Thiel 3.6 vs. Dunlavy SC-IV/A

I've listened to many of the Thiel models and most of the Dunlavy models. I wound up buying the SC-V's after listening to the SC-IVA's. Not to say that I didn’t like the SC-IVA’s. Then I moved up to the SC-VI's, my present speakers.

Now speaking of the SC-IVA's….. Someone else compared them to an electrostat and I agree, there is nothing quite like the sound of the symmetrical vertical array of the Dunlavy's. I felt that the Thiels that I've listened to were too bright (so I agree with Ejlif who stated the Dunlavy's are a bit laid back). To me that equates to the smoothness of the Dunlavy's. I also felt that the Thiels didn't have the bass definition and authority of the Dunlavy's (IVA, V, and VI).

They ARE big and heavy and require a larger room size. But, if you have the room, the Dunlavy's coupled with the right electronics will fill it with music effortlessly. I also agree with Czbbcl that you may wish to consider upgrading the preamp too.

You owe it to yourself to go listen the Dunlavy's if you can. Happy listening!!

Put a pair of the new Thiel 1.6's on top of a pair of Velodyne 15" subwoofers before you make a decision (as much as I love the Dunlavys...).

Keep the 3.6's and upgrade your pre-amp, cd player, and possibly your cables. Also look into adding Sound Anchor stands. They make an amazing difference in bass response and mid-range smoothness on all Thiels. I recommend upper level Tara Labs cables to get the most out of your system. Upgrading your cd player, pre-amp, and cables will always pay dividends no matter what you decide to do later on. Remember that the biggest and most effective changes in your system have to occur closest to the source. You cannot improve a signal down-stream if it is not of satisfactory quality up-stream.
Spend your money on a better cd player and pre-amp before ditching the Thiels. You will be very pleasantly rewarded. Please understand, I am not dissing the Linn or the Adcom, I just think that in your system they are the weak links. I know they are very highly rated by some magazines, but there are better choices if system synergy is to be achieved. The Dunlavys are very nice but they need far more room size and exacting placement criteria than do the Thiels. And, after replacing the Thiels with the Dunlavys or anything else for that matter, guess what?....you will still have those up-stream components that will still be the problem.
I have owned most Thiel models including the 6's, 3.6's, 2.3's, 2 2's, 1.2's, and 1.5's, ..... and I have heard most of the Dunlavys, including the 6's, the 5's, and the 4a's. and they are all very very good...... but I fear you will not resolve whatever system issues you are seeking to ameliorate until you deal with the front end, pre-amp and cables.
For the record, Thiels are not inherently bright, they are simply very accurately reproducing a second rate component somewhere in the audio stream. In your case if you are sensing brightness or forwardness, I would wager it is the Linn with the Adcom.
I have had a Linn Karik / Numerik combo, and an Ikemi in my system(s) with several pairs of Thiels and I found that neither of the Linns were satisfactory...too cold and dreary sounding. Try a Levinson, or better yet, a Proceed CDP and a good tube pre-amp (or Pass pre-amp), and you will experience smooth, seamless, detailed......MUSIC.
Speakers only reproduce the faults that begin up-stream with the source and the first stage of processing; the pre-amp. Best of luck.

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.

hello the downside when placing the Dunleavy speakers with their backs along the short wall is in my opinion is total BS, as long as they are six feet plus apart and 3 feet from the side walls. I never have heard a Dunleavy set up their recommended placement which I liked before. I owned the model 5 and 4 currently. I have wall to wall sound stage width sometimes wider in my 20x23x8 room with the speakers placed approximately 60 inches from the side walls the speakers approximately 7 1/2 feet apart and 7 feet from the wall behind to the front of the speakers.