Legacy Whisper Dunlavy SC V opinions - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 615 Old 05-21-2010, 01:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ04 View Post

But my guess would be that they sound more like a Wilson (time aligned drivers but not time coherent) than they do a Dunlavy.

Accuracy is not a strong suit of the Wilson's...have a look at their frequency response curves. As to the Wilson centers, they are far from being among the best if accuracy is the main concern (that is not to say that they don't have their strengths; e.g. dynamic range, house sound for those that like it, and so on).

With regards to Dunlavy not having an equal, that is a little over the top. He made excellent designs based on his preferences (by definition, any speaker design is a design about compromise), but to assume there are no other great ones out there is a little kool-aidish. Dr. Toole and Linkwitz have arguably contributed more to high end audio speaker design than Dunlavy, but that does not detract from the latter's accomplishments.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 615 Old 05-21-2010, 02:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
deandob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yes, VAF have deviated from the Duntech / Dunlavy design principles, possibly because of patent issues. You can also see a port in the larger VAF speakers which for Dunlavy was a no-no. However I thought I'd post the VAF info as it has a historical connection with Dunlavy. Regarding what they sound like, suffice to say I prefer the Dunlavy. Also while on the Australian connection, Duntech are still producing speakers and you can buy their classic models plus a new model (see www.duntech.com.au).

The only thing I disagree with the Dunlavy design principles is the use of ordinary drivers and crossover components. With modern materials some improvements can be had with better quality components.

Who owns the Dunlavy patents now?
deandob is offline  
post #273 of 615 Old 05-21-2010, 06:39 PM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ04 View Post

Most people dont know that John Dunlavy was designing speakers in Texas BEFORE he moved to Australia and worked with Duntech.

His original company (founded in the early 60's) was called Audio Standards Corporation, but for some reason I've always had it in my head that it was out of New Mexico, even though I've also seen others on the Internet say Texas. Ironically, according to the Duntech's own webpage later in this posting, they say it was "somewhere" on the West Coast! So who knows???

What I do know is that while he was still in the United States (and just before he moved) he changed the name to Duntech International, and began referring to the old Audio Standards Corporation (ASC) as a "Division" within Duntech. And that even though up until that point he had mostly focused on Government Projects, he also dabbled in smaller consumer products like phono preamps and... (see entry #173 at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post18043980)

The following was taken from this webpage: http://www.duntech.com.au/media/baro...ort-baron.html

"Their beginning dates back to 1963 somewhere on the US west coast. In those days, Duntech was involved with some government projects. Their engineers developed a submarine long-range underwater communications system for the US Navy. Later, they took part in the development of telemetry antennae for NASA's Gemini Space Project. With all that experience, one would think that Dun tech may develop communication based electronics, ie. tuners, antennae, etc. Instead, they applied what the knew about the transmission of wave energy to loudspeaker design. They moved to Australia in 1981 and went to work. By the year of 1986, Duntech br ought onto the market their first - what they call - Pulse Coherent Design loudspeakers. Years of research and development had finally paid off. In the process, the company had developed new measuring techniques that provided information on frequency and phase response, time alignment of drivers, characteristics of crossover networks and diffraction. The first series of loudspeakers is named The Classic Series which boast as their flagship, the Sovereign. This is the one everyone made a lot of noise about . It became the standard auditioning speakers for people like Krell, Rowland Research, Mondial, Audio Research and FM Acoustics. In other words, most of the high-enders. Also, some top recording studios used the Duntech loudspeakers, including RCA, DM P, Masterdisc, Harmonia Mundi andReference Recordings."

Shocked One is offline  
post #274 of 615 Old 05-21-2010, 06:59 PM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocked One View Post

Keep in mind you're talking about one of the most incredible center channels ever made. The only other competitor out there is the Wilson Polaris, but it costs $28,000, weighs 294 lbs, and isn't timbre matched to your SC-IV/A's like the HRCC!! http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_h...is_center.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

As to the Wilson centers, they are far from being among the best if accuracy is the main concern (that is not to say that they don't have their strengths; e.g. dynamic range, house sound for those that like it, and so on).

Yes and no. I should have started by saying that in a center channel I'm all about dynamics and bass extension, since that's where the majority of the sound is mixed in.

The thing I loved most about my HRCC-1 was how it was the only center channel I've used that could actually rattle a room on it's own! It was unbelievable how those two 10" Scanspeak 25w/8565 woofers rocked when I ran it with some full range music in mono mode!

The few other big woofer centers I've auditioned just couldn't hang. The $2,400/$2,500 Legacy Marquis with it's dual (open air) 15" woofers just didn't have the slam! The "improved" $3,210 Marquis HD with it's dual sealed 12" woofers, although better, still weren't as explosive as the Dunlavy.

But then when Wilson came out with their new dual 10" Wilson Polaris (not to be confused with the older dual 7" Wilson Watch); holy crap! I've never been a Wilson fan, but their new MAXX 3's, their latest Alexandria X-2 Series 2's and even their latest Sasha W/P's are SO MUCH BETTER than what I've heard from them 15, 10 and even 5 years ago! And that Polaris just looks so menacing! http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_h...ris_intro.html

Anyway, my main point was that the HRCC-1 is an incredible center, and that the only other center I can think of that can go that low with as much explosiveness is the Polaris.

As for accuracy:

Would I use a pair of HRCC-1's as my main left and right for music? Absolutely!

Would I use a pair of Polaris' as my left and right for music? Probably not...
(although they still look badass)


Shocked One is offline  
post #275 of 615 Old 05-21-2010, 07:29 PM
Member
 
Champ04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

With regards to Dunlavy not having an equal, that is a little over the top. He made excellent designs based on his preferences (by definition, any speaker design is a design about compromise), but to assume there are no other great ones out there is a little kool-aidish. Dr. Toole and Linkwitz have arguably contributed more to high end audio speaker design than Dunlavy, but that does not detract from the latter's accomplishments.

I assume this response is directed at me since I'm the one you quoted. So....
I must say, you really need to not put words in my mouth. Please direct me to where I said, in absolute terms rather than my own opinion, that Dunlavy had no equal. Next time read with a little more comprehension please.

BUT, since you brought it up.......
As a matter of fact, it is not at all over the top to declare that Dunlavy has no equal. In fact, it can be documented that to this day there is still no equal. And I mean this, of course, from a purely scientific standpoint. You can search the world over but you will not find a speaker with a superior impulse response, step response, acoustical phase linearity, and the ability to produce square waves across a broad range of frequencies. (very few speakers, historically, could produce a square wave even at one).
Does this mean that everyone should abandon all other designs for a Dunlavy?
Absolutely not. However, if you want to talk accuracy. And by accuracy there can be NO OTHER definition outside of "the output signal matches the input signal". If this is the standard by which we are speaking, and it always is when Dunlavy is the subject, then it is not only NOT over the top but absolutely true to claim that Dunlavy is the most accurate speaker ever created. (And by his own admission, the DAL series were superior to the Duntech.)

It is neither over the top nor koolaidish to state these things. And it does not, in any way detract from any one wanting to be a fanboy for any other historical designer.

P.S. I might also add that, despite common misconception, it was Dunlavy who "invented" the vertical symmetrical array. He did this with a paper presented to the AES years before D'Apolito gave name to it. This, by itself, I think puts him in the same catagory as Linkwitz. Just sayin.
Champ04 is offline  
post #276 of 615 Old 05-21-2010, 08:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
deandob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Regardless of the measurements & accuracy, I think the Dunlavys are in the top tier when it comes to sound.

When auditioning for my current speakers 12 years ago I was fortunate to be able to compare the Dunlavys with many well regarded top end speakers at the time, sometimes in the same location, and the Dunlavys always sounded the most coherent and realistic.

I spent an hour once comparing the Wilson puppies with a SC-IV and although the Wilson had addictive bass, you could tell after a while it was not a proper representation of the recording, but more importantly in the mid and treble the Dunlavy was just so much better.

So I do think that there is a correlation between accurate measurement and sound quality. It also helps that I have an Engineering background and the Dunlavy design principles and measurements appeals to that part of me (eg. the principles behind the Dunlavy array design originated from John's work on radar arrays in the 70's).

Still, things move on, and I'd be interested to know if there are any newer generation speakers that can better the Dunlavys, eg. through use of digital crossovers, better components/materials.
deandob is offline  
post #277 of 615 Old 05-21-2010, 08:39 PM
Member
 
Champ04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandob View Post

So I do think that there is a correlation between accurate measurement and sound quality. It also helps that I have an Engineering background and the Dunlavy design principles and measurements appeals to that part of me (eg. the principles behind the Dunlavy array design originated from John's work on radar arrays in the 70's).

Still, things move on, and I'd be interested to know if there are any newer generation speakers that can better the Dunlavys, eg. through use of digital crossovers, better components/materials.


The whole point of a Dunlavy is obviously it's objective measurements. It was the one and only thing he cared about basically. And there is a portion of the community for which this is paramount. Personally, I've become so accustomed to the time coherent sound that I really can't appreciate any other design anymore. And honestly, I wish that were not so. But whenever I try I simply cannot get past the smearing I hear.

As far newer technology goes. Dunlavy chose his drivers based on three basic criteria. 1) flat frequency response in the useful band. 2) a good impulse response. and 3) low Q.
I've often wondered what could be made today following these same guidelines. At the time he started the only cone materials that qualified was paper and polypropylene. The difficult part being the Q of the driver. These days there are a number of carbon fiber/ rohacell cones that also have a managable Q.
For instance, Vandersteen and GMA both use a laminated carbon fiber cone in the midrange units. Both also adhere to the time coherent principle.
I havent heard the GMA yet. And I wasnt really a huge fan of Vandersteen until I heard his model 7. But WOW, I sure would love a pair of those babys!

Personally, I would LOVE to see what could be done, if anything, with the Rockport Arrakis. If that could be modified to work properly with 1st order crossovers I think I might literally pee myself.
Champ04 is offline  
post #278 of 615 Old 05-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Michael Osadciw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Serving GTA & Southern Ontario
Posts: 732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
deandob

What's happening with Duntech in Australia, anyways? Do they even have any presence? Are they a "player" among the audio market? Are all models on the website still being made? The website is so ancient looking. The speaker models appear to be at least a 10-year old design...? With updates? Who knows...

A few years ago I contacted them by email and they mentioned they were going to try to get into the American market...and that they were going to show something at CES the following year...

...so much for that...??
Michael Osadciw is offline  
post #279 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ04 View Post

However, if you want to talk accuracy. And by accuracy there can be NO OTHER definition outside of "the output signal matches the input signal".

This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is based on your agreement with Dunlavy's biases. There are a number of factors to consider when designing speakers for accuracy. Dunlavy's philosophy is a laudable one, and leads to very good speaker design, but it is far from the only means to "skin a cat". For many people, Linkwitz's Orion is a far better speaker, still speaking from the perspective of accuracy. The same can be said for speakers designed by Dr. Toole and many other professional designers. By the way, not all meausrements lead to the same conclusion, or address the same concerns. If you have not read them already, I suggest you go read the "White Papers" written by Dr. Toole and his colleagues at Harman, and also have a look at his book.

PS For those who desire mininum phase characteristics in their x-overs, the advent of digital x-overs has the benefit of not limiting the designier to single order x-overs, which dramatically increases the options for drivers while also providing the benefits of higher order x-overs.

PPS Although there are benefits to minimum phase designs, these benefits are not without their problems, thus the truism that speaker design is nothing more than an exercise on compromises. Our preferences merely reflect a bias to those compromises, they are not a necessary reflection of one design being objectively more accurate than another.

PPS For something totally different, but still being driven by a desire for objective measurements and addressing the effects of rooms in the listening experience, some may even prefers designers such as Tom Danley. Again, addressing compromises from totally different perspectives.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
post #280 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 08:29 AM
Member
 
Champ04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is based on your agreement with Dunlavy's biases. .

Nope, sorry, but your assertion is nothing short of ludicrous.
For every other object in the chain of reproduced music, going all the way back to the recording microphone, it is accepted that accuracy is defined by the ability of the object in question to pass the signal as unaltered as possible.
Indeed, any other object in the chain be it an amplifier, a CD player, or whatever would be summarily considered broken if it did not perform the tasks I laid out before.
The absurdity is that all of a sudden the expectations change when it comes to a loudspeaker.
The bottom line is that this definition of accuracy is not my own but what is generally accepted by science. Hell, it doesn't even have to be "scientific". Just go look up the definition of the word!

It is perfectly reasonable that people will enjoy products that deviate from this objective definition. Indeed, the market as a whole pretty much proves this. But it does not change the objective definition of "accurate".
Any competent and honest engineer will accept this definition. And any who do not are seeking to change the definition to hide their own "compromises".
You may as well claim that 2+2=5 because it suits your equations better.

Dunlavy speakers are accurate by the objective and scientific definition. And it is well known that the "compromises" inherent with these speakers is the very narrow and focused listening position where any of these objective measurements perform. It is these compromises that Dunlavy fans are willing to live with in order to achieve true and objective accuracy. Period.
Champ04 is offline  
post #281 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 08:46 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is based on your agreement with Dunlavy's biases. There are a number of factors to consider when designing speakers for accuracy. Dunlavy's philosophy is a laudable one, and leads to very good speaker design, but it is far from the only means to "skin a cat". For many people, Linkwitz's Orion is a far better speaker, still speaking from the perspective of accuracy. The same can be said for speakers designed by Dr. Toole and many other professional designers. By the way, not all meausrements lead to the same conclusion, or address the same concerns. If you have not read them already, I suggest you go read the "White Papers" written by Dr. Toole and his colleagues at Harman, and also have a look at his book.

PS For those who desire mininum phase characteristics in their x-overs, the advent of digital x-overs has the benefit of not limiting the designier to single order x-overs, which dramatically increases the options for drivers while also providing the benefits of higher order x-overs.

PPS Although there are benefits to minimum phase designs, these benefits are not without their problems, thus the truism that speaker design is nothing more than an exercise on compromises. Our preferences merely reflect a bias to those compromises, they are not a necessary reflection of one design being objectively more accurate than another.

PPS For something totally different, but still being driven by a desire for objective measurements and addressing the effects of rooms in the listening experience, some may even prefers designers such as Tom Danley. Again, addressing compromises from totally different perspectives.

I think that "the output signal matches the input signal" is a great description of the perfect theoretical loudspeaker - or any electrical component in an audio system - and can not see why one would purposely choose to deviate from that for no reason.

Of course in the real world speaker designers do have to make compromises and deviate from that ideal speaker model. In that sense I can understand different designers taking different approaches to loudspeaker design, as long as the end goal - input=output - is the same.

FWIW, Dunlavy freely admitted that his designs required compromises and he was always looking for newer and better ways to refine his speakers. Prior to going out of business he was working on the Magnus, which was discussed earlier in this thread. It was a fully active speaker, that was corrected digitally using some of the techniques you discussed above. IIRC, he claimed, amongst other measurements, that it would be capable of +/- 0.5dB across its entire frequency range.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #282 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 10:53 AM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ04 View Post

However, if you want to talk accuracy. And by accuracy there can be NO OTHER definition outside of "the output signal matches the input signal".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is based on your agreement with Dunlavy's biases.

With all due respect Raul GS, you just lost your battle right there! How could you possibly dismiss that sentence as just an opinion? The mere argument already suggests subjective bias, and negates further discussion.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/accuracy) defines accuracy as :

1 : freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2 a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value

Using that as a basis for an acceptable definition, my "opinion" is that Champ04's "Input = Output" wording (which is pretty much what he said) is about as close to the perfect definition when addressing loudspeaker accuracy. We're not talking personal preferences, or room interactions, or any other possible interferences that sidetrack a speaker from the "truth" here; we're talking about the speakers capability of converting an electrical signal into its corresponding sound wave without measurably altering it! Whether that signal is a square wave, a specific piano note, or just a bunch of garbage; input must equal output if you're going to call it accurate!

To stray from that is to stray from accuracy!

Everything John Dunlavy did back then; from being the only manufacturer who measured using a living room sized anechoic chamber instead of the more common (and cheaper) closet sized room, to taking measurements from a realistic and useful 10-12 feet instead of the relatively meaningless one meter distance, was all about accuracy!

I'm attaching John Dunlavy's white paper on Loudspeaker Accuracy.

I only wish there were someone out there right now who incorporated all the measurements John Dunlavy took into account when designing a speaker. Unfortunately the speaker designers I've heard of, or read about, just pick and choose the few they want to address (or more likely the ones they actually understand).

Just sayin.

































Shocked One is offline  
post #283 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 12:02 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
On a completely different subject, my center channel downstairs in my theater is an SC-IIcc.a, which was essentially an SC-II.a with an angled front baffle. My understanding was that the angled baffle was simply to help with properly directing the sound when it was above or below a display, but that this didn't affect the sound quality in any way and you could actually use SC-IIcc.a's as L/R speakers as well.

My L/C/R speakers sit behind an acoustically transparent screen, so the sideways/angled configuration aren't of any use to me. A while ago I turned the speaker on its side and angled it so the baffle is parallel to the screen surface. I figured that this would be better since its now in a standard vertical D'Apolito arrangement, and it also allowed me to line all 3 tweeters up across the front.

So my question is, does anyone know of any reason why this isn't a good idea from a performance stanpoint? Ideally I'd like to just have 3 SC-IV's across the front (or 3 of the same Dunlavys across the front), but finding sets of 3 or single speakers to match any of the pairs that is next to impossible.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #284 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 12:33 PM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

So my question is, does anyone know of any reason why this isn't a good idea from a performance stanpoint?

I would say that, from a performance standpoint, vertical is absolutely the way to go!

A) Pinpoint imaging that more closely resembles your left and right vertical arrays. (Just look at the HRCC)

B) Less surface area to decouple. (I know I'm nit-picking, but still...)

Shocked One is offline  
post #285 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocked One View Post

With all due respect Raul GS, you just lost your battle right there! How could you possibly dismiss that sentence as just an opinion? The mere argument already suggests subjective bias, and negates further discussion.

Actually, your mere suggestion that it is that simple suggests that you don't understand that it is an exercise on compromise, and thus the subjective element;i.e. what compromises am I willing to make as a listener, or a engineer is willing to make in his or her design. Loudspeakers by definition cannot exactly reproduce the recording event. The recording process, and the reproduction process preclude it. Moreover you have the elements of physics and rooms that come into play that must also be addressed. When all those considerations are taken into account, then some solutions will work better than others depending on the listeners needs, and the rooms being used. Your supposition that you can make a perfect speakers is not supported by any objective literature in audio engineering. Your supposition that Dunlavy's biases are the only correct ones are based on your opinions about what are the best compromises to make. Was Dunlavy able to make excellent speakers based on his preferred measurement criteria? No doubt, but so are other engineers based on their objective measurement criteria. The difference is, what each engineer considered the better sacrifice. However, there is nothing in the literature to suggest your opinion is nothing more than that; i.e. a personal preference.

As to Dunlavy's white papers, I really suggest you have a look at the work of Linkwitz and Dr. Toole, you would not be able to merely attach it to a thread.

PS to suggest that Audio Engineers with PhD's cannot understand the work of Dunlavy is just plain naive. If that work is beyond their comprehension, how would you even begin to conceptualize it? The reason they choose not to follow it is because they do not share his views of what areas of design must be compromised when designing a speaker.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
post #286 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 08:56 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

Actually, your mere suggestion that it is that simple suggests that you don't understand that it is an exercise on compromise, and thus the subjective element;i.e. what compromises am I willing to make as a listener, or a engineer is willing to make in his or her design.

No one here misunderstands that a loudspeaker cannot be perfect; what you seem to be misunderstanding is that Dunlavy understood - on a physics level - many of the aspects of how a theoretically perfect/neutral loudspeaker would measure. This lies at the heart of John's design principles, and I challenge you or anyone else to illustrate why any of those measurements isn't important in demonstrating loudspeaker accuracy. Yes, we all understand that this is an imperfect world and even Dunlavy couldn't design the "perfect" speaker. However, you seem to be continually confusing what a loudspeaker designer should be aiming for with how they're going to get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

Loudspeakers by definition cannot exactly reproduce the recording event. The recording process, and the reproduction process preclude it.

Again, we all understand that; that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continually strive to get as close as possible to input=output throughout the whole chain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

Moreover you have the elements of physics and rooms that come into play that must also be addressed. When all those considerations are taken into account, then some solutions will work better than others depending on the listeners needs, and the rooms being used.

Can you be more specific? I can't imagine how a loudspeaker designer would compensate for the room into which the speaker will be placed without doing it on a case-by-case basis. At that point, using DSP and the like is a much less expensive and more efficient means of correcting for the infinitely variable effects that any given room could have on the sound produced by a loudspeaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

Your supposition that you can make a perfect speakers is not supported by any objective literature in audio engineering. Your supposition that Dunlavy's biases are the only correct ones are based on your opinions about what are the best compromises to make.

No one here has said that anyone can make the perfect speaker. You're confusing the goal - the theoretical "perfect" loudspeaker - with the design methods used to get as close as possible as the goal given the real world constraints of physics and current transducer technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

Was Dunlavy able to make excellent speakers based on his preferred measurement criteria? No doubt, but so are other engineers based on their objective measurement criteria. The difference is, what each engineer considered the better sacrifice. However, there is nothing in the literature to suggest your opinion is nothing more than that; i.e. a personal preference.

Please be more specific, especially with respect to why Dunlavy's listed measurements don't equate to a good/neutral/accurate loudspeaker. On a very basic level, most of his measurements are simply assuring that a speaker only produces what's sent to it with minimal alteration in both the space and time domains. I'd be interested to see if you could provide an explanation as to why any of those measurements could be disregarded - or just downright poor - and furthermore why one would want that to be the case with any speaker design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

As to Dunlavy's white papers, I really suggest you have a look at the work of Linkwitz and Dr. Toole, you would not be able to merely attach it to a thread.

PS to suggest that Audio Engineers with PhD's cannot understand the work of Dunlavy is just plain naive. If that work is beyond their comprehension, how would you even begin to conceptualize it? The reason they choose not to follow it is because they do not share his views of what areas of design must be compromised when designing a speaker.

If you'd care to point us in the right direction of some of Linkwitz's and Toole's applicable white papers, we'd give them a read. Hopefully they can do a better job of explaining in their own words why it's ok to disregard some/all of the measurements that Dunlavy used to validate the neutrality and accuracy of his speakers.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #287 of 615 Old 05-23-2010, 09:15 PM
Member
 
Champ04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

Your supposition that you can make a perfect speakers is not supported by any objective literature in audio engineering.

You're continual arguments against things that were never actually said is perfectly frustrating and a total hindrance to a meaningful exchange.

Also, your continual use of the phrase "by definition" has been improperly used every time you've used it. Speakers are not "by definition" anything other than tools to recreate recorded sound. Their inability to perfectly recreate it is not a "definition", it is a mere reality.

Be that as it may, no one has claimed that compromises are non existent with a Dunlavy. IN FACT, I've already stated part of what the compromise is. That being the fact that they only meet their accuracy potential in a specific and narrow listening position. I'll also add that a less than adequate room will also reduce the effectiveness of a Dunlavy's design and bring it closer to the less than accurate levels of it's competitors. (Dunlavy said as much in the posted white paper.) These are both compromises that Dunlavy owners are fully aware of.
Neither detract from the fact that, under the proper set up and positioning a Dunlavy will always be more objectively accurate than anything else.
The salient point is that there is NO space or listening position with which any other speaker has a chance to be as accurate as they are "by definition" (haha) Time-incoherent and therefor inaccurate.
It is this "compromise" that makes them so.
Champ04 is offline  
post #288 of 615 Old 05-24-2010, 01:49 AM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Raul GS,

I feel like we got off to a bad start, and I'd like to start all over!

I have three requests for you, should you decide to accept them:

1) Let's pretend for a moment that I'm a stubborn old fat guy (which I am) who doesn't want to hear about theories or opinions (which I don't), and just wants to buy the most document-ably accurate sound reproducers on the planet!!! Money is no object (yeah right!) and I like my music at Jazz club volume levels (both during the quieter dinner-hours, and after midnight when we kick it up a notch or two!) My four favorite instruments are the piano (the most difficult instrument to accurately reproduce), the violin, especially as it floats across that magical "G" note on the open fourth string, the drums (gotta have that kick drum), and a tenor saxaphone (to keep my baby's Mamma in the mood). Can you please name a specific speaker brand / model that Linkwitz, Dr Toole, or anyone else for that matter, has actually built that is specifically and objectively more accurate than a pair of Dunlavy SC-V speakers, and exactly what scientific proof would they, or you, be able to offer me so I can see for myself? Keep in mind that I don't want to hear about opinions or theories; I just want indisputable scientific evidence!

2) If someone put a gun to your head and you had to choose, which one would you rather hang on your entry wall? An exact 30" x 20-7/8" replica of the Mona Lisa that even Leonardo himself couldn't tell apart, or an "improved" replica where her thin hairline was filled in to "look more realistic" and her dreadful mourning clothes colors were freshened up to "compensate" for the over 500 years of aging? Please be honest...

3) I'm particularly confused why you specifically went after my introduction and my conclusion (both of which were just my opinion), but ironically stayed away from the actual "meat" of what I was trying to point out? Can you please go back and specifically address why you refuse to accept our definition of "Accuracy" as fact, and not just opinions or "biases" as you've called them? Here's the part I'm talking about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocked One View Post

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/accuracy) defines accuracy as :

1 : freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2 a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value

Using that as a basis for an acceptable definition, my "opinion" is that Champ04's "Input = Output" wording (which is pretty much what he said) is about as close to the perfect definition when addressing loudspeaker accuracy. We're not talking personal preferences, or room interactions, or any other possible interferences that sidetrack a speaker from the "truth" here; we're talking about the speakers capability of converting an electrical signal into its corresponding sound wave without measurably altering it! Whether that signal is a square wave, a specific piano note, or just a bunch of garbage; input must equal output if you're going to call it accurate!

To stray from that is to stray from accuracy!

Everything John Dunlavy did back then; from being the only manufacturer who measured using a living room sized anechoic chamber instead of the more common (and cheaper) closet sized room, to taking measurements from a realistic and useful 10-12 feet instead of the relatively meaningless one meter distance, was all about accuracy!

Thanks!
Shocked One is offline  
post #289 of 615 Old 05-24-2010, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 100
My 2 cents.

Since I was a Dunlavy dealer for 5 years, I spent a fair amount of time in Colorado Springs and during one of those visits, John shared with me some anechoic measurements of some very well known, and in some cases, mega expensive, speakers. In every case, the measurements were just pitiful. Ringing impulse response, frequency response with plus or minus 5 or 6 db or more, etc. Of particular note were the Maggies whose measurements were just abhorrent.

BUT, even John admitted, that the Maggies (in this case) had some magic that he could not explain on some kind of music. I remember a situation where I was walking through a mall and heard someone playing the piano. I went to find them only to discover an audio shop with a pair of Maggies driven by some behemoth Audio Reasearch tube amps. So we have an incredibly inaccurate speaker driven by some expensive amps that don't measure very well either producing sound that was truly realistic.

I STILL don't believe there is a more accurate speaker than the Dunlavy using the measurement criteria of signal out equal signal in. But maybe (just maybe) we don't know how to measure EVERYTHING otherwise my experience or John's comments would not have occurred. Who knows: maybe in my Maggie example, the speakers and amps added back in what the recording process left out!!

I would still maintain, that over the broad range of recorded music, there is still nothing that does a better job from top to bottom that the Dunlavy speakers --- but clearly, there are speakers that excel in some areas for reasons we just don't seem to understand.

And, much more importantly, most listeners have strong preferences and biases that fly in the face of true accuracy otherwise John Dunlavy would have had 100% market share.

I have even decided to venture out and explore non Dunlavy speakers. Do I think they will measure better (per my definition above)? No, and I'd be surprised if they have ever spent time in an anechoic chamber. But, based upon other owner comments, I believe they will stil have the ability to provide musical enjoyment and maybe, in some areas of music reproduction, out perform my existing speakers (like dynamics since they are powered speakers using an electronic crossover).

Lastly, in my opinion, the whole subject of speaker accuracy probably belongs in the same category as religion and politics -- subject that most people have made their mind up about and don't want to be bothered with the truth.
audioguy is offline  
post #290 of 615 Old 05-25-2010, 06:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
deandob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Osadciw View Post

deandob

What's happening with Duntech in Australia, anyways? Do they even have any presence? Are they a "player" among the audio market? Are all models on the website still being made? The website is so ancient looking. The speaker models appear to be at least a 10-year old design...? With updates? Who knows...

A few years ago I contacted them by email and they mentioned they were going to try to get into the American market...and that they were going to show something at CES the following year...

...so much for that...??

Michael, I'm not that in tune with the local Aussie audiophile market as I have not been looking for upgrades for a number of years now, but would say that Duntech do not have a strong presence and other Australian speaker manufacturers are more dominant (eg. Krix, VAF). They do however still sell Duntech AFAIK, but as noted elsewhere in the post, the later Dunlavy speakers (US made) were considered superior.
deandob is offline  
post #291 of 615 Old 06-06-2010, 11:38 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
There's a studio in Atlanta that's looking to get rid of a pair of black SC-VI's - it looks like they're open to trades for smaller speakers, as well:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...avy-sc-vi.html

Although I think $10K is pretty steep, I'm sure they'd work on the price. I think the last set of VIs I saw on the 'gon was priced somewhere around $6500-ish...

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #292 of 615 Old 06-07-2010, 04:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 100
WOW. Too late for me but I would have gone after those in a heartbeat given the extra set of drivers (but not for $10K). Unfortunately, I just purchased some other speakers.

Oh well!
audioguy is offline  
post #293 of 615 Old 06-07-2010, 04:30 PM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post

Unfortunately, I just purchased some other speakers.
Oh well!

You know I gotta ask; what did you get to replace the SC-IV/A's?
Shocked One is offline  
post #294 of 615 Old 06-07-2010, 04:48 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Also, it looks like Carl (the guy with the stock of NIB Dunlavys) is now offering a free SCS2 with the purchase of a pair of III.a's, IV.a's, or any 5- or 7-speaker setup:

http://cosprings.craigslist.org/ele/1773746167.html

Prices are still on the high side, but the free sub makes it almost palatable

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post

WOW. Too late for me but I would have gone after those in a heartbeat given the extra set of drivers (but not for $10K). Unfortunately, I just purchased some other speakers.

Oh well!

So you finally sold the HRCC and IV.a's?

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #295 of 615 Old 06-08-2010, 09:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Also, it looks like Carl (the guy with the stock of NIB Dunlavys) is now offering a free SCS2 with the purchase of a pair of III.a's, IV.a's, or any 5- or 7-speaker setup:

http://cosprings.craigslist.org/ele/1773746167.html

Prices are still on the high side, but the free sub makes it almost palatable



So you finally sold the HRCC and IV.a's?

I have sold the HRCC but am holding the IV's so the manufacturer of my most recent acquisition can compare them (he will be here in a 3 to 4 weeks). My new system consists of Seaton Sound SubMersives Subs and Seaton Sound Catalysts and a TacT 2.2XP.

Catalyst Details:

Drive Units:

* High efficiency, Italian made, 8" coaxial midrange w/ Neodymium compression tweeter.
* Custom built, low distortion, high excursion, 12" sealed woofers utilizing a full copper sleeve over the pole piece for exceptionally low inductance and increased linearity.

Electronics & Amplification:

* Internally powered, tri-amplified design.
* Three (3) ICEpower channels of amplification with 24-bit/96kHz DSP executing the crossover design and response contouring.
* 300W powering the coaxial 1" Neodymium compression tweeter
* 700W powering the 8" midrange (coaxial with tweeter)
* 1000W powering the pair of 12" sealed woofers.
* Galvonic isolation of XLR inputs.

Cabinet Details:

* Robust, multi-layer MDF cabinet construction with extensive bracing, precision cut CNC parts.
* Large 1.25" bevel on baffle edges beneficial in diffraction reduction, aesthetic appeal, as well as easier flush baffle wall installation.
* Tapered rear of cabinet with 3.5" chamfer to the rear long edges allows tighter placement when angled or toed in.
* Gross dimensions: 16" wide, 38" tall, 14" deep (including 1/2" grill)

Performance Details:

* Intended range of use: 55-21kHz (mine are good to about 40hz but am crossing them over at 60hz.

Front



Rear



When they sit on 22 inch stands, the tweeter/mid is at ear level. Because they (and the Submersive Subs) are sealed cabinet designs, they have more in common with the Dunlavys than not. My guess would be that the crossover slopes are much steeper but given they are digital, phase shift is not an issue. As noted, I would love to hear a pair of VI's and these in the same room.

The Tact 2.2 is the only way a system like this can work (IMO). You can select any crossover slope you choose (I'm using 24db per octave) and any frequency. It also time aligns the subs to the mains so the integration is totally seamless. And, of course, you get room correction from, in my case, 7Hz to 20K hz.

There are some things these do better than the Dunlavys and some not as good, but given the reasons for my selection, I am pleased.
audioguy is offline  
post #296 of 615 Old 06-10-2010, 03:38 AM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Audiogon has a set of 3 Harman Kardon Citation 7.2 LCR's that the owner claims were designed for HK by John Dunlavy - anyone know anything about these? They use an interesting MTTM design that I've never seen before, but they have the basic D'Appolito design of Dunlavy's speakers, as well as the inset, felt-surrounded tweeters. He's asking $1200 for all 3, which depending on the specs may be a pretty good deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Osadciw View Post

I saw them as well, although never heard of them. Interesting...

I know these are old postings, but I figured I'd address them.

Yes and No.

When Jim Fosgate still owned Fosgate-Audionics, he had John Dunlavy design the THX certified Dipolar SD-180 surround speakers. I don't know that Dunlavy had anything to do with the company's front LCR's, but I do know that he worked on the surrounds. (I could be wrong about the LCR's, so if anyone knows anything about this please help out)

But then around the mid 1990's, Harmon International bought Fosgate-Audionics and the lineup was "improved" / re-named Citation (thereby "altering" John's original crossovers and driver configuration).

I still have a pair of those SD-180's, which I bought off of Denis Doyle (mentioned earlier in the thread).

I am attaching some info on those earlier Dunlavy designed surrounds in case anyone finds a cheap pair of those for their rears. They blend beautifully if you're using them with Dunlavy's up front and your processor is set to the THX (small) setting.
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
Shocked One is offline  
post #297 of 615 Old 06-10-2010, 03:53 AM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ04 View Post

Also, that later there was a Duntech USA manufacturing facility in Salt Lake. (Yep, just a stones throw from Wilson Audio in Provo)

Holy Guacamole! It just occurred to me while I was skimming through the Fosgate literature I just posted that Fosgate Audionics was located in Heber City, Utah! I wonder if that had something to do with those Fosgate speakers being built there too?

When I Google-mapped Heber City, it almost formed a perfect triangle relative to Provo and Salt Lake City!

Hmmm... I wonder...
Shocked One is offline  
post #298 of 615 Old 06-12-2010, 10:03 PM
Member
 
Champ04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
ROFL!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-Dunlavy-Audio-...item35aa1932b8

Buy it NOW! For only $82.5k!!!
Champ04 is offline  
post #299 of 615 Old 06-12-2010, 10:34 PM
Member
 
Shocked One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ04 View Post

ROFL!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-Dunlavy-Audio-...item35aa1932b8

Buy it NOW! For only $82.5k!!!

Even without the typo (as the "original owner") he should know those only cost $6k new, and not his opening bid of $7,500...

He's actually selling an amp that seems like a good price at $3,000/$3,500:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Balanced-Audio-T...#ht_508wt_1013

Music Direct sells it for $9,000
http://www.musicdirect.com/product/73053
Shocked One is offline  
post #300 of 615 Old 06-12-2010, 10:47 PM
Member
 
Champ04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Even though he posts a link to a review of the IVa I think that pair is the original SC4!

Obviously can't prove which model it is but that preamp in the background of the picture is a BAT Vk-5. The amp is a BAT Vk-200. And the digital is Sonic Frontiers. All of these items predate the SC-4a.

In fact, I sold an identical system when I was working retail back in the day! I'm wondering if this guy didnt move to California later on. haha.

Anyway, if it is the original SC-IV then he only paid $4,000!!!

I can only hope that my Dunlavys appreciate that much over time!!!
Champ04 is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off