How do Dunlavys compared to new stuff?

Many speaker's parts are better than the sum of their designs. Dunlavy's speaker's design is better than some of their parts.

I think they compare rather well. Dollar for dollar, embarassing a lot of the new stuff.

Kclone, easier said than done. Other companies might not have the technological know how, be willing to hand match components and tune each pair to a reference, deal with the large size and weight. Too many other companies seem to be more concerned with building uniquely voiced speakers, rather than accurate ones. The sad part is that John Dunlavy's health failed him before he could pursue his even more promising designs. It would be nice if someone could purchase the rights to those designs, develop them, and bring them to market.

John Dunlavy didn't believe reasonably(?) standard wires made a difference. He claimed that audio reviewers regularly could not discern the difference in cables in his "blindfold listening tests". With that said, he did develop and market wires. His argument being that they followed sound engineering practices, but he still maintained that the differences of his cables and lamp cord were inaudible. The man didn't pull any punches.

John Dunlavy was a fan of switching amps. His future plans included speakers with active digital cross-overs, independent switching amps for each driver, different cabinets and baffles than his previous designs.

Pryso, the point I was trying to make was, that many other speakers with more expensive parts didn't seem to work out as well as Dunlavy's with less expensive parts. FWIW, I slightly prefered the Dunlavys to the Duntechs. YMMV.