@daros71 --
+1 - I’m absolutely with you on this.
To further: your views on the Contour 3.3 vs. their new iteration 60 are illuminating - bold, even, in a liberating way. I vividly recall the Contour 3.0 and 3.3 from my auditioning them back in the late ’90’s, and can honestly say they’re the Dynaudio’s (especially the 3.3’s) whose sound I’ve remembered and cherished the most; beautiful mids, tuneful bass, and highs that didn’t draw unnecessary attention to themselves. Tonality and staging A-OK. Just a lovely, quite "right" overall presentation. And the cabinetry - Danish woodworking at its best, and in a tradition of furniture that actually looks and feels like wood.
To my eyes the 60’s actually look cheaper, but I’m sure the intend is the opposite in an attempt to cater to a modern market and interior design tradition. But again, I generally agree with your views on named trend.
I haven’t listened to the Contour 60’s, but some replies above would seem tangential with the rather worn adage of "what’s new(er) is always better;" why is it heretical claiming on older product outdoes its newer sibling? That should tell one a thing or two about how the hifi-industry has succeeded in capturing its customers with their marketing efforts, at the expense of a bit of common sense.
As has been suggested already: why not sell your Contour 60’s and re-acquire a pair 3.3’s, or something altogether different? Seems to me a waste of time to linger with the 60’s when you’d be happier with other speakers. Let it go - move on.
I Think that if a Steinway grand piano can be tuned in order to make happy 99% of pianists in the world, pianists which hare all deeply committed to the problem of sound, much more as we are, then it should be possible to make a speaker which is able to reproduce with a decent precision the wooden matericity of a xilophone, or the metallic matericity of a jazz cymbal and so on. In fact the contour 3.3 are perfectly able to do so. Not the Contour 60. It’s not a problem of personal taste. Subjectivity is used in the audiophile world in a very original way, like a cauldron where you trow everything which you are to lazy to rationalize. Jung against Freud i would say.
Imagine Simon Rattle telling to his trumpeter - hey guy, your trumpet is sounding like a plastic trumpet today, what’s up? - And the guy answering - that is your very subjective perception today! - .
No, there are rules, a trumpet has to sound like a trumpet, sorry. As soon as the timbrical and the spatial problems are solved then we can start to talk about subjectivity. But it will never be a subjectivity of an egocentric child. It has to be a very discrete subjectivity which is not distracting from what truly matters, from our love for the composers and the musicians and music in general.
+1 - I’m absolutely with you on this.
To further: your views on the Contour 3.3 vs. their new iteration 60 are illuminating - bold, even, in a liberating way. I vividly recall the Contour 3.0 and 3.3 from my auditioning them back in the late ’90’s, and can honestly say they’re the Dynaudio’s (especially the 3.3’s) whose sound I’ve remembered and cherished the most; beautiful mids, tuneful bass, and highs that didn’t draw unnecessary attention to themselves. Tonality and staging A-OK. Just a lovely, quite "right" overall presentation. And the cabinetry - Danish woodworking at its best, and in a tradition of furniture that actually looks and feels like wood.
One thing was clear. The Contour 3.3 sounded like an expensive speaker and the Contour 60 looks like an expensive speaker. But isn’t this the general trend in so many areas? Manufacturers more concerned with appearances than with substance? But how does a company like Dynaudio change its philosophy so drastically? Then I remembered that in Italy the same happened to all the companies that changed their old and experienced CEO into young and "fresh" people. In Italy this means trendy design, tons of marketing, reduced production costs, less quality and nothing else.
Then I searched for "Dynaudio CEO" on Google. Exactly that happened to Dynaudio in 2016! My speakers are from 2017.
Now everything is clear.
To my eyes the 60’s actually look cheaper, but I’m sure the intend is the opposite in an attempt to cater to a modern market and interior design tradition. But again, I generally agree with your views on named trend.
I haven’t listened to the Contour 60’s, but some replies above would seem tangential with the rather worn adage of "what’s new(er) is always better;" why is it heretical claiming on older product outdoes its newer sibling? That should tell one a thing or two about how the hifi-industry has succeeded in capturing its customers with their marketing efforts, at the expense of a bit of common sense.
As has been suggested already: why not sell your Contour 60’s and re-acquire a pair 3.3’s, or something altogether different? Seems to me a waste of time to linger with the 60’s when you’d be happier with other speakers. Let it go - move on.