Hills worth $100m??

The answer to these questions is 'maybe'. If you can afford it and it brings pleasure to you then it's worth it. If it brings you no pleasure then it's not.

As for the why are they so expensive, it's simple economics. Companies like Grimm/Ferrari/Patek Philipp etc do not mass produce product. They need to have very high margins to make money. Their production costs are very high as everything is hand made and not just run through a line in China. There is NOTHING cheap about these speakers, every single part is very well built. It looks expensive, it feels expensive, it's clearly well made.

The Grimm's have spectacular sound and as much as I wanted Kii's an A/B test just didn't hold up. The Grimm's were better. But the Grimm's were better to me and the music I like. They may not sound better to you, so just buy what you love and what you can afford.

Are the Grimm's 3x better than the Genelec's? That's for you to decide. Listen to them side by side and see. The PMC MB3's are $90k, are they worth 3x more than the Grimm's? Beats me, I have never heard them. The subject of worth and value is very subjective.

I also use these for work so I needed something very accurate and the design works perfectly for my set up. I got the higher studio version. Well actually that's all BS- I just wanted some really nice speakers and used work as an excuse

When I first got them I was not blown away immediately but after about a week my ears got acclimatized and I was so astounded. I couldn't care less about any stat, spec or what anyone thinks, some songs make the hairs on my arms stand up and other you can just 'feel' the emotion in the song. I have sat on the couch, in front of the speakers with my girlfriend and listened to a solid hour of songs. Some of the songs she can't hold back the tears- these are emotional speakers. Even though they are ultra clean they are still able to invoke a strong sense of emotion.

Sometimes these speakers will startle me with a thunderous cymbal or make make me laugh at how detailed they are. I can hear fingers coming off the strings in a bass guitar or hear the gentle tapping of the hammer on a piano. It's pretty wild, the more you listen the more you hear.

When using them for work and mixing I get the the most accurate detailed sound that let's me set the right mix and effect for each track. They are versatile.

The customer service from Grimm is BEYOND incredible. When I got them, Eelco Grimm sent me a message as he wanted to make sure I had them set up correctly and the room was properly treated. The packaging on these was also amazing but I found a very small scratch on the bottom of the main speaker. You wouldn't be able to see it unless you looked underneath and had light on it. It was a light scratch in the paint maybe 2mm long. Eelco told me to send it back for repair at his expense. I didn't bother because it's so tiny and he sent me $500 to get it fixed locally. Just an amazing experience all around.

Bottom line is nobody can say whether these are worth $30k or not. It's your money so you will have to decide for yourself but in the high end audio world there are many more expensive speakers than these that to my ears do not sound as good.

Yes. The original LS1 set the benchmark for pricing because it was an incredibly rare combination of transducer and electronics manufactured to an incredibly high level with a mostly custom, cost-no-object implementations, back when the tech needed was from a commodity. And the subsequent revisions could hardly have been cheaper.

Now, we have nCore plate amps and DSP crossovers that make a DSP active a ton more accessible for both DIYers and OEMs. Albeit with no servo feedback and/or beamforming.

 

[sfdoddsy]

Whilst beyond my means, I don't find the cost of the Grimm speakers exorbitant, especially when compared to some.

At least you are buying speakers with a difference, designed to work as a system.

Like Kim and Meridian before them, a large part of the cost is the intellectual property of their research, the DSP etc etc. You can't really compare them to Genelec/Neumann due to economies of scale.

Similarly to the poster above, I've built my own active DSP speakers based on a well-regarded design (in my case Linkwitz open baffles). The drivers and baffles were expensive, but were I a commercial enterprise their price would be dwarfed by the cost of the time I've spent designing and tweaking them over the past 20 years.

Assuming my time spent averaged out to a mere 50 hours a year over that period, based on what I charge in my day job I'd have to sell the first set for over $150,000 just to break even.

Thus, if you agree with their philosophy, I find Grimm better value than companies which use the same principles as pretty much everyone else but simply whack expensive drivers into fancy boxes and charge prices that make Grimm seem cheap.

Like pretty much every speaker in Stereophile's recommended list.

 

[Adi777]

"Our flagship product LS1be takes the LS1 performance to the next level ... exclusive component selection and decided on silver power supply wiring for the finishing touch."

Touch the the power wiring as to jump to next level?

It really looks nice!

I listened to these speakers in a room that was probably very well prepared in terms of acoustics.
Unfortunately, briefly, too briefly to express any meaningful opinion.
They look really good, even quite original. It was a version with dedicated subwoofers. I wanted and was about to compare them to the Kii Three BTX, but unfortunately I ran out of time
Hmm, a DIY project like this would be interesting, but bigger.

 

[ferrellms]

I mean it's a 2- way with an 8 inch woofer and 1 inch beryllium tweeter.
Yes obviously the dry specs don't tell the whole story but I just don't understand what's so special about them that makes them worth $30,000 per pair.
View attachment 199454

Maybe they sound better? They do have a much, much cheaper version (LS1a) of this without the super expensive beryllium and magnesium drivers.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Maybe they sound better? They do have a much, much cheaper version (LS1a) of this without the super expensive beryllium and magnesium drivers.

Yeah but what's the point of the cheaper version?
Obviously most people would go for the beryllium tweeter and we would compare anything to that version
Besides, it's not that rare and common even on relatively cheap Focal speakers (obviously not the same tweeter)