Which speaker to replace Dunlavy SC-V?

Upgrade the internal parts ( caps, wiring ) of the Dunlavy's and set the room up so that they properly load into it. Then play the Ayre acoustics disc for two weeks and forget about it. At this point, you'll enjoy listening to music and won't worry about what kind of gear your using. That is, if the rest of the gear & room are up to the same level as the modified Dunlavy's. Sean
>

"you should place them across your long wall in your room with more distance in between them than distance between the speaker and the sweet spot".

Two comments on this one.

1) This is pretty much how ANY large multi-driver speaker works best. This is true for everything short of a multi-directional design and applies to both hi-fi and HT installations.

To clarify this, one needs to sit JUST BARELY inside the "listening triangle", not at the apex of the "listening triangle" as most would say. How far inside one has to come inside the triangle has to do with the individual speaker design and how much toe-in is being used. Personally, i prefer to get the speakers as far apart as possible without having the center image collapse and use as little toe-in as is necessary.

2) The Dunlavy's are NOT a "narrow dispersion" design. The MTM driver layout produces a very wide horizontal dispersion pattern with very limited vertical dispersion. By spreading the speaker further apart, which therefore seperates your left and right channel imaging, you get a wider soundstage. Due to the wide horizontal dispersion, the center image is still retained.

The more toe-in that you use, the stronger the center image and the narrower the the "spray" outside the edge of the speakers. The less toe-in that you use, especially when spreading the speakers way out, the more diffuse the center image with a wider overall presentation.

The biggest problem with the bigger Dunlavy's in most rooms is that the bass is inconsistent. This has to do with the room loading effect ( or lack of it ) on the top woofer. Tom aka Theaudiotweak and i discussed how to take care of this quite some time ago.

The other problem with Dunlavy's is the fact that they are "vertically challenged" in terms of high frequency dispersion, which i previously alluded to. As such, you have to find a seat that places your ears at the right height, otherwise the treble response is compromised. This is true of all other designs using an MTM array though, so it is not unique to Dunlavy speakers. Sean
>

Unsound: Obviously, non-symmetrical loading of the woofers "can" create a flatter overall in-room response. Acoustic Research put this to use in their 9 and 90 designs, showing various frequency response results in the manual. Unfortunately, such is typically not the case with the type of design that Dunlavy utilized. Whereas the AR ( and similar designs ) always have some type of loading on the woofers due to proximity to the floor, the Dunlavy's might have the top woofer further from the ceiling than it is from the floor!!!

With that in mind, I have yet to find someone that doesn't think that the Dunlavy's are improved when using some type of baffle extension / "sounding board" near the top woofer. One can even fine tune the amount of reinforcement / frequency of cancellation by experimenting with the size / angle / location of the baffle extension. Due to their low Q "over-damped" design, the lack of room reinforcement can REALLY make the Dunlavy's seem like they are lacking in low frequency output. Making use of the aforementioned baffle extension can not only improve bass extension, but also apparent bass weight. When you can increase both extension and output without negatively affecting transient characteristics, it's typically a good thing.

The baffle extension can either be mounted from the ceiling down or from the top of the speaker up. Obviously, mounting it to the top of the speaker makes the design more versatile, as you can now position the speaker without having to go through the hassle of re-positioning the ceiling mounted baffle extension. This might not seem important as one would think that they could position the speaker optimally and then mount the extension to the ceiling, but when you install the extension, it will also alter the room loading characteristics / tonal balance. In turn, this may change optimum placement characteristics slightly.

Baffle extensions are a "trick" that can also be put to great use with small stand mounted monitors to increase low frequency output. Some people refer to this type of baffle extension as a "baffle beard" when used on stand mounts, as it can resemble a long hanging beard that is pitched slightly forward. Sean
>

Due to the way that Dunlavy treated the baffle, the dispersion on this design IS more limited horizontally than a more conventional MTM design. Having said that, HT systems typically benefit from such a design as the viewer / listener is presented with a more defined left / center / right image. Spatial cues are more realistic and there is less blurring. This is especially true when the speakers are improperly spaced i.e. too close together as is found with most HT installs.

Other than that, most speakers are quite sensitive to toe-in. Being FAR more linear in output than the mass majority of designs on the market, the Dunlavy's simply reveal tonal imbalances in much quicker fashion. As such, errors in ANY part of the system / installation are displayed quite evidently.

If one HAS to run major amounts of toe-in with this speaker, my OPINION ( and that's all that it is ) is that the speakers are set up too wide and / or the listening position is less than optimal. Either that or there are other tonal / frequency response errors being commited elsewhere in the system. By toeing them in drastically, the Dunlavy's are being asked to compensate for these losses via "beaming" more high frequency information directly at the ears of the listener. Sean
>

The "sweetspot" in an HT system is supposed to be taken care of ( primarily ) by the center channel speaker, not the right and left mains. The right and left mains are primarily there to provide spatial cues and extend the imaging that is presented by the center channel as called upon to do so.

Multi-channel musical reproduction is a bit different, but once again, having the left / center / right speakers too close together tends to blurr the imaging that would normally take place.

When properly situated, one should be able to follow / point to the sound of a test tone as it slowly travels across the fronts. Just as there is "stereo seperation" from the left to right in a two channel system, you should have separation from left to center and center to right. With proper recording techniques, you can have images that are presented hard left, directly in-between the left speaker and center speaker, centered, directly in-between the center speaker and the right speaker and hard right.

Most people don't hear all of the spatial cues on multi-channel recordings simply because their system / speaker selection / speaker placement lacks the proper amount of separation. On top of that, their speakers are not mounted at the same appr height, further skewing the imaging that takes place.

Quite honestly, this is a relatively hard thing to do, especially if one has larger speakers and / or a large TV set. My center speaker is a bit higher than the equivalent mid & tweeter height of my mains, but it is the best that i can do with my given installation specifics.

Since we're on the subject, my HT system utilizes speakers that share several design similarities to the larger Dunlavy's. That is, they all have "acoustic blankets" on the baffles, which helps to focus the imagery and minimize baffle related diffraction. They also utilize two large acoustic suspension woofers per cabinet. Like the Dunlavy's, the two woofers load into the room asymmetrically. Like the Dunlavy's, these speakers are tuned to a Qts of appr .5 for optimum bass transient characteristics. Like the Dunlavy's, they also work best with GOBS of power on hand. Sean
>