ZAPH ZRT 3 way

[jwitt]

Since Zaph is known to post on this place, I thought this might be the best way to ask him this question. If others have any information, I would love to find that out as well.

Last year we had built a Zaph ZRT 2 way and loved the speakers. We used the kit from Madisound and built a 40 liter enclosure for a ported design.

I am building another one for my brother but this time we want to do a 3 way design. While 2.5 way goes somewhat deeper than 2 way, it does not go as deep as we are looking for.

So I was wondering if anyone knew of a high-end 3 way design coming from Zaph.

[jkrutke]

No 3-ways coming from me in the immediate future, though there will be another 2.5-way. Note that the 2.5-way ZRT does not have deeper extension than the 2-way, it just has higher output.

You can always build a 2-way and add a sub, actively crossed over. A lot of the need for a 3-way has gone away with HT receivers, their built-in subwoofer crossovers and cheap amplification.

There's a few 3-ways in the mission accomplished section that you might consider.

[tf1216]

John,

I thought you have simulated a 3-way design for one of your speakers but never built it. I could swear I have a post somewhere about it.

[Jed]

I have a couple Scan Speak 3 ways you might be interested in.

Jed

[jwitt]

No 3-ways coming from me in the immediate future, though there will be another 2.5-way. Note that the 2.5-way ZRT does not have deeper extension than the 2-way, it just has higher output.

You can always build a 2-way and add a sub, actively crossed over. A lot of the need for a 3-way has gone away with HT receivers, their built-in subwoofer crossovers and cheap amplification.

There's a few 3-ways in the mission accomplished section that you might consider.

Zaph thank you so much for your reply. Are you in a position to discuss some details about new 2.5 way? Is it your new reference series 2.5 way (and therefore maybe more expensive than SS kit)? Or is it trying to accomplish what SS 2.5 way did but at lower price?

Also last time when we built 2 way using our own ported enclosure (40 liters), we got F3 of 38 Hz. Is that similar to your own experience?

[tf1216]

jwitt,

i sent you a PM a few days ago. Did you ever get it?

[jkrutke]

Zaph thank you so much for your reply. Are you in a position to discuss some details about new 2.5 way? Is it your new reference series 2.5 way (and therefore maybe more expensive than SS kit)? Or is it trying to accomplish what SS 2.5 way did but at lower price?

Also last time when we built 2 way using our own ported enclosure (40 liters), we got F3 of 38 Hz. Is that similar to your own experience?

At any given time I've got a whole stack projects underway. And normally half of those don't ever get finished, so it's not a good idea talking about something that may never happen. The only ones that are guaranteed of being finished are commercial ventures that I'm being paid for or other projects that I've "made promises" on.

An F3 of 38Hz is actually lower than what I originally got on my 2-way. The low and lean type of tuning I use results in a somewhat highish F3 but with a gradual rolloff that helps in-room extension. To get an anechoic 38 Hz you would have had to tune the port a lot higher. It's all a matter of taste.

[jwitt]

At any given time I've got a whole stack projects underway. And normally half of those don't ever get finished, so it's not a good idea talking about something that may never happen. The only ones that are guaranteed of being finished are commercial ventures that I'm being paid for or other projects that I've "made promises" on.

An F3 of 38Hz is actually lower than what I originally got on my 2-way. The low and lean type of tuning I use results in a somewhat highish F3 but with a gradual rolloff that helps in-room extension. To get an anechoic 38 Hz you would have had to tune the port a lot higher. It's all a matter of taste.

John,

If I was building a sealed ZRT and instead of using dimensions of MD20, was using a 20 liter Parts Express curved cabinet, do you think that would significantly alter the tuning of the drivers.

[Jed]

Changing the baffle width will create response variations from the original design. Example- going from a 9" wide baffle to an 8" wide baffle will change the diffraction signature. That's why most designers suggest someone build the design as originally intended.

[djn04]

I posted this in another thread but I wouldn't mind any or your comments on my design. I've bulit the ZRT's and they sound amazing but aesthetically they look not so great. I want to mimic the deign of the Magico V3's, which I know some people frown upon but I'm curious what people think about the diffraction issues etc. that are created by my design changes.

The baffle is the same 9" as in Zaph's design but the external dimensions of the cabinet are 10" wide. The internal volume is the same just the side walls are 1/2" thicker than in Zaph's design. A guess a picture is worth a 1000 words so....



The cost of materials is substantial so I want to make sure as best I can that I'm not throwing money away
Thanks

[ThomasW]

The 'baffle' is defined as the total width of the front of the speaker. You have a 10" baffle.

[Xander]

The curved baffle would also cause diffraction around the drivers due to the not-so-flush mounting. There is a lip on the top and bottom of each driver cutout that I'm guessing extends beyond the edge of the driver.

[djn04]

xander-
It's true there will be a lip on the top and bottom of about 3/16" . I'm gonna move forward with this though and see how it goes. The baffle will be removable so I can always make changes to it if need be. I should have the material routed next week I'll post some pictures of the progress.