Thiel 2.3 vs. Dunlavy SC-IV
ni...@media.mit.edu
the Thiel PCS) and the last revision of the Dunlavy SC-IV (used).
I would like to hear people's comments on how these two speaker's sounds
differ. The designers stated purpose in each case is "accuracy", both
are time and phase coherent, and both are designed to be listened to
from at least 10' feet away.
The specs on each speaker seem to indicate that the SC-IV has a few
hertz more of anechoic bass response. Also, Dunlavys are used in a
variety of professional music studios, I don't know if Thiels are used
similarly.
If Mr. Dunlavy is reading this, I would be interested in hearing how
you think the "Thiel sound" differs from the "Dunlavy sound".
Babak Nivi
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Zipser
the cited author.]
In article <s79enj...@corp.supernews.com>, ni...@media.mit.edu says...
> I am trying to decide between the Thiel 2.3 (with the new tweeter from
> the Thiel PCS) and the last revision of the Dunlavy SC-IV (used).
>
> I would like to hear people's comments on how these two speaker's sounds
> differ. The designers stated purpose in each case is "accuracy", both
> are time and phase coherent, and both are designed to be listened to
> from at least 10' feet away.
This is a no brainer. The Dunlavy is more accurate in every paramter you
can name. It has a wider and flatter frequency response, it has better
pulse response. It goes deeper in the bass with more authority. The
Dunlavys are much more efficient and present a much easier load on an
amplifier.
> The specs on each speaker seem to indicate that the SC-IV has a few
> hertz more of anechoic bass response. Also, Dunlavys are used in a
> variety of professional music studios, I don't know if Thiels are used
> similarly.
The Dunlavys are used by Masterdick, and the Record Plant and Master
Media, and many other recording studios, precisely because of all the
above advantages I detailed.
> If Mr. Dunlavy is reading this, I would be interested in hearing how
> you think the "Thiel sound" differs from the "Dunlavy sound".
Mr. Dunlavy will never publicly reply about the sound of a competitors
speakers! Simply go read the reviews for unbiased opinions. The SC-IV's
were not only speaker of the year in Stereophile, they were Stereophile's
PRODUCT of the year!
There is no comparison - the DAL was a superb speaker at $6000 - arguably
the best there was at that pricepoint, the Thiels are just another fins
speaker at a much lower pricepoint. Since the SC-IV's are available used
for between $2600 and $4000/pr (depending on vintage) the Thiels are not
even close.
Cheers
Zip
PS: Standard Disclaimer - I AM a Dunlavy dealer ;-)
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound Entech Gallo Davis NEAR Seleco PSB
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Faroudja Rega Benz-Micro
Dunlavy Lexicon Zenith Mordaunt-Short EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP
Nakamichi Genelec Solid Steel Camelot Salamander Audio Logic PASS NHT
Rob Gold
>I am trying to decide between the Thiel 2.3 (with the new tweeter from
>the Thiel PCS) and the last revision of the Dunlavy SC-IV (used).
>
>I would like to hear people's comments on how these two speaker's sounds
>differ. The designers stated purpose in each case is "accuracy", both
>are time and phase coherent, and both are designed to be listened to
>from at least 10' feet away.
>
>hertz more of anechoic bass response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoa, nice problem to have! Both designs state similar goals but use
rather different paths to get there. Don't worry about any minor
spec'd difference in bass extension, as your room, placement and
treatment will determine how much bass you actually get. Both
speakers image superbly, throwing a broad and deep soundstage with
incredible focus and specificity, though the Thiel's concentric
drivers will give you a broader sweet spot (perhaps at the price of a
small amount of beaming in the highs). Both speakers allow relatively
close positioning to the rear wall -- useful given their size! -- and
encourage relatively wide spacing. Both speakers offer, more or less,
pretty flat frequency response and extended highs. Some will pick one
or the other based on essentially minor differences in frequency
balance, with the Dunlavy's being smoother, with a more distant
perspective and the Thiels being "present," with a more foreward
perspective.
All in all, I find the Dunlavy's (and I've heard the IV, not the IVa)
more neutral and realistic. There *is,* to my ears, a "Thiel Sound"
which I personally find a bit too tightly controlled and overdamped,
with an upper midrange that is just a bit too forward (maybe not
absolutely, but in terms of the records, systems and rooms in which I
have heard them.) The Dunlavy's are well built, but the Thiels are
near-battleship solid.
Reports are that the Thiels are somewhat more picky about
amplification, wanting more power and demanding a smother high end
from its amps than the Dunlavy's. I have not owned either speaker,
but have heard each both in showrooms and in private homes, never with
the ability to mix 'n match amps. If you are considering tube
amplification, I'd lean towards the Dunlavy.
By the way, these are both solid companies with a reputation for
reliability and good service. You won't go wrong either way you go!
Rob Gold
Glenn Zelniker
> This is a no brainer. The Dunlavy is more accurate in every paramter you
> can name. It has a wider and flatter frequency response, it has better
> pulse response.
I have to agree with Steve here.
> The Dunlavys are used by Masterdick
D'oh! The "c" and the "s" are *way* too close together on the
keyboard sometimes! You can also add Sterling Sound, Absolute Audio,
Sony Mastering (both NYC & LA), Master Cutting Room, and Airshow to
the list of top-notch mastering houses using Dunlavys. We use 'em
here at Z-Systems, too.
> There is no comparison - the DAL was a superb speaker at $6000 - arguably
> the best there was at that pricepoint, the Thiels are just another fins
> speaker at a much lower pricepoint. Since the SC-IV's are available used
> for between $2600 and $4000/pr (depending on vintage) [snip]
Agreed. IMO, there are few better deals than a used pair of SC-IVs.
Hell, they were a steal at the list price.
Glenn Zelniker
Z-Systems Audio Engineering
Zipper413
any speakers.
You may have to break down and listen for yourself. Asking a
newsgroup about Thiels is just looking for trouble. There are sooo
many misconceptions about them. People think they are peaky, hard to
drive, finicky about amps, etc. I have had 3 pairs over 12
years.{1,2,2.3} In that time I also have owned Quads, Maggies,
Lowthers, and have listened extensively to many others for hours on
end, including Dunlavys. I have not found another speaker more
satisfying long term. They CAN be driven by a wide variety of amps.
I have used Levinson, BAT, Electrocompaniet, Classe, CJ Premier 11,
and now am using Welborne Apollos or an 8 watt AudioNote Kit One!!!!
It sounds GREAT. Thiels have a flat impedence which helps any amp.
It comes down to YOUR preference. You cannot decide in an hour in a
showroom. You need a weekend at home. Buy the speaker, amp or
whatever which gives you insights into the music, takes you into the
mind of the composer/musician, and tickles the FUN side of your
brain.
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com
Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> This is a no brainer. The Dunlavy is more accurate in every paramter you
> can name. It has a wider and flatter frequency response, it has better
> pulse response. It goes deeper in the bass with more authority. The
> Dunlavys are much more efficient and present a much easier load on an
> amplifier.
A "no brainer?" That's quite dismissive and presumptuous. You mean,
the Thiels shouldn't even be considered? Oh, that's right; you are
not a Thiel dealer. Hmm. And, the Dunlavy is better in every
parameter? The VASTLY superior drivers in the Thiel yield lower
harmonic/IM distortion over the entire audio band. The woofer in the
Thiel, with its massive, underhung motor and copper shorting rings,
has much, much lower IM distortion than the far cheaper devices in
the Dunlavy. The edge-of-the-art coaxial, also designed by Thiel, is
a technological triumph. Many designers have attempted the creation
of such a unit and Thiel's is the best example to date. I suggest
the original poster go to Thiel's website (www.thielaudio.com) and
check this driver out. It allows true point source, true minimum
phase performance without having to stair step the drivers. The
Dunlavys only mimic this point source behavior. Dunlavy himself
would have to admit that the FULLY symmetrical output from the Thiel
coaxial is hard to argue with technically. Such a driver has NONE of
the inter-driver interference problems that separate tweeter and
midrange approaches have. The Thiel in this regard has none of the
choppy vertical response problems that the Dunlavy has, which affords
a more flexible listing location. This coaxial driver, with its
broader, more constant and better integrated midrange and treble
means a much broader sweet spot, which will retain harmonically
correct time coherence over a significantly broader dispersion angle
and a better overall in-room power response. This approach also
affords a smaller, more elegant enclosures. A visit to Thiel's
website (www.thielaudio.com) will also show the massive, CNC machined
front baffle, elegantly tapered to reduce diffraction and to increase
dispersion. No need to glue blocks of felt on the Thiel's front.
Also afforded by the CNC capabilities are the multiple "H" braces
throughout the Thiel enclosure, resulting in a precision fit, very
massive, and extremely acoustically inert enclosure. Personally, I
prefer the outward look of the Thiel quite a bit to the Dunlavy.
The Thiel's impulse response shows stored energy problems of the
metal dome tweeter and the vented alignment woofer. Applying an FFT
to this response, however, shows that the Thiel's frequency response
and phase are superb. The very accurate performance of the Thiel is
also shown in quite good square wave reproduction.
Although I typically much prefer the sound of sealed enclosure
systems, the Thiel's bass performance is outstanding. It certainly
does not sound like it is bass-reflex, probably due to the passive
radiator. Rather, it is tight, fast, and deep with excellent pitch
and tonality.
The treble is not quite to my liking (at least the last time I heard
the Thiel). It gets a little spitty and unruly in the very top
octave. Perhaps this is improved lately.
The superb focus and intuitively harmonically correct sound that the
Dunlavy has is also there with the Thiel. Both are, after all, point
source, minimum phase transducers. I would say that the Dunlavy has
the upper hand on achieving the best bass power response, however, by
virtue of its multiple woofers and midbass drivers. The Thiel will
require painstaking positioning to get smooth in-room bass.
Overall, the Thiel is a better engineered, much higher technology,
higher quality speaker, with much higher quality drive units, lower
broadband harmonic and IM distortion and is potentially more user
friendly with its wider sweetspot imaging. Plus, to my eyes, it is
much more visually appealing than the obligatory big rectangular box
that is the Dunlavy. Strictly speaking, the Dunlavy has better time
domain performance, which implies slightly better complex wave
reproduction, but only slightly so. The hashy ringing in the Thiel's
impulse response is due almost entirely to the tweeter's ultra sonic
resonance.
> There is no comparison
See the above.
>The SC-IV's
> were not only speaker of the year in Stereophile, they were Stereophile's
> PRODUCT of the year!
So was the Wilson X-1 (or was that "Speaker of the Year?). And that
awful sounding, erect penis shaped speaker, the Eggleston Andra
(perhaps also Speaker of the Year).
Biggleswurth
Seung
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The VASTLY superior drivers in the Thiel yield lower
> harmonic/IM distortion over the entire audio band. The woofer in the
> Thiel, with its massive, underhung motor and copper shorting rings,
> has much, much lower IM distortion than the far cheaper devices in
> the Dunlavy.
Would you share us the actual measurements of harmonic/IM distortion
of driver units of Thiel and Dunlavy? I'd like to know how big
the difference is, and from your posting, I believe that you have the
actual data. Thank you.
Seung
root
> Gee, looking at the other responses, I am surprised Thiel ever sells
> any speakers.
>
I have auditioned the Thiel CS 2.3 at length at home. The treble is
too peaky, a problem with virtually every speaker with a metal
tweeter.
There is another problem with Thiel and all wide dispersion
speakers. You end up hearing the room more than the speaker (because
it sprays high frequencies all around).
Try to play any nice saxophone recording (e.g. Milt Jackson's Bags
meets Trane). The nasality on the sax will drive you up the wall (as
it would anyone who knows the true sound of a sax).
The problem with the Thiel 2.3 is endemic to the whole line (see the
review of the 7.2 in a recent TAS issue by Robert Greene).
I think the older 3.6 was in many ways a better balanced speaker than
any of the more recent speakers (I remain unconvinced by the coaxial
mid-treble unit).
If you can find a used Thiel 5, that was the best speaker they ever
made (much more natural highs).
- Sridhar
Art Altman
when fully broken in and properly driven (e.g. Conrad Johnson 12's).
They also present music in a way that is gripping; i.e., you can't
ignore it. They are extremely revealing and therefore lend
themselves to the audiophile hobby - continually upgrading equipment
- because you can hear the most subtle of differences in your gear
and source material.
For me, Thiel is the way to go if you are into chasing down that
last bit of sonic truth and you enjoy incrementally improving your
system. I turn to less revealing speakers, speakers that are more
"naturally musical", during periods when I want to back off of my
audiophile hobby and play music more as background. There is a lot
to be said for that of course.
Art
Zipper413 wrote:
> Gee, looking at the other responses, I am surprised Thiel ever sells
> any speakers.
>
> You may have to break down and listen for yourself. Asking a
> newsgroup about Thiels is just looking for trouble. There are sooo
> many misconceptions about them. People think they are peaky, hard to
> drive, finicky about amps, etc. I have had 3 pairs over 12
> years.{1,2,2.3} In that time I also have owned Quads, Maggies,........
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com
> too peaky, a problem with virtually every speaker with a metal
> tweeter.
> There is another problem with Thiel and all wide dispersion
> speakers. You end up hearing the room more than the speaker (because
> it sprays high frequencies all around).
Sounds like you have a very live room. Perhaps you should consider
some damping material. Rooms with a really good RT60 of .3 seconds or
better above 250 Hz really enhance the performance of wide dispersion
speakers (yields a really wide sweet spot, yet retains excellent
neutrality and clarity). Either that, or get some diffusers in place
(or in addition to damping material). That also makes wide dispersion
speakers sound a lot better. If you have a really reverant room,
especially in the high freqs, then leaving your room untreated will
result in your room's venue acoustics always overpowering the
recording's.
> The problem with the Thiel 2.3 is endemic to the whole line (see the
> review of the 7.2 in a recent TAS issue by Robert Greene).
Anyone who realizes the potential big performance advantages would
simply address room acoustics. I heard the Thiel CS6 at the CES a few
years ago in a well treated room, and it was fabulous, with fantastic
imaging and coherence even well off axis. The Dunlavys can't do that
as well. You must be directly on axis to get full coherence and focus
with them.
> I think the older 3.6 was in many ways a better balanced speaker than
> any of the more recent speakers (I remain unconvinced by the coaxial
> mid-treble unit).
In terms of coherence and imaging, I submit that the new Thiels are
superior. In terms of treble purity, the older ones were more to my
liking. Perhaps there is some way and end user can address the new
Thiel's treble performance.
Steve Zipser
deja.com says...
> In article <8530d2$4aj$1...@bourbaki.net>,
> Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a no brainer. The Dunlavy is more accurate in every paramter you
> > can name. It has a wider and flatter frequency response, it has better
> > pulse response. It goes deeper in the bass with more authority. The
> > Dunlavys are much more efficient and present a much easier load on an
> > amplifier.
>
> A "no brainer?" That's quite dismissive and presumptuous.
Not at all, sir. I have had the ooprtunity to compare these two speakers
at South Beqach Studios, where we not only listened to them with masters
that had just been recorded on location, we also had the opportity to
measure them. My observation - and those of the mastering and recording
engineers in attendance - AND THE MUSICIANS THEMSELVES - were that the
Dunlavy was the best of the four speakers being compared at the time (the
other two were B&W 801 Matrix III, and Genelecs).
> You mean, the Thiels shouldn't even be considered?
Obviously the gentleman already did consider the Thiels, didn't he? Look
at the header ;-) In my opinion - and in the opinion of professionals,
the Dunlavy TROUNCED the Thiels 2.3's.
> Oh, that's right; you are not a Thiel dealer.
I have to point out three things here for you, since you apparently did
not read what I wrote....
(1) I stated clearly that I am a Dunlavy dealer (but this is irrelevant
because)
(2) I suggested the poster go out and find a USED pair of SC-IV's - I
obviously was not trying to sell anything (and most importantly)
(3) Your statement was obnoxious and inflamatory and I am shocked that
the moderators allowed it!
> Hmm. And, the Dunlavy is better in every parameter?
Yup! Just measure them!!
> The VASTLY superior drivers in the Thiel yield lower
> harmonic/IM distortion over the entire audio band.
Absolutely incorrect. This is not remotely true. I can supply graphs,
MLLISA plats, pulse tests results, etc. You cannot because you have made
a statement with absolutely no proof or supporting data. Your claim is
hollow and meaningless without any facts to back it up, kind sir.
> The woofer in the Thiel, with its massive, underhung motor and
> copper shorting rings, has much, much lower IM distortion than
> the far cheaper devices in the Dunlavy.
(1) Please supply costs - your claim is absurd.
(2) Please supply measurements and show correlation between cost and
performance ;-)
(3) The fact is that the Dunlavys have TWO woofers in each cabinet, and
the woofers are LARGER - so they have lower IM. In addition, the DALs go
deeper in the bass with more authority. In addition, the DALs are 5 dB
more efficient so even the amplifier works less hard in driving them!
> The edge-of-the-art coaxial, also designed by Thiel, is
> a technological triumph. Many designers have attempted the creation
> of such a unit and Thiel's is the best example to date. I suggest
> the original poster go to Thiel's website (www.thielaudio.com) and
> check this driver out. It allows true point source, true minimum
> phase performance without having to stair step the drivers.
The Thiel cannot possibly supply true point source performance because
the driver array is simply not symmetrical. End of that story!
> Dunlavys only mimic this point source behavior. Dunlavy himself
> would have to admit that the FULLY symmetrical output from the Thiel
> coaxial is hard to argue with technically.
Wait a minute! The Dunlavy driver array is symmetrical. The Thiels
array is not! This is an absolute incontrovertable fact!
> Such a driver has NONE of
> the inter-driver interference problems that separate tweeter and
> midrange approaches have.
Oh, really? Supply supporting data. Besides this is nothing new - KEF
and Tannoy have been doing this for years - and their speakers are no
more special than the Thiels!
Because you make a claim, does not make it so, sir. We have actually
compared these speakers, we have had audio industry pros compare these
speakers, we have measured these speakers.
The DALs are significantly better.
Cheers
Zip
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
<mrbiggl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately, I don't have any recent data. Many speaker makers
>don't even show harmonic distortion or intermodulation distortion
>figures anymore (I don't know why).
Nor do many show radiation patterns, direct vs. total power system
response, actual impedence curves, etc.
What's missing is a lot more than what isn't, I fear.
I'll leave the woofer distortion discussions to you.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com
Despite what will be earnest assurances about objectivity from you, I
don't know what the conditions were of your above test. I don't know
what SPL matching strategies you used (which can get extremely complex
based on room reverb characteristics, the dispersion pattern of
speakers, output impedance of the amp, etc.), whether parasitic
stimulation of other speakers by the DUT was addressed, what positioning
you used, the acoustics of the demonstration/measurement venue, what
measurement skills and instruments were used, whether the test was
single blind or double blind, what listener bias was in place, how
listener biases were influenced by authoritarian biases, etc.
For instance, you could have pointed out to the panelists the impulse
response of the Dunlavy and compared it to the Thiel, saying, "See, the
Dunlavy is pulse coherent, and the Thiel is not," when in reality, most
of the untidy parts of the Thiel's impulse response are out of band
artifacts and that the Thiel's in-band phase, frequency and energy
storage performance are superb. So, I will have to remain skeptical of
your objectivity.
>(3) Your statement was obnoxious and inflamatory and I am shocked
No more than your dismissive comment about an exceptionally well
designed, extremely accurate, very well received, technological tour de
force, which also happens to be one of the best cost-to-value quality
products in high end audio.
The Dunlavy is also definitely in this category.
>Yup! Just measure them!!
I have not personally measured them, but I could, as I have excellent
FFT impulse and precision swept sine gear on hand and am fairly
proficient with the tasks of good loudspeaker measurements. And I will
tell you that I don't have to anyway because between Thiel, Dunlavy, and
magazines, published data exists that shows that you are incorrect. And
at a certain point, relevancy of performance areas needs to be
assessed. Thiel is an advocate of accurate loudspeakers, yet he chose a
bass reflex (passive radiator) bass system because he obviously believes
that its benefit outweighs the superior impulse and step response of
sealed systems. Why? Well, perhaps subjectively he just thinks it
sounds better, but it could also be that with sealed systems, woofer
excursion quadruples for every octave of decrease in bass frequency, and
with bass reflex systems, almost all acoustic power is radiated by the
vent/radiator at the tuning
frequency and the woofer excursion goes to almost zero. This means that
bass distortion
can be much, much lower in that range than with a sealed system (meaning
the vented/radiator system can play much louder in that region). Below
that frequency, the reflex systems start to deload, causing very
excessive excursion, but clever steps can be taken with radiator systems
to minimize that, which is one of the reasons why I believe Thiel uses
them. So, the point is that the Dunlavy's superior step response in the
bass region doesn't tell the whole story about distortion. It just
relates to time domain behavior.
> > The VASTLY superior drivers in the Thiel yield lower
> > harmonic/IM distortion over the entire audio band.
>Absolutely incorrect. This is not remotely true. I can supply graphs,
>MLLISA plats, pulse tests results, etc. You cannot because you have
made
>a statement with absolutely no proof or supporting data. Your claim is
>hollow and meaningless without any facts to back it up, kind sir.
I think you should then supply these figures. By the way, you do mean
DRA Labs MLSSA, correct? Did you specifically procure THD and IM
distortion figures with the above measurements, or just impulse and freq
response data? If all you have are the speakers' impulse responses and
freq domain curves, then you have no actual %
DISTORTION measurements.
I submit that I am not absolutely incorrect, and that my claims are not
"hollow and meaningless," for I have a pretty good idea of the
performance capabilities of the Vifa and ScanSpeak drivers and the U.S.
OEM woofers that are in the Dunlavys. Whether the Dunlavy woof is a
United Speaker unit, an Eminence OEM, or whatever, I will assure you
that the typical overhung motor woofer with typical motor plates, pole
piece, etc., will absolutely not have lower distortion or excursion
capability of a good underhung woofer that has a CAD FEA designed,
coper-clad motor.
> > The woofer in the Thiel, with its massive, underhung motor and
copper shorting rings, > > has much, much lower IM distortion than the
far cheaper devices in the Dunlavy.
>(1) Please supply costs - your claim is absurd.
For comparisons, I will offer my estimate that something like a 12" TC
Sounds woofer (underhung with massive motor and cast frame) is probably
3-4 times more expensive than the 12" woofer in the Dunlavys (or what an
equivalent unit would cost the hobbyist). This is not absurd; it is
simply a fact.
>(2) Please supply measurements and show correlation between cost and
>performance ;-)
A Dynaudio D26 has quite noticeably better performance than a Vifa D27,
and costs much more. A Focal 5K013L (or whatever the current version
is), with its edge wound coil, better terminated cone, curvelinear
kevlar composite cone, phase plug, and larger motor has quite noticeably
better performance than a Vifa P13, and costs a lot more. I can offer
many, many more such examples. There very often is a good correlation
between cost and performance. A cast frame is undeniably technically
preferable to a stamped one, and it also costs more. A doped fabric
dome is superior to a polycarbonate one, and is more expensive. I could
probably supply a hundred such examples. It seems you are incorrect on
this point. It is true that final product execution may be overly
expensive and poor in performance, but it is a fact that better
performance can be had by better components, and that better components
almost always cost more.
>(3) The fact is that the Dunlavys have TWO woofers in each cabinet,
>and
>the woofers are LARGER - so they have lower IM. In addition, the >DALs
go
>deeper in the bass with more authority. In addition, the DAL >are 5 dB
>more efficient so even the amplifier works less hard in >driving them!
It may be that by having roughly twice the Sd, the Dunlavys may have the
upper hand in this comparison. However, on Thiel's site, there is a
woofer comparison: ostensibly equivalent woofers that differ only in
motor design show that @ 6mm excursion, Thiel's woofer has ten times
less harmonic distortion. This is typical with underhung voicecoil
motor designs. So the single Thiel woof should be able to deliver out
some really good bass, despite there just being one of them. The big
benefit of the Dunlavy's two woofs is that because of their positioning,
better in room power response is usually the result, yielding smoother
in-room bass. Finally, the Dunlavy is not more efficient; it is more
voltage sensitive. The Dunlavy probably consumes more power at a
reference voltage compared to the Thiel because the Dunlavy has slightly
lower impedance broadband due to paralleled drivers (which is what gives
it better voltage sensitivity). The Thiel is actually quite respectable
in this regard due to its massive motors.
> > The edge-of-the-art coaxial, also designed by Thiel, is
> > a technological triumph. Many designers have attempted the creation
>The Thiel cannot possibly supply true point source performance because
the
>driver array is simply not symmetrical. End of that story!
Wrong. You are making a pretty big deal about what is a trivial
detail. From the midbass up, only the Thiel is a TRUE point source
speaker. The Dunlavy is NOT. Repeat, NOT. The Thiel is a true point
source speaker where it actually matters: from the midbass up to the
high frequency limit. It has perfectly symmetric dispersion from from
the midbass up. Not only does it have symmetric dispersion, it has no
interference patterns, which allow it to preserve spectral balance both
vertically and horizontally. Inter-driver lobing in the Thiel happens
at the low frequency and very long wavelength crossover point between
the coax and the woofer and is so inconsequential that it would a) be
hard to even measure, and b) is absolutely not audible. Any -6dB null
region due to interdriver interference would likely be swamped out by
power response behavior. The spacing between the coax and woof drivers
is probably within 1/4, possibly even 1/8 of a wavelength at the
crossover frequency (I don't know what the crossover frequency is. It
may be as low as 150 Hz!). There is no significant, audible
inter-driver interference pattern with that relationship!
This is not true for the Dunlavy. It has quite pronounced and complex
vertical interference patterns because of the ratio of the distance of
the separation between the tweet and midbass drivers compared to the
length of the wavelength at the crossover frequency. The lobing is
symmetric (which does help things) because the driver array is
concentric. But this still causes quite audible spectral changes with
changes in vertical listening position.
> > Dunlavys only mimic this point source behavior. Dunlavy himself
> > would have to admit that the FULLY symmetrical output from the Thiel
> > coaxial is hard to argue with technically.
>Wait a minute! The Dunlavy driver array is symmetrical. The Thiels
array
>is not! This is an absolute incontrovertable fact!
What is an absolute incontrovertible fact is that the Dunlavys mimic
point source behavior.
What is also an incontrovertible fact is that the Thiel IS a true point
source by virtue of the coax driver that covers the portion of the
audible spectrum where true point source performance is the most
beneficial.
> > Such a driver has NONE of the inter-driver interference problems
that separate
> > tweeter and midrange approaches have.
>Oh, really? Supply supporting data. Besides this is nothing new - KEF
and
>Tannoy have been doing this for years - and their speakers are no more
>special than the Thiels!
Supporting data is not needed when the information is common knowledge.
I don't need to prove an assertion that earth's gravity causes objects
to fall at 9.8 m/s^2. By definition, a true coaxial driver has no
driver interference problems because the sound origin point is
coincident. This is common knowledge for anything having to do with
wave sources in a working fluid; it is simple physics. So, yes,
REALLY. Pick up a high school physics text book and discover this fact
for yourself.
The very fact that spectral balance stays constant over a very wide
listening window is precisely why the Tannoys have always been quite
special, especially the latest generation units with the tulip high freq
wave guide - marvelous. Tannoy makes some extremely cheap little
industrial speakers for shop venues, etc., that are just astonishing;
when used in arrays,
the consistency of spectral balance over huge areas is astonishing.
>Because you make a claim, does not make it so, sir.
I think this really applies mainly to you, since it seems you have only
a modicum of understanding of loudspeaker performance.
>We have actually compared these speakers, we have had audio industry
pros compare
> these speakers, we have measured these speakers.
Since you have demonstrated a very modest, intuitive understanding of
loudspeaker acoustics, you will have to forgive me if I say I have
little confidence in your claims. I certainly can't reconcile them with
what I know about loudspeakers, including the two types we are
discussing and my experience with both their overall design approaches
and the material science involved in their component engineering.
>The DALs are significantly better.
Your opinion, and unfortunately not very well technically supported.
Biggleswurth
Timothy McTeague
treble. You then mention that both the CS 3.6 and the older CS 5 have
natural highs. Well guess what...both of those speakers have the same
tweeter. And it is made of aluminum! I remember when I first looked at
Thiels and many were claiming that it was Thiel's extended high frequencies
that made them sound bright. But the range from about 10 to 20 kHz merely
adds the perception of more "air" or such. It is the upper mid-range and
lower treble that makes a speaker sound bright.
Tim McTeague
> Zipper413 wrote:
>
> > Gee, looking at the other responses, I am surprised Thiel ever sells
> > any speakers.
> >
>
> I have auditioned the Thiel CS 2.3 at length at home. The treble is
> too peaky, a problem with virtually every speaker with a metal
> tweeter.
>
> I think the older 3.6 was in many ways a better balanced speaker than
> any of the more recent speakers (I remain unconvinced by the coaxial
> mid-treble unit).
>
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com
> of driver units of Thiel and Dunlavy? I'd like to know how big
> the difference is, and from your posting, I believe that you have the
> actual data. Thank you.
>
> Seung
Unfortunately, I don't have any recent data. Many speaker makers
don't even show harmonic distortion or intermodulation distortion
figures anymore (I don't know why).
On Thiel's site, they have a graph comparing THD for under vs.
overhung motor designs: at 6mm excursion, the overhung woof is at
5%, while the underhung one is at .5%, an order of magnitude lower
distortion.
I've never seen any typical overhung voice coil woofer outperform any
"equivalent" (more or less equal suspension, BL [or voltage
sensitivity], etc) Sd woofer that has an underhung voice coil and
copper clad pole pieces. Ever. Since the same underhung design is
also implemented in some of Thiel's mid and tweets, I would expect
the same benefit.
Also, Stereophile had a lengthy article on Thiel several years back,
I think when they reviewed the CS6, in which Jim Thiel talked about
the distortion figure differences between his drivers and the
expensive off- the-shelf or OEMed units that other makers typically
use.
Bob Olhsson
wrote:
>A Dynaudio D26 has quite noticeably better performance than a Vifa D27,
>and costs much more.
You are comparing apples to oranges!
Dunlavy has described his criteria for drivers, namely that he
selects drivers having a smooth, easily corrected frequency response
and minimal mechanical resonance as opposed to drivers having their
UNEQUALIZED response flattened and extended using resonance.
He has also stated that he individually measures and selects drivers
to closer tolerances than any driver manufacturers' normal
production. If you add in the cost of the drivers Dunlavy throws out,
there is probably little cost advantage assuming that the D26s are
built to tighter tolerances than D27s and that some extra crossover
circuitry is needed to flatten out the Vifa driver.
This is a far cry from just a case of somebody using cheaper parts!
--
Bob Olhsson Audio| Science is about the creation and manipulation
Box 555, | of models for the purpose of learning about and
Novato CA 94948 | understanding reality. It's very important to not
415.457.2620 | confuse one's model with reality its self!
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com
Bob Olhsson <o...@hyperback.com> wrote:
> In article <85djug$slo$1...@bourbaki.net>,
<mrbiggl...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >and costs much more.
>
How could I compare more similar units? I'm
comparing two very high quality 28 mm fabric dome
tweeters. They are both rear chamber loaded, and ferro fluid
cooled. They both have a very similar moving
mass. Apples to Oranges? The fact is the Dyn is
the superior unit in this comparison, in terms of
better back chamber loading, Q of resonance, power
handling, distortion spectrum - you name it, the
D260 is better. And the D260 has even tighter
tolerances than the Vifa.
> Dunlavy has described his criteria for drivers, namely that he
> selects drivers having a smooth, easily corrected frequency response
> and minimal mechanical resonance as opposed to drivers having their
> UNEQUALIZED response flattened and extended using resonance.
Fine. Are you implying that the D260 has more
pronounced mechanical resonance problem that
affords better frequency response? I'm not sure
what your point is here.
>
> He has also stated that he individually measures and selects drivers
> to closer tolerances than any driver manufacturers' normal
> production. If you add in the cost of the drivers Dunlavy throws out,
> there is probably little cost advantage assuming that the D26s are
> built to tighter tolerances than D27s and that some extra crossover
> circuitry is needed to flatten out the Vifa driver.
I highly doubt Dunlavy throws any drivers out.
They probably go back to the maker. If it cost
him more to use an inferior tweeter because of the
disposal of rejects and the use of more response
shaping circuitry, then what is the benefit of
using the cheaper tweeter? I don't understand
your argument here.
> This is a far cry from just a case of somebody using cheaper parts!
My original point was that superior technical
performance usually means more $. The Vifa D27
can be improved upon, and to do so results in a
more expensive driver. Zipser wanted me to
correlate price to performance. I offered several
examples. It was not an indictment against
Dunlavy's driver choices.
Superior performance almost always costs more
money.
Regards,
Mkuller
>the Thiel PCS) and the last revision of the Dunlavy SC-IV (used).
You need to compare them for yourself; that having been said, I would
cast my vote with the Dunlavys. I own Thiel 7.2s (REG is wrong) and
have compared them at length with Dunlavy's latest, the Athena. Both
are excellent speakers. The Thiel 2.3s should provide you with a
more "precise" sound, but the Dunlavys will give you more bass and be
easier to drive.
Good luck,
Mike
Bob Olhsson
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Superior performance almost always costs more
> money.
Absolutely but a selected cheaper driver isn't automatically one of
lower quality or even cheaper to use than an unselected more expensive
driver. I'm sure most of the manufacturers' cost difference between
those two drivers is the level of QC applied.
Why condemn Dunlavy for pulling most of the QC in house or assume that
he didn't test the more expensive drivers? He says that he did and
found them inferior by his stated criteria of minimum resonance! The
difference in price is trivial relative to just the shipping cost of
the speakers so I can't see how it would make any difference in actual
cost.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio |O tongue, thou art a treasure without end. And,
Box 555,Novato CA 94948 |O tongue, thou art also a disease without remedy.
415.457.2620 |
415.456.1496 FAX | == Jelal'uddin Rumi ==
DALJHD
biased comparisons of the performance of Thiel loudspeakers to those
I have designed for DAL.
Since it is my policy and that of DAL to not comment at the
"subjective level" on the performance, etc. of products designed by
other manufacturers, I will state only a few relevant "objective
facts" intended to put the matter to rest.
First, I am an admirer of Jim Thiel and his loudspeaker designs and
consider their performance to be exemplary.
With respect to measurable accuracy, we have available a full set of
anechoic measurements for each of DAL's loudspeaker models. These
measurements, made anechoically at a distance of 10 feet, include:
amplitude response Vs frequency, impulse-response, step-response,
waterfall, energy-time response, impedance Vs frequency, non-linear
distortion Vs freq. and SPL, radiation patterns in both vertical and
horizontal planes, etc.
Perhaps, those wishing to compare the performance of DAL loudspeakers
with those of another manufacturers might wish to ask them to furnish
a complete set of measurements of guaranteed accuracy.
Yes, mrbiggleswurth, DAL takes the measured performance attributes of
its loudspeakers very, very seriously. Indeed, we unconditionally
guarantee the performance of every loudspeaker we make and ship to
exceed all of our advertised claims, etc. We also have two highly
competent local engineers with Ph.D.'s in E.E. that perform
"oversight" functions with respect to our designs and measurements.
Perhaps, mrbiggleswurth would like to provide accurate measurements
of any loudspeaker that he believes may be more accurate than those
of DAL. We will also provide him with a full set of measurements, at
no cost, for any DAL loudspeaker model he might choose.
Best regards,
John D.
mrbiggl...@my-deja.com
dal...@cs.com (DALJHD) wrote:
> I don't know "mrbiggleswurth" nor the reasons for his seemingly
> biased comparisons of the performance of Thiel loudspeakers to those
> I have designed for DAL.
Thanks for your comments Mr. Dunlavy!
But...it is okay if I offer comments that are biased in favor of the
Thiel on this newsgroup, isn't it?
> First, I am an admirer of Jim Thiel and his loudspeaker designs and
> consider their performance to be exemplary.
I'll second that.
> Perhaps, those wishing to compare the performance of DAL loudspeakers
> with those of another manufacturers might wish to ask them to furnish
> a complete set of measurements of guaranteed accuracy.
For those interested in the issue of highly accurate speakers, this
is an interesting technical exercise, and your speakers win "hands
down" in my opinion compared to most speakers out there. But for
many people, how the speaker "sounds" to them with their favorite
music is the determining factor. After all, if they don't like the
way their music sounds on super-accurate speakers, why should they
use them and be unhappy? And for others, how a speaker looks may
also be a major criterion. The Thiel has some performance
characteristics that I believe help facilitate a subjectively good
sound, and one of them is the dispersion pattern afforded by Thiel's
coaxial unit.
Both your speakers and the Thiels are speakers designed for highly
accurate time domain behavior. There are substantial differences in
the way this performance is effected between yours and his designs,
and in some ways I think your approach is superior, and in others, I
think Thiel's is. One thing in particular that I like is Thiel's
interest in lowering driver distortion through underhung motor
designs, and I admire the engineering and exceptional quality
apparent in those units.
> Yes, mrbiggleswurth, DAL takes the measured performance attributes of
> its loudspeakers very, very seriously
Understood. I believe this is also true with Thiel and a large
number of other makers.
> Perhaps, mrbiggleswurth would like to provide accurate measurements
> of any loudspeaker that he believes may be more accurate than those
> of DAL. We will also provide him with a full set of measurements, at
> no cost, for any DAL loudspeaker model he might choose
I don't have any measurement papers on hand, but I'll offer the
following experiences: Audile, a "digital" speaker maker, had a
speaker that used a DSP, impulse corrected loudspeaker which they
supplied MLSSA measurement data for at a CES years back. It showed
20 Hz to 20 KHz +/- .5 dB, and +/- .5 degrees of phase shift in that
region. Unfortunately, they went out of business shortly after. The
RUSH SOUND Monument II had possibly the best 1 KHz square wave
reproduction I have ever seen, indicating exceptionally accurate time
domain performance and low energy storage. The Quad ESL 63 and its
latest incarnation has extremely accurate performance, with uncanny
point source behavior. Vandersteen speakers have fantastic looking
step response. The humble Spica TC-50 had astonishingly good time
domain performance. There are probably a lot more I can't think of
right now (that have excellent time domain behavior rivalling and
possibly bettering DAL designs in some area). DAL does not have a
monopoly on making highly accurate speakers.
If I get the chance to measure some of DAL's competitors that pursue
accurate performance I'll be happy to send those for comparison.
M.G. Roden
than half the cost of the SC-IVA. The original post was talking
about possibly buying a set of used SC- IV's. I'm not sure, but I
believe he was considering this or a set of new 2.3's. If the $8K
DAL's didn't outperform a set of $3.5K Thiels, then I believe this
would be a "no brainer".
<ni...@media.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:s79enj...@corp.supernews.com...
> I am trying to decide between the Thiel 2.3 (with the new tweeter from
> the Thiel PCS) and the last revision of the Dunlavy SC-IV (used).
>
> I would like to hear people's comments on how these two speaker's sounds
> differ. The designers stated purpose in each case is "accuracy", both
> are time and phase coherent, and both are designed to be listened to
> from at least 10' feet away.
>
> The specs on each speaker seem to indicate that the SC-IV has a few
> hertz more of anechoic bass response. Also, Dunlavys are used in a
> variety of professional music studios, I don't know if Thiels are used
> similarly.
>
> If Mr. Dunlavy is reading this, I would be interested in hearing how
> you think the "Thiel sound" differs from the "Dunlavy sound".
>
> Babak Nivi
Blandp1
Hash: SHA1
In article <85irgg$b8t$1...@news.aud.alcatel.com>, dal...@cs.com
(DALJHD) writes:
>First, I am an admirer of Jim Thiel and his loudspeaker designs
>and consider their performance to be exemplary.
Well said. Both Thiel and Dunlavy make excellent speakers. I
have a pair of Thiel CS2.2 (the previous model to the CS2.3) and
love them. Very accurate, very clean. I have listen to the new
Thiel CS2.3 at a dealer and find it a fine speaker. I can't
comment on it's relative performance vis-a-vis the older CS2.2
because I haven't heard them side by side in the same listening
room.
I have also listened to the Dunlavy SC-IVa and found them very
impressive. The SC-IVa are in a different (i.e. better) class
than the CS2.3/CS2.2. They go deeper and play louder. Both the
CS2.3 and SC-IVa image wonderfully and have similair sounding
top ends to my ears. The appropriate Thiel model to compare to
the SC-IVa is the CS6. I would have a hard time choosing
between the CS6 and the SC-IVa.
My personal preference is not to buy used speakers so I would
not consider the used SC-IVa that the original poster was
querying about. But on an absolute level, the SC-IVa's are a
better speaker than the CS2.3's in the areas I've mentioned
above.
Philip J. Blanda III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOIHp9MqM3UPhf8W7EQI2eQCgpHOwMKpVS2pUTC29yWf5tox7B6EAoJ7H
nhSSgE3KXnoXpsd5uzrq+qPM
=Hfeo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PGP Public key available
ni...@media.mit.edu
would be from the PCS. According to email from Thiel, the new coax
unit for the 2.3 is "similar, but not the same as" as the new PCS
coax unit.
The new coax unit will be available sometime in April according to my
dealer and will be offered as an upgrade.
nivi
In article <s79enj...@corp.supernews.com>,
ni...@media.mit.edu wrote:
> I am trying to decide between the Thiel 2.3 (with the new tweeter from
> the Thiel PCS) and the last revision of the Dunlavy SC-IV (used).
>
> I would like to hear people's comments on how these two speaker's sounds
> differ. The designers stated purpose in each case is "accuracy", both
> are time and phase coherent, and both are designed to be listened to
> from at least 10' feet away.
>
> The specs on each speaker seem to indicate that the SC-IV has a few
> hertz more of anechoic bass response. Also, Dunlavys are used in a
> variety of professional music studios, I don't know if Thiels are used
> similarly.
>
> If Mr. Dunlavy is reading this, I would be interested in hearing how
> you think the "Thiel sound" differs from the "Dunlavy sound".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.