Hawthorne SI vs. Visaton B200

rajacat · « **on:** 8 Feb 2007, 07:09 pm »

I'm new to OB and considering getting my feet wet. What are the differences in sound quality between these two drivers? Which are the simplest to implement? I understand that the Hawthorne's are coaxial which might make them less dependent on slight differences in baffle design.

Thanks,

Raja

scorpion · « **Reply #1 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 09:09 pm »

Rajacat,

There are no differences and no similarities either.
The B200 is a bit more forward like a young woman and the Hawthorne is more laid back like an old gentleman. Both sounding more than OK.

Come on, there are thousands of advice here and at the Hawthorne Forum.
No problem with the implementation. Just get yourself some 18" x 40 " sheet MDF or something and get going.

/Erling

robert1325 · « **Reply #2 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 09:11 pm »

I use carton with my SI's and think it sounds great

mcgsxr · « **Reply #3 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 09:18 pm »

Scorpion, wake up on the wrong side of the stinger? Yikes, blinding sarcasm!

Sure, he makes a decent point though, there is a lot of comparison out there around them, there are some folks here who have owned both also, so perhaps they can weigh in.

I have only used the b200, so I cannot comment on the well reviewed Silver Iris etc.

rajacat · « **Reply #4 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 09:22 pm »

Thanks, I guess what I'm looking for is someone who has/had both drivers and can give me a subjective (is there anything else) opinion.

Raj

robert1325 · « **Reply #5 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 09:30 pm »

I do agree with scorpion, the SI's are quite laid-back.

They don't come off as your hyper detailed super fast speakers with treble trough the roof!

JohninCR · « **Reply #6 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 10:06 pm »

I have both and will probably always have both. The SI is mellower with more output on both ends. It's also easier to implement. It really does sound good on just about any baffle. The B200 is a little harder to implement because of the long gradual slope in response before any baffle roll-off. I'd give a slight edge to the B200 in resolution or detail (kind of a hard to pin down quality), which is similar in the good qualities to other fullrangers like the Fostex FE206E, but without the jagged peaks in response that make the 206 fatiguing.

The rear output of the SI rolls off much lower than the B200, since the SI's tweet is front radiation only. That gives the B200 a brighter, more airy soundstage, which depending upon position and room construction can be overpowering, although that added brightness can be easily attentuated with material(s) over the back. This does make the B200 closer to true dipole in operation, but the earlier roll-off in back seems to make placement easier with the SI.

For me with a well designed OB for either, including proper consideration for both to fill in the bass, it would come down to the type of music I was listening to. For small ensembles or laid back music with lots of female vocals, I'd go with the B200's. For rock and most everything else I'd go with the SI's.

If I had no bass assistance at all, then hands down I'd go with the SI.

rajacat · « **Reply #7 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 10:29 pm »

Thanks for the opinions. I have Omega Bipoles now and I'm probably going to go for the Hemp upgrade but I want to experiment with OB's too since the $'s for drivers make this a very reasonable project.

Raj

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #8 on:** 8 Feb 2007, 10:45 pm »

I've not heard the B200, but I can't watch this thread anymore without giving you one more vote for the Hawthorne.
Call it "pointless post count padding",.....or whatever.
I LOVE my Hawthornes.

Bob

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #9 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 01:02 am »

Dave Dlugos from Planet 10 did a shoot out between the two drivers. He felt the B200 held the edge by a wide margin. He posted his observations on the Hawthorne Forums. Keep in mind the SI crossover has been updated since then.

I haven't heard the SI so I can't comment on them. The B200 is a high resolution driver capable of producing music even with modest electronics. Hemp Acoustics is worth checking out too. They are supposed to be coming out with high res driver designed specifically for OB applications.

John

doorman · « **Reply #10 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 02:47 am »

Having heard DaveD's version of the B200's in OB, I can say they sounded wonderful. A friend whose heard 'em both, also preferred the Visatons, by quite a margin. YMMV!
Don

Dmason · « **Reply #11 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 03:15 am »

I believe it always comes down to one's taste, one's room, one's associated equipment. While I love the point source sound of good coaxials, I believe that a wideband driver will always win out to the ear, due to the coherence offered by no phase anomalies, etc., endemic to the two driver approach used with coaxials. More importantly, is the fact that there is a discontinuity, in the form of the crossover, right in the sonic kill zone, in this case, ~1800Hz, whereas with WB drivers, coherent presentation over about 7-8 octaves.

Different materials, paper cones v. metal diaphragms all play a part. Having said this, the Iris will dig deeper, and therefore present more foundation to the music, while the Visaton will present a more coherent sound from its top to its bottom.

I would suggest that you order pairs of each to audition, and make up your mind. The only opinion that matters is your own. For example, while I am very familiar with the B200 sonic on open baffle, I could not say whether I might or might not prefer the Iris; just depends on how it sounds in my system, at my place. I know too that my friend Hurdy Gurdy Dave has really nailed the crossover circuit on the Iris, and this deserves mention. Last, I know that there are a ton of happy ears out there, listening to both.

maxwalrath · « **Reply #12 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 03:36 am »

Quote from: Dmason on 9 Feb 2007, 03:15 am

I would suggest that you order pairs of each to audition, and make up your mind.

I'd imagine you could sell whichever one you didn't keep for something close to 75% of retail....

JohninCR · « **Reply #13 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 03:49 am »

Quote from: maxwalrath on 9 Feb 2007, 03:36 am

Quote from: Dmason on 9 Feb 2007, 03:15 am

I would suggest that you order pairs of each to audition, and make up your mind.

I'd imagine you could sell whichever one you didn't keep for something close to 75% of retail....

I'd be inclined to purchase another pair of either one at that price, as long as I can get reasonable shipping
to Miami.

hurdy_gurdyman · « **Reply #14 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 03:05 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 9 Feb 2007, 01:02 am

Dave Dlugos from Planet 10 did a shoot out between the two drivers. He felt the B200 held the edge by a wide margin. He posted his observations on the Hawthorne Forums. Keep in mind the SI crossover has been updated since then.

I had to comment on this. Dave Dlugos is a great guy and very fair, but this comparison was done in such a way as to invalidate it. The SI was placed on a huge baffle with big wings. This is not even close to the recommended narrow flat or very small winged baffles that it is recommended for use with it. A big winged baffle will cause the bass of this driver to over-power the mids, which causes a muffled, almost low resolution sound. On a small narrow baffle the SI sounds much much better.
I haven't heard a comparison of the two drivers yet, so I can't comment on the differences. Scorpion has heard both in tried and true configurations, so I'd trust what he has to say as a fair comparison.

Dave

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #15 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 05:34 pm »

Quote from: hurdy_gurdyman on 9 Feb 2007, 03:05 pm

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 9 Feb 2007, 01:02 am
Dave Dlugos from Planet 10 did a shoot out between the two drivers. He felt the B200 held the edge by a wide margin. He posted his observations on the Hawthorne Forums. Keep in mind the SI crossover has been updated since then.

I had to comment on this. Dave Dlugos is a great guy and very fair, but this comparison was done in such a way as to invalidate it. The SI was placed on a huge baffle with big wings. This is not even close to the recommended narrow flat or very small winged baffles that it is recommended for use with it. A big winged baffle will cause the bass of this driver to over-power the mids, which causes a muffled, almost low resolution sound. On a small narrow baffle the SI sounds much much better.

The SI was placed on a less than ideal baffle, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison at all because the B200 tested under far less than ideal conditions as well. Nigel Smith has tested the B200 on more baffles than anyone. From his research he found the B200 to be very sensitive even to subtle changes. So it's not like the B200 had a favorable advantage over the SI.

John

JohninCR · « **Reply #16 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 06:34 pm »

I thought posts about religion were prohibited on AC.

For some the B200 is considered with such reverence that it appears to take on religious significance. This causes them to argue with anyone who says anything less than 100% positive about the B200, rendering the discussion pointless since objective viewpoints aren't tolerated.

scorpion · « **Reply #17 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 06:38 pm »

Hi Windchaser,

Welcome back ! I have been going totally digital since then. I now like the Oldtimer/Content cross the B200 at 150 hz, 48 LRslope,
and also cross subs the like. What a sound !

/Erling

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 07:14 pm »

Hey Erling,

Digital has come along way since 1984. What did you do with all your vinyl?

John

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #19 on:** 9 Feb 2007, 07:22 pm »

For the record, here are the comments Dave Dlugos posted in their entirety.

We had an afternoon with the B200 (modified) and the SI with the original XO (so all bets are off with the new XO).

I've not seen 2 drivers do a better job of full-filling their stereotypes. The B200 has it all over the SI in terms of midrange as one would expect with a single XO-less driver vrs a 15 with XO trying to reach up into the midrange. Also as one would expect the B200 has better, more 3 dimensional imaging. Also as one would expect, the SI has more & deeper bass, and throws a huge (but flattish) soundstage. The size is appealing, but the flattish nature is a bit of a set back. The 1 place where the sterotype is not played out is in the top-end where the phase-plugged B200 is actually better balanced than the SI horn.

Almost all the things i have issue with in the SI have to do with having the XO right there in the critical midrange, and immediately set us thinking of was to improve that. The next day i was reminded of the new HDXO so am in the process of junk0-boxing one of those. We will also try active -- PLLXO 1st, but there is some merit into using the 4th order Bessel trick to time align the tweeter & the woofer.

I couldn't live with the 1st gen SI because of the midrange discontinuity, but the XO change is aimed directly at this probelm. The modded B200 is also ~25% more $$$ and after hearing the effortless bottom on an SI, you'll be wanting to add an auggie, so that makes even more $$

On a B200 vrs Fostex note. The B200 doesn't seem to suffer from the FR anomolies that Fostex lovers, love to hate. When we phase plug a set of Fostex, it not only improves the HF dispersion & opens the midrange up, but usually kills some of those nasties. When i opened up the B200, dispersion was quite improved, the mid was opened up a tiny bit, but the smooth nature of the driver remained the same.

dave