Polk Monitor 10's vs Monitor 70's (new sale)

mikey-polk

Hi
I have some Monitor 10's (orig 10's I think) and was wondering, would these new Monitor 70's be an upgrade in sound ? I listen to just about all kinds of music beside country...mostly lower volumes. I'd hook these to an Onkyo M-504 I think.
They're having a pretty good sale:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882290016&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3696791&SID=skim1010X497171

HB27

Since you haven't listed Home Theater to your requirements I'd go with Monitor 10s. Upgrade the caps, make sure you have the cabinets sealed and you have some fine music listening ahead.
I like my Monitor 70s for HT and some music but the old M10 freshened up is a good 2 ch speaker. JMHO,
Harry

jrgoswick

WHAT WHAT WHAT???? Redo the XO's in the 10's, spike them and hook THEM up to the 504--2 channel like a mad dog. Use the 70's for HT duty.

wutadumsn23

+1 on keeping the 10's, that's what they were meant to do is for listening to music. They do it very well, I just got a set a few months ago and have yet to do any upgrades to them, but they blow my Monitor 70's out of the water for 2 ch.

-Jeff

cnh

Here's a question I've always had about the Monitor series, in particular, since they do not 'benefit' from the SDA effect. When we compare Vintage gear to current Polk offerings....EXLUDING SDA because no current speaker uses that so it's NOT a fair comparison! Aren't we kind of saying that POLK has made ABSOLUTELY NO PROGRESS IN TWEETER design and has actually gone backwards? Isn't that what we're saying when we claim Monitor 10s are better for two channel than let's say TSI-500s? Should we 'really' believe that a 20+ year old tweeter is better than the current tweeter in the TSI, or RTI series? If that is so...what have Polk engineers been doing the past 20-30 years?

Now, I will give it to you that the Monitor 10s because of the box design and the passive radiator system may give you better lower mids and bigger bass. But better upper mids and treble? Without MODS! Wouldn't that be an embarrassment to Polk! Just sayin!

I know one thing, my M70 tweeters can resolve more detail and less harshly than my original SDA SL-2000s...even though the SDAs can do a lot 'more' things much better!

cnh

wutadumsn23

Don't get me wrong, my 70's held their own in 2 ch. mode hooked up to an amp at the Seattle meet, but as for overall performance, my Peerless 10A's are hands down the better option for 2 ch. IMHO.

-Jeff

cnh

I believe you and others who have talked about the peerless, Jeff. But what has Polk BEEN DOING....it has schematics for the peerless, and it knows what they do and how they work...so why isn't the M70 tweeter 'improved' and better. It's a bit confusing wouldn't you say? Makes it look like no serious R&D is going on!

cnh

wutadumsn23

Yeah, I hear ya C. Not sure why they left the Peerless back in the 80's, but they really are a great tweet. I have to admit that the 70's tweet is the only "weak" part of that speaker, but it is still a great speaker.

-Jeff

comfortablycurt

cnh wrote: »

I believe you and others who have talked about the peerless, Jeff. But what has Polk BEEN DOING....it has schematics for the peerless, and it knows what they do and how they work...so why isn't the M70 tweeter 'improved' and better. It's a bit confusing wouldn't you say? Makes it look like no serious R&D is going on!

cnh

Because the M70's are relatively lower end speakers.

Have you heard any of the LSi's? If not, get your ears on them. Then you'll see how far Polk has come. The new Monitor series is by no means the "equivalent" of the old Monitor series.

IMO, the vintage Polks sound VASTLY superior to the newer Polk's for 2 channel. The LSi's are definitely an exception to this though.

FWIW, I've never been real impressed by the newer Monitor/TSi line. They're decent entry level'ish speakers...but they don't stand up to the RTi/LSi lines, or the vintage Polk's.

From an HT perspective, the RTi tweeters are a huge improvement over the vintage Polk's. None of the older Monitors or SDA's sound nearly as good as the RTi's for HT IMO. In the same grain, none of the vintage Polk tweeters sound as good as the Vifa tweets in the LSi's IMO. The RD0's are some great sounding tweeters though, and in all fairness I've never heard the RD0-198's...but the 194's don't sound as smooth or detailed as the LSi tweets.

So, it's not as if Polk hasn't improved their tweeters at all in 30+ years. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the original SDA's and Monitors didn't come with the RD0 tweeters. IIRC, the RD0 tweeters weren't even available until the mid-late 1990's or so. They haven't really been around for that long.

As I mentioned before though, the vintage Monitors were of a much "higher end caliber" than the newer Monitors are. It's not as if the newer Monitors are direct descendants of the older ones. They're entirely different speakers that have nothing in common.


In my opinion, the Peerless tweeters are the best sounding of the vintage Polk tweeters. I think the Peerless tweets in my 7A's sound better than the 194's in my SDA's. I can't wait until I've got a pair of LSi9's here...I think my Peerless 7A's vs. the LSi9's would make for a great comparison. They have a somewhat similar laid back, detailed overall tone.


Definitely an interesting question though.

cnh

I understand what you are saying Curt. But I have to disagree some. The original Monitor series WAS POLK'S entry level series. SO YES the new Monitor/TSI series DOES stand in relation to the LSIs as the SDAs did to the old Monitors.

I've heard the LSIs and I agree...but that's high end; original Monitors WERE NOT. Polk's claim to fame was 'affordability' = good sound? The Polk Mantra! So there is really NO excuse for entry level Polks to not have 'better' tweeters than entry Vintage? Especially in the flagships (TSI-500s and higher Rti models).

I DO like the Vifa tweeter quite a lot. It's one of my 'favorite' bookshelf tweets! Smooth and musical. But let's look at a company like Dynaudio, you can buy a pair of Dynaudio bookshelves for just a bit 'more' than Polks and they have a superior tweeter in their 1000 and under a pair bookshelves? How's that? So we can't put an equivalent tweeter in the TSI-500s and charge 999 a pair for them? HUH????

There are some really nice tweeters out there in LOWER end models, and they're NOT particularly expensive: Dali, Dynaudio, KEF, and so on.

cnh

comfortablycurt

The earlier Monitor's weren't necessarily Polk's most "entry level" models. There were other speakers that were lower down the chain. The S series(S6, S8, S10 etc.) and the VSX series HT speakers just to name a couple. No, those weren't around back in the 70's when the earliest Monitor's were around...but they were around in the mid-late 80's.

For that matter though, the newer Monitor's aren't their most entry level line either. There are also the R and M series speakers that no one ever really talks about on here.

Aside from their rough placement in the product line up though...the new Monitor's and old Monitor's have absolutely nothing in common with one another. It's not as if the new Monitor's are a direct descendant of the old ones.

But, I will add that I still think the older Monitor's were built to a higher standard. The MSRP's can be a testament to that fact. In 1990, the MSRP of a pair of Monitor 7 Series II's was about $580, and a pair of Monitor 10 Series II's was about $750. Compare that to the modern day MSRP of a pair of Monitor 60's at about $650, and a pair of Monitor 70's at about $920. Given inflation and all that over that last 20 years, the Monitors from 1990 were probably actually a bit more expensive than the newer Monitor's. They're still in a fairly similar middle of the road kind of class...but the older Monitor's were built more with 2 channel in mind, since that was their main usage at the time. The newer Monitor's were built with that god-awful entity known as HT in mind, more than 2 channel music. That's one of the biggest reasons that many people prefer the older Polk's for 2 channel...because that's what they were designed for. 2 channel speakers will also generally be great HT speakers, but speakers meant for HT won't necessarily make good 2 channel speakers.


Really though, is there anything wrong with the TSi/Monitor tweeters? No, they don't sound as good as higher end speakers...but you get what you pay for.

The Dynaudio's you're referring to are bookshelves...bookshelf speakers cost substantially less to produce than floorstanders, simply because there are fewer drivers and a much smaller cabinet, along with much simpler XO's.

Point is...the Monitor/TSi series speakers aren't serious audiophile quality 2 channel speakers. They simply aren't. If you want better sound...you've gotta move up the chain.

I'm sure Polk could put nicer tweeters in them...but it would up the price tag considerably in the process, and take away from the affordability of that particular line.

I'd love to see Polk gear more towards 2 channel again...but obviously that isn't really that big market place for audio equipment these days. The ONLY newer Polk's that are good for serious 2 channel listening are the LSi's...IMO. I've listened to newer Monitor/TSi's and RTi's in 2 channel...and they've both left me wanting. LSi's are beautiful sounding 2 channel speakers though.

cnh

Say Curt,

This is a bit off topic but since you've heard the RDO-194 (have them in your SDAs and I have original SL-2000s) what do you think of them compared to TSI and RTI tweets!

I ask because my Monitor 70s most definitely sound a little better (the 'cascade' crossover in them ALSO helps with that) than SL-2000s (at least to me and neither tweeter is as good as my mid-80s JBL Titanium domes). I know the RDOs are an improvement but are they any better than current Polk silk-domes....apologies for breaking this threads continuity some!

Thanks...

cnh