Dunlavy for HT speakers

A driver operating out of its passband due to a shallow slope crossover cannot handle the power that it could if it were crossed over more steeply. I am not aware of any debate about this point, which is salient if the issue is suitability for home theater, where Patriot Games-type soundtracks are generally cherished and power handling thus very, very important.

Large-scale symphonic music can indeed be more taxing than the vast majority of movie sound tracks, and for this reason, speakers featuring first-order crossovers also generally fall down in power handling on extremely taxing music (there are a few exceptions, such as the gigantic DAL SC-V and SC-VI, each of which features seven drivers to share the punishment -- they can go quite loud). For overall musicality, however, I prefer the DAL / Vandersteen / AudioMachina time-coherent speakers, and despite listening to mostly symphonic music, I've never been troubled by first-order design congestion.

Regarding the demise of Dunlavy Audio Labs, Dave 1's point is well taken. I was never on the inside of this company, and being closely held and the fact that Mr. Dunlavy recently passed away, we will never know for certain what happened. That said, my dealer, whom I have known for fifteen years and who carried Dunlavy's Dunlavy Audio Labs brand from the company's inception through to the end, told me that the company perished because his gigantic speakers were simply unacceptable in what is an overwhelmingly home-theater oriented market place, and that the Cantata / Aletha line was DAL's room-friendly accomodation to the home theater market (that came too little too late). Knowing what I do about the business, that all sounds right, but it appears that Dave 1 was on the inside at DAL -- in any event, perhaps you'll be good enough to tell us how you know what you know.

A final comment with some additional details about the demise of the Dunlavy Audio Labs brand. My comments should not be read to imply that "DAL went out of business" while in John Dunlavy's hands, inasmuch as he did sell the DAL business to a neighbor in his industrial park that had no previous experience in hi-fi. The brand quickly disappeared thereafter and at least part of the remaining stock was purchased by Audio-Video Logic. Mr. Dunlavy was also a principal with Australian speaker manufacturer Duntech (for which he designed similar, gigantic sealed-box time-aligned speakers). For the record, I will say that Mr. Dunlavy was delightful the two or three times that I spoke with him, and I loved my SC-III's and every other DAL speaker I ever heard.

In any event, I fully stand by my original comments -- I believe that first-order crossover designs like Dunlavy are less than ideal for home theater.

I owned Dunlavy SC-III's for five years and my best hi-fi friend ran the huge SC-V's for three years, both of which are quite similar to the SC-IV/A's. The SC-IV/A's were (and remain) very competitive at their price point, but they were designed primarily for high-end two-channel music systems and not home theater where imaging is not important and bombastic dynamics are. SC-IV/A's will go pretty loud and quite low in the bass, but they are a time-coherent design that uses first-order crossovers in order to improve imaging and accuracy, and as such, are fundamentally ill-suited to home theater where bombastic dynamics can overstress drivers, especially drivers that are operating out of their passband in first-order designs like Dunlavy. Dunlavy tweeters are especially vulnerable to overdriving. Also as a result of being built for time coherence, the sweet spot with Dunlavy's is very small, meaning that people sitting around a room watching home theater are not hearing what the speaker can do.

You want something with fourth-order crossovers for home theater, like Revels Salons. I owned Salons and they can go incredibly loud if you have enough clean power. My dealer, who is very experienced and has carried a lot of different speaker brands over the years, set up a pair of Salons in a home theater installation in New Jersey that were powered by the big 1,200 watt/channel McIntosh monoblocks -- he said he has never heard a louder pair of speakers. Salons also have tons of really deep bass, so there is no need for a subwoofer unless you are running them in a gymnasium, and excellent off-axis dispersion (i.e., huge sweet spot), meaning that everyone in the room will hear what they can do.

I also note that I have another friend who ran the SC-I's. They are superb monitor speakers for the money and can sound great in two-channel systems if coupled with a really fast subwoofer, but again, they have a tiny sweetspot, no bass below 80 Hz. because they are sealed-box, and can't handle a lot of power -- they were designed for high-end two-channel music listening. While Dunlavy did sell an "A/V" shielded version for use in home theater, it was merely a nod to market realities, as there are 97 home theater speakers sold for every 3 two-channel speakers and speaker designers who ignore the home theater market perish. Dunlavy in fact went out of business because his designs were serious attempts at building extremely good two-channel speakers, i.e., time-coherence, which requires first-order crossovers and sealed-box woofer loading, the latter requiring gigantic, room-unfriendly boxes. Ever stand next to an SC-V, or God forbid, an SC-VI? They are ridiculous, but if you're listening in the sweet spot, they do a very credible job of simulating the sound of live, unamplified music.

If you have a high-end two-channel system featuring a good turntable, Dunlavy's are a very good option if you do not want to spend a ton of money. If you are trying to shake the foundation with stomping dinosaurs, however, there are more appropriate options.