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
>
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
>