I am considering building a large 3 way speaker for a dedicated home theater/critical listening room in my home. The room measures 23'x16' with 9' ceilings. It also has multiple double doors which open to 3 other rooms. My intended use is 60/40 movies to music. My current set up is a 7.2 surround system consisting of Paradigm Reference Studio Series Speakers. I have had my current speakers for about 7 years and want to try something new. I am new to DIY speakers.
I would like a speaker that is capable of very loud sound levels with great dynamics for home theater, but is also very accurate with great imaging for critical listening. Not an easy goal. I looked at Tony Gee's designs, but can't afford them.
I have found the Zaph SB12.3 and the DTQWT.
Zaph|Audio - SB12.3 3-Way Tower
DTQWT
I would appreciate any advice from more experienced members. I have been going back and forth between the 2 for a couple of months now. Cost and suitability for my use are my main concerns. I will also need to build a matching center channel speaker. I do not listen to classical and currently do not own tube equipment.
It seems to me that the SB12.3 will have much better low end extension, which may be better suited to home theater. The DTQWT seems more like an audiophile speaker. I wonder how it will handle classic southern rock and blues.
I have read their sites many times. I was ready to order the SB12.3 when Madisound suggested Zaph's ZRT tower as a much better speaker. They told me that the SB12.3 was intended for customers who simply want a large design, but is not on par with scan speak and seas systems. Does anyone have an opinion on this? This seems to contradict Zaph's driver round up conclusions. Am I selling the DTQWT short on bass response? The specs for the eminence drivers aren't very impressive.
Thanks for reading a long post.
I would like a speaker that is capable of very loud sound levels with great dynamics for home theater, but is also very accurate with great imaging for critical listening. Not an easy goal. I looked at Tony Gee's designs, but can't afford them.
I have found the Zaph SB12.3 and the DTQWT.
Zaph|Audio - SB12.3 3-Way Tower
DTQWT
I would appreciate any advice from more experienced members. I have been going back and forth between the 2 for a couple of months now. Cost and suitability for my use are my main concerns. I will also need to build a matching center channel speaker. I do not listen to classical and currently do not own tube equipment.
It seems to me that the SB12.3 will have much better low end extension, which may be better suited to home theater. The DTQWT seems more like an audiophile speaker. I wonder how it will handle classic southern rock and blues.
I have read their sites many times. I was ready to order the SB12.3 when Madisound suggested Zaph's ZRT tower as a much better speaker. They told me that the SB12.3 was intended for customers who simply want a large design, but is not on par with scan speak and seas systems. Does anyone have an opinion on this? This seems to contradict Zaph's driver round up conclusions. Am I selling the DTQWT short on bass response? The specs for the eminence drivers aren't very impressive.
Thanks for reading a long post.
The bigger is a speaker the better it is. I don't think bass is an issue in this case. To reproduce bass you should have a big room.
I find the Madisound's affirmation is very curious.
DTQWT is a 2.5 high sensitivity S ~ 2x330+220+7 = 887cm²
Zaph 12.5 is a 3 ways S ~ 500+2x100+7 = 707cm²
Zaph ZRT is a 2.5 S ~2x150+7 = 307cm²
How can you do better with 307cm² than 700cm² or 900cm² ?
Have you read this : size matters ?
It depends on your budget and your electronics. DQTWT can provide considerable level with a few watt. If you want bass you must have a good and powerful amplifier.
Hope this helps.
I find the Madisound's affirmation is very curious.
DTQWT is a 2.5 high sensitivity S ~ 2x330+220+7 = 887cm²
Zaph 12.5 is a 3 ways S ~ 500+2x100+7 = 707cm²
Zaph ZRT is a 2.5 S ~2x150+7 = 307cm²
How can you do better with 307cm² than 700cm² or 900cm² ?
Have you read this : size matters ?
It depends on your budget and your electronics. DQTWT can provide considerable level with a few watt. If you want bass you must have a good and powerful amplifier.
Hope this helps.
My concern is that I don't want to give up sound quality for the sake of volume. As Zaph wrote on his site, many people will use cheap drivers or a poor design for the sake of building something big.
I understood that both these designs went the larger route for the sake of efficiency and lower distortion.(ie. not requiring a small driver to carry the mid and low end)
The comment I received was "simpler is always better."
As I am new to speaker building, I hoped someone with experience would give some insight on these 2 designs.
I understood that both these designs went the larger route for the sake of efficiency and lower distortion.(ie. not requiring a small driver to carry the mid and low end)
The comment I received was "simpler is always better."
As I am new to speaker building, I hoped someone with experience would give some insight on these 2 designs.
Yes. Troels and Zaph are good designers
Absolutely false, better to received is "doing it in the right way is better".
These designs have been done by very experiment designers from two different continents, well built and the philosophy of design are different : high efficiency, classic MTM 3 ways.The two design have strength and weakness. It is always a compromise. These designs work all together well. Nobody have the truth.
Nobody cannot give you any idea of what is the best. it's depend on you, your budget, your taste, your skill to mount them, your room, your electronics etc. I cannot give you an opinion, it will be my taste.
Good luck.
usmcjlp, just wondering if you have decided on either one of those projects yet. I too am trying to decide on a floorstander for critical listening. Have you also looked at the Elsinore project?
Elsinore Speakers DIY
Tom
Elsinore Speakers DIY
Tom
I had not found this design. Thank you. I'm assuming that price is in Australian $. I think, I am leaning towards the SB12.3. Talked to madisound and the standard crossovers use Clarity SA caps. SB Acoustics has a center channel design on their website under the name Elok which I could modify per Zaph's recommendation of adding 2 8" SB drivers to the outside of the mids. I'm still not sure. I intend to make my decision this weekend. The cabs will take some time to build. I have 3 kids, so I'm lucky if I get one afternoon a weekend in my shop.
The two speakers you are looking at are in different "leagues".
Troel's design is basically in a "cost no object" category. Zaph's is built for value and overall construction ease.
If you have the cash then by all means select the Troels design. If you don't then consider the Zaph design.
In addition to the Elsinore, consider the Statements by Jim Holtz (or their derivatives)..
Statements
HTGuide Forum - Missions Accomplished!
..I'd still opt for Troel's design.
Troel's design is basically in a "cost no object" category. Zaph's is built for value and overall construction ease.
If you have the cash then by all means select the Troels design. If you don't then consider the Zaph design.
In addition to the Elsinore, consider the Statements by Jim Holtz (or their derivatives)..
Statements
HTGuide Forum - Missions Accomplished!
..I'd still opt for Troel's design.
Scott G can you explain why these are in different leagues? I have priced both systems to include shipping. The SB12.3 will be about $1200 and the DTQWT about $1700, before cabinet costs. I can afford both. I may be wrong but I was concerned about the following:
1. Low end bass response. I don't want boomy bass. But I want serious impact for home theater use. The specs on the eminence 10" drivers seem to imply that they will be limited to about 50hz.
2. I get the impression that the DTQWT is more geared towards audiophile style recordings. Troels explains that it is intended as a high efficiency tube friendly speaker. I have a solid state amp that is rated at 200/350 into 8/4 ohms. I wonder what the combination would sound like.
I really like Troels' design. For anyone considering it, he is great. I have emailed him several times and he always responds quickly. ScottG, I would like to know why you consider the SB12.3 as lower quality. Th drivers are in the same price range and the response curves seem relatively flat with no major issues for both. I am new though and it is difficult for me to get much simply off of specs.
1. Low end bass response. I don't want boomy bass. But I want serious impact for home theater use. The specs on the eminence 10" drivers seem to imply that they will be limited to about 50hz.
2. I get the impression that the DTQWT is more geared towards audiophile style recordings. Troels explains that it is intended as a high efficiency tube friendly speaker. I have a solid state amp that is rated at 200/350 into 8/4 ohms. I wonder what the combination would sound like.
I really like Troels' design. For anyone considering it, he is great. I have emailed him several times and he always responds quickly. ScottG, I would like to know why you consider the SB12.3 as lower quality. Th drivers are in the same price range and the response curves seem relatively flat with no major issues for both. I am new though and it is difficult for me to get much simply off of specs.
I think it comes down to design experience..
Troels has a *lot* more experience with a very wide variety of loudspeakers, drivers, crossover components, etc.. in actual designs (..built and tested loudspeakers). At some point the designer moves on from purely techincal excellence to something more artisan in nature, and Troels is further beyond Zaph in this regard (..and most designers actually).
As to the DTQWT:
1. I doubt it would be "boomy", and actually I think it would be far less "boomy" than the SB12.3. Further, you can "tune" this aspect of the DTQWT by increasing the "fill" in the QWT. Low freq. extension will be a bit *lower* near the average with the DTQWT, but below 30 Hz will be attenuated in sp-level when compared to the SB12.3.
2. I don't think the amplifier is limited by the design, rather the design is limited by the amplifier. If your amplifier is good (and the rest of your audio equipment is as well), then it will sound good. If your amplifier is excellent then it will sound excellent.
The SB12.3 is a *very* well designed loudspeaker, AND the drivers are good - bordering on excellent. That's not really this issue, rather it's "one vs. the other". There is good and then there is *better*. One thing I *don't* like in the design is that the *large* baffle is loading the upper mid through the treble region (1 kHz up to 8 kHz , which tends to reduce the subjective sense of depth). The 8" driver in the DTQWT is more directive, and the tweeter is cut before it strongly becomes "omni" at lower freq.s - and therefor is NOT being loaded by the baffle to the same extent.
Troels has a *lot* more experience with a very wide variety of loudspeakers, drivers, crossover components, etc.. in actual designs (..built and tested loudspeakers). At some point the designer moves on from purely techincal excellence to something more artisan in nature, and Troels is further beyond Zaph in this regard (..and most designers actually).
As to the DTQWT:
1. I doubt it would be "boomy", and actually I think it would be far less "boomy" than the SB12.3. Further, you can "tune" this aspect of the DTQWT by increasing the "fill" in the QWT. Low freq. extension will be a bit *lower* near the average with the DTQWT, but below 30 Hz will be attenuated in sp-level when compared to the SB12.3.
2. I don't think the amplifier is limited by the design, rather the design is limited by the amplifier. If your amplifier is good (and the rest of your audio equipment is as well), then it will sound good. If your amplifier is excellent then it will sound excellent.
The SB12.3 is a *very* well designed loudspeaker, AND the drivers are good - bordering on excellent. That's not really this issue, rather it's "one vs. the other". There is good and then there is *better*. One thing I *don't* like in the design is that the *large* baffle is loading the upper mid through the treble region (1 kHz up to 8 kHz , which tends to reduce the subjective sense of depth). The 8" driver in the DTQWT is more directive, and the tweeter is cut before it strongly becomes "omni" at lower freq.s - and therefor is NOT being loaded by the baffle to the same extent.
Last edited:
Actually he does. The mid-bass driver and the tweeter is on the TQWT page (which is linked in the DQWT).
He also provides actual in-room measurement*s*, for a much better idea the designs linearity in a real room. (i.e. something closer to what a user could expect.)
ScottG,
Thanks for the explanation. The DTQWT will definitely have a higher WAF with the narrower front baffle. What do you think about a possible center channel speakers with these drivers? I am limited to a height of 10-12 inches, but I can make it as long as 72 inches. When I called parts express, the price they quoted me for the specialized mid that Troels designed was ridiculous. It makes the scanspeak look cheap. I can actually make a speaker with the exact same drivers, to include the eminence drivers. What do you think?
Thanks for the explanation. The DTQWT will definitely have a higher WAF with the narrower front baffle. What do you think about a possible center channel speakers with these drivers? I am limited to a height of 10-12 inches, but I can make it as long as 72 inches. When I called parts express, the price they quoted me for the specialized mid that Troels designed was ridiculous. It makes the scanspeak look cheap. I can actually make a speaker with the exact same drivers, to include the eminence drivers. What do you think?
Yes, the price of the JAS driver Troels designed is ridiculous.. it *should* be about 110 euros each (..when comparing other seas drivers).
On the other hand you can't do without it for the Troels design.. Either source it from Jantzen direct or via PE if you want the design. Make sure you get the *exact* crossover parts as well (.. possibly excepting hook-up wire).
I'd do without the center channel with such a restriction.. The horizontal pattern is so uniform at higher freq.s that you should have a *very* stable center image. If you want to increase that (and maintain an even spl for all listeners) you can with "Toe-in" (..rotating the loudspeakers to "cross" well in front of you), but just on those occasions for Multi-listener listening with listener's well left or right of center. The Paradigms you have won't be as good in this respect, but trying it out it with them should give you an idea if this works for you or not.
If you *really* need a center channel-based system then consider Augerpro's little min-sat system with an excellent subwoofer:
Can you smell what Brando's cooking!? - AVS Forum
Then I'd say either choose a system that has a center channel that fits your required form factor, OR..
1. Convince Troels to design one. OR
2. Make an identical loudspeaker (..obviously altering your form-factor requirements).
Who knows, Troels might even say it's OK to effectively listen to his design horizontally opposed (..i.e. placing the loudspeaker on its side), though I doubt it.
Note that the "Statement" grouping I provided a link to has center channel designs.
There is a thread on here where 'ipppe' built some and a very nice job he did too. Just search for DTQWT
He says he has heard some very expensive speakers and nothing comes close to the DTQWT.
I am likley to build this, but gotta save some cash first. I was hoping to go open baffle, but a chat with somebody with more experience of these things coaxed me away from it if I was also after high sensitivity and using low power tube designs like 300B SETs.
Basically, I'm after a very real cost-no-object DIY speaker that works wit solid state but is efficient enough for high-end DIY tubes (even 300Bs). In this reagrd, it appears Troel's pulled off a coup-de-gras of design. I doubt the Zaph's with 92db 4.6 min ohms efficiency versus 95db min 6 ohm efficiency would give you this option. Also, a former commenter is right - Troel provides real in-room response curves before room correction and they are actually very good and remain far more 'flat' (not so exaggerated peaks and troughs) in real world conditions than many a pricy commercial speaker.
Another commented that your room is important for your bass response and in this regard a speaker that goes to 37Hz (the Zaph) in an anechoic chamber isn't breaking any new ground - my own Wilson Benesch speakers are tiny by comparison and will go much lower. What happens in a real room depends on the room and speaker placement a lot more than you may realise.
Added to that, Ipppe analyzed his room response with TrueRTA software and he could hear down to 24Hz. He doesn't say whether he measured any lower or what sort of dB drop there was at this point - perhaps you could ask him.
I personally think Troel's design is going to perform better with a wider variety of amplifiers and achieve a lower bass response than the Zaph, but I cannot be sure. If you look on DTQWT at the MLS response, you can see that Troel got around 25Hz at about 95dB and that isn't bad and is consistent with Ipppe hearing 24Hz in his room. Are you going to miss the last 4Hz, or do you want to trade an additional 13Hz for the Zaph if you are so concerned about the bass?
On paper it (the DTQWT) looks to me to be the better option and as you said, it has more WAF and that's always important for a happy marriage!
Good Hifi + Wife + sweet music = Excellent with a lotta sweet luvvin. Good Hifi, divorcing Wife, lawyers fees and hifi downsizing to pay them = plenty of sad melancholy music on mediocre equipment = Very bad!
He says he has heard some very expensive speakers and nothing comes close to the DTQWT.
I am likley to build this, but gotta save some cash first. I was hoping to go open baffle, but a chat with somebody with more experience of these things coaxed me away from it if I was also after high sensitivity and using low power tube designs like 300B SETs.
Basically, I'm after a very real cost-no-object DIY speaker that works wit solid state but is efficient enough for high-end DIY tubes (even 300Bs). In this reagrd, it appears Troel's pulled off a coup-de-gras of design. I doubt the Zaph's with 92db 4.6 min ohms efficiency versus 95db min 6 ohm efficiency would give you this option. Also, a former commenter is right - Troel provides real in-room response curves before room correction and they are actually very good and remain far more 'flat' (not so exaggerated peaks and troughs) in real world conditions than many a pricy commercial speaker.
Another commented that your room is important for your bass response and in this regard a speaker that goes to 37Hz (the Zaph) in an anechoic chamber isn't breaking any new ground - my own Wilson Benesch speakers are tiny by comparison and will go much lower. What happens in a real room depends on the room and speaker placement a lot more than you may realise.
Added to that, Ipppe analyzed his room response with TrueRTA software and he could hear down to 24Hz. He doesn't say whether he measured any lower or what sort of dB drop there was at this point - perhaps you could ask him.
I personally think Troel's design is going to perform better with a wider variety of amplifiers and achieve a lower bass response than the Zaph, but I cannot be sure. If you look on DTQWT at the MLS response, you can see that Troel got around 25Hz at about 95dB and that isn't bad and is consistent with Ipppe hearing 24Hz in his room. Are you going to miss the last 4Hz, or do you want to trade an additional 13Hz for the Zaph if you are so concerned about the bass?
On paper it (the DTQWT) looks to me to be the better option and as you said, it has more WAF and that's always important for a happy marriage!
Good Hifi + Wife + sweet music = Excellent with a lotta sweet luvvin. Good Hifi, divorcing Wife, lawyers fees and hifi downsizing to pay them = plenty of sad melancholy music on mediocre equipment = Very bad!
Last edited:
Infinitegain,
Thanks for the response. I have decided on the DTQWT. I received an email back from Troels that he is considering a center channel design with the same drivers. I did see Ippe's design. I am considering something similar. I think I would like to use the laminated boards on all exterior panels, for ease of finishing. What do you think?
I am a little concerned about the crossover assembly. This will be my first attempt at one. Good thing he has a schematic and very clear pictures on his website. Any advice on which type of sodder to use?
Thanks for the response. I have decided on the DTQWT. I received an email back from Troels that he is considering a center channel design with the same drivers. I did see Ippe's design. I am considering something similar. I think I would like to use the laminated boards on all exterior panels, for ease of finishing. What do you think?
I am a little concerned about the crossover assembly. This will be my first attempt at one. Good thing he has a schematic and very clear pictures on his website. Any advice on which type of sodder to use?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.