The Dunlavy interview (1996)

[Soundstage]

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 is better to be lessroom dependent. In the last part of his interview he also mentions the active speakers for the ultimate accuracy and says he is about to release the Magnus Dunlavy (but I don’t know if that happened).
Nothing new today, but certainly that was quiet an achievement at the time.

 

[orangejello]

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 is better to be lessroom dependent. In the last part of his interview he also mentions the active speakers for the ultimate accuracy and says he is about to release the Magnus Dunlavy (but I don’t know if that happened).
Nothing new today, but certainly that was quiet an achievement at the time.

I have very first hand experience with the Magnus. I went to his factory and listed to it. First of all it measured +- 1dB 20hz-20kHz in the anechoic chamber that he used in his factory to test his speakers. He drove the speakers into his huge chamber with a forklift (it weighted hundreds of pounds).

I had brought my speakers that day. I had been talking them up and he was wryly skeptical. So he offered to measure them in the anechoic chamber. Turn out that they were pretty good, "better than most" was his comment. He was always willing to test stuff. A lot of audiophiles brought their beloved and expensive speakers to his place, and quite a few measured quite miserably. He was a measurement guy. At one point AudioQuest offered to pay him to endorse their stuff in a mutually beneficial arrangement. He told me he declined their offer because he could not endorse what he knew to be useless. He told me to use a particular set of Radio Shack interconnects because they had the lowest capacitance that he had measured. He wasn't sure that it mattered but they were cheap and measured extraordinarily well.

He came from the world of antenna design. He made his money with government contracts, one of which was a design for a coiled antenna that fit in a backpack. It was used in Vietnam as a way to keep radiomen from getting shot since snipers could not easily identify the radioman. He was a bass player who loved audio and eventually decided to get into the speaker business. He told me how antenna theory informed his speaker design. I don't know enough about electronics to follow his reasoning, but that didn't stop him from holding forth.

All of his speakers were measured in the anechoic chamber before they shipped. They were tweaked until they measured according to spec. He filed the measurement by speaker serial number as part of his QA effort. Whew...

As to the Magnus, it was a phenomenal experience for me to listen to it in his treated listening room. He demoed it with, among other things (which included some recording I had with we) that sad audiophile recording "Jazz at the Pawnshop". It was an almost surreal experience. The scale was so correct and effortless that you could easily "see" the entire stage and the musicians moving around. I've heard some great setups over the years but that was among the best, if not the best. We compared it to the Dunlavy VI speakers which are passive and massive, and to my speakers. It wasn't really close. As good as the VI's were, the Magnus were better (my speakers, oh well...).

Just before I was about to post this, I decided to read the Stereophile interview. What a wonderful interview... It corroborates what I wrote, except that the Magnus might have been 20-20k +-.25dB not 1dB as I had recalled. It also made me recall his conversation about step response and why he used 1st order crossovers. Further it made me realize how much I under-appreciated this man and his dedication, intelligence, and generosity.

 

[Soundstage]

I have very first hand experience with the Magnus. I went to his factory and listed to it. First of all it measured +- 1dB 20hz-20kHz in the anechoic chamber that he used in his factory to test his speakers. He drove the speakers into his huge chamber with a forklift (it weighted hundreds of pounds).

I had brought my speakers that day. I had been talking them up and he was wryly skeptical. So he offered to measure them in the anechoic chamber. Turn out that they were pretty good, "better than most" was his comment. He was always willing to test stuff. A lot of audiophiles brought their beloved and expensive speakers to his place, and quite a few measured quite miserably. He was a measurement guy. At one point AudioQuest offered to pay him to endorse their stuff in a mutually beneficial arrangement. He told me he declined their offer because he could not endorse what he knew to be useless. He told me to use a particular set of Radio Shack interconnects because they had the lowest capacitance that he had measured. He wasn't sure that it mattered but they were cheap and measured extraordinarily well.

He came from the world of antenna design. He made his money with government contracts, one of which was a design for a coiled antenna that fit in a backpack. It was used in Vietnam as a way to keep radiomen from getting shot since snipers could not easily identify the radioman. He was a bass player who loved audio and eventually decided to get into the speaker business. He told me how antenna theory informed his speaker design. I don't know enough about electronics to follow his reasoning, but that didn't stop him from holding forth.

All of his speakers were measured in the anechoic chamber before they shipped. They were tweaked until they measured according to spec. He filed the measurement by speaker serial number as part of his QA effort. Whew...

As to the Magnus, it was a phenomenal experience for me to listen to it in his treated listening room. He demoed it with, among other things (which included some recording I had with we) that sad audiophile recording "Jazz at the Pawnshop". It was an almost surreal experience. The scale was so correct and effortless that you could easily "see" the entire stage and the musicians moving around. I've heard some great setups over the years but that was among the best, if not the best. We compared it to the Dunlavy VI speakers which are passive and massive, and to my speakers. It wasn't really close. As good as the VI's were, the Magnus were better (my speakers, oh well...).

Just before I was about to post this, I decided to read the Stereophile interview. What a wonderful interview... It corroborates what I wrote, except that the Magnus might have been 20-20k +-.25dB not 1dB as I had recalled. It also made me recall his conversation about step response and why he used 1st order crossovers. Further it made me realize how much I under-appreciated this man and his dedication, intelligence, and generosity.

What an awesome day you‘ve had. Many thanks for sharing the story.
His speakers are still appreciated today:
https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/the-mighty-dunlavy-sc-vi-powered-by-asr-brinkmann/
Great design on these 250kg loudspeakers does not get old so fast...

 

[Frank Dernie]

Travelling for work I rarely got any spare time but if I did I looked for a hifi shop. In Australia, Adelaide iirc, there was a dealer with Dunlavy speakers. They were amongst the best I had heard (it would have been 1985 or 6 I think).
I did consider buying some but the shipping would have been a problem.

 

[MattHooper]

I used to listen to Dunlavy speakers here and there, and considered one of their last models - the Athena or Aletha - all had a sense of accuracy about them and I liked Dunlavy's no-nonsense measurement approach. But then the company folded. I had a conversation with J. Dunlavy one time at an audio show, CES I think, and he was certainly a straight shooter. Went on about the nonsense in high end audio, especially cables.

 

[mjwin]

Great interview. Thanks for posting.
I'd no idea JD had (secretly) designed the first log-periodic antenna. Smart guy!

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I remember back in the '90s I had a chance to listen to Dunlavy SC IVs which were Stereophile's speaker of the year in 1994. I was impressed until George Merrill of Underground Sound (where I had my listen) played the same material through the Aerial Accoustics 10t. I thought the Aerials were much, much better, in fact one of the best I'd heard to that date, and about the same as the Dunlavy's price wise. I bought the Aerials which became Stereophile's speaker of the year in 1995. Had them from 1994 until I downsized and moved in 2011, and thought they were excellent, and just about the best thing I ever purchased in Audio (along with the Rogers LS 3/5as and the Benchmark DAC1).

 

[Daverz]

I still have a pair of SC-IIIs, which are 6 foot tall sealed speakers that only go down to 50 Hz. I did not know about the SC-III.A -- which used a more compact design -- at the time (about year 2001 timeframe). After a lot of huffing and puffing getting them out of the side room, I'm listening to the SC-IIIs now, and they still sound great.

Anyway, Dunlavy used an engineering first approach: get the impulse response right at the listening position. But their off-axis performance is not so great, counter to the more empirical Toole/Olive approach. Vandersteen is similar, but I think Dunlavy was the more innovative engineer, and it sounds like he would have embraced DSP-based designs had he not died.

(BTW, agree with @phoenixdogfan that Aerials are great sounding speakers, but their pricing seems to have gone sky high.)

 

[MattHooper]

Anyway, Dunlavy used an engineering first approach: get the impulse response right at the listening position. But their off-axis performance is not so great, counter to the more empirical Toole/Olive approach.

Yes but that is made up for somewhat by the deliberately more directional design of the speakers is it not (I remember that Dunlavy sought to control directivity of the sound, which made for less sound splashing on to side walls but also made for a narrow sweet spot).

 

[Daverz]

Here's the horizontal response from JA's measurement of the SC-IVA (he doesn't seem to have done horizontal response of the SC-IV);

Maybe it's not as bad as I think it looks around 3kHz?

 

[AudioJester]

Duntech is still a revered and sought after brand in Australian hifi circles. I cant remember the last time anyone said anything negative after hearing a Duntech setup.

The brand has new owners and a combination of new and old design speakers. I believe they have stuck to the original design briefs of Mr Dunlavy, and are certainly banking on the name with very high retail prices.

 

[CDMC]

Demoed the SC-iii about 20 years ago. Wonderful sounding and I should have purchased them.

 

[Daverz]

Demoed the SC-iii about 20 years ago. Wonderful sounding and I should have purchased them.

They still come up on the used market. Must be a bear to ship, though. Mine have followed me across the country and must be at least 20 years old (they were used when I bought them back in 2001 or so), but are still in great shape. If I lived on the first floor, the heavier models would be tempting.

 

[CDMC]

They still come up on the used market. Must be a bear to ship, though. Mine have followed me across the country and must be at least 20 years old (they were used when I bought them back in 2001 or so), but are still in great shape. If I lived on the first floor, the heavier models would be tempting.

I considered it over the years, but a lack of replacement drivers always worried me.

 

[Daverz]

Found a review of the original SC-III by Bascom King:

https://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_1998_Jul_dunlavy.html

 

[Brent71]

Has anyone heard some of his speakers?

Raises hand. I have, and I now own 3 pair of Dunlavy's, the most recent showing up a little over a week ago.

It started by going to look at what was supposed to be a pair of SC-IV/A about 250 miles East of me near Chicago. They weren't /A's, they were low serial number original IVs, and they had sun-fading and too many nicks and scratches, so I passed. I was bummed out the entire drive back home.

The same day, after I got home from Chicago area, I saw a pair of SC-IIIs on FB marketplace 100 miles west of me for a really good price, but it took a few weeks for our schedules to align so I could listen to them. I finally got a chance to go to his house to hear them, and they sounded good, but I knew his room and placement left a lot to be desired, but I bought them anyway. Once I got them setup I was really impressed with what I was hearing. The longer I listened to them the more I loved what I was hearing, and completely different than my B&W Matrix 802 S3 speakers I've owned since 2001. The B&W 802 S3s always felt a little disconnected between the drivers for some reason. The imaging was awesome, but they always seemed bright and the bass didn't blend with the mids/tweets as great as I thought it should. The SC-III aren't bright, and almost seemed laid-back by comparison. They're not laid-back at all, they are just smooth as butter, and all of the drivers blend together seamlessly.

About 6 weeks after I got the SC-IIIs, a pair of beautiful SC-IVs showed up on Audiogon 300 miles south of me in Fenton, MO. The guy actually had two pairs he was selling, one pair early serial numbers and the others in the mid-800 range, so very late models. I ended up buying the high serial number pair sight-unseen because another guy had his eyes on them too and I didn't want to miss out. I drove down the next day to pick them up and had them in the house and setup that night.

The SC-IVs are nothing short of incredible IMO. They do everything right, and nothing wrong. Imaging is amazing when positioned properly, almost like a giant pair of headphones. Their ability to dig out little details on recordings I've listened to most of my life is amazing. The bass is great, no real need for sub(s) unless you like LOTS of bass. The only real drawbacks are their physical size, and they're not the most attractive speakers ever designed. What's surprising/not surprising, is how similar the SC-IIIs and SC-IVs sound. The imaging might be just a tiny bit better on the IIIs, but the bottom couple octaves on the IVs is much better, reaching down where the IIIs couldn't begin to touch. I guess John used to do demo's where'd he switch between his line of speakers and have people try to pick out which pair was actually playing because they all sounded so similar.

I could have easily lived with the IIIs or IVs for many years, and told myself the only way I'd ever replace them is if I found a pair of SC-IV/As or SC-V for the right price. Sure enough, almost a year to the day after I got my SC-IVs home, a pair SC-Vs showed up on US Audio Mart for a price I couldn't pass up. I have yet to get them out of the crate, into the house and properly setup, but hope to have that rectified in the coming days. I've read many comments over the years that say John thought the SC-Vs were the best speakers he ever built, so I should be in for a treat once I get them in the house and properly setup.

 

[Brent71]

Must be a bear to ship, though.

I just had a pair of SC-Vs recently shipped from East Bridgewater, MA to Cedar Rapids, IA. Thankfully the guy that owned them (original owner) is also a woodworking hobbyist and built a big crate to ship them 1250 miles across the country. Shipping was less than $300, which I thought was a steal to ship something that big and heavy nearly half way across the country.

 

[andreasmaaan]

A friend had a pair of SC-IV that I listened to quite a bit some years ago. I thought it was an impressive-sounding speaker, neutral in the midrange and with authoritative but not overpowering bass. This friend swore by them as his main monitoring speakers (he's a mastering engineer).

Dunlavy was wed to the idea of linear phase, which in his day could only be achieved using 1st-order crossovers. I suspect his speakers could have been even better if he'd not prioritised this, but in any case I was pleasantly surprised by how good the SC-IV sounded, despite the inevitably chaotic vertical off-axis response and the narrow vertical sweet spot (we listened from quite a distance, which is mandatory for large speakers with low-order crossovers). IIRC, that tweeter was crossed relatively low for a first-order XO, too.

His favouring of frequency response measurements and use of solid, well-braced cabinets over fancy, expensive components made a lot of sense, and I think went a long way to making his speakers sound so good.

 

[thewas]

Dunlavy was wed to the idea of linear phase, which in his day could only be achieved using 1st-order crossovers.

What also was usually overseen that this was valid only for total acoustic first order and not of just the electric one of the crossover and thus something usually never really achievable.

 

[andreasmaaan]

What also was usually overseen that this was valid only for total acoustic first order and not of just the electric one of the crossover and thus something usually never really achievable.

That's true, although looking at the step responses of his speakers, he certainly seems to have achieved first-order acoustical slopes over a wide enough bandwidth around the crossover points to succeed in effectively creating linear phase speakers.

E.g. SC-IV: