AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,484 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What I've read of these are all raves.Much as I'd hate to buy a speaker without hearing first there doesn't seem much chance of that since they went out of business.So are they good enough to risk buying unheard?I'm probably talking SCII-everything else is probably out of my price range.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11 Posts
They have kind of fallen behind. They are not as good as Revels, B&W Nautilus and JMLab/Focals. They are also huge and unattractive to me, kind of dinosaurs of a bygone era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
I guess I have the exact opposite opinion. For the money they absolutly KILL the above named speakers. I am lucky enough to have an acquaintance with the Dunlavy VIs and there is nothing in the Revel, B&W stable that even comes close. They are competitive with the JM Labs for substantially less money. For the price the Dunlavy III is competitive with anything anywhere near it's cost but I haven't ever heard the smaller IIs.


With Dunlavy ceasing business you ought to be able to find some amazing deals on brand new or like new demo models.


The size though is a definate drawback. People tend to compare Dunlavy speakers with others of similar size, but if you compare with similar COST the Dunlavy's are hard to beat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Brinkman
I guess I have the exact opposite opinion. For the money they absolutly KILL the above named speakers. I am lucky enough to have an acquaintance with the Dunlavy VIs and there is nothing in the Revel, B&W stable that even comes close. They are competitive with the JM Labs for substantially less money. For the price the Dunlavy III is competitive with anything anywhere near it's cost but I haven't ever heard the smaller IIs.
I agree - I have SC-IVs and think they are marvelous, easily the equivalent of any of the other brands mentioned. It really becomes a personal taste issue at some point.


I do agree about the size, though their bass alignment in my opinion leads to unmatched bass tunefulnes and musicality. Just IMHO of course :)


Jeff
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,900 Posts
John has always made very accurate speakers, and he actually pays attention to most of the applicable laws of physics! Charlie Wood and I contracted Dunlavy to design our Fosgate Audionics home theater speaker package in 1990, and we got to know him quite well. He is a stickler for good phase response and off-axis response. One thing I'd be careful of is borderline abusive playback levels, because John loves 1st order crossover slopes, and a 6 dB/octave highpass on a tweeter doesn't offer it much protection from potential damage from headbanging.


John Dunlavy is a talented designer, and a really nice person. I hope we see him surface again, soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Quote:
They have kind of fallen behind. They are not as good as Revels, B&W Nautilus and JMLab/Focals. They are also huge and unattractive to me, kind of dinosaurs of a bygone era.



Not True.


Dunleavy design are usually stunning... Along with Magnepan, they represent the best values in High-End speakers. It is very difficult to do much better at their respective price point. They are being discounted heavily. Their size is never trivial and can pose a problem, that is true. They are by no means dinosaurs, at certain level of performance speakers seem to grow in size... Moreover, at the price they are being discounted these days, they are not far from the proverbial steal.



Frantz

Port-au-Prince, Haiti
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Several years back, I demo'd a 5.1 system with Dunlavy SC's. It was the first time I had actually heard realistic sounds (and pressure levels) on action movies. I could actually feel the skin vibrate on my face when bombs exploded, like they really were exploding in the room, but I noticed I seemed to feel tired by the end of an intense movie. I ended up buying Martin Logan's instead, a little more delicate and accurate, but not as tiring. I miss the ultra-realistic effects every now and then of the Dunlavy's though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Dunlavy is what I always compare speakers too. I can't afford his big ones but I can find others that sound close. A true genius in speaker design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Quote:
A true genius in speaker design.
So true... I hope the man and his speakers designs resurface...



Frantz

Port-au-Prince, Haiti
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by John O'Neal
...Martin Logan's instead, a little more delicate and accurate...
I don't understand what you mean by accurate. If you look at Dunlavy speaker measurements -- just pick any one -- they are almost exactly what the "ideal" chart should look like. Using objective measurements as a guide, I have not seen a more accurate speaker than the Dunlavys. That does not mean they are necessarily better speakers than Martin Logans by the way...measurements do not tell the entire story. It is just your choice of the word "accurate" and the context you used it in could lead people to believe that Martin Logans actually measure better than Dunlavys. I am almost positive they do not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
You can measure frequency variations from flat response and maybe even look at a waterfall plot but measurements by themselves tell very little about the sound of a speaker.


I just sold a pair of ML CLS Zs and have spend a good deal of time listening to Dunlavy VIs. Where the MLs are more accurate is in the area of micro dynamics and finesse. That's where the Dunlavys are at their weakest. In terms of being "accurate" the MLs aren't even in the same league in terms of flat response and overall dynamics. The ML speakers can be seductive in a way that almost no other speakers can approach, but only on certain types of music and at relatively low volume levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
If you are worried about not being able to listen to them, find somebody in your area that has some. Or wait around until some come up for auction on audiogon that are near you. Then go have a listen.


As a Dunlavy owner, I have to support the consensus of this thread -- that Dunlavy makes spectacular speakers. I also believe that the prices they are available for right now are absurd. When Dunlavy sold his business, he was so far ahead of Revel, B&W, and JMLabs, that they still have not caught up. To suggest that they have somehow passed Dunlavy by is silly.


Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
If you want a speaker that what goes in should come out totally unaltered then time coherent speakers are for you. Dunlavy,vandersteen, Thiel, the electrostatic,s, and not the singlended planars that keep making sound when the music stops,IE.ringing. If you want a speaker to disappear when the best source material is thrown at them and are willing to sit in the sweet spot where they do ther best, then these spkrs. are for you. I could care less about those people who want broard off-axis responce, super high power handling, no lobing etc. etc. Sorry I,ve never heard those expensive 2nd, 3rd, 4th order speaker manufacter,s whose measurement have throw out impusle response and phase rersponse to gain the other,s make speakers that are truly transparent and float a 3d image. The music always seems a little slow and never seems to leave there locations as time coherent spkrs. do. Any output of a high order crossover WILL NEVER mimic it,s input and this should be enough for the purist out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
i'm not a dunlavy owner but i heard the SC-VI awhile back and was very impressed with their sound! excellent speakers IMHO...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,709 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Brinkman
I guess I have the exact opposite opinion. For the money they absolutly KILL the above named speakers. I am lucky enough to have an acquaintance with the Dunlavy VIs and there is nothing in the Revel, B&W stable that even comes close. They are competitive with the JM Labs for substantially less money. For the price the Dunlavy III is competitive with anything anywhere near it's cost but I haven't ever heard the smaller IIs.

I agree with you Carl. I've owned SC-IV/A's for many years now and I continue to enjoy them more and more. The realism they offer with a good recording is exceptional. Turn down the lights and you'd never know you had huge 6' tall speakers in the room, they just plain disappear.


See ya.

Dave Duvall
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
482 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by tpigeon2003
I don't understand what you mean by accurate. If you look at Dunlavy speaker measurements -- just pick any one -- they are almost exactly what the "ideal" chart should look like. Using objective measurements as a guide, I have not seen a more accurate speaker than the Dunlavys. That does not mean they are necessarily better speakers than Martin Logans by the way...measurements do not tell the entire story. It is just your choice of the word "accurate" and the context you used it in could lead people to believe that Martin Logans actually measure better than Dunlavys. I am almost positive they do not.
That's not what I got from his post at all... his Dunlavy's 'ultra realism' was tiring after long movies (probably action.)


Ever shoot a gun in real life?? It's not comfortable at all, and yet I've been surprised to see people post "Check tweeters by listing to bullet sounds and if it hurts it may not be the speaker for you."


Makes me go: "HUH?"


So I'm learning not everyone wants 'realism' they want 'that which sounds nice to me.' Which is a little bizaare, IMHO.


Dreamaster
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamaster
That's not what I got from his post at all... his Dunlavy's 'ultra realism' was tiring after long movies (probably action.)


Ever shoot a gun in real life?? It's not comfortable at all, and yet I've been surprised to see people post "Check tweeters by listing to bullet sounds and if it hurts it may not be the speaker for you."


Makes me go: "HUH?"


So I'm learning not everyone wants 'realism' they want 'that which sounds nice to me.' Which is a little bizaare, IMHO.


Dreamaster
What he was referring to was that the lack of dynamics from the ML speakers makes them very relaxing speakers to listen to. Any very dynamic speaker, not just the Dunlavy's, can be fatiguing if you crank up the volume. With the MLs they simply won't play loud enough to be annoying.


But they are ruthless in exposing an etched top end of some solid state amps which can be pretty fatiguing even at medium volumes. The point of listening to a transient sound like a shot is to identify which combinations of amp & speakers will be fatiguing in the long run.


Part of the problem in evaluating speakers with soundtracks is that so few of the sounds are really natural. Almost all of the special effects and much of the dialog is dubbed in after the fact. How do you tell how accurately the speaker reproduces an explosion when you have no clue to what sound you are really hearing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Carl,

I think you are right about the dynamics to an extent, but I think there is more to it than that. I have Krell amplification with Muse subs and so the specs, even at low frequency and loud volumes are good. Perhaps it has to do with how much air volume is moving, or how fast the air is moving? Could it be the Dunlavy's are moving more air and faster? Maybe the room was too small for the speakers?

I have enjoyed listening to music on various Dunlavy's at a friends house for many years and so was looking forward to them for theater surround sound as well.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
John,


I used my CLSs with Lamm M1.1 class A monoblocks. They could play LOUD, but even at high volumes they were never very dynamic, nor very extended on the top end compared to conventional dynamic speakers.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top