# DIY Bookshelf size mains and center channel



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

I am ready to purchase parts for a L/C/R configuration.....

I have been looking for anything else that compares to those sweet Zaph SR-71s...

Before I make the purchase does anyone think there is any other option to consider in the same price range and size as the SR71's (6inch driver). .50 - .55cuft range.

I am going to build the enclosures.

fschris


----------



## tshifrin (Nov 24, 2011)

Zaph does an awesome job- have you heard them? You won't be disappointed. What sub are you planning?

Tom


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

Is it possible to compare these ?

ZA5.3t - TMM 2.5-way tower

http://zaphaudio.com/ZA5/

Vs the SR71's


I mean the SR71's get Rave reviews. I would have to build stands anyway so these 2 designs would be the same size foot print on the floor basically.

The ZA5 is a tad cheaper not much.

THey will be for HT/music 60/40.

I already have a MFW-15 sub (and I will build another). I have the low end covered!


----------



## tshifrin (Nov 24, 2011)

You're looking at the differences between a mini-monitor design and a 2.5 way tower. The mini-monitor would be great for a mostly music system, or ht where placement of towers is a problem. I think I'd go with the full tower for ht if you have the space. The added mid-bass driver in the 5.3 will add greatly to impact and effects, and make integration with the sub easier.
Just my opinion.

Tom


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

Thanks. I will go with the 5.3t TMM .... I will try to take pics of my build and post them here.

No sure I will have WAF. 

But once I build them what can she do.... 

they should be a lot better than my little take energy 5.1 speaker set up!

I will have to get an amp to power these.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

I suggest Jeff Bagby's Mandolin:

http://meniscusaudio.com/mandolin-kit-pr-p-1244.html



> THey will be for HT/music 60/40.
> 
> I already have a MFW-15 sub (and I will build another). I have the low end covered!


What do you consider the "low end"?

Most 6.5" drivers struggle to produce much output around 200hz, and low sensitivity means thermal compression too.

From the 80hz to 200hz region, the demands in HT (and music) are not something a subwoofer can cover.

I would definitely suggest something with more surface area and higher sensitivity than a 6.5" 2-way. Even the zaph TMM you suggested will have its struggles. 

I really do suggest a thin-and-tall tower speaker with more surface area. It won't take up any more space than a stand mount, but will be more capable overall. Rather than the ZA5.3 consider the ZA5.5TT or ZA5.5










The higher sensitivity, and double radiating surface area will more adequately cover the 80hz to 300hz region and allow a smoother transition to the subwoofer.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

I ran across these as well.... http://speakerdesignworks.com/Cinderella.html

interesting... any thoughts.

I see everyone's point here on more surface area!

I like the zaph 5.5 but the cost starts to get high for the BOM. Its not outrageous for what you get but I was trying to keep it around 300 and get the best sound stage for my buck. 

My living area is 23 x 15. Not very big at all. Not that I will live here forever but I could not imagine having anything bigger than that for a dedicated HT.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

I would like that cinderalla design a lot better if the woofer on the bottom was mounted on the side....or if I squared it up. Im not a fan of the sloping triangle look.

anyone know of any plans that has a side facing woofer and then some smaller front facing drivers?


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

Going by the numbers:

Cinderellas
95mL of displacement
86db sensitivity

Za5.5
88mL of displacement
89db / 2.83v / m


I'd still give an edge to the za5.5s. Displacement is about the same and the sub will really help. The sensitivity difference is big. It's the same as doubling your input power, without heat related compression.

I also expect the za14w08 drivers to have better SQ


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

fschris said:


> I would like that cinderalla design a lot better if the woofer on the bottom was mounted on the side....or if I squared it up. Im not a fan of the sloping triangle look.
> 
> anyone know of any plans that has a side facing woofer and then some smaller front facing drivers?


Side facing woofers require low crossover points IE 120hz. Low passive crossover points require large, pricy crossover components that also create other issues with fidelity. that also takes away the advantage of having a woofer handle 80hz to 200hz as it will only cover 80hz-~130hz which is pretty pointless.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

Looks like I will have to dig deeper into the wallet for the ZA5.5


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

Done deal... 5.5 ordered. I will be walking around my house looking for things to sell on Ebay


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

That was fast about 2 days later I reiceved all the drivers/ x-overs from madisound along with some ports. 


Now I have to figure out how to get this cab built. I have never built a tower before.

I wish the PDF was a bit more detailed for this novice... ehh should not be too hard to figure out. just need to sit down with some graph paper.


----------



## Jstslamd (Nov 30, 2010)

If height of the enclosure is a problem madisound says that you can either shorten the riser or completely eliminate it. Making them a bit shorter might help manipulate the WAF. Just a thought. Let's see some pics of the goods!!


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

fschris said:


> That was fast about 2 days later I reiceved all the drivers/ x-overs from madisound along with some ports.
> 
> 
> Now I have to figure out how to get this cab built. I have never built a tower before.
> ...


Rather than following the PDF for the box, I recommend a mass loaded transmission line. I would be glad to help you out in this regard when I get home today.


----------



## Jstslamd (Nov 30, 2010)

Any updates?


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

GranteedEV said:


> Rather than following the PDF for the box, I recommend a mass loaded transmission line. I would be glad to help you out in this regard when I get home today.


I have really no idea what a mass loaded transmission line or the benefits or how it would work with the pre existing cross overs from Madisound and Zaph ot the construction!

WAF is not an issue so I was going to go the full 47 inches high. The fact that that are pretty thin is not bad and she can live with it. now If I had 12" monkey coffins... that would be a different story!


----------



## Jstslamd (Nov 30, 2010)

Let's see some progress pics as you go along.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

fschris said:


> I have really no idea what a mass loaded transmission line (is)


When a speaker box's internal dimensions stop being a perfect cube, the classic math for ported boxes falls apart due to internal standing wave cancellation and summation. Simply put, the predictions that a typical vented box is designed from fail to adequately describe the end result. A mass loaded transmission line very specifically optimizes the vented box not as a perfect cube, but as a "line" - a long rectangle with its specific dimensions. 



> or the benefits


The primary benefit is that there is notably less response ripple introduced through the vent. So the midrange and bass should be more clear and defined. Technically most tower speakers are already mass loaded transmission lines, however they are not optimized for low response ripple, because people only think of internal volume as if the speaker is a perfect cube which it isn't.



> or how it would work with the pre existing cross overs from Madisound and Zaph


The key is to keep baffle width unchanged. Which of course I would make sure to do.



> ot the construction!


The box construction will be slightly altered, although I can't tell you to what extent until I actually model the thing. Overall you might end up using more of the tower, whereas John Krutke's box design has the bottom of the tower filled with sand. Vent placement, and internal dividers may be implemented.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

Jstslamd said:


> Let's see some progress pics as you go along.


I will !

plus I will inquire about the transmission design.


----------

