# NEW! FW15.3



## funky_waves (Jul 3, 2007)

Here are some graphs and a picture of the unfinished prototype for the new FW15.3. At listening position(11"away) with two EQ filters to tame 22hz and 40hz bumps, 1/3 octave smoothing, lowpass at 70hz, highpass at 10hz. In a 950 square foot room with 8-11 foot ceilings. And a nearfield graph, averaged from driver and passives.


----------



## SQBubble (Nov 12, 2007)

funky_waves said:


> Here are some graphs and a picture of the unfinished prototype for the new FW15.3. At listening position(11"away) with two EQ filters to tame 22hz and 40hz bumps, 1/3 octave smoothing, lowpass at 70hz, highpass at 10hz. In a 950 square foot room with 8-11 foot ceilings. And a nearfield graph, averaged from driver and passives.



hey, whats the internal volume and tuning? and what's the difference between first and second graph?


----------



## funky_waves (Jul 3, 2007)

Internal Volume is aprox 5.8 cubic feet (164L) and tuning landed at 17.45 Hz. 

The first graph is at listening position about 11 feet away. The second graph is the average of the measurements from about half an inch away from the cone of the driver and the passives, about as close as you can get to getting frequency response without any interference from the room, without going outside (or an anechoic chamber) to measure it.


----------



## bonehead848 (Jan 21, 2007)

How does the output of a 15 with the 2 18" passives compare to a large ported 15? Obviously the passives allow the fr to get much lower than sealed but do the 18s actually add any sound pressure? I guess what Im really trying to ask is how would the fw15.3 compare to the fw15.1?


----------



## SQBubble (Nov 12, 2007)

It should be around the same output, the biggest reason of having PR's is to be able to achieve the output and low-tuning of a classic ported enclosure in a MUCH smaller enclosure.


----------



## funky_waves (Jul 3, 2007)

I didn't, but I can next time I do some measuring. I will also measure it with a TC3000 in place of the SDX15, likely by friday.


----------



## funky_waves (Jul 3, 2007)

The output from the FW15.1 would be a little higher for the same power input(in stock tuning), maximum output would be very close, but the Fw15.3 would require slightly more power. Only about [email protected], so likely not noticable.


----------



## mpimm (Dec 17, 2007)

Gorgeous! Where do you get your veneer from?


----------



## funky_waves (Jul 3, 2007)

I am not sure where the veneer originally came from, I got it surplus from RAW I think he got it from www.veneersupplies.com

I am still trying to decide if I should stain it red or black or just clear coat it. Opinions?


----------



## SQBubble (Nov 12, 2007)

black: neat, classy and professional looking.

of course, that's IMO.


----------



## funky_waves (Jul 3, 2007)

Here are some graphs, first graph at LP, second graph nearfield(averaged) with the sdx15, and third the TC3000 in place of the SDX15, at LP


----------



## RAW (Feb 25, 2007)

funky_waves said:


> I am not sure where the veneer originally came from, I got it surplus from RAW I think he got it from www.veneersupplies.com
> 
> I am still trying to decide if I should stain it red or black or just clear coat it. Opinions?


No Nathan
I got that maple from my local supplier.I get to go into the back open cases of veneer and hand select the sheets I use.They allow me to do this after I took in a photo showing our Apex III after I made them select 2 sheets for me that had to match 100%.

After that they just turn me loose and I select the sheets for ever pair of speakers we do.

That was sold to me as a normal maple.:innocent:

Nice work by the way.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Very nice, I've been waiting for some pics and specs of this puppy. I've never used a passive radiator sub before, but that's a pretty small enclosure to give that kind of output.

Oh, and I'd go with the red stain! I'm working on some picture frames right now (just made of pine) and I believe it was Minwax Red Oak that I put on heavy for a great dark red.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2008)

Probably too late to reply, but please don't cover that beautiful maple with stain. Clearcoat is the only way to go for high quality veneers. If it was just plain maple stain is ok, but not for that.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

A good stain and finish can really bring out the wood grain though. That maple has a nice quilted ripple to it that would look awesome once finished. Please don't do it black though. I've never seen the point of staining a nice veneer black. The beauty of wood is it's grain so make it shine. Otherwise you might as well just paint and glaze MDF or use wood grain vinyl.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

I think that one would look GORGEOUS in a nice deep red stain or something similar... the detail in the grain would look incredible. But then again, everybody has different taste, so I can't say what the owner would like. I'll just have to keep it to myself until I get one!


----------



## mdrake (Jan 31, 2008)

Those are some sexy curves! The sub is pretty good looking to. I am not a fan of passives but hey.... How does it sound?


----------



## DrWho (Sep 27, 2006)

SQBubble said:


> It should be around the same output, the biggest reason of having PR's is to be able to achieve the output and low-tuning of a classic ported enclosure in a MUCH smaller enclosure.


PR's also give you less power compression since you can never make ports large enough without their resonance getting into the passband or getting triggered by harmonic distortion.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

I've never had a PR'ed sub, but the more I read the more I wan to check one out. For some reason I have this thought that they would sound more... bloated?... than a ported sub, but I have absolutely nothing to back that up with and many opinions to the contrary.


----------

