Will polk ever bring out high end speakers

maandjojo

Damn good thread. A great read.
Noos, plenty of good posts here. I too would love to see a new line of sdas', just not sure they would be any better than what we've got now. Have to tell you, I don't know all that you've done to the 1.2TLs' I got from you but they sound better and better with each new listen.
As for the original question, 2 channel just know comparison between the Lsi 25s and srs'. Listening to the srs' is an experience each and every time. The 25s are a great speaker but the srs' go in the speaker hall of fame. As for movies and surround I have now gone completely over to the srs'. I now use my crs' as the surrounds and go phantom for the center and this has just dusted the Lsis'.
The xo upgrades is an intriguing thought, most of us like better, especially without having to buy all new. I've just purchased a pair of 1cs' for my son and would love to have a xo upgrade but that would cost me as much as the speakers did. For us to do one at a time is what brings the cost up. Polk could do it much cheaper by purchasing quantity.
Sonicaps, those are damn expensive! I work in an electronics outfit and I've never seen a cap that much and we use all types. Electrolytic, metalized, polypropelene and except for the huge 20,000 mf I would be hard pressed to pay more than two or three dollors for any of those caps seen on those xos'.
Well didn't mean to blabber on but again, this thread was a damn good read.

Joe

nooshinjohn

Thanks maandojo! I am so happy to hear you are enjoying them. If you decide to do the crossovers, call me first.


John

TECHNOKID

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Thanks maandojo! I am so happy to hear you are enjoying them. If you decide to do the crossovers, call me first.


John

Hey Noos, instead of selling them they could have been used to develop an external powered Xo like we spoke yesterday

I left the technical work bench for technical sales, it seemed like a good move since I wasn't getting younger but sometimes I wonder if I made the right choice since working on the gear was so much fun and rewarding :cool: Probably the reason I spend so much time on this forum :cool:

Cheers!
TK

Rocco1

This was a fun read!

First of all I would like to say anything new from polk is always fun to see and go and listen to. Bring on a new LSi line, bring on a new line all together I dont care I will find a way to get my hands on a pair.

+1 for XO upgrades

hearingimpared

Why did SDAs sell as well as they did? They were panned by all the audio rags except for Stereo Review as a gimmick but they sold anyway! Why, because when they came out and were still in production, brick & mortar stores were king and there were no internet direct or any internet as a matter of fact. People, like me, went to brick & mortar stores regularly.

In 1984 Bryn Mawr Stereo had set up a set of SDA/SRSs one night using NAD gear to power them. I happened into the store like I did at every lunch time when I was working. I heard them! I got to hear them! I immediately pulled out my credit card and bought a pair. Two days later, a semi pulled up to my house with two Bryn Mawr Stereo employees and they uncrated, put them in place and set them up perfectly for me. This is how I imagined most SDAs were purchased. People heard them and said, "to hell with reviews, these things sound great!" and then bought them.

There are no brick and mortar stores any longer! So answer me this; how is a new SDA line or LSi/SDA combo going to be received again by the audio rags and the audiophile circles? I'd bet a months pay they would pan it again as a gimmick and Stereo Review is defunct! So how are people going to get to hear them? They're not! They are going to have to rely on reviews and word of mouth which isn't a real good way for Polk to market such new products. I reiterate, this type of product is still going to be viewed as a gimmick and no-one is going to be able to casually listen to them to decide if they like them or not.

History repeats itself but in this case the brick and mortar stores are just that, HISTORY!

What's Polk to do? How do they overcome this one issue they were able to overcome in the past because of the way audio gear was sold but is no longer available to the casual or obsessive audiophile.

Most people don't know Jack Schitt about Club Polk! I sure as hell didn't until I bought another pair of SDAs in 2006 and a friend of mine mentioned that he heard there was a place on the internet by Polk that discusses SDAs and a whole slew of other audio related things. I had never belonged to a forum prior to that date. How would this forum get more exposure?

There is lot more to consider than "build them and they will sell!"

Just thinking out loud. Some food for thought.

halo71

I never owned SDA's back in the day, still don't. But will someday....well maybe if I ever get divorced again. But aside from drooling over the SDA's my Dad had when I was a kid, not only how awesome they sounded. But I always thought they were the sexiest looking speakers on the planet and still do! Just something about the way those shiny black drivers cast the light in certain ways in a dimly lit room I guess. lol

I think Polk re-releasing a SDA line or similiar vintage Monitor line would be really cool. Maybe even a custom shop perhaps? I know in guitar circles, and its probably not a good comparison here, but brands like Fender, ESP, Jackson and several others tend to have a thriving custom shop business.

yeah I know....not a full .02 cents, but its all I could afford at the moment.

maandjojo

Impaired hearing, sorry, hearing impaired; when the sda's first came out Polk was not the household name it is today. There will be quite a few people who will go and listen just because it is a new Polk speaker. Include those folks that have become part of the Polk fan club and new sda's can take off.
Quality just can't be ignored.

Joe

cfrizz

You SDA folks are simply dreaming of a return to the good old days which quite simply is NOT going to happen, regardless of how "cool" you think it might be.

Joe very succintly summed it up quite well. Also add in the fact that most will not buy them if they were made as big as they were.

Times have changed folks. Enjoy them, & keep them, since they won't be coming back again.

hearingimpared

maandjojo wrote: »

Impaired hearing, sorry, hearing impaired; when the sda's first came out Polk was not the household name it is today. There will be quite a few people who will go and listen just because it is a new Polk speaker. Include those folks that have become part of the Polk fan club and new sda's can take off.
Quality just can't be ignored.

Joe

Polk was well known back then for the quality and sound of their products.

You missed my point Joe, you say "there are quite a few people who will go and listen" my point is WHERE are they going to listen to them?

maandjojo wrote: »

Impaired hearing, sorry, hearing impaired

BTW what the hell is the above about? You didn't even spell it right!

DarqueKnight

cfrizz wrote: »

You SDA folks are simply dreaming of a return to the good old days which quite simply is NOT going to happen...

Never say never....:) Some smart folks might license SDA technology from Polk, form a company and introduce a high line set of true stereo neo-SDA's that would turn the audio world upside down.

hearingimpared wrote: »

I reiterate, this type of product is still going to be viewed as a gimmick and no-one is going to be able to casually listen to them to decide if they like them or not.

Isn't this true of every large, expensive high end "statement" type speaker? Don't they all have some type of "gimmick" to differentiate them from the pack? A gimmick is only bad when it adds no real value to a product.

Also, the more time and money product requires a consumer to invest, the more critical the need for consumer (and audio reviewer) training.

Large, expensive speakers are SELLING. With that in mind, we can't say with any certainty that a new SDA line wouldn't sell because they would be too big, too expensive and would require too large of a listening space. Rather, we can say with some certainty that Polk is just not interested in the market segment that would be interested in such a speaker. Times change...companies move on to other, more lucrative and easier to manage products.

Such good TRUE stereo.

hearingimpared

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Isn't this true of every large, expensive high end "statement" type speaker? Don't they all have some type of "gimmick" to differentiate them from the pack? A gimmick is only bad when it adds no real value to a product.

Also, the more time and money product requires a consumer to invest, the more critical the need for consumer (and audio reviewer) training.

Ray I was not saying it was a "gimmick." I was merely stating what was going around the rags and audiophile circles back when the SDAs were in production and the fact that one could actually go and listen to them at the time.

Funny thing is you can get your ears on large uber expensive speakers in specialty shops that cater to the extrememe high end. Wilson's line is available for listening, by appointment only, at Overture Audio here in Delaware and I know Jesse has heard the MBL (outer space LOL) speakers with a full MBL rig at a specialty shop I think located in Southern Maryland.

There is only one place that caters to both the mid and high end in this area that carries the Polk line that, I am aware of, that you can sit and listen to Polks and that is Quest for Sound in Bensalem, PA. Other than that, as far as I know you are SOL if you want to audition a new Polk Audio offering.

heiney9

cfrizz wrote: »

You SDA folks are simply dreaming of a return to the good old days which quite simply is NOT going to happen, regardless of how "cool" you think it might be.

Joe very succintly summed it up quite well. Also add in the fact that most will not buy them if they were made as big as they were.

Times have changed folks. Enjoy them, & keep them, since they won't be coming back again.

The point is Cathy I (nor should anyone else) wouldn't expect a new SDA to be a monstrous in size as they were in the 80's and 90's. Today's technology has come so far and even Matt admitted *if* they were to make a new SDA type speaker they would use DSP technology as well as passive technology and it definitely would fit in a smaller package. Would it be as diminutive as the VM series or a small bookshelf, but they could be made small enough to satisfy today's trend of speaker styles.

H9

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

The point is Cathy I (nor should anyone else) wouldn't expect a new SDA to be a monstrous in size as they were in the 80's and 90's. Today's technology has come so far and even Matt admitted *if* they were to make a new SDA type speaker they would use DSP technology as well as passive technology and it definitely would fit in a smaller package. Would it be as diminutive as the VM series or a small bookshelf, but they could be made small enough to satisfy today's trend of speaker styles.

H9

I thought Kyle mentioned somewhere that an SDA line was being looked into to be put in a sleeker thinner cabinet like the LSi 15s or LSi 25s.

dubradio

^ New SDA is being reasearched to see if it is even possible to put into a LSI/RTI width cabinet. Even if we decide to do it its gonna be a while before we see any information on it.

reeltrouble1

dorokusai wrote: »

No offense, but if Polk based its marketing on this forum, it would be out of business. Great ideas, great discussion but seriously? I'm not aware of any industry professional members here, including me, so let's keep some perspective here gang.

rock on baby, maybe they should do some more shower tiles for RMF......

RT1

hearingimpared

KyleShufelt wrote: »

^ New SDA is being reasearched to see if it is even possible to put into a LSI/RTI width cabinet. Even if we decide to do it its gonna be a while before we see any information on it.

Thanks, I knew I read that somewhere.

DarqueKnight

hearingimpared wrote: »

Ray I was not saying it was a "gimmick." I was merely stating what was going around the rags and audiophile circles back when the SDAs were in production and the fact that one could actually go and listen to them at the time.

I understood that. I know you don't consider SDA a "gimmick" since you have a large, highly modified pair of them.:) I was just elaborating on your point.

Jstas

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Agreed to a point, but getting back to the car analogies that were tossed about earlier, I don't see Ferrari going bankrupt building a very select few models based upon their current production cars.

Um...Ferrari did go bankrupt doing exactly that. That is why they are owned by FIAT along with Lancia, Alfa Romeo and Maserati.

All those FIAT Puntos and Pandas are what fund the Ferraris and Maseratis and make a business that loses money on most cars sold possible. Ferrari doesn't build production cars. They build fundraisers to support their racing habit. Sorry, but as a business model, Ferrari is an awful example.

Jstas

nooshinjohn wrote: »

If you build it, I will come.:cool:

Didn't you already try to and your wife told you no and to sell them?

nooshinjohn

Jstas wrote: »

Um...Ferrari did go bankrupt doing exactly that. That is why they are owned by FIAT along with Lancia, Alfa Romeo and Maserati.

All those FIAT Puntos and Pandas are what fund the Ferraris and Maseratis and make a business that loses money on most cars sold possible. Ferrari doesn't build production cars. They build fundraisers to support their racing habit. Sorry, but as a business model, Ferrari is an awful example.

Ferrari never went bankrupt. Enzo sold the auto building side of the company when he decided to retire, and the racing team was picked up after his death. Production cars were built to fund the racing effort as you stated, and were/are quite profitable for both Enzo and Fiat. Have you ever seen their production facilities?


Oh wait, I forgot you are all knowing and all seeing. You are practically omnipotent. :rolleyes:;)

nooshinjohn

Jstas wrote: »

Didn't you already try to and your wife told you no and to sell them?

Those were the 6 footers... I still have the 2.3tl's, but wait you knew that already, just like you know everything else. One day I hope I can be half as smart as you. Perhaps you are clairvoyant as well... can you tell what I am thinking right now? Come on John, I know you can. Or at least I think you can:p:D

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

The point is Cathy I (nor should anyone else) wouldn't expect a new SDA to be a monstrous in size as they were in the 80's and 90's.

One of the great aesthetic features of the large SDA's is that they are designed to be placed close to the wall behind them, unlike other large speakers (Magnepan, Thiel, Wilson, ect.) that must be placed out into the room with several feet between the speaker and the wall behind them. Big SDA's don't seem so big when placed along a long wall with high ceilings.

F1nut

Large, expensive speakers are SELLING.

Yes, they are. Some folks here need to get out more.

dkg999

If nothing else it would be fun to see Matt Polk release a signature edition speaker in limited build quantities as one of his final statements in the industry. It could be something that he always wanted to build, but knew didn't have the market for a mass production build. They could use the "from Matt Polk's garage to your home" marketing theme.

Jstas

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Ferrari never went bankrupt. Enzo sold the auto building side of the company when he decided to retire, and the racing team was picked up after his death. Production cars were built to fund the racing effort as you stated, and were/are quite profitable for both Enzo and Fiat. Have you ever seen their production facilities?


Oh wait, I forgot you are all knowing and all seeing. You are practically omnipotent. :rolleyes:;)

This isn't 1969, genius. FIAT has steadily increased ownership of Ferrari for years. As of 2008, it's ownership totals 85%. It's ownership shares are payment for settlement of debts that Ferrari couldn't pay.

That's also the reason Mubadala Development Company out of Abu Dhabi owns 5%. They offered Ferrari an investment in exchange for getting to use the Ferrari name for a theme park. they bought the share from Mediobianca in 2005 when Mediobianca devalued the credit rating for Ferrari over unpaid debts it held on certain Ferrari facilities. MDC bought the debt in exchange for ownership because all those oil rich Arabs gotta have them some Ferrari lovin'!

The Ferrari family owns a mere 10% and they don't have any controlling interest at all.

Ferrari is nothing but a statement piece. It doesn't make money. It costs FIAT more a year to keep it around than Ferrari brings in. The ONLY reason Ferrari is still around is because it's a tremendous feather in FIAT's cap.

Jstas

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Those were the 6 footers... I still have the 2.3tl's, but wait you knew that already, just like you know everything else. One day I hope I can be half as smart as you. Perhaps you are clairvoyant as well... can you tell what I am thinking right now? Come on John, I know you can. Or at least I think you can:p:D

You're thinking that you never should have let your wife put the jar that holds your manhood in her safe deposit box.

dkg999

Jstas wrote: »

You're thinking that you never should have let your wife put the jar that holds your manhood in her safe deposit box.

Now that is signature material

Mike Kozak

I think my Monitor 70s are pretty sweet sounding. Granted they are not B/W Nautilus, but great sounding all the same.

nooshinjohn

Jstas wrote: »

You're thinking that you never should have let your wife put the jar that holds your manhood in her safe deposit box.

Nope.... I guess you can't read minds.

Jstas wrote: »

This isn't 1969, genius. FIAT has steadily increased ownership of Ferrari for years. As of 2008, it's ownership totals 85%. It's ownership shares are payment for settlement of debts that Ferrari couldn't pay.

That's also the reason Mubadala Development Company out of Abu Dhabi owns 5%. They offered Ferrari an investment in exchange for getting to use the Ferrari name for a theme park. they bought the share from Mediobianca in 2005 when Mediobianca devalued the credit rating for Ferrari over unpaid debts it held on certain Ferrari facilities. MDC bought the debt in exchange for ownership because all those oil rich Arabs gotta have them some Ferrari lovin'!

The Ferrari family owns a mere 10% and they don't have any controlling interest at all.

Ferrari is nothing but a statement piece. It doesn't make money. It costs FIAT more a year to keep it around than Ferrari brings in. The ONLY reason Ferrari is still around is because it's a tremendous feather in FIAT's cap.

So tell me, What is it like to always have to be that smartest guy in the room. The man that thinks he knows it all, knows nothing.

Jstas

nooshinjohn wrote: »

So tell me, What is it like to always have to be that smartest guy in the room. The man that thinks he knows it all, knows nothing.

I went and looked it up 'cause I remember reading the stories back in 2005 when the whole thing started going down. I verified the info and posted it. You can go look it up. Don't dig around in automotive rags though. You'll have to find some financial periodicals to see the stories behind the dealings. The German news outlets tend to cover the dealings in the E.U. the best. Just a hint.

Oh and I'll leave the sources I found out of it and leave you to flounder around the Internet trying to find my source. Afterall, I'm learning from the best on how to tell people they are wrong, post no evidence to back up my claim all the while slinging passive aggressive insults their way.

Am I doing it right?