Thiel 3.6 vs. Dunlavy SC-IV/A

The size of the room seems to me to be a limiting factor. I briefly auditioned Dunlavy IV-A speakers at a dealer and they did sound very good indeed. The only comparison point I have to Thiels, however, are to my 3.5s, which I have had many years now. Hardly a valid comparison, since there are too many years between these two designs and too much difference size-wise. I, also, would be interested in getting Dunlavy IV-As but do seriously wonder about the size of the room required. Every one seems to agree that, unlike most speakers I have ever heard, they benefit from being on the long wall, with plenty of room between the speakers, as well as between each speaker and their respective side wall. Not much of a possibility in my room. What is the downside of placing them at the end of the room, on the shorter wall and listening from a good distance to, hopefully, avoid the problems associated with multi-driver speakers in the configuration chosen by Dunlavy? BTW my room is 12'X 25'. The bad part is that, since it is a split level house, the front half of my room is only 7'8" high, the rear half is fractionally above 8'. I have quite a bit of acoustic treatment on the side walls and above the speakers at present. In closing, although not an indispensable attribute or any form of guaranty sound-wise, the Thiels win the knuckle rap test; the back panel of the Dunlavy sounding especially live. The Thiels have better cabinets overall. Another point, a few months ago, in response to my inquiry, the manufacturer indicated to me that the five year warranty on Dunlavy speakers is no longer transferable. Another point where Thiel is significantly better: their warranty being ten years and, the last time I checked, transferable. Thanks.