RJA, how do you like the bass on the Dunlavy 1VA compared to the Dunlavy 1V speakers? |
When I said I guess I'll have to settle for the IVs, I did so with tongue in cheek ! |
"I certainly never meant the IVs didn't sound excellent especially considering the price. What I tried to communicate was that the IVAs were a definite improvement but at a significant price premium."
Please rest easy when I say I did not construe your comments as condescending, negative or uncalled for in any sense whatsoever. I understood perfectly what you were trying to communicate, and I agree with you 100%. |
I certainly never meant the IVs didn't sound excellent especially considering the price. What I tried to communicate was that the IVAs were a definite improvement but at a significant price premium. |
Rja...I'm sorry you interpreted my comments as accusatory. That certainly was not on my mind when I made them, nor did I feel you were "[making]this up". Indeed, as you state, prices may not have remained constant. I paid $5000 list for my IVs, and I knew one other fellow who paid the same for his. In his review of the SC-4s, Stereophile writer Robert E. Greene also indicated they were priced at $4995. Do you recall if you purchased your pair at a discount or did the dealer indicate $4000 was the list price? In any event, it's not terribly important. What is, is that we seem to have shared in common the enjoyment these speakers have given us. I've never had the opportunity to hear the IVAs. Would love to, but guess I'll have to continue "to settle" for the IVs. The only thing that might cause me to give them up would be my moving to a smaller place, which would compel me to downsize my speakers as well. My best wishes for your continued enjoyment of your Dunlavy SC-4As ! |
I've been playing with my new to SCIV's for about a month and could'nt be happeir. They are a fine speaker. As far as bass is concerened in my set up they produce an acurate bass that's very musical and does hit rather nicely. Nicely enough that I sold my sub after getting them properly set up. |
Opus88, when you say "as Rja asserts" it sounds accusatory. Why would I make this up? As far as I know Dunlavy prices did not remain constant. |
Opus88,
I paid $4000 for the IV new and $8250 for the IVAs. I am not contending this, I am stating fact. The IVs were black, the IVAs are natural oak color. |
SC stood for signature collection. The original SC-IV's had Morel 10 inch woofers. There was a switch to a version with 10 inch Vifa woofers which is what I owned and was the version most reviewed. I was told by Dunlavy the switch was done because the Morel's had to much variability in sample to sample response. The Vifa mids were improved also..I was supplied those mids as well as improved Vifa tweets along the way. With all those additional changes the speaker was still the IV. The IVa designation came about when the switch was made from Vifa 10's to the Scanspeak drivers. Tom |
Sorry, correction: SC-4A in oak only was approx. $8000; in rosewood or cherry, approx. $8500. |
I've been an SC-4(not 4A)owner for over 17 years. An almost exclusively classical music listener, I've never been less than satisfied with its bass performance. I've also heard some others refer to the SC-4s as being bright. With the right room setup and associated equipment, this is not an issue...Incidentally, list price for the SC-4s was $5000. List price for the 4A was $8500, not $10,000 as Rja asserts. |
I owned IVs and currently own IVAs. IMO the IVA is definitely a superior speaker. The IVA also cost twice what the IVs did. |
I'm not an authority on DAL models, but I did follow their progress because of owning Duntechs and my respect for John.
I thought all the DAL numbered (Roman style) models were preceded by SC. I don't remember that he produced a special line of Signature models.
The change from SC-IV to SC-IVa was the most significant upgrade. It was in response to a Stereophile review of the SC-IV which was favorable except for bass extension. That was likely the only time anyone criticized one of John's designs for lack of bass. The SC-IVa apparently did produce a more extended bass range. |
Every model made by Dunlavy that carries the "SC" in it's name is "Signature". That's what the S stands for!
Dunlavy changed a few drivers on various models over the years but the only one significant enough, according to him, to warrant a different designation was the SC-IVa.
There was a change in the woofers of the IV before the SC-IVa came out, but it was hardly worth note. Of course, you will find many people who disagree with me regarding any performance changes but you'd be wise to take it with a pound of salt.
Bottom line..... All Dunlavy speakers are world class. Worrying about which "version" of a model you have is a waste of time. |
It started with the original Dunlavy IV, then towards the end of that run John made improvements to this speaker. He did not make any designation changes, but simply referred to it as the Dunlavy IV improved version. Shortly after this, he made additional changes that could not revert back to the original SCIV and therefore named it the SCIVA.
It has been such a long time, my memory fades....I cannot remember if all three versions say Signature on them or not. Mine are the SCIV improved and does says Signature on them.
I'm sorry that I cannot remember more specifics on all of the three versions. What I can say is that any of the three are fantastic speakers. You seriously can not go wrong with any of them. |
Unsound. Is there any way to tell what woofers I have without taking one out? Are there any visual things to tell the two woofers apart? |
This is all off the top of my head and time may have compromised my memory on all these particulars, but I seem to remember Dunlavy changing drivers (woofers?) and tweaking the cross-overs accordingly, on the SCIVs at one point. The SCIVAs are a different and better speaker altogether, and no the SCIVs can't be upgraded to SCIVAs. I'm not sure, but I don't think the "Signature" nomenclature really means anything. |
How do you tell the difference in the models of the SCIV's I hear there is the original then the signature series then the IVA . The set I picked up was said to be the original first run edition. However while setting up and moving the speakers around looking for the best position I noticed that they do say signature series on them. When I did some researching some say that all 3 models will say signature series? |
Yeah, that's pretty much where I settled out on this. But you know how the audiophile mind works...the siren song of upgrades always beckons. |
Proceed with caution, the parts can be improved upon, but they are customized for the particular drivers used in each speaker. Each set of speakers were tested to a standard model and tweaked until a rather tight match was met, not something that all manufacturers go to the trouble of doing. If they were mine, unless they were broken, I'd leave well enough alone.YMMV. |
Hi Drubin,
Remember that old saying?....."don't fix what's not broken".
If you have the magic right now, why mess with it? John Dunlavy was one of the greatest speaker builders of all times, in my humble opinion. He could take inexpensive drivers, match them, and design crossovers that were custom to those specific drivers, and create "magic".
I've owned my SCIV Signatures for a very long time and have no desire to change anything about them. Why? Because to my ears, they already have the majic that you referred to. I am not going to pretend that I know more about this "art" than a man like John Dunlavy!
Sure, I could change parts out and get a different sound....but will it be better? I doubt it. It really doesn't matter though to me as I love the sound I am getting right now.
Take the money you'd spend on all the parts/labor/time and buy more music and continue to enjoy them.
Just my three cents worth. |
I have the SC-III.A, which is the final cabinet design and model name for the Athena-Aletha-Cantata series. I've been mulling upgrades (xover resistors to start, plus the binding posts) but I get cold feet. Improvements are always possible and welcome, but I'd hate to screw things up in the process. What if it's better in some areas but loses the magic? :-) |
Hello,
If you are really into your Dunlavy speakers, you should consider upgrading some of the crossover parts.
I have been very happy with my Dunlavy SC-VIs for the last 16 years. It is the only component of my system that has not changed. Just yesterday I updated the firmware of my MPS-5 and it now sounds even better. I will do several crossover upgrades as recommended in some forums here, and I am sure it will get even better.
You made a great purchase. Enjoy!
VPN |
Ttuesley Thanks for the follow up!! I love the Vandersteens as well. If it had not been for the deal a good buddy of mine got me I would never have made the leap with the Dunlavy's. Just remember to fill the stands of the vandersteen's with sand or someting and use the spikes that they came with them and the over all dynamics of the speakers will sound even better. |
I want to follow up my previous post on this thread. Mikel shipped the stands, and I am very happy with our transaction. Had I known the situation, I would have never posted my gripe on his thread. Thank you Mikel, for completing our transaction like a gentleman.
I have a small business and these speakers are always pumping in the background. I am sure that your Dunlavy's are better overall, but these guys work perfectly in my environment. All the best to you ! |
Spent more time with the Dunlavy's and must say im loving them more with each listening session. My associated gear is Theata basic transport with a
Analog Research Segue DAC old yes but the pair makes beautiful music. For amps im running Electron Kinetics Eagle 400 monoblocks. Ive thought about getting new amps but anything I've herd in my price range dosent come close to the Eagles and the amps that have beat them was very marginal and didnt justify the dollar spend. |
Back in town. My Grand father passed and I was in charge of his final wishes and will. Ttuesley I asked my son to drop off the stands for shipping prior to leaving town how ever like all teen agers he conveniently forgot as i found them in the back of my truck when he picked me up from the airport. I understand your Frustration and apologize for any inconvenience that I caused you. The stands will be there tomorrow according to UPS tracking number 1Z596Y970369535564 |
I own both Dunlavy Alethas which I believe use the same drivers and crossover as the SC-IV (1 woofer per speaker versus 2 in the SC-IV) but in a more wife friendly enclosure, and Vandersteen 2s. The Vandys used to be my main music speakers but since acquiring the Alethas, the Vandys have been relegated to a basement home theater. Don't get me wrong, the Vandys are excellent speakers but are no match for the accuracy, liveliness and dynamics of the Alethas. That being said, I believe the two do indeed have a similar sound. They both have first order crossovers, phase and time alignment so perhaps that's why. I found the low end of the Vandersteens to be somewhat looser and boomier than the Dunlavys giving some the impression that the Vandys have "better" bass. In my opinion that's a result of the Vandys passive radiator. I've never heard a speaker with a passive radiator that doesn't blur the sound some.
In my room, the response of the Alethas is pretty flat till it starts to roll off at about 35 Hz being about 11 db down at 20 Hz. Just recently I purchased 2 REL Strata III subs to go with the Dunlavys and now the response is pretty much ruler flat to 20Hz. I couldn't be happier and can't say enough good things about the RELs, how we'll they blend with the Alethas etc. but I suppose that's a topic for a different post.
I will second the opinions that the Dunlavys need a big room in order to blend the drivers and offer a massive soundstage. Mine are in a big room, placed on the long wall about 17 ft apart. My listening position is about 15 ft from the midpoint of the speakers. I don't find them particularly difficult to position. They are about 3 ft away from the side walls and about 1 ft from the rear wall. The Vandys however, got real boomy when close to the back wall, again I presume because of the rear facing passive radiator.
I think you'll be real pleased with the transition from Vandys to Dunlavy. Keep us posted. |
Mikel/2channeljunkie...if the above is true, shame on you! That's not right. I know I get very excited to listen to new things, but you should always complete a transaction.
Just think of how Ttuesley must feel with new toys, but no batteries... |
Mikel,
Congratulations on your purchase of the Dunlavy speakers. I see from your thread that you are very responsive to "Unsound" and other members that give you advice and info to help you out with your new speakers. That is wonderful, but I hope you understand that I would also like to correctly set up the Vandersteen speakers that I purchased from you. For this I need the stands, which you promised to send out last Saturday/Monday and have yet to ship to me. For some reason, you are not responding to my inquiring emails, and I don't understand why you would treat a fellow Audiogon audio enthusiast disrespectfully. Didn't I pay you very promptly ??? There is not much of a "community" here if there is little to no communication. Can we please conclude this transaction in a timely manner ? |
FWIW, the absorptive room treatment I was suggesting was not intended for bass frequencies, and the recommendations and reasons for those recommendations were given to me personally by John Dunlavy. |
2cj, as I said, lots of different advice but how much fits your system?
I think Unsound has offered good comments, up until he suggested sitting 1' out from the back wall, at least relative to "smoother bass response".
So let me suggest this. If you have a test CD or one with repetitive bass information, put that on repeat and set your volume at or near the maximum level you would listen to. Then move around the room, listening from a wide variety of locations. I'll bet whenever you are within 2' or so of any wall you will hear a boost in bass. The greatest amount should happen in corners but anywhere close to a wall may be more than further out into the room.
Then it will be up to you to decide if the boosted bass sounds natural and desirable to you. If it does, you can increase the apparent bass output from your SC-IVs with your chair/sofa against the wall and your head a foot or so away. But I have my doubts that will be the smoothest bass response.
Also, the problem with absorptive materials for bass frequencies is that they must be very thick to be effective. The typical 1-3" absorption will not help with frequencies below 180 Hz which is the traditional range for bass. There is lots of information online covering this if you search a little.
As with so much in life, balance should be your key. |
^If you have toe in dialed right, you might want to have the base of the triangle a bit larger than the legs. |
If you move back to about 1' from the wall behind the listening position/or until your about 12' from the speakers (trial & error), and have the speakers backs about 2-3' from the wall behind them, you should have better driver integration and smoother bass response. |
I'm not close to the rear wall I'm about 5 to 7 feet from the rear wall. |
Excellent! Are you seated close to that rear wall? |
Unsound, I am about 9.5ft from the speakers. Yes I have added some sound treatments behind me. |
How far are you seated from the loudspeakers? Did you put some absorptive sound treatment behind you? |
Thanks for all the tips. I have moved them over to the long wall roughly 12ft apart and they do sound amazing in this configuration! I tried them with and without the brass cones. While I don't buy into a lot of the snake oil in the audio world I must admit that the cones have somehow made the already revealing mid bass/range just a tad cleaner. The cones most notable affect was on the low end. I was up in the air on sub or sub after trying the cones I can safely say no sub in my set up. The cones have cleaned up the low end. Not that the low end wasn't nice already. But the cones have tightened up the low end and now it's a little faster and a little more slam. I will continue to play and tweak their current set up as time provides. I must say that I am impressed with the SCIV's to be almost 20yrs. old they sure do sing. While not the best speaker in the world they do so many things right that their a pleasure to listen to for hours at a time. Very accurate and detailed at least for my price point and dollar. However I must say bad recordings beware you have been warned!!! |
Pryso, is of course correct, up to a point. There are minimum requirements that need to be met to allow the design goals to work. |
2cj, in spite of the well-meaning advice from myself and others here, you must have the patience for experimenting in your own set up.
Any recommendations for specific dimensions must be considered only as recommendations for your list of trials. There are simple too many variations in room dimensions, construction, treatments, associated equipment, and personal taste for any of us to tell you "exactly" how to set up your speakers.
I believe you will continue to find your speakers to be very revealing, therefore they may benefit from even small adjustments.
Good luck and have fun. |
The drivers are matched well enough you can go more than 12' without losing anything. Toe the speakers in so you can only see a sliver of the inside of the cabinet. Lose the spikes and don't bother with bi-wiring. |
If you could set them up about 12' apart from center of tweeter to center of tweeter, about 2' from the long wall behind them, that would be even better. Do remember to toe them in. It appears you might be in the ball park after all. To avoid comb filtering effects, be sure to use absorptive material behind the listening position. Such a setup should even out bass response (typically the biggest challenge) and help imaging. |
Thanks Unsound. I will do some more measurements. if I set them 10ft. apart on the long wall that would then give me
roughly 8.5 to 9ft from ear to speaker wondering if that will be enough to allow the drivers to properly blend? |
The measurement is from ear to speaker, not from ear to center of the triangle baseline. You can have the listening position directly in front of the opposing wall, if, and only if you have an appropriate amount of absorptive material directly behind the listening position. I suggest you do some measurements before moving everything around. |
I agree, you need to be at least 8 to 10 feet away for the best driver integration (when you're listening from your listening seat, as opposed to elsewhere). Best not to movbe everything around, in my view. |
Unsound are you saying forget the long wall altogether? Pryso I do have the manual. One tread I was reading said that the 3 meters is the arc of the speakers not straight forward from the speaker? Sounds like you guys are saying don't waste my time moving my basement around? |
4-6' forget it, you need at least 8' and preferably more for proper driver integration. |
2cj, I suggest you study your manual if you received one. In my Duntech Princess owner manual John Dunlavy stated that factory frequency response measurements were made at a distance of 3 meters. This distance allowed the sound from the five drivers to converge properly at the mic. I can't imagine he would have taken measurements in any position other than one to achieve optimal performance.
If not exactly the same, I'm sure your SC-IVs have driver positions very similar to the Princess. I used 10' listening distance with my Princesses. |
Update on the SCIV's the bass was pretty good on their own. I did try adding a sub,However properly set up the sub did not add any bottom end just my it sound fuller? Next I tried moving the speakers closer to the back wall as I had read in an post somewhere that contray to popular belief the SCIV's benefit from this. Well I can safely say that closer to the back wall the SCIV's bottom end really came to life. The bass is nice and full just like when they were out further into the room about 2 to 3 feet from the rear wall just a lot more of it.Now with that being said I did put brass cones under the basses of the SCIV's Not sure I under the the concept behind the cones since the speakers are already off the floor due tothe attached bases they come with. With that being said I must say that the bass did clean up some with the cones as well there was an noticable improvement in midbass and treble they both sounded very clear out the gate but the cones make them sound a bit cleaner, This could be due to raising the speakers up closer to ear level more so than majic? also when I got the SCIV's they had some weird looking things attached to the back of them, I forget the name of what they are(I will check later on the name as I did get the paper work along with the paper work for the speakers)but the concept behind them is that they asorb the 1st order reflections from the cabniets allowing speakers to be placed close to the rear wall without getting the refelections. How true this is or isn't I don't know just wanting to paint the proper picture on my set up and the sound as I hear it.
I havent set them up along the long wall as of yet as I don't belive that I have the room to do so. On teh long wall the speakers would only be 4 to 6 feet from the listening position not sure if this would allow enough room for th edriver to blend? But I hear it would still improve th eoverall sound stage? |
