We're cyclop balls replaced by dynasphere? Any reviews on dynasphere?

Scrunge19

Registered
So according to Mike, the makeup of the balls is exactly the same across all of the product lines. The difference in price is only a reflection of the design of the ball and the production time needed to achieve that look. If that's the case, their $79 tungsten set will play exactly the same as their top of the line ball?

How does Aramith compete with a product line like this when most of their sets are of similar design (excluding Black) but their lower end balls aren't the same resin mixture as their top of the line sets? If it is truly possible to manufacture balls at $79 price point and still utilize the same quality of materials, the margin on Aramith's $300+ sets must be insane.

So what conclusions can be gathered from this information? Here are some of my thoughts.

1. Dynasphere has manufacturing efficiencies that allow them to produce a ball set at $79 using their top of the line materials and still maintain margin? This would have to be a pretty big gain in efficiency if they can manufacture a ball set at $79 that plays similar to Aramith's $400 set, all other things being equal. If this was true, why would Dynasphere do this? If the market has settled at $300+ for a top of the line set of balls, why release a comparable product at $79 and rob yourself of the additional margin?

2. Dynasphere's resin makeup is cheaper/lower quality? than Aramith's thus allowing them to utilize the same makeup across all product ranges/price points and maintain margin?

3. Design complexity isn't the only factor in the price point and the resin does in fact differ between levels? This would contradict what Mike said so probably not a factor.

4. The resin Aramith uses in their balls is similar in cost/quality to Dynasphere and they are just realizing huge margins by marketing their top of the line sets as a premium product and pricing to reflect that assertion?

5. That's good that Shane, Thorsten, etc. have good things to say about their product, but they're being paid to represent the brand. It doesn't mean they don't genuinely think those things, you just have to take their comments with a grain of salt.

I'm not questioning what Mike said, merely thinking out loud with the information that's been put forth.
 

9ball5032

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Tried my set of Dynasphere Tungstens. I am really impressed. The balls stay clean, especially the cue ball. I am using Blue Diamond chalk. They play and sound similar to my Cyclop Zeus balls. They have an excellent rebound that has a quieter sound. The polish on these are impressive. I cleaned my cloth extra well and after 3 days of playing they look just like new. After 1 hour of playing today the cue ball had one tiny smudge that needed a loupe to see and came right off with my Selvyt microfiber cloth. I weighed all 16 balls before playing with them. 168.01 grams was the lightest and 169.34 grams was the heaviest. A difference of 1.33 grams. The average weight of the balls were 168.78. The cue ball weighed 168.70 grams. Olhausen had them for 79 plus shipping. An Ebay seller had them for 57 delivered, so I bought a second set. Even the box is impressive. It is more solid than my Aramith box and has a security sticker from the factory to prevent opening.
 

Attachments

  • Tungsten 2.jpg
    Tungsten 2.jpg
    30.4 KB · Views: 267
Last edited:

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
security sticker

Tried my set of Dynasphere Tungstens. I am really impressed. The balls stay clean, especially the cue ball. I am using Blue Diamond chalk. They play and sound similar to my Cyclop Zeus balls. They have an excellent rebound that has a quieter sound. The polish on these are impressive. I cleaned my cloth extra well and after 3 days of playing they look just like new. After 1 hour of playing today the cue ball had one tiny smudge that needed a loupe to see and came right off with my Selvyt microfiber cloth. I weighed all 16 balls before playing with them. 168.01 grams was the lightest and 169.34 grams was the heaviest. A difference of 1.33 grams. The average weight of the balls were 168.78. The cue ball weighed 168.70 grams. Olhausen had them for 79 plus shipping. An Ebay seller had them for 57 delivered, so I bought a second set. Even the box is impressive. It is more solid than my Aramith box and has a security sticker from the factory to prevent opening.


I agree with everything you said except about the security sticker. My set had a single security sticker on one side of the box. It opened quite easily without disturbing the sticker. Anyone wanting to could swap in a very cheap set of plastic balls and sell the factory sealed box on e-bay or somewhere with the seal intact.

Other than that little quibble, I find an issue shooting with the balls in low light, hard to see, hard to tell apart. Most aren't shooting in low light so that is a nonissue for almost everyone.

My set of tungsten balls is a couple months old now. Been played with a lot for a home set, not much compared to a set in a commercial setting. They still seem to roll very true and using a cheap wooden rack or the Turtle racking template it is easy to get all balls touching every time.

The Turtle template has a large circle the nine ball happens to sit in. After dozens of breaks the nine ball has moved out of that circle three or four times. One of those times it was pocketed.

I wish they would offer a cheap set like the Tungsten set but with more traditional colors. The Tungsten set seems to be the same quality as much more expensive sets. Using the cut break off of the rail I have failed to pocket the wing ball on the break playing nine ball less than five times, including experimenting trying to not make it. It is as dead as is possible to make it.

No i
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Tried my set of Dynasphere Tungstens. I am really impressed. The balls stay clean, especially the cue ball. I am using Blue Diamond chalk. They play and sound similar to my Cyclop Zeus balls. They have an excellent rebound that has a quieter sound. The polish on these are impressive. I cleaned my cloth extra well and after 3 days of playing they look just like new. After 1 hour of playing today the cue ball had one tiny smudge that needed a loupe to see and came right off with my Selvyt microfiber cloth. I weighed all 16 balls before playing with them. 168.01 grams was the lightest and 169.34 grams was the heaviest. A difference of 1.33 grams. The average weight of the balls were 168.78. The cue ball weighed 168.70 grams. Olhausen had them for 79 plus shipping. An Ebay seller had them for 57 delivered, so I bought a second set. Even the box is impressive. It is more solid than my Aramith box and has a security sticker from the factory to prevent opening.
Still can't get past just how butt-ugly these things are. Whatever floats ur boat i guess.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Still can't get past just how butt-ugly these things are. Whatever floats ur boat i guess.


My brain registers the design of these balls in the same way it does cheap knockoff toys you see at dollar stores. There’s something disappointing and unsettling about their appearance.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My brain registers the design of these balls in the same way it does cheap knockoff toys you see at dollar stores. There’s something disappointing and unsettling about their appearance.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I tend to agree. Look, the now classic color combo we all grew up with is perfect imo. Why these co's feel the need for the weird colors is beyond me. I sorta(barely) get the funky t.v. colors but now with HD they are no longer needed, standard colors are fine. Also Dyna has chosen to use that ugly bird-turd grey for the 6/14. Don't get it.
 

gregcantrall

Center Ball
Silver Member
5 star review

Just wanted to add another thumbs up review of the Tungsten set��❤️��.

I practice daily more than 2 hours (it’s nice to be retired :wink:). The balls maintain the luster of brand new
with a daily wipe with a damp cloth. Perhaps not as slick as day one but only marginal. Noticeably shiny er
than my retired Cyclop balls. The color of the 2 is the same as the 7 in the Cyclop set. In a rotation game
that could trip a player. Since I am practicing mostly with drills it is not a problem.
I have had a friend (and neighbor) over to play 8 ball (observing social distances). The colors don’t really
matter playing 8 ball. He noticed the crisp clean contact between the balls.
 
Last edited:

Dan_B

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Now that all this is settled on the what's what and who's who
with Dynasphere, cyclop and Aramith, only here at AZB,
will the Cosmos Ultra C looking like the late centennial ball be the calm in the storm?
FOR real calm @ $79?

It reads, feels like Cyclops is the latest Pontiac GTO saga.

What I can attest too, is when breaking out the rotors, they have a sense of fun.
And, clean up nicely, so do Aramith...
and the rotor package come racks.

They (Dynasphere) say the rotor is integrated, is that meaning like how the latest
Aramith is, how the number/circle go all the way through the ball?
Again, its the sense of physic's, its momentum in leverage for a longer roll,
files like it anyway.
So, what the world will be in need of soon, are, no numbered solids with an all white or all black rotor core.
WHY? ...because of those 4ball game changers.


:smile:
...after thinking about a little more,
I'll take a set of 3 black solids with the Caucasian rotor core,
3 red with the black rotor core and 2 yellow balls - one each with a black and Caucasian rotor,
including one each of a cue ball with red measles and one with black measles,
racks are optionable.
 
Last edited:

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks all. I just purchased the tungsten set for $80 shipped and taxed from eBay. When I saw the set on here they jumped out at me. Maybe because I’m colorblind, who knows. Ha ha. I really like the way the circle looks on the solid balls. It just pops to me. I’m looking forward to receiving them.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Conclusion: The Chinese make a better ball.

I received the Dynaspheres Tungsten balls a few days ago and opened them today.

First impressions, I absolutely love the colors. Note, I'm colorblind, legitimately. My gf saw them though, and she thought the colors were amazing. She's seen the other sets I have (several), and said these are the best colors by far. She called them "macaroon" colors, whatever that means. The balls measure and weight very good. The balls play great. Zero roll offs, zero skids, reaction is normal.

IMG_0699.jpeg
Brand new in the box.


IMG_0700.jpeg
After 18 racks of the ghost. If I missed, I put the ball in the hole with my hand and ran all the other balls. So each object ball has 18 hits on it. The CB has 10x18 = 180 hits on it. I did not clean any ball at all, not even with my clothes or my hand.


Screen Shot 2020-09-16 at 6.40.22 PM.jpeg
This shows the diameter of each ball, measured with Starrett micrometer at 3 places on each ball. The diameter at the number was consistently smaller. Each horizontal line in the graph is .0010". The micrometers can measure to .0001".


Screen Shot 2020-09-16 at 6.41.46 PM.jpeg
This shows the mass in grams of each ball. This was with a cheap $20 scale that has a resolution of 1 gram. Does not go to any decimal places.


Screen Shot 2020-09-16 at 6.37.57 PM.jpeg
This is the raw data.
 

cjr3559

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The Tungsten line seems to be really popular and yet not much press available on the other sets.

Why all the hype with the Tungsten set? Is it the look, or the value? From what I’ve seen and read they’re $350 quality balls for $80. Or they must blow away the competition in this price point.

I would consider a set if they’re that good for 80 bucks.
 

radge69

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I bought a set of the tungstens about a month ago. I play on average around an hour a day. They stay very clean, and I've had zero issues. For $80, they are a great buy. I thought the colors would be distracting, but after a couple hours of play it was a non issue.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The Tungsten line seems to be really popular and yet not much press available on the other sets.

Why all the hype with the Tungsten set? Is it the look, or the value? From what I’ve seen and read they’re $350 quality balls for $80. Or they must blow away the competition in this price point.

I would consider a set if they’re that good for 80 bucks.

Its money. For 80 before, you got a garbage set of polyester balls. Now for 80, you get a set that is better than a 250 set from Aramith.
 

gregcantrall

Center Ball
Silver Member
The Tungsten line seems to be really popular and yet not much press available on the other sets.

Why all the hype with the Tungsten set? Is it the look, or the value? From what I’ve seen and read they’re $350 quality balls for $80. Or they must blow away the competition in this price point.

I would consider a set if they’re that good for 80 bucks.

They are that good. Manufactured to the same tolerances as Dynasphere’s Silver, Gold and Platinum sets.
The prices reflect the increasing machine work in the sets.
I see nothing wrong with the increase prices to buy a set that is pretty.
My personal preference is for the simplest. I am very happy with my set of Tungsten balls.:thumbup:
 

cjr3559

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Me too, ordered the eBay ones for $60.

Here are Macaroons by the way. I see the similarity.
 

Attachments

  • 04E5AF7A-5778-48DA-BC36-669C787CB83E.jpg
    04E5AF7A-5778-48DA-BC36-669C787CB83E.jpg
    135.7 KB · Views: 280
  • 12EB45D7-FC83-444C-A980-0E849E33DF9C.jpg
    12EB45D7-FC83-444C-A980-0E849E33DF9C.jpg
    100.3 KB · Views: 289

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Conclusion: The Chinese make a better ball.
This shows the diameter of each ball, measured with Starrett micrometer at 3 places on each ball. The diameter at the number was consistently smaller. Each horizontal line in the graph is .0010". The micrometers can measure to .0001".

Thanks for the info. I have one tiny thought though. I work as an inspector. Are you certain your mic is calibrated recently? I'm just saying this because going out 4 places behind the decimal is pretty precise business. I'd be more than happy to agree on 3 places out, but that 4th place... it can be sketchy for different reasons. It doesn't make much difference on your results in any meaningful way, but going out that far can make the data set seem to have a wider range than it actually does. We're talking the width of a gnat fart so any little thing can make a difference.

No biggie though, thanks for the info and the great pics!
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the info. I have one tiny thought though. I work as an inspector. Are you certain your mic is calibrated recently? I'm just saying this because going out 4 places behind the decimal is pretty precise business. I'd be more than happy to agree on 3 places out, but that 4th place... it can be sketchy for different reasons. It doesn't make much difference on your results in any meaningful way, but going out that far can make the data set seem to have a wider range than it actually does. We're talking the width of a gnat fart so any little thing can make a difference.

No biggie though, thanks for the info and the great pics!

It hasn't been "officially" calibrated in 20 years, when I used to work at a machine shop. I bought a Starrett 2" micrometer standard a year ago, however, and double check it with that. I go two clicks on the ratchet thimble while the standard is in the jaws and it lines up on the zero exactly. (I actually never adjusted it from when it was last calibrated at the machine shop 20 years ago, it was still right on).

So the tenth's reading, this particular micrometer goes to .001. It does not have the vernier scale that a 10ths reading micrometer does have. (I have a few of those, but not in the 2-3" size). I'm estimating with my eye and breaking down the gap between each thousandth's graduation. Not perfect, but I think I can get it to .0002" with my eyes pretty reliably. That is just reading the mic. If it actually measures that precisely, is hard to say, as you are well aware:) Breathing on something can cause a .0001" difference.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the info. I have one tiny thought though. I work as an inspector. Are you certain your mic is calibrated recently? I'm just saying this because going out 4 places behind the decimal is pretty precise business. I'd be more than happy to agree on 3 places out, but that 4th place... it can be sketchy for different reasons. It doesn't make much difference on your results in any meaningful way, but going out that far can make the data set seem to have a wider range than it actually does. We're talking the width of a gnat fart so any little thing can make a difference.

No biggie though, thanks for the info and the great pics!

PS, please take a look at this thread, you may find it interesting, and have some good suggestions for me. Its for making a ball roundness tester:
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=517602
 
Top