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!
