The Tale Of 3 Tweeters

1356

Comments

  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 49,708
    Ok, but you are wrong.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • xschop
    xschop Posts: 4,636
    Whether frame or dome, some of the 194s have resonance issue/s. Confirmed by other member complaints/feedback as well. The 10B crossover was recapped as well as the CRS+ crossover.
    Don't take experimental gene therapies from known eugenicists.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,658
    "So saying anything at all that might actually get through to the OP that he does not have TL speakers even though he is using the wrong tweets, no matter how thick headed the individual might be, is off limits and he should be allowed to live with his delusion, and to try and convince others here that he is correct in his false belief?"

    No, that's not what I said. This forum requires participants to act in a civil manner to other members. You can't call them "fools" or "morons" either directly or in quotes from other people. If you do the post will be either edited or removed. If someone posts something that you don't agree with, fine state your disagreement in a reasonable manner. If they choose to disregard your sage wisdom or temper it with their particular experience, fine let it go. In the big scheme of things having the right or wrong tweeter (according to you) in a pair of +25 year old speakers isn't much of a crime.
    I can tell you from direct experience neither Matt Polk nor Stu Lumsden would want uncharitable treatment of anyone concerning their designs.
  • Viking64
    Viking64 Posts: 6,646
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    Fair enough, but the "fool" part was meant as constructive criticism.

    gqxj7zljkq1a.png
  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 49,708
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    F1nut wrote: »
    Ok, but you are wrong.

    You should be BANNED!

    You'll be gone LONG before I am.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • DarqueKnight
    DarqueKnight Posts: 6,760
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    So you are saying that Polk was wrong for labeling the RTA 8 with the SL2500 TriLaminate tweeter a TL?

    Polk wasn't "wrong" for labeling the RTA 8TL, as a Tri-Laminate speaker. But the labeling choice is curious considering that the other speakers with the "TL" designation use the SL3000 tweeter: SDA SRS 1.2TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, SDA SRS 3.1TL, RTA 11TL, RTA15TL. There is also the official "TL" modification for the 1989 version SDA CRS+ which specified the SL3000 tweeter, along with the addition of a 5.8 uF capacitor. Note that Polk didn't just pop in an SL3000 into the CRS+ and call it a TL speaker. The Polk schematic for the CRS+ TL modification can be found here:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/5021930/uploads/attachments/1/8/5/1/1/26710.pdf

    It is interesting to note that speakers in the Monitor Series II line, which also used the SL2500 tweeter, were not designated as "TL" models. This would lead one to think that there is more to a "TL" designated speaker than just the addition of a Tri-Laminate tweeter. There must have been something special about the RTA 8TL's crossover and SL2500 tweeter combination that warranted the "TL" designation. It would be great if @KennethSwauger would ask Stu Lumsden why the RTA 8TL carried the "TL" designation, although it did not use the SL3000 tweeter.

    I am guessing that Polk originally planned to modify the RTA 8T to use the SL3000, but couldn't make it work. They were probably able to modify the RTA 8T's crossover enough to get it close to the theoretical level it would have had with the SL3000, hence the "TL" designation.

    Before we get carried away with the prestige of Tri-Laminate techology, we should note that, in strict technical terms, Polk could have named any of their speakers with a "TL" designation because all Polk speakers used drivers that used Tri-Laminate techonology:

    smm8dxc8rbv8.jpg
    Figure 1. Description of 6-1/2" Trilaminate driver from 1990 brochure on the SDA SRS TL series.

    dd4x1pydl1lt.jpg
    Figure 2. Description of 6-1/2" Trilaminate driver from 1987 comprehensive brochure on Polk speakers.

    The capture below from the 1990 SDA SRS TL series brochure makes it clear that the "TL" designation refers to the SL3000 Tri-Laminate tweeter that was, at the time, exclusive to the 1989-1990 vintage SDA SRS series:

    bmed4kwjv7pp.jpg
    Figure 3. Explanation of "TL" designation from 1990 SDA SRS series brochure.

    Here is a link to the entire 1990 SDA SRS TL series brochure:

    https://polksda.com/pdfs/SRSTLBrochure1990.pdf

    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    TL tweeters make TL speakers!

    No. TL Tweeters do not make TL speakers any more than a Ferrari engine makes a Corvette a Ferrari. You have to consider the total system in which a component is used.
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    That's exactly what you are doing when you use run-of-the-mill SEAS/RDO textile dome tweeters, and pretend that you have TL-modified speakers, let alone pretend that they are an upgrade of the actual TriLaminate models!

    Now you are impugning the honesty and integrity of Polk's engineering department by implying that they were lying when they said the RD0 series tweeters are upgrades from the SL series tweeters. While some people have expressed a preference for the original SL tweeters, most, myself included, much prefer the sound performance of the RD0 tweeters.



    Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
  • mlistens03
    mlistens03 Posts: 2,767
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    So you are saying that Polk was wrong for labeling the RTA 8 with the SL2500 TriLaminate tweeter a TL?

    Polk wasn't "wrong" for labeling the RTA 8TL, as a Tri-Laminate speaker. But the labeling choice is curious considering that the other speakers with the "TL" designation use the SL3000 tweeter: SDA SRS 1.2TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, SDA SRS 3.1TL, RTA 11TL, RTA15TL. There is also the official "TL" modification for the 1989 version SDA CRS+ which specified the SL3000 tweeter, along with the addition of a 5.8 uF capacitor. Note that Polk didn't just pop in an SL3000 into the CRS+ and call it a TL speaker. The Polk schematic for the CRS+ TL modification can be found here:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/5021930/uploads/attachments/1/8/5/1/1/26710.pdf

    It is interesting to note that speakers in the Monitor Series II line, which also used the SL2500 tweeter, were not designated as "TL" models. This would lead one to think that there is more to a "TL" designated speaker than just the addition of a Tri-Laminate tweeter. There must have been something special about the RTA 8TL's crossover and SL2500 tweeter combination that warranted the "TL" designation. It would be great if @KennethSwauger would ask Stu Lumsden why the RTA 8TL carried the "TL" designation, although it did not use the SL3000 tweeter.

    I am guessing that Polk originally planned to modify the RTA 8T to use the SL3000, but couldn't make it work. They were probably able to modify the RTA 8T's crossover enough to get it close to the theoretical level it would have had with the SL3000, hence the "TL" designation.

    Before we get carried away with the prestige of Tri-Laminate techology, we should note that, in strict technical terms, Polk could have named any of their speakers with a "TL" designation because all Polk speakers used drivers that used Tri-Laminate techonology:

    smm8dxc8rbv8.jpg
    Figure 1. Description of 6-1/2" Trilaminate driver from 1990 brochure on the SDA SRS TL series.

    dd4x1pydl1lt.jpg
    Figure 2. Description of 6-1/2" Trilaminate driver from 1987 comprehensive brochure on Polk speakers.

    The capture below from the 1990 SDA SRS TL series brochure makes it clear that the "TL" designation refers to the SL3000 Tri-Laminate tweeter that was, at the time, exclusive to the 1989-1990 vintage SDA SRS series:

    bmed4kwjv7pp.jpg
    Figure 3. Explanation of "TL" designation from 1990 SDA SRS series brochure.

    Here is a link to the entire 1990 SDA SRS TL series brochure:

    https://polksda.com/pdfs/SRSTLBrochure1990.pdf

    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    TL tweeters make TL speakers!

    No. TL Tweeters do not make TL speakers any more than a Ferrari engine makes a Corvette a Ferrari. You have to consider the total system in which a component is used.
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    That's exactly what you are doing when you use run-of-the-mill SEAS/RDO textile dome tweeters, and pretend that you have TL-modified speakers, let alone pretend that they are an upgrade of the actual TriLaminate models!

    Now you are impugning the honesty and integrity of Polk's engineering department by implying that they were lying when they said the RD0 series tweeters are upgrades from the SL series tweeters. While some people have expressed a preference for the original SL tweeters, most, myself included, much prefer the sound performance of the RD0 tweeters.



    I thought I was reading a Doc Hardy post :lol:
  • lightman1
    lightman1 Posts: 10,776
    mlistens03 wrote: »
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    So you are saying that Polk was wrong for labeling the RTA 8 with the SL2500 TriLaminate tweeter a TL?

    Polk wasn't "wrong" for labeling the RTA 8TL, as a Tri-Laminate speaker. But the labeling choice is curious considering that the other speakers with the "TL" designation use the SL3000 tweeter: SDA SRS 1.2TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, SDA SRS 3.1TL, RTA 11TL, RTA15TL. There is also the official "TL" modification for the 1989 version SDA CRS+ which specified the SL3000 tweeter, along with the addition of a 5.8 uF capacitor. Note that Polk didn't just pop in an SL3000 into the CRS+ and call it a TL speaker. The Polk schematic for the CRS+ TL modification can be found here:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/5021930/uploads/attachments/1/8/5/1/1/26710.pdf

    It is interesting to note that speakers in the Monitor Series II line, which also used the SL2500 tweeter, were not designated as "TL" models. This would lead one to think that there is more to a "TL" designated speaker than just the addition of a Tri-Laminate tweeter. There must have been something special about the RTA 8TL's crossover and SL2500 tweeter combination that warranted the "TL" designation. It would be great if @KennethSwauger would ask Stu Lumsden why the RTA 8TL carried the "TL" designation, although it did not use the SL3000 tweeter.

    I am guessing that Polk originally planned to modify the RTA 8T to use the SL3000, but couldn't make it work. They were probably able to modify the RTA 8T's crossover enough to get it close to the theoretical level it would have had with the SL3000, hence the "TL" designation.

    Before we get carried away with the prestige of Tri-Laminate techology, we should note that, in strict technical terms, Polk could have named any of their speakers with a "TL" designation because all Polk speakers used drivers that used Tri-Laminate techonology:

    smm8dxc8rbv8.jpg
    Figure 1. Description of 6-1/2" Trilaminate driver from 1990 brochure on the SDA SRS TL series.

    dd4x1pydl1lt.jpg
    Figure 2. Description of 6-1/2" Trilaminate driver from 1987 comprehensive brochure on Polk speakers.

    The capture below from the 1990 SDA SRS TL series brochure makes it clear that the "TL" designation refers to the SL3000 Tri-Laminate tweeter that was, at the time, exclusive to the 1989-1990 vintage SDA SRS series:

    bmed4kwjv7pp.jpg
    Figure 3. Explanation of "TL" designation from 1990 SDA SRS series brochure.

    Here is a link to the entire 1990 SDA SRS TL series brochure:

    https://polksda.com/pdfs/SRSTLBrochure1990.pdf

    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    TL tweeters make TL speakers!

    No. TL Tweeters do not make TL speakers any more than a Ferrari engine makes a Corvette a Ferrari. You have to consider the total system in which a component is used.
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    That's exactly what you are doing when you use run-of-the-mill SEAS/RDO textile dome tweeters, and pretend that you have TL-modified speakers, let alone pretend that they are an upgrade of the actual TriLaminate models!

    Now you are impugning the honesty and integrity of Polk's engineering department by implying that they were lying when they said the RD0 series tweeters are upgrades from the SL series tweeters. While some people have expressed a preference for the original SL tweeters, most, myself included, much prefer the sound performance of the RD0 tweeters.



    I thought I was reading a Doc Hardy post :lol:

    They can run neck and neck on extended verbage posting...
  • txcoastal1
    txcoastal1 Posts: 13,124
    But they speak from experience ;)
    2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
    Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
    Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
    Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC

    erat interfectorem cesar et **** dictatorem dicere a
  • Toolfan66
    Toolfan66 Posts: 16,834
    edited July 2018
    I have been banned for less than calling someone a fool, and a moron, you should consider yourself lucky you are still here now. I think Ken is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are here for the right reasons. Everyone here is doing nothing but trying to help you understand the facts of the TL process...

    Ken, I think we have reached 30 year old speakers!! B)

    Edit: you did post +25 year old speakers.. LOL!!
  • txcoastal1
    txcoastal1 Posts: 13,124
    Soundmann1 are you a Whoopie Goldberg fan?
    2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
    Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
    Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
    Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC

    erat interfectorem cesar et **** dictatorem dicere a
  • nooshinjohn
    nooshinjohn Posts: 25,034
    F1nut wrote: »
    SoundMann1 wrote: »
    F1nut wrote: »
    Ok, but you are wrong.

    You should be BANNED!

    You'll be gone LONG before I am.

    Already circling the drain here. I put him on ignore.
    The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD

    “When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson
  • nooshinjohn
    nooshinjohn Posts: 25,034
    edited July 2018
    If they choose to disregard your sage wisdom or temper it with their particular experience, fine let it go. In the big scheme of things having the right or wrong tweeter (according to you)in a pair of +25 year old speakers isn't much of a crime.
    I can tell you from direct experience neither Matt Polk nor Stu Lumsden would want uncharitable treatment of anyone concerning their designs.

    I also tend to think they would want a Polk employee, (such as yourself) to step in and offer the OP the correct information, even if they are a 25 year old speaker. Nobody here wants to give the OP a hard time, but it would be really nice to have Polk’s representive to the forum step in and support the members in cases like this rather than look the other way while bad information is being spread.

    That’s just my two cents.
    The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD

    “When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,658
    Fair enough, I'll ask Stu about the "TL" designation. He may be awhile before he answers.
  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 49,708
    xschop wrote: »
    Whether frame or dome, some of the 194s have resonance issue/s. Confirmed by other member complaints/feedback as well. The 10B crossover was recapped as well as the CRS+ crossover.

    The resonance reported by some was an issue isolated to a certain batch of RD0194 tweeters. That issue is far different than the alleged ringing heard by only one individual.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • Toolfan66
    Toolfan66 Posts: 16,834
    Tale of tweaker 2

    ajvsotx0wl2m.jpeg
  • Toolfan66
    Toolfan66 Posts: 16,834
    Tale of tweaker 1

    7whnlxgplalr.jpeg
  • Viking64
    Viking64 Posts: 6,646
    Before we get carried away with the prestige of Tri-Laminate techology, we should note that, in strict technical terms, Polk could have named any of their speakers with a "TL" designation because all Polk speakers used drivers that used Tri-Laminate techonology:
    I've brought this point up before regarding the information in the TL brochure saying that the drivers were also tri-laminate and I was told that it was a marketing error or something like that. And that it was only the tweeters that were tri-laminate.

    Stu Lumsden just posted in another thread, so maybe he can clear this up. :)
  • Toolfan66
    Toolfan66 Posts: 16,834
    Viking64 wrote: »
    Before we get carried away with the prestige of Tri-Laminate techology, we should note that, in strict technical terms, Polk could have named any of their speakers with a "TL" designation because all Polk speakers used drivers that used Tri-Laminate techonology:


    Stu Lumsden just posted in another thread, so maybe he can clear this up. :)

    Where is this thread??
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,658
    Here's my Q&A with Stu:
    Q: The question has come up on the forum has been raised, "what makes a TL speaker?" Is it called that because it has a trilaminate tweeter or more an overall TL design encompassing a TL tweeter and a TL specific crossover?

    In other words, if I take an older Monitor speaker and replace the stock tweeter with a TL tweeter (because I like the sound of the TL tweeter more than the stock) and not change the crossover can I now call it a TL speaker?

    A:Well, yes you can replace the tweeter and call it a TL but the best thing to do would be to slightly modify the crossover to fit the tweeter to whatever speaker you are updating – assuming that there is no spec for that change.

    I hope this is helpful.
  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 49,708
    Key words,
    the best thing to do would be to slightly modify the crossover to fit the tweeter to whatever speaker you are updating
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

This discussion has been closed.