I owned SC-IV's for about 2 years and sold them yesterday. They do many things well--image like champs, have a "fast" and very detailed (if not extended) bass, and reproduce most instruments about as well as can be hoped for (vibes, guitar, piano, etc). In the end, they left me cold for two reasons: inability to play loud without strain, and an irritating quality in the upper midrange/treble that was a bit like dental floss between the ears. To be fair I never tried tubed electronics. Power was not an issue with Classe M-1000 m-blocks good for 2kWatt into these impedances. I'm looking elsewhere and will probably buy Arial 8's which have much more bass slam and a sweetness in the highs that I find very seductive and soothing after a day of dealing with life's harsher realities--who needs a speaker to add to the stress?!

They look great but!!! I've owned a pair since they first came out and wondered where is the upper bass . If played loud 100 db to 105 db peaks you will blow tweaters, dunlavy replaced 5 tweaters for me. Space is excellent,image is excellent,and the mid range up is excellent. I have owned many different speakers over the years such as mirage 3si's, vandersteens,ect. and these Dunlavys fall short. Try taking them back by yourself to the dealer when you blow your tweaters! Amplifiers used VTL MB300's also krell 200 watt amp from a friend was tried, no upper bass and no lower bass. I sold them and purchased a pair of, don't laugh, NHT 2.9"S, what a improvement for half the price!

This is my first high-end system. I ended up spending about double what I had planned on, but I didn't want to upgrade later and take the depreciation.I started out listening to Thiel 3.6, Snell C/V, Mirage M3si, OM-6, Vandersteen 3, PSB Gold, Martin Logan reQuest, etc, but the Dunlavy's are in a different league. The clarity, detail, dynamics, soundstage are all incredible. The only faults are that the bass in not as extended as possible, and they are slightly too analytical, and poor recordings are too obvious. But overall they are like listening to real music.

With everything I had heard about these speakers, I was ready to be impressed. After extensive listening, I can say that these speakers are awesome if you don't care about bass. Example, listen to Dave Brubeck's Take Five, especially during the drum solo. In addition to the drums, you will hear what sounds like someone scratching a "personal itch" with the microphone (a slight exaggeration). Neither I nor the shop owner could figure out what that strange sound was. Since he didn't have a sub-woofer and had no other speakers that went deeper than the Dunlavy's, I wasn't able to solve the mystery until I got home to my current speakers, B&W 801's (also not perfect, but with audible bass). It turns out that the drum solo was accompanied in the background by an acoustic bass. The Dunlavy lost an entire instrument(!) leaving only the sound of the strings vibrating against the frets. I will say, though, that the rest of the presentation via the Dunlavy's was extremely impressive and more musical than my 801's. I will also add a note that Dunlavy's published spec for this speaker is somewhat deceiving as regards the bass, quoting extension down to 20 or 30hz, but with something like a 6 or 8db rolloff at that point. It would be better for them to be honest and quote their bass extension as down to 40 or 60hz which is probably closer to the truth. Lot of money (too much) for mini-monitor sound (although what's there is VERY good). [BTW, the rest of the Dunlavy audition system was BAT VK-500 amp, BAT VK-5i preamp, BAT CD player]

The B&W 801 is plus/minus 2b from 18hz-22khz. I have the frequency response curves for my exact speaker pair (supplied by B&W for each speaker pair sold) that backs this up. The Dunlavy is plus/minus 6db(!) from 60-20khz (or something like that). So which one has the humps? People who make unsubstantiated insults of the B&W are obviously just making a blatant attempt to assuage their conscience about having spent thousands of dollars on a speaker that can't reproduce all the music. Analog is sometimes referred to as "All bits present". With the dunlavy, all instruments are not even present. On the other hand, the B&W 801 has been used by the BBC for years as the monitor for their classical recordings. And as I said before, the dunlavy can't even reproduce an acoustic bass. Before spending thousands on dunlavy, invest fifteen bucks on the Brubeck CD, and see for yourself. Or don't. If that's not the kind of music you listen to, then who cares? The dunlavy is not without merit. It's an excellent speaker for female voice, new age, and light jazz.

I have owned the 4's for 1.5 yrs now, and have the following criticisms to make:there is a slight peak in the lower mids / upper treble that becomes irritating after awhile, especially on poor recordings (read:most mass market cds). Bass extention is lackluster, but the speaker on ther whole is well integrated. My kingdom to someone who can reccommend a way to get better bass. Stay away from harsh sounding electronics, the pairing will make your ears bleed.

I have owned a pair of SC-IV's for about three years. After reading other reviews of the speaker on this site I finally understand that others are experiencing the same problem with this speaker, ie. that irritating aggressiveness ( especially on vocals ) in the upper-mids though lower treble region that will not go away. Maybe a crossover problem or poor integration of the drivers. Otherwise a very good speaker. Has anyone out there compared the SC-IV and the SC-IVa? Did Dunlavy fix the problem in the new version? If they did, the SC-IVa must be some speaker and I'll have to go listen.

I bought a pair of the original Dunlavy SC-IV one years ago. I have been looking for way to upgrade these speakers. I have tried the tweeter and midrange drivers, which were suggested by two of the reviewers. I like to share my experience with these drivers. Base on my experience the best tweeter for this speaker is the ETON ER-4 (Air Motion Ribbon Tweeter), they are not cheap $285.00 each. The sound is never edgy, bright or aggressive but relax, dynamic. One nice thing about this tweeter is you don't need to cut the hole to fit these tweeter, they are square in shape . I have them cover the hole on top of the felt treatment. For mid-range driver, the FOCAL 5K4411 (former 5K013L) will be better off for all tube electronics otherwise Dynaudio 15W-75 will be the excellent choice for solid state, but remember Dynaudio requires the hole cutting while Focal requires minimum cutting. I choose the Dynaudio for my speakers. I bought the used pair SC-IV for $3000.00 and I spent $1000.00 for the driver upgrade. What I got now is a pair of speakers sound better (in my opinion) than the SC-IVA for half the price!

I owns a pair of SC-IV(the original). It is a OK speaker but not great. It has a hugh sound stage but not as dynamic or detail when compare to Thiel CS-7 or WA Puppy V. I was thiniking to trade this speaker with other kind. Then I found out that the SC-IV used the Vifa tweeter and mid-range. Vifa is not considered as high-end speaker drivers (in fact they are very inexpensive, I am not saying they are not good, however there are other drivers are much better than this, somttime I was wondering that you paid $5k for a pair speaker, but what you get is $50.00 pair of tweeter, $60.00 pair of mid-range driver ? Well no further comment!). So I replace the tweeters with a pair of Dynaudio Esotec D-260, and I replace the mid-bass drivers with FOCAL 5K013L. The result is stunning. It sounds better than the Thiel CS-7 or Puppy 5s'. Extremely dynamic and dteail! I strongly recommand other SC-IV(original) owners (who are not happy with the SC-IV)to try the new drivers before going out and buy another pair of speakers! I would start with the tweeter first and then the mid-range, believe me you WILL hear the improvement -remember It doest take sometime to burn-in for the new drivers. Happy Listening!

I have owned the SC-IVs for the last few years and I continue to enjoy them for stereo as well as home theater reproduction. I have previously owned several speakers including B&W, Snell, Magnepan, VMPs, etc., and strongly considered, after auditioning, Aerial, Martin Logans, and Apogee. The Dunlavys meet the majority of my requirements for dynamics, efficiency, accuracy, and tonality. My only observation is that there is a shelving of the upper bass frequencies particularly in the 80 to 100 Hz range of several dB which creates a lack of warmth and somewhat over analytical quality, but helps to flesh out heavy bass ridden source material. I don't have the low bass response problem that other reviewers have reported in my system because I have a Muse subwoofer (2) which flattens the frequency response below 50 Hz. I was wondering if anyone else has observed or measured this upper bass anomaly or what comments the two SC-IV reviewers that experimented with alternate midrange driver substitutions might have in this frequency area.
In all I feel this speaker is exceptionally made, has excellent customer support, and has been designed based upon a solid engineering foundation most likely due to Mr. Dunlavy's extensive and highly qualified engineering experience including the ownership of several patents. (See the technical white paper within the Dunlavy Audio Labs web site).