Dunlavy SC-VI

Hi,

I have SC-VIs (iniated this thread) and tried the Sigtech for a couple of weeks, but it was not able to solve a bass hole of 10db that my room produces at 35-50hz. I added a Z-systems loaner but it was not transparent enough so I sent both the Sigtech and Z-systems back. Then I decided to try the CARA 2.0 and maybe later the Tact RCS.

I got this (US$50) great accoustic simulation/optimization program called CARA 2.0, see Stereophile review.
This program comes with a bunch of speaker models, but no Dunlavy model. I have created a simple SC-VI model but it is VERY far from the frequency response of the Dunlavy SC-VI. It has already improved the speaker positioning.

I sent an e-mail to Dunlavy a couple of months ago asking them to make a correct model (I can buy and send them the $50 program if they want...), but Dunlavy never responded.

Can somebody convince Dunlavy to have them make this simulation model? It should not take much time and would be great given that these speakers are very sensitive to positioning and this great program does speaker position optimization IF you have a good model of the speaker.

If anybody has a good (near to the real frequency response) CARA 2.0 model of the SC-VI, can you e-mail to [email protected]?

Thanks,

Vicente

I suspect the dip was between 32 and 45 Hz. One of the advantages of the SigTech (or the TAct in this case) is to carefully move the speakers and listening position and remeasure until you can reduce the amplitude of the dip in the low end.

I had the exact same problem (I use a SigTech, and was able to get the dip to about 5db by moving stuff around. The SigTech would fix it all but I chose to only fix part of it (modified the target curve).

Having Dunlavy send you measurements is not going to solve the problem.

I would second the comments of audioguy. I have Dunlavy SC-V's and use a Sigtech. I had a similiar dip around 40Hz. Since I listen to a lot of organ and late romantic music this was quite annoying. I used the RPG software ( Much simpler than the CARA) to explore various combinations of listening position and speaker positions that minimized the dip. I had three most promising combo's measured and used the SigTechto correct for those listening positions. In all three the speaker positions are the same but the angle of the speakers and the listening distances are different.

The first is 9' ft from the speakers where the Dunlavy's are time coherent. This is my listen alone postion. The second is further back and almost as good but alllows for my wife and I to liste together. The third is further back and allows several of our friends to listen with us.

I'm curious as to the sonic differences between the Vs and VIs? Dunlavy literature simply says the VIs go a touch lower, but both speakers are flat anyway. Do VIs have a different sonic signature? Do they seem more efficient? ... or what is it that makes them better than the Vs?

Because the design parameters are the same, they (V's and VI's) are very similar. The VI's don't really go any lower than the V's (at least in a normal room) but because of the radiating area of the bass drivers, they have more weight to the bottom end.

That does not mean that have increased bass amplitude. It means they move more air and so sound more like what bass does in a concert hall in terms of compressing the air in the room. In addition, because each of the drivers is larger than the counterpart in the V (except the tweeter), the VI's are more relaxed at greater volumes.

If you have the right room (and the money) I believe the VI's to be the better speaker. But given the V's are about half the price of VI's, (and 98% of the speaker)the V is the better buy. ....by a long shot !!!