Will polk ever bring out high end speakers

heiney9

mhmacw wrote: »

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

mhmacw

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.

headrott

mhmacw wrote: »

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

mhmacw

no actually i have not . but im going there right now to see what your talking about ...

heiney9

mhmacw wrote: »

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

mhmacw

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.

heiney9

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.

mhmacw

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. 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:

heiney9

mhmacw wrote: »

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

mhmacw

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

heiney9

mhmacw wrote: »

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

mhmacw

heiney9 wrote: »

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?

mhmacw

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.

LessisNevermore

mhmacw wrote: »

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?

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