• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Dunlavy Speakers

Brent71:

Thank you for the information you shared! Last year I purchased four replacement drivers for the four 8" drivers of my Dunlavy SC-VI. The new version of the drivers, recommended by Madisound, was supposedly the same, just with a higher BL, higher efficiency. I had them measured before installing, and they all came with a higher moving mass than the specs and lower efficiency. I replaced and the speaker did not sound as good as before. So I had the original drivers measured, and they all were better than the old specs, and better than the new specs, all with lower moving mass. So I put them back in the speakers after a cleanup by an specialist, and they sound great. So what I take is that Dunlavy probably purchased lots of drivers and selected only the best for the speakers.

So, my suggestion regarding the first SC-V that you purchased, if you still have the original drivers that don't work, find a specialist that can fix and clean the original drivers, and then put the original drivers back in the SC-V.

I’m not sure about Dunlavy, but some speakers have the crossover tuned for the drivers, on each speaker.
Almost all speaker certainly have the crossover tuned for the “average” driver.

If one is going to replace a bunch of the drivers, then it seems like they would need to redo the crossover in order to get back to some reasonable level of performance.

Of course with an active XO, then it is easier; as the drivers do not affect the XO tuning.

But yeah - it is a good idea to see if the old drivers can be rehabilitated.
 
drivers still need measured and filtered properly with active crossovers. Can't just slap some basic filters on an expect good results.
 
I’m not sure about Dunlavy, but some speakers have the crossover tuned for the drivers, on each speaker.
DAL measured every single driver in an anechoic chamber and entered all of the data into a computer. The computer would select matched pairs of drivers to build a pair of speakers. Once the speakers were assembled each one was put into a bigger anechoic chamber and John Dunlavy would tweak every single crossover in real-time until he got the results he wanted within a certain tolerance of his reference speaker. If you look at the crossovers, not a single one is identical to it's matching mate, they're all slightly different in values to account for differences in drivers, and why no schematics exist.

JD loved to tinker and continually improve, so he'd change things throughout production without a change in model number. The SC-IV is a perfect example; about a year after production started JD changed the tweeters, woofers, crossovers, cabinet bracing and binding posts, but they were still called SC-IV the entire time.
 
DAL measured every single driver in an anechoic chamber and entered all of the data into a computer. The computer would select matched pairs of drivers to build a pair of speakers. Once the speakers were assembled each one was put into a bigger anechoic chamber and John Dunlavy would tweak every single crossover in real-time until he got the results he wanted within a certain tolerance of his reference speaker. If you look at the crossovers, not a single one is identical to it's matching mate, they're all slightly different in values to account for differences in drivers, and why no schematics exist.

JD loved to tinker and continually improve, so he'd change things throughout production without a change in model number. The SC-IV is a perfect example; about a year after production started JD changed the tweeters, woofers, crossovers, cabinet bracing and binding posts, but they were still called SC-IV the entire time.
I listened to the SC IV and the huge, very tall black SC V (or VI?) in their day from the French importer of the time. Unforgettable coherence from bass to treble with the speakers disappearing and the music unfolding without constraints, without shine or other effects. One of the best listens I've had in my long life as an audiophile. The electronics, however, were Conrad Johnson tubes, not very powerful and, as we know, not very effective... Memory of being amazed by the last movement of Mahler's Song of the Earth in Boulez's DGG recording: we were inside and the singer sang standing up and not drowned in the orchestra... Great musical and audiophile emotion...
 
Last edited:
It’s good to see this discussion on the SC-V. I’m not saying they are perfect, but they keep delivering. After doing room treatments, I don’t find any significant fault in the speakers. I run with Benchmark electronics which are also no B.S. with impeccable specs.View attachment 371571
It's nice to see somebody else with their SC-Vs positioned very similarly to mine, though mine might be even a little closer to the corners than yours. JD recommended placing them on the long wall, but I can't do that due to the placement of doorways and the length of the short walls. My living room is 11.5' x 20' with 8' ceiling. I sit 10.5 ft from the speakers, and at my spot it's an equilateral triangle. I have them toe'd-in drastically so they point directly at my head; the imaging is incredible, and the phantom-center is so solid you'd swear there's a hidden center channel speaker.
 
It's nice to see somebody else with their SC-Vs positioned very similarly to mine, though mine might be even a little closer to the corners than yours. JD recommended placing them on the long wall, but I can't do that due to the placement of doorways and the length of the short walls. My living room is 11.5' x 20' with 8' ceiling. I sit 10.5 ft from the speakers, and at my spot it's an equilateral triangle. I have them toe'd-in drastically so they point directly at my head; the imaging is incredible, and the phantom-center is so solid you'd swear there's a hidden center channel speaker.

I had some speakers that were similar and the Mrs seldom believed that they were where the sound was coming from when the TV was on.
 
Definitely. It's been shown when you're switching between multiple pairs of speakers that the loudest and brightest will be perceived as the best sounding.
I see this phenomena on youtube all the time in comparisons of 2 speakers to a reference clip. The comments are usually in favour of the speaker that has a boosted low and top end, even in-spite of the fact the other speaker is performing far more accurately relative to the reference material.
 
Spent a couple years reviewing speakers at audio shows, using one of the hardest sources: a choir recording (that we recorded in NorCal). In virtually all speakers, the choir mid-range became a bit smeared. It was really obvious. The Dunlavy was among 2 or 3 speakers that did not smear the mids, but remained clear and detailed. We bought the SC-V from JD in Colorado around 2001, I think. They were the centerpiece of our mastering room for 20+ years, driven with a Pass 350 amplifier. Remarkable attention to design detail. The only problem is that many of the components are no longer made. The VIFA M30W-49-08 12" woofers are long gone and no real close replacement in today's after-market. We bought up a few of the VIFA woofers when we found them on eBay (like $500 ea). I would also add that, to my ears, the SC-IVa was even slightly better than the SC-V, but we needed the additional LF extension. John D passed away some years ago - a great loss for the audio community.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3855.JPG
    IMG_3855.JPG
    276.3 KB · Views: 51
  • s-l1600.jpg
    s-l1600.jpg
    191.1 KB · Views: 48
Maybe the other speakers sounded "better" to you because you prefer a sound that's slightly colored. ‍ Dunlavy speakers can expose every flaw in recordings; they don't make recordings sound "good." To this day there are no other passive speakers that measure as accurate as Dunlavy designs. "Better" is subjective, but accuracy is objective and can be measured, and the measurements that John Dunlavy and team, and Stereophile performed, prove they were the most accurate speakers built. Obviously most people seem to prefer speakers that have their own sound-character, not absolute accuracy.

Aeriel 10T

Dunlavy SC-IV (early):

After about a year John Dunlavy revised the SC-IV with new tweeters, new woofers, tweaked crossovers, better cabinet bracing, and new binding posts, so the measurements were even better than those shown here. The lated-SC-IV, SC-IV/A, SC-V and SC-VI are all even more accurate than the measurements of the early SC-IV.

There are clear benefits to the Dunlavy approach in terms of on-axis step response. There are also downsides in terms of off axis response. Steeper crossovers generally have less distortion as well, but the biggest Dunlavy speakers approached that with more drivers. We don't have Spinorama info on these, but there are some off-axis data from Stereophile. FWIW, I think there were quite a few well designed speakers in that era, even though the design approaches and priorities were diverse. For me, Dunlavy and Aerial both fall into that category.

Aerial Acoustics 10T
A10fig4.jpg


Dunlavy SC-IVa
D4afig06.jpg
 
Last edited:
There are clear benefits to the Dunlavy approach in terms of on-axis step response. There are also downsides in terms of off axis response.

I think this is why they work well in mastering and post. It's usually just one person listening, in a well-established "head-in-a-vice" room location. When you're in the Dunlavy first-order sweet spot, it's magic.
 
I think this is why they work well in mastering and post. It's usually just one person listening, in a well-established "head-in-a-vice" room location. When you're in the Dunlavy first-order sweet spot, it's magic.
but wookies only use JBL THX
 
but wookies only use JBL THX
Years ago, Tom Holman (Mr. THX) did a large-scale test of mics and mic preamps, finding our HV-3 micamp (and a particular Neumann mic) to have the highest dynamic range of any available pro mic+pre combination. I think it was 134dB? Every time I see Tom at a show I thank him. Last I checked, he was heading up Apple's audio group.

 
Years ago, Tom Holman (Mr. THX) did a large-scale test of mics and mic preamps, finding our HV-3 micamp (and a particular Neumann mic) to have the highest dynamic range of any available pro mic+pre combination. I think it was 134dB? Every time I see Tom at a show I thank him. Last I checked, he was heading up Apple's audio group.

i see wookie has some THX priorities in order , what of JBL cinema THX two great names in sound
recently few no days ago , icta on crossovers
 
I think this is why they work well in mastering and post. It's usually just one person listening, in a well-established "head-in-a-vice" room location. When you're in the Dunlavy first-order sweet spot, it's magic.
I think my B&W 802 S3 were much more finicky with positioning, toe-in and head-in-a-vice listening position than any of my Dunlavy speakers. It took me many weeks of constant tinkering with positioning to finally be happy with the 802s. My SC-IIIs were a piece of cake by comparison; I put them in nearly the same spots and it sounded 'right' immediately, and I can move around a little bit in my chair without the magic going away completely. I put my SC-IVs, then SC-Vs in the same spots, and it's worked great for them too, even though they're significantly larger.
 
There are clear benefits to the Dunlavy approach in terms of on-axis step response. There are also downsides in terms of off axis response. Steeper crossovers generally have less distortion as well, but the biggest Dunlavy speakers approached that with more drivers. We don't have Spinorama info on these, but there are some off-axis data from Stereophile. FWIW, I think there were quite a few well designed speakers in that era, even though the design approaches and priorities were diverse. For me, Dunlavy and Aerial both fall into that category.

Aerial Acoustics 10T
View attachment 421593

Dunlavy SC-IVa
View attachment 421594
Aerial 7B were even nicer (at their own levels of course,we don't confuse them with bigger speakers) and very affordable.


1737108275124.png


1737108293517.png




(I admit I am biased,I love Aerial)
 
Aerial 7B were even nicer (at their own levels of course,we don't confuse them with bigger speakers) and very affordable.


View attachment 421763

View attachment 421764



(I admit I am biased,I love Aerial)
These were my prior speakers!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1884.jpeg
    IMG_1884.jpeg
    286.2 KB · Views: 40
I've owned my SC-IIIs since about 2002, but I haven't used them much since moving to a condo in 2008 because of the tight space.

Dunlavy SC-III in the living room.jpg


There are many exits in this room that can't be blocked and no real contiguous wall to place the speakers. In the pic, there are french doors on the left and a stairwell down to the first floor on the right. That bay window and the sloping ceiling also seem to cause issues for sustaining low bass on that side.

So I was curious to see if I could get away with a closer listening distance than the usually quoted 10 feet to improve my placement options a bit. I remember the SC-III manual (which I can't lay my hands on at the moment) showed measurements from 8 feet away in an anechoic chamber, implying that 8 feet was an adequate distance. Also, there's this review where a listening distance of 8.5 feet is used apparently without damage to the sound. So I tried some measurements of the step response starting from 305 cm (10 feet) and then again from 275 cm (about 9 feet), 245 cm (about 8 feet) and 215 cm (about 7 feet).

step-response-from-10ft-to-7ft.png

Time is in seconds on the bottom axis. The peaks between 0.126 to 0.127 seconds are from the floor bounce. I'm not quite sure how to interpret these, but it seems that at 215 cm the step response is starting to overshoot in a few places. So I settled on an 8 foot listening distance with the speakers about 9 feet apart.
 
I've owned my SC-IIIs since about 2002, but I haven't used them much since moving to a condo in 2008 because of the tight space.

View attachment 425913

There are many exits in this room that can't be blocked and no real contiguous wall to place the speakers. In the pic, there are french doors on the left and a stairwell down to the first floor on the right. That bay window and the sloping ceiling also seem to cause issues for sustaining low bass on that side.

So I was curious to see if I could get away with a closer listening distance than the usually quoted 10 feet to improve my placement options a bit. I remember the SC-III manual (which I can't lay my hands on at the moment) showed measurements from 8 feet away in an anechoic chamber, implying that 8 feet was an adequate distance. Also, there's this review where a listening distance of 8.5 feet is used apparently without damage to the sound. So I tried some measurements of the step response starting from 305 cm (10 feet) and then again from 275 cm (about 9 feet), 245 cm (about 8 feet) and 215 cm (about 7 feet).

View attachment 425911
Time is in seconds on the bottom axis. The peaks between 0.126 to 0.127 seconds are from the floor bounce. I'm not quite sure how to interpret these, but it seems that at 215 cm the step response is starting to overshoot in a few places. So I settled on an 8 foot listening distance with the speakers about 9 feet apart.

Interesting (to me anyhow), is that 1st order crossovers tend to have a huge spatial lobe, pointing out and down.
And most of the rest of the radiation is pretty sparse, with a smaller lobe up at 45 degrees towards the ceiling.

This makes the floor bounce more dominant than with other orders of XO.
 
Back
Top Bottom