Mini Monitors - Dynaudio and JM Labs


After 11 years with my Thiel CS22 floorstanders, I’m ready to make a change and have decided to try out some mini monitors because of room size 15’x17’x7.5’ and the fact that I have a REL Stadium III to take care of the low end. I’ve narrowed my search down to two brands, Dynaudio and JM Labs. I’m looking at the Micro Utopia Be and either to the three Dynaudio models, Confidence C1, Special 25, or Contour 1.3SE.

I listen to pretty much all types of music but the majority being Jazz, Rock, and Alternative. One thing about the Thiel’s that I have always had a difficult time dealing with was that the listening position was extremely critical. The way that I have my speakers positioned, only one person at a time could truly enjoy the music from my Thiel’s. I’m hoping that I can improve my predicament with the speakers listed above as well as moving a step up in the quest for the absolute sound. I believe I have plenty of power to drive any of the speaker listed. A list of my associated equipment is listed “my system”.

Please, your recommendations or comments are welcome if you have compared or owned any speakers listed above.
islandflyfisher

Showing 7 responses by goatwuss

I auditioned many standmounts including Dyn S25, Dyn S1.4, JM Lab Micro Utopia Be, B&W 805 Sig, Sonus faber Cremona auditor, and some more I can't remember. I bought the Dyn S1.4. Dynaudio had the dynamics and the detail that enabled me to get involved in the music.
Washline - If you like the Be tweeters better than the esotar that's great. Dont be silly though and claim that the esotar lacks "extension" compared to the focal tweeter. It +/- 3db to 25khz. Human hearing caps at 20khz.
Aktchi - We are not talk about low frequencies, we are talking about high frequencies above 25khz. I certainly agree with you about the low frequency point - through many trials I have my system flat to around 20hz, and certainly have learned that the bottom octave is essential for soundstage development.

I would argue though, that in the grand scheme of all things audio, and what is important vs non-important, that high-frequency extension above 25khz is trivial in significance.

Washline - Point 5 in that article is irrelevent to our discussion. The point is that increased time-domain resolution increases brain activity, not that increased frequency extension increases brain activity.

"Though the frequency-domain benefits of ultrasonic-captured information are at best dubious, time-domain advantages may be more compelling"

Note 5:

"Recent studies indicate increased brain activity in response to high-resolution audio, even when listeners don't report any audible difference between that audio and more conventional music formats "

Even if this writer agreed with your point (which he doesn't - he contradicts it) it would be theoretical as opposed to practical anyway. There are 10,000,000 more important things to optimize in your sound playback system than high-frequency extension above 25khz.
"I just listened to Dynaudio C1's once again this past weekend. My opinion hasn't changed. Sorry to say. The Micro Be's mop the floor with these monitors."

I'm assuming you listened to these two pairs of speakers back to back, within the context of the same room and the same system? Because otherwise, your evaluation would be meaningless.
Aktchi - Can you please refer me to a reputable source explaining this phenominom?

Also - For clarity, the "original" dispute was whether or not a tweeter claiming 40khz has "higher extension" than a tweeter claiming 25khz. Your point that "Take your favorite 25 khz. If you had 25 khz and 15 khz present simultaneously, their combination will produce 10 khz and 40 khz, the former of which will be audible" may be true (I'm interested in learning about this if so), but it is not relevant to "high-end extension"
"they are from memory, more expensive, so they should be better"

Is that a joke?

Islandflyfisher - I use a Velodyne DD15 with my Dynaudio standmounts for near reference-quality bass. I high-pass the dyns for a great integration. Regarding tweeters - the JM Labs Be tweeter IS a good tweeter - but it is not anything so special to set it apart from its competition. IMHO the whole "berillium" craze is more a marketing move than anything. The Esotar tweeter in the Dyn S25 and C1 is one of the best tweeters in high-end audio, and the Esotec in the S1.4 and 1.3SE is very similar sounding to it. I personally thing the Esotar is a better tweeter than the JM Lab Be tweeter. I found it more open and less forward. So my point is - I wouldn't assume that the Be tweeter is "better" than the esotar because of the hype surrounding it. You very well may prefer it, but an audition is required to know.
Washline - Your run-on sentence there is incoherent. I did take a look at that link, and it seems to coincide with my point. Given that you can hear and differentiate "extension" beyond the 25khz of the esotar tweeter you must have some pretty amazing ears!

From the article you posted: "I haven't mentioned the most commonly touted marketing advantage of the new formats: their ability to capture sonic information higher than an audio CD's 22.05-kHz Nyquist-dictated cutoff. In reality, even the keenest-hearing children barely perceive audio information at 20 kHz, and, by middle age, even the sharpest ear can't hear anything higher than 15 kHz. Research data even suggests that the human auditory system lumps all frequencies higher than approximately 12.5 kHz into a single frequency "bin," in which humans cannot differentiate the various frequencies present."