Sda 5.1

leroyjr1

heiney9 wrote: »

People say this all the time. I can rattle the pictures on my walls watching a movie with no sub using the 2.0 setting on the dvdp and just running my 1C's. No sub needed.

Of course I have an amp with the balls to do that.

H9

You would be surprised at what a good ID subwoofer could do to your system for movies.

It would seem that running sda's without the innerconnect cable would be best when using them as surrounds. Setup would be much easier. Also another negative about running sda's as surrounds is rear speakers sound best IMO when placed above the listeners ear. When I tried running floorstanders as surrounds I noticed if someone was sitting on either side of me they blocked that speaker, lessening the rear effect.

heiney9

leroyjr1 wrote: »

You would be surprised at what a good ID subwoofer could do to your system for movies.

And exactly how would I do bass management or even connect a sub? In my system the way it's configured now, 2 channel tube pre-amp, there really isn't a viable option to incorporate a sub the way it should be utilized in a good HT system. So it's a moot point, really.

H9

Conradicles

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Have you ever tried running a sub? Seems you'd be missing alot of the low end impact/punch when not using a sub.

Oh yeah, I've run many of them. Will again some day but for now I am quite happy...

rayslifecycle

I had SDA CRS + speakers in my HT setup for both front and rear speakers at one point. I found the sound very immersive and enjoyable; however, the peerless tweeters on my monitor series speakers were more comfortable at the louder volumes at which I tend to watch movies. One pair of SDAs went to the 2channel system upstairs. I currently enjoy listening to movies in SDA stereo just as much as I enjoy a full 5.1......Although they both have a different way of immersing you in an image of sound.

Face

leroyjr1 wrote: »

I never liked SDA's for HT because IMO for HT I look for a speaker(s) that is forward, clear, and dynamic with also alittle detail up top. I would classify the SDA's as having a laid back midrange, not dynamic and being a little slow.

For 2 channel they're better.

There's something obviously wrong with your setup.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

And exactly how would I do bass management or even connect a sub? In my system the way it's configured now, 2 channel tube pre-amp, there really isn't a viable option to incorporate a sub the way it should be utilized in a good HT system. So it's a moot point, really.

H9

It's not exactly moot. Running subs is actually quite easy in this scenario. You're right there is no LFE being processed but you can alleviate some of the load to the 1c's and add some authority to the lowest registers by utilizing stereo subs in this fashion:

1) You go buy a pair of MicroPro 4000's (:biggrin:)
2) Set one on the outside edge of the speaker on both the left and right speakers.
3) run the cables from your amp to the corresponding side's subwoofer and into the high level input post.
4) run a jumper from the high level output (to-speaker) posts to the input posts of the corresponding 1c.
5) set your subwoofers xover to 80Hz, or whatever you so choose

viola! bass so heavy you need to wear a mouth guard.
Rattling the windows is one thing, shaking the medicine cabinet out of the wall upstairs is quite another. :cool:

but it all goes back to personal preference.

newrival

leroyjr1 wrote: »

You would be surprised at what a good ID subwoofer could do to your system for movies.

It would seem that running sda's without the innerconnect cable would be best when using them as surrounds. Setup would be much easier. Also another negative about running sda's as surrounds is rear speakers sound best IMO when placed above the listeners ear. When I tried running floorstanders as surrounds I noticed if someone was sitting on either side of me they blocked that speaker, lessening the rear effect.

Youre right on the mark with level placement of the rears. = or >6' is ideal. But a 5'6" pair of SRS's do just fine :biggrin:
Additionally, CRS's on tall stands or tv wall mounts will work very nicely. But I respectfully disagree with you about removing the interconnect, Only because I have tried both. leave the interconnect IN!

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

It's not exactly moot. Running subs is actually quite easy in this scenario.

1) You go buy a pair of MicroPro 4000's (:biggrin:)
2) Set one on the outside edge of the speaker on both the left and right speakers.
3) run the cables from your amp to the corresponding side's subwoofer and into the high level input post.
4) run a jumper from the high level output (to-speaker) posts to the input posts of the corresponding 1c.
5) set your subwoofers xover to 80Hz, or whatever you so choose

viola! bass so heavy you need to wear a mouth guard.
Rattling the windows is one thing, shaking the medicine cabinet out of the wall upstairs is quite another. :cool:

but it all goes back to personal preference

Sounds like fake, horrible bass. I think I'll pass I detest heavy, exaggerated bass. I like real, organic bass that extends like a wave and can tickle my toes w/o even hearing it. Not a fan of subs at all........except when properly calibrated in a good HT.

Sounds like a lot of work for the few movies I do watch. Wouldn't even consider it for 2 channel music listening.

H9

1C's have no trouble going down to about 30-32Hz, plenty for me and IMO, the bass the 1C's do produce is better than the average sub, as in it's more accurate, cleaner and less distortion.

leroyjr1

Face wrote: »

There's something obviously wrong with your setup.

Nothing wrong over here. Not everyone will be happy with the same speaker, good thing they made so many. It's my opinion and in my setup that what matters most.

polkfan38

I am going to stick with the Monitor/TSi line for now because I have a idea what it would take to properly set up a SDA HT. But, I think I am going to snag some SDAs if they ever come up for sale in my area. I saw some 1.2s that were refinished and they were some of the most beautiful speakers I have ever seen!

heiney9

leroyjr1 wrote: »

I never liked SDA's for HT because IMO for HT I look for a speaker(s) that is forward, clear, and dynamic with also alittle detail up top. I would classify the SDA's as having a laid back midrange, not dynamic and being a little slow.

For 2 channel they're better.

That is the most contradictory statement I've ever read. Why would I want slower, less dynamic speakers for 2 channel and faster more dynamic speakers for HT?

In my experience both selling and owning SDA's laid back midrange, slow and not dynamic aren't attributes to most of the SDA line (especially the SRS2, 1C and other later models). Are they as fast as say a Maggie? No, but they certainly aren't slow or lack dynamics. Sounds like you might need to swap in some gear and/or check placement, room, etc.

They aren't the fastest speakers out there, but I would never describe them as slow and lacking dynamics

Perhaps you could explain futhur rather than making a general statement. If you are comparing them to say a pair of MMG's then yes Polks (as are most conventional driver speakers) are slow. Put your statement in context.

H9

newrival

im with you h9, just making aware the options.

However the bass can be as good as one is willing to make it. You could have some killer custom subwoofers that xover at 40Hz. For someone into pipe organ, subwoofers are almost a necesity. Or speakers that can reach flatly into the 17 Hz range.

My SRS's are supposed to be flat (-3db) below 20Hz. I haven't been able to realize this but I have a little bit of sealing to do and some other mods.

heiney9

If anything slower less dynamic speakers will be helped along by the over processing the movie soundtrack, so one could get by with much lesser speakers because the source material will make up for it to a certain degree.

My brother has TSi's and DSW Pro sub (not Micro) with a Denon reciever in a large room and it sounds fantastic for movies. For music, not so good, atleast compared to his 2 channel rig or my 2 channel rig which both have much higher end electronics and speakers.

H9

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

im with you h9, just making aware the options.

However the bass can be as good as one is willing to make it. You could have some killer custom subwoofers that xover at 40Hz. For someone into pipe organ, subwoofers are almost a necesity. Or speakers that can reach flatly into the 17 Hz range.

My SRS's are supposed to be flat (-3db) below 20Hz. I haven't been able to realize this but I have a little bit of sealing to do and some other mods.

I have no doubt a custom sub or very high end musical sub would be a benefit, but it's all about resource allocation and I am perfectly happy with the performance of my rig for 2 channel music reproduction.

If I had a separate HT rig in a separate room a sub would be on the list no doubt.

H9

heiney9

The reality most don't understand is there is not a lot of content below about 35Hz for typically recorded popular music so speakers that can hit that or even a little above aren't missing much. Of course, there are exceptions in the case of organ music or some other types of less popular music, but for most of commercially recorded music there isn't a lot of "true" low end content.

Movie soundtracks.........that's a different story.

H9

Joe08867

heiney9 wrote: »

That is the most contradictory statement I've ever read. Why would I want slower, less dynamic speakers for 2 channel and faster more dynamic speakers for HT?

In my experience both selling and owning SDA's laid back midrange, slow and not dynamic aren't attributes to most of the SDA line (especially the SRS2, 1C and other later models). Are they as fast as say a Maggie? No, but they certainly aren't slow or lack dynamics. Sounds like you might need to swap in some gear and/or check placement, room, etc.

They aren't the fastest speakers out there, but I would never describe them as slow and lacking dynamics

Perhaps you could explain futher rather than making a general statement. If you are comparing them to say a pair of MMG's then yes Polks (as are most conventional driver speakers) are slow. Put your statement in context.

H9

I have to agree with you H9. Why would I want more dynamic speakers for HT and slow, mid lacking, non brilliant speakers for music.

I would suggest the opposite for people looking into 2ch. I want the most dynamic, fastest, speaker I can afford and so far my SDA's are them. No they aren't MMG's but they are quick.

Look at it this way why would Polk use eight 6.5 inch speakers instead of say a pair of 12" speakers? the answer is Speed. I will use the bad word for music now. Bose, uses nine 3.5" speakers in each cab of the 901 series for the same reason.

Are these speakers as fast as Maggies no but especially for the time they were as close as most could get.

I would suggest you look into how they are setup before making a blanket statement like that Leroyjr1.

nooshinjohn

another reason for a 6.5 over a larger (12" or 15") driver is accuracy. I have yet to hear a large driver in a home speaker that didn't sound muddy at higher volumes. I despise Cerwin Vega for audio for that very reason.

Face

A well designed 10" driver will have less distortion at low frequencies than a well designed 6.5" driver.

newrival

Face wrote: »

A well designed 10" driver will have less distortion at low frequencies than a well designed 6.5" driver.

Thats right. And I would suspect that the reason 6.5" drivers were used isn't totally because of "speed" as Joe said. I'm certain that there are a lot of other variables in here, but I suspect one main reason is sheer size. imagine how wide the speakers would have to be if you had 8" drivers. at least another 6" wider. The fact is that the SDA's relied on the midrange drivers for the bass with help from the passive radiator. This means you need a larger driver. SDA requires you to have drivers side by side and then you need room for the tweeters. My theory that size played a much larger role is supported byt the later release of the SRT's. They removed the duty of the bass from the midrange altogether and ntroduced an external subwoofer that utilized a much larger driver. and it certainly wasn't "slower." The midranges were then made even smaller so the overall width could be brought down.

Face

If the SDA woofers were 8's, the midrange would suffer greatly due to the lack of dispersion.

leroyjr1

Joe08867 wrote: »

I would suggest you look into how they are setup before making a blanket statement like that Leroyjr1.

Just giving my opinion. Never said they were bad, but not to my liking for HT.
Currently no Polk speakers in both my HT setup. Just Mythos (5.1)& Klipsch Palladium.(2.1) and I'm very happy.

Over and out.