Will polk ever bring out high end speakers

mhmacw

LessisNevermore wrote: »

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?

only the 506 onkyo i own but not to the nth degree. i certainly havent heard them all. i do think however there are other formats that dont include recording that reproduce sound with greater clarity and precision than a recorded cd of any format.

mdaudioguy

Do the chickens have large talons?

F1nut

FTGV wrote: »

Nor are all SACD's sourced from pure DSD masters.

Very true, but they are still 1bit/2.82MHz in the end.

mhmacw

the buzzards certainly do and right now i feel like a rotting piece of meat haha

hearingimpared

mhmacw wrote: »

the buzzards certainly do and right now i feel like a rotting piece of meat haha

Dan, you keep shoving your foot in your mouth. I keep reading this back and forth and I keep saying to myself, "Dan is kidding, right?";)

LessisNevermore

mhmacw wrote: »

the buzzards certainly do and right now i feel like a rotting piece of meat haha

I've been deservedly called a **** before, but never a buzzard.:D

It's all good, just focus on one bit at a time. Anytime you disagree with a group of like-minded folks, you're gonna get picked apart.


My equipment is far from TOL, but it's more than resolving enough to hear the superiority of SACD over the formats you mentioned, and it's not close.

My advice, find some Polkies in your area, and get your ears on some of their rigs.

mhmacw

hearingimpared wrote: »

Dan, you keep shoving your foot in your mouth. I keep reading this back and forth and I keep saying to myself, "Dan is kidding, right?";)

you know joe of all the people to think dan just likes to argue i never in a million years would have thought it was you:D. the majority of what i have to say is heart felt whether or not it comes across that way. no im not as knowlegdeable about polk speakers as many others but i do like to find out as much as i can. if i i say hey "i dont know ****" then a select few laugh and i dont get any answers. if i say the way i think (whether right or wrong) i get a bucket of knowledge dumped on my head. the intent of the dumping isnt always to inform me but to counter what i might have said. either way. my question is answered. im in awe that you caught some of my humor joe. not many do.

TECHNOKID

heiney9 wrote: »

No, I believe he is talking about the LSi driver based "monitors" the live band was using when they played during the lunch break in the tent. 4 LSi drivers and 4 Vifa tweets and 2 ports per cabinet. All the band members were Polk employees and they sounded damn good!

That speaks for the quality of the drivers... Drivers that are actually installed in speakers made for home use and can still provide such performance when use during a band performance :cool:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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:






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.:)

DK, I am talking apples you are talkig oranges. Polk's vision that I know of is the mass market not a niche which larger high end speakers are. I did state that if they wanted to do it they could, however if their target is MASS market versus NICHE it can't be profitable. NO average Joe will buy the 50K or 100K systems you pointed out. Kyle and-or the mods pointed out (as a question) how much do you think designing SDA today would cost? Personnally I don't understand why it should cost that much but I take for granted it would because this is insider information. The OP is about high end market speakers which is a NICHE NOT MASS and from what I understand Polk's insiders (Kyle, Mark and Russ) clearly state Polk is NOT interested. Larger speakers do sell but not in large quatity and what makes it profitable and feasible is the large profit margins which doesn't require massive sales in order to be profitable.

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.

You see DK, we are on the same page. That is the point it DOESN'T make sense if Pok's vision is MASS solely however, if Polk wanted also the NICHE market they have the knowledge and hability to achieve successfully.

mdaudioguy wrote: »

DK, you left off the next sentence of my post!

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.

I am also convinced that on this board there are some High End candidates while there are also Mass (Low and mid) candidates. As Mark pointed out Polk can not rely on this board to make sound business decisions. I think it was Curt that mentioned this one (talking about the MASS market) and emphasised by mdaudioguy?? "Most of people outside of this forum don't know and don't care about Polk" (and I agree the same applies for Klipsh) as far as brand... As pointed mrketting research is powerfull, you don't market a brand to the mass but rather market a product they need or want (smallish, portable, cool innexpensive-affordable just to name a few...)

heiney9 wrote: »

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 (DSP+SDA, DSP combine with 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? (apples & oranges) 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

mhmacw wrote: »

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 (why would you want firmware in a speaker box ) instead of sonicaps (capacitors resistors and inductors are used to form a selective frequency circuit which will match the driver habilities)...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

heiney9 wrote: »

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 (applies to the 360 only right?), for the Surround Bar. It absolutely can be done with a chip, but not just a chip alone (chip = DSP and DSP + SDA = 360, right?). The concern is that you would also need some passive properties to make it seem more real and less contrived (create the SDA effect).
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

mhmacw wrote: »

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.

hearingimpared wrote: »

Dan, you keep shoving your foot in your mouth. I keep reading this back and forth and I keep saying to myself, "Dan is kidding, right?";)

mhmacw, I don't mean to insult you or make judgment on your knowledge because really it seems both you and I are roughly in the same boat when it comes to SDA technology: We simply are NEWBIES on this specific subject and therefore such expression is of great value: "There is a time for talking and a time for listening. When it comes to SDA, I read (listen) rather than comment (talk).

What I am sensing is that you are confusing analogue signal procession: Xo, vintage SDA (especially design Xo) (our hearing requires analogue to enjoy audio NOT digital. It could be funny to listen to a digital signal but I think most of us would quickly fatigue from listening to such signal). DSP is NOT at the speaker level for a few exceptions. IE: surround bars 42" & 50" use analogue processing and IHT and 360 do use DSP simply because it is incorporated to the bar but howeve still convert DSP to analogue to the speakers.

I read you when you mention that DSP could create SDA effect but point is you still need to convert into analogue so what is the point? You DON'T want too nuch conversion as it will simply degrade the signal.I hope you take my post positively since my point is only to emphasise that there are people like H9 that have a lot more experience on this subject than some of us and that we should silently learn from them I hope I am not "putting foot in my mouth" but I eagerly invite SDA knowledgeable people to correct me if my SDA understanding is wrong-out of wack


NOTE: Yet this discussion seems to be the best experience I am having on this site: newbies, veterans, mods up to CS are passionately involved in this discussion and this without animosity. This is a cool and very informative thread :cool::D;)

Cheers!
TK

FTGV

F1nut wrote: »

Very true, but they are still 1bit/2.82MHz in the end.

And the DVD-A would be 24/96k or192k in the end aswell.Used to to their full capability SACD ,DVD-A (and equivalently spec'd BR) are all true hi rez formats.

cnh

There is a WHITE PAPER available about the SDA affect. Anyone here can peruse the site..do a search and find this link.

If we are to talk about that effect it might be prudent to actually read what its inventor said it does and how it actually works. From my own reading...and I am no expert, I think heiney9 has pretty much hit the nail of the head there.

But please have a look.

cnh

nooshinjohn

cnh wrote: »

There is a WHITE PAPER available about the SDA affect. Anyone here can peruse the site..do a search and find this link.

If we are to talk about that effect it might be prudent to actually read what its inventor said it does and how it actually works.

Agreed man, a little reading goes a long way.

polkfarmboy

F1nut wrote: »

How does one tailor a speaker to a format?

BTW, Blu-ray is not high def. SACD is.

You obviously dont keep up-to-date on bluray

I watched akira and every channel was done in 192 k

Maybe you should dust the cobwebs from your wallet and buy a bdp

mdaudioguy

So, then it seems to be an assumption held by many here that "high end Polks" should probably incorporate SDA technology. That's what I'm reading into all of this. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Since SDA, in the implementation that many here are so fond of, implies a 2-channel (2 speaker) configuration (as opposed to the soundbar implementation), maybe therein lies the rub. In Polk's segment of the home audio market, there seems to be a great demand for 5, 7, 9, etc... channels. Why focus so much energy and limit oneself to selling just a pair of speakers, when consumers are clamoring for 5, 7, or 9? I'm not saying 2-channel is pass

treitz3

For the 413th post, I still have nothing to say. At this point? I don't care.

How 'bout that?

FTGV

mhmacw wrote: »

in fact isnt the upper front channel on the 9.1 theatres ..

Prologic IIz adds a pair front height channels but Audyssey's DSX optionally adds a pair of width speakers to the outside of the main left and right speakers.As the name suggests the intent is as with SDA to increase the width of the front stage.While these extra DSX width channels are derived via DSP an extra pair of speakers are also needed.

polkfarmboy

I would just love to see polk bring out a limited edition high end super speaker for about $10,000 that beats a $40.000 set

As far as the market goes its all about HT now because thats where the demand therefore thats where the money to be made is

If I say polk should tailor the lsi line of speakers for blurays then I mean they should be super heavy on the midrange and less concerned with bass because thats what subs are for

cstmar01

polkfarmboy wrote: »

I would just love to see polk bring out a limited edition high end super speaker for about $10,000 that beats a $40.000 set

As far as the market goes its all about HT now because thats where the demand therefore thats where the money to be made is

If I say polk should tailor the lsi line of speakers for blurays then I mean they should be super heavy on the midrange and less concerned with bass because thats what subs are for

They did that with the SRT system. I'm sure a lot of people would LOVE it if they brought something like that back, but I don't really foresee that happening due to cost/limited market for something like that again.
http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/recent/srtsystem/

Hawkeye

PFB, if your looking for mid-range, Martin Logan is the ticket but you knew that right, PML?:D

Gordon

polkfarmboy

hawkeye wrote: »

pfb, if your looking for mid-range, martin logan is the ticket but you knew that right, pml?:d

gordon

tiz i:d

TECHNOKID

cnh wrote: »

There is a WHITE PAPER available about the SDA affect. Anyone here can peruse the site..do a search and find this link.

If we are to talk about that effect it might be prudent to actually read what its inventor said it does and how it actually works. From my own reading...and I am no expert, I think heiney9 has pretty much hit the nail of the head there.

But please have a look.

cnh

Exactly! The white paper is actually my humble and limited knowledge of SDA (theory plus fiddling curiosity on my SB 42" to see what is is all about)

mdaudioguy wrote: »

So, then it seems to be an assumption held by many here that "high end Polks" should probably incorporate SDA technology. That's what I'm reading into all of this. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Since SDA, in the implementation that many here are so fond of, implies a 2-channel (2 speaker) configuration (as opposed to the soundbar implementation), maybe therein lies the rub. In Polk's segment of the home audio market, there seems to be a great demand for 5, 7, 9, etc... channels. Why focus so much energy and limit oneself to selling just a pair of speakers, when consumers are clamoring for 5, 7, or 9? I'm not saying 2-channel is pass

nooshinjohn

cstmar01 wrote: »

They did that with the SRT system. I'm sure a lot of people would LOVE it if they brought something like that back, but I don't really foresee that happening due to cost/limited market for something like that again.

Not to mention that you needed a room big enough to qualify for it's own Zip Code to set it up properly...

Face

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Not to mention that you needed a room big enough to qualify for it's own Zip Code to set it up properly...

Not at all.

nooshinjohn

Really??? the Bozo's at Good Guys told me that I needed at least a 20x40 foot foom for the system to work it's best or I would have bought it. I "settled" for my first set of 1.2TL's instead.

F1nut

polkfarmboy wrote: »

You obviously dont keep up-to-date on bluray

I watched akira and every channel was done in 192 k

Maybe you should dust the cobwebs from your wallet and buy a bdp

I'm talking about 2 channel music as I could care less about video or multi-channel music. So, what ya got in Blu-ray 2 channel music?

That said, I will touch on the video aspect of things. I've always thought that a movie should stand on its story line and the acting. Sadly, these days those aspects seem to an afterthought to most of the film makers and the folks watching.

As far as the market goes its all about HT now because thats where the demand therefore thats where the money to be made is

As stated previously, some folks need to get out more.

If I say polk should tailor the lsi line of speakers for blurays then I mean they should be super heavy on the midrange and less concerned with bass because thats what subs are for

You have an unusual view of what makes for a good speaker. Subs? My speakers don't need no stinkin' sub.

polkfarmboy

F1nut wrote: »

I'm talking about 2 channel music as I could care less about video or multi-channel music. So, what ya got in Blu-ray 2 channel music?

That said, I will touch on the video aspect of things. I've always thought that a movie should stand on its story line and the acting. Sadly, these days those aspects seem to an afterthought to most of the film makers and the folks watching.



As stated previously, some folks need to get out more.



You have an unusual view of what makes for a good speaker. Subs? My speakers don't need no stinkin' sub.

Try renting that new movie tetro as I'm sure you would love it ... its filmed in black and white

For 2 ch bluray audio you should check out the music section on the bluray web site . There youl read reviews about exactly how the audio was mixed some live performances make great use of the mains while only using the surround for subtle ambience of the crowd etc...

F1nut

I stepped way to look for Blu-ray 2 channel music on some of my favorite online music stores, I found nothing.

TECHNOKID

F1nut wrote: »

I stepped way to look for Blu-ray 2 channel music on some of my favorite online music stores, I found nothing.

PFB, that I know of there is NO such thing as BluRay music. The only thing BluRay does for the audio is processing signals related to your channels (effects) during movies and takes of lossless. However in music there is potential for HD audio but is somewhat rare as most CD players can not handle it that I know of. You can find info related by googling; http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=high%2Bdefinition%2Baudio%2Bmusic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

the below seems to provide some good explanation on the subject. I believe it even leads you to some of the rare sites that can provide HD audio: http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/09/musicgiants-a-h/

don’t know of any digital audio player that can handle 24-bit audio, but some handle Apple Lossless or Windows Media Lossless files, which you can rip those yourself, but aren’t sold online by any of the major online outlets. A store called MusicGiants sells lossless and 24-bit digital albums, both of which offer more sonic resolution than what you’ll find on iTunes, iTunes Plus, Rhapsody, Napster, or other stores — available in some cases without DRM. However, the service only works with Windows XP or Vista, because the site requires IE and all songs come in a WMA 9 format of some kind, rendering it unsuitable for iPods and Apple computers.

You have an unusual view of what makes for a good speaker. Subs? My speakers don't need no stinkin' sub.

I do believe this is a genration gap-preference. Kids nowadays only swear by the external boom box which my self don't care much when it comes to music. Right or wrong there is nothing like a full range speaker for music thus the reason for me to keep my vintage speakers (nice full range with 15" driver at the bottom). Those put me in trouble about 20 years ago with the neighbor complaining about the bass crossing the concrete walls of the semi detached. I didn't need any external sub for my music then and defintely don't thing I need it today! However, when it comes to HT I love the external sub

I am with PFB on the rise of the HT popularity as potential option for many users. Let's face it, most of the mass consumers are not audiophiles and therefore see as appealing a basic HT to play their music, games and to watch movies... even worse many will rely on the cheap HTIBs to provide for all of their audio needs :eek: However, 2 channels rigs are NOT passe, there will always be the niche for connaisseurs-audiophiles. A thrue audiophile will never care for an HT system to play an audition their music.

Cheers!
TK

headrott

F1nut wrote: »

I stepped way to look for Blu-ray 2 channel music on some of my favorite online music stores, I found nothing.

Jesse, actually there is the Niel Young Archive Box that is stereo 24-bit/192 kHz. Although I have not heard it, but would be interested in doing so. That is the ONLY one I know of that is stereo "Hi-Rez" though. I don't know that one release will classify Blu Ray as a Stereo "Hi-Rez" format though.;)

Greg

http://www.amazon.com/Neil-Young-Archives-Vol-1963-1972/dp/B001B8PV4U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1275115595&sr=8-1-spell

F1nut

Thanks Greg. I noted that it is all video based. "Over 120 music video tracks"

I was just over at Hoffman's site and saw some folks saying that Neil Young was suppose to put out some Blu-ray music releases. However, they said it appears that it isn't going to happen now.

F1nut

A forum member contacted me about DXD 24bit/352.8hz. How many of you have heard of it. How many have heard it?