• 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!

Kal reviews Dynaudio confidence 30

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,747
Likes
16,181
JA concludes the measurements with

Overall, Dynaudio's Confidence 30 offers excellent measured performance

which I personally find while OK not excellent and even less considering the $21000 price.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
somehow I really love the Dynaudio's Woofer, it somehow kind of looked sexy to me
 

aschen

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
92
Likes
86
I've been a bit perplexed that there havent been many reviews of any of the newest line confidence, they have been out for a few years. Good review and appreciate.

Ironically when I bought my confidence C4 years ago the only other speaker I seriously shopped against it was the salon 2s as well. I am sure the salons are technically a bit better but they sounded bright and harsh to me with bad recordings and especially high volumes. C4s are definitely a bit dull in comparison but work pretty well for me over a broad range of recordings and volumes.
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
I've been subjected to the Confidence 60's on two occasions. Kind of laid to rest the idea that good amps should sound the same - either that or the very expensive amps used weren't good ones......... The first occasion I got a headache with listening fatigue after half an hour and the second occasion they sounded good but at twice the price of a proper larger active model of my intimate acquaintance (and more modern similar three way actives I don't yet know), this speaker/amp combination didn't appeal to me... the standmount versions don't seem to 'glare' in quite the same way as the largest model does...

Maybe I'm reading the measurements wrong, but the tweeter looks a bit rough, despite the seemingly complex design (they had a stripped down version mounted so one can see the individual layers of the construction).
 
Last edited:

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
I've been subjected to the Confidence 60's on two occasions. Kind of laid to rest the idea that good amps should sound the same - either that or the very expensive amps used weren't good ones......... The first occasion I got a headache with listening fatigue after half an hour and the second occasion they sounded good but at twice the price of a proper larger active model of my intimate acquaintance (and more modern similar three way actives I don't yet know), this speaker/amp combination didn't appeal to me...
I believe even very good SS amps have their difference in things like frequency dependency, and that passives usually have quite wide impedance range, which I believe would make all those minor voicing difference
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
The biggest difference I can possibly imagine is if the 60 model has the same dire impedance loading as the 30, as this may well affect the way an amp drives them. I personally find them rather ice-cold and 'HiFi' but others will love the perception of 'detail' they bring. But then, I'm not in their market ;)
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
I dont get the measurements. I see peeking starting from 200Hz downwards with a mount everest at 80Hz and a breathtaking high of +8dB. With a littel bit of humor i would say this speaker is not bassshy. Any explainations?
 

PKAudio

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
48
Likes
76
1. Port NF measurement shows not typical response and its second peak contributes to the overall output while it should not.
2. According to impedance going below 3ohm ~100Hz, I assume the peak at 100Hz is created by crossover and its reaction with woofers impedance. Normally this peak can be 2-3dB or even more, and it is good to compensate it with RLC in parallel to woofer. RLC compensation also increase impedance around 100Hz back to normal values.
3. NF measurements must be properly scaled and bafflestep curve has to be added before merging to farfield response. So one has to be careful to judge these measurements. That 8dB peak simply does not have to be true.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
1. Port NF measurement shows not typical response and its second peak contributes to the overall output while it should not.
2. According to impedance going below 3ohm ~100Hz, I assume the peak at 100Hz is created by crossover and its reaction with woofers impedance. Normally this peak can be 2-3dB or even more, and it is good to compensate it with RLC in parallel to woofer. RLC compensation also increase impedance around 100Hz back to normal values.
3. NF measurements must be properly scaled and bafflestep curve has to be added before merging to farfield response. So one has to be careful to judge these measurements. That 8dB peak simply does not have to be true.

Ok, i see this measurements are maybe not the yellow of the egg. But if they should make any sense and iam very tollerant, there is a peak at 80hz with at least 5db? And we not talk about high q.
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,292
Likes
3,880
Those measurements don't look very good. I know the low-end measurements aren't accurate, but above 1khz is a bit of a mess.
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
I really do like Kal's reviews. I think it is because he often engages in something interesting aside from the speaker review. I liked his assessment of the adaptation process with new speakers. And he seems to focus on speakers that are more interesting to me (and I assume people who are on ASR -- Kii, Dutch & Dutch, Revel, etc.).
 

Cadguy

Active Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
101
Likes
128
Another thoughtful and thought provoking review from Kalman Rubinson. "If I were shopping for speakers today, these would be at the top of my list." A lot of reviewers routinely make this kind of statement but coming from Kal this is high praise indeed.
 

FeddyLost

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
752
Likes
542
Measurements look decent.
But for 21K I'd prefer to have some more measurements proving PASSIVE speakers' qualities (and some recommended amplifiers). THD, phase responce, step/impulse/square wave might help to understand this price.
Otherwise any customer have a lot of options to choose from ...
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,086
Location
.de, DE, DEU
I dont get the measurements. I see peeking starting from 200Hz downwards with a mount everest at 80Hz and a breathtaking high of +8dB. With a littel bit of humor i would say this speaker is not bassshy. Any explainations?
3. NF measurements must be properly scaled and bafflestep curve has to be added before merging to farfield response. So one has to be careful to judge these measurements. That 8dB peak simply does not have to be true.

Exactly. The stereophile measurements of the 2pi overall frequency response are not useful in the bass range because, as already mentioned, no baffle step correction is performed (this is at least my last information) and also the phase shift caused by the distance between BR port and woofer is not taken into account.

Stereophile should really correct this. Or do without it completely.

The "wrongly created" summed near-field measurements can still be displayed as a dashed line if a comparison with the old "wrong" frequency responses should be possible.

Of course, I don't know how reliable the stereophile's near-field measurements are.
But if I take their BR-port*** and woofer measurements and apply a baffle step correction and also consider the average distance of the two woofers from the downfire BR-port (caused phase shift between woofer and BR-port) and sum them up, then you get the green curve**.

In red is the overall frequency response of the stereophile. In purple** are the summed nearfield measurements without phase shift correction.

** The near-field measurements were simulated for 2.5m listening distance free field. For 1m listening distance, something else would result, but this is not a realistic listening distance for a floorstanding speaker of this size.

*** The BR port is not a minimum phase system, so using the near field frequency response without a corresponding phase frequency response will cause an error.
1626523724814.png


The gated far-field measurement is not available to me, so I can't create a summary free-field frequency response, but I think one can see that the 8dB increase around 80Hz shown by Stereophile is not very realistic.

It can also be seen that when the phase shift caused by the distance between BR-port and woofer is taken into account, the increase around 80Hz is also somewhat reduced.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
Exactly. The stereophile measurements of the 2pi overall frequency response are not useful in the bass range because, as already mentioned, no baffle step correction is performed (this is at least my last information) and also the phase shift caused by the distance between BR port and woofer is not taken into account.

Stereophile should really correct this. Or do without it completely.

The "wrongly created" summed near-field measurements can still be displayed as a dashed line if a comparison with the old "wrong" frequency responses should be possible.

Of course, I don't know how reliable the stereophile's near-field measurements are.
But if I take their BR-port*** and woofer measurements and apply a baffle step correction and also consider the average distance of the two woofers from the downfire BR-port (caused phase shift between woofer and BR-port) and sum them up, then you get the green curve**.

In red is the overall frequency response of the stereophile. In purple** are the summed nearfield measurements without phase shift correction.

** The near-field measurements were simulated for 2.5m listening distance free field. For 1m listening distance, something else would result, but this is not a realistic listening distance for a floorstanding speaker of this size.

*** The BR port is not a minimum phase system, so using the near field frequency response without a corresponding phase frequency response will cause an error.
View attachment 141776

The gated far-field measurement is not available to me, so I can't create a summary free-field frequency response, but I think one can see that the 8dB increase around 80Hz shown by Stereophile is not very realistic.

It can also be seen that when the phase shift caused by the distance between BR-port and woofer is taken into account, the increase around 80Hz is also somewhat reduced.
this looks much more reference class to me, but for floorstanders at this price I am always disappointed by how early the bass roll off occurred
 
Top Bottom