looking for upgrade suggestions - 12,000 to spend

To start, I would use the No. 39 as a transport and add a DAC, such as the Dodson. I did just that myself and I feel it is a big step up. After you do that, explore the TacT RCS to work on the room. The Dodson (or other high quality outboard DAC) will outperform the TacT's DA module, which is why I suggest you do the DAC upgrade before adding the room correction, but you could reverse the order. Unfortunately, you cannot insert the TacT or similar device between the transport and DA sections of the No. 39. -Dan

Get rid of the Dunlavys. You can buy far fine speakers. Eidolon, Magnepan 20.1, etc.

Don't sell the speakers and DO NOT modify them. While the changes suggested in a previous post (tweeter, X-Over,etc) will certainly change the Dunlavy's, the kind of improvement you MAY get (or just as likely, screwing up the sound) will be miniscule in comparison to fixing the room (Tact or SigTech).

I also agree with the idea of buying a good turntable and lots of used records. For $12,000 you can buy a great used TNT or Basis with arm and cartridge and a LOT of LP's.

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.

My recommendation of not modifying Dunlavy's (I own SC-VI's) is based upon the Dunlavy approach to speaker design.

He carefully tests and matches his drivers to obtain what he belives are the correct results (impulse, frequency (plus or minus 1db), step, etc) and ANY driver repalcement which does not meet his criteria, by definition, creates a new and different speaker...and I would suggest that it might not measure as well.

That said, I know that not everyone likes John's idea of accurate and is certainly free (as you did) to modify the product.

I do know someone who performed similar (may or may not be exactly the same) mods on a pair of SC-VI's and, IMO, sounded far inferior than the speaker before it was modified.

I know Stan Warren has a great reputation for amp mods, and there is no doubt some folks will like his mods for the Dunlavy's.

I am curious. If these changes only enhance the Dunlavy's design, and offer the improvements that you and others have heard, why has John not implemented them. It doesn't sound as though they would add much to the cost? Have you ever asked John what he thinks about these changes?