hi everyone
ive seriously been thinking of building these speakers in the new year..
Zaph|Audio - SB12.3 3-Way Tower
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.co...e-3-way/#tab-3.
i dont know if anyone has built any,if so it would be nice to hear some input on them,more so if anyone has actually heard a pair.
any way i think we can mostly agree there not to pretty to look at which eventually brings me to the crux of this post.
im thinking of building them in the vein of some atc style speakers....please see my walt disney quick sketches below compared to the original offerings..
now my questions are to the people that know about such things are..
1)by doing away with the original lower front part of the baffle under the 12 inch driver (around 7.5 inches) will i be screwing up the baffle step/cross over function compared to how the original was made to function?
2)if im lucky enough to get away with xover problems from question one then will the original width front baffle that i have showing in my mickey mouse sketches protruding by about 2 inches be enough not to effect the original xover function where ive had to make the enclosure bigger behind it to make up the lost volume(in case you havent noticed...i really dont want to get into sorting out or changing the designers xover and hard work)
any help/views or advice is as always appricated.
regards
ive seriously been thinking of building these speakers in the new year..
Zaph|Audio - SB12.3 3-Way Tower
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.co...e-3-way/#tab-3.
i dont know if anyone has built any,if so it would be nice to hear some input on them,more so if anyone has actually heard a pair.
any way i think we can mostly agree there not to pretty to look at which eventually brings me to the crux of this post.
im thinking of building them in the vein of some atc style speakers....please see my walt disney quick sketches below compared to the original offerings..
now my questions are to the people that know about such things are..
1)by doing away with the original lower front part of the baffle under the 12 inch driver (around 7.5 inches) will i be screwing up the baffle step/cross over function compared to how the original was made to function?
2)if im lucky enough to get away with xover problems from question one then will the original width front baffle that i have showing in my mickey mouse sketches protruding by about 2 inches be enough not to effect the original xover function where ive had to make the enclosure bigger behind it to make up the lost volume(in case you havent noticed...i really dont want to get into sorting out or changing the designers xover and hard work)
any help/views or advice is as always appricated.
regards
Attachments
Anytime you mess with the baffle you end up with different baffle step issues. There are a number of simulators. I like to use The Edge, but others don't.
I suggest what you do is grab a simulator and try out the two designs, and look at the resulting FR. If the changes are minor, and away from the crossover regions you are golden.
May I suggest, if you are going for short, tilt upwards about 10 degrees. This will reduce the amount that the tweeter/mids bounce off the floor.
Best,
E
I suggest what you do is grab a simulator and try out the two designs, and look at the resulting FR. If the changes are minor, and away from the crossover regions you are golden.
May I suggest, if you are going for short, tilt upwards about 10 degrees. This will reduce the amount that the tweeter/mids bounce off the floor.
Best,
E
Change in distance in not significant, the xo is 250Hz. And design axis remains unchanged relative to listening axis.
Here s the design story Zaph|Audio - SB12.3 3-Way Tower
Here s the design story Zaph|Audio - SB12.3 3-Way Tower
hi guys
many thanks for all your replies and take on what im aiming for....also a big thank you for not bashing my highly detailed and accurate drawings
.
maybe what's not so clear with my iffy drawings is that my design will be at the same height regarding drivers and position as per the original design,the height will be made up with a base and central leg that's fixed to the speaker cabinet.
so the distance of the 12" inch driver to the floor will be the same as original concept,what will be missing of course is that last bit of 16" by 7.5 front baffle that normally sits under the 12" driver.
so with that in mind i wouldn't of thought there would be any need to " tilt" my design back,i can understand that reason if it was sitting lower on the floor,but my design won't be(will be same height as original),but i certainly realise my iffy bad drawings gave that impression.
i really appreciate all the help,more so as i certainly know nothing of speaker building or xover tweaking or designing and the reason im posting here and ask for help/views.
so with the positioning and height cleared up regarding my new shape design do we feel that getting rid of that 16" by 7.5" piece of front baffle that sits under the original designs 12" speaker will totally screw up this speakers design sound wise and xover design wise
kind regards
paul
many thanks for all your replies and take on what im aiming for....also a big thank you for not bashing my highly detailed and accurate drawings
.maybe what's not so clear with my iffy drawings is that my design will be at the same height regarding drivers and position as per the original design,the height will be made up with a base and central leg that's fixed to the speaker cabinet.
so the distance of the 12" inch driver to the floor will be the same as original concept,what will be missing of course is that last bit of 16" by 7.5 front baffle that normally sits under the 12" driver.
so with that in mind i wouldn't of thought there would be any need to " tilt" my design back,i can understand that reason if it was sitting lower on the floor,but my design won't be(will be same height as original),but i certainly realise my iffy bad drawings gave that impression.
i really appreciate all the help,more so as i certainly know nothing of speaker building or xover tweaking or designing and the reason im posting here and ask for help/views.
so with the positioning and height cleared up regarding my new shape design do we feel that getting rid of that 16" by 7.5" piece of front baffle that sits under the original designs 12" speaker will totally screw up this speakers design sound wise and xover design wise
kind regards
paul
Nothing serious happens, if internal volume of bass compartment is same. If it gets smaller, you will loose a tiny bit of low end sensitivity and F3/F10 limit, but I doubt if that is significant in normal size rooms. The box is sealed type.
ps. Thanks to Zaph, I learned A LOT- recommended to study his homepage!
ps. Thanks to Zaph, I learned A LOT- recommended to study his homepage!
Last edited:
hi
many thanks for your reply,i also understand about volume within the sealed cabinet,when i start knocking up more detailed sketches of the final design with size measurements im hoping to design it so i keep the internal volume as recommended,once again i appreciate the help and input.
regards
paul
If you LOVE the ATC cabinet style, you could look for a well reviewed 3-speaker, 3-way design which fits that shape and volume. It is desirable to have the tweeter around 36-39" high. Good ear level, and then typical tweeter dispersion also covers standing listeners. A SEALED 4cuft volume for the 12" SB34NRX75-6 delivers -F3 ~35Hz with SPL ~87db after a modest baffle step. Replacing the two 5" midrange with one 6" is a better match for the ATC cabinet.
1.1" Dome SB29RDC-4
6" Satori MW16P-8 or lower cost SB17NRX35-8
12" woofer SB34NRX75-6
There are several free designs using the SB29RDC-4 tweeter and SB17NRX35-8 or MW16P-8 midranges to which you can add the 12" SB34NRX75-6 woofer. An LR2 electrical circuit works well because the Le=1.8mH for the SB34NRX75-6. I can post examples if you go down this path.
You can also Bi-Amp with an active crossover for the woofer. For the best sound, the crossover must be tuned to the baffle shape, woofer height, and room placement.
Meniscus Audio has a few 2-way kits like Jeff Bagby' Adelphos and Mandolin, plus Jeff's write-up on extending them to 3-way by adding a woofer.
What is your budget for raw speakers + crossover parts?
1.1" Dome SB29RDC-4
6" Satori MW16P-8 or lower cost SB17NRX35-8
12" woofer SB34NRX75-6
There are several free designs using the SB29RDC-4 tweeter and SB17NRX35-8 or MW16P-8 midranges to which you can add the 12" SB34NRX75-6 woofer. An LR2 electrical circuit works well because the Le=1.8mH for the SB34NRX75-6. I can post examples if you go down this path.
You can also Bi-Amp with an active crossover for the woofer. For the best sound, the crossover must be tuned to the baffle shape, woofer height, and room placement.
Meniscus Audio has a few 2-way kits like Jeff Bagby' Adelphos and Mandolin, plus Jeff's write-up on extending them to 3-way by adding a woofer.
What is your budget for raw speakers + crossover parts?
Attachments
hi linesource
thanks for the heads up and ideas.
i really have no understanding of xovers/baffle steps etc,you make it sound so easy by adding this and that,but from reading up i know how techincal/black art it can be....hence why i was drawn to a complete sorted kit that fits most of my wants and needs.
did have a quick look at those kits mentioned,and very good they seem to,but im really after a 3way sealed design rather then a 2way plus sub type deal....done plenty of those in the past.
saw the ribbon atc style clone speaker,that looked very nice(do love a good ribbon) but the drivers being used would put the cost of the total speaker way out side my budget...the price of this kit once done and built will be expensive enough to me,but obviously if a big step up in sound quality can be had for spending a little more then im sure ill find the extra budget to achieve that.
please feel free to put up links etc to other ideas/kits/threads etc,i have been looking/reading up on this for a while,but im in no doubt that ive also probably missed heaps of great useful stuff and possible candidates and now is a good time to expose my failings before i start spending some real money.
once again i appreciate all and everybody's input/take and ideas.
kind regards
paul
This baffle diffraction simulation uses similar baffle dimensions to the ATC cabinet with a 1" dome tweeter, 6" midrange, and 12" woofer. This simulation shows benefits from:
1) large quarter-rounds or bevels on the baffle edges
2) carefull placement of the tweeter and midrange heights similar to this baffle model
3) lowest simulated diffraction with: tweeter offset 0.8" and 6" midrange offset 2"
----the ATC engineers also used two different offsets for their 1" tweeter and 3" dome midrange.
Why is this 3-way design interesting? Because it delivers good Qtc=0.7 sealed bass from an acceptable 4cuft cabinet.
--Sealed 4cuft volume for the 12" SB34NRX75-6 delivers -F3 ~35Hz with SPL ~87-88db including a modest baffle step.
1.1" Dome SB29RDC-4
6" Satori MW16P-8 or lower cost SB17NRX35-8
12" woofer SB34NRX75-6
1) large quarter-rounds or bevels on the baffle edges
2) carefull placement of the tweeter and midrange heights similar to this baffle model
3) lowest simulated diffraction with: tweeter offset 0.8" and 6" midrange offset 2"
----the ATC engineers also used two different offsets for their 1" tweeter and 3" dome midrange.
Why is this 3-way design interesting? Because it delivers good Qtc=0.7 sealed bass from an acceptable 4cuft cabinet.
--Sealed 4cuft volume for the 12" SB34NRX75-6 delivers -F3 ~35Hz with SPL ~87-88db including a modest baffle step.
1.1" Dome SB29RDC-4
6" Satori MW16P-8 or lower cost SB17NRX35-8
12" woofer SB34NRX75-6
Attachments
hi linesource
wow...thanks for all your help and research and sims.
i will get back to you and here when i can get some decent free time,just crazy this end at the moment.
just wanted to let you know im still around,that i appreciate all your time,effort and ideas....and" ill be back"
regards
paul
wow...thanks for all your help and research and sims.
i will get back to you and here when i can get some decent free time,just crazy this end at the moment.
just wanted to let you know im still around,that i appreciate all your time,effort and ideas....and" ill be back"
regards
paul
Some people favor the look of a narrow front baffle, and some room layouts require a narrow speaker cabinet. A 12" woofer can still be used if a deeper cabinet is acceptable. A combination of careful baffle sizing, careful driver placement on the baffle, and using rounded or beveled front baffle edges are all required for reduced diffraction with a tall-and-narrow front baffle.
Attachments
hi linesource
once again i thank you very much for all your help and response and so sorry for not getting back to you sooner..been manic here.
as your posts have proved....there are so many approaches and ways to achieve the same desired goals.
what i was ultimately after which is what i found in this original posted design kit was something i could build that had every part worked out,well documented with all info and suited my needs and dreams.
the downside was just with the looks of the finished speaker...nothing wrong with it of course,i was just after a slightly different look,a look that was vaguely like a atc speaker scm100 and wondered if it could sort of be achieved without screwing up all the hard work and achievements of the original design.
i think i am still going to go ahead with this idea for now,i've done a few more iffy sketches which hopefully will convey my idea better.
obviously as always i would be grateful if i'm going to screw something up that it gets pointed out to me,along with any problems or flaws that may arise from my subtle tweak of this design
once again i thank you very much for all your help and response and so sorry for not getting back to you sooner..been manic here.
as your posts have proved....there are so many approaches and ways to achieve the same desired goals.
what i was ultimately after which is what i found in this original posted design kit was something i could build that had every part worked out,well documented with all info and suited my needs and dreams.
the downside was just with the looks of the finished speaker...nothing wrong with it of course,i was just after a slightly different look,a look that was vaguely like a atc speaker scm100
and wondered if it could sort of be achieved without screwing up all the hard work and achievements of the original design.i think i am still going to go ahead with this idea for now,i've done a few more iffy sketches which hopefully will convey my idea better.
obviously as always i would be grateful if i'm going to screw something up that it gets pointed out to me,along with any problems or flaws that may arise from my subtle tweak of this design
Attachments
what my iffy drawing doesn't show is...
when the original speaker enclosure is slid and mounted inside the bigger outter box 2" of the original speaker baffle will be sticking proud of the new enclosure(atc100 style) and im hoping this will be enough not to upset the original xover design as it will be seeing the original baffle width and the speakers will be positioned as originally designed.
i hope that all makes sense
when the original speaker enclosure is slid and mounted inside the bigger outter box 2" of the original speaker baffle will be sticking proud of the new enclosure(atc100 style) and im hoping this will be enough not to upset the original xover design as it will be seeing the original baffle width and the speakers will be positioned as originally designed.
i hope that all makes sense
To get the best MTM polar presentation, you new box should have the tweeter at 36"-39" height, or angle the cabinet to the seated location.
The narrow polar pattern of most MTM arrangements favor the tweeter positioned at seated ear level for best sound.
The SB12.3 cabinets are 46" high because Zaph wanted the MTM tweeter to be at ear level (36"-39") .
A TM polar pattern can be slightly angled upward to cover a wider seated + standing height range.
The narrow polar pattern of most MTM arrangements favor the tweeter positioned at seated ear level for best sound.
The SB12.3 cabinets are 46" high because Zaph wanted the MTM tweeter to be at ear level (36"-39") .
A TM polar pattern can be slightly angled upward to cover a wider seated + standing height range.
Attachments
Side mount woofer
Hi LineSource,
I found this post looking for options with Zaph SB12.3, like someone previously said they are ugly so I’m thinking to make some changes to the design like live MTM at the front and put woofer on side but I heard cross-over needs to be modified for that any chance you can help me with that?
I also look at the design proposal in your post and you mentioned that woofer can by mounted on side can you put little more light on this,please
Regards,
Raf
Hi LineSource,
I found this post looking for options with Zaph SB12.3, like someone previously said they are ugly
so I’m thinking to make some changes to the design like live MTM at the front and put woofer on side but I heard cross-over needs to be modified for that any chance you can help me with that? I also look at the design proposal in your post and you mentioned that woofer can by mounted on side can you put little more light on this,please
Regards,
Raf
The Zaph 12.3 really does look a bit bluff.I am sure this has put a lot of people off.
Changing the baffle too much is really asking for trouble however.It seems the driver arrangement and crossovers are very specific to that baffle and positioning.MTM designs are hard enough to get right without messing with a proven formula.
My thoughts are that something that detracts your eyes away from the bluffness might be the best solution.A small shadow line groove or contrasting inlay about 5mm back from the baffle edge round-over might help.Or a mitred contrasting quarter round forming the round-over edge.Better still a contrasting quarter round with a very fine groove on the inside.
For those of us that dislike ported bass this kit seems to have a lot of appeal.
It would also appear to be suited to lower powered amplifiers than most.
Changing the baffle too much is really asking for trouble however.It seems the driver arrangement and crossovers are very specific to that baffle and positioning.MTM designs are hard enough to get right without messing with a proven formula.
My thoughts are that something that detracts your eyes away from the bluffness might be the best solution.A small shadow line groove or contrasting inlay about 5mm back from the baffle edge round-over might help.Or a mitred contrasting quarter round forming the round-over edge.Better still a contrasting quarter round with a very fine groove on the inside.
For those of us that dislike ported bass this kit seems to have a lot of appeal.
It would also appear to be suited to lower powered amplifiers than most.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.