ZA14 - Unsung Hero or diamond in the rough?

[JonMarsh]

I've spent too much time talking about the ZA14 in the Dayton Esoteric thread, which is not a good example for a moderator to set for staying on topic. To that end, I'm starting a new thread- it will include my own thoughts and observations, and I expect will eventually include some proposed and tested designs.

It's arguable that what with the designs sold on Madisound and the design contests ZAPH had for his driver, this doesn't part doesn't need revisiting. I'm going to take a different tack on that, because I think it's a little gem, and it DOES deserve revisiting- I'm not a fan of the tweeter he paired it with for his Madisound design- the rough top end shows up in resonance amplification of distortion products. It's a good tweeter for the money, but my initial measurements of the ZA14 show it could be paired with better components to good effect. So why not? :B


And yes, I have skin in the came- four previously purchased, and now I've got this box in my family room- my most recent order clearly hit the master carton size for these drivers....

So lets have some fun and see what we can do with these in some different configurations- may not really be breaking new ground in some aspects, but let's see what happens- I have several ideas... will probably keep a lid on them until I have some test boxes built, though.

[---k---]

Glad to see this get the attention Zaph deserves.

One thought when looking at the graph. It reminded me something I read someone post the other day. They were looking for suggestions for midrange. The Zaph was recommended. They discarded it because the FR wasn't ruler flat like is shown for something like the RS150. I'm not sure the uneducated, like myself, really understand what to look for when looking at these graphs. A good place to start might be explaining what you see that makes it an appealing driver.

[oneplustwo]

Excellent! Looking forward to this! Hoping that there are interesting results by the time I'm ready to build out my home theatre/listening room.

[kevinm]

Glad to see this get the attention Zaph deserves.

One thought when looking at the graph. It reminded me something I read someone post the other day. They were looking for suggestions for midrange. The Zaph was recommended. They discarded it because the FR wasn't ruler flat like is shown for something like the RS150. I'm not sure the uneducated, like myself, really understand what to look for when looking at these graphs. A good place to start might be explaining what you see that makes it an appealing driver.

I agree and would love to see Doc's thoughts

Great recommendation, K!

[wkhanna]

Plus 1 on the suggestion for a few side-bars on how the data is interpreted (myself being one of the uneducated masses).

[bvbellomo]

One thought when looking at the graph. It reminded me something I read someone post the other day. They were looking for suggestions for midrange. The Zaph was recommended. They discarded it because the FR wasn't ruler flat like is shown for something like the RS150. I'm not sure the uneducated, like myself, really understand what to look for when looking at these graphs. A good place to start might be explaining what you see that makes it an appealing driver.

At first I thought you were thinking of a similar thread I posted a few weeks ago. Zaph's drivers weren't suggested (although his website was). I was actually looking to order some at one point (they were out of stock), then I got busy. I will probably go with the ES140s now, but Zaph's remain on my list if I have to cut back the budget.

Years ago, 'ruler flat' was one of the only things people looked at. Then this evolved into distortion, and now people ignore the H2 and H4 and look at the H3, H5, and higher orders. I think its become a bit like the fashion industry where what is important changes year to year. IMO 'ruler flat' is underrated now - charts like the ES180 and Satori bother me a bit. There are a lot of different parameters to optimize for, and it isn't as simple as deciding which parameter is highest priority. Things like the ZRT and Dayton RS lines can make nice speakers, so buying something 4 times the cost, I expect either big improvements in some areas, or small improvements everywhere.

I'm surprised to see Jon trying to build this into a line array. Originally, I was going to do a build with ribbons and ruled out this woofer as I didn't think it would cross high enough. But I'm not the most knowledgeable in this area, so I wish him the best of luck and plan to follow his work.

[R-Carpenter]

http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?215217-Zaph-Audio-ZA14W08-VS-Fountek-FW146

http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?215771-follow-up-on-ZA-14-vs-Fountek

ZA14 is a nice driver. I don't know if it's a diamond but certainly a high performer.
Seas Excel magnesium has lower distortions at higher SPL but alas at a much higher price.

[JonMarsh]

First, I suppose it bears repeating that the measurement above is actually on an 8" wide baffle, measured at 1 meter in a real room. It's not mounted on an infinite baffle. So the measurement above shows 6 dB of baffle step due to the transition from 2pi radiation in the 850 Hz area to 4pi around 250 Hz or so.

Now, the RS150 series is an interesting case- the current measured data from Dayton audio shows a fairly smooth response up to 1 K, then in the higher ranges some of the usual things we expect from a metal cone driver- but all in all, I think it's quite usable, and one could argue that it's an able competitor, though not as well damped in the top end as the ZA14. Then there's the paper version, which shows a smoother response and a better controlled top end for the SPL, BUT, which was a rather good sized bobble in the impedance curve in the 1500 Hz area. This is a very common thing for paper or plastic drivers, and in my experience generally correlates with a kind of "ehh" coloration that can be heard on pink noise, and also, less easily, on music. Some folks write off that resonance to a surround problem, but geez, if they can do the surround right on the metal cone driver, why not the paper? OK so I'm not buying that explanation.

What I have bought is that it might take a little more effort to deal with small frequency response issues not due to apparent resonance, but that it's worth it to the extent that you can get the driver to "disappear" and not contribute much of it's own signature in the final system design.

Let's look at Zaph's own IB style measurement:






What I like about this:

• The main break up mode is all the way up at 9 kHz. It's sort of well damped for a metal cone; by that I mean, compare it to the RS drivers which often have multiple high level nodes (RS180, for example- no one would pick it at first for an easy to work with midrange)
• Out to 30-45 degrees, the response on and off axis tracks pretty well out to 3 kHz. It's a tradeoff between low end extension and high end dispersion in a potential mid or small mid woofer.
• The slight rise in response from 1200 Hz to 2 kHz is very easy to deal with- you just move one of the poles in the crossover transfer function down a tiny bit so that it's starting to roll off a bit earlier before it gets into full swing.
• Considering the driver distortion products and dispersion characteristics, a 2500-2800 Hz crossover is still likely reasonable at the upper end.

BSC needs to be compensated in a midrange in most cases (unless it's a high LF crossover point, say, 800 Hz or so), so this really isn't any different from other drivers. Three ways ARE more of a stone b*tch to design, no doubt about it- comes with the territory.

I like the other characteristics of this part enough that I'm willing to explore it's strengths (good sensitivity and very usable FR, in my opinion), and try to figure out how to minimize the impact of the weaknesses (among them, the relatively low Xmax; this is a reasonable design choice, because if you make a long throw 5" driver, the sensitivity is then quite low.

I'm thinking along the lines of an MTM (since we're talking the same driver as the line array idea, let's call it the Saint-Saens Duetto), and a 2.5 way MTM (Saint-Saens Quattro). Still have a couple of ideas up my sleeeve for these two that I'll talk about later after getting some test builds done. It will not be a linear pricing curve...

[JonMarsh]

At first I thought you were thinking of a similar thread I posted a few weeks ago. Zaph's drivers weren't suggested (although his website was). I was actually looking to order some at one point (they were out of stock), then I got busy. I will probably go with the ES140s now, but Zaph's remain on my list if I have to cut back the budget.

Years ago, 'ruler flat' was one of the only things people looked at. Then this evolved into distortion, and now people ignore the H2 and H4 and look at the H3, H5, and higher orders. I think its become a bit like the fashion industry where what is important changes year to year. IMO 'ruler flat' is underrated now - charts like the ES180 and Satori bother me a bit. There are a lot of different parameters to optimize for, and it isn't as simple as deciding which parameter is highest priority. Things like the ZRT and Dayton RS lines can make nice speakers, so buying something 4 times the cost, I expect either big improvements in some areas, or small improvements everywhere.

I'm surprised to see Jon trying to build this into a line array. Originally, I was going to do a build with ribbons and ruled out this woofer as I didn't think it would cross high enough. But I'm not the most knowledgeable in this area, so I wish him the best of luck and plan to follow his work.

It depends on what you plan to use as a ribbon and that driver's capabilities or limitations. This is where, IMO, most of the line arrays with ribbons (excepting the Julietta) have gone wrong.

Of course, I may fall flat on my face here, too! I've just been pondering so many approaches, buying drivers, doing some initial tests, then discarding things. Worst case, I could always put the RD52's in as a filler/link driver, but I don't think that's desirable or necessary. We'll see.

It would be funny if in the end I ditched this and just bought a pair of Maggies to stick in the corner... I'm sure it would make her happy, and be much less work for me... but we'll see.

[5th element]

I think one of the reasons why there have been these changes in what people look for is because of education and due to the times we live in.

Once upon a time the 'text book' xover filter was far more used than it is now. Having a driver with a wide bandwidth and a flat response, at least back then, was extremely important because it ensured that your final acoustic response would be closer to what you expected it to be. Of course text book filters have never really been any good for anything other than the most basic of systems, but if your drivers are flat and extended it at least helps ensure more of a success than if they were not. This is a reason why some of those older vifa and SEAS poly and paper cones were so popular, because they had really flat frequency responses. Like the good old Vifa P13.



Nowadays though people are turning, far more, to measurement free simulation and design software. This isn't perfect but it can work rather well. You use the manufactures measured curve, or a third party curve and modify it by a simulation of box diffraction. If you go this route having a flat response becomes largely academic. The rising response, in something like the ZA14, becomes very easy to handle within the xover and even more destructive issues, such as peaks, become easily manageable.

Once the FR issues are easy enough to work with you start to look elsewhere for your criteria on which to select drivers. Once upon a time there were hardly any measurements for distortion out there. SEAS used to post some distortion plots on their Excel drivers, but they stopped doing that years ago. This was one reason why I originally picked their W15CY001 almost 15 years ago. It had a complete absence of any sort of resonance within it's pass band, but also showed lower distortion than other drivers I could actually find that had distortion data.

Due to the day and age we are in, it has also become a lot easier for manufacturers to invest in the sort of equipment that was just a pipe dream many years ago, such as finite element analysis, complex magnetic field simulation software and the now almost ubiquitous Klippel measurement system. All of these things help to dramatically improve driver performance whilst providing it at a lower cost. A few years ago you didn't have much choice when it came to drivers, especially at the lower price points. All you really had back then were the SEAS standard line, vifa/peerless stuff and then a few other smaller manufacturers that weren't readily available to everyone. They all had fairly basic motors and distortion performance wasn't great from any of the drivers. Now things are much more competitive, the manufacturers have seriously upper their game and people have become more aware of what makes for a more linear driver.

Now personally I don't ignore any of the harmonics, the only one I am somewhat lenient about is the 2nd order products. I really like to see a low 3rd order, as these contribute, imo, most significantly to creating a less clear sound, it is also pretty easy to create a driver with really high levels of 3rd order distortion, much more so than creating a driver with really high 4th or 5th order products and this is when it becomes a problem.

Drivers like this?



No thanks.

The higher the orders go the more objectionable they become. What I look for is the 3rd order at around 50dB or better, then with the driver hopefully having the 4th or 5th order products between -70 and -90dB.

And Jon, I think the reason why the metal cone drivers don't show the cone edge/surround resonance, isn't because of the surround, it's because the cone is stiff and doesn't resonate and hence the problem isn't there to begin with.

[JonMarsh]

I think one of the reasons why there have been these changes in what people look for is because of education and due to the times we live in.

Once upon a time the 'text book' xover filter was far more used than it is now. Having a driver with a wide bandwidth and a flat response, at least back then, was extremely important because it ensured that your final acoustic response would be closer to what you expected it to be. Of course text book filters have never really been any good for anything other than the most basic of systems, but if your drivers are flat and extended it at least helps ensure more of a success than if they were not. This is a reason why some of those older vifa and SEAS poly and paper cones were so popular, because they had really flat frequency responses. Like the good old Vifa P13.



Nowadays though people are turning, far more, to measurement free simulation and design software. This isn't perfect but it can work rather well. You use the manufactures measured curve, or a third party curve and modify it by a simulation of box diffraction. If you go this route having a flat response becomes largely academic. The rising response, in something like the ZA14, becomes very easy to handle within the xover and even more destructive issues, such as peaks, become easily manageable.

Once the FR issues are easy enough to work with you start to look elsewhere for your criteria on which to select drivers. Once upon a time there were hardly any measurements for distortion out there. SEAS used to post some distortion plots on their Excel drivers, but they stopped doing that years ago. This was one reason why I originally picked their W15CY001 almost 15 years ago. It had a complete absence of any sort of resonance within it's pass band, but also showed lower distortion than other drivers I could actually find that had distortion data.

Due to the day and age we are in, it has also become a lot easier for manufacturers to invest in the sort of equipment that was just a pipe dream many years ago, such as finite element analysis, complex magnetic field simulation software and the now almost ubiquitous Klippel measurement system. All of these things help to dramatically improve driver performance whilst providing it at a lower cost. A few years ago you didn't have much choice when it came to drivers, especially at the lower price points. All you really had back then were the SEAS standard line, vifa/peerless stuff and then a few other smaller manufacturers that weren't readily available to everyone. They all had fairly basic motors and distortion performance wasn't great from any of the drivers. Now things are much more competitive, the manufacturers have seriously upper their game and people have become more aware of what makes for a more linear driver.

Now personally I don't ignore any of the harmonics, the only one I am somewhat lenient about is the 2nd order products. I really like to see a low 3rd order, as these contribute, imo, most significantly to creating a less clear sound, it is also pretty easy to create a driver with really high levels of 3rd order distortion, much more so than creating a driver with really high 4th or 5th order products and this is when it becomes a problem.

Drivers like this?



No thanks.

The higher the orders go the more objectionable they become. What I look for is the 3rd order at around 50dB or better, then with the driver hopefully having the 4th or 5th order products between -70 and -90dB.

And Jon, I think the reason why the metal cone drivers don't show the cone edge/surround resonance, isn't because of the surround, it's because the cone is stiff and doesn't resonate and hence the problem isn't there to begin with.

Quite the case; I was actually being sarcastic about the surround resonance, because it's the past pat explanation, whereas my own investigation with mic and scope in the 70's have always shown a cone problem. ;-)

[dar47]

Thanks guys, great explanation learning lots.

[JonMarsh]

Hey, that's cool- everyone is welcome to the party!

There's so much stuff to work on during the holiday break I hardly know where to start- doggie issues forced moving speakers around this last week- one dog isn't doing very well at this point- may not be around much longer. It's likely to be a stressful holiday for GF because of that- she really loves her rescue dogs.

(maybe that's what I am- another rescue dog? :W )

FINALLY it should be sunny and I'll get to to some work outdoors today (cross fingers- I could be jinxing it just by saying this, as it's quite overcast right now, but the forecast is the forecast- by 11 AM we'll see...)

[JonMarsh]

Excellent! Looking forward to this! Hoping that there are interesting results by the time I'm ready to build out my home theatre/listening room.

I suspect there will be- I'll be taking a look at your new thread soon.

Actually, what I'm considering here is sort of a series of hopefully high performance speakers at different cost points- starting with a small MTM and ending with a monster line array- common item being the ZA14. And I'm not even getting any commission or spiff!

What I think I wish I could get for Christmas now is one each of all the newly available TL tweeters to test- it seems to me that the differences lie mainly in the ultrasonic behavior and break up modes, with the different domes, but buying one of each to test would not be a trivial proposition.

I bet ET would like the look of the CF model....



From their blurbs I get the impression the CF version is supposed to be pistonic below 20 kHz, but have a top end roll off more like a soft dome, i.e. without a resonant break up mode. That could be interesting... I may need to acquire a pair of these for the MTM, at the same time I order some of the Seas SP22R to test. I'm thinking no ports.... but PR's. One SP22 for each 2 ZA14. Mounted on the back. With the right adjustments to mass, it models well, and better than any ported configuration of ZA14 I've seen, including Zaph's.

[5th element]

Well that's the nice thing about CF isn't it, it can be very stiff and light, but have great internal damping properties too. If it can remain completely pistonic till 20k and then go into controlled and benign breakup, it would make it quite desirable. It's a shame that TL don't show the ultrasonic behaviour of all their tweeters, so we can see how they do breakup.

[Hdale85]

Oooo that CF dome looks nice, are they out of the price range for the CatZ's? Lol

[Jonasz]

Oooo that CF dome looks nice, are they out of the price range for the CatZ's? Lol

Would look killer in this setup! :P

[Hdale85]

Agreed! Although I think it would be equally as nice next to the ES140's.

[Face]

One could use CF veneer on the faceplate as well. :-)

Only needs a matching UM sub for the bottom end.

[Hdale85]

I was thinking something more auto grade candy finish. Or something super car grade.

[wkhanna]

Finleyville, one of the members of our local crew of OCD philes has already played with CF on cabinets.

link to his Statement build

[JonMarsh]

Apart from costing $313, that Morel is a pretty slick looking midrange. If one wanted to do a lower buck version of the Isiris, it might be a good candidate, depending on the distortion profile- if the specs are true, the bandwidth is there, and with 5mm Xmax.

My brain staggers contemplating what a line array with those would cost.... let's say just 9 drivers per side, mmmm, that's about $6400 all together.... makes the ES140ti look like a stone cold bargain!

[JonMarsh]

Oooo that CF dome looks nice, are they out of the price range for the CatZ's? Lol

Nope. I'm thinking that a single crossover for TL tweeters will work fine- as the motor is basically the same (as near as I can tell ) in all of them.

So, TL will be one of the options- just pick your dome preference. Of course, I suppose that means I'll need to buy a pair... and will have to explain to the GF why I have a bazillion kinds of TL tweeters lying around... life sure is getting complicated!

[JonMarsh]

Well that's the nice thing about CF isn't it, it can be very stiff and light, but have great internal damping properties too. If it can remain completely pistonic till 20k and then go into controlled and benign breakup, it would make it quite desirable. It's a shame that TL don't show the ultrasonic behaviour of all their tweeters, so we can see how they do breakup.

If they showed that, it would take all the mystery out of things, and cut their sales to me by at least 50%!

[5th element]

The Morel actually tests quite nicely. It's also got an under hung motor.

http://www.audiogurman.com/2.htm#scm634

I know sensitivity these days isn't prized as highly as is once was, but I'd really like it if they chopped away say 2mm of that healthy xmax and gained a couple more dBs on the meter, a nice solid 92dB would be very nice. I can't really see why you'd need 5mm of xmax on a properly designed mid range application, 2-3mm would be more than enough, especially if it gave you higher sensitivity to boot.

[JonMarsh]

I'm with you there, it looks like these could be used as a mid woofer, for the most part- or they would be a perfect drop in for an Eggleston Savoy clone (which I"m NOT building!!!). Still, it's nice to see something one could probably recommend that is not as difficult to design with.


In a somewhat different vein, I offer up some Holiday Speaker Porn, something that may be usable with one of the configurations I'm contemplating here...

The build quality is high, and I'm hoping that they have the kind of low distortion in the upper treble that is where most other tweeters start rapidly rising. We shall see soon...

[5th element]

Wooo, I'm really looking forwards to seeing how they measure.

[JonMarsh]

Me, too! Probably won't have time until Friday, unless I can sneak in some time tomorrow morning when I'm supposed to be setting up the bridging router while GF is out on some errands...

I also have the 9900 mounted up on a new test baffle, ready to go.

[Finleyville]

I am looking forward to what you do with Zaph's little darlings. I used two in my car and loved them. I really want to use them in a home design. I wonder how they would fare in a two way with my SS R3004's? I just figured those tweets could cross low enough for a larger mid than Zaph's.

[agrippa]

Sorry to bring this one back, but did anything result from these ZA14s? A cool line array?

I am a midrange freak and like cheap speakers that sound good... who doesn't. I have an interest in using them in a design( for our kitchen) and like many wonder if the ZA5 kit's tweeter is up to the job. I tend to go a bit overboard making sure the tweeter can perform well out of my hearing range. That being said the DQ25 tweeter does have issues in a range where most people have a tough time hearing or discerning what is going on so I am not totally sure that I should fuss over it so much. Maybe I am looking at this all wrong. I know my hearing cuts off around 15-16kHz... and now I am rambling.

Anyway: are there any decent design using the ZA14 out there or is it basically just Zaph's and few other odd balls?
Thank you.

[augerpro]

Dennis Murphy is using them: http://www.philharmonicaudio.com/Mini-Monitor.html. I also have a dipole concept fully fleshed out (mated to Aurum Cantus AST2560 AMT tweeter) and was just waiting until I get back into a house and can start building again. Just got into the house a couple months ago and next summer I intend to start making sawdust. The ZA14 is a fantastic speaker - I've used it in a shootout in the TM bookshelf format. Excepting the bass, it was better (IMHO) than the SB15MFC, SB15NRC, Scan Disco 15W, Peerless Nomex, and one other woofer I can't recall now. I thought it was a very clear and musical speaker, that sounded pretty much the same right up to the point I bottomed the cone out!

[agrippa]

Hey thanks. It is nice to hear what I suspected... that the ZA14s are superior to several other mid-woofers in it's price range and higher.

[augerpro]

Let me add though that I'm not sure how high you can cross these. In my own (quick) testing above 2.5khz or so the cone breakup was creeping in. I did not have the time to see if it was simply linear distortion which could be corrected with a notch filter, or non-linear distortion which cannot be corrected (other than crossing lower).

[JonMarsh]

Based on the distortion amplification peaks, if you want to get relatively OCD, I'd say 2500 Hz crossover on the top end, and something like the 3rd order Ardent network design. That's one of the other things I've been considering for these drivers, for a lower cost Wavecor Ardent build, is using these as the midrange.

But things have gone to hell in a handbag as far as free time since around October last year... between work and Beverly's illness.

[5th element]

Wait Dennis is crossing them at 3.2kHz? That's not really how you should be using these but I guess the ribbon doesn't allow you to go much lower. If the use of a ribbon was mandatory then he should have gone with the Viawave ribbon, the one with the waveguide. That should be able to work with a 2.5kHz 4th order electrical in a low max SPL speaker. It's not as if price is an issue he's got RAAL in there already.

[Zvu]

It looks like RAAL 64-10 and that tweeter is small and doesn't like do be crossed lower than 3KHz.

[ernperkins]

Sorry to bring this one back, but did anything result from these ZA14s? A cool line array?

Anyway: are there any decent design using the ZA14 out there or is it basically just Zaph's and few other odd balls?
Thank you.

Did you see his Audio Design Contest section using the ZA14 and the SB Acoustic SB29RDCN neo? I really like that tweeter and you can pick your favorite crossover: LR4 at 1.8 KHz, LR4 at 1.6 KHz, LR6 at 1.1 KHz or LR2 at 2 KHz. Test results and crossover details provided HERE .

[MikePM]

Wow. I didn't realize if had been almost 5 years since Zaph's last post on his blog. Wonder if he does much in audio anymore.

[DearSX]

Wow. I didn't realize if had been almost 5 years since Zaph's last post on his blog. Wonder if he does much in audio anymore.

I'm very interested in knowing what he is up to, he is one the main reasons I'm here on these forums and know so much.

[DearSX]

Did you see his Audio Design Contest section using the ZA14 and the SB Acoustic SB29RDCN neo? I really like that tweeter and you can pick your favorite crossover: LR4 at 1.8 KHz, LR4 at 1.6 KHz, LR6 at 1.1 KHz or LR2 at 2 KHz. Test results and crossover details provided HERE .

I have a couple of ZA14s and the Satori tweeters from another build. I wonder if it can be substituted into these designs. Then adding a simple RS225 design below it might be an awesome combo.

[DearSX]

Did you see his Audio Design Contest section using the ZA14 and the SB Acoustic SB29RDCN neo? I really like that tweeter and you can pick your favorite crossover: LR4 at 1.8 KHz, LR4 at 1.6 KHz, LR6 at 1.1 KHz or LR2 at 2 KHz. Test results and crossover details provided HERE .

I wonder if the Satori tweeter would work in its place. I have the ZA14 in my car and the Satori tweeter in my 3-way. It would be good for testing. If someone has a crossover for the ZA14 and RS225 to work together that would be great also.

[agrippa]

Wow. I didn't realize if had been almost 5 years since Zaph's last post on his blog. Wonder if he does much in audio anymore.

I was involved with a thread, 5 years or so ago, which one of his last posts anywhere I believe (PE Forum). Someone was trashing him and his Zaph ZA14W08 Midwoofer. He was saying that John didn't do much other than throw a few parts together...and maybe even copy some other driver. I called the guy out and Boom! the thread went wild. John posted a really nice response and I got the feeling he was sick of all the crap from some who feel the need to cut him down. If you are on these boards enough you start to figure out who is good (Mr. Marsh, John "Zaph" K, Curt/Jim, Jeff B, Dan N, Mr. Murphy, JED and others) and who is envious/bitter. Also, His life is very full.

[JonMarsh]

Yeah, that life being very full part can work in a lot of different ways. Hope it's in positive ways for Zaph. the ZA14 is a fine little driver, and is on my "Should Do" list for a budget oriented Ardent.

The biggest problem about the idea of a budget oriented Ardent is that anyway you cut it, a three way crossover isn't inexpensive.

There is also an MTM design I've been kicking around with the ZA14, actually two; there's a 3rd idea on the board right now considering possible waveguide scenarios. For me, I'm looking at it for HT in the future. But this isn't likely to see much development given the current work (we're down about 40% in manpower in the team I work in, due to departures and questionable hiring strategies as of the end of this year) and personal life situation with GF's cancer and all...

~Jon

[MikePM]

I know the Zaph design contest included a 3-way design from Dan Nuebecker. The plans are posted on this forum:

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=501582&postcount=10

If this link doesn't work, the one found on Zaph's home page in the design contest thread for the ZA14 driver still works.

Does anyone know if anyone ever built this ZA14 design?

[agrippa]

I know the Zaph design contest included a 3-way design from Dan Nuebecker. The plans are posted on this forum:

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=501582&postcount=10

If this link doesn't work, the one found on Zaph's home page in the design contest thread for the ZA14 driver still works.

Does anyone know if anyone ever built this ZA14 design?

You could message Dan. I think he hangs out some on Parts express.