Zaph's new driver...

[Dave Bullet]

Nope, didn't do any. Actually I stopped doing off axis curves of woofers years ago because for the most part, they are all what you would expect based on the piston diameter. (not so true with tweeters and dome mids) You could do a simple piston based simulation and and be 95% accurate, no matter if it's a floppy poly cone or ringing metal.

But if people really want to see, I can throw one on a baffle and get some curves.

That would be nice thankyou. I'm still living in the last century with software that cannot simulate off-axis. I should have mentioned that as the reason for the request.

[dlr]

That would be nice thankyou. I'm still living in the last century with software that cannot simulate off-axis. I should have mentioned that as the reason for the request.

Does it not simulate the off-axis of a driver, the crossover or diffraction or a combination of the three? Even if the software simulates the off-axis of a driver, if it does not also simulate the off-axis for diffraction that may very likely be far important than the off-axis of a driver, then none of it is much use for off-axis prediction.

While I would expect any driver manufacturer to provide the off-axis responses as well as on-axis, it's not as difficult to impute it for a driver such as this one as it is for diffraction. The off-axis for the driver will be very uniform vs. diffraction that can change significantly with every axis. If this driver is used in a way typical of this size/type of driver, I would expect it to perform typically as well. It's not likely to have anything unexpected in the off-axis.

I am also using software "from the last century" for optimization, CALSOD. It's even DOS-based (runs in an XP window just fine), but it does predict the off-axis for crossovers and has a rudimentary driver directionality and baffle step capability. In fact, it does some things that some of the most recent software has not incorporated and I find it to be easily as competent for most crossover design as any of the current software, some of which I have and have used as well. The one I do like to use, at least in the early stages, is the PCD spreadsheet by Jeff Bagby due to it's great user interface and relative simplicity of use, but I always finalize with CALSOD.

Dave

[Dave Bullet]

Does it not simulate the off-axis of a driver, the crossover or diffraction or a combination of the three? Dave

Speaker Workshop - so none. I don't do enough to warrant the spend on something commercial that will do it. Maybe I should take the time to learn some freebies.

I use BDS and FRC spreadsheets, but I don't think you can position the mic for the off-axis diffraction signature. You can with the Edge however...

Time to do some learning probably.... Although I think off-axis curves are a reasonable request for a driver too.

[Evil Twin]

Simulate, model, estimate, faugh!

As one of my many nemesis would say,

"It is measure you must!"

[jkrutke]

At the risk of a force choke hold, I'll get right on that.

Just for grins, I should do a sim and see how they compare.

To be clear, Soundeasy does a piston based sim which is generally accurate for infinite baffle, but does not sim in diffraction ripple changes off axis in a box. No software can do that. (that I know of) That's a feature in my next big SE wishlist to send to Bohdan. My last wishlist was posted to the users list for V13 and almost all of it managed to get added over the next few versions.

[dlr]

I use BDS and FRC spreadsheets, but I don't think you can position the mic for the off-axis diffraction signature. You can with the Edge however...

The BDS does the off-axis as well. What I like about the BDS is that it can export a file for any point you've selected that can then be used with a 2-pi (large baffle) measurement to predict the response on the modeled baffle, if you care to take it to that extent. Of course it's almost easier just to look at the two measurements to "see" what the combine result will be.

Dave

[Tomcat14]

Hi I'm a new guy here.

However, I've seen Zaph's ZA14W08's at Madisound. I was wondering if using this as a side firing woofer would be applicable. The depth of the cabinet is 90mm interior dimension from side wall to side wall, with a 125mm total exterior dimension. Box is constructed with 20mm MDF.

My concern is weather or not the distance behind the speaker will be enough, since the driver is 66mm depth, will this cause adverse affects on its performance as a dedicated woofer. I'm looking to cross this over at 2.5k and using a W3-871 as the mid to high driver. And of course aesthetics is something I'm looking for also.

Any help would be appreciated with their experience in this design application....considering Mr. Kurtke is the designer and here. I thought I would go to the source who is familiar with this driver.

[JonMarsh]

Side firing to that high a frequency will likely create some problems with in room axial response/early arrival sound. Usually side firing woofers are used in a restricted LF range, 150 Hz down, occasionally a little higher, where the wavelength is still long enough to "wrap around the enclosure" - i.e., full 4 pi radiation. For a cabinet 4" wide front baffle, that range might extend to 250-400 Hz at the top.

[Tomcat14]

Side firing to that high a frequency will likely create some problems with in room axial response/early arrival sound. Usually side firing woofers are used in a restricted LF range, 150 Hz down, occasionally a little higher, where the wavelength is still long enough to "wrap around the enclosure" - i.e., full 4 pi radiation. For a cabinet 4" wide front baffle, that range might extend to 250-400 Hz at the top.

Thank you for your insightful educated response. My novice is showing here and I appreciate your knowledge.

After experimenting with the W3-871's cross over at 300hz is and sounds much better. I'm going to order the ZA14W08's tomorrow. I can always make the cabinet a little wider if the driver needs it.

[HYPERTUNE]

Could I ask a couple international folks what your average shipping cost in USD is from Madisound? For roughly something the size of a couple woofers, tweeters and misc parts for a 2-way pair.

I just got a delivery from Madisound and remembered reading this post a while back.

I ordered:

2 x NT1's
2 x FR88EX
2 x SS D2608 (HDS 810921)

Price for shipping to Australia was $52 USD.

I ordered from Madisound on Oct 2, arrived in AU on Oct 4, and was delivered to me on Oct 6 (5th was a public holiday)

I'm VERY happy with the service from Madisound and their shipping provider, Fedex.

[fjhuerta]

Could I ask a couple international folks what your average shipping cost in USD is from Madisound? For roughly something the size of a couple woofers, tweeters and misc parts for a 2-way pair.

I paid $55 shipping for the ZA5.2s, a pair of flared ports and an extra DQ25 (those things are fragile!).

Far better pricing than Parts Express when it comes to international S/H. :T

[fjhuerta]

I just received my order. Zaph's driver is simply stunning. It's the most beautiful driver I've ever seen (granted, I have never laid my eyes on a DIY ScanSpeak or a Seas Excel). I can't believe its price!

It makes the W4-1337sb look ugly in comparison!

[JonMarsh]

I just received my order. Zaph's driver is simply stunning. It's the most beautiful driver I've ever seen (granted, I have never laid my eyes on a DIY ScanSpeak or a Seas Excel). I can't believe its price!

It makes the W4-1337sb look ugly in comparison!

Ay-yup.

[Silversmoky]

Thought I might add some listening impressions about Zaph's new driver. Been working on a 3 way design that uses 2 of Zaph's new Za14's as mids. After a lot of tweaking and playing around I have finalized the crossover and have been doing a lot of listening over the last couple of weeks. Overall very impressed with these drivers.

I have done some direct comparing with the Tang Band W1337 mids, trying to decide which one I liked better. They are in different designs, so that factors in, but they do have similar slopes and crossover points, so I was able to get a pretty good comparison through the midrange.

To my ear the ZA14's have a much cleaner and clearer sound to them, I am guessing probably due to their lower distortion through the midrange. Very detailed and I found the response curve pretty friendly to work with. These were crossed over to one of the newer Scanspeak Illuminator tweeters - 6020-10 deep chamber. The combination of these two together is really clean and crisp sounding.

The TB is a little more laid back and warmer sounding, which may be what some prefer. Also a pretty friendly response for crossover design. These are crossed over to an Usher 9950 tweeter, which also is a little more laid back compared to the Scan Tweeter in the other system. Both sound good and I would definitely use both again, but I think my preference goes to the ZA14's. I think great value too. Performance pretty close to the SEAS Excel W15CY-001, as I think Jon Marsh pointed out when these first came out. Pretty impressive.

Definitely consider that these are my subjective impressions! Just wanted to add some general comments to maybe help someone decide what they are looking for when considering these mids.

[Shonver]

I just got me some of these. They are indeed pretty and rather dainty looking. Hoping to use them in a 3-way...

[lhwidget]

Thought I might add some listening impressions about Zaph's new driver. Been working on a 3 way design that uses 2 of Zaph's new Za14's as mids. After a lot of tweaking and playing around I have finalized the crossover and have been doing a lot of listening over the last couple of weeks. Overall very impressed with these drivers.

I have done some direct comparing with the Tang Band W1337 mids, trying to decide which one I liked better. They are in different designs, so that factors in, but they do have similar slopes and crossover points, so I was able to get a pretty good comparison through the midrange.

To my ear the ZA14's have a much cleaner and clearer sound to them, I am guessing probably due to their lower distortion through the midrange. Very detailed and I found the response curve pretty friendly to work with. These were crossed over to one of the newer Scanspeak Illuminator tweeters - 6020-10 deep chamber. The combination of these two together is really clean and crisp sounding.

The TB is a little more laid back and warmer sounding, which may be what some prefer. Also a pretty friendly response for crossover design. These are crossed over to an Usher 9950 tweeter, which also is a little more laid back compared to the Scan Tweeter in the other system. Both sound good and I would definitely use both again, but I think my preference goes to the ZA14's. I think great value too. Performance pretty close to the SEAS Excel W15CY-001, as I think Jon Marsh pointed out when these first came out. Pretty impressive.

Definitely consider that these are my subjective impressions! Just wanted to add some general comments to maybe help someone decide what they are looking for when considering these mids.

Hi Silversmoky,
My experience was quite similar, but coming from the budget end of the spectrum (TB W704s + ND20FBs) to the ZA14s with Seas 27TDFCs, with both crossed to a sub at 150 Hz.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lhwidget1/ZaphZA14W8sAndSeas27TDFCsIn025FtDaytonEnclosures#5384090173778143570

I wasn't able to compare them side by side, but I have noticed details in familiar music with the Zaphs that I simply had never heard before.

I've been very happy with them, and they were indeed easy to work with.

[Silversmoky]

Nice little speaker!

[lhwidget]

Nice little speaker!

Thanks! I'd love to hear yours, they look to be quite a good design choice.