Excellent comparison videos! Please keep making them. So far the Dali's are my choice, but it's hard not to like the sound of the Dynaudio's for just relaxing.
Rubicon 2.. more alive and detailed with a 3d like sound. Love your videos - great work again.Special 40's - smoother sound. I wish I could afford the Dali Rubicon 2's... I'd buy them in a flash!
There's another channel I watch that has better quality setup/recording, but they do also spend 2 hours to do it and discuss a lot. Plus they were talking during some of the listening which is kind of annoying despite using cardoid mics. Also they probably don't compare the same speakers. It's good to have a few channels to look around at :)
The Dali Rubicon sound brighter, harsh "S" and vowels Seemed like I could only hear the vocals and not the mid range Special Forty sounded better balanced overall Cool match up
In this particular setup, the Rubicon 2 sounded a tad too bright for me plus its bass was not only stronger than the Special 40, but it was to the extent of overwhelming. Overall, I felt the Special 40 is more balanced and is a pair of speakers that you can really sit down and have an extended proper listening session with. But, that is to be expected, in most group tests, in general Dynaudios don't do well because I would say many average listeners are after a sound that encompasses ultimate resolution and full attack. By default, the Dynaudio house sound is neutral at best, so when you put them under a back-to-back comparison situation they rarely do well. I feel like the Dynaudio house sound is more of an acquired taste if you will. You need to get to know it a bit before you will get to appreciate it. So, when you first listen to it, it doesn't scream "come and check out how good I am". That relationship has to be built over time. Other more revealing speakers on the other end of the spectrum on the other hand are trying to win you over right away and some of them do a great job in that context like the B&W 805 D3s or D4s or Focal Sopra No.1s of the world.
wow that's quite accurate -- you have a very keen & discerning ear. I do agree regarding dynaudio and its neutrality which can give an impression of being a bit less engaging listen especially when directly compared to more colorful-sounding competitors. I love both speakers for what they offer and the s40 indeed is much superior objectively speaking.
I can honestly say that, having had my Dynaudio Focus 160s for many years, they have retained a dull and lifeless view in my eyes. They are exceptional for long listening sessions as they are not fatiguing at all. The problem with that is they don't have that sparkle that excites in songs and it never feels like artists are 'in the room' like many other speakers. While neutral, to me it's not 'natural'. They're a great set of speakers, almost too good at what they do and the result is too clinical. I hear a lot of them in the special forty, although they've tried to improve the high-end with these, still not quit there. Out of the two would probably still go Dynaudio though, but I'd be exploring other options.
Dynaudio sounds muddy in comparison test, but more integrated and natural at the same time. They don’t produce tight and textured bass universally like Burchard, Dali, or Sonetto. They only do tight bass when the original recording has tight bass in it.
@@knottymatt 100% agree... I could never quite love my Focus 160's. They are open, big soundstage, technically balanced... but they lack too much fine detail/subtleties, and are missing natural sparkle and energy, they don't sound lifelike or realistic to me with any metallic instruments, reed/wood instruments do not have the proper "woody" sound/texture to them either. Vocals are missing the life/heart & soul and expression. I sold them and got the older/smaller Focus 110's which are much better to my ear. They have the proper tone/sweetness/sparkle/bite to them, and a more fun/punchy low end that is still quicker than the F160's. But now... I also have a pair of Revival Atalante 's which are phenomenal. Like the best aspects of both the F160's and F110's... but with another level of detail retrieval, even more open and free from the cabinet sound, and a speed and attack that are truly lifelike and realistic... but without going overboard like B&W or Focal. The Sp40's are better than F160... but the F110's still have better vocals, imaging, soundstaging than Sp40... Sp40 still doesn't have the proper attack/sparkle/bite... missing too much fine detail/texture/subtleties, metallic instruments don't sound properly metallic ect. Only the Heritage Special model from Dynaudio is able to conjure up a truly realistic sound in all those area's.
@@thomasm7918Hi. Which Revival Atalante were you referring to? Is it the Atalante 3 bookshelf speakers? I'm looking forward to owning the old Focus 110 too. Thanks for your indepth review on the dynaudios.
I've always said that comparison videos are the best ones. While TH-cam sample audio clips themselves don't really give an accurate representation of what the speakers do in person, the comparison and contrast of the two pairs of speakers give the viewer / listener some meaningful perspective of how they perform relative to each other. That can be a very helpful tool when navigating the expensive world of audio gear. I really enjoy these comparison videos; please keep them coming.
Thanks! yes, these videos are no where near what it sounds in real life. but I found that it is able to demonstrate the relative differences between the 2 speakers.
Thanks for your video. I think I'd stick to the Dynadio's. I like the scene and the depth of the sound stage, find their bass more engaging. That's my take. Greetings from Madrid.
Thanks for the comparison, you put my hifi-itch to the rest for a few months again :) I have had the SP40's for some time now and I really love them for the incredible soundstage they have and how they absolutely disappear in my room. But the itch was there, since I really love the Dali sound (had the Oberon 3's for really long). Now I hear why I switched to the Dynos - Dalis have more treble extension and work better in the time domain, delivering more detail but those highs bleed back into the midrange, giving vocals some glare that I don't have with the SP40's. Midrange is far better, more neutral, and warmer on the Dynos for my ears, which again is due to the fact that we hear less top end extension and ultimately this is my preferred choice. I wonder what the Epicon vs Heritage Special shooutout would be.
thanks I also view enjoy your videos! you should hear the higher end dalis i like them more than dynes. i feel like they have more layering and depth but yes I totally get what you mean when you said the mid-highs on them can sound glarey in bad recording. that said, I find the rubicon 2 have more of the singers in your room feel and details floating around you where as the s40 is more boxed in and a bit distant in the midrange (but can also sound glorious with the right equipment). if you prefer that dynaudio neutrality I guess the search is over. the s40 has more warmth and bass than the heritage specials BTW. enjoy!
Not really a fan of Dali's tendancy to have tipped up treble as it's also got a certain character that I don't like. The Dynaudio are smoother, a bit more weight to certain drums etc. The Dali may sound a little larger and spacious due to the extra treble, but it seems less refined imo.
Very nice.. i have been thinking about the S40 for quite awhile now.. the Rubicon 2 sounds brighter compared to S40, or should i say S40 is darker or neutral. From this sound demo I would go with S40, i can sense more space and air, and i prefer the percussions to be in the background. Lately i see the Quad S2 seems to be very interesting at 1/3 of the price.
I am a little bit surprised that I find myself preferring the Dalis. They just have more excitement & joy for me. Thats not to say the S40s sound bad & they are gorgeous, especially in the Black Vine finish.
dali sounds engaging no doubt but im not sure if i can listen to it long term. special 40 on the other hand sounds very relaxing i might fall asleep listening to it
yes I always fall asleep listening to the s40. so i sold them :D just kidding. definitely both excellent speakers for 2 different kind of taste/listener or mood.
Thanks for posting this. Comparisons hard through youtube channel. Folk Rock on the Rubicons you still had the Special 40 label up which was slightly confusing. In my (probably biased) opinion the S40s got nowhere nears the R2's. Dali have nothing to fear from these S40s.
Thanks i missed to spot that mistake. I kind of feel the same way. The s40s are amazing and super refined but i just find more engagement with the Dali despite its flaws. And yes these youtube recordings do not give justice to what both speakers sound in real life.
This test is a shock to me, as before listening I'd put all my bets on Special 40. After listening to different tunes, I would rather prefer to listen to Rubicon 2. They are lighter, more detailed yet less energetic than Dynaudio..
it shocked me too since the Rubicon 2 are competing with "just" the Evoke 20 price-wise. Perhaps the S40 deserves more space to sound optimal (others also said much powerful amp, though I didn't find it lacking in power with the Class A Aegir). That said, the 40 has the upper hand in smoothness, refinement, vocals and bass weight/extension. The Rubicon is a much more energetic, faster, snappier and rhythmic listen with a more holographic stage which surely satisfies me more emotionally.
@@mykeldg It's interesting what people prefer, as while I can see(hear) how the Dali has those qualities you enjoy, for me it comes at a cost that I can't ignore :) I'm sure the Dynaudio wouldn't totally satisfy me either as the one time I heard them in a store they were "boring" . Your room is different of course
@@RennieAsh Its been 6 months since I have upgraded from the Dali Rubicon 2 to the Dynaudio Special 40. Not a single week goes by where I sometimes wonder if I was happier with the Dali. The Special 40s are the superior speaker but there is something about that Dali rhythm (from the SMC woofer) that is addictive and engaging.
@@mykeldg I have an 80's speaker that does really well at just sounding good with a lot of music. Technically others are better though sometimes can't smooth things over as much :) It's also a plastic cone, soft dome two way, so similar in that regard to dynaudio I guess
@@mykeldg how long had the s40s run in for when this vid was taken? Every review i have read says they need a couple of hundred hours really....... (i know yours will be run now, bit when this video was recorded??)
Great comparison, lovely to see opinions split down the middle. Exactly what makes HiFi such an interesting past time. I'm a fan of the Dynaudio house sound, very dynamic yet relaxed (seems contrary). It's hard to even say which is more accurate, especially the jazz track, depending on the room it could sound real either way in person? I agree about the harsh "S" sounds on the Dali, but then again it could be noise being revealed by the speaker and better isolated components could do it more justice? Another point to note even with this very objective comparison.
I followed all the speakers comparisons , but Dali Rubicon remains with the largest holographic sound stage. Many will say that the voice is light back, but is realistic and very well presented on the stage.
@@ronl7966 something warm with a bit of bass bump. i have not tried many amps but best amps i tried at home are the roksan blak & schiit aegir. the nad 356bee if you use tone controls are also great for low budget.
Yes! Dynaudio is musical also (compared to other speakers ive tried) but it made me appreciate the unique sound signature of the Rubicons much more. Youre also right about room, in a bigger breathing space, the s40 can even further stretch its legs. But in my small room the Dali had less of this issue
Habiendo escuchado ambas sin duda para mi las Special Forty son mucho mejores. Tampoco la colocación es la mejor por lo que veo en el vídeo. Esos altavoces necesitan respirar, y sobre todo en el caso de Dynaudio una amplificación poderosa y de mucha calidad.
For those who have seen the Dali Rubicon in person, which looks better or would be more neutral looking in most settings, the walnut or russo wood veneer? Hard to tell color darkness in all the photos I have seen. While black gloss looks like an easy fit, it soils easily and cleaning can add swirls/scratches. White holds up better but it would have looked more keen with a jet black grill rather than a lighter grill. Of course I could probably order replacement grills.
I have listned to the S40 at a shop nearby. It's fantastic and smooth at a big listning room but for limited space the R2 is inbeatable. When it comes to microdynamics and microdetails and attack that I m used to, the S40 is missing that.( the Heritage has got that attack and microdynamics but at an unreasonable price IMO) The R2 remain without doubt more inteligable for dialogue and very very funn. I'm looking forward to try the Audiovector R1. It suppose to be near the Rubicon2 caracter with better measurement according to rumors😂
This is exactly how i feel between the r2 and s40. S40 are great but its missing some magic of the r2 in terms of attack microdynamics, texturing and layering however the r2 will probably be the less neutral of the 2 as well as not being able to provide the same level of bass weight & extension of the 40.
@@mykeldg I forget to mention you my setup. Yamaha as 2100, Node2i and Rel t7. I have a bass extension down to 25hz crossover at 45hz. The tone controles option of the Node when is trigged is a live changing (resemble Roon effect or a buffer a bit) . It does not only tune the bass and treble but it changes compleatly the grain of the sound. It becomes thicker, a bit laid back, heavier and way way smoother. IMO this option works best with detailed, reveiling and forward class ab/a amplifiers. (with class D or laid back amps the sound become dull) Some tube dac has got this effects like Vincent dac7
@@carthage7757 nice amp you got there. how does the rubicon pair wth the yammies -- dont they get bright? I've never heard yamahas in person but have only read that they might have tipped up upper mids. then again, some friends say its relaxed and tube like.
@@mykeldg The Y-ASXXXX is a special amp and very detailed . IMO it needs the help of a dac with the right sweet timber for it to plays like 10k amplifier (Not necessarly an expensive one) . It's revealing in the upper midrange(the right dac makes this area the best thing with this amp or vice versa) , smooth treble and fast/precise base.
Great comparison, one error Folk Rock 2 x Dynaudio writing, SP40 have more body, I'll get some Dynaudios after my Dali Menuet SE. I thought Dalis were warm :-)
Great video. Really surprising . The dalis seem way better i detail and transients. Im just wondering if the s40s had been run in enougg. Most reviewers saying they sound quite poor oit of the box and need a few hundred hours on them to open up
This is interesting in that I’ve been comparing my Dali Oberon 3 to a pair of new Dynaudio Emit 20. This Dalis are warmer, more tipped up in the treble, a bit of a more musical listen, where the Dyns are perhaps the more technically correct speaker, super detailed, laid back, maybe even a bit dry but seems to lack a little cohesion to put it altogether. I think this is the Dynaudio house sound. I want to like them more, but it’s hard since they just do anything forward. For those that want spooky levels of detail like with Focal but more bass, more laid back. They are a heck of a speaker. Dali though just has more energy and really great detail. Hopefully we see a new Rubicon range soon. Maybe an Opticon 2 MkII vs Rubicon 2 video??
I totally get what you mean here. what you miss from the Dynaudio that is in the Dali is the forwardness of the midrange where it is projected forward which can be perceived to be a bit more holographic. In the Dynaudio, it seems a bit too neutral and most of the depth are pushed back behind the speaker. This allows it to be more detailed but not fatiguing -- though to some, can sound a bit un engaging or even boring. Its the same case with the Rubicon vs S40. I can hear that the S40 is the much superior speaker but I just feel more engaged with the Rubicons. The Dynes do many areas well though where I feel like its a more complete and all rounder speaker ,
Rubicon sound like the band is live in your room when the dynaudio sound like a neutral speakers. If I was in shop I will probably choose the dynaudio, I believe I will prefer for long listening sessions the dynaudio.
There is a comparison on youtube between Dynaudio Evoke 20 and Triangle Comete 40th anniversary. The conclusion is that Triangle has more natural tones and Dynaudio more bass. Triangle are also lively speakers like Dali , but they are not the most transparent. If i choose between transparency and better tones in speakers, I choose better tones. Among all speakers that I listened to, I was happier with Triangle comete, JMR Lucia (lively but homogeneous, smooth in the same time), and even Dali Zensor 3 (lively, pleasant, but the tones don't sound like real instruments in this range) Dynaudio in my opinion do better with more relaxing, slower music, but they don't give such emotions like JMR or Triangle.
Funny you should mention that about Dali Zensor. I've tried Spektor 1s, Oberon 1s and the Menuets. Each offer a degree of improvements and/or capabilities as you move up the chain of small speakers in the Dali line and the one thing I've noticed when it comes to natural tonality is that I believe the speakers are fairly natural but what keeps them from sounding natural to some people is the lack of micro details within or upon the details, or texture/layers of the sound. Yes, Dalis offer more resolution as you move up in price compared to some other speakers but it seems the textures of instruments, voices, have been shaved a bit, a smoothing if you will like they in old Star Trek episodes of female characters where the scene was slightly hazed and smoothed over for a more sultry appearance. I think that what prevents an instrument from sounding more real in a recording. Otherwise, with higher end Dalis, there is great resolution, alot of details but they are smoothed over. Coming from Focal and Triangle speakers, it would seem I like a brighter speaker and I do if by brighter you mean greater natural details/texture and an extended high end without it being glare. Sibilance is more pronounced, and perhaps more/less sharper, but it is different from glare that occurs in the upper mids thru the treble region. My experience anyway in my room and with my equipment. I like Dalis but the missing texture is hard to let go once you've heard it. I can give up some resolution in place of that. So while I don't dislike Dalis, I seem to prefer my Triangle Plaisir Zetas over them. The Menuets are clearly at the audiophile level while the Zetas budget, but they display that level of texture to enough of an extent that I overlook the lower resolution. But the Zetas have better than average resolution, image well, are more engaging for me and I tend to listen vs critique them. The Menuets do go lower in bass, it's faster while the Zetas have a bit upper bass presence which warms the speaker. The Menuets give a forward sound near and midfield but the Zetas sound a bit forward midfield and go back a bit behind the speakers nearfield, which is interesting. So, i'm going to add that transparency is also bringing those textures into the mix. One could argue color, emotion, does a piano sound woody or metallic, etc. Well, even a woody sound isn't a dull thud, it has extension, resonances, etc. If it's in the recording and the source can display that and where there is good system matching, then it's a transparency issue. Someone once left a review stating the Zetas reminded him of his Spendors so for me, perhaps the upgrade is to try some Spendors. Smooth to me is likely balanced, if a speaker it too smooth, it is perhaps too much of the texture/micro-details were taken away which btw alot of people seem to like/prefer, but not me.
The Special 40's outclass the Oberon's with better tone and texture, fuller and more natural midrange, more micro-dynamic detail, and just more of a lifelike, less 'sense of loudspeaker' listening experience. The Dali's are pretty good, but not in the same league to me. Great comparison videos! Thanks.
theyre great (the 40s) if you can find in the used market. The Rubicons are also $3000 in the US afterall. The S40 is a very neutral, refined & robust speaker. Its just that some people may prefer something with more snap and attack. The Dali on the other hand doesn't care if it deviated away from neutral, it will make your foot tap with its forward and lively approach.
In my room and gear, i preferred the Dali more. I find it more engaging and more emotionally involving. But that is just my personal preference.The s40 are impressive no doubt but i found it a bit reserved in my room. The s40 has a fuller midrange and deeper bass, highs are super smooth, tons of refinement. The Dali are on the opposite end - full of life, attack, energy, micro-dynamics and nuance though it is missing last bit of bass extension of the s40 and can sound too much on poorly recorded tracks.
the s40 has more extended and tighter bass. Dali bass is very quick more full of nuance and texture but doesnt have the punch and extension of the S40.
What do you all think... IMO, with higher end Dalis, there is great resolution, alot of details but they are smoothed over. Coming from Focal and Triangle speakers, it would seem I like a brighter speaker and I do if by brighter you mean greater natural details/texture and an extended high end without it being glare. Sibilance is more pronounced, and perhaps more/less sharper, but it is different from glare that occurs in the upper mids thru the treble region. My experience anyway in my room and with my equipment. I like Dalis but the missing texture is hard to let go once you've heard it. I can give up some resolution in place of that. So while I don't dislike Dalis, I seem to prefer my Triangle Plaisir Zetas over them. The Menuets are clearly at the audiophile level while the Zetas budget, but they display that level of texture to enough of an extent that I overlook the lower resolution. But the Zetas have better than average resolution, image well, are more engaging for me and I tend to listen to vs critique them. The Menuets do go lower in bass, it's faster while the Zetas have a bit upper bass presence which warms the speaker. The Menuets give a forward sound near and midfield but the Zetas sound a bit forward midfield and go back a bit behind the speakers nearfield, which is interesting. Both are fine up close. BTW, there is a glare with the Menuets in the upper range with some material but sibilance seems controlled. So, i'm going to add that transparency is also bringing those textures into the mix. One could argue color, emotion, for ex. does a piano sound woody or metallic, etc. Well, even a woody sound isn't a dull thud, it has extension, resonances, texture, etc. If it's in the recording and the source can display that and where there is good system matching, then it's a transparency issue. Someone once left a review stating the Zetas reminded him of his Spendors so for me, perhaps the upgrade is to try some Spendors. Smooth to me is likely balanced, if a speaker it too smooth, it is perhaps too much of the texture/micro-details were taken away which btw alot of people seem to like/prefer, but not me. Haven't heard Dyaudios but I'm not sure if they present themselves well enough considering transparency the way I described them. A balance of lows, mids and highs with good extension without glare while having a high degree of transparency is what I an after. Add to that a natural saturation of color in which instruments and voices do have to sound more natural and I would give up ultimate resolution for having those qualities. If I had to, I could live with Dali speakers, could live with alot of speakers but when you find ones that move you emotionally, that's special. Speakers I couldn't live with are for ex., Quad S2s (high resolution and detail, lacked color and 2D soundstage, no engagement with music, great for movies); Jamo C 93 II (did alot right for a budget but the upper extension, something, gave great fatigue after about 20 min), MA Silver 100 ( I liked the low to lower mids alot, upper mids and highs while they added life to certain songs could get muddled and just too much information all at once without separation, I think better suited for a larger room); MA Silver 50 (nothing like the bigger ones, sounded small, alot of resolution but chirped like a bird during sibilant passages). Still, all in all, finding a speaker with the degree of transparency desired in a smaller package has been difficult so the search continues. Btw, never tried Dynaudio. At price levels well above a grand, two or even more, transparency without smoothing is essential to render a recording that sounds more real than not, regardless of less bass, degree of ultimate resolution, etc. IMO. Current equip used: Hegel h160 Keces E40 with Topping D70s Focal 807W Triangle Zeta Blue Jeans cable Marantz CD6006 as transport
Dalis are ultra-low distortion - that is their goal with their SMC tech. Is it possible that the missing texture your are hearing are artifacts or pleasant distortion? I find the Dalis smoother in dynamics than other speakers (despite having a bit more lively tuning) . My guess is this is because of the much lower distortion of their drivers. (lower than even B&W 700 series, ATC, Dynaudio and Monitor Audio Gold) That said, in my journey so far, the rubicons have the best textures and microdynamics so I don't know if that concern is limited to the menuet or maybe you just prefer a lesser smooth presentation. The Menuet seems to be tuned and targeted for the Harbteth crowd - with some emphasis on vocals. Their other speakers like the Rubicons will have less emphasis in the middle but will still have that smooth rhythm. Dynaudios on the other hand are neutral at best and I don’t find them tonally saturated especially in the middle. But they do have that great ability to be balanced while having great extension at both ends without sounding harsh. They also do bass heft well (though not the last word in speed). Its quite hard to recommend unless you have heard them at your place against your other speakers. But many people find Dynaudios to be more pleasant compared to many other speakers (at th cost of engaging sound). For me personally, I prefer Dalis out of all speakers I’ve tried.
PS. looking at the list of speakers you like, you might just like the zing / ring of hard dome tweeters more. In that case, the Dynes have a very refined/smooth tweeter (though not lacking in detail)
@@mykeldg I read the previous comment and understand the assessment. As far as the second regarding preference, yes, I am used to metal domes for their extension and some softdomes have similar extension too and I've had those as well. Accounting for ringing, which I notice and distortion, which can be either more/less pleasant or not, there is a texture you hear with real instruments, voices. While no speaker can fully replicate that, some have a degree of those qualities and once heard, you know it's missing when not there. I can't explain it much differently. I am listening to the Menuet Se as I type and just feel there's something essential missing although highly resolving and pleasant enough. Something about piano music though it has too me a more chalky sound, just lacking life, overtones, texture, too smoothed out too imagine the real thing. For its' imperfections, I like the Zetas more...and their no slouch as a stripped down version of the Color series. Yes, they have more distortion , ringing isn't bad but they have a degree of texture, a bit less than the Focals but it's there and I like the more laid back nature, less dynamic punch for listening at night. They're great on Piano, jazz, classical, etc., but trying to improve on the resolution, tighter bass without losing and perhaps getting more of that texture in a smaller package. For their price and especially for what I paid, they're a great all round speaker that can handle everything I throw at them. Next to the MA Silver 100, they sounded like (an analogy) a ghost would appear vs a real person, so not as much body but compared to the Dali, is not so apparent. I do like the Dalis and outside the slight glare that pops up from time to time, missing those textures is hard to let go of. Of course, changes to room, equipment, etc could change sound characteristics. too. Over time, my brain would adjust but why do that if I prefer a less expensive speaker in spite of its' shortcomings? Perhaps ProAC, Spendor among others can provide that. So, I'd pay more for a bit more resolution, less distortion, more depth, width, whatever, etc but it has to have more transparency because those textures, micro-details, colors if you will are in the music. So while I still have sufficient hearing, at near 60 and not hearing much above 13K, I have to be realistic and stay with what pleases me but still willing to experiment. Maybe I've answered that question for myself just now writing this. While not perfect, the Zetas are never really a disappointment. And if one gets on for less, what's wrong with that? Thanks for your reply and consideration for my stance. I do like your videos too, this isn't the first I've had the pleasure of viewing. Thanks.
@@nc3419 I know what you mean about the Dali . I encountered this same issue before that's why I sold the rubicons 4x already hehehe. But I always missed them when they were gone. So I finally settled. Its a good thing you have multiple speakers to shuffle so you dont get stuck with one sound signature. BTW Do you have them toed in? They have an intentional rise in the treble region that is meant to roll off at the listening position -- this is why they recommend it being pointed straight instead of toe-in.
How do these speakers compare when you play complex rock, pop, classical tracks? Throw something complex and layered to these speakers and see how the crossover with handle it…. It’s not a real test with one vocal taking up the entire spectrum.
@@mykeldg Did you compare the Rubicons to Sonnetto? They sound similar in terms of their ability to separate and layer the instruments. Sonnetto a bit more livelier, bearing the risk to be fatiguing in the long run. Any thoughts?
Hi. What is your impression from the special 40s? What is the setup playing? How far are the 40s from the wall? Do you use port blocks? Thanks! From what I was told the 40s needs around 100 watts to start singing.
Approx 1 ft from the backwall. I wish i had more space to spare but my rooms too small. Both are great and the sound demo quality does not do them justice. Its a very refined listen with the s40 with a more complete bottom end and super smooth but airy character. My preference goes to Dali - i find it more engaging- however its missing an octave in the bass compared to the s40 which sounds like a more complete speaker.
Listening to this via my EQ'd Sennheiser IE 900 the Special Forty sounds more balanced and easier to listen to, guess I'll either buy them or the Triangle Comète 40th Anniversary
Probably the s40 since it has deeper bass extension and a bit louder bass. Mids i prefer dali - it is more expressive and detailed (but maybe not impt for metal). For highs, it depends on preference - the s40 will be more refined and have more micro details. Rubicon will have more rawness to it and more textures and open soundstage.
yes this is true. i found using partial foam plugs also help since my room is a bit small and the s40 have lots of bass energy that could cause room issues
Dynamics - S40 00:00 , Rubicon 2 00:48
Acoustic - S40 01:35 , Rubicon 2 02:49
Folk Rock - S40 03:53 , Rubicon 2 04:53
Jazz - S40 05:57 , Rubicon 2 06:50
Transients S40 07:47 , Rubicon 2 08:38
Rock. - S40 09:37 , Rubicon 2 10:47
You should probably pin your own comment so it stays at the top :)
what type of power amplifier is used?
Excellent comparison videos! Please keep making them.
So far the Dali's are my choice, but it's hard not to like the sound of the Dynaudio's for just relaxing.
Rubicon 2.. more alive and detailed with a 3d like sound. Love your videos - great work again.Special 40's - smoother sound. I wish I could afford the Dali Rubicon 2's... I'd buy them in a flash!
YESS!
Oh man just save, that’s what I’m doing I can’t wait to get them. I love how they look too
Your the only one with efficient and meaningful and organized speaker/amo videos sir! big respect
There's another channel I watch that has better quality setup/recording, but they do also spend 2 hours to do it and discuss a lot. Plus they were talking during some of the listening which is kind of annoying despite using cardoid mics.
Also they probably don't compare the same speakers. It's good to have a few channels to look around at :)
My friend is testing now the Oberon 2 and Special 40 with expensive audio gear. He likes both speakers. Both speakers are great!
The Dali Rubicon sound brighter, harsh "S" and vowels
Seemed like I could only hear the vocals and not the mid range
Special Forty sounded better balanced overall
Cool match up
In this particular setup, the Rubicon 2 sounded a tad too bright for me plus its bass was not only stronger than the Special 40, but it was to the extent of overwhelming. Overall, I felt the Special 40 is more balanced and is a pair of speakers that you can really sit down and have an extended proper listening session with. But, that is to be expected, in most group tests, in general Dynaudios don't do well because I would say many average listeners are after a sound that encompasses ultimate resolution and full attack. By default, the Dynaudio house sound is neutral at best, so when you put them under a back-to-back comparison situation they rarely do well. I feel like the Dynaudio house sound is more of an acquired taste if you will. You need to get to know it a bit before you will get to appreciate it. So, when you first listen to it, it doesn't scream "come and check out how good I am". That relationship has to be built over time. Other more revealing speakers on the other end of the spectrum on the other hand are trying to win you over right away and some of them do a great job in that context like the B&W 805 D3s or D4s or Focal Sopra No.1s of the world.
wow that's quite accurate -- you have a very keen & discerning ear. I do agree regarding dynaudio and its neutrality which can give an impression of being a bit less engaging listen especially when directly compared to more colorful-sounding competitors. I love both speakers for what they offer and the s40 indeed is much superior objectively speaking.
I can honestly say that, having had my Dynaudio Focus 160s for many years, they have retained a dull and lifeless view in my eyes. They are exceptional for long listening sessions as they are not fatiguing at all. The problem with that is they don't have that sparkle that excites in songs and it never feels like artists are 'in the room' like many other speakers. While neutral, to me it's not 'natural'. They're a great set of speakers, almost too good at what they do and the result is too clinical. I hear a lot of them in the special forty, although they've tried to improve the high-end with these, still not quit there. Out of the two would probably still go Dynaudio though, but I'd be exploring other options.
Dynaudio sounds muddy in comparison test, but more integrated and natural at the same time. They don’t produce tight and textured bass universally like Burchard, Dali, or Sonetto. They only do tight bass when the original recording has tight bass in it.
@@knottymatt 100% agree... I could never quite love my Focus 160's. They are open, big soundstage, technically balanced... but they lack too much fine detail/subtleties, and are missing natural sparkle and energy, they don't sound lifelike or realistic to me with any metallic instruments, reed/wood instruments do not have the proper "woody" sound/texture to them either. Vocals are missing the life/heart & soul and expression. I sold them and got the older/smaller Focus 110's which are much better to my ear. They have the proper tone/sweetness/sparkle/bite to them, and a more fun/punchy low end that is still quicker than the F160's. But now... I also have a pair of Revival Atalante 's which are phenomenal. Like the best aspects of both the F160's and F110's... but with another level of detail retrieval, even more open and free from the cabinet sound, and a speed and attack that are truly lifelike and realistic... but without going overboard like B&W or Focal. The Sp40's are better than F160... but the F110's still have better vocals, imaging, soundstaging than Sp40... Sp40 still doesn't have the proper attack/sparkle/bite... missing too much fine detail/texture/subtleties, metallic instruments don't sound properly metallic ect. Only the Heritage Special model from Dynaudio is able to conjure up a truly realistic sound in all those area's.
@@thomasm7918Hi. Which Revival Atalante were you referring to? Is it the Atalante 3 bookshelf speakers? I'm looking forward to owning the old Focus 110 too. Thanks for your indepth review on the dynaudios.
I have Opticon 2 mk2 and they are amazing speakers…but next week I’m going to buy a pair of Rubicon’s 2….they are absolutely astonishing 😊
enjoy! they are great speakers and are keepers for me.
I've always said that comparison videos are the best ones. While TH-cam sample audio clips themselves don't really give an accurate representation of what the speakers do in person, the comparison and contrast of the two pairs of speakers give the viewer / listener some meaningful perspective of how they perform relative to each other. That can be a very helpful tool when navigating the expensive world of audio gear. I really enjoy these comparison videos; please keep them coming.
Thanks! yes, these videos are no where near what it sounds in real life. but I found that it is able to demonstrate the relative differences between the 2 speakers.
Thanks for your video. I think I'd stick to the Dynadio's. I like the scene and the depth of the sound stage, find their bass more engaging. That's my take. Greetings from Madrid.
Focal Electra will put them to shame, they were the best bookshelf speakers in their class, it’s a pity that they were discontinued.
@@vova4585 a friend owned focal sopra 1 and dali epicon 2. He preferred the dali 👍
Thanks for the comparison, you put my hifi-itch to the rest for a few months again :) I have had the SP40's for some time now and I really love them for the incredible soundstage they have and how they absolutely disappear in my room. But the itch was there, since I really love the Dali sound (had the Oberon 3's for really long). Now I hear why I switched to the Dynos - Dalis have more treble extension and work better in the time domain, delivering more detail but those highs bleed back into the midrange, giving vocals some glare that I don't have with the SP40's. Midrange is far better, more neutral, and warmer on the Dynos for my ears, which again is due to the fact that we hear less top end extension and ultimately this is my preferred choice. I wonder what the Epicon vs Heritage Special shooutout would be.
thanks I also view enjoy your videos! you should hear the higher end dalis i like them more than dynes. i feel like they have more layering and depth but yes I totally get what you mean when you said the mid-highs on them can sound glarey in bad recording. that said, I find the rubicon 2 have more of the singers in your room feel and details floating around you where as the s40 is more boxed in and a bit distant in the midrange (but can also sound glorious with the right equipment). if you prefer that dynaudio neutrality I guess the search is over. the s40 has more warmth and bass than the heritage specials BTW. enjoy!
Not really a fan of Dali's tendancy to have tipped up treble as it's also got a certain character that I don't like. The Dynaudio are smoother, a bit more weight to certain drums etc. The Dali may sound a little larger and spacious due to the extra treble, but it seems less refined imo.
Very nice.. i have been thinking about the S40 for quite awhile now.. the Rubicon 2 sounds brighter compared to S40, or should i say S40 is darker or neutral. From this sound demo I would go with S40, i can sense more space and air, and i prefer the percussions to be in the background. Lately i see the Quad S2 seems to be very interesting at 1/3 of the price.
S40 are great speakers cant go wrong with them! (As long as it is to your taste & preference.)
I am a little bit surprised that I find myself preferring the Dalis. They just have more excitement & joy for me. Thats not to say the S40s sound bad & they are gorgeous, especially in the Black Vine finish.
same here!
@mykeldg It would be so great if you did a Rubicon 2 vs Buchardt S400 MKII 😃
Interesting video, as always.
Feels like Dyns has much more potential ahead using higher class amplification...
yes, they also sound much better in person than what can be captured in the recording (which sounds a bit bloated)
dali sounds engaging no doubt but im not sure if i can listen to it long term. special 40 on the other hand sounds very relaxing i might fall asleep listening to it
yes I always fall asleep listening to the s40. so i sold them :D just kidding. definitely both excellent speakers for 2 different kind of taste/listener or mood.
Rubicon's allows you to hear bass guitar not just bass
Thanks for posting this. Comparisons hard through youtube channel. Folk Rock on the Rubicons you still had the Special 40 label up which was slightly confusing.
In my (probably biased) opinion the S40s got nowhere nears the R2's. Dali have nothing to fear from these S40s.
Thanks i missed to spot that mistake. I kind of feel the same way. The s40s are amazing and super refined but i just find more engagement with the Dali despite its flaws. And yes these youtube recordings do not give justice to what both speakers sound in real life.
This test is a shock to me, as before listening I'd put all my bets on Special 40. After listening to different tunes, I would rather prefer to listen to Rubicon 2. They are lighter, more detailed yet less energetic than Dynaudio..
it shocked me too since the Rubicon 2 are competing with "just" the Evoke 20 price-wise. Perhaps the S40 deserves more space to sound optimal (others also said much powerful amp, though I didn't find it lacking in power with the Class A Aegir). That said, the 40 has the upper hand in smoothness, refinement, vocals and bass weight/extension. The Rubicon is a much more energetic, faster, snappier and rhythmic listen with a more holographic stage which surely satisfies me more emotionally.
@@mykeldg It's interesting what people prefer, as while I can see(hear) how the Dali has those qualities you enjoy, for me it comes at a cost that I can't ignore :) I'm sure the Dynaudio wouldn't totally satisfy me either as the one time I heard them in a store they were "boring" . Your room is different of course
@@RennieAsh Its been 6 months since I have upgraded from the Dali Rubicon 2 to the Dynaudio Special 40. Not a single week goes by where I sometimes wonder if I was happier with the Dali.
The Special 40s are the superior speaker but there is something about that Dali rhythm (from the SMC woofer) that is addictive and engaging.
@@mykeldg I have an 80's speaker that does really well at just sounding good with a lot of music. Technically others are better though sometimes can't smooth things over as much :)
It's also a plastic cone, soft dome two way, so similar in that regard to dynaudio I guess
@@mykeldg how long had the s40s run in for when this vid was taken? Every review i have read says they need a couple of hundred hours really....... (i know yours will be run now, bit when this video was recorded??)
Great comparison, lovely to see opinions split down the middle. Exactly what makes HiFi such an interesting past time. I'm a fan of the Dynaudio house sound, very dynamic yet relaxed (seems contrary). It's hard to even say which is more accurate, especially the jazz track, depending on the room it could sound real either way in person?
I agree about the harsh "S" sounds on the Dali, but then again it could be noise being revealed by the speaker and better isolated components could do it more justice? Another point to note even with this very objective comparison.
Well...Dynaudio was a step up class but i like the dali rubicon more impressive and giving a spirit sounded.
I followed all the speakers comparisons , but Dali Rubicon remains with the largest holographic sound stage. Many will say that the voice is light back, but is realistic and very well presented on the stage.
thanks! the Dali is a keeper. I'm retiring the audio hobby (for now) with the Rubicon 2. sold the s40 ;)
@@mykeldg what amp do you prefer to use with the Rubicon 2 ?
@@ronl7966 something warm with a bit of bass bump. i have not tried many amps but best amps i tried at home are the roksan blak & schiit aegir. the nad 356bee if you use tone controls are also great for low budget.
Dynaudio - I hear a set of sounds, Dali - I hear music. As for me, Dali is much better in this setup, in this room, today)
Yes! Dynaudio is musical also (compared to other speakers ive tried) but it made me appreciate the unique sound signature of the Rubicons much more. Youre also right about room, in a bigger breathing space, the s40 can even further stretch its legs. But in my small room the Dali had less of this issue
Habiendo escuchado ambas sin duda para mi las Special Forty son mucho mejores. Tampoco la colocación es la mejor por lo que veo en el vídeo. Esos altavoces necesitan respirar, y sobre todo en el caso de Dynaudio una amplificación poderosa y de mucha calidad.
For those who have seen the Dali Rubicon in person, which looks better or would be more neutral looking in most settings, the walnut or russo wood veneer? Hard to tell color darkness in all the photos I have seen. While black gloss looks like an easy fit, it soils easily and cleaning can add swirls/scratches. White holds up better but it would have looked more keen with a jet black grill rather than a lighter grill. Of course I could probably order replacement grills.
russo looks better IMO. but the black looks the best with the maroon woofer and silver metal parts.
@@mykeldg All look nice, I'm back to wood veneers vs gloss. Visual tastes.
I have listned to the S40 at a shop nearby. It's fantastic and smooth at a big listning room but for limited space the R2 is inbeatable. When it comes to microdynamics and microdetails and attack that I m used to, the S40 is missing that.( the Heritage has got that attack and microdynamics but at an unreasonable price IMO) The R2 remain without doubt more inteligable for dialogue and very very funn. I'm looking forward to try the Audiovector R1. It suppose to be near the Rubicon2 caracter with better measurement according to rumors😂
This is exactly how i feel between the r2 and s40. S40 are great but its missing some magic of the r2 in terms of attack microdynamics, texturing and layering however the r2 will probably be the less neutral of the 2 as well as not being able to provide the same level of bass weight & extension of the 40.
@@mykeldg I forget to mention you my setup. Yamaha as 2100, Node2i and Rel t7. I have a bass extension down to 25hz crossover at 45hz. The tone controles option of the Node when is trigged is a live changing (resemble Roon effect or a buffer a bit) . It does not only tune the bass and treble but it changes compleatly the grain of the sound. It becomes thicker, a bit laid back, heavier and way way smoother. IMO this option works best with detailed, reveiling and forward class ab/a amplifiers. (with class D or laid back amps the sound become dull)
Some tube dac has got this effects like Vincent dac7
@@carthage7757 nice amp you got there. how does the rubicon pair wth the yammies -- dont they get bright? I've never heard yamahas in person but have only read that they might have tipped up upper mids. then again, some friends say its relaxed and tube like.
@@mykeldg The Y-ASXXXX is a special amp and very detailed . IMO it needs the help of a dac with the right sweet timber for it to plays like 10k amplifier (Not necessarly an expensive one) . It's revealing in the upper midrange(the right dac makes this area the best thing with this amp or vice versa) , smooth treble and fast/precise base.
It seems like the Rubicon is doing some of the B&W sound signature, but just not to the same extreme. I seem to like it. 😁
I prefer the Dali Rubicon sound
Great comparison, one error Folk Rock 2 x Dynaudio writing, SP40 have more body, I'll get some Dynaudios after my Dali Menuet SE. I thought Dalis were warm :-)
Great video. Really surprising . The dalis seem way better i detail and transients. Im just wondering if the s40s had been run in enougg. Most reviewers saying they sound quite poor oit of the box and need a few hundred hours on them to open up
Yes, had the 40s for 7 months. Its really the dynaudio soundsig - very balanced and composed and a bit tame but sometimes to a fault.
Rubicon again would love to hear this Rubicon against KEF R3
I have a comparison with r300. Sounds 90+% like the r3. I prefer the Dali
This is interesting in that I’ve been comparing my Dali Oberon 3 to a pair of new Dynaudio Emit 20.
This Dalis are warmer, more tipped up in the treble, a bit of a more musical listen, where the Dyns are perhaps the more technically correct speaker, super detailed, laid back, maybe even a bit dry but seems to lack a little cohesion to put it altogether.
I think this is the Dynaudio house sound. I want to like them more, but it’s hard since they just do anything forward. For those that want spooky levels of detail like with Focal but more bass, more laid back. They are a heck of a speaker. Dali though just has more energy and really great detail. Hopefully we see a new Rubicon range soon. Maybe an Opticon 2 MkII vs Rubicon 2 video??
I totally get what you mean here. what you miss from the Dynaudio that is in the Dali is the forwardness of the midrange where it is projected forward which can be perceived to be a bit more holographic. In the Dynaudio, it seems a bit too neutral and most of the depth are pushed back behind the speaker. This allows it to be more detailed but not fatiguing -- though to some, can sound a bit un engaging or even boring. Its the same case with the Rubicon vs S40. I can hear that the S40 is the much superior speaker but I just feel more engaged with the Rubicons. The Dynes do many areas well though where I feel like its a more complete and all rounder speaker ,
Rubicon sound like the band is live in your room when the dynaudio sound like a neutral speakers. If I was in shop I will probably choose the dynaudio, I believe I will prefer for long listening sessions the dynaudio.
There is a comparison on youtube between Dynaudio Evoke 20 and Triangle Comete 40th anniversary. The conclusion is that Triangle has more natural tones and Dynaudio more bass. Triangle are also lively speakers like Dali , but they are not the most transparent. If i choose between transparency and better tones in speakers, I choose better tones. Among all speakers that I listened to, I was happier with Triangle comete, JMR Lucia (lively but homogeneous, smooth in the same time), and even Dali Zensor 3 (lively, pleasant, but the tones don't sound like real instruments in this range) Dynaudio in my opinion do better with more relaxing, slower music, but they don't give such emotions like JMR or Triangle.
Funny you should mention that about Dali Zensor. I've tried Spektor 1s, Oberon 1s and the Menuets. Each offer a degree of improvements and/or capabilities as you move up the chain of small speakers in the Dali line and the one thing I've noticed when it comes to natural tonality is that I believe the speakers are fairly natural but what keeps them from sounding natural to some people is the lack of micro details within or upon the details, or texture/layers of the sound. Yes, Dalis offer more resolution as you move up in price compared to some other speakers but it seems the textures of instruments, voices, have been shaved a bit, a smoothing if you will like they in old Star Trek episodes of female characters where the scene was slightly hazed and smoothed over for a more sultry appearance. I think that what prevents an instrument from sounding more real in a recording.
Otherwise, with higher end Dalis, there is great resolution, alot of details but they are smoothed over. Coming from Focal and Triangle speakers, it would seem I like a brighter speaker and I do if by brighter you mean greater natural details/texture and an extended high end without it being glare. Sibilance is more pronounced, and perhaps more/less sharper, but it is different from glare that occurs in the upper mids thru the treble region. My experience anyway in my room and with my equipment.
I like Dalis but the missing texture is hard to let go once you've heard it. I can give up some resolution in place of that. So while I don't dislike Dalis, I seem to prefer my Triangle Plaisir Zetas over them. The Menuets are clearly at the audiophile level while the Zetas budget, but they display that level of texture to enough of an extent that I overlook the lower resolution. But the Zetas have better than average resolution, image well, are more engaging for me and I tend to listen vs critique them. The Menuets do go lower in bass, it's faster while the Zetas have a bit upper bass presence which warms the speaker. The Menuets give a forward sound near and midfield but the Zetas sound a bit forward midfield and go back a bit behind the speakers nearfield, which is interesting.
So, i'm going to add that transparency is also bringing those textures into the mix. One could argue color, emotion, does a piano sound woody or metallic, etc. Well, even a woody sound isn't a dull thud, it has extension, resonances, etc. If it's in the recording and the source can display that and where there is good system matching, then it's a transparency issue.
Someone once left a review stating the Zetas reminded him of his Spendors so for me, perhaps the upgrade is to try some Spendors. Smooth to me is likely balanced, if a speaker it too smooth, it is perhaps too much of the texture/micro-details were taken away which btw alot of people seem to like/prefer, but not me.
The Special 40's outclass the Oberon's with better tone and texture, fuller and more natural midrange, more micro-dynamic detail, and just more of a lifelike, less 'sense of loudspeaker' listening experience. The Dali's are pretty good, but not in the same league to me. Great comparison videos! Thanks.
theyre great (the 40s) if you can find in the used market. The Rubicons are also $3000 in the US afterall. The S40 is a very neutral, refined & robust speaker. Its just that some people may prefer something with more snap and attack. The Dali on the other hand doesn't care if it deviated away from neutral, it will make your foot tap with its forward and lively approach.
Tough choice !!!
special 40, win hands down for the solid mid range.
Bass also impressive for the size on the s40.
Hi! What is your Choice? 🙂 Which better in your opinion?
In my room and gear, i preferred the Dali more. I find it more engaging and more emotionally involving. But that is just my personal preference.The s40 are impressive no doubt but i found it a bit reserved in my room. The s40 has a fuller midrange and deeper bass, highs are super smooth, tons of refinement. The Dali are on the opposite end - full of life, attack, energy, micro-dynamics and nuance though it is missing last bit of bass extension of the s40 and can sound too much on poorly recorded tracks.
Hi…I love midrange of both speakers.In your perspective which speaker has good Bass?
the s40 has more extended and tighter bass. Dali bass is very quick more full of nuance and texture but doesnt have the punch and extension of the S40.
s40 more natural, balanced and opened
What do you all think...
IMO, with higher end Dalis, there is great resolution, alot of details but they are smoothed over. Coming from Focal and Triangle speakers, it would seem I like a brighter speaker and I do if by brighter you mean greater natural details/texture and an extended high end without it being glare. Sibilance is more pronounced, and perhaps more/less sharper, but it is different from glare that occurs in the upper mids thru the treble region. My experience anyway in my room and with my equipment.
I like Dalis but the missing texture is hard to let go once you've heard it. I can give up some resolution in place of that. So while I don't dislike Dalis, I seem to prefer my Triangle Plaisir Zetas over them. The Menuets are clearly at the audiophile level while the Zetas budget, but they display that level of texture to enough of an extent that I overlook the lower resolution. But the Zetas have better than average resolution, image well, are more engaging for me and I tend to listen to vs critique them. The Menuets do go lower in bass, it's faster while the Zetas have a bit upper bass presence which warms the speaker. The Menuets give a forward sound near and midfield but the Zetas sound a bit forward midfield and go back a bit behind the speakers nearfield, which is interesting. Both are fine up close. BTW, there is a glare with the Menuets in the upper range with some material but sibilance seems controlled.
So, i'm going to add that transparency is also bringing those textures into the mix. One could argue color, emotion, for ex. does a piano sound woody or metallic, etc. Well, even a woody sound isn't a dull thud, it has extension, resonances, texture, etc. If it's in the recording and the source can display that and where there is good system matching, then it's a transparency issue.
Someone once left a review stating the Zetas reminded him of his Spendors so for me, perhaps the upgrade is to try some Spendors. Smooth to me is likely balanced, if a speaker it too smooth, it is perhaps too much of the texture/micro-details were taken away which btw alot of people seem to like/prefer, but not me.
Haven't heard Dyaudios but I'm not sure if they present themselves well enough considering transparency the way I described them. A balance of lows, mids and highs with good extension without glare while having a high degree of transparency is what I an after. Add to that a natural saturation of color in which instruments and voices do have to sound more natural and I would give up ultimate resolution for having those qualities.
If I had to, I could live with Dali speakers, could live with alot of speakers but when you find ones that move you emotionally, that's special. Speakers I couldn't live with are for ex., Quad S2s (high resolution and detail, lacked color and 2D soundstage, no engagement with music, great for movies); Jamo C 93 II (did alot right for a budget but the upper extension, something, gave great fatigue after about 20 min), MA Silver 100 ( I liked the low to lower mids alot, upper mids and highs while they added life to certain songs could get muddled and just too much information all at once without separation, I think better suited for a larger room); MA Silver 50 (nothing like the bigger ones, sounded small, alot of resolution but chirped like a bird during sibilant passages). Still, all in all, finding a speaker with the degree of transparency desired in a smaller package has been difficult so the search continues. Btw, never tried Dynaudio.
At price levels well above a grand, two or even more, transparency without smoothing is essential to render a recording that sounds more real than not, regardless of less bass, degree of ultimate resolution, etc. IMO.
Current equip used:
Hegel h160
Keces E40 with Topping D70s
Focal 807W
Triangle Zeta
Blue Jeans cable
Marantz CD6006 as transport
Dalis are ultra-low distortion - that is their goal with their SMC tech. Is it possible that the missing texture your are hearing are artifacts or pleasant distortion? I find the Dalis smoother in dynamics than other speakers (despite having a bit more lively tuning) . My guess is this is because of the much lower distortion of their drivers. (lower than even B&W 700 series, ATC, Dynaudio and Monitor Audio Gold) That said, in my journey so far, the rubicons have the best textures and microdynamics so I don't know if that concern is limited to the menuet or maybe you just prefer a lesser smooth presentation.
The Menuet seems to be tuned and targeted for the Harbteth crowd - with some emphasis on vocals. Their other speakers like the Rubicons will have less emphasis in the middle but will still have that smooth rhythm.
Dynaudios on the other hand are neutral at best and I don’t find them tonally saturated especially in the middle. But they do have that great ability to be balanced while having great extension at both ends without sounding harsh. They also do bass heft well (though not the last word in speed). Its quite hard to recommend unless you have heard them at your place against your other speakers. But many people find Dynaudios to be more pleasant compared to many other speakers (at th cost of engaging sound). For me personally, I prefer Dalis out of all speakers I’ve tried.
PS. looking at the list of speakers you like, you might just like the zing / ring of hard dome tweeters more. In that case, the Dynes have a very refined/smooth tweeter (though not lacking in detail)
@@mykeldg I read the previous comment and understand the assessment. As far as the second regarding preference, yes, I am used to metal domes for their extension and some softdomes have similar extension too and I've had those as well. Accounting for ringing, which I notice and distortion, which can be either more/less pleasant or not, there is a texture you hear with real instruments, voices. While no speaker can fully replicate that, some have a degree of those qualities and once heard, you know it's missing when not there.
I can't explain it much differently. I am listening to the Menuet Se as I type and just feel there's something essential missing although highly resolving and pleasant enough. Something about piano music though it has too me a more chalky sound, just lacking life, overtones, texture, too smoothed out too imagine the real thing.
For its' imperfections, I like the Zetas more...and their no slouch as a stripped down version of the Color series. Yes, they have more distortion , ringing isn't bad but they have a degree of texture, a bit less than the Focals but it's there and I like the more laid back nature, less dynamic punch for listening at night. They're great on Piano, jazz, classical, etc., but trying to improve on the resolution, tighter bass without losing and perhaps getting more of that texture in a smaller package.
For their price and especially for what I paid, they're a great all round speaker that can handle everything I throw at them. Next to the MA Silver 100, they sounded like (an analogy) a ghost would appear vs a real person, so not as much body but compared to the Dali, is not so apparent.
I do like the Dalis and outside the slight glare that pops up from time to time, missing those textures is hard to let go of. Of course, changes to room, equipment, etc could change sound characteristics. too.
Over time, my brain would adjust but why do that if I prefer a less expensive speaker in spite of its' shortcomings?
Perhaps ProAC, Spendor among others can provide that. So, I'd pay more for a bit more resolution, less distortion, more depth, width, whatever, etc but it has to have more transparency because those textures, micro-details, colors if you will are in the music.
So while I still have sufficient hearing, at near 60 and not hearing much above 13K, I have to be realistic and stay with what pleases me but still willing to experiment.
Maybe I've answered that question for myself just now writing this. While not perfect, the Zetas are never really a disappointment. And if one gets on for less, what's wrong with that?
Thanks for your reply and consideration for my stance. I do like your videos too, this isn't the first I've had the pleasure of viewing. Thanks.
@@nc3419 I know what you mean about the Dali . I encountered this same issue before that's why I sold the rubicons 4x already hehehe. But I always missed them when they were gone. So I finally settled. Its a good thing you have multiple speakers to shuffle so you dont get stuck with one sound signature. BTW Do you have them toed in? They have an intentional rise in the treble region that is meant to roll off at the listening position -- this is why they recommend it being pointed straight instead of toe-in.
@@mykeldg Tried toed in 10% and prefer straight out. BTW, I listen to all my speakers straight out, I guess it's a just me thing.
SP40 sounds better to me particulary on the transients part. I like the Balance & Lows in this configuration.
s40 is a very balanced and refined speaker. cant go wrong with it if you like this type of presentation.
Dynaudio all the way, more detailed more alive!
How do these speakers compare when you play complex rock, pop, classical tracks? Throw something complex and layered to these speakers and see how the crossover with handle it…. It’s not a real test with one vocal taking up the entire spectrum.
I prefer the Rubicon 2 for complex music as it presents more layering and depth than the s40 especially in the midrange
@@mykeldg Did you compare the Rubicons to Sonnetto? They sound similar in terms of their ability to separate and layer the instruments. Sonnetto a bit more livelier, bearing the risk to be fatiguing in the long run. Any thoughts?
The Special 40’s are hyped too much, this great comparison tells the story….
Hi.
What is your impression from the special 40s?
What is the setup playing?
How far are the 40s from the wall? Do you use port blocks?
Thanks!
From what I was told the 40s needs around 100 watts to start singing.
Approx 1 ft from the backwall. I wish i had more space to spare but my rooms too small. Both are great and the sound demo quality does not do them justice. Its a very refined listen with the s40 with a more complete bottom end and super smooth but airy character. My preference goes to Dali - i find it more engaging- however its missing an octave in the bass compared to the s40 which sounds like a more complete speaker.
@@mykeldg the twitter of the 40s seems to be more resolving on the HF.
You still use Aegir with Mojo?
@@igaldins yes i love the tweeter on the dynes very smooth but lots of resolution. Aegir still but dac is smsl dac + topping p50
Everywhere, Forty wins a little bit (especially noticeable at the ends of the frequency response).
I prefer the sound of the Dali
Listening to this via my EQ'd Sennheiser IE 900 the Special Forty sounds more balanced and easier to listen to, guess I'll either buy them or the Triangle Comète 40th Anniversary
between the 2, the Triangle would be my pick. it would be closer to the Dali sound compared to the S40.
What is the source input ? is there pre amp or Dac there is a differentiation in the Sound , but too many unknown to qualify
in this video, both speakers are using identical source (dac) and front end equipment (preamp, class A poweramp).
Is a Special 40 or a Rubicon 2 good for metal music on a Yamaha AS-1200 ?
TY
Probably the s40 since it has deeper bass extension and a bit louder bass. Mids i prefer dali - it is more expressive and detailed (but maybe not impt for metal). For highs, it depends on preference - the s40 will be more refined and have more micro details. Rubicon will have more rawness to it and more textures and open soundstage.
The Special 40's need more than one foot from the back wall to sound at their best and I find a slight toe also improves things.
yes this is true. i found using partial foam plugs also help since my room is a bit small and the s40 have lots of bass energy that could cause room issues
I prefer the Dali Rubicon 2 !!
Rubicon 2
Hey What’s the Name of the Song at 3:53min. It sound’s so damn good :o
Chateau by Angus and Julia Stone. One of my faves 👍👍👍
Dynaudio much better mind you listening through b&w headphones
nice headphones. what model do you have?
Where is your daughter? 😊
Afraid of the red speaker 😅
...По мне, однозначно Dali...
Dali has more clarity while the Dynaudio has more bass! Overall Dali is better but wt bad recording, it might be fatiguing! Both are good speakers!!
With bad recordings you are in any case doomed...
Dynaudio to much better
40 👍
Special 40 is muscular.
s40 more treble,bright, and rubi has better bass,a bit more impact. rubi for me
same here!
@@mykeldg ok.thanks
These youtube tests are ridiculous i tought this was a review
Dyn is more comfortable listening
yes super smooth. great mids & bass