Building a pair of Polk Monitor 10's

2456712

Comments

  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    Yes, I don't know what imaging means. That certainly doesn't mean I'm tone deaf. I didn't realize this forum was for only the most discriminating audio geeks. I'm ignorant of the terms and experience of listening to 1000's of speakers. Just trying to share my project and maybe learn something from people that know far more than most need to know about speakers.
    Will I am
  • NightfallNightfall Posts: 6,948
    Nobody called you tone deaf.
    | Front - Dynaudio Emit M20 | Center - N/A | Rear - Polk Monitor 4 | Sub - N/A |
    | AVR - Yamaha Aventage RX-A1020 | Preamp - Dared MC-7P | Amp - B&K Reference 4420 |
    | Turntable - Yamaha PX-3 | Cartridge - Dynavector DV-20X2H | Digital Source - AURALiC Aries Mini |
    | TV - LG 60" 4K | Gaming - Xbox One - PS3 - New 3DS XL - Nvidia Shield TV |

    This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality
    Embrace this moment, remember, we are eternal
    All this pain is an illusion
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    Now I know what Imagine means. Thanks.
    Will I am
  • dromundsdromunds Posts: 6,110
    Nightfall has a pair of Monitor 12's on the for sale forum that are an absolute steal, and I seem to remember he had already done a bunch of upgrades. Don't know where you're located but if anywhere near it may be worth considering.
  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    We have a pair of those "smallish" 5j+ speakers.
    I really like the sound of those, with just one woofer. Plus they look nice!

    But we also have some small Rti speakers that are nice in other ways..........

    ........and we have some Lsi speakers that kinda best all of the above in even other ways..........lol
    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    willwilly wrote: »
    Now I know what Imagine means. Thanks.

    Imagine or Imaging? :)
    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • Toolfan66Toolfan66 Posts: 13,326
    Plywood is a horrible choice... :#
    Death Grip...
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,459
    Monitor 10's are at the bottom of the original Monitor line. Side by side woofs cause smearing of the soundstage and just plain don't image as well as the other monitors.

    Monitor 7's are the "sweet spot" of the line with the Monitor 5's not being far behind. Monitors 10's were the better speaker to "rock out" with since they had more thump and played louder than the 5's or 7's, but as far as presenting an encompassing, coherent presentation, the 5's and 7's beat the 10's pretty handily.

    What you are building is NOT a Polk speaker at all. You are making a hodge podge DIY speaker. Also as has been mentioned, the x-over you bought, are for the M10's with the peerless tweeter, you can tell because it has (2) resistors in the tweeter circuit. That won't work with the sl2000 or the RD0 replacements.

    Dump the sl2000 for something different. It's a wretched tweeter and even worse now that it's 20+ years old.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,459
    rmpolk wrote: »
    So with that said the mont.10's series shouldn't be considered as recommended purchase?

    There are better choices, but the 10's overall are very nice. I guess it depends on what you're looking for. We note the differences because we've all owned/compared them, but the differences are subtle. So they aren't poor speakers, just don't have all the same "magic" the other Monitors seem to possess.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DSkipDSkip Posts: 13,537
    edited March 2016
    Will, I apologize if I ruffled your feathers. I've been trying to voice my concerns as well as make suggestions when I voiced them. Wood is often a poor choice for speaker design because of its resonance. This is why most use a veneer on top. It gives the appearance of wood while also allowing use of better material for the performance of the speaker.

    I was disappointed because you started buying components to do this without any consultation so it made it harder to make any suggestions. I've been pleased with your openness to suggestions though and am starting to garner more interest again.

    As far as the cabinet material goes, I can even hear major differences in changing the plinth that my speaker sits on. Softer wood gives a softer sound, while harder wood and materials give it an edgier sound. That is just the plinth - you are looking at the cabinet, a much more critical component.

    In the end, we all play at different levels and what is important to us may not be important to you. It's all good and I wish you the best. We are just trying to throw considerations out there to help you get the best results.
    audiothesis.com/

    Speakers: Usher: CP-6311, Be-10, T-515; Rosso Fiorentino: Elba, Fiesole, Volterra; Polk: T50, Signature S60, S55, S35, S30, S20, S15, RTA 15tl, Sonner Audio Allegro Unum, iFi LS3.5
    Preamps: Shuguang S200MK, Dayens Ampino, Parasound P5
    Amps: Shuguang S845MK, Dayens Ampino Monoblocks, Parasound A23
    Integrateds: Dayens Ampino, Triode Corporation TRV-88SER, MastersounD: Dueventi, Compact 845, Evolution 845; North Star Design Blue Diamond
    Sources: AURALiC Aries, AURALiC Altair, Denon HEOS Link, North Star Design: Magnifico, Supremo, Incanto, Intenso, Venti
    Cabling: Wireworld
    TV: Sony XBR-75X940C
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    heiney9 wrote: »

    What you are building is NOT a Polk speaker at all. You are making a hodge podge DIY speaker. Also as has been mentioned, the x-over you bought, are for the M10's with the peerless tweeter, you can tell because it has (2) resistors in the tweeter circuit. That won't work with the sl2000 or the RD0 replacements.

    Dump the sl2000 for something different. It's a wretched tweeter and even worse now that it's 20+ years old.

    H9


    Hodge Podge? I'm not sure if that is a fair assessment.

    The crossover schematic I posted is what I will be following with the aforementioned Sonicap capacitors and Mills resistors, keeping the existing inductors. All I will be using from the original is the inductors and the circuit board.

    Tweeters are RD0-194's (New) As I understand it, these will work with the posted schematic. If not, please let me know what I will need to change on the crossover.

    Polk 10" PR's

    Drivers are MW6503's (vintage)

    The cabinet will be identical dimensions but will be made of solid wood rather than particle board.







    Will I am
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,459
    edited March 2016
    Ok, I guess I was more or less commenting on your earlier posts about using Dayton drivers, using the older M10 x-overs and statements about Parts Express "designing" a new (better in your words) cross-over.

    I apologize if I missed where you were going to build an exact replica.

    If you get the baffle dimensions correct and use mdf and all original drivers and cross-over's you should get it real close.

    Just curious what your total cost is so far?

    H9

    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    DSkip wrote: »
    Will, I apologize if I ruffled your feathers. I've been trying to voice my concerns as well as make suggestions when I voiced them. Wood is often a poor choice for speaker design because of its resonance. This is why most use a veneer on top. It gives the appearance of wood while also allowing use of better material for the performance of the speaker.

    No feathers ruffled, we're just not speaking the same language metaphorically. But I'm starting to see the light. I can accept that the resonance of the material is important. What I'm trying to discern is how important. Also trying to quantify the effects of different materials.

    All the comments I'm hearing are subjective, "bad" , "smearing of sound stage" and "poor imaging". I have a feel of what those terms mean now thanks to the links, but few talk in quantitative terms. How bad? How much smearing, how poor?

    There is certainly a lot of passion here but little flexibility in the potential for different tastes. Of course I'm way out of my league because I can't speak intelligently of what I like!


    So:

    Subjectively MDF certainly does have a softer density than real wood, as well as the low density particle board from the originals.

    I'm not a fan of MDF from a wood working point of view but obviously I need to correct that when talking about speaker cabinet construction.

    Veneered MDF is an option that would satisfy my need for a furniture quality look but keep the performance of the speaker somewhat predictable.


    Will I am
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,459
    edited March 2016
    willwilly wrote: »

    All the comments I'm hearing are subjective, "bad" , "smearing of sound stage" and "poor imaging". I have a feel of what those terms mean now thanks to the links, but few talk in quantitative terms. How bad? How much smearing, how poor?

    There is certainly a lot of passion here but little flexibility in the potential for different tastes. Of course I'm way out of my league because I can't speak intelligently of what I like!

    It's compared to the other Monitor speakers. If you think about what other speakers (good speakers) so you see any with side by side woofers other than SDA's, which are a completely different animal? Not many if any. Lobing is the issue, point source issues, tweeter continuity, etc.

    The 5's and 7's in the same line perform better as far as image placement, instrument timbre, vocals, etc. because they don't suffer the same effects side by side woofers can cause.

    In the grand scheme, it's subtle and may not even be noticeable until you listen to a similar speaker that doesn't exhibit these characteristics. Are your speakers going to be unlistenable? Certainly not, they just won't exhibit the same amount of openness and timbre and vocal quality and imaging as the 7's or the 5's. or other non side by side woofer type of speaker.

    H9

    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • dromundsdromunds Posts: 6,110
    Misspoke earlier, Nightfall has RTA-12B's for sale. Brain faart.
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185

    It's compared to the other Monitor speakers. If you think about what other speakers (good speakers) so you see any with side by side woofers other than SDA's, which are a completely different animal? Not many if any. Lobing is the issue, point source issues, tweeter continuity, etc.

    The 5's and 7's in the same line perform better as far as image placement, instrument timbre, vocals, etc. because they don't suffer the same effects side by side woofers can cause.

    In the grand scheme, it's subtle and may not even be noticeable until you listen to a similar speaker that doesn't exhibit these characteristics. Are your speakers going to be unlistenable? Certainly not, they just won't exhibit the same amount of openness and timbre and vocal quality and imaging as the 7's or the 5's. or other non side by side woofer type of speaker.

    H9

    [/quote]

    Now that helps. Thank you for taking the time to put it so eloquently and easy to understand. I do love my 5's and 4 rears and... Guess I'll get to make a good comparison of single mids to doubles.

    Cost so far:

    Drivers: Polk MW6503's $100 used
    PR: Polk 10" $35 used
    Tweeters: RD0-194's new $100
    Crossovers used: $35

    Crossover components: $235 Ouch!

    Cabinets: Nothing, I might buy a sheet of MDF if I go that way but all the cabinet material is material from other non-speaker related.

    So that puts me at $560. I did say money wasn't the motivating factor here. I could just as easily bought a pair and been done but what is the fun of that.

    My return is in the journey and the knowledge gained...




    Will I am
  • DSkipDSkip Posts: 13,537
    That's a great attitude. You've impressed me bud. Most come on here and chastise us due to a closed mind and an abundance of ignorance. You have sought out the knowledge and seem to be learning along the way. Cheers to you and keep it up! I hope you become a long time member of this community. There is none like it and we need more guys like yourself.
    audiothesis.com/

    Speakers: Usher: CP-6311, Be-10, T-515; Rosso Fiorentino: Elba, Fiesole, Volterra; Polk: T50, Signature S60, S55, S35, S30, S20, S15, RTA 15tl, Sonner Audio Allegro Unum, iFi LS3.5
    Preamps: Shuguang S200MK, Dayens Ampino, Parasound P5
    Amps: Shuguang S845MK, Dayens Ampino Monoblocks, Parasound A23
    Integrateds: Dayens Ampino, Triode Corporation TRV-88SER, MastersounD: Dueventi, Compact 845, Evolution 845; North Star Design Blue Diamond
    Sources: AURALiC Aries, AURALiC Altair, Denon HEOS Link, North Star Design: Magnifico, Supremo, Incanto, Intenso, Venti
    Cabling: Wireworld
    TV: Sony XBR-75X940C
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    rmpolk,

    I am diving head first into the ways of loud speakers. Extremely good point!

    At this point, being cost effective has been thrown out the window. I am comfortable that my 10's will cost far more than others but that's not the goal.

    I'm paying not only for the materials, I'm building the cabinets, doing the electrical update of the crossover and most importantly, getting a crash course in the polk way of making speakers. People should consider themselves lucky to have access to such an informative forum and a manufacturer that promotes the love of their blast's from the past by taking advantage of the audio grease monkey market.

    So in just a few days I understand imaging, the term soundstage and now I'm trying to get my head around lobing. Quite the interesting phenomenon. I can now see why everyone piled on when I said I wanted to make a pair of 10's rather than 7's or even fives. I haven't given up on the 10's yet and now I'm investigating what can be done to reduce the effect of lobing but still keep the component layout the same.

    I'm not anywhere near completely understanding lobing and I don't think most do from what I read but I have followed the links some have suggested.

    It was mentioned M12's handle this in the electronics. Once I understand the issue a bit more I think I will investigate how 12's work and see if it will apply to 10's. Still staying in the Polk genre.
    Will I am
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    So lobing, this is what I found that helped me the most. A lot of information on what it is, not much dedicated to the solution. Though setting your 10's on their sides apparently reduces the effect, at least horizontally.

    http://www.kvart-bolge.com/#!Acoustic-Lobing-Explained/c1rr6/55a407120cf25466c29f49b3


    Will I am
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,459
    edited March 2016
    RTA 12 handle it in the x-over as they are a true "time aligned" speaker.

    I am not aware that Monitor 12's (completely different speaker than the RTA 12), which are fairly rare, took care of the issues in the crossover. In fact the Monitor 12's don't get much favor around here for the same reasons and I would guess (as it's been a long time since I've listened to a pair) they have the same issues, perhaps even more exaggerated, IIRC.

    The Monitor 12 was short lived.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    edited March 2016
    So what about playing with the component configuration. Here are some options I came up with. I could be creating a whole list of other issues that would result in some undesirable effects but lobing is a tricky problem.

    I didn't consider this but it is obvious now, the center channel for most theater systems is a side by side configuration. they try to minimize by slightly curving the front face, i.e. pointing the center drivers slightly out.

    gqwlwjdhx4tu.jpg

    Will I am
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    edited March 2016
    c7tcgora1unw.jpg
    Or better yet how about Polk 7-10's or Super 7's! Now this is interesting. What are your thoughts. Go ahead, let'r rip...
    Will I am
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,459
    edited March 2016
    No to all of it. There is solid science involved in speaker design. I suggest you study it, if you really want to be a diy speaker maker. Or copy someone else's design.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 23,459
    HT center channels play a limited output and limited frequencies. Don't confuse HT with 2 channel. Two different ideas and implementation.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • notifiednotified Posts: 175
    I seem to recall reading somewhere that although its much cheaper in material cost to make a speaker with a passive radiator it is however much more difficult in design to properly tune the box for its best performance
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    heiney9 wrote: »
    HT center channels play a limited output and limited frequencies. Don't confuse HT with 2 channel. Two different ideas and implementation.

    H9

    Wasn't making a comparison, just discussing the mechanism of lobing and how it effects all
    Systems...
    Will I am
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    Solid science.eh? So something more than, No, that won't work, copy somebody else. I ll lok into it...
    Will I am
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    notified wrote: »
    I seem to recall reading somewhere that although its much cheaper in material cost to make a speaker with a passive radiator it is however much more difficult in design to properly tune the box for its best performance

    I can imagine the difficulty in coming up with a unique design, the R&D, the real world application... I'll have to see if there is some virtual simulation software to get close because from an aesthetic point of view, but I'm learning aesthetics are way down the list of considerations when making a good speaker.
    I also think I'm getting further and further away from the "find it on the internet" realm.

    Will I am
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    Wow, Quite the selection speaker box design software available. I think I should stay with what Polk designed and lobing be damn ed unless someone wants to run my super 7 design through their software.
    Will I am
  • willwillywillwilly Posts: 185
    So why speaker Rings?
    Will I am
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!