Introducing the Luna Mini Monitor!

[davef]

I haven't heard anything in awhile, but is "a very slim WTW center" still a possibility? If so, is it still possible that it could be developed/released along with the Sat?

Once this speaker is complete, we will start investigating the possibility of a very slim WTW center...

[MusicHead]

Nice...front slot port!

+1 for the front slot port! That and the dimensions makes it PERFECT for my space.

Hoping I do not have to sell my firstborn to buy a pair :-)

[davef]

Quote Originally Posted by rsmt2000
Hi Dave

When can we expect these speakers to be available? Summer, fall or winter of 2016?

Thanks
Ron




Do you think we are still on target??

I am thinking middle to late May of this year...

[surroundnewbie]

I am thinking middle to late May of this year...

W00t! Looks like my "Nose-rhymers" will be getting replaced sooner than I thought

[SGCSG1]

Why would you want a larger cabinet?

Efficiency, bass extension, maximum SPL.

[curtis]

Efficiency, bass extension, maximum SPL.

Then why not a Sierra-2 for you?

[davef]

Efficiency, bass extension, maximum SPL.

The woofer has been designed for a very specific cabinet volume. Placing this woofer in a significantly larger cabinet will actually reduce maximum spl, have no effect on efficiency, and it would end up providing an overdamped bass response.

The cabinet of the Sierra-2 is similar in size to the Rogers LS3/5A -- just a bit taller and deeper, and far exceeds the LS3/5A in max SPL, bass response and efficiency.

Keep in mind that the LS3/5A was a sealed enclosure, tuned by ear for portable monitoring. As hugely popular as it was, I am not sure how well the LS3/5A (or any of the variants) would do against today's similar sized speakers. The Rogers LS3/5A had an underdamped bass response with a -3dB point of approximately 80Hz with high impedance and very low efficiency.

[MusicHead]

The woofer has been designed for a very specific cabinet volume. Placing this woofer in a significantly larger cabinet will actually reduce maximum spl, have no effect on efficiency, and it would end up providing an overdamped bass response.

The cabinet of the Sierra-2 is similar in size to the Rogers LS3/5A -- just a bit taller and deeper, and far exceeds the LS3/5A in max SPL, bass response and efficiency.

Keep in mind that the LS3/5A was a sealed enclosure, tuned by ear for portable monitoring. As hugely popular as it was, I am not sure how well the LS3/5A (or any of the variants) would do against today's similar sized speakers. The Rogers LS3/5A had an underdamped bass response with a -3dB point of approximately 80Hz with high impedance and very low efficiency.

Very interesting, as always :-)

Dave, what efficiency do you estimate for the Sierra sat?

[sonicboom]

Sorry for the delays... This is a tough one to nail down but we are just about there. It is looking like dimensions will be ~ 10.5" high x 5.75" wide x 6" deep (not including grille).

Attached is a quick render comparing the front baffle of the Sierra Sat vs Sierra-1 / Sierra-2

Attachment 1264

Cute little bugger -- should end up being -3dB at around 65Hz.

The slot port looks very nice. I imagine the internal anatomy being more complex than the Sierra 1/2 due to the port being integrated in the woodwork as opposed to a tube. A bonus is the added rigidity the woodwork will provide.

Dave, do you expect the Sats to sound at least as "big' as the CBMs? I have a 5.1 all-CBM set up and just love the "big-speaker" sound the CBMs make in my room.

Lately, however, I have been looking for a smaller box footprint and tried the RSL CG4 speakers. They are almost exactly of the same dimensions as the proposed Sats but unfortunately their sound seemed to have "shrunk" in my listening area. The "big speaker" sound of the CBMs were gone. What I liked, though, was the small footprint of the RSLs.

If the Sierra Sats can match the CBM's "big" sound I will be very interested.

[smurraybhm]

The slot port looks very nice. I imagine the internal anatomy being more complex than the Sierra 1/2 due to the port being integrated in the woodwork as opposed to a tube. A bonus is the added rigidity the woodwork will provide.

Dave, do you expect the Sats to sound at least as "big' as the CBMs? I have a 5.1 all-CBM set up and just love the "big-speaker" sound the CBMs make in my room.

Lately, however, I have been looking for a smaller box footprint and tried the RSL CG4 speakers. They are almost exactly of the same dimensions as the proposed Sats but unfortunately their sound seemed to have "shrunk" in my listening area. The "big speaker" sound of the CBMs were gone. What I liked, though, was the small footprint of the RSLs.

If the Sierra Sats can match the CBM's "big" sound I will be very interested.

Not Dave but based on his post you quoted those are almost the exact same size of the HTM200s. As for the big sound you'd be surprised what the HTM can put out despite being a sealed design and having 2 4" woofers along with the same tweeter found in the CBMs. These sats are are a first day buy for me, just what to do with my 1s, can't give any of my Sierras up.