ZRT vs Modula NeoD CC

[Doug Fraser]

I am trying to understand what the difference in sound will be between the new Zaph ZRT project vs the Modula NeoD CC.

The speakers will be ceiling mounted (near corners) in a bedroom about 15' x 15'. I have a pair of RS 180 Modula MT's in there now and they sound very good. However, they are my son's and he wants them back. I am not so concerned about the baffle step correction as I intend to equalize them with a parametric EQ and should be able to compensate for BSC or not. The existing RS 180 Modula MT's with the normal BSC sound good.

I like the RS 180 Modula MT's. I wish they could play a bit louder. I sense that they are straining at moderately high volume levels

I am specifically considering the MD20 enclosure 21L" x 9W" x 10.5D" for the ZRT vs the Modula NeoD CC in PE cabinets 22L" 9W" 13.5D". They are close in size. I am not to worried about the low end as I am comfortable with box modeling and have yet to go through the exercise (ported or not and actual box size).

What I find interesting is that the ZRT uses low distortion drivers. I am not sure what that sounds like except for the phrase "can listen to them all day - non fatiguing".

I suspect that the Modula NeoD CC will play louder as work load is split between 3 drivers vs two. Is this the case? I also suspect that the Modula NeoD CC will not be quite as "non fatiguing" as the ZRT.

I was wondering are there any sound generalities that a 3 way has vs a two way or is it really design dependent?

I am not concerned about puch or other such descriptions about the sound. I fully expect both speaks to sound fantastic. I am just trying to understand what the neiuaunaces may be between the two.

Thanks
Doug

[Jed]

Hi Doug, I think you answered a lot of your own questions.

A properly designed 3-way will have reduced distortion versus a 2 way, given similar drivers.. and it is logical that a multiple driver system will be much more dynamic and play louder than a simple 2-way.

How a speaker will behave in YOUR system is something only you can know, so discussing a speaker's character is an open book and really all-together very subjective, since chances are we don't know what type of music you listen to, as well as as slew of other variables that make system matching a speaker so difficult.

That said, if you have any questions about the specific designs, I'm sure a bunch of us will be able to offer some answers. Asking which speaker is "better" really won't get you very far around here because of some of the ideas I mentioned above. Most of us haven't heard all the designs either.

Hope this helps.

Jed

[Doug Fraser]

Jed:

Thanks for the comments. I am trying to avoid the which is better question, as I realize it often generates very personal opinions which can have limited value. What I am trying to do is to understand what the sound differences might be with out all of the drama of personal opinions. Maybe this is not achievable or at best difficult to achieve?

The reason that I am looking at these two designs is that they both come from very very reputable designers and they both can be put into similar sized cabinets that will fit the application. I listen to all kinds of music rock, opera, folk, classical, rap etc. I personally like a speaker that sounds warm but accurate (adds as little character itself as possible).

I didn't realize (assuming same drivers) that a 3 way would have lower distortion than a 2 way. Is this because...

1) the drives are not driven as hard and are more likely to stay in their linear region?

2) the designer has a the option to operate the drivers in their optional region by avoiding break up areas and other nasties?

Does the use of the term dynamic imply that a speaker will sound less compressed as it is played at higher volume levels? I understand at some point all designs "run out of gas".

I understand that at this point in time the number of people building either of these two design is limited. I have looked at the PE and Madisound boards as well as done a Google search. There is not much out there yet with respect to describing the sound of either design.

I suppose a more general question is how does one gauge the sound a speaker produce without involving drama of personal options, without listening to the speakers and only looking at response curves and design architectures? And....to quote Peter Aczel (from The Audio Critic) doing this while NOT venturing into "tweeko" territory, but by having a science biased discussion?

Regards,
Doug

[Dennis H]

Doug, the thing is, the better the speakers, the less difference there is in their sound. The differences (other than maybe bass extension) tend to be pretty subtle although some reviewers will describe them as 'night and day.' Like Jim Holtz was saying about the Iowa DIY get together, there were 3 very different designs in the unlimited class and there was only 1/10 point or something like that difference between 1 and 3 in the judging. So asking us to compare 2 excellent designs we haven't even heard is asking the impossible.

[JonW]

Hi Doug,

Just some thoughts, in case they’re of any help. I’m no expert here.

I wish they could play a bit louder. I sense that they are straining at moderately high volume levels

So an easy way to go might be an MTM design like the Natalie P’s or Modula MTM’s. Same drivers, etc. but more output. And cheaper than a ZRT (or maybe even a NeoD CC).

Regarding the ZRT… I have not heard them myself. But I am in the middle of designing a 2 way speaker using the same drivers. I also have built the Modula MT’s. For the first pass of my design, in test cabinets, and with a crossover that was not optimized, by someone who didn’t know what he was doing… I preferred the sound of the Scanspeaks over the Modula MT’s, by quite a lot. Everything was clearer with the Scanspeaks. Just my own opinion, others may differ. Although it’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison. The ZRT’s are probably a ~$1,000 design and the Modula MT’s are 1/3 of that. So I would hope there would be a huge difference there. Zaph is a much better speaker designer than I am. His ZRT’s should sound even better.

I’ve not heard the NeoD CC’s (but would like to) so I can’t help there. I know what I just gave you is 100% personal opinion, so it’s of little value. But I’ll throw it out there in case it’s better than nothing. Maybe it’s a little perspective on what you have in store when going from the Modula MT’s to the NeoD CC’s or ZRT’s.

Your 2 points of not pushing the drivers as much and keeping them in their optimal range seem reasonable to me.

Good luck.

-Jon

[Doug Fraser]

While I knew that well executed designs sound good, I didn't realize the degree at which they can be similar.

The comment......

"there were 3 very different designs in the unlimited class and there was only 1/10 point or something like that difference between 1 and 3 in the judging"

is the eye opener for me. I didn't realize it was this close.

I do want the speakers to play louder than the Modula MT's so I suspect I would be better off with a 3 way design. I could then compare a two way against a 3 way design (albeit with different drivers). Having said that, the ZRT's sure look interesting. Unfortunately the budget won't support the building of both.

Regards,
Doug

[squiggy34]

Just bought the Zaph 2 way revelator kit

I have two questions regarding this kit.

1: Is the 2.5 way that much better ot justify the cost?
2: Do cabinet width dimensions have to remain the same?

I am using these with my JL Audio fathom f113's, and the cabinet I have is piano gloss black and matches perfectly. If not I will be ordering the black ash version with madison cabinets.

[Jed]

IMO more drivers in a speaker improves the sound, especially the bass where excursion becomes an issue if playing your system at realistic levels. More drivers = less excursion and less harmonic disortion. There are other advantages as well.

You also have to keep the baffle layout of the drivers the same for the design to work properly.

Jed

[---k---]

IMO more drivers in a speaker improves the sound,
Jed

Agreed, assuming that the quality of the crossover design is constant.

I know most here know this already, but the crossover makes a huge difference. I thought it worthwhile to repeat.

[squiggy34]

Well I will be using these with a pair of jl audio fathoms handling the bottom end. The version was planning on using was the .75 cubic feet sealed. These are not going to play full range that much. The width of the madisound cabinet is 9" wide and the PE gloss cabinet is 10' wide. Is that acceptable? I could do the 2.5 way but being a floor model the WAF is unhappy with the dual f113's.

[Hdale85]

If your talking about the NeoD CC's then I'm pretty sure your going to want the PE boxes as it was a pretty tight squeeze even on them so you'll probably want the 1.0cu ft enclosure as well.

[ThomasW]

The PE 0.75 cu ft cab is 8" wide, the PE 1.0 cu ft cab is 9" wide

[squiggy34]

Dayton TW-0.75BK .75 ft³ 2-Way Cabinet Gloss Black - Dimensions: 17" H x 10" W x 12.5" D.

Dayton MTM-1.0BK 1.0 ft³ MTM Cabinet Gloss Black - Dimensions: 22" H x 9" W x 13.5" D.

Per PE site description.

These will be replacing Paradigm Studio 60v.4

[squiggy34]

I see you are qouting the MTM .75 cubic ft.
Dayton MTM-0.75BK .75 ft³ MTM Cabinet Gloss Black - 20" H x 8" W x 13" D.
I am afraid that the 8" wide may be too tight and the 10" wide not sound right?
I have the 10" wide PE cabinet.
Seriously if I use subs (jl audio fathoms) will I miss the extra woofer? I know full range I will, but hopfully just a little.

[augerpro]

There are two .75cf boxes, the TM and MTM styles, and both have different baffles widths. Which one is being refered to here?

[squiggy34]

I have the two way which I was going to use for the ZRT two design.

[squiggy34]

TM is what I am referring to.

[squiggy34]

So it looks off of Zaph's website that he usually recommends not changing the width of all the cabinet dimensions. So I may go with the PE 1.0 cubic ft MTM in gloss black.