Dunlavy vs Coincident

I own a set of Dunlavy 4s which I have in a 18x26x8 room. I like what I hear, but would like to possibly upgrade. I am planning on moving into a smaller room 14x19x9 in a couple of months and was thinking that might be a good time to audition some new speakers. I was thinking of the Coincident super or total eclipse. Has anyone out there compared Dunlavy 4 or 4a to either of these Coincident models. I am thinking the Coincident speakers might work a little better in a smaller room. My amps are BAT VK150SE and a Wadia 860x CD player.
I have Dunlavy Cantatas and for a short time had Coincident
Super Eclipse for a second system. The Coincidents had a very big soundstage with too much treble and too much bass for my taste.When listening to classical music the violins were in the wrong place somewhere further back than they should be.
They sounded very dynamic when you first listen to them but then you realize that the sound is veiled.Also the finish on the cabinets was terrible with little flakes chipping off.If you buy them go for the light color.
Many people like these speakers but to me they weren't as good as the Dunlavy SCII's which I was trying to replace in my second system.The SCII's cost less than half the price of the Super Eclipses.
Oh well! That what makes the world go around.

One of my buddies had SC IV's and had nothing but problems with them. While his room might not have been big enough for them to operate at their best, i know that Dunlavy DID make changes to the IV shortly after he started bombarding them with phone calls. As it turns out, Dunlavy was crossing the midrange driver BELOW the point of resonance, causing it to sound much poorer than it should have. Whether or not his phone calls and feedback to them had anything to do with their production change is up to debate. For the record, he was also using Dunlavy speaker cable.

He went from the IV's to some Maggie 3.5's, from the Maggie's to some Innersound Eros' and from the Eros' to some Eclipse's that were upgraded to Super Eclipse's. He is now running what would be an very expensive custom built horn array with multiple subs. As such, his opinion of the "mass produced" speakers were that the Coincident's KILLED all of the other speakers that he's used. His overall opinion of the Dunlavy's is VERY low compared to the others.

Once again, i'm simply relaying his opinions, so please don't take it personal. Other than the changes that Dunlavy has made to the midrange driver / crossover points, i think that his room dimensions were not up to getting the best out of the "oversized" Dunlavy's. Sean
Hi. I had VonSchweikert VR4 originals that I traded in for a used pair of Dunlavy SC-IV (model year 1995 with the Vifa woofers which were upgraded from the original Morel woofers)
I sold them, got a pair of Proac 3.8's which needed to be 4 feet from the wall behind them to sound balanced in my room which is somewhat square in dimension(19.5x17x8), resulting in a bass-heavy resonant sound. I sold those and got the Alethas (Dunlavy.)I heard the Coincident total ecclipse at someones house and they were very good, sweet, detailed and dynamic. They are quite large (deep) compared to the Alethas and they are ported which may make them more difficult to position. The acoustic suspension design of the Dunlavy makes it easier to integrate the speaker into the room. The Aletha is much more forgiving than the SC-IV or the IVa. While not quite as open and completely uncolored as the IVa, the Cantata and Aletha is much more listenable on close-miked pop recordings. The Proacs made everything sound pretty, but I rarely had the illusion of performers playing in my room that I got with all the Dunlavys. They sounded like a good stereo. Sorry.. I digress. The Coincidents are similar to the Dunlavys in that they have a boxless sound, but I don't know if they sound as "big". Give both a listen with poor and good recordings and trust your ears.
The Totals could be a bit much for your new room.The Super will work fine.From what I have heard the Coincidents are hard to beat.
In a small room you might want to listen the JMlabs mezzo While discussing the Mezzo speaker with a JMlab engineer in france he informed me that the speaker was originaly designed for small rooms. Most of the European apartments are made up of very small rooms. therefore the speakers seems to perform really well in it's most desirable surroundings.

NOTE: The Coincident top of the line speaker at the NY SHOW sounded AMAZING really AMAZING.
Coincident has come out with a new series of speakers UHS ( ultra high sensitivity series loudspeakers) "specifically designed to take advantage of the inherent sonic benefits of single ended triode tube amplifiers". The top of the line is called the 'Victory' 97 db 14-ohm response down to 36 Hz. I'm going to here it as soon as Chicago dealer has it in.
Sean, how did you make out with the Seas drivers you got from the Coincidents? Did you graft them into a new project? I have been meaning to ask you, but this thread put it back in my memory. Were you able to contact Israel in regards to the differences from an off the shelf Seas driver(if any), and crossover design? Is he running these mids flat out, or with crossover components? His newer designs feature high impedence(10 - 14 ohms), and I was wondering if he was running the drivers in series, in order to double it(from 6 - 8 ohms). Any information you are kind enough to pass on would be appreciated. Thank you.
I tried emailing Israel a couple of times with no response. Even though i did my best to reassure him that i was NOT a competitor or manufacturer of any type, he probably thought that giving such information as to specific make and model of the drivers he uses is "proprietary information". As such, the drivers are still sitting in the boxes. One of these days, i'll throw them on my puter with the driver testing equipment and come up with the T / S parameters. Once i've got that and a frequency response chart, then i can do something with them.

As such, the only thing that i can tell you about them now is that they were the mids in a set of Eclipse's. From what i can remember the original owner telling me, they only had one crossover component hooked up to them and they were not running in a band-pass configuration. Israel is obviously a believer in the "simple crossover" school of thought. While this can be done with great results, you obviously have to select your drivers and driver placement VERY carefully. While i doubt that the new models use the same drivers due to differences in sensitivity, i can measure the DCR of these and get back to you. Sean
Thanks for the update Sean! I am regret that Israel did not respond back. As I said, I do feel the drivers are probably wired in series(via their advertised impedence). After you perform your measurements, for fun you might want to try wiring them in series, and running them flat out(no crossover components in the circuits). Do some analysis of this configuration, and proceed from there. I have also migrated to the simpler is better philosophy in terms of crossover design. I feel it lets more of the soul of the music through, in addition to being the most benign load a dynamic driver can present to an amplifier. The success and great sound of Coincident is living proof to me that others also agree. I do feel that a capacitor on the tweeter leg is necessary. Especially, if the speaker will ever see a good deal of power, which we cannot ever discount during the design phase. As you have four drivers, do you feel more inclined to use a D'Appolito configuration, or go with both midranges below the tweeter? From my experience, Seas drivers offer a very fast sound. Perhaps their strongest of attributes? It makes sense to design a lively speaker around them, to show them in their best light. As they say, the midrange is 85% of the speaker. Woofers lagging behind would not integrate well into a holistic loudspeaker, in my opinion. Just one man's opinion. However you proceed, and whatever you do, GOOD LUCK! Again, thanks so much.