Legacy Whisper Dunlavy SC V opinions - Page 3

I worked at a hifi shop that sold Dunlavy's while I was in college.
We had the SC 1,2,3, and 4 lined up on the same wall.
We used to do this trick where we would play something that didnt have a ton of bass but at the same time NOT tell the listener exactly which speaker was hooked up.
Almost every single time they would assume it was the most expensive 4s.
We sold quite a few 1s and 2s this way especially since they were affordable.
In fact, once people heard the Dunlavy's it pretty much came down to the largest pair they could afford.
Aside from bass, they all sounded identical.

John Dunlavy did the same thing at every CES show he participated in

Actually, when you think about it, it's pretty easy to understand why they all sounded so similar. The SC 1,3,4, and 6 all used the exact same tweeter and upper mid driver combination with the exact same crossover point.
On the SC1 the mid driver is allowed to roll off naturally at its low end. In the other three its cut off a little higher to allow for smoother transition for the woofer.
Either way, these mid/tweet units are covering at least 7 of the 10 octaves that is audible to the human ear.
So from at least 150Hz or so up, which is where most of the magic in music is anyway, they ARE the exact same speaker.
Pretty smart move I would say.

Guys,
can I use a spare SCIV as center channel (rotated 90 degrees)?

Not ideal since the mids are going to be to the left and right of the tweeter but it may work. But you will need to get it up off the floor or the floor bounce will give you far less quality than desired. The HRCC is basically a IV and I have mine about 8 to 10 inches off the floor.

The problem with using a standard SC4 for the center channel is the dispersion characteristics.

The symetrical array is used to focus the sound in the vertical direction while allowing decent dispersion in the horizontal. This keeps floor and ceiling reflections to a minimum.
If you turn it on its side you turn those dispersion characteristics on their side as well. What that does is focus the sound on the center listening position. This effectively defeats (or at least significantly reduces) the purpose of the center channel.
Keeping in mind that the reason for a center channel in the first place is anchoring sound to the center of the screen for off axis viewers.
This is why the HRCC has its tweet and mid placed in the vertical array. The woofers are fine on the side because lower frequencies tend to be omnidirectional anyway.

The standard SC4 will work. But I would look for an HRCC. Or even an SC1 along with a decent sub.

Let me stir the pot here on this sideways placement...

The gentleman who I purchased my Dunlavy TSW-VI subs from is a Dunlavy/Theta fanatic (because I use the same gear, I think that's why he chose me out of several others putting in offers on the subs - he told me "Any Dunlavy/Theta lover is a friend of mine.")

Anyways, this guy met up with John Dunlavy many times. He flew out to Colorado to meet with him because he wanted Dunlavy to custom make him an HRCC-like model, but a large "6" version of it using the drivers of the SC-VI. I can't quite remember what the two of them did there (listening/measurement tests?), but in the end, Dunlavy convinced him that there was no need to make a custom center channel for his application (below the 25ft screen) and that he'd be better off using an SC-VI and putting it on its side because the sound wouldn't change based on the design of the speaker. Maybe because there is a large seating area in this guy's theatre the dispersion characteristics of the speaker would work well for the application... So...that's what this guy had...three SC-VIs accross the front, with the center on its side.

Now...I'm assuming that Dunlavy would be correct on this matter...after all, everything I've read about the man has him being quoted as a no-compromise gentleman. I've also read that he was willing to custom design when requested. So if the need wasn't there, it must be true?

Yes Michael,
this is the reason why I asked...I know of at least two other guys in my area who are using the SCIV turned 90 degrees as center channel. I have tried to no avail to get an HRCC so I am using an SCIA and was wondering if I could upgrade the CC to an SCIV which is much easier to find thna an HRCC.

Well, I can certainly appreciate the experiences of the gentleman with the VIs.

But I'll stir the pot a little more based on the simple physics we are dealing with here.

We must first note that the IV and VI are different in that one is a three way and the other a four way. The HRCC gets away with its driver arrangement because the woofers are operating in what could be considered the range where all frequencies are omnidirectional. In the VI there is a whole extra pair of drivers that must assimilate into the whole. Because the lowermid/upper bass drivers are crossing higher into the frequency range I would suspect that John Dunlavy would insist on including them into the vertical array of any center channel VI application leaving only the massive 15in. woofers on the flank. This would make the speaker taller than it would be wide. Which woud pointless in a center channel. This is probably why he declined to make a special set. At least that is what I would guess from what I know if him.

Also, the more anyone knows about John the more they know he was as hard headed as they come. This is not a slam on him, its just fact. He unabashedly designed for a single listening position at a particular listening distance (10ft. ideally) and a particular listening height (42 inches). The listening distance had some wiggle room in it. But the listening height could not vary more than a couple either direction. This is all stuff he was well known for espousing as well as putting it in all the speaker manuals.

This is why I stated that the standard IV could work but really only ideally for the middle listening position. Sitting to either side would be the same as changing your listening height by at least a couple feet and with this you would notice drastic changes. It would, in fact, cause the exact same problem as moving closer to one speaker without having a center channel to pin the sound to the center of the screen. You would hear everything from that "side" of the IV far more pronounced and whatever was going on in the middle of the screen would seem off to one side.

I know this from both scientific reasoning as well as experience. I helped a friend set up a IV on its side as the center channel back in the day when Ambrosia Audio was a Dunlavy dealer. It was this type of compromise that led to the HRCC to begin with.

Bottom line though, if you already have an extra IV then, by all means, give it a try. Like I said, it will work fine for the middle listening position. But not much else.
John's speakers are more akin to lab instruments, incredibly precise but only within their working parameters. They are still the most measureably accurate speakers ever made. But take them outside of they narrow window of optimum use and they start to become average very quickly.

You are welcome!

Did somebody ask for a Dunlavy HRCC center channel?

Here's an HRCC-1 for sale!

http://denver.craigslist.org/ele/969447647.html

And there's also a pair of SC-V's for sale!

http://denver.craigslist.org/ele/969447685.html

Merry Christmas!!!

In the two noted craiglist ads, pricing is too high. The HRCC had an MSRP of $4200 when new!

The HRCC had an MSRP of $4200 when new!)

Well I haven't seen anyone letting go of their HRCC's or HRCC-1's, so it's
really about supply and demand. Plus, both ads include either free delivery
up to 1000 miles away or he orders custom crates so to me free delivery is good deal I think.

Well there is certainly some truth to that but given that I can buy a pair of SC-IVA's for about $3500, it is still over priced. If he can get anywhere near that price, I may sell mine!!

wow...for that price...I would just buy another pair of SC-IV/A put one as my rear center and lay the other on its side up front and just make sure I am directly in front of it.

By the way, since this thread came up again, I figured I'd share some images of my TSW-VI subs. These were taken at the house of the guy I bought them from...they are still in the boxes here at my house and I have the bases for them even though they weren't used in this guy's theater (I don't have the screws - anyone know the size of them so I can go find eight?) ...but for those of you who haven't seen what these monsters look like...

I am outraged by the asking price. I am seeking an HRCC-1 but would never pay this much.

the guy is totally taking advantage of supply/demand...and will win when that one person breaks down and buys close to his asking price...because these things actually do take time to come onto the used market...

I have an HRCC-I. What was the "upgrade" between that and the HRCC?

I have a very strong suspicion that "underdawg2008" is the actual seller from craigslist.

The price is ridiculous. Even if you consider supply and demand. It would be sweet justice if he blew the tweeter himself before it sold.

Just because you don't agree with his asking price doesn't mean you should wish him harm either. Not cool, especially on Christmas day!

It's a pretty simple concept. If they stop making something (whether it's a speaker, a car, a coin or a stamp) and none of the current owners want to part with theirs, then the "market" decides what it's worth! That's why it's called supply and demand; the price at which the seller agrees to sell and the buyer agrees to buy. If you think it's too much, then don't buy it. But if you just gotta have one to finish out your (speaker, car, coin or stamp) collection, then you gotta pay to play! That's all there is to it.

And if I'm wrong, why is it that current owners like "Audioguy" and "Michael Osadciw" aren't jumping in to undercut that guy and make a quick sale? My guess is they both realize what they have and would probably expect top dollar if they had to downgrade to an SC-IVA on it's side.

And finally, has anyone factored in that those prices include shipping up to 1,000 miles? How much would it cost to ship a pair of SC-V speakers at 660 pounds plus their 2 or 3 hundred pound crates? That's probably $1000 right there. So he's effectively only asking $5,000.00 for his and that's exactly what those other ones just sold for on Audiogon.

Thanks for the lesson in economics, pal. I appreciate it.

But its not actually that simple. Or, rather, it would only be that simple to someone who is ignorant to the entirety of the facets involved. There are varying degrees of "rare" in this world and they absolutely effect the degree of demand.
Something as rare as maybe the hope diamond would raise its value to the level of priceless. But something unique but not singularly so, such as a philippe dufour, will still demand basically whatever the seller asks for. Or, more precisely, whatever a buyer is willing to pay. But no matter how unique something is, if there is more than one of it then there is a controlling factor called timing. If a buyer must have something NOW then the seller controls the price. But that has a lot less to do with the uniqness and a lot more to do with timing. If the buyer knows that there is likely going to be another one of the same thing come up for sale soon and is willing to wait then it is he that influences the final value.
But these things are valued precisely and simply because of their uniqueness.
A dunlavy's greatest value is in its performance and secondarily due to its uniqeness. This means that as long as someone else can duplicate the performance it damn near eliminates any influence that uniqueness has. And this is just such the case. Depending on how imaginative the buyer is willing to be and to what degree he is willing to educate himself, there are a number of ways to duplicate the performance of the HRCC and thus render the asking price of this exact one ridiculous.
So my point stands. The asking price of the HRCC under discussion is ridiculous given even a small degree of increased knowledge about the subject.

I am a true believer in capitalism and thus believe strongly that the actual value of something is most strongly influenced by someone's willingness to pay. But there is too often the case where someone ends up paying a ludicrous sum of money for something NOT because it is actually that valuable but because the buyer is ignorant of any alternative or is so impulsive that he allows himself to get ripped off.
With the vast ability to research information on any subject now essentially free and available via the internet it is my disticnt opinion that the asking price of this HRCC is, as I correctly stated before, ridiculous.

Granted, it may not have been totally appropriate to express myself with the sarcasm that I did. But it was just sarcasm and thus your moral invective was unneccesary. There was no actual ill will intended.

How does one even begin to address some of your points? I guess I'll just reply chronologically.

A) I don't think you really appreciated the lesson. Instead, I think that's just your sarcasm once again coming through as kind of nasty and disrespectful...
B) It actually is that simple, and it doesn't really matter how much anyone tries to over-analyze it. The fair market value for anything is whatever price point the seller is willing to sell at, and the buyer is willing to buy at. Simple...
C) I'm really not an ignorant person, especially when it comes to the points you've just expressed.
D) I bet that "Hope Diamond" would mean nothing to a person if they were stranded in a desert and someone offered to trade them for a big jug of water! (Supply and Demand at its best!)
E) Do you honestly believe it's that easy to "duplicate the performance" of a Dunlavy speaker? If that's the case, where can I put in my order on a pair of Sigmas?
F) If you were truly a "believer in capitalism" you wouldn't be attempting to dictate what the value of something should or shouldn't be. You would simply watch the well-oiled machine run it's course and let the market decide what it's worth.
G) Once again; do you really think it's that easy to "duplicate the performance" of a Dunlavy speaker?
H) While you had the opportunity to redeem yourself on the previous negative comment, you instead chose to rationalize it by saying that it was "just" sarcasm.
I) And finally, you might want to look up the definition of "invective" (and when to use it) as there was nothing abusive, insulting, venomous, or even harsh about the wording I chose. All I said was that wishing someone harm was "not cool" and that hardly qualifies as being invective!

I'm sure you'll want to have the last word, so I'll just let you know ahead of time that I will not be responding on the topic of supply and demand. These forums are supposed to be about Audio and Video equipment and not economics 101. There's really nothing more to say.

I wish you the best!

You can put your order in to me for a pair of Sigma clones. The asking price is $500k and I absolutely guarantee them to measure at least as good as the original.
I am absolutely serious about this. Not trying to be a dick in anyway.

Yes, in absolute terms, if anyone buys a used HRCC for $4k then THAT is what its value was between buyer and seller. But the buyer just got screwed, IMO. Just like the guy who would be forced to trade something like the hope diamond for a jug of water. That was my point from the beginning.

Wow this thread sure took a turn towards negative town - especially when you two are basically saying the same thing. The ads are both gone now so hopefully we can move on

Has anyone seen that pair of SC-VI's for sale on Audiogon? I think the asking price is rather high considering the several rather serious dings to the oak/MDF in the rear. Assuming the drivers are all in good condition, do you guys think $5K would be reasonable to offer for them or would it fall into "low-ball" territory?

hey, when buying a house or car, I lowball. Gotta start somewhere and move up until a happy medium is found. Who cares if I "insult" the sales guy. That guilt tactic doesn't work on me. He's trying to make a buck, you are trying to save a buck. So does one person deserve more 'respect' than another? They are each for their own goals, one or both may be the 'winner' in the price war. What if you were the only guy who enuired and he can't sell them?

Back to my original question: does anyone know the difference between the HRCC and HRCC-I?

You may be a true believer in capitalism but your post seems to contain what IMO are some false assumptions about it.

No physical object has any "actual" or "inherent" value, it is entirely set by the market. True, it may have an average market price, but that does not sound like what you are talking about. Because you go on to talk about things being sold at more than their "actual value" to ignorant buyers and then explain a bunch of highly personal reasons for what you think determines this particular products "actual value". Well those "ignorant buyers" are just as able to determine what they are willing to pay for something as you are, and have just as much of a vote in the market place as you do. And neither of you (i.e. none of us) get to determine what somethings "actual value" is, because there is no such thing, all we get to vote on is what it's value is to us. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, QQQ, you are absolutely correct. Everything last thing you say.
What all this amounts to is me expressing what my opinion was regarding the value of this particular item in question. And not a very good opinion it was, apparently. Or at least completely lacking any eloquence.

And, am I ever sorry I expressed it in the first place.

There's a Dunlavy HRCC-I for sale on Audiogon right now, for the guy who was interested. It's at the average going price of about $2000. It's from the guy formerly known as "AudioPimp". Somehow...I've never felt comfortable purchasing from a guy who calls himself a pimp of anything...there's a lack of seriousness/professionalism attached to it...hmmmm...

I looked into that HRCC-1 about a week before he posted it on Audiogon and the cabinet was pretty beat up, plus it didn't have the grill cover. So unless you make your own (with its curved corners to match the speaker), it would be nearly impossible to replace since the company's shut down. That's why he's selling it for 2 grand.

But what bothers me about the "Pimp" is that he also has a pair of SC-V's in cherry that he's selling, but when he posted them on Audiogon he "forgot" to mention that they have an ugly gash on the back of one of them. Funny how he also "forgot" to include that picture in his listing. I will tell you that he's offering the trio for $7,000, if that helps any.

Either way, BUYERS BEWARE!

As for the "Pimp" name, he's changing his name to MSS HiFi, Inc in an effort to sound more professional. Ironically, he's going to be throwing a once a month party from now on with "hot babes in outrageous outfits running around" who are "willing to work for tips and commissions."

I'm not making this up; it's right off his ad!!! And although the name's changing, his priorities are obviously not.

Hmmmm...

I saw both ads yesterday as well - I've always wanted an HRCC, but considering the condition of this one, $2K is way too high. Plus I agree on the wierdness of the whole "Audio Pimp" thing - don't get me wrong, I'm all for "hot babes in outrageous outfits" but normally I don't go looking for them at A/V stores. Plus what's up with this:

"We announce the retirement of the 'Audio Pimp' on February 1, 2009. Fear not, the world's best used highend audio store continues under MSS HiFi, Inc. Now features better customer service and friendlier personnel. When you call or email, just make sure to ask for someone else if you would rather not deal with the God Complex."

It's too bad my room is too small for the other set of (more reasonably priced) cherry SC-V's - my SC-IV's are already a tight squeeze. Maybe some day...