It Starts Now! The Zolasoid II Project

gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
Every time I walk by those drivers, I hear them crying in their box. Enough is enough, I've got to build these while I'm still rightfully upside down. :p

Bass boxes will be 3.5 cubic feet apiece internal volume for a "perfect" Q of 0.7. 25Hz will be a solid reality, not just a suggestion.

I've started by cutting the sides, top, bottom, and backs out of 3/4" MDF which I'll glue and screw in simple butt joint construction. One heavily skelletonized partition will add rigitity, as will additional cross braces and/or ribs:
 

Attachments

gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
...making progress...

It's SLOW going, because over the years I've learned the necessary flow when working with particle board. It's GROSSLY inefficient, but results in perfectly aligned glued and screwed construction:

Place piece in position
drill small hole through both
install temporary screw to hold place
drill rest of small holes
remove screw, remove piece and overdrill larger holes
countersink large holes
scrape off bulged edges of small holes on underside of piece
glue edges
re-align and place all screws
begin next piece and start all over

With only one drill, I spend too much time switching out bits in between steps. :mad:

Does anybody else have a better flow, and how does it work? I've seen monster clamps used to avoid screws, but I don't have clamps and I'm a belt and suspenders man anyway.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
gregz said:
Does anybody else have a better flow, and how does it work? I've seen monster clamps used to avoid screws, but I don't have clamps and I'm a belt and suspenders man anyway.
Yes those big cabinetmaker clamps with parallel jaws are expensive. I don't have any. I have had some good result with these http://www.mcfeelys.com/product.asp?ProductID=jss-0005

I've also seen plans in magazines that show large template pieces of plywood with ¾" wide dados cut at right angles to hold your MDF or particle board during assembly.

To minimize the number of drill bit changes, you could get a set of those woodscrew bits that drill a pilot hole and countersink in one step. http://www.mcfeelys.com/subcat.asp?subcat=2.10.1
 
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
A word of warning: The dimensions supplied for the NHT subwoofer cutouts are TOO BIG! What's more, the mounting holes are rather close to the basket, and the lip is thick. These two facts combine to make for a bad day. Drilling the speaker mounting holes was more likely to create a gopher furrow along the edge of the hole than anything else.

I traced the perimeter of the speaker and cut the holes larger so the entire speaker would fall through. Then, I measured the basket circumference myself and scribed a new template on separate boards. Once the new tight fitting mounting holes were cut, these boards were installed behind the big holes from the inside, creating a recessed speaker mount. Detour complete.

Onwards and upwards. Hopefully no more ugly surprises.
 

Attachments

jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
Well, now you've got a mega-thick front baffle, so it can't be THAT bad :D
 
Mudcat

Mudcat

Senior Audioholic
Could be bad. The volume taken up by the extra piece will effect the overall sound and all that jism. You may want to take another detour and figure out how to add the volume taken up by the extra front piece to the back of the cabinet. At the very least, contact the kit manufacturer and find out how to fix, or what the effect will be without the fix.
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Mudcat said:
Could be bad. The volume taken up by the extra piece will effect the overall sound and all that jism.
Sure, but realizing the volume difference is probably less than 1 percent, it will not have any appreciable or audible effect. For a matter of perspective: the manufacturing variation of the transducers between individual unit samples will be greater in magnitude.

-Chris
 
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
I had planned on adding a half inch of particle board to the fronts to create thick front baffles was well as to recess the drivers. Now it appears that is indeed out of the way ahead of time.

As for the smaller inner volume, by my calculations the NHT in box response is very forgiving in the Q= 0.7 - 0.8 range. Still, I bumped the box volume back up a bit by fabricating a new top that will fit over the sides rather than flush between them.

My next deviation will be to add extra banana jacks in the back. Instead of one pair, I'll have three pairs on each speaker. The first pair will be directly wired to the driver, and the second pair will branch to a passive crossover that will pass lows to the sub and channel the highs back out through the third pair of jacks. Gotta be flexible! :)
 
H

hopjohn

Full Audioholic
Maybe with subs it isnt a issue, but wouldn't there be some serious diffraction with this kind of recessed mounting?
 
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
Hi Hopjohn,

Diffrraction should be minimal in the low frequencies. In fact, my speaker design is optimized to provide the least amount of diffraction (in the crucial frequencies important to imaging) by keeping the mids and tweets in separate, extremely small, narrow enclosure on top (as in the Aerial 10-T).

Ideally, they were supposed to be recessed only as deep as the surround mounting flange, which would make them flush mounted. But as things turned out, even the lip is slightly recessed. I'll probably round off the wood around the speaker, but it will be more for aesthetcis than for diffraction issues.

I've finished installing the internal bulkheads, and after I mount the tee-nuts, the tops go on. I'll temporarily screw on the backs for a sound check tomorrow. About time!
 

Attachments

Last edited:
anamorphic96

anamorphic96

Audioholic General
Hi Gregz,

Very Nice Work !!! Things are definitely taking shape. Can't wait to see the final product.

Your picture answers my question I asked in regards to internal bracing. The subs we use in theatres have no where near that kind of bracing. Even the JBL's and EV's dont use anything close to that. My Paradigm Studio 40's use a similar bracing system and boy does it help deaden the cabinet.

Did you ever decide on an amp for the subs?

Cheers,
Glenn
 
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
Thanks Glenn,

I couldn't decide between ribs or cross braces, so in the end I decided to do both by dividing up the cabinet into four sections using bulkheads. These suckers should be dead as a doornail! Especially after I laminate the exterior with 1/4" oak faced plywood to create composite walls a full inch in thickness- MOhahahahah! (Evil laugh). Lightweight, they're not.

For power, I'm going to first try firing up the system using my trusty Denon with the 8 amp power supply fuse. I'll hook an oscilloscope up to either the left or right output to watch for distortion and clipping while I do a power test at adrenaline listening levels. If the Denon can pull it off without distortion (and without getting hot enough to cook an egg on top), then I'm set. If not, I'll order either the Alesis RA500 or the upcoming Behringer A500, and bi-amp.
 
anamorphic96

anamorphic96

Audioholic General
Damn Gregz I can feel the weight through my computer screen. :cool: What do you think the final weight will be ?
 
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
What do you think the final weight will be ?
Somewhere between "UGH" and "GRUNT!" as I lifted one of them to my living room for a sound check.

SOUND CHECK!!!!!!

I just had my sound check tonight. I think I overachieved my goal, which is good and bad...

Well, my wife was sitting there reading a book, waiting for the Oscars to come on while I hooked up a Zolasoid II on the right channel, leaving the old Zolasoid I (the one that still works right) on the left.

Starting with a cheesey "Bass Mekanik" CD, I played first left, then right, then left then right. Suzanne's first reaction was "Is it me, or does the new speaker sound tighter?" I love the fact that she is relatively ignorant of the science behind audio, because her reactions are not formed from bias, but purely from observation. "What's that clicking sound?" I pressed the Speaker A button to turn off the Superzero's, and when the midrange and trebble disappeared, so did the clicking sound (bad recording).

Next CD was Pink Floyd's Division Bell (no cringing, purists!). UGh, no mid bass on the Zolasoid II. None at all. I adjusted the crossover, quickly remembering that with half the speaker impedance, I needed to cut the inductance in half to keep the crossover frequency at the same point. That helped, but not very much. "It sounds much weaker than the JL; is that because it's not broken in?" asked Suzanne, remembering our initial disappointment when we had brought home new speakers that initially sounded thin.

The final CD was "My Disc," a Sheffield test CD that I use in place of my frequency generator to produce low frequency sine waves. I started at 20Hz, and brought the volume up until the cone motion seemed reasonable, and let the CD slowly sweep up to 25Hz. "Am I feeling that???" asked Suzanne incredulously. SUB SONIC BASS ACHIEVED!! I'd played that track numerous times with both JL's (Zolasoid I speakers), and the bass was always heard before it finally got strong enough to feel in the 30's. Now the floor's actually vibrating before either of us hear it. YAHOO!!


Test Conclustions:
Well, I'm a long way from finished on sound check phase of this project. I simply plugged the Zolasoid II into an existing system that was tweaked for the Zolasoid I's. But in the back of my mind, I'm thinking that I was benefiting more than I thought from the higher Q Zolasoid I's upper bass boost that came at a cost to low end frequency excursion. Now that I have a virtually flat bass response, that upper bass boost is gone and sorely missed. I no longer have much of a woofer, but I have one HECK of a subwoofer. Two to be exact.

I might be able to massage my passive crossovers to bring back the gut punch, but it's somewhat likely I'll need to make some bigger changes such as:
1) Bi-amp with passive pre-amp crossovers, possibly a notch filter on the lows
2) Bi-amp with a graphic equalizer to punch up the midbass to Zolasoid I levels
3) Run the larger SB-1's full range, with a steep low pass filter below their operating range, allowing the Zolasoid II's to function as true subwoofers.
4) Cut the Zolasoid II boxes down to a smaller volume to raise the Q and thus make them operate more like upgraded Zolasoid I's.

Option 4 is actually what I did with the Zolasoid I's years ago. They started much taller than they are now, and they were bottoming out too badly at low frequencies while still weak at upper bass frequencies. In contrast, the Zolasoid II's are strong at their low frequencies, and would probably give up very little if operated at a higher Q.


I am excited about how tight and low these suckers go. At no time did the speaker seem to be out of control or straining (the old JLs always used to protest with mechanical helicopter thumping sounds when run at 20Hz), and the Denon was running cool with plenty of headroom to spare.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
gregz said:
1) Bi-amp with passive pre-amp crossovers, possibly a notch filter on the lows
2) Bi-amp with a graphic equalizer to punch up the midbass to Zolasoid I levels
3) Run the larger SB-1's full range, with a steep low pass filter below their operating range, allowing the Zolasoid II's to function as true subwoofers.
4) Cut the Zolasoid II boxes down to a smaller volume to raise the Q and thus make them operate more like upgraded Zolasoid I's.
(5) Ditch passive crossovers and purchase a Behringer DCX2496. Check out the new price, from $400 USD down to $250 USD currently!

The DCX will allow you to (1) integrate seamlessly with the monitors (2) Adjust any curve you desire to compensate for midbass or other bands (3) notch out room mode resonances, and achieve higher bass quality.

BTW, the fact that you went through the trouble to mimick your avatar in the sub picture, is just plain scary!

-Chris
 
Last edited:
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
I'm going to start by borrowing a friend's EQ. I may be able to notch up the mid-bass to Zolasoid I levels on the existing setup, single amp and all. It COULD work... If not, it'll be time to get more serious and bi-amp like you say.

BTW, the fact that you went through the trouble to mimick your avatar in the sub picture, is just plain scary!
MOOHoohahaa!!!!
 
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
Well, I attached an EQ between the pre-amp and amp section of my Denon, and boosted the upper bass frequencies on the new sub. On the left hand side, I have my original configuration reference setup for comparison. I know, left and right channel information is not necessarily equal in stereo recordings, but actually the bass is what I'm comparing and that tends to be equal in both L and R channels.

The result? With a bit of tweaking, I got the new sub to mesh quite well with the existing passive crossover components still in place. In fact, with the help of my wife's ears (which are better than mine :( ), I was able to surpass the performance of the left side. The new subs are tighter and better damped, there's no getting around that (they should be!). They also go deeper, giving music and movies more depth when it counts.

Proof of concept complete. I could go out and buy an EQ and be done, but first I will experiment with some other ideas and see which one ultimately gives me the best sound.

Great stuff!!
 

Attachments

gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
Ok, I've done some more tests, so now it's decision time. As a reference, the 'original' configuration for the Zolasoid I was a single Amp running to two separate external crossovers: A first order low-pass (100Hz) inductor fed the sub, and an 8 ohm resistor inline with first order hi-pass (120Hz) capacitor bank fed the monitor speaker. Here are the results of different combinations that worked with the Zolasoid II sub in place:

Single Amp Setups:
  • Graphic EQ with external passive crossovers, 8 ohm resistor removed:
    Graphic EQ was used to increase upper bass response, providing a very efficient setup with no resistive losses. Sound was perceived as quite good, with upper bass seeming extra tight. Worked equally well with SuperZeros and SB-1's since most of the upper bass frequencies went to the subs.
  • Low-Pass crossover only, SB-1 monitors run full frequency with 8 ohm resistor:
    Sound was excellent, not as tight as above configuration but possibly more natural. Lowest octaves were intense. SB-1's were working hard, but seemed to be able to handle it. SuperZeros were not an option in this configuration.

Bi-Amp Setup:
  • Low-Pass crossover only, SB-1 monitors run full frequency, no resistors:
    Pre-amp out went to the spare Onkyo to drive the SB-1's directly, eliminating the need for the 8 ohm resistor attenuation. Sound was equal to single amp setup, achieving the same volume at the same main amp setting (with similar results).

Stuffed Box setup:
  • With the above methods working so well, and with the subsonic power already achieved, this last resort solution was not tested.
So there you have it. The Bi-Amp setup really didn't seem to buy me anything, least of all efficiency. In fact, if the main amp was set to the same setting for the same volume, it's arguable that the single amp setup is more efficient even with the 8 ohm resistors wasting music power because the added 16 ohm loads were probably negligable compared to powering an entire extra amplifier.

That leaves the two single-amp solutions. I have more power handling ability and efficiency with the EQ, but that's a component I don't currently own so I'd have to make a purchase. Morover, it adds more complexity and noise to the system, not to mention my stand doesn't have the room to fit another component... Decisions!

At least I've verified that my current size and shape work well, so I can now continue with my finishing work while I mull over my final setup. Any suggestions from y'all out there?
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
gregz said:
That leaves the two single-amp solutions. I have more power handling ability and efficiency with the EQ, but that's a component I don't currently own so I'd have to make a purchase. Morover, it adds more complexity and noise to the system, not to mention my stand doesn't have the room to fit another component... Decisions!

At least I've verified that my current size and shape work well, so I can now continue with my finishing work while I mull over my final setup. Any suggestions from y'all out there?
Of course, a high quality E.Q. does not add noise(s) or distortion(s) that even begin to approach audibility. The DCX I recommend without reserve, can do so much more then you can possibly attempt to simulate using just a crude graphic E.Q.; that I suspect that you really dont know what you are missing out on. I have a graphic E.Q. laying around here somewher(Pioneer GR-777) that is very quiet, and made very well. But it is no comparison to the DCX unit; it would be an unfair comparison. The DCX is SO MUCH MORE.

-Chris

P.S.: I don't sell Behringer gear; though I realize it may seem that way! LOL.
 
gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
I had started polluting the forum with a new thread, but by the pattern I'm seeing, I think I'm supposed to revive my old zombie thread.

So after a 5 year break, work resumes on the Zolasoid II"s!

Decided to keystone the top to give them visual character, as well as help eliminate a tadd bit more diffraction area from the Superones.



Painted the fronts black, and applied 1/4" plywood veneer. Poor man's clamps in service:



Here's the finished veneer, sanded and ready for stain:

 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top