Hi,
That MTM particularly with JB's uncomplicated x/o is a high value design.
It can be built into the same cabinets as the ZDT3.5. Its not as
good as the ZDT3.5 and there is no good matching centre option.
Both x/o designs are excellent. Instead of the MTM I'd
also look at Zaph|Audio and instead of the ZDT3.5
https://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/tarkus.
Note that cabinet details are essentially a gude to baffle dimensions
and you can build a large variety of cabinet type if you have the skill,
see the two T.G. sites for cabinet building inspiration.
The Pennywise and Ariel 7T
As more a variation of a classic 3-way. Basically a 2 way type minimonitor
with added Bass and SPL. IMO Zaphs 3.5 way design is all about the dome
midrange being different to cone midranges, and using high value drivers
in their optimum dispersion and distortion ranges for good end results.
Yes, I would say the 3.5 would compare well to both above designs.
Possibly also look at : https://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/diy-sunflowers
rgds, sreten.
That MTM particularly with JB's uncomplicated x/o is a high value design.
It can be built into the same cabinets as the ZDT3.5. Its not as
good as the ZDT3.5 and there is no good matching centre option.
Both x/o designs are excellent. Instead of the MTM I'd
also look at Zaph|Audio and instead of the ZDT3.5
https://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/tarkus.
Note that cabinet details are essentially a gude to baffle dimensions
and you can build a large variety of cabinet type if you have the skill,
see the two T.G. sites for cabinet building inspiration.
The Pennywise and Ariel 7T
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
As more a variation of a classic 3-way. Basically a 2 way type minimonitor
with added Bass and SPL. IMO Zaphs 3.5 way design is all about the dome
midrange being different to cone midranges, and using high value drivers
in their optimum dispersion and distortion ranges for good end results.
Yes, I would say the 3.5 would compare well to both above designs.
Possibly also look at : https://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/diy-sunflowers
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
And thoughts on the statements or mini statements by Jim Holtz? I just came across these last night and seem to be in a similar price range to Zaph but the ribbon tweeter might be s nice feature (sounded great on a pair of golden ears I heard recently)...
Www.speakerdesignworks.com/statements.html
Thx
Www.speakerdesignworks.com/statements.html
Thx
Me think that building a cabinet , IF needed , is the last of the problems
when making a speaker system . It's fun , yes , but also each piece and each square inch of surface are responsible of the final result .
There's also a debate if the making of a cabinet must be made by who projects
the whole thing or the assembling work can be passed to a (more ) skilled artisan .
Looking at the Statements , they present a nominal 4Ω load , so this is the first warning : low load !!! Also the Mini S. have two paralleled woofers ,
so a mix between the 4Ω on the bass and 8Ω on mid and tweeter .
Me think also that ....
Ok, forget it !!
What about a nice project with a planar , as you asked ?!
Et voilà !
www.renatogiussani.it/varie/Audioplay/Progetti/PlayMax%2520K-01.pdf
when making a speaker system . It's fun , yes , but also each piece and each square inch of surface are responsible of the final result .
There's also a debate if the making of a cabinet must be made by who projects
the whole thing or the assembling work can be passed to a (more ) skilled artisan .
Looking at the Statements , they present a nominal 4Ω load , so this is the first warning : low load !!! Also the Mini S. have two paralleled woofers ,
so a mix between the 4Ω on the bass and 8Ω on mid and tweeter .
Me think also that ....
Ok, forget it !!
What about a nice project with a planar , as you asked ?!
Et voilà !
www.renatogiussani.it/varie/Audioplay/Progetti/PlayMax%2520K-01.pdf
Hi,
You've immediately contradicted yourself. Cabinet design matters, and is not trivial.
rgds, sreten.
http://speakerdesignworks.com/TritrixMT_pg_1.html
Hey, for $55 each (without cabinet), this appears like a good deal. Plus, they can be used on a desktop.
Hey, for $55 each (without cabinet), this appears like a good deal.
Plus, they can be used on a desktop. http://speakerdesignworks.com/TritrixMT_pg_1.html
Hey, for $55 each (without cabinet), this appears like a good deal.
Hi, and the relevance to this thread ? None at all in any sense, rgds, sreten.
KB,
this was a very good suggestion; the parts are in a good price range, lots of documentation, xo design and 5 stars review on the woofer.
There is a post here, that goes into detail about the woofer:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/214969-whats-attraction-36.html
since the xo parts are listed you could always upgrade some of the parts, e.g. foil inductor for the large woofer coil.
I would angle the box a bit....it's not that much more work; i.e. less parallel walls the better.
this was a very good suggestion; the parts are in a good price range, lots of documentation, xo design and 5 stars review on the woofer.
There is a post here, that goes into detail about the woofer:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/214969-whats-attraction-36.html
since the xo parts are listed you could always upgrade some of the parts, e.g. foil inductor for the large woofer coil.
I would angle the box a bit....it's not that much more work; i.e. less parallel walls the better.
Curious as to your reasoning for buying the Polk Audio RT2000P’s... A late friend of mine that had been is high end sales for decades bought a set and they really weren't my taste at all (same friend sold me my Sonus Faber Cremonas) and they are really chalk and cheese. My point is if we knew why you bought them it would be easier to steer you towards the traits of similar kits.
Simply put, I got a great deal on a used pair around 10-years ago when I was replacing my 12" Cerwin Vega party speakers. At the time they were an improvement in refinement but I am now wanting to get to the next level (or a few levels higher).
I want a more neutral speaker. The ones I have sound good, but not as natural as many of the things I have heard in the shops. They seem to be more of a HT speaker which is fine but I now want more of a setup for 2 ch listening that can also integrate into a 5.1 setup for movies. They have built in powered subs and I want to decouple that from the main cabinet as well...ideally not needing a sub for most music and kicking it in for movies.
I also plan to get into analog in the near future so I want a more refined setup.
Yes I believe they did a non "P" (Powered) version of them as well.
Neutral - well that being the case you're on the right track for more musical speakers, agree not a bad HT speaker, but far from a great musical speaker.
What sort of budget do you have to play with? stepping up several levels is going to cost money, but some kits represent better value than others.
as sreten has pointed out Zaph have some well thought out and good performing kits for what I would consider to be a fairly modest budget.
Also agree about the cabinet, it can make or break the speakers so it shouldn't be dismissed lightly. The good thing about the Zaph kits is the research and development has already been done, you just need to follow the formula.
Edit:
If this is your first attempt at DIY and you want to do the cabinets yourself, I would be leaning towards something like this http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.co...-zrt-2.5-way-revelator-tower-parts-only-pair/
Neutral - well that being the case you're on the right track for more musical speakers, agree not a bad HT speaker, but far from a great musical speaker.
What sort of budget do you have to play with? stepping up several levels is going to cost money, but some kits represent better value than others.
as sreten has pointed out Zaph have some well thought out and good performing kits for what I would consider to be a fairly modest budget.
Also agree about the cabinet, it can make or break the speakers so it shouldn't be dismissed lightly. The good thing about the Zaph kits is the research and development has already been done, you just need to follow the formula.
Edit:
If this is your first attempt at DIY and you want to do the cabinets yourself, I would be leaning towards something like this http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.co...-zrt-2.5-way-revelator-tower-parts-only-pair/
Last edited:
Obviously subjective....but how do the zaph speakers compare to the mini statements, they appear to be on a similar price range...which I am willing to increase a bit beyond these two families if necessary?
The only thing I don't like about th zaphs is the way the front baffle sticks out from the cabinet, is there any negative sonic impact if I just double up some material on the lower cabinet to flush it up without changing the interior shape or volume?
Also, how about a nice double 12" DIY sub???
Thx
The only thing I don't like about th zaphs is the way the front baffle sticks out from the cabinet, is there any negative sonic impact if I just double up some material on the lower cabinet to flush it up without changing the interior shape or volume?
Also, how about a nice double 12" DIY sub???
Thx
Depends on where you want to go with the tweeter... The mini statements use a cheapish Fountek ribbon tweeter, if you want to go down the path, I went with the RAAL 140-15D AM at $1600 pair, but they do smaller ones at $389 each (non AM) Madisound Speaker Store
Although you are now talking about a tweeter than is far superior to the Polk Audio. If you wanted to build your speakers in stages, you could start with the ribbon and a decent mid in one box and woofers in another.
Although you are now talking about a tweeter than is far superior to the Polk Audio. If you wanted to build your speakers in stages, you could start with the ribbon and a decent mid in one box and woofers in another.
Parts Express DIY Project
Hi, All Dayton drivers, so PE is obviously the the place for them, rgds, sreten.
Regarding the ZDT3.5 versus the Mini-Statements, the latter is more
expensive as it uses more exotic and expensive mid and treble drivers.
My personal opinion is the ZDT3.5 is more cost effective and I also
like the simple tuning options incorporated into the ZDT3.5 / ZD3C.
YMMV but the Zaph centre seems more optimised to me, and it
won't have the vertical treble beaming issues of the M-S centre,
and it does have an optimum axis designed for centre placement.
Zaph likes the M-S W4 mid driver a lot, but its doesn't have the very
low distortion of the dome, especially 3rd order and higher harmonics.
No problem with either but I prefer one based on published information.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.