I have a gut feeling that not all followers of the old thread made it to this new thread. It's a shame the admins just killed the old thread. Is there any way of making the followers of the old thread aware of this new one, or even automatically add them as followers to this new thread?
In addition, it would be useful to add a link to the old thread to the first post of this new thread to provide the context and background of where we left. Is that possible?
In addition, it would be useful to add a link to the old thread to the first post of this new thread to provide the context and background of where we left. Is that possible?
SI-OBA-15, Hawthorne Audio "Augie"
15" 8 Ohms
2.5" voice coil
Power handling: 225 watts RMS.
SPL: 88.7 dB 1w/1m
Le: 0.81
Re: 5.69 Ohms.
Qt: 0.92
Vas: 250.3 liters
Xmax: 7.15 mm
Fs: 27.0 Hz
Magnet weight: 67ounces
Cut out 13.875"
OD 15.25"
I have four of this sitting in boxes from my previous house and I wonder if it can suit our purpose of xl box
I remember very resonable price, just say because it seam that a Canadian company is trying to take to the market all the product of the Hawthorne Audio
15" 8 Ohms
2.5" voice coil
Power handling: 225 watts RMS.
SPL: 88.7 dB 1w/1m
Le: 0.81
Re: 5.69 Ohms.
Qt: 0.92
Vas: 250.3 liters
Xmax: 7.15 mm
Fs: 27.0 Hz
Magnet weight: 67ounces
Cut out 13.875"
OD 15.25"
I have four of this sitting in boxes from my previous house and I wonder if it can suit our purpose of xl box
I remember very resonable price, just say because it seam that a Canadian company is trying to take to the market all the product of the Hawthorne Audio
Well, it is a shame and it sure looks like we are missing some followers alright, I m hoping once we get the goal and actually start the design more people will show up, we had over 200 votes on the other thread and compare it to 50+ here sure is huge gap.
I did add link to previous thread( thought I already did), I m not sure what else we can do here, as mbrennwa suggested it would be nice if the other thread wasn't close (a lot of good info and discussions) and we could add link to this one for the poll. Admins ? any suggestions ?
Last edited:
Qts of 0.92 ? is that correct ? it needs huge box tho and sensitivity is not that great
Ok understood, what's IB?
Thanks
Aatto said:
It's just intended to be use in OB speakers
Maybe I'll start a thread when I think to do something with it
Follow the project, I'm only sorry can't help more
I'm still following daily. I have yet to vote because I'm trying to see where it goes as far as the direction dictated by those of you who know what you're doing. Lol. I am learning with each post that I read, and I'm of the mind that I hadn't wanted to cast a vote that would make the forward movement of the project get bogged down. My own choice of compromise, would be to sacrifice high sensitivity vs giving up low end extension, but I would love both, if it is feasible. Help me to decide? Glenn.
The participation "gap" that you mention is not huge, it's very much inline with the actual expressed interest for this design type.
95 people voted for a 3-way speaker option and you currently have 60 people participating by casting their votes ( for box size & sensitivity ).
By my reckoning, you've only lost @ a 1/3 of round #1's "expressed interest" cadre ( that's really not too bad IMO ).
If you're next 2 polls each lose another 1/3 of the assumed cohort, then you should be able to establish a trend line that projects an interest in acquisition.
there s no "wrong" choice here, poll is here to have your feedback, go ahead and vote for what fits your need or interest
and good to have you here, most of us are here to learn a thing or two, I certainly wish I had more knowledge to contribute as well but hey, everybody starts from somewhere .Ok understood, what's IB?
Thanks
It's just intended to be use in OB speakers
Maybe I'll start a thread when I think to do something with it
Follow the project, I'm only sorry can't help more
IB is infinite baffle,
Ok I see it explains the high Qts, I never been interested in OB woofers so never seen one
.
Last edited:
If you are ok with very lange speakers, you can get them to be amp friendly AND go deep. If size is limited, you will have to compromise (either deep bass or amp friendly, but not both). Choose what would work for you so that the gurus will know what you and everyone else want.
The participation "gap" that you mention is not huge, it's very much inline with the actual expressed interest for this design type.
95 people voted for a 3-way speaker option and you currently have 60 people participating by casting their votes ( for box size & sensitivity ).
By my reckoning, you've only lost @ a 1/3 of round #1's "expressed interest" cadre ( that's really not too bad IMO ).
If you're next 2 polls each lose another 1/3 of the assumed cohort, then you should be able to establish a trend line that projects an interest in acquisition.
haha I see your point at this rate after a few more polls we'll end up w a fraction of one person
While waiting for the poll results, thinking about the X-over concept for this project.
Maybe it is interesting to make different X-over versions. Linkwith-Riley LR2 and LR4, the Butterworth versions B2, B3 and the elliptical filters.
I think it will make the speaker concept more attractive and unique with such options.
Extra advantage is also that there are different solutions for the X-over w.r.t. cost.
Once accurate SPL and impedance measurements are available, the different X-overs can be created by the simulation machine as a start to build it.
And why not add also a digital version of the X-over for those who are interested in such concept. The enclosure and drivers remain the same.
Maybe it is interesting to make different X-over versions. Linkwith-Riley LR2 and LR4, the Butterworth versions B2, B3 and the elliptical filters.
I think it will make the speaker concept more attractive and unique with such options.
Extra advantage is also that there are different solutions for the X-over w.r.t. cost.
Once accurate SPL and impedance measurements are available, the different X-overs can be created by the simulation machine as a start to build it.
And why not add also a digital version of the X-over for those who are interested in such concept. The enclosure and drivers remain the same.
I like that, the concept that it can have different Xover and also digital in same box is a good idea, someone like me can do the LF part w DSP and high part with passive, I hope this project end up meeting my needs I want to build a new set but will wait to see how this one goes
in the mean time (I think we still have 5 days on poll), what you guys think about the woofer setup for XL ? I mean do you have any certain drivers in mind ?
in the mean time (I think we still have 5 days on poll), what you guys think about the woofer setup for XL ? I mean do you have any certain drivers in mind ?
Guys, if we start discussing the implementation of one or another option before the poll is over, people may get biased by this. If someone suggests a super cool woofer for an XL box, people will want us to make an XL box, hoping we'll use that woofer.
That said, the poll isn't exactly trending towards the option that I'd consider an interesting challenge for the development process.
That said, the poll isn't exactly trending towards the option that I'd consider an interesting challenge for the development process.
well, it is still interesting to see what the popular design choice is and how it will be done, people want a beast, and TBH there are not much designs with such specs around, so very much looking forward to this.
please keep in mind that the poll numbers are not absolute and fixed, design team will have the final say how close they can get and if any compromises needed based on limitations, or at least that's how I was interpreted it
please keep in mind that the poll numbers are not absolute and fixed, design team will have the final say how close they can get and if any compromises needed based on limitations, or at least that's how I was interpreted it
I would say it seems this qualifies for a Tower XL and a Classic style Amp friendly compact design...?
Maybe if we can keep it to less than 150 liters, and pending on the design some of the Tower Bass Friendly crowd will also be happy?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.