AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Spatial Audio => Topic started by: ric on 25 Jan 2017, 03:43 pm
-
I was looking to upgrade my Dunlavy SCIII's since after 17years I decided to bite the bullet and "downgrade" from the $4000 late 90's to the $2700 current day M3's. First impression were that the Dunlavy's imaged better and disappeared easier, and had a more detailed soundstage BUT, the M3's were more emotionally engaging, more like a live event, more palpable, meaning for instance when a snaredrum is hit, I get the sensation, more of a midrange fullness that feels more--real.
At first I found myself wanting a bit more fullness coming from outside the speakers--perhaps where box speakers can give an image coming a foot or two from outside the box. But then my VAC integrated EL34's warmed up after about 3 hours, and WHAM, I was not hearing any void outside the speakers or anywhere else. This is all WITH my subs, since to be fair, I ran the Dunlavy's that way, and would not miss the lowest notes. When listening to a jazz ensemble, WOW, it was more like being at a concert as the open baffles seem to energize the room, and, as I said there was more of a palpable, organic sensation. Whatever you call it, PRAT, etc., it seems that the M3's at this point mated with the tubes very very well. There was no sense of congestion from turning the volume up, but I could hear the cd player, whereas with the 91db Dunlavys it was dead quiet. BUT with the sound this good, I can forgive some of the noise I'm hearing when it's quiet--more the fault of the tightly packed integrated amp.
So, I bought these slightly used, from an owner who did not like the sound. I can only assume that his amp was not a good match, or perhaps the room or whatever, OR he really wants to hear the razor sharp imaging and hyper detail of many other speakers. As for me, these speakers will be staying put, perhaps for another 17 years.
-
Thanks for the review. What you describe sounds very much like what I hear with my GR Research Super Vs. As for why the guy didn't like your speakers, it's all subjective. And it's a good thing people get bored and move on. How else would we get screaming deals on used gear?
Shakey
-
Congrats! I was eyeing those before going in a different direction and settling on a pair of Tektons.
Got any pics?
-
Congrats on the purchase, and thanks for sharing.
Always fun to hear another's take on an open baffle speaker.
-
If you want way more detail out of your speakers you can mod them. Simply remove the xover from the speaker and measure the values and make your own outboard xover using better caps, coils, resistors and wire. And because the xover is not being vibrated by the speaker and the wires are not running though the speaker and around the drivers you get even mo betta sound. Then you can damp the backs of the speaker struts with EARSD40AL material (Michael Percy Audio sells it) for mo betta bass and clarity in the bottom as well. All the super parts and wire would run you around $600 or so.....and you could go back to the stock still installed xovers anytime you like. I talked to Clayton months ago about doing this as a product and he thought it would be a good idea. However, in pretty boxes, etc. expect to pay close to $2500.......you can do it cheaper yourself. However, finding parts to match the sound of the drivers is not a simple task....but I bet you could make them sound way, way better without much effort. Some parts to consider are Clarity Cap CMR caps with jupiter copper foil bypasses, 12 gauge Jantzen wax foil coils, Dueland resistors and wire from VH Audio or Zenwave.
At the price Clayton is selling these speakers he cannot use parts like described above.......but you can use anything you like.....the beauty of open baffle speakers.....you can tweak them without removing drivers. Once you have the outboard xovers you can retweak them anything real fast. Lots of fun, for those inclined.
-
No matter how you slice it, Dunlavy III's are really great speakers - even if they are older.
-
I'd love to hear the mods, but I just don't have the knowhow. Thanks for the info.! Will file it away.
In answer to the Dunlavy's, yeah there are some recordings that they just nail. Being ruthlessly accurate, when it's right, they sound great! I put on Gladiator (more music from) and unfortunately the M3's did not come up to the task, but through the Dunlavy's the sound is tremedous. Unfortunately I'll be selling them, as the M3's win--but not without tradeoffs.
-
I'd love to hear the mods, but I just don't have the knowhow. Thanks for the info.! Will file it away.
In answer to the Dunlavy's, yeah there are some recordings that they just nail. Being ruthlessly accurate, when it's right, they sound great! I put on Gladiator (more music from) and unfortunately the M3's did not come up to the task, but through the Dunlavy's the sound is tremedous. Unfortunately I'll be selling them, as the M3's win--but not without tradeoffs.
Just curious...in what way do the M3's come up short on the Gladiator Soundtrack?
I use a few cuts from that excellent soundtrack for evaluating gear (as well as general enjoyment) and thought that the M3's strengths are really highlighted.
George
-
I'm not sure. Through the Dunlavy's with a two bass sub everything was working--the bass slam, the detail of instruments, the speaker boundaries kind of disappeared. The sound was clean, incisive, and the bass was subterranean (see track 9).
I have noticed with the M3's that there are certain recordings that do not sound as good by comparison. It may be that the M3's provide a more upfront presentation, and so far I have found them to be amazing on most jazz and classical. There is another recording (Kelley Joe Phelps) that is just voice and dobro (blues) and is very closely miked. Through the Dunlavy's there was a you are there presence, but with the M3's the sound is not as tight nor as detailed and the presentation is perhaps too up front by comparison.
It may be that my amp (VAC Avatar integrated EL34) is a bit too weighted toward a midrange, as I may have tried to make it more ballsey in compensation for the Dunlavy's very neutral sound. I have the (not oldstock) Tungsols in them, so tube rolling may be in order at some point.
Hope this helps. Thanks!
-
Having owned Dunlavy SC V! for many years and now with the M3 Turbo S, I suggest moving the Spatials around some - they did not end up in the same locations as my Dunlavys. Also I would suggest not using a low-frequncy cut-off crossover with the Spatials and allow their bass to roll off naturally. If your Dunlavys had the original tweeters the Spatials should have a great deal more upper mid and lower treble than the Dunlavys...perhaps more than your system wants...
-
Thanks I'll try that. I'll experiment a bit more but they did end up in exactly the same position as with the Dunlavy's. The sub is done using DSpeaker coming directly off the terminals, so I don't think it's interfered TOO much with the Spatials. But I will, with further listening sessions, no doubt try other positioning, etc. Thanks so much!
-
I'm not sure. Through the Dunlavy's with a two bass sub everything was working--the bass slam, the detail of instruments, the speaker boundaries kind of disappeared. The sound was clean, incisive, and the bass was subterranean (see track 9).
I have noticed with the M3's that there are certain recordings that do not sound as good by comparison. It may be that the M3's provide a more upfront presentation, and so far I have found them to be amazing on most jazz and classical. There is another recording (Kelley Joe Phelps) that is just voice and dobro (blues) and is very closely miked. Through the Dunlavy's there was a you are there presence, but with the M3's the sound is not as tight nor as detailed and the presentation is perhaps too up front by comparison.
It may be that my amp (VAC Avatar integrated EL34) is a bit too weighted toward a midrange, as I may have tried to make it more ballsey in compensation for the Dunlavy's very neutral sound. I have the (not oldstock) Tungsols in them, so tube rolling may be in order at some point.
Hope this helps. Thanks!
What you describe would make me want to keep the Dunlavys.
Shakey
-
Your experience with the M3's mirrors mine. I had a pair of the older models with the older crossover and I found them not as detailed as my Magnepan 1.6's. They sounded great with jazz and vocals. They definitely need a sub. Bass was not nearly as punchy or controlled as my Magnepans which hit harder and are more musical. The M3's are a very nice speaker though and I really found no fault with them except for bass. And I was running them with my Pass X250 amp (500 wpc) and BAT preamp
-
Your experience with the Magnepans mirrors mine. I had a pair of the older models with the older crossover and I found them not as detailed as my M3 turbo's. They sounded great with jazz and vocals. They definitely need a sub. Bass was not nearly as punchy or controlled as my M3's which hit harder and are more musical. The Magnepans are a very nice speaker though and I really found no fault with them except for bass. And I was running them with my Pass X250 amp (500 wpc) and BAT preamp
My experience between the M3's and Magnepan 3.7's is literally the opposite so I just switched the words in Greyhound's post. I'm not trying to be snarky but want to just emphasize that a LOT goes into a system (room size and interaction, setup, listening preferences, and associated equipment etc...) and a few differences can mean a dramatic change in what you hear and ultimately prefer. I find the M3's incredibly capable with bass and have zero desire for subs (room is 17x24x10). The M3's are definitely capable of outstanding bass but may not be playing nice in the sandbox with your room or associated equipment. The bass is not percussive, thumpy, or bloated. It is proportioned, articulate, and detailed IMO.
-
My experience between the M3's and Magnepan 3.7's is literally the opposite so I just switched the words in Greyhound's post. I'm not trying to be snarky but want to just emphasize that a LOT goes into a system (room size and interaction, setup, listening preferences, and associated equipment etc...) and a few differences can mean a dramatic change in what you hear and ultimately prefer. I find the M3's incredibly capable with bass and have zero desire for subs (room is 17x24x10). The M3's are definitely capable of outstanding bass but may not be playing nice in the sandbox with your room or associated equipment. The bass is not percussive, thumpy, or bloated. It is proportioned, articulate, and detailed IMO.
And this AC member does agree with you. That review is before I just added another $1.5k of treatments. :green:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=144142.msg1579461#msg1579461
-
Certainly the room and speaker placement does play an important part. Electronics also count. I moved the M3's around and my Maggies still hit harder. Maybe I just didn't have the proper positioning but don't read too much into what I am saying about the bass of the M3's. I am not saying that they were bass shy. Just in comparison to the 1.6's, bass was better with my 1.6's. My room is 17x17 with 10 ft ceilings, wood floors and lots of windows. I am not a bass fanatic and certainly, the bass in my system is not muddy, bloated or overblown. My subs are crossed over at 45hz and integrate seamlessly to fill in the bottom end lending to a slightly fuller sound and wider sound stage.
I liked the M3's but not enough to displace my 1.6's. The M3's are still an excellent buy and peoples tastes are different.
-
In response to liking the Dunlavy's better, certainly that's subjective, but I was trying to say that a few "go to" cd's did not sound as good. Conversely, the Istanbul cd by Jordi Savall has always sounded somewhat muted on the Dunlavy's now sounds very good on M3's. There seems to be a synergy between the recording and the speaker--of course, that's why reviewers have their references.
Yesterday as per suggestion, I played around with the M3's placement, and they are further away from what could have been considered more nearfield listening, to great affect. I even took out my cheap laser level and toed the speakers much more accurately than sighting them, also to great affect. Cymbal shots, drum toms, etc., depending on the mix, are now very locked in, and I am so impressed. I also moved them so that the distance from the rear and sidewalls are more precise. I was thinking that my homemade Shakti Hallowgraphs might not be necessary with the open baffle speakers, and even though they are not quite as noticeable as with the Dunlavy's, they still make a difference. Which means I can toe in or out the ostensible center image depending on the type of ensemble or orchestra. I am loving these....
-
Maybe OT, but I'm going to look at buying some used M3 turbo S speakers soon but want to make sure they are the turbo S model rather than the turbo. Other than online photo's I haven't seen them "in the flesh" so could someone please let me know how I can physically tell the differences between the two?
Something obvious like stating it's a turbo S on the rear ID plate or identifing the new M25 compression driver used by the S model?
Thanks
-
I believe only the Turbo S versions have the upgraded WBT nextgen binding posts...
-
Yes, mine say turbo s on the speaker.
-
I believe only the Turbo S versions have the upgraded WBT nextgen binding posts...
I could be wrong but I think they both have the WBT posts.
Yes, mine say turbo s on the speaker.
:thumb: That makes it easy then. Thank-you both for your replies.
-
You are correct that they both have WBT posts but the Turbo S has both the full crossovers upgrades and the new tweeter which form what I understand make a huge different. From my ownership of the Turbo S models for about 7 months I had two things to get through in order to get the most out of these speakers. 1: break in on the M3's are a very long time(150 - 200 hours) to fully get them to be their best in my opinion, 2: since they basically use the room as the enclosure even a half inch of adjustment in any direction tow in included can make a huge difference in the end results. And I would wait until full break in before making the final adjustments to where they end up as that can change when the 15" drivers start to break in and loosen up. Mine are about 3' from the wall towed in just a bit and they are the best I have found so far. I run them with a Pass Labs X150.5 and the sound combination is the best I have heard frankly. It gives the combination of the "Live" feel and energy while having the Detail that is on par or better then the Dynaudio speakers before them. I think the lack of bass that some have talked about is the fact that we are so used to Box speaker bass in our systems that they seem bass less by comparison but to me they are really just making a more natural bass energy. I do run a sealed sub with them to catch the lowest stuff that they don't do but have run them without several times.
-
It gives the combination of the "Live" feel and energy while having the Detail that is on par or better then the Dynaudio speakers before them. I think the lack of bass that some have talked about is the fact that we are so used to Box speaker bass in our systems that they seem bass less by comparison but to me they are really just making a more natural bass energy. I do run a sealed sub with them to catch the lowest stuff that they don't do but have run them without several times.
Follows my similar impressions. I think the energy of the lower end from the M3 Turbo S speakers can easily be felt and match box speakers. They don't have that bottom depth that really kicks you in the nuts but for most music I listen to, they don't need it.
-dave
-
Yeah I agree. From years of being a bass player I tend to like the way the M3's sound with bass instruments. I can more easily tell what kind of bass is being played and it just sounds more natural to me.
-
I got to hear the Spatial M3 recently and thought I'd add my voice to the chorus. There were wonderful things happening. Compared to my current single-driver Omega Super 6 XRS, there was a notable increase in tonal richness, far better rendering of venue space, deeper and better bass, and total lack of congestion even with the most complex music. Also compared to my current speakers, though, I was less than blown away by image size (the Spatial seemed larger than life) and specificity. On the balance I could easily live with that tradeoff, but interestingly, my wife wasn't a huge fan in comparison to what we have. All of this was through a low-watt SET amp.
I wonder if using something like the Red Dragon monos, as Spatial often does at shows, would be a better match and tighten images up a bit without taking too much away from that tone density and sense of space? I'm also willing to admit that my standards for image precision might also be unreasonably "hifi" and less reflective of real music. And in terms of image size, perhaps more position fiddling would have solved that. Interested to hear from people with experience using these on a wide range of amps.
-
I haven't heard the venerable Dunleavy's, but I do have the the M4 Turbo S speakers and after rotating a dozen speakers through my system in the part few years, these are absolutely the best I have had in my room. I got the M4's as they are more room appropriate for me -- they are a bit less than a meter from the back wall and don't seem to be the least bit placement sensitive. To my ears in my room, they benefit greatly with sound absorption on the rear wall.
I was driving them with a Dennis Had EL84 amp and the sound was wonderful with a Don Sachs 6NS7 preamp, but I felt like the speakers were under controlled and lacked extension in the HF. I swapped a McCormack DNA .05 ss amp for the tube amp, and it is a match made in heaven. It has good LF extension, a sublime mid-range and outstanding HF extension, and a huge soundstage. The articulation of bass notes and drum beats is unrivaled compared to any speakers I have had. Frankly, I would not be as pleased with the M4's without the addition of a REL T7 subwoofer. The LF response added by the sub completely rounds out the sound. I am complete a devotee of Clayton's speakers, but feel they sound their best with a muscular amp and a subwoofer, however, the M3's may not benefit as much from a sub as do the leaner M4's. I talked to Clayton recently and am delighted to hear that his speakers sales are proceeding at a robust clip and I know why. I read a recent post elsewhere that referred to his modestly priced speakers as entry level speakers. I will grant they are in the sense of pricing, but in my 45 years as an audiophile, these are easily the best speakers I have owned and, OMG, I have had some very pricey speakers over the years.
-
I completely agree with Whitestix's impressions. I too have the M4 Turbo S and use mine with a REL T7. I went to Axpona looking to purchase the M3's but after talking to Clayton about the use of the subwoofer he suggested I get the M4's instead and it has been as good as I expected in my 20 x 16 room. I speakers sound best a least 30 inches out from the rear wall in my setup and about 8 feet apart. I have had these 9 months and am stilled surprised how good they sound every time I listen to them. My only minor quip is that the high end isn't as detailed with some music. I am thinking of the addition of a super tweeter but with the overall sound I get with these I may just leave well enough alone. They are such a relaxed sounding speaker that as I listen I forget about the few minor shortcomings they may have. Many thanks to Clayton for producing such an affordable great product.
-
Forgot to mention I power these with an Odyssey Khartago and Candela pre.
-
I bet the Odyssey Khartago is a pretty good match for the Spatials as I heard the Odyssey amplifiers and liked them even almost bought one myself before finding my Pass Labs X150.5 for a killer price I just couldn't "pass" up. I really like how Odyssey gives you a lot for the money though. I also would like to hear the Red Dragon Audio S500 amp that runs the Pascal Amp modules. I have heard great things about them and the Pascal class d modules are supposed to be some of the best.
-
:D Pascal amps . I need to buy . That's my name . Ha :D
-
Anyone tried the Rogue Hydra/Medusa class D amps with the Spatials? They use Hypex modules. In theory this could be a great match.