The SA-8 v.2 has had a TON of testing, R&D, and engineering involved in it's creation. Optimized / flat CMS (8W7 also has this) and an even Le curve (8W7 has no inductive treatment other than a low rest value from the 2-layer coil) are not accidental... they result from lots of computer modelling and Klippel testing. The over-hung topology was chosen over a BL optimized topology for customer preference reasons for this model (without using a patented technology or one not practical for a woofer of this price to flatten out an over-hung such as JL's or Alpines we are left with under-hung or XBL^2 -- both of which have lower thermal power handling; which was a high priority for an SA line woofer).
The advantage to the 8W7 from objective distortion figures is a flatter BL curve with a bit more x-max (I tested up to the x-max levels of an 8W7 and lost output across the board in it's intended ported alignment and intended power range). This was a design choice and not a limitation of our capability.
In a sealed box the 8W7 is a better choice -- in most ported applications the SA-8 v.2 is going to be a better choice. From a customer preference stand-point we aimed squarely at ported boxes. I am sure that JL's customers typically prefer sealed and the 8W7 sounds awesome sealed.
I won't argue that JL doesn't have alot of time and R&D into their products; the fact is they DO and due to their size they have certain advantages -- they are a great brand with a ton of innovative designs and patents out there -- but I do get a bit annoyed when all the time I've spent on a product is totally written off with snide comments unrelated to the discussion at hand as if there is simply NO WAY the smaller company can possibly make a well engineered product.
We spent nearly 2 years of testing, tooling, and development to create the SA-8 v.2 and it shows in any unbiased test of the product in it's intended application.
