looking for upgrade suggestions - 12,000 to spend

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?

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!

Just got rid of my Dunlavy V's and purchased the Piega 10's. A major upgrade.Now would be a good time to unload the Dunlavy's with the uncertainty of their future

I would suggest talking to wkendenvir@aol.com He is a great guy and just sent out his newsletter with some good buys. The Talon speakers and Valhalla cables are two thoughts. I don't know what size room you have but you might consider the Dunlavy V's. If you like the Dunlavy sound as I do, it's going to be tough to find a pleasing replacement.