# Full 7.1 replacement help



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

I have been looking around and thinking about using Zaph diy kits for my mains, center and 4 surrounds. ZA5.5 mtmmm towers ($443) ZA5.3c mtm center chanel ($125) and 2 pairs of ZA5.2 tm ($182). Before i start just want to double check to see if there is anything with better sound at same price range DIY or not. I dont want to try my own crossover. Thank you for your help. Oh and i have a sub already and going to keep using it. It works very well.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

I think the Zaph towers should be great choices for L/R mains. If you want to improve the center speaker I recommend going with something alternate, like maybe a sealed Statements Center or a Seas Loki. I don't think timbre matching between well designed speakers is a big issue and the end fidelity will be better.


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

So having a center that dosnt match the L R dosnt realy matter as long as the center puts out good sound?


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

BuddahX said:


> So having a center that dosnt match the L R dosnt realy matter as long as the center puts out good sound?


_Assuming _all speakers are well designed without much "timbre" of their own and the drivers used aren't bad. If we define good sound as being "pretty true to the source", then speakers that are "pretty true to the source" simply sound more similar than not. It's tough to expect commercial speakers to timbre match other commercial speakers because they're usually voiced to sell / designed intentionally with their own sound. But great speakers (with smooth polar response and flat frequency response) sound surprisingly similar. 

horizontal MTM center channels have a few issues...

1) Bad horizontal dispersion and too much vertical dispersion means you get undesirable room reflections coloring the sound, unlike the vertical equivalent
2) Bad horizontal dispersion hurts people sitting decently off axis by creating nulls in the region around 800hz to 2khz - smack dab in the midrange where vocals exist. It hurts clarity.

One way designers compensate for that is by making the above region more prominent, but that doesn't really sound natural or timbre match. FWIW though, here is what Zaph says about the center speaker. You can make your decision accordingly:



> his is a version of the MTM design done specifically for horizontal center channel usage. It is also workable as a near boundary or near TV design. You will hear many people say that a MTM is just not good for horizontal usage, and for the most part they are right. The problem is that upright center channels will not work with the average home theater layout, unless you are lucky enough to have a front projector with a sound transparent screen. But for most of the HT world, we've got to squeeze the center channel between the TV and the furniture it's mounted in/on.
> 
> We can however optimize some of the typical MTM off axis response issues out of it, and give it a tonal balance that favors dialog. That is exactly what we've done here, and it's a completely different crossover rather than just an option based on the standard MTM. The crossover point has been dropped down a bit, though still not as low as the TM. There is very little baffle step compensation in this design, and the overall tonal balance favors a broad smooth rise through the upper midrange. The result of that can be seen in comparing the vertical polar responses between this and the standard MTM version. We've widened the listening window when this system is laid horizontal, and even when the response starts to droop due woofer center to center distance, a mild increase in the upper midrange minimizes the effect. The result is a horizontal MTM with a forward listening window of about 50 degrees from side to side. This is much more usable than the typical commercial center channel, which usually has serious lobing issues even 5 degrees off the horizontal axis. An MTM will never be as suitable as a W-T/M-W 3-way center, but here we've done our best with the format. Complaints of dialog audibility should be minimal.


I always recommend people build WTMW or WCW center speakers, or vertical MTMs behind an acoustically transparent projection screen. Just because they use the same drivers, doesn't mean horizontal MTM speakers are "the same" as even the same speaker vertically mounted. They just sound different.

Ideally, using the ZA14W08 midrange flanked by two low passed a frequency lower than where they would create nulls would rock. I wonder if Krutke would be interested in it.


----------



## Theresa (Aug 23, 2010)

Yes, me too, mtm on it's side is anathema to me. One is better off with a well designed MT on its side. I have a mt mounted above my tv but it is oriented up and down.


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

As of now for my l n r i have Alesis monitor two. They are three way with a 10" woofer. I wall mounted them at a angle pointing at the seating position. My tv is wall mounted pretty high. I can do a vertical mounted center under it. Do you know of a good wmtw diy kit that isnt overly priced. And should i keep my mains or get something new? I think they sound good and sound more dispersed i guess then my RBH bookshelfs. My only prob is that the alesis only goes up to 18,000hz so i think im missing alot of upper sound. Im mainly looking for something that isnt overly expensive but want it to sound good together. Thank you for the help and information. Alot to sink in. I still have alot to learn.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

BuddahX said:


> I can do a vertical mounted center under it.


If it's an MTM , just make sure your ear is on the tweeter axis. The Regular zaph 5.3 vertical MTM should work well. If you're mounting it near a wall you will need to reduce the BSC. The 5.5tts are a full BSC design so they want to be a decent distance away from the wall, otherwise there will be too much lower midrange and bass radiating towards you.





> My only prob is that the alesis only goes up to 18,000hz so i think im missing alot of upper sound. Im mainly looking for something that isnt overly expensive but want it to sound good together.


Chances are you can't hear much if anything above 14-15khz anyways. 



> Do you know of a good wmtw diy kit that isnt overly priced. And should i keep my mains or get something new? I think they sound good and sound more dispersed i guess then my RBH bookshelfs.


Really? I've never heard great things about Alesis speakers so that's a bit surprising. I do think the zaph speakers based on the ZA14w08 drivers will sound outstanding... based on measurements it isn't too far from a Seas Excel of the same size, so that's saying a lot.

As for a WTMW...

I still recommend that statements center
http://www.speakerdesignworks.com/StatementsBOMs2011/StatementsCenter2011PE_MadBOM.pdf

I think that is reasonable for a very high end center speaker... after all the center is probably the most important channel!

You can't expect a 3-way passive speaker to be too cheap because the crossover components become more expensive and you need behaved drivers. It will also work well paired with some Mini Statements or Statements mains.


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

Thanks for all the help. I am very grateful of your knowledge. Ill sell my alesis and put the money towar the center channel andnwork out from there. Ill get the center. Then the left and rights. Then get di/bi-pole surrounds. I read that some people prefer di pole over bi? Cause it does a 180 deg to the phase? Im not sure exactly what that means. I assume it means one side is reversed polarity?


----------



## GPHammer (Feb 2, 2011)

I agree with GranteedEV on the statement center channel, I have the full size statements as my mains, the mini statements as my rears and the center channel. I previously had a Cerwin Vega center channel and it does not compare to a quality center channel.
If you do decide to build , I have pictures and drawings of how I built the crossovers (not pretty but effective) I can send with you.

Gregg


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

BuddahX said:


> Thanks for all the help. I am very grateful of your knowledge. Ill sell my alesis and put the money towar the center channel andnwork out from there. Ill get the center. Then the left and rights. Then get di/bi-pole surrounds. I read that some people prefer di pole over bi? Cause it does a 180 deg to the phase? Im not sure exactly what that means. I assume it means one side is reversed polarity?


Both di and bipole surrounds are very flawed. For starters, the professionals in the mix rooms do not use these kinds of speakers when they are mixing movies. THey use monopole surrounds. 

The issue with dipole surrounds is that the two sides of the speaker are firing in reverse polarity. what this does is, it cancels out the sound in between the speakers, but rarely does it do this properly, and the result is normally just a ragged, on axis response with lots of very _random_ nulls. What you hear most of, is the reflections from the room instead of the on axis response, but it's never a clean power response and normally just sounds awkward. Good for a few things, but surrounds have more content than just rain and chirping crickets. It just doesn't sound right consistently.

A bipole is kind of the opposite and equally flwed. These are not true bipole speakers in the sense that the drivers are firing in opposite directions. They're firing around 45 degrees to each other. On axis it might be voiced to sound good but the reflections will sound very colored and have lots of comb filtering.

Getting four monopoles in a 7.1 is a better idea than these "fake" surround speakers.

If possible, i recommend a point source with minimal vertical or horizontal lobing - the seas Loki Mk II is in my opinion as good as it gets for a surround speaker. But it's all up to you. I think the zaph 5.2 is a wonderful option as a surround.


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

Gphammer- i would love pics. I will be building the satement for my center. thank you for the help. Pretty dosnt matter its going inside the cabinet. I just need functionality so they work well. Im decent at solder. 

Guaranteedev- thank you for the info. Di/bi-polars are quite expensive and your info dosnt justify there need. Ill stick with monopole for my surrounds. Ill check into the seas. My room is 17'x17' so medium size surrounds will work out fine. I have windows where the side surrounds go. Should i make a mount and angle them down from above the windows on the wall or make floor stands and place them at ear level? Also with the rear surrounds? Thanks again for the info and help.


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

GranteedEV thanks again for all the help. I'm doing the Statement center as decided before. I was able to get my computer working again so did some research. and looks amazing. My ear's aren't up to par compared to the others on this forum but I know I will be blown away. I decided for the mains to do the statements. which from what I can tell are WmtmW Towers. using the same drivers and ribbon tweeter as the center. I want the front stage to all match. Not only cause they match each other sonically but also appearance wise. I think they have a very beautiful look to them. and still debating for my surrounds. Thanks again for all the help and I can't wait till I start re doing my HT setup for the best. this is going to blow away my current mix match setup. and the new setup should mix with my sub well. http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...s/44910-single-15-two-15-page-rankings-6.html


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

The statements are very large speakers. Here is the cost sheet:

http://www.speakerdesignworks.com/StatementsBOMs2011/Statements2011PE_MadBOM.pdf

I'm sure they'll be fantastic. I think the sealed woofer versions will blend _seamlessly_ with subwoofers around 60hz while also needing less total box volume. Remember the midrange is open back so they too require a bit of room from the wall to sound their best (placed correctly, this will put the stereo image _behind_ them for a very natural holographic presentation. They're voiced with the open back midrange so it's part of their "sound"). Curt Campbell is a very well known DIY crossover designer.

I do still think the ZA5.5tt is a sweet speaker that I personally want to build. 

Regarding the _look_ of the statements, I'm partial to this curved version myself:










Although i'd use a vibrant finish more along the lines of this:










I wish I had SKILLZ lol


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

yea the price tag is a bit high but I figured I will use my income tax money next year on building them. Both of those cabinets are beautiful. I agree the bottom cabinet finish is more vibrant and sophisticated and would make the top cabinet a pure masterpiece. I'll more than likely use the basic design from the site. but I will be getting all the pieces for the center and towers CNC cut to make everything fit snug and square. I had my Sub CNC cut and it was like putting together legos lol. it was so easy. plus I don't have the tools to cut wood correctly and straight. I've tried circular saws and small portable saw tables just can't get a true cut. and I know the guy that does the CNC so he doesn't Over charge me he's pretty reasonable with me... fortunately cause I will be spending all my money on the components.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

> I have windows where the side surrounds go. Should i make a mount and angle them down from above the windows on the wall or make floor stands and place them at ear level? Also with the rear surrounds?


I don't know, haha. I personally prefer them above ear level, but the problem with 99% of speakrs out there is that they suffer from vertical lobing so what you at the listening point may be a bit different from what you're supposed to hear.

That is why i recommended the seas loki. Being a coaxial speaker where the cone doubles as a waveguide, it radiates sound rather nearly uniformly in all directions. If you look at the vertical null of a good coaxial speaker:










and compare it to the vertical response, of even a good two way bookshelf










As you can see, the coaxial radiates sounds very uniformly and that's why I think it would make a good surround speaker, even if you don't aim it straight at you. I think ordinary surround speakers will sound their best aimed straight at you, but based on basic experimentation I think they sound better above you and not aimed more than 30 degrees downwards. That is just my subjective opinion and you'll find there's a lot of that and to only take it for what it's worth.


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

Good to know.. as of know I have temp ENERGY speakers I use as surrounds and there placed above and I like it. they do there job for now and give me enough effect with my First person shooter games so I know where people are shooting at me lol. after I do my mains I'll decide how much I want to spend on the surrounds. I'll either do the Seas loki or zaph depending on how much money I have when I get to that stage. thank you for your help and I will post build threads once I get the parts and wood in.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

One thing I like about the statements is that even though they're a passive 3-way they're a pretty easy load for most amplifiers including receivers. While i'm sure you can squeeze a bit more output/bass out of them with a good 250 watt amp, they're usually pretty happy with whatever you've got.


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

Thats good cause my avr-1600 is 50 rms per channel. But i never realy crank things up. I only use my sub a little less than 1/4 way. Ill be happy with the sq and moderate level. If i choose down the road i can get bigger amps but doubt i need the power. Im so excited for these builds. Going from a beat up pinto to a new Phantom. Lol. Thats just my opinion but with my current speaker package most prob will agree.


----------



## Theresa (Aug 23, 2010)

I hardly ever "cranked" things up but my old Yamaha DSP-A1 used to clip the surround channels when heavy sound effects were present. I can't remember what the rating was but believe it was 90 watts. This never happens with the Emotiva UPA-5 driving the surrounds (and the front tweeters). Good amplification with lots of headroom, which you usually get with separate amps. I used to have a pair of standard "bookshelf" speakers for the surrounds but now have the Emotiva ERD-1s and they are better than the one's they replaced, even though their type is maligned above, ie. selectable as either bipole or dipole. Perhaps ideally the surrounds should be the same as the front, especially for 5.1 music, but my room is not really suitable for this. One does what one can to achieve the ideal and then sit back and enjoy the sound despite any limitations.
I really don't like the Loki's and their driver tested poorly by John Krutke (Zaph Audio). There is some major distortion and frequency response irregularities with the Loki driver.


----------



## GPHammer (Feb 2, 2011)

I think you will be very happy with the full size statements, they are very big. The sub you built is awesome, you are very talented and will have no problem building the statements.

I put the crossovers for the center channel on two seperate boards, they are 7.25inches by 5.25 inches if my memory is correct, they will fit thru the woofer hole although I installed mine before I sealed the cabinet.

I have include photo's of the crossover's and my schematic drawing, hope this helps. I will also add the crossovers are not pretty but they work. I did all the soldering on the back side of the board. I also used 1.25 inch drawer slide spacers (Lee Valley or Rockler) as standoffs. 

Gregg


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

GPHammer said:


> I think you will be very happy with the full size statements, they are very big. The sub you built is awesome, you are very talented and will have no problem building the statements.
> 
> I put the crossovers for the center channel on two seperate boards, they are 7.25inches by 5.25 inches if my memory is correct, they will fit thru the woofer hole although I installed mine before I sealed the cabinet.
> 
> ...


Hi, I would recommend altering the orientation of your inductors as that is not the correct way to mount them.


----------



## GPHammer (Feb 2, 2011)

GranteedEV said:


> Hi, I would recommend altering the orientation of your inductors as that is not the correct way to mount them.


This is a good point for BuddahX, not going to happen for me. You are referring to the proximity of the inductors for the woofer and tweeter crossovers, I did review your point at the time I was building the crossover and in MHO they are fine as is.

As for BuddahX, look at many statement crossovers and pick the best features from them, yours should be better than mine, there is lots of room for improvement.

Gregg


----------



## BuddahX (Jan 6, 2010)

Thanks for the info. The cabinet will be easy for me. The
Crossover will not. Will be my first time building one. Im good with solder just not which component goes where. I have a pretty good idea on the diagrams though.


----------



## HDPC (Dec 1, 2013)

GPHammer said:


> I agree with GranteedEV on the statement center channel, I have the full size statements as my mains, the mini statements as my rears and the center channel. I previously had a Cerwin Vega center channel and it does not compare to a quality center channel.
> If you do decide to build , I have pictures and drawings of how I built the crossovers (not pretty but effective) I can send with you.
> 
> Gregg


Hi Gregg,

I am looking into building a full size statements as my main, the mini statements as my rears and center too. Do you mind sending me the drawings on how to build the crossovers?

Thanks,
Hai


----------

