Dunlavy Speakers

[dfuller]

Anybody know anything about these? A mastering engineer friend swears by them (I think he uses SC-Vs), but I can't say I've ever heard them. What's their claim to fame?

 

[JSmith]

The Dunlavy interview (1996)

I was born in the 90´s, and there were already interesting designs, namely objective design speakers. I had a great time reading the interview of Dunlavy: https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.html Has anyone heard some of his speakers? He explains why the large horizontal dispersion...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Duntech - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

About - Duntech

Loudspeaker designer John Dunlavy: By the Numbers...

One of the characteristic traits, I have found, that defines the loudspeaker designer is that they are loners—they seem to avoid one another's company as if on purpose. But if ever you sit down with a designer, all you need to do to open him up is to ask him what he feels to be important in...

www.stereophile.com

JSmith

 

[Dimitri]

mastering engineer friend

Don't you wish studios had a "bring a friend to work" day ?

 

[Blumlein 88]

@Brent71 is a member that owns a few. Maybe he can chime in.

They were designed not by ear, but by good design principles and to be time coherent. They garnered praise from the press and had good measurements and capabilities.

 

[JustJones]

You're in luck, free shipping

Dunlavy Audio SC VI Speakers - Monstrous Sound at 91db Efficiency!

** RECENTLY UPDATED - FREE FREIGHT is included with your purchase within the 48 Contiguous US States! ** Gigantic yet super efficient registering at 91db, weighing in at 530 lbs each - yes you read that right! Offered here in the Dark Rosewood finish, these speakers will go without *any* signs...

skyfiaudio.com

 

[JeffGB]

I was quite interested in the Dunlavy speakers, back in the day. They used cheapish VIFA drivers that I used in a couple of designs I was working on at the time. They were using the D"appolito configuration (Dome tweeter in the middle, a midrange both above and below as well as woofers above and below the midranges. The crossovers were first order, so measurements would be poor in some locations but superb in others. Used in a large room so you could be a good distance from them, they blended well and sounded good. Luckily the drivers were a mineral filled polypropylene that rolled off smoothly so the first order crossovers were adequate.

 

[Brent71]

Their claim to fame is accuracy. John Dunlavy believed that what gets fed to a speaker should come out as accurately as possible. The only way to do that with a passive speaker is stepped front baffles, 1st-order crossovers, and sealed enclosures. If you look at the measurements in the Stereophile reviews of the SC-IV, SC-IV/A and SC-VI, look at the near-perfect step response and impulse response, and the incredibly flat frequency response. Audio Magazine did a review of the SC-V, but they didn't publish detailed measurements like the Stereophile reviews; however, John Dunlavy claimed the SC-V was the most accurate speaker he'd built, and it was supposedly his favorite model.

The Stereophile interview @JSmith linked above will give you a good insight to John's thought process. The man was a literal genius, and his background was in antenna theory; he started building speakers later on and applied what he'd learned from antenna theory and design to designing and building speakers. He designed the first log-periodic antenna, classified as secret by the U.S. Air Force, and later designed the spiral-backed cavity antenna, used by NASA for all of the telemetry and communications on the Gemini rocket program, and carried by radiomen in Vietnam so they couldn't be spotted as easily. John also held the patent for felt treatment on the front baffles of speaker enclosures to control dispersion, something copied by numerous other speakers companies, and held other patents for CD playback, cancer treatment, and several other things.

I've owned a pair of B&W 802 S3 since early 2001, 4-1/2 years ago I bought a pair of SC-III located near Des Moines on a whim, and fell in love with them as soon as I got them setup in my living room; non-fatiguing compared to the B&Ws, and the imaging and blending of the drivers just sounds much better to my ears. After listening to the IIIs for only a few days I knew I eventually wanted a pair of SC-IVs because of all the positive things I'd read about them, and how impressed I was with the SC-IIIs. Eventually turned out to be less than 2 months later when a pair of really nice SC-IVs popped up on Audiogon in Fenton, MO, about 275 miles south of me. The SC-IV can go down deeper, and can play louder, but they still have the great imaging of the smaller SC-III. I was extremely happy with the SC-IVs and had no plans to upgrade, but a pair of SC-V got listed in early 2022 for a price too good for me to pass up. The SC-V are a bigger improvement over the SC-IV than I ever expected; every time I sit down and do some serious listening I'm constantly amazed at just how incredible they sound; the only drawback is that they're the size of coffins and weigh over 300 lbs each.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Built by the same guy who designed Duntech speakers, I think. I had a very serious interest in buying a pair of SC IV's which became Stereophile's Speaker of the Year in 1994, so I went to Underground Sound in Memphis and auditioned them. They were in the same room with Aerial Acoustic 10t's which I had never heard of at the time and two Avalon speakers which were their top of the line, and next one down. To keep it short, the Dunlavy's were the worst speaker in the room, the top of the line Avalon's were the best, and then the next in line Avalon's and the Aerials sounded nearly identical to my ears. I later saw Stereophile's measurements for both speakers, and, guess what, they measured very nearly identically as well.

Anyway, the Aerials sounded killer. I bought them in early 1995, and they wound up being reviewed by Wes Phillips later that year and became Stereophile's Speaker of the Year. I kept them from 1995 to 2011, and thought they were terrific. Hearing the Dunlavy's next to them made me realize the whole "time coherent-linear phase-first order crossovers" thing was way overrated.

BTW, to not do them a disservice, the SC IV's did sound really good, it was just that the other three speakers sounded so much better.

 

[JSmith]

Built by the same guy who designed Duntech speakers, I think.

Yep, as per the link I posted earlier. Kiat Low in Sydney now runs Duntech and follows John's design principals in general. Also another brand called Orpheus... not as big and expensive, but still excellent speakers.

SoundStageAustralia.com - Feature & Interviews – The ‘New’ Duntech Audio & Halcro

www.soundstageaustralia.com

JSmith

 

[Daverz]

Loudspeaker designer John Dunlavy: By the Numbers...

One of the characteristic traits, I have found, that defines the loudspeaker designer is that they are loners—they seem to avoid one another's company as if on purpose. But if ever you sit down with a designer, all you need to do to open him up is to ask him what he feels to be important in...

www.stereophile.com

Thanks for that interview link.

"Atkinson: In one sense the SC-VI is the end of the line. The next Dunlavy Audio Labs flagship loudspeaker, the Magnus, is a DSP-corrected design. What are you trying to achieve with the Magnus that you haven't already achieved with the more conventional speakers?

Dunlavy: You can use digital components to achieve extremely accurate time-alignment of the drivers. In the Magnus, we are able to time-align the drivers to an accuracy better than 1.9µs, which is an exceedingly small distance, less than a sixteenth of an inch. And we can maintain that over a very, very wide frequency range."

I'd never heard of these plans for a Dunlavy DSP-based system before. What could have been...

 

[egellings]

Anybody know anything about these? A mastering engineer friend swears by them (I think he uses SC-Vs), but I can't say I've ever heard them. What's their claim to fame?

I owned a pair of Dunlavy MTM type speakers with two 5" drivers and a tweeter in the center. Forgot the model number. I think they were a vented design. They had absolutely no bass at all. Otherwise, they were okay. I owned a pair of 2-way speakers with a six-inch driver, and that trounced the Dunlavys, bass-wise.

 

[norman bates]

The time/phase is the big deal with them, as was thiel.

You can probably hear it as different, but not necessarily as right or wrong, or even better or worse.
If it was best way to (6db crossover, aligned centers) design them, the best sounding speakers (or even monitors) would all be 6db time/phase, but fir or some mixed slopes can pass a square wave (spica).

You would hear the tweeter "straining" as it is working hard an octave below crossover point versus a 12-24db crossover.

We usually (audibly) zoom in on resonances, distortion, dispersion, etc.
And I don't listen to live acoustic music, so I have no reference.
I just get what I think sounds good.

"Hearing the Dunlavy's next to them made me realize the whole "time coherent-linear phase-first order crossovers" thing was way overrated."
from phoenixdogfan above in post 8 above really hits the nail on the head.

 

[JSmith]

I just get what I think sounds good.

I've listened to these speakers before and was very, very impressed;

Sovereign - Duntech

JSmith

 

[Anton D]

Built by the same guy who designed Duntech speakers, I think. I had a very serious interest in buying a pair of SC IV's which became Stereophile's Speaker of the Year in 1994, so I went to Underground Sound in Memphis and auditioned them. They were in the same room with Aerial Acoustic 10t's which I had never heard of at the time and two Avalon speakers which were their top of the line, and next one down. To keep it short, the Dunlavy's were the worst speaker in the room, the top of the line Avalon's were the best, and then the next in line Avalon's and the Aerials sounded nearly identical to my ears. I later saw Stereophile's measurements for both speakers, and, guess what, they measured very nearly identically as well.

Anyway, the Aerials sounded killer. I bought them in early 1995, and they wound up being reviewed by Wes Phillips later that year and became Stereophile's Speaker of the Year. I kept them from 1995 to 2011, and thought they were terrific. Hearing the Dunlavy's next to them made me realize the whole "time coherent-linear phase-first order crossovers" thing was way overrated.

BTW, to not do them a disservice, the SC IV's did sound really good, it was just that the other three speakers sounded so much better.

That was under sighted subjective conditions, though.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

Yep, as per the link I posted earlier. Kiat Low in Sydney now runs Duntech and follows John's design principals in general. Also another brand called Orpheus... not as big and expensive, but still excellent speakers.

SoundStageAustralia.com - Feature & Interviews – The ‘New’ Duntech Audio & Halcro

www.soundstageaustralia.com

JSmith

Oh god I want those

 

[MattHooper]

The time/phase is the big deal with them, as was thiel.

You can probably hear it as different, but not necessarily as right or wrong, or even better or worse.
If it was best way to (6db crossover, aligned centers) design them, the best sounding speakers (or even monitors) would all be 6db time/phase, but fir or some mixed slopes can pass a square wave (spica).

You would hear the tweeter "straining" as it is working hard an octave below crossover point versus a 12-24db crossover.

We usually (audibly) zoom in on resonances, distortion, dispersion, etc.
And I don't listen to live acoustic music, so I have no reference.
I just get what I think sounds good.

"Hearing the Dunlavy's next to them made me realize the whole "time coherent-linear phase-first order crossovers" thing was way overrated."
from phoenixdogfan above in post 8 above really hits the nail on the head.

Meanwhile I have been a huge Thiel fan since the 90's and owned a number of models. Thiels always stuck out to me as providing the most tidy, focused and dense sonic imaging of just about any speaker I heard. I don't know if the first order/time/phase coherent design, but to my ears Jim knew what he was doing.

I also very much enjoyed the Dunlavy speakers I heard, which had a similar quality to the Thiels. At one point I contemplated buying the Dunlavy Aletha, one of their last models (and an attempt at making a more domestically acceptable looking model).

I had a talk with John D at an audio show, and he was certainly opinionated! Very down on what he thought of as lots of B.S. in the high end audio industry (expensive amps, cables and all that stuff). He also said he was proud of how well his speakers held up in their own live vs reproduced tests.

 

[norman bates]

If I remember, jon dunlavy would play a live violin to compared with his speakers in an anechoic room. Bigger speakers for reproducing more instruments.

 

[Sokel]

Oh god I want those

I want the whole set,along with the Halcros .

 

[Brent71]

I owned a pair of Dunlavy MTM type speakers with two 5" drivers and a tweeter in the center. Forgot the model number. I think they were a vented design. They had absolutely no bass at all. Otherwise, they were okay. I owned a pair of 2-way speakers with a six-inch driver, and that trounced the Dunlavys, bass-wise.

Probably SC-I. All DAL and Duntech speakers that John Dunlavy designed used sealed enclosures, stepped baffles, and 1st-order crossovers.

 

[FrantzM]

I have heard several designs back in the day and these were to my ears wonderful, at the times. Full bias, but these speakers sounded "right:, for the lack of a better word.

They started having some success on the HEA scene, until John Dunleavy committed a cardinal sin: He proclaimed that wires were .. just wires... And cables couldn't, wouldn't make a difference in the sound... Death knell... His views on electronics, were also against the HEA B.S, too ...
It didn't help that, apparently, his business was not managed well...

RIP, John Dunleavy, you were one of the greats.

Peace.