Will polk ever bring out high end speakers
Comments
-
no attack at all dorokusi. just glad to see the moderation is across the board equally thats all. those arrays spawned my thoughts of a freq specific array. say 10 speakers with 2khrtz coverage each. though the idea was sort of shot down or sent back to the drawing board i still have the curiosity for the design. i think at close range it woukld be muddled but i also think for larger distances. say 150 yards. the concept hold merit
-
I'll inquire about some of the specifics of those....give me a week or so. They may not tell me anything, so....CTC BBQ Amplifier, Sonic Frontiers Line3 Pre-Amplifier and Wadia 581 SACD player. Speakers? Always changing but for now, Mission Argonauts I picked up for $50 bucks, mint.
-
ya -- those are the ones I remembered !!!!!! I'll take a pair please !!!
Thanks for posting the pic -
i have to agree with your rebuttle curt. it seems rather clear to me the sda line was designed before the digitaly processed sound. sort of makes the crossover config moot if the receiver is already changing and delaying parts of the sound source.
in fact in the early 90's matsushita (panasonic/canon) had a biamped bookshelf system. it had two sets of tweeters per speak. the lower tweeter had a delay and echo function controlled in the processor and adjustable to the user. it would seem to me this was their version of the sda but the tech was in the processor not the speak. i think it was more tunable given the ability to adjust the second tweet but it was also rather limited due to the fact the speakers really only sounded right connected to that processor. -
Yeah that makes nosense,It's either accurate or it's not.
Blu -ray is most certainly hi rez.
Blu-ray video is hi rez, Blu-ray audio is not as compared to SACD or DVD-A.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 -
i have to agree with your rebuttle curt. it seems rather clear to me the sda line was designed before the digitaly processed sound. sort of makes the crossover config moot if the receiver is already changing and delaying parts of the sound source.
in fact in the early 90's matsushita (panasonic/canon) had a biamped bookshelf system. it had two sets of tweeters per speak. the lower tweeter had a delay and echo function controlled in the processor and adjustable to the user. it would seem to me this was their version of the sda but the tech was in the processor not the speak. i think it was more tunable given the ability to adjust the second tweet but it was also rather limited due to the fact the speakers really only sounded right connected to that processor.
You are way off base. The first part of your comment is it's obvious in the 1980's there were no electronic devices that could actively do what Polk accomplished passively. One device did tend to mimmick and that was the Carver Sonic Holography unit. It's not near as natural and convincing as the passive SDA's, IMO. No receiver today or back then did anything close to SDA, so I'm not sure I get what your saying there. Surround sound was/is NOT SDA. Plus SDA's don't delay or increase any of the signal, it attempts to corrrect the delay already inherent in regular stereo speakers. SDA is closer to how we hear in reality than stereo is.
Fast forward to the mid 90's Polk released the SRT speaker system that used a controller for bass management and had DSP algorithms to augment the passive part of SDA.
Fast forward to about 2007-2008 after spending close to 7 years writing the DSP algorithms they introduced the Surround Bar 360 and it is really quite a piece of engineering. More convincing in its execution than any other type of "bar" speaker.
As to the 2nd part of your comment. What you describe isn't really close to what SDA is all about so I'd have to say while it's in the ballpark, it was more a novelty than something truly like SDA.
Kyle, Mark, Russ feel free to correct my history if I missed anything or have my facts a little hazy.
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 Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
Depending on how much space is available on the disk, it's the same quality, if not better than DVD-A(96/24).Blu-ray video is hi rez, Blu-ray audio is not as compared to SACD or DVD-A."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche -
It is spec'd identically to DVD-A which is capable of 24/192k 2 ch and 24/96 for multi ch...... Blu-ray audio is not as compared to SACD or DVD-A. -
Ok, my mistake for adding DVD-A to my comments. Yes, it is/was capable of 24/192, but rarely was it ever there. Therefore, I consider SACD as the only true hi-rez format.
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 -
I am convinced if Polk had garanties that such speakers would sell they'd gladly do it. TRK
Really? What convinced you of this? You want guarantees that large expensive speakers sell? Google Wilson Audio Speakers. Google McIntosh Speakers. Google Swan Speakers. You can also click on this link:
High End Speaker Packages, Swan, McIntosh, Etc.
Wilson Audio has been selling very expensive loudspeakers since 1981. Some of their models are well over $100,000. Is that convincing enough?
As our club president succinctly put it:Some folks here need to get out more.comfortablycurt wrote: »If Polk were to bring back the SDA's...how much would the cost? A few thousand dollars, at least. How many of you are actually going to go out and buy them brand new? I definitely wouldn't...and very few of you guys actually would. Some, yes...but very few.
I would hope that Polk's marketing vision would extend far beyond the confines of our cozy little group on the forum and far beyond the confines of the continental US.;)
If Polk wanted to be in the high end market space, they would be there. Sometimes a company is simply not interested in making a particular type of product or offering a particular type of service, even if they KNOW said product or service would be profitable.
I turn down many wedding photography jobs every year because I simply don't enjoy, and am not interested in, that type of photography.
I turn down many speaker and component modification jobs every year simply because I do not enjoy that type of work. People have even offered to fly me to their location to mod their speakers. I have had over 100 requests to build AI-1 Dreadnoughts for people. In every case, the answer was no. I don't even like working on my speakers and electronics.:)Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »I have had over 100 requests to build AI-1 Dreadnoughts for people. In every case, the answer was no.
I at least wanted to say thank you Raife for giving me the technical layout and plans so I could build my own. So, thank you very much Raife, it sounds absolutely phenominal.
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
comfortablycurt wrote: »The average Joe has no idea what Polk Audio is...and probably doesn't even care.mdaudioguy wrote: »...does the average Joe know Klipsch any more than Polk?
Hmmmmm...the subject of this thread is:"Will Polk ever bring out high end speakers?"
Assuming that the aforementioned magical, mystical day ever arrives, does it make sense that Polk would market such speakers to the "average Joe" or even to the "average forum member"?
Does it make sense to even bring the buying preferences of the "average Joe" into a discussion of any high end product, speakers or otherwise?
I'm just wondering.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Nor are all SACD's sourced from pure DSD masters.I consider SACD as the only true hi-rez format. -
DK, you left off the next sentence of my post!DarqueKnight wrote: »Hmmmmm...the subject of this thread is:"Will Polk ever bring out high end speakers?"
Assuming that the aforementioned magical, mystical day ever arrives, does it make sense that Polk would market such speakers to the "average Joe" or even to the "average forum member"?
Does it make sense to even bring the buying preferences of the "average Joe" into a discussion of any high end product, speakers or otherwise?
I'm just wondering.
My point was that such speakers are for enthusiasts? That's why I made reference to such as a niche. You are correct, it wouldn't make sense to try and sell high-end anything to Average Joe, because eventually whatever Average Joe has also becomes Average.mdaudioguy wrote: »...does the average Joe know Klipsch any more than Polk? I doubt it. -
You are way off base. The first part of your comment is it's obvious in the 1980's there were no electronic devices that could actively do what Polk accomplished passively. One device did tend to mimmick and that was the Carver Sonic Holography unit. It's not near as natural and convincing as the passive SDA's, IMO. No receiver today or back then did anything close to SDA, so I'm not sure I get what your saying there. Surround sound was/is NOT SDA. Plus SDA's don't delay or increase any of the signal, it attempts to corrrect the delay already inherent in regular stereo speakers. SDA is closer to how we hear in reality than stereo is.
Fast forward to the mid 90's Polk released the SRT speaker system that used a controller for bass management and had DSP algorithms to augment the passive part of SDA.
Fast forward to about 2007-2008 after spending close to 7 years writing the DSP algorithms they introduced the Surround Bar 360 and it is really quite a piece of engineering. More convincing in its execution than any other type of "bar" speaker.
As to the 2nd part of your comment. What you describe isn't really close to what SDA is all about so I'd have to say while it's in the ballpark, it was more a novelty than something truly like SDA.
Kyle, Mark, Russ feel free to correct my history if I missed anything or have my facts a little hazy.
H9
thats precisely my point heiney...had there been a processor with multi out per channel to send different signal to different speaks(or sub sets in an array ) the sda would not be what it is. there was no such tool at the time of sda. yet another reason why it would be difficult to launch an sda line today. the processor would be much cheaper to design and manufacture then a line of speaks for the select few that truly have a need or desire for a design specific loud speaker that could cater to and keep up with the technology today let alone surpass it and if that much research is involved it would surely have to leap past the processors capability or it wouldnt be worth doing. the fact that the sda has to be up graded to work properly with todays electronics is proof positive(no im not discounting age of the crossover components and everything has to be replaced at one point or another) that with out modification to a crossover designed for analog 25 years ago that the sda isnt really much compared to the speaker designs of today. dont get me wrong...for the 80's it was state of the art. and still today with a few tweaks im sure they hold their own but as curt said.(as it pains me so haha) the cost of design for an sda, versus a generic high grade speaker that could be hooked to any dsp, is just too far of a reach for the small niche that would buy them. could it be done ? yes. is it plausable? no. the way i understand it is this...you have a crossover thats the size of a logging boot in the sda line....you have 3 trilobyite and it fits in your hand. which is gonna work better? -
Ok, my mistake for adding DVD-A to my comments. Yes, it is/was capable of 24/192, but rarely was it ever there. Therefore, I consider SACD as the only true hi-rez format.
to each their own but to me the true hi rez is....Live. to limit it to such a narrow format is just that...narrow. many of the satellite feeds are as good or better than sacd. 5.1 digital is damn close if not better due to versatility with amplification. so many factors with the finished product. if you are meaning the only hi rez RECORDED format then of course you are entitled to your own opinion but there are many conveyances that give live reproduction after amplification indiscernible from the performance itself. -
thats precisely my point heiney...had there been a processor with multi out per channel to send different signal to different speaks(or sub sets in an array ) the sda would not be what it is. there was no such tool at the time of sda. yet another reason why it would be difficult to launch an sda line today. the processor would be much cheaper to design and manufacture then a line of speaks for the select few that truly have a need or desire for a design specific loud speaker that could cater to and keep up with the technology today let alone surpass it and if that much research is involved it would surely have to leap past the processors capability or it wouldnt be worth doing. the fact that the sda has to be up graded to work properly with todays electronics is proof positive(no im not discounting age of the crossover components and everything has to be replaced at one point or another) that with out modification to a crossover designed for analog 25 years ago that the sda isnt really much compared to the speaker designs of today. dont get me wrong...for the 80's it was state of the art. and still today with a few tweaks im sure they hold their own but as curt said.(as it pains me so haha) the cost of design for an sda, versus a generic high grade speaker that could be hooked to any dsp, is just too far of a reach for the small niche that would buy them. could it be done ? yes. is it plausable? no. the way i understand it is this...you have a crossover thats the size of a logging boot in the sda line....you have 3 trilobyite and it fits in your hand. which is gonna work better?
Yeah, you pretty much missed my point because I don;t agree. But we can agree to disagree.
Sorry but the bolded part you couldn;t be more wrong, IMO.
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 Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Hmmmmm...the subject of this thread is:"Will Polk ever bring out high end speakers?"
Assuming that the aforementioned magical, mystical day ever arrives, does it make sense that Polk would market such speakers to the "average Joe" or even to the "average forum member"?
Does it make sense to even bring the buying preferences of the "average Joe" into a discussion of any high end product, speakers or otherwise?
I'm just wondering.
if I'm off topic for believing the "new sda" would be the example of polk high end then so be it. i do however see many other manufacturers products that are the farthest from sda yet still hold the distinction of "high end" if polk was to make a high end offering that moved away from the sda concept i feel it would greatly increase the marketability of the product. in the age of dsp the sda concept is obsolete. -
if I'm off topic for believing the "new sda" would be the example of polk high end then so be it. i do however see many other manufacturers products that are the farthest from sda yet still hold the distinction of "high end" if polk was to make a high end offering that moved away from the sda concept i feel it would greatly increase the marketability of the product. in the age of dsp the sda concept is obsolete.
This is starting to sound like DK's signature quote. Have you read that? I'm just sayin'........
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
no actually i have not . but im going there right now to see what your talking about ...
-
in the age of dsp the sda concept is obsolete.
Please show me who has this DSP technology that operates the same as the original SDA concept? Please show me!!!! Right now Polk is the only company that has the technology which is direct evolution of the original passive SDA concept.
There is no DSP available right now (other than the Surround Bar 360) that does anything similar to SDA. Surround sound is NOT SDA. Period!
So then I ask; if current DSP isn;t close to the SDA concept how can current DSP products make SDA obsolete? Do you have any idae at all what you're talking about? Really any idea at all? You owned 1 pair of SDA's for a couple weeks and now you're an expert :rolleyes:
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 Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
to make sure im getting your point heiney are you saying there arent any processors that do it today or a processor cant be made to do it? im simply saying a processor could be designed to create the sda effect in a speaker that wasnt originally designed for sda as long as it was physically capableof the task(given the correct layout in the array and the proper amount of drivers and so on ...) in fact isnt the upper front channel on the 9.1 theatres exactly that when in stereo mode? if not i dont see it being a feat of engineering to fit another circuit or two in the huge cabinets of todays theatre prcessors. not only do they compensate for the cross talk they are tunable for a miriad of distances and room configurations. it just seems to me the new processors would be more efficiant and correctable than a set crossover that renders the speaker placement so critical. not very many are willing to build a room with the walls the proper distance and the ceiling height just right .....the processors get you pretty darned close at a fraction of the cost of a redesigned high end sda.
-
No I'm not saying it can't be done. Polk is doing it right now and also did it with the SRT system of the mid 90's. What I'm saying is I'm not sure another company could or would want to do it. Polk has the extensive knowledge to do it.
Initally you made it sound like any old speakers would work if one had the processor. Matt talked at length at Polk Fest 2008 about the fact that if they did resurrect SDA beyond the Surround Bar it could possibly incorporate both active and passive elements and not just an electronic box."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 Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
Please show me who has this DSP technology that operates the same as the original SDA concept? Please show me!!!! Right now Polk is the only company that has the technology which is direct evolution of the original passive SDA concept.
There is no DSP available right now (other than the Surround Bar 360) that does anything similar to SDA. Surround sound is NOT SDA. Period!
So then I ask; if current DSP isn;t close to the SDA concept how can current DSP products make SDA obsolete? Do you have any idae at all what you're talking about? Really any idea at all? You owned 1 pair of SDA's for a couple weeks and now you're an expert :rolleyes:
H9
the idea that a processor could'nt acomplish the sda effect is mindless. bi amp. bi wire what ever...but if a board of caps and resistors can do it a computer chip can do it as well.:rolleyes: -
to make sure im getting your point heiney are you saying there arent any processors that do it today or a processor cant be made to do it? im simply saying a processor could be designed to create the sda effect in a speaker that wasnt originally designed for sda as long as it was physically capableof the task(given the correct layout in the array and the proper amount of drivers and so on ...) in fact isnt the upper front channel on the 9.1 theatres exactly that when in stereo mode? if not i dont see it being a feat of engineering to fit another circuit or two in the huge cabinets of todays theatre prcessors. not only do they compensate for the cross talk they are tunable for a miriad of distances and room configurations. it just seems to me the new processors would be more efficiant and correctable than a set crossover that renders the speaker placement so critical. not very many are willing to build a room with the walls the proper distance and the ceiling height just right .....the processors get you pretty darned close at a fraction of the cost of a redesigned high end sda.
I will say it one more time SDA is not Surround Sound............so I'd have to say no to the bold part. I'm not aware of any DSP coding that specifically eliminates acoustic crosstalk which is the fundamental idea with SDA's.
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 Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
not any old speaker heiney... certain conditions apply obviously. my point is if polk wanted to redesign a high end sda it would be in my opinion more cost effective and more tunable if crossovers were processors and not boards in the speaker. buildable with firmwear instead of sonicaps...i do appreciate you thinking im an sda expert:D as i certainly dont know that much about them in particular. i am however not dumb to the capabilities of electronics, where theyve been and how far theyve come in 25 years
-
the idea that a processor could'nt acomplish the sda effect is mindless. bi amp. bi wire what ever...but if a board of caps and resistors can do it a computer chip can do it as well.:rolleyes:
Again you show how naive you are when it comes to SDA. It took the man who pretty much invented the commercial product in the 80's seven years to wait for technology to catch up and to write the algorithms for the Surround Bar. It absolutely can be done with a chip, but not just a chip alone. The concern is that you would also need some passive properties to make it seem more real and less contrived.
Anyway, I'm done talking to you about this becuase you really don;t have a clue what you're talking about and I've pretty much said all I can say as far as I see it.
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 Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
I will say it one more time SDA is not Surround Sound............so I'd have to say no to the bold part. I'm not aware of any DSP coding that specifically eliminates acoustic crosstalk which is the fundamental idea with SDA's.
H9
HEINEY...go back through the debate and reread it with the idea that i dont even know what surround sound is. there by eliminating your idea that i think ss and sda are the same thing. what say you then? -
well i do agree with you heiney that i am quite naive to the sda line. couple that with the fact you seem to think you are gods gift and we certainly have a stone wall to get over. i dont care if you have to add two eggs and a side of hashbrowns to the mix! if a board can do it a processor can do it regardless of where the passives have to be. the marketablilty of an sda processor is far beyond the marketability of a set of 50k$ speakers. even if it is a bit "contrived". hence...polk ain't gonna make a redesigned line of sda's as a high end option!. i just checked my crystal ball for that. if you have any other questions dont hesitate to ask.
-
to each their own but to me the true hi rez is....Live. to limit it to such a narrow format is just that...narrow. many of the satellite feeds are as good or better than sacd. 5.1 digital is damn close if not better due to versatility with amplification. so many factors with the finished product. if you are meaning the only hi rez RECORDED format then of course you are entitled to your own opinion but there are many conveyances that give live reproduction after amplification indiscernible from the performance itself.
It's pretty obvious you haven't heard the capabilities of SACD, if you had, you would never make such a goofy claim....opinion or not.
DD 5.1/DTS sounds very good, but it's still a lossy format. If you're not hearing all of it, how ever could it possibly sound as good as a full resolution format such as DVD-A/SACD?
