Do these seem wrong?

Options
Flathead38
Flathead38 Posts: 72
in Vintage Speakers
mdbldid0u2u8.jpg
Going to see theses tomorrow. Something seems strange with the drivers overlapping. What do the members think?

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • FestYboy
    FestYboy Posts: 3,861
    Options
    Those are early 5s and that is normal.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • msg
    msg Posts: 9,442
    Options
    Listen to FB.
    He's assumed ownership of nearly every available vintage Polk in the hemisphere.
    I disabled signatures.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FestYboy
    FestYboy Posts: 3,861
    Options
    Life goals.... :D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Flathead38
    Flathead38 Posts: 72
    Options
    Thanks.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 33,042
    Options
    They look wonderful to me...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FestYboy
    FestYboy Posts: 3,861
    Options
    Yeah... I'm wishing they were coming to me... I'm kinda jealous.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 33,042
    Options
    I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Flathead38
    Flathead38 Posts: 72
    Options
    The gentlemans selling them with a Scott 320r receiver. I believe it's a bout 18-20 watts, but he says they sound great together. Looking forward to it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rooftop59
    rooftop59 Posts: 7,976
    Options
    I had a pair of those with the peerless tweets, they sound quite nice me thinks. I used them as near-field desktop monitors (yes, overkill) and really, really enjoyed them. the sound is very natural, the bass is tight and punchy but most of all just has the right texture. The highs are a bit rolled off, but you can listen enjoyably for hours and hours...I would love another pair to rotate in on occasion!
    Living Room 2.2: Usher BE-718 "tiny dancers"; Dual DIY Dayton audio RSS210HF-4 Subs with Dayton SPA-250 amps; Arcam SA30; Musical Fidelity A308; Sony UBP-x1000es; Squeezebox Touch with Bolder Power Supply
    Game Room 5.1.4:     Denon AVR-X4200w; Sony UBP-x700; Definitive Technology Power Monitor 900 mains, CLR-3000 center, StudioMonitor 350 surrounds, ProMonitor 800 atmos x4; Sub - Monoprice Monolith 15in THX Ultra
    Bedroom 2.1    Cambridge Azur 551r; Polk RT25i; ACI Titan Subwoofer
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • delkal
    delkal Posts: 764
    Options
    I am wondering what kind of gasket they use to make the speaker airtight. The thin gaskets I have seen on the other Polk models wouldn't work with the driver overlapping.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • msg
    msg Posts: 9,442
    Options
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.
    Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?
    I disabled signatures.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FestYboy
    FestYboy Posts: 3,861
    Options
    delkal wrote: »
    I am wondering what kind of gasket they use to make the speaker airtight. The thin gaskets I have seen on the other Polk models wouldn't work with the driver overlapping.

    The MW is surface mounted and the passive is recessed and it looks like there would be an air gap, but if you were to remove the MW, you would see plenty of surface area for a proper seal. In that configuration, a simple O-ring on the basket of the MW would be more than addequate.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 33,042
    Options
    msg wrote: »
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.
    Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?

    I like the treble from the Peerless better; otherwise, I don't think there was/is much difference :/
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pkquat
    pkquat Posts: 742
    Options
    msg wrote: »
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.
    Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    msg wrote: »
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.
    Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?

    I like the treble from the Peerless better; otherwise, I don't think there was/is much difference :/

    I have to agree with the peerless sound. There seams to be a better blend or clarity in the midrange as well. IMO The later 5's have better bass extension, but seam a little boomy at frequencies. The cabinet size and PR's are different. I tried a newer PR in an old 5. It worked, but sounded different. Some day I'd like to run some actual tests.

    I've wondered what 5's or 7's would sound like with 6503 drivers vs. the 6502. I think a peerless or knockoff tweeter would be needed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FestYboy
    FestYboy Posts: 3,861
    Options
    @pkquat, I suspect that the driver change would (or should) necessitate a bit of mass added to the PR to accommodate the lower resonance of the 6503.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Options
    I'd imagine adding some mass to the PR would help with either mid-woofer.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Flathead38
    Flathead38 Posts: 72
    Options
    They were in mint shape except for a little white pitting on tweeter from being near the coast, doesn't affect performance in any way. Both the receiver and speakers came with owners manual and original receipts.8ill97q9d24y.jpg
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FestYboy
    FestYboy Posts: 3,861
    Options
    Good deal!!! Totally jelly...

    @la2vegas ... You shut your mouth. :*
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pkquat
    pkquat Posts: 742
    Options
    @Flathead38 I would do a quick check on the PR surrounds for any cracking where it meets the basket. As I recall these do not have any issues, but it is good to check early. The later black basket peerless PR's have cracking issues and either they had a stiffer surround or its due to age. Sorry I didn't mention this sooner. There is a fix as long as they are not torn.

    Is been too long since I new much about speaker spec's and that was mainly for subs, or simple box volume calc., not any of the dynamics. I've thought about the mass change for PRs, but wondered about the differences in suspension between the M5 versions. I think there is more than just mass to the tuning. I also noticed the MW's are much more active on the my M5 series 2 vs the peerless.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter