Upgrading Mains- Advice?

**---k---** · 27 July 2009, 09:39 Monday

I would suggest you start buy building a sub and go from there. Look at the drivers from DIY Cable. I would be looking at a pair of Tempest 15" drivers or Maelstroms's. Kevin has some good reference designs on his website for the Tempest and promised more info for the Maelstrom. To have lots of sofa shaking less than 25hz power from a sealed box, you will likely need some EQ. Ported can give you this without the EQ and therefore less money. The difference in sound quality of well executed ported/sealed designs, imho, isn't as large as some people make it out to be.

**Jed** · 27 July 2009, 09:46 Monday

The ZRT should be a very good design because it uses the excellent Scan Speak drivers which are a step above the Dayton and TB in terms of clarity. If you go ported make sure you build a larger optimized box. Scan Speaks tend to have higher Qes numbers than the spec sheets suggest.

When using multiple drivers it tends to make the drivers work less hard, thus lowering the work load and distortion, which is what I did with my Dynamic Series and what Jim and Curt did with the large Statements. That gets to be pretty expensive to do if say using a pair/quad of Scan Speaks just for bass!

Troels seems to have a mantra of a downward tilted treble and high crossover points to the tweeter. Crossing high to a tweeter that has the potential operate lower is IMO not the best way because the woofer starts to beam (dips in off axis response). Also a tilted down treble is not the most neutral response in my experience. I've seen lately some of his designs are moving away from that mantra, so I don't know. A lot of people like his speakers so we'll leave it at that.

Just my 2 cents.

**craigrhyne** · 27 July 2009, 16:08 Monday

I'm @ work replying from my blackberry, so I'll try to update this post later this evening.

Thanks for the replies! Why is it that you recommend I start with a sub as my first project? Is the recommendation from an experience standpoint, or a system improvement standpoint? Would a set of ZRT's or Statement's not really be that much of an improvement over my RF-82's?
Specifically, how do the statement's compare to the ZRT's, and where do these speakers fit into the commercial ladder?

Concerning the sub, I don't think I'm looking for sofa shaking bass below 25Hz.. I would like to build something that will compliment some of the previously mentioned speakers for 2.1 channel music listening. I would actually very much like to learn how to use an active crossover in conjunction with my laptop to EQ the sub specifically for my room.

I've read that some people actually use an active crossover and multiple amps for the front main's.. How difficult is it to properly set up the crossover if this route is taken? I'm almost tempted to buy several pro amps and give this a shot as it seems much better sq could be achieved via room-specific EQ tailoring.

**---k---** · 27 July 2009, 16:58 Monday

I recommend a sub first because they are very simple, and you can learn a lot about design and construction that will save you a few headaches before you get to a more complicated speaker build. That's all.

I haven't heard Zaph's ZRT design. I'm sure it is very nice. It is very different from the Statements. I'm not sure if I could say one or the other is better, just very different attempts to reach the same goal. The Statements will probably play louder and fill a room better. My guess is that both of these would be very competitive with speakers in the $2k - $5k range. That is just a guess. Whether they are better than you RF-82 is in the eyes of the beholder. Someone recently posted that they dissapointed when a $400 closeout pair of Energy speakers were better than their Zaph design, but it appears they just like a little more boom than Zaph provides.

Going fully active has some big fanatics on the net. I think it can be a fun way to try a lot of things. But, it seems like the people who have been doing this the longest prefer the old fashion way. Our leader, Jon Marsh, works for Siemens and has designed commercial amps before and still does passive. JonW started with active but then moved on to passive for his Spassvogel design, which btw uses the same drivers as the ZRT.

**cjd** · 27 July 2009, 17:05 Monday

You don't need a subwoofer for 25Hz... Just proper mains.

The bigger RS based 3-ways I did handle this pretty well, though they really do start to diminish below ~30Hz. I'd cross them to a proper sub at around 40Hz I think, as long as the sub handled to 10Hz flat. I think a couple folks posted their impressions relative to some commercial stuff in that thread (or was it another) - I won't vouch for that myself, but it was very very favorable.

Zaph's work is incredible, that I've heard. He's a perfectionist. But also a stickler for accuracy, and a lot of people aren't familiar with the sound and can prefer other options.

I can't comment on the Statements (never heard them) beyond saying they have quite a following, and Curt has a reputation for doing excellent work.

**craigrhyne** · 27 July 2009, 23:03 Monday

Alright, so as of right now the plan is to build a set of sealed ZRT 2.5's in a translam cabinet similar to this one:

HTGuide Forum

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=33184&highlight=zrt

If I do go with the translam style cabinet design, I will likely get rid of the curved baffle, and cut the front W dimension back down to 9" inches like the cabinet used in Zaph's original design. I would also like to build the exterior of the cabinet in an elliptical design (from a bird's eye view) with the front chopped off. Using the translam design, it seems like this would be very easy to accomplish while still leaving the interior of the cabinet a rectangular prism (As shown in the original design). As long as the width of the front baffle and the interior dimensions/volume remained true to the original design, would changing the external height/shape have a serious acoustical effect on the speaker?

Just to make life easier I'll probably go with the Madisound driver/crossover kit:

Welcome to Madisound Speaker Components.

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=35_39_412&products_id=8448

Free support for loudspeaker projects, sourcing OEM speaker building supplies, and passive crossover design. We sell raw speaker drivers (tweeters, woofers, subwoofer, midrange drivers, full range drivers), speaker kits, amplifiers, capacitors, resistors, and inductors.

On the 2 way web page they mention that an upgraded crossover is available... They do not, however, make note of this on the page for the 2.5's. I guess an inquisitive call is in order

Just out of curiosity, Has anyone tried to build a translam cabinet out of a clear material (possibly 1" plexiglass)? It sure would be interesting to design a see through cabinet, and then install some cool looking drivers like the Scan-Speak Illuminators! (I recognize that this would require a different crossover design, but you get the idea) Does plexiglass have any properties that would cause it to be less than desirable (acoustically) for cabinet construction?

Thanks,
Craig Rhyne

**---k---** · 27 July 2009, 23:28 Monday

You should do a search for Zaph's comments about the "upgrade" crossover.

**craigrhyne** · 28 July 2009, 00:09 Tuesday

Originally posted by ---k---

You should do a search for Zaph's comments about the "upgrade" crossover.

^^Will do. I just edited my previous post to include a couple of new questions about cabinet design... If anyone read it earlier and had nothing to add, please read it again

EDIT: I've just used the advanced search function to search for post by "jkrutke" containing the words "upgraded crossover" "crossover upgrade" or "ZRT upgrade" and can find no such post. Might you have a link? ...Are his thoughts positive or negative? Unlike with carpentry, I've logged a significant number of hours soldering iron in-hand. There is no doubt in my mind that I could easily build the crossovers shown on Zaph's web page, however my initial thought was to buy them if they're already built..

**---k---** · 28 July 2009, 09:59 Tuesday

http://htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=419208&postcount=7

There was a bit of bargaining between myself and Madisound for the SR71 design, and even more for the ZRT design, about what caps to use in the kit. If Madisound had their way, they would be using expensive high end caps everywhere. If I had my way, I'd be using Bennic poly caps for everything in the SR71, and the ZRT would have had a few electrolytics in the design for the larger values. Both myself and Madisound know what's marketable, and electrolytics hooked up to Scan Speak drivers isn't going to fly.

So, it's all about marketing. There are bigger concerns here. Anyone fretting over which capacitors to use, in my opinion, does not have their priorities straight. The other concern is "analysis paralysis". It leads excessive expectations, which leads to nothing but disappointment.

**craigrhyne** · 28 July 2009, 17:34 Tuesday

So I went back and read the entire thread where Zaph posted that comment. After reading, the impression that I got was that the difference between mid grade caps and high grade caps really isn't all that much; especially when the speakers are not positioned correctly, or they are used in a less than ideal listening area. I also saw it mentioned that an inductor upgrade might be money well spent.

According to Madisound, the only differences between the reg crossovers and the upgraded crossovers are poly caps and foil inductors. If the rest of the kit already cost $1400... whats an extra $100? I mean why not give up 10 subway sandwiches and get that extra 2% increase in performance? :T

On a slightly different note, are their any slightly more costly speaker designs that would yield a greater listening improvement/dollar than buying buying the better crossovers?

For instance: Lets say I build the ZRT 2.5 way's with arguably better (more expensive) crossovers for a total of $1600 (component costs), and in return I get a 2% increase in performance.... What could I buy for $2000? Might I step up my budget a bit and get a 10% increase in performance?

Remember... size, looks, and ability to play at extreme volumes don't really matter here. I'm after sq and imaging.

BTW.. placement won't be an issue, as I'm a college student and I live by myself. The plan is to build my living room around these speakers

Also, I will be putting bass traps in all 8 corners of the room, placing sound diffusors on the rear walls, putting absorbsion behind the speakers, and covering the majority of the hardwood floor with a very large, 1" thick rug... That is unless someone much more knowledgeable than myself has better suggestions!

Thanks,
Craig Rhyne

**cjd** · 28 July 2009, 18:08 Tuesday

I think at this level you start shifting things around some - while you don't necessarily gain SQ in the main, the RS 3-way WWMTM's I've done end up being bigger and are 3-ways vs 2.5-way - more extension, but you're not quite in the same league on drivers and very possibly they wouldn't compete still. Who knows, I've not heard both.

They need room (and I mean ROOM) to really open up and perform their best, but they do darned well in confined space. Check out some of Jed's work as well to see what he has in 3-ways in that price range. I don't know if JonMarsh's latest 3-way will fall into your price range (I suspect that the budget version will at the very least) but that would definitely be something else to give some serious thought to.

We're just scratching the surface on options.

**Jed** · 28 July 2009, 18:09 Tuesday

Craig,

I like the Clarity Caps used in the ZRT kit. Highly recommend them. Good luck with your speaker and the translam idea should be really nice as well.

On another note, you asked what you could buy for $2000 and with that budget you could do a really nice 3 way using Scan Speak/Seas. My Duet10 speaker comes to mind. It uses a slanted box with larger chamfers, which shouldn't be beyond your cabinet making skills if you can do a translam. I feel a 3 way is a step up from 2.5ways given the same quality of drivers are used and the crossovers are optimized as well.

Jed

**craigrhyne** · 28 July 2009, 18:41 Tuesday

Thanks for the replies!

Originally posted by cjd

I think at this level you start shifting things around some - while you don't necessarily gain SQ in the main, the RS 3-way WWMTM's I've done end up being bigger and are 3-ways vs 2.5-way - more extension, but you're not quite in the same league on drivers and very possibly they wouldn't compete still. Who knows, I've not heard both.

They need room (and I mean ROOM) to really open up and perform their best, but they do darned well in confined space. Check out some of Jed's work as well to see what he has in 3-ways in that price range. I don't know if JonMarsh's latest 3-way will fall into your price range (I suspect that the budget version will at the very least) but that would definitely be something else to give some serious thought to.

We're just scratching the surface on options.

I would be happy to go with a larger box for an increase in sound quality, but def not for spl

I expect that upon completion of any of the previously mentioned speaker designs, the last think I will be desiring is additional output capability! Which of Jon's projects are you referring to? Not the Modula NeoD's I suppose as they would easily fit into my price range..

Originally posted by Jed

Craig,

I like the Clarity Caps used in the ZRT kit. Highly recommend them. Good luck with your speaker and the translam idea should be really nice as well.

On another note, you asked what you could buy for $2000 and with that budget you could do a really nice 3 way using Scan Speak/Seas. My Duet10 speaker comes to mind. It uses a slanted box with larger chamfers, which shouldn't be beyond your cabinet making skills if you can do a translam. I feel a 3 way is a step up from 2.5ways given the same quality of drivers are used and the crossovers are optimized as well.

Jed

Do you have a link to some info on the Duet10's? Btw, a translam cabinet would be very simple for me to build as I have access to a cnc machine that can work with sheets up to 36"X24".
EDIT: Don't worry about the link... I just noticed the link in your avatar

ops:

Thanks,
Craig

**kingpin** · 28 July 2009, 19:14 Tuesday

I will give a thumbs up to cjd"s 3-way mtmww.
I built them as my first project and they turned out being more than I had hoped for.

Mike

**craigrhyne** · 28 July 2009, 20:23 Tuesday

Ok please just ignore my previous post.. I found the info for both Jon's and Jed's designs.

**cjd** · 28 July 2009, 22:33 Tuesday

Jed clearly agreed with me on the recommendation to take a peek at one of his 3-ways.

You don't play big speakers louder - you play them that much further below their full capacity and end up gaining a tremendous amount in precision and in dynamic capacity. Subtleties you never knew were present are audible - small cues that clue you into the room a chamber group is in, or the clink of a glass on the table way in the back at a live jazz (I'm thinking "jazz at the pawnshop" for that one) - note that just stepping up to a 3-way gains a lot of this as well in that the midrange, where so much of the core of what our ears really grasp and pay attention to exists, is not being pushed to also reproduce bass frequencies.

**Jonasz** · 29 July 2009, 01:09 Wednesday

Why not try a dipole?

John Kreskovskys NaO Minis comes to mind. They use boxed woofers but I know John will provide a full dipole/cardioid version if desired.

musicanddesign.com - musicanddesign Resources and Information.

http://www.musicanddesign.com/NaOMini.html

musicanddesign.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, musicanddesign.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!

**JonMarsh** · 29 July 2009, 11:06 Wednesday

Originally posted by Jed

The ZRT should be a very good design because it uses the excellent Scan Speak drivers which are a step above the Dayton and TB in terms of clarity. If you go ported make sure you build a larger optimized box. Scan Speaks tend to have higher Qes numbers than the spec sheets suggest.

When using multiple drivers it tends to make the drivers work less hard, thus lowering the work load and distortion, which is what I did with my Dynamic Series and what Jim and Curt did with the large Statements. That gets to be pretty expensive to do if say using a pair/quad of Scan Speaks just for bass!

Troels seems to have a mantra of a downward tilted treble and high crossover points to the tweeter. Crossing high to a tweeter that has the potential operate lower is IMO not the best way because the woofer starts to beam (dips in off axis response). Also a tilted down treble is not the most neutral response in my experience. I've seen lately some of his designs are moving away from that mantra, so I don't know. A lot of people like his speakers so we'll leave it at that.

Just my 2 cents.

Another side effect of the higher crossover points often overlooked is that most midwoofers, even the best, start to get into some serious linear distortion issues and energy storage- particularly by 1400 and above- (shaped sine pulse tests as per SL show this up clearly)- audibly, this results in a loss of resolution in the midrange. Things don't sound bad, but you don't get that "resolves voices in a choir" effect that good headphones or ESL's have, or that a well designed dynamic system with low energy storage drivers has.

Voicing can be a thorny problem- I'm more with Jed on this one, especially with the general crossover points Troels uses, as this is not conducive to having wide power response. OTOH, with a large amount of commercial material mastered assuming some axial slow roll off above 1-2 kHz, sometimes a very pleasing result will occur if you can design for very wide dispersion (i.e., good power response off axis) and include a very slight down tilt in the on axis response. Of course, that's just as controversial as voicing with a slight BBC dip, but even SL does that with the Orion, and it works for the reasons he says it's necessary.

Avalon Eidolon's are voice similarly, for the same reasons, whereas the Indra isn't. The Eidolon images very well, and at times sounds rather like live music- the Indra is less successful in that, and has received mixed reviews in the high end community for a variety of shortcomings in voicing and coherency, compared with it's bigger brothers.

**Jed** · 29 July 2009, 11:43 Wednesday

I still maintain that a speaker should be true to the source. Adding BBC dips or reducing the treble some 3-5dbs to "bandaide" poor source material is not the best way IMO. I guess if you want to listen to those old U2 albums it might be the only way to make it tolerable, but then all the good recordings really don't live up to their potential.

That's too bad about the Indra, but I suspect there is more going on there in the crossover than the final decision of one design parameter of on axis response. I recall it had some other issues.

**craigrhyne** · 29 July 2009, 12:20 Wednesday

Posted from my BB:

Thanks for the replies! After speaking with Jed a bit via pm and looking through Jon's latest build thread, I've decided that stepping up my budget to get into the higher end 3-way sector is well worth it!

...It's going to be spaghetti and cereal for me all month!!

**JonMarsh** · 29 July 2009, 19:24 Wednesday

One last comment-

From SL's site, discussing the Phoenix design and psycho-acoustics-

H - Psycho-acoustic 3 kHz dip

Our perception of loudness is slightly different for sounds arriving frontally versus sounds arriving from random directions at our ears. The difference between equal-loudness-level contours in frontal free-fields and diffuse sound fields is documented, for example, in ISO Recommendation 454 and in E. Zwicker, H. Fastl, Psycho-acoustics, p. 205.
Diffuse field equalization of dummy-head recordings is discussed in J. Blauert, Spatial Hearing, pp. 363, and headphone diffuse field equalization by G. Theile in JAES, Vol. 34, No. 12.
Reference to a slight dip in the 1 to 3 kHz region for loudspeaker equalization is made in H. D. Harwood (BBC Research Department), Some factors in loudspeaker quality, Wireless World, May 1976, p.48.

Around 3 kHz our hearing is less sensitive to diffuse fields. Recording microphones, though, are usually flat in frequency response even under diffuse field conditions. When such recordings are played back over loudspeakers, there is more energy in the 3 kHz region than we would have perceived if present at the recording venue and a degree of unnaturalness is introduced.
This applies primarily to recordings of large orchestral pieces in concert halls where the microphones are much closer to the instruments than any listener. At most listening positions in the hall the sound field has strong diffuse components.
I use a dip of 4 dB (x1.gif, 2760NF) to equalize for this. The circuit consists of R, C and L in series, forming a frequency dependent ladder attenuator in conjunction with the 5.11k ohm source resistor. You may choose to make the notch filter selectable with a switch for different types of recordings.

I have found through my own head-related recordings of symphonic music that the dip adds greater realism, especially to large chorus and to soprano voice and allows for higher playback levels.

I have found this effective also with many recordings, even close miked recordings- but then for some others using a more natural microphone position, flat may be best- I'm seriously considering implementing a switched network to be able to chose between the two, though of course that introduces another layer of complexity. Probably I'll have to test out the effect with LspCAD emulation before finalizing...

**craigrhyne** · 29 July 2009, 21:10 Wednesday

Jon,
Thanks for the info! Is there any chance you might be willing to throw out an approximate completion window on the Ardents?? :W :drool:

**JonMarsh** · 29 July 2009, 21:50 Wednesday

Well, I'm off work again next week and will be working on them all week. My target is to have them finished in time for RMAF, driving out to Denver with a system visiting ThomasW. We're expecting to meet up with some other friends as we've done in the past, some from in the Denver area and some from out of town.

Of course, there are no certainties in life, but I think I'll have the first pair of cabinets finished next week- the second set for the Dayton and Seas drivers are in the works, but not as far along- OTOH, I can measure drivers using the first set of cabinets, as the RS100 midrange will be mounted in an aluminum plate to fit the C79 form factor and reduce rear masking. So we'll see- stay tuned, I'll be updating Ardent Speaker Camp next week from time to time. :W

Upgrading Mains- Advice?

Upgrading Mains- Advice?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment