Diapason Dynamis Floorstanding Loudspeakers

[Kevin Nolan]

Will understand if the moderator locks this post as it's a query on some ultra high end HiFi speakers, but here goes:

A friend of mine on Facebook posted an image of a very high end Hi Fi setup - including a pair of Diapason Dynamis Floorstanding Loudspeakers.

I Googled them and saw they cost $31,000.

A complete shock. When you consider the price of even, say, K&H O300D's, these are extraordinarily expensive.

I realise these are not a studio monitor - but - for that money I'd expect them to be absolutely perfect in every way, and far superior to the likes of the O300's or any other monitoring pair costing even $10,000 or more - but find that hard to imagine.

So I'm very curious to hear the thoughts of any speaker experts - are these pure rich-kid bling; or is there a legitimate reason why they cost $31,000?

Thanks,
Kevin.

[MOF]

My understanding of what constitutes a monitor speaker is its wide and level frequency response and an ability to handle a wide dynamic range.
A lot of domestic hi-fi speakers wouldn’t survive soloing an uncompressed bass guitar, drums etc if you were listening at volume to a compressed mix.
At £31k I would expect these speakers to be capable of fulfilling both roles.
My first speakers were AR18 bookshelf speakers but I was always careful with levels and my Teac 2A mixer was so basic it didn’t have a solo button.
I went onto Tannoy hi-fi type speakers next and likewise was careful with levels. I’ve yet to blow a speaker but I’m not likely to as I don’t like very loud listening sessions.

[hobbyist]

Will understand if the moderator locks this post as it's a query on some ultra high end HiFi speakers, but here goes:

A friend of mine on Facebook posted an image of a very high end Hi Fi setup - including a pair of Diapason Dynamis Floorstanding Loudspeakers.

I Googled them and saw they cost $31,000.

A complete shock. When you consider the price of even, say, K&H O300D's, these are extraordinarily expensive.

I realise these are not a studio monitor - but - for that money I'd expect them to be absolutely perfect in every way, and far superior to the likes of the O300's or any other monitoring pair costing even $10,000 or more - but find that hard to imagine.

So I'm very curious to hear the thoughts of any speaker experts - are these pure rich-kid bling; or is there a legitimate reason why they cost $31,000?

Thanks,
Kevin.

Google for Veblen goods.

[ConcertinaChap]

Google for Veblen goods.

Interesting call.

CC

[Hugh Robjohns]

So I'm very curious to hear the thoughts of any speaker experts - are these pure rich-kid bling; or is there a legitimate reason why they cost $31,000?

I suspect largely rich-kid bling. I'm sure they have high quality cabinetry and drivers, and careful design... but that's a lot of money for a passive three-way. I'd want a stack of Brystons thrown in for that kind of dosh!

H

[Phil Ward]

Only $31k

The world of high-end hi-fi extends way further into the clouds than that. For example, for just $229k you can have a pair of these: https://magico.net/product/ultimate.php

P

PS. I don't have a lot of time for flights of fancy such as the Magico Ultimate, but some of their more modest speakers, although still eye-warteringly expensive, are actually pretty special.

[muzines]

!!

[Phil Ward]

!!

I love that the designer (presumably) guy in the picture is trapped in the roped-off area. Wonder if it's for his or others' safety. And where's the, "Please Do Not feed the Speaker Designer" sign?

P

[Eddy Deegan]

I really like the way they look ... but not enough for that kind of money

[John Willett]

Will understand if the moderator locks this post as it's a query on some ultra high end HiFi speakers, but here goes:

A friend of mine on Facebook posted an image of a very high end Hi Fi setup - including a pair of Diapason Dynamis Floorstanding Loudspeakers.

I Googled them and saw they cost $31,000.

A complete shock. When you consider the price of even, say, K&H O300D's, these are extraordinarily expensive.

I realise these are not a studio monitor - but - for that money I'd expect them to be absolutely perfect in every way, and far superior to the likes of the O300's or any other monitoring pair costing even $10,000 or more - but find that hard to imagine.

So I'm very curious to hear the thoughts of any speaker experts - are these pure rich-kid bling; or is there a legitimate reason why they cost $31,000?

Thanks,
Kevin.

They are actually £ 31,000.00 in the UK - see here

Passives at that price

They "look" good, but the bass unit is well away from the mid and tweeter, so I would think that imaging would be compromised.

But you have to listen.

I did have a friend who had a pair of extremely expensive "Symphony" loudspeakers who then swapped them for a pair of the ME-Geithain RL901K monitors - as has been said, home loudspeakers are made for music to sound "nioce" whereas monitors are designed to be accurate and to show up defiviencies - although the best home loudspeakers can sometimes also be good monitors, hence the Quad electrostatics and B&W 801 being used in many studios.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Mrs R is extraordinarily tolerant of my technology boxes all over the house, but I think even she would baulk at those monstrosities!

[ConcertinaChap]

That's actually £31000 each so with 5% off for a first order that's a saving of £3100! Not so expensive after all ...

CC

[Hugh Robjohns]

That'll get you half way to affording the (first) Bryston SST3 4B to power the things then

H

[Arpangel]

Bling or not, I'm lusting after a pair of the JBL L100 Century reissues.

[Kevin Nolan]

Bling or not, I'm lusting after a pair of the JBL L100 Century reissues.

I still use a pair of JBL 4412's - and - I _absolutely_ adore them. That's not an understatement. I feel _very_ ordinary in all things audio and music - but - the one thing I can claim - and I don't even know why (other than probably through lots of usage) is - I know them. I really do. I, somehow, know the sound of my 4412s.

It doesn't matter how more modern or better other monitoring speakers are - I also have a pair of Genelec 1030A's, a pair of Dynaudio Acoustics BM6's and a pair of K&H O300's - all amazing and love them all too - but there's something 'special' about the 4412's - to me. I can't pinpoint it - but I mix well on them - and trust the sound - but equally love listening to music on them too. A very, very special speaker.

[Arpangel]

Bling or not, I'm lusting after a pair of the JBL L100 Century reissues.

I still use a pair of JBL 4412's - and - I _absolutely_ adore them. That's not an understatement. I feel _very_ ordinary in all things audio and music - but - the one thing I can claim - and I don't even know why (other than probably through lots of usage) is - I know them. I really do. I, somehow, know the sound of my 4412s.

It doesn't matter how more modern or better other monitoring speakers are - I also have a pair of Genelec 1030A's, a pair of Dynaudio Acoustics BM6's and a pair of K&H O300's - all amazing and love them all too - but there's something 'special' about the 4412's - to me. I can't pinpoint it - but I mix well on them - and trust the sound - but equally love listening to music on them too. A very, very special speaker.

Maybe the word you're looking for is "real" ?
I love that era of "proper" monitors, huge, real world bass response of the massive JBL's is something to behold. Then we started to prefer "near fields" as I guess space became an issue in project studios, but walking into a studio and hearing a pair of these.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Nj4yzPj8Q

Is still a hair raising and inspiring experience.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Then we started to prefer "near fields" as I guess space became an issue in project studios

The driving forces that made nearfields popular in the 80s came from the facts that few main monitors in big studios were tonally accurate; many (if not most) control rooms had appalling acoustics (which could be mitigated by nearfield placement); and producers and engineers became itinerant instead of being employed permanently by a studio, so they wanted to take familiar, trusted monitors with them when they worked in different control rooms -- which meant they had to be compact!

... but walking into a studio and hearing a pair of these..... Is still a hair raising and inspiring experience.

It's got nothing on a set of Kinoshita monitors in a Tom Hidley 10Hz control room....

[Arpangel]

Then we started to prefer "near fields" as I guess space became an issue in project studios

The driving forces that made nearfields popular in the 80s came from the facts that few main monitors in big studios were tonally accurate; many (if not most) control rooms had appalling acoustics (which could be mitigated by nearfield placement); and producers and engineers became itinerant instead of being employed permanently by a studio, so they wanted to take familiar, trusted monitors with them when they worked in different control rooms -- which meant they had to be compact!

... but walking into a studio and hearing a pair of these..... Is still a hair raising and inspiring experience.

It's got nothing on a set of Kinoshita monitors in a Tom Hidley 10Hz control room....

Yes, that's one way of looking at it, but there are engineers and musicians who still don't believe in a reference point, and like working in "rooms with character" I'm not sure about the whole concept of a "correct room" even in classical music you have to make the jump from recording space, to control room, which are never going to match. I can't really comment anymore, as I've never ever worked in what would be called a treated or correct room, at home or on location. As long as a regording isn't way off the mark and sounds really weird and not how you wanted, that's how I judge my recordings on different systems.
A friend went into a number of different top London studios with a recorder and a good mic, when we played them back they all sounded radically different, and some didn't sound much different to a few domestic hI-fi's we recorded. So which one was "right"?

[Hugh Robjohns]

A friend went into a number of different top London studios with a recorder and a good mic, when we played them back they all sounded radically different...

I remember Mike doing that and we discussed it at the time. It was a very flawed and entirely pointless experiment...

H

[Kevin Nolan]

I actually use my 4412's as Near-field monitors

They are wall mounted (but about a foot out from the wall and not in corners) - in a non acoustically treated room (but with so much suff in itas to at least partially scatter and absorb acoustically).

I play them at moderate levels through an excellent Yamaha studio amp (can't remember which one but at the time it came highly recommended) - and in this environment I feel completely immersed in the 4412 near field. It's an extraordinary feeling.

I am confident there are a hundred things I'm doing technically wrong - but - the sound balance, character, detail, and stereo field all feel totally exquisite to me - and anything I've mixed on them has been balanced across various replay systems, at home, in theatres, and so on.

[Arpangel]

A friend went into a number of different top London studios with a recorder and a good mic, when we played them back they all sounded radically different...

I remember Mike doing that and we discussed it at the time. It was a very flawed and entirely pointless experiment...

H

But they did sound different!
A lot of what Mike and myself did was totally pointless, he'd be the first to admit, but it was fun!

[Hugh Robjohns]

But they did sound different!

Yes, they did. But that wasn't surprising. Different sized and different shaped control rooms with different speakers in different places, different numbers and placement of other listeners in the room and, although the binaural mic array stayed reasonably consistent, the mic was always in different places...

I realise what Mike was trying to do, and it was an interesting idea, but even if the mic had always been placed in the ideal engineer's listening position, and the speakers aligned for a perfectly flat response at that position, every room would still have sounded different on the recordings because they were different!

A lot of what Mike and myself did was totally pointless, he'd be the first to admit, but it was fun!

Absolutely! They don't make them like that any more. I always enjoyed talking with him and seeing and hearing his creations -- both electronic and acoustic.

[Arpangel]

But they did sound different!

Yes, they did. But that wasn't surprising. Different sized and different shaped control rooms with different speakers in different places, different numbers and placement of other listeners in the room and, although the binaural mic array stayed reasonably consistent, the mic was always in different places...

I realise what Mike was trying to do, and it was an interesting idea, but even if the mic had always been placed in the ideal engineer's listening position, and the speakers aligned for a perfectly flat response at that position, every room would still have sounded different on the recordings because they were different!

A lot of what Mike and myself did was totally pointless, he'd be the first to admit, but it was fun!

Absolutely! They don't make them like that any more. I always enjoyed talking with him and seeing and hearing his creations -- both electronic and acoustic.

Ha Ha! Yes, I miss him, as you say, they don't make them like that anymore.