2. member-reviews
  3. 1028246710

Review: Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVa

Category: Speakers

When I decided seven years ago to upgrade my audio system, I started by finding a speaker I loved. I searched for almost a year listening to every speaker available in the Minneapolis area. I found Magnepan and MartinLogan to be stunning but too dry and fatiguing for my taste. The midrange was not as deep and rich as I was looking for. Wilson had great sound but beyond the budget I was hoping to stay in. B&W sounded thick and boomy to me and Meridian was electronic and artificial. Thiel, Audio Physics and Dunlavy became the finalists. Being a late ‘60s early ‘70s guy, I came from Marantz and MaIntosh electronics and JBL and Altec Lansing speakers. The size and depth of the sound of Dunlavy along with the exceptional midrange were the final factors in my choosing Dunlavy IV as the speaker I wanted. The problem was I could only afford the Dunlavy III, exceptional midrange but not the ultimate bottom end of the IV.
It was about two years after buying the III's that I had the opportunity to upgrade to the IV's. It turned out that over those two years Dunlavy had improved the IV's and had a new model, IVa. They amazed me to find the IVa was even richer and deeper than the old IV model. The Dunlavy IVa speaker consists of two 10" woofers, two 5" mids and one 1" composite textile dome tweeter. Frequency response is 25Hz to 20 kHz, and Sensitivity is 91 dB with an Impedance of 5 ohms. Size is 72" high, 15" deep and 12" wide with a weigh of 190 lbs. each. $8495/pr
I believe Dunlavy speakers have no rivals within their price category. John Dunlavy is obsessed with designing the most accurate reproductions of sound. To meet this stringent standard Dunlavy has built one of the worlds best-equipped laboratories in order to test his designs. This has lead to some very harsh discussions between John Atkinson of Stereophile and John Dunlavy. It seems that JA does not like being out engineered by one of the great loudspeaker designers and the result was punishing JD by putting the once Stereophile "product of the year" Class A component into their B class after Dunlavy improved the speaker to JA's recommendation. Despite the politics of Stereophile Magazine, this speaker will hold its own with speakers two and three times its cost.
The highs are clear, grain less and extremely extended. JA spoke of them appearing a bit forward but I have never felt that was the case with this speaker, and can hardly believe a comment like that when compared with some of Stereophiles favorites MartinLogan and Meridian. Comments like these only strengthen my lack of trust for this Magazine. The midrange on all Dunlavy speakers is amazingly magical. I have not tried any other speaker that is as pure and life like with the female voice than Dunlavy. They display all the color and texture of the midrange with a crispness and transparency. Bass has long been the contention point of the IV series. The fact that they rate them at 25Hz meaning that it cuts off one organ pedal is hardly an issue for me. On the double bass, even the lowest note is crisply defined with no bloating or smear. The famous subway as heard on Water Lilly Acoustics "Natures Realm" with the Philadelphia Orchestra is deep under my floor forward and to the right. On Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Sessions" the foot pounding on the stage is as if he were in my livingroom pounding on my floor. I have no lack for bass from my speakers, in fact any more might be too much. Sound stage is wide and very deep. Excellent transient speeds, superb impact yet with an effortless smoothness. I truly believe these are the best speakers I can afford and is very much at home in my system. They have never left me lacking or longing for something better. That says a lot for a guy who is always looking for more, but never from my speakers. These are simply great speakers, and their service is exceptional as I found out with my III's, I twice had drivers replaced although it turned out the speakers had nothing to do with the problems I was having.


Associated gear
Sony SCD-1 SACD player
Placette active pre-amp
Plinius SA-102 amps
Nordost Valhalla speaker cable
Nordost Valhalla and NBS Statement interconnects
NBS Statement power cords
Hydra power conditioner

Similar products
Thiel CS7 series
Audio Physic Virgo
Wilson Watt/puppy
128x128jadem6

Showing 15 responses by jadem6

jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
I almost bought a pair of Duntech. They are a bit wider as I recall. Nice sounding none the less, and it's great to hear I should be happy with my IVa's for years to come. I simply love them
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
The SC-IIIa is a great looking speaker. Is the sound the same as the Cantata?
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Khaki8, thank-you for bringing this topic to my review. There has been alot written about the quality of parts used in the Dunlavy cross overs. I would love to see a summary of trials people have done that could attach to this review. I also wonder if anyone has talked to John Dunlavy about the issue of parts quality and the idea of upgrading to higher quality.
Actually I think I may try to call John to get his feedback.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
I just got off the phone with John Dunlavy. Of course being the designer of the Dunlavy speakers he strongly defends his selection of parts used in the crossover. This should not come as any surprise, but let me tell you how he defended his selections.
He did acknowledge that he could have used more expensive parts, but he said he selected his parts on their performance and not on cost. The capacitors he uses are polypropylene and have the best measured values of any capacitor on the market, there are simply not more accurate capacitors available. The Inductors he uses are not an iron core because they simply do not perform as well, they tend to saturate at very low levels, thus they are less constant in their values. The air core inductors used again are the most accurate and constant he has measured. His goal is not the "most expensive parts, it is using the parts that produces the best fidelity."
As I stated earlier, his goal has always been to create the most accurate speaker possible. He not only uses his ears to test the speaker's performance but judiciously measures every speaker to within +/- 1 dB with a full set of measurements made in his world renowned anechoic chamber. "Every speaker" built is thoroughly measured for all aspects of performance and only then are released to the client. "No other speaker in the world is put through such stringent testing" all in the name of accuracy.
John reminded me that the IVa is used in all the major recording studios around the world. This is the speaker that most music today is sounded to, so altering its accuracy with other components will add distortion or otherwise lessen the realism of this speaker. John had commented that he sometimes thinks "people would rather hear distortion or otherwise inaccurate sound rather than the truth."
Again I think that remembering the goal of Dunlavy speakers is important, to produce "accurate speakers." I was reminded of a story John has told me before where he sets up a pair of IVa speakers in his large anechoic chamber along with real instruments. The piano is the story he tells where they play a grand piano or a digital recording at 24 bit was played through the speakers. The people they bring in were to detect which is playing cannot identify any difference between the two.
If you do choose to modify your speakers you are choosing to modify the accuracy of these speakers, which may be to your personal taste but it is not the goal of Dunlavy speakers. Dunlavy wants to "reproduce music as exact as possible." If the measurements and the listening tests are to be believed then the IVa has succeeded, and any alteration will only lessen those measurements.
It is an interesting topic, I guess those who do choose to alter their speakers are trying to solve another problem in their system. I would recommend people look at what other weaknesses might exist in their stereo before looking at the speakers as the issue.
As a side note I spent sometime discussing JA and Stereophile. This is a whole other post some day!
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Khaki8, Maybe it would be helpful to have you describe the changes your hearing rather than simply stating it's 100% better. I'm not sure I can understand percentages from one sound to the next.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Thank-you blackie, it helps to hear your thoughts. Can you maybe expound on the tonal changes your trying to achieve? I have often wondered how these mods would change the sound, to my ears the Dunlavy sound is extremely natural and right in the middle of too bassy and too treably. What changes can I expect if I modified them. Also, do you simply need the cross-overs sent to you and what are the costs? I love it when the guy who does the work writes in!
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Snook2 is right, they do take a big effort to get placement right. Once the proper location is found they are great. I set them up on the long wall, and they really need at least 18 feet of long wall as a minimum. I think 28x23 or so would be perfect, but my 18x15 works great.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Dave B and Daytrader; I’ve heard these same comments before, and I’m aware that there are people who do not like the Dunlavy parts quality. I have two comments, first is a price/ performance issue. The Dunlavy IV speaker was Stereophile class A restricted. When the IVa came out the bass extension issue of the IV were solved, but suddenly Stereophile downgraded the speaker to class B full range. Given that it was ¼ of the cost of all other Class A full range speakers there was no way Stereophile could have placed it in class A. My second comment/ question is; for the price, what other speakers did you find that out performed the Dunlavy? Please describe how the sound changed when you replaced the Dunlavy.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Dave b
If I read this right you have owned B&W 801N's, Wilson Watt/Puppy 6's, ML Prodigy's, Totem Forests and Winds since owning the Dunlavy’s for years. Something sounds funny here. Then you tell me you used a Krell to mate with the Dunlavy and Audio Research pre-amp. If that is true it must have been one hideous sounding system. I can not imagine a poorer match (Krell and AR), well given that you preferred the Wilson’s and B&W’s, I guess I understand. The final proof I needed to understand what your issues are, was your comment, “. Imaging was the biggest problem with the massive point source Dunlavy's...nothing beyond the sides and the comb filter effect of their own boxes limited the holography found in most of the other speakers I've owned.”. This is proof positive you have either never owned Dunlavy or you had them set up improperly. Either way I do not really care, I now understand where your comments come from, and I wish you luck finding what ever it is you’re looking for.
Daytrader, I didn’t expect you had anything else to offer.
J.D.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
I've been testing different geese on the top of my speakers to see if they can help focus the honking. I tried some plastic decoys, but they tended to flatten the honk. I tried some wonderful rubber toy geese, but they made the honky bass to fat. I tried to contact a taxidermist, but he only had one goose, so I passed. I bought some wonderful Gund stuffed plush geese, but I felt they rolled off the top end of the honk. Then I found the perfect solution. two live Canadian geese caught at a local golf course. I leash them to the isolation bearings under my honk'n speakers without the factory bases. these buggers are amazing. they are able to mimic the honk perfectly. So life like! I may get rid of the Dunlavys and simply plug the speaker cables into the goose end. thank gosh David and his friends brought this honking to our attention, without his help I doubt i would have ever tried live goose horns!
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
I thank both Dave b and Daytrader for getting us past what became a very ugly follow-up to a review. As all things I have heard in audio, no two people hear or enjoy the same things. For my personal taste...
... I will stay with the Dunlavy. As Cmpromo found they are very sensitive to set-up (possibly too sensitive) and very equipment dependant. These two issues along with a very small sweet spot could be negatives for many people, not me however. to my ears their has not been another system that I have experienced that betters the sound of what I have.
I need not be right in any other persons mind, only my own in that it is me who listens the most. I simply hoped to share my personal experience with these speakers (and all my equipment) by writing a review. I am happy we all found a place where we could all talk with civility.

A special note to daytrader; I am very sorry you and I got off on an extremely bad start. I apologise hear in public for any immaturity I may have shown, I look at our comments and I am embarrassed for myself. I'm sorry, and yes, I did learn from my near death, I guess I remain flawed however.

JD
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Hi Tom, do you have a list of components and values for the capacitors and resistors you would suggest for me to change in my crossover?
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
I have not quite completed my latest project of replacing the critical path capacitors, inductors and all of the resistors. I intend to write a full review including the process of establishing what components to use, as well as a hand drawn schematic for others to use if they choose to try this project.

What I can tell you now is I chose all Duelund components in the critical path and MOX resistors in the non-critical circuits. The improvement, although not as great as some have claimed is very worth the time and money. SMOOOOOOTH! Silky smooth is the first reaction. Resolution is increased, in visual terms it is as if I changed my computer screen resolution from a low setting to the highest and went from 256 colors to 1 million. All the same information is there, the presentation is just much higher quality. Some have stated that it is less grainy; I do not think this is the proper use of words in that I would not describe the Dunlavy IVa as grainy to begin with. Resolution in a visual sense is the best I can do.

Look for a full review in the coming months, I assure you it will be highly educational! It was for me.

Jade
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
I concur with that Tom. The resistors were the only change in my first phase for the bass, and yet the bass was cleaned up and the leading edge of notes were more focused. The great thing about the resistors is you can get Eagle MOX resistors for $1.20 or Mundorf MOX resistors for $3.50. I chose the latter, but either way this may be the cheapest tweak available in this hobby.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
I have thought about that myself and decided not to just because I wanted flexibility. I have both the bass and treble/mid-range wires on the same post so i don't need to jump on the binding post side. I still hope someday to bi-wire again, that being after I win the lottery.

Rja, your post got me thinking that this is one poor reason for not doing this. The nut on the inside of the binding post is almost always loosening and this can only make for a degradation of the sonic quality. I like your idea a lot, and I also would like to hear your thoughts on better quality posts.

The thing with for us Dunlavy owners is the resale prices are such that it makes no sense to change speakers. Besides what we buy? My feeling was putting a few hundred or a thousand into upgrading thew components will keep these speakers relevant for years to come.

BTW,, has anyone upgraded the tweeter, and how would one go about finding the right tweeter with the right measurements to fit the speaker?
More to discover