Somehow, I don't think John Dunlavy cared much about cosmetic appeal. That's one reason Dunlavy is out of business. And the owners manuals for his speakers sure don't suggest anything like what Sean is advocating.
Even in my previous house, with a room that measured something like 14x19, I had the SC-IV/A's on the short wall and the sound was spectacular. The bass extended into the 25 hertz range and the speakers vanished better than anything I'd ever owned (including Merlin VSM-SE, ProAc 3.5, Quad, Acoustat, Totem Mani-2 and several others). Before purchasing the speakers, I talked to Dunlavy's Drew Rigby, and he assured me that my relatively small room would not be a problem. In fact, I got much better bass in that room than I got in my 15x24 room. So Rigby was right.
As for amplifiers, one of Rigby's personal favorites for the SC-IV/A was the Rowland Model 2, which is rated at 75 watts per channel. That's hardly a monster amp.
Even in my previous house, with a room that measured something like 14x19, I had the SC-IV/A's on the short wall and the sound was spectacular. The bass extended into the 25 hertz range and the speakers vanished better than anything I'd ever owned (including Merlin VSM-SE, ProAc 3.5, Quad, Acoustat, Totem Mani-2 and several others). Before purchasing the speakers, I talked to Dunlavy's Drew Rigby, and he assured me that my relatively small room would not be a problem. In fact, I got much better bass in that room than I got in my 15x24 room. So Rigby was right.
As for amplifiers, one of Rigby's personal favorites for the SC-IV/A was the Rowland Model 2, which is rated at 75 watts per channel. That's hardly a monster amp.