Dunlavy vs Coincident

I have Dunlavy Cantatas and for a short time had Coincident
Super Eclipse for a second system. The Coincidents had a very big soundstage with too much treble and too much bass for my taste.When listening to classical music the violins were in the wrong place somewhere further back than they should be.
They sounded very dynamic when you first listen to them but then you realize that the sound is veiled.Also the finish on the cabinets was terrible with little flakes chipping off.If you buy them go for the light color.
Many people like these speakers but to me they weren't as good as the Dunlavy SCII's which I was trying to replace in my second system.The SCII's cost less than half the price of the Super Eclipses.
Oh well! That what makes the world go around.

One of my buddies had SC IV's and had nothing but problems with them. While his room might not have been big enough for them to operate at their best, i know that Dunlavy DID make changes to the IV shortly after he started bombarding them with phone calls. As it turns out, Dunlavy was crossing the midrange driver BELOW the point of resonance, causing it to sound much poorer than it should have. Whether or not his phone calls and feedback to them had anything to do with their production change is up to debate. For the record, he was also using Dunlavy speaker cable.

He went from the IV's to some Maggie 3.5's, from the Maggie's to some Innersound Eros' and from the Eros' to some Eclipse's that were upgraded to Super Eclipse's. He is now running what would be an very expensive custom built horn array with multiple subs. As such, his opinion of the "mass produced" speakers were that the Coincident's KILLED all of the other speakers that he's used. His overall opinion of the Dunlavy's is VERY low compared to the others.

Once again, i'm simply relaying his opinions, so please don't take it personal. Other than the changes that Dunlavy has made to the midrange driver / crossover points, i think that his room dimensions were not up to getting the best out of the "oversized" Dunlavy's. Sean
>

Hi. I had VonSchweikert VR4 originals that I traded in for a used pair of Dunlavy SC-IV (model year 1995 with the Vifa woofers which were upgraded from the original Morel woofers)
I sold them, got a pair of Proac 3.8's which needed to be 4 feet from the wall behind them to sound balanced in my room which is somewhat square in dimension(19.5x17x8), resulting in a bass-heavy resonant sound. I sold those and got the Alethas (Dunlavy.)I heard the Coincident total ecclipse at someones house and they were very good, sweet, detailed and dynamic. They are quite large (deep) compared to the Alethas and they are ported which may make them more difficult to position. The acoustic suspension design of the Dunlavy makes it easier to integrate the speaker into the room. The Aletha is much more forgiving than the SC-IV or the IVa. While not quite as open and completely uncolored as the IVa, the Cantata and Aletha is much more listenable on close-miked pop recordings. The Proacs made everything sound pretty, but I rarely had the illusion of performers playing in my room that I got with all the Dunlavys. They sounded like a good stereo. Sorry.. I digress. The Coincidents are similar to the Dunlavys in that they have a boxless sound, but I don't know if they sound as "big". Give both a listen with poor and good recordings and trust your ears.

The Totals could be a bit much for your new room.The Super will work fine.From what I have heard the Coincidents are hard to beat.

In a small room you might want to listen the JMlabs mezzo While discussing the Mezzo speaker with a JMlab engineer in france he informed me that the speaker was originaly designed for small rooms. Most of the European apartments are made up of very small rooms. therefore the speakers seems to perform really well in it's most desirable surroundings.

NOTE: The Coincident top of the line speaker at the NY SHOW sounded AMAZING really AMAZING.