suround spkrs that match Zaphs ZDT3.5's?

[tylerdurden]

Hey guys! What small speaker design of Mr. Krutke's would match well with his ZDT3.5's and the up and coming center chanel?
The Z's will be used 60% of the time for music by them selves with a pioneer SX1250 and a United Audio Dual 1019 turn table. But 40% they will be R/L in a 5.1 system powered by my Onkyo 505.
I want to go the whole way with DIY'ing the speakers so I need to know what will match well in 5.1 or maybe even 7.1 eventualy. My home theater's room size is 12'wide X 20' long X 10' ceilings. The surounds will be on stands at ear level with the Z's.
Also do you think the onkyo is underpowered for the Z's? It is a 7.1 receiver with 1100 total wattage. I know the Z's are 4ohm nominal so is my onkyo being "1100 watts minimum continuous power per chanel, 8ohm loads" going to be enough?
Thank you! Bobby

[StewLG]

Good question - I've been wondering the same thing

My parts for a ZDT 3.5 L/R/C arrived today, so I've been thinking about this as well.

Ideally, we'd want Zaph to design a small surround that was a small 3-way, akin to the relationship between the Statements and the Statements Monitor. I'm guessing this would at least drop one of the RS180s, but keep the crucial RS52 mid-dome. The ND20 is fine since it's physically small and cheap. If this turned out to necessitate an impractically large cabinet, it might be possible to step down to a smaller woofer, like the 5" RS125. The idea would be to keep the critical mid-range stuff the same, but lose some of the bass and attendant cabinet volume.

(I'm sure someone will now point out why this isn't easy/possible to do given the crossover points involved.)

Am I missing any obvious designs that use the RS52 dome? I'm not considering the NeoD since it's just as many drivers as the ZDT3.5's CC will have, plus it is not cheap ($500-$600, yeah?), and there's no RS180 version yet so the voicing is likely substantially different.

Otherwise, I'm thinking I'll just do a few Modula MTs, which at least have the same RS180 7" woofer. There's even an in-wall, no BSC version of it.

I'm fairly new at DIY, so I may be WAY OFF with all this. Please set me straight y'all!

[Blktre]

I thought this as well. But after some thought, i wonder if its really that big a deal to match rear surrounds w/the Z front sound stage. I think the type of rear surround is more important such as direct radiating vs dipole vs quadpole and not so much matching driver specs w/ the front stage. Of course this depends on the size of your room which to choose..

[tylerdurden]

My parts for a ZDT 3.5 L/R/C arrived today, so I've been thinking about this as well.

Mine will be here next week some time. I ordered the drivers for the CC at the same time cuz they are on sale.
Blktre your probably right in that its not that critical to match the surounds with the fronts when watching movies. I just thought I might want to play around with music threw 5.1 some times in witch case it might become more important to timbre match all speakers, but I could be wrong.
Maybe I will build 4 ZDT3.5's floorstanders!! :B

[Blktre]

I'm going to continue to use my current direct radiating while using the Z front sound stage. I will report back as soon as the Z CC tweeter design is posted how things sound. I built ahead and my CC is just waiting for the crossover design.

[WillyD]

Otherwise, I'm thinking I'll just do a few Modula MTs, which at least have the same RS180 7" woofer. There's even an in-wall, no BSC version of it.

I am using my Mod. MTs with my ZDT3s. Its a fine combo.

[JJones]

Are you guys mostly mounting your surrounds on wall? I'll be building ZDT 3.5s for my coworker and he was asking me about using BAMTMS as the surrounds, I'm not sure how hard it would be to modify the crossover on the BAMTMs for wall mount use? He refuses to do in-wall for the surrounds.

[clark]

I've also been curious about surrounds. I've been curious to see some of the expert advice on surround speakers. As for the in-wall type has anyone come accross a good design that doesn't break the budget? I'm not that familiar with in-wall speakers and wonder how the problems that arise with placement in box designs are overcome in an in-wall design - if they are at all. They definatley have limitations, but have the apeal of no clutter that wifes like. But are they worth it?

[cotdt]

Obviously you want your surrounds to be the same speakers, so the answer is: more Zaph ZDT3.5's.

[Blktre]

The Microbes use a Dayton driver. Should be cheap to build.

http://www.rjbaudio.com/Microbe/microbe.html

There are other Daytons in the "Mission Accomplished" that would work well. Jon Marsh has a MTM and a MT that looks promising.

[jkrutke]

I would think the RS125 is not quite large enough for surround duty to keep up with the mains, unless you can set a higher subwoofer crossover point. But any RS150 or RS180 2-way system would likely do the job fine. I don't see any real need to have 3-ways in back for surround duty. Preferably, find a design that has a leaner BSC configuration if you are going to put them against the wall, and then put some wall treatments right next to the box to help limit the early reflection from messing up the midrange.

[clark]

Thanks so much for the responses. So would I be correct to assume that the mid and treble drivers are not as important for voicing and don't necessarily need to utilize a similar driver setup? Alternately, how would the CC design work as a surround? Predominately the surrounds would be for HT, but there are also a few well done albums mixed in 5.1 that i have listened to in the studio that would make some play. John, I for one very much appreciate the attention you give to value, so with cost, sound, and size considered would it be worthwhile to use that type of configuration IYO? I've pretty well resolved to build the ZDT3.5’s, but have considered building a couple of 2-way speakers to start off since I could have my pennies saved sooner and get this itch scratched. Any specific designs that would go well with the ZDT3.5's with similar voicing, power requirements, etc. would be very much appreciated.

[clark]

I was looking at the SR71 design to build first and maybe use as surrounds for the ZDT3.5's. I think I would like to build the crossover myself rather than the pre-fabbed one from Madisound, but I'm having a hard time finding the parts by themselves. Can anyone help me figure out what I need to get? There are so many options, but I don't know what is what as I am new to this. I want to try though; I just don't want to totally get the wrong parts.

[jkrutke]

I was looking at the SR71 design to build first and maybe use as surrounds for the ZDT3.5's. I think I would like to build the crossover myself rather than the pre-fabbed one from Madisound, but I'm having a hard time finding the parts by themselves. Can anyone help me figure out what I need to get? There are so many options, but I don't know what is what as I am new to this. I want to try though; I just don't want to totally get the wrong parts.

The SR71 is a high end speaker that I would hate seeing relegated to surround duty. In my eyes that's kind of a waste of money.

Note that all crossover parts I call out are normally available at Madisound. For caps, Bennic Polys. For resistors, Eagle metal films. In either case if they don't have what I need, I then look into Solen caps or sandcast resistors. For inductors, anything is good as long as you're kinda close to the noted DCR value. I favor Madisound air cores and steel laminate sledgehammers for the big series woofer inductor.

You haven't mentioned if the rear speakers will be placed up against a wall. If they are, just be sure you pick a design with reduced baffle step compensation.

My final piece of advice is to avoid analysis paralysis. :T

[Dennis H]

I think I would like to build the crossover myself rather than the pre-fabbed one from Madisound, but I'm having a hard time finding the parts by themselves.

Other than the joy of building it yourself, you won't save any money. Madisound often sells their assembled crossovers for less than the cost of parts as part of a kit deal.

[tizeye]

Other than the joy of building it yourself, you won't save any money. Madisound often sells their assembled crossovers for less than the cost of parts as part of a kit deal.

Actually, I ordered from 4 separate vendors and totaled $367 including shipping vs Madisound $389 plus shipping.
Madisound for port and speakers ($265)
PE for Sonic Barrier and resistors ($30)
e-speakers.com for Solen Air Core inductors ($34)
erseaudio.com for capacitors and terminal cup($38 )

The steal were the terminal cups on special for $3.49 vs $13 at Madisound.

NOTES:
The air cores did raise the DCR from .18 to .44, but well under the .7 Zaph suggested/cautioned as upper limit.
Did not get Clarity caps at e-speakers as was tempted as only $15 (less $5 for the deleted Erse cap). Actually, could have gotten the single Clarity cap and still been under the kit cost. Even thought about a Sonicap + Erse from Meniscus, but that price on the terminal cup at erseaudio was unbelievable.
If did all Erse (iron core, air core inductors and caps) would have been $79, but the Solen air cores were so inexpensive at e-speakes that the split order was cheaper even with dual shipping.

With the exception of the PE order which I got last month, all should arrive this week.

[clark]

The SR71 is a high end speaker that I would hate seeing relegated to surround duty. In my eyes that's kind of a waste of money.

Thanks, that's good to know, and definitely steers me in the right direction.
I have to say the plots are very impressive. I guess I've gotten stuck on the ZDT3.5's and have been looking for something to compliment them. - Maybe I need to rethink things. - More on that below.

Note that all crossover parts I call out are normally available at Madisound. For caps, Bennic Polys. For resistors, Eagle metal films......

Thank you.

You haven't mentioned if the rear speakers will be placed up against a wall. If they are, just be sure you pick a design with reduced baffle step compensation..

I for one am more inclined toward function over form. Ideally they would not be, but enters the real world of the function of a family and a home and plans to move in the not so distant future. Probably they will not be, but it is likely they will put up when not in use. It is doubtful that an on wall would be any better received anyway unless we have a "man" room. A little more work for good sound is worth it though.

My final piece of advice is to avoid analysis paralysis . :T

Duly noted. My over analyzation has less to do with not being able to decide than with not being able to act on a decision call it a "dollar-bill stand-still".
So basically I am just torturing myself until such a time that I can spend some dough. I considered the zmv5 but was concerned with the bass extension if I use something better up front. It sortof negates using a high quality front set up if i've got it crossed over so high for a sub. - On and on it goes. These tiny gears just don't stop spinning!

[clark]

Ok. I know surround speakers are not as crytical as a general rule, but I still don't feel quite at ease here. I would like a little more direction. Here is my quandry:
1. Surrounds are not as important as the mains so why "waste" a good design on them?
2. If I don't spend as much on them or use a lesser design then I have to compinsate for them in some way (like having a higer crossover point for a sub). If I do that do I lose the benefits of a good front design?

[clark]

I noticed on the PE forum that using the CC design mounted upside down (horizontally but w/ the tweeter below the mid) was suggested. Is that still supported as a good idea?
I hate to harp on this topic, but I'm a little green here. It's a value/ performance question that I can't quite figure out.

I had this idea of building an articulating mounting bracket like those used for flat panel TV's so that is could be pushed up out of the way when not in use and pulled out to the proper placement when needed. The thought being that I would experiment w/ placement unit I got it just right and then build an arm according to where it needs to be mounted - either a wall or ceiling. I might even build a pocket in the wall or ceiling for it to recess into when not in use. Any thoughts? Does anyone see why this might be a bad idea?

[Blktre]

You put the tweeter on the bottom when the CC is placed on top of the TV then flip the speaker over so the tweeter is on top of the mid when placing the CC below the TV.

[clark]

Thanks Blktre. I think my previous post was a little unclear.
Clarification: CC design used upside down as a surround speaker.