Dunlavy SC-IV vs. Aerial 10T characteristics

Wings:
What amplification are you using with your 3.6´s?

Please take this with a grain of salt. I auditoned these on the same day in different rooms with different electronics. My impression was that the Aerials were more dynamic and the Dunlavys more coherent. The soundstage of the Aerials was more gounded, the sound stage of the Dunlavys more ethereal. I enjoyed both. My prejudice puts much emphisis on coherence. IMHO for home theatre: Aerial, for music: Dunlavy.

Sol322, I am using A Theta Dreadnaught five channel amp,
I biamp the 3.6's, leaving one channel of the amp unused.

Unsound, you are totally correct. I noticed that same thing, the Aerials were more dynamic and the Dunlavys more coherent. I also think, it depends on the room you have. The Dunlavy 1V speakers are like 6 feet tall. You need a large room for them. The Aerial 10Ts have a very dynamic upbeat type sound. The bass is amazing. The Bass is very tight and articulate. I also like the Focal Kelvar midbase they use on the 10Ts. Its interesting, I heard the Montana EP speakers at the Stereophile show. It uses 2 8 inch Scanspeak Paper Woofers, 2 4 inch Scanspeak Kelvar midbases and the Scanspeak Tweeter. I thought these speakers were to edgy sounding. The Scanspeak Kelvar midbase didn't sound good. The Focal Kelvar midbase sounds so much more smoother and natural. I would also say, check out the Dunlavy Aletha speakers. There really good.

I heard the Aletha's on the same day as the SClV's. I felt they were more tactile but less coherent than the SClV's. Aletha's might have a higher WAF.