looking for upgrade suggestions - 12,000 to spend

Those Dunalvys either need to be replaced or modified. These speakers in stock form are NOT the "ULTRA" high resolution speakers that many audiophiles think they are. "ULTRA" high resolution will only be achieved with the best drivers and crossover components, and unfortunately, this is where Dunlavy skimps in his designs. I know of quite a few Dunlavy owners with SC-IVa's, SC-V's and Althenas. All of their speakers have been substantially improved by putting individualized zobel networks across each driver (a very cheap but effective mod, at less than $30.00 per speaker). Stan Warren of Supermods actually started this trend. Others have gone steps further by replacing that cheapo tweeter with a world class tweeter like the Morel MDT-33. (Shame on you Dunlavy for using such a meager cheapo tweeter!). You can also swap out those average Coils and Capacitors with some high quality parts. All of the above changes yield a much improved speaker that will have you wondering why Dunlavy has not implemented any of these no-brainer improvements himself. Once these changes are implemented, the speaker goes to a completely different level in musicality and listenability. We are talking about serious improvements here!

Audioguy, I am also curious about why Dunlavy does not consider using individualized Zobel networks on each of his drivers. This makes PERFECT electrical sense and is nothing more than correcting the inherent phase vector that is part of every driver's voice coil inductance.

Indeed, this particuar way of eliminating the inherent phase vector of a driver's inductance should be utilized by EVERY speaker manufacturer! I know of someone with a pair of Pipedream speakers that is doing the same modification to his speakers, and this company is as stubborn as Dunlavy regarding this simple and effective enhancement. (BTW: There are a couple of Dunlavy owners that hope to get "the ear" of the new company that just took over Dunlavy regarding the Zobel enhancement).

In terms of suggesting "drop in" coil, capacitor replacements, this also is not as extrmeme as some may think it is. Anyone who has studied the crossover topology of a "cost no object" speaker will find much better coils and caps than Dunlavy uses. A direct drop in replacement of the same value but higher quality component DOES NOT change the speaker's intended electrical charactaristics. It will only improve the ability of the crossover to have improved charactaristics between each driver. No one ever argued with the idea of "blueprinting" an engine for an automobile. This is the same comcept.

In terms of changing the silk dome tweeter with a better silk dome drop in replacement that has a better magnet structure, lower inherent surface resonance, faster rise times and more, this is also a no brainer. All you have to make sure of is that the tweeter that you choose is the same size, has the same dispersion charactaristics and has the same output (or is padded down with resistors to acheive the same output as the original tweeter). Dunlavy himself has put better silk dome tweeters in his speakers as he improved his speakers over the years. Why would my silk dome tweeter recommendation be any different? He just has refused to use any of the more expensive tweeters such as the Scan Speak Revelator or the Morel MDT-33. Most who have experience with speaker design will tell you that these tweeters "smoke" the meager tweeter that Dunlavy uses in his speakers. Better materials, faster rise times, tighter tolerances, bettter magnets and exotic rear magnet resonant chambers all lead to a tweeter that is more detailed and sound more real. There is NO secret to why the above aformentioned tweeters sound better. They also cost 300% + more than the tweeter employed by Dunlavy.

As an Electrical Engineer myself, who has studied numerous speaker and amplifier topologies, I can tell you that MANY of the so-called high end companies are missing a detail or two, here and there in their designs. Many audiophiles are fooling themselves if they think that most high end companies have covered every single detail in their designs. THIS IS VERY RARE INDEED AND TYPICALLY JUST AIN'T SO!

Hey Audioguy!

I'm curious about what experience you may have with modifying Dunlavy's products, and why you are stating: "DO NOT modify them."

My particular modification advice is directly supported by some VERY respectable and experienced high end audio designers. In particualar, both Stan Warren, and the original designer of the Spica TC-50 speaker (which was considered a ground breaking design in both driver integration and time coherence) support these suggestions. Additionaly, Dunlavy owners that I know who have implemented any (or all) of these changes are VERY happy they did so. None of them ended up "screwing up the sound" as you surmise.

In both my opinoin and many others, the suggested changes that I outlined are electrically sound, and only ENHANCE Dunlavy's original design intentions.

Jadem6. I am not going to quantify this particular type of mod as a "success", because NOW WE ARE talking about potentially changing the "voicing" of John's original design intentions. Therefore "success" regarding this particular mod is "in the eyes of the beholder".

The only mods that I unequivocally support are mods that improve on Dunlavy's original design intentions, without any detrimental sonic aberrations. After all, I do think Dunlavy is one of the best speaker designers out there (are you hearing me Audioguy?).

I know of NO other speaker designer that has assembled such worthy sounding speakers from average low cost midrange and tweeter drivers. Every other highly regarded speaker manufacturer has to use much better drivers just in order to sonically surpass Dunlavy's speakers. Dulavy's design facilities are some of the best in the business, and so are his measurement techniques and quality sorting conventions.

Now if we could just convince Dunlavy to use really excellent drivers, coils, caps, etc.. I've always said to many of my friends: "If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to pay Dunlavy a ridiculous amount of money to build a pair of SC-VI's with top of the line drivers and crossover components". (I'd probably also have the cabinet made from something much more dense and inert, than the cabinets that he currently uses).

Note: If you look at Montana's line of speakers (which have received many glowing reviews), you'll see something very similar to what I would have Dunlavy build. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that they just copied Dunlavy's original design parameters and used much better drivers, cabinets and crossover parts.

Sorry I couldn't answer your question with a definite "yes" or "no", but I DO NOT want to be part of the "potential mis-information, based on a subjective opinion" crowd. There's enough of that already!