Replacing 2000 tweeters

DON73

Just finished replacing the 2000 tweeters in my Monitor 7s with the RDOs. Haven't done any extensive listening but I can't tell any difference.....if anything the RDOs sound a little brighter than the 2000s. Maybe after they are played for a while they'll sound different. FWIW the RDOs are $60 each from Polk and CP members get a 20% discount.


Saw a pair of 5jrs on e-bay last night. The seller didn't know what model they were and someone wrote in telling him they were 5jrs and that the silver tweeters were worth "a mint":cool::cool:



Sorry this is a duplicate duplicate post.......well sort of.....the other post is in Speakers forum. Old age is a ****.

F1nut

You've got issues somewhere else if you find the RD0194-1 bright. They are much more laid back than the SL2000 and if anything sound rather hollow for the first 48 hours.

heiney9

They need some break in time give a few weeks, or else you have other issues somewhere in the chain.

DON73

Thanks for your replies. I installed one and then compared the RDO with the 2000. Just an opinion. Maybe It'll grow on me after a few days. Right now I'm playing them with a receiver. When I have them set up permanently I'll be using a separate amp.

dorokusai

I'm sure we all hear different things but bright isn't a word I'd associate with the RD0.

PolkClyde

Believe it or not,I like the sound of The SL2000.hey,I have always been a little unorthodox.The guys here on the forum convince me to buy the RDO's. I bought 8ea and guess what? they got delivered to another address.some of you may rememberthat, in 08I agree with F1nut and dorokusai,they are not bright at all,laid back is the right word..but I like bright,but not harsh sounding speakers,with lots of low bass.I just bought the discontinue, sub PSW505 and loving it.

DON73

I like them better the more I listen. I had them connected to an Integra 7.6 and now I'm using a B&K......that may account for the difference but I doubt it.

geppy1

PolkClyde, 100s of 1000s of Polk speakers were sold from 1985 to 1990 with Sl2000s. The vast majority of people did not seem to have an issue with them. A tiny fraction of a percent of those people are on this site and a very small vocal fraction of them have a problem with the SL2000 so you are in the real majority. If matched with the right gear it sounds just fine. if not it can be bright.

dorokusai

geppy1 wrote: »

PolkClyde, 100s of 1000s of Polk speakers were sold from 1985 to 1990 with Sl2000s. The vast majority of people did not seem to have an issue with them. A tiny fraction of a percent of those people are on this site and a very small vocal fraction of them have a problem with the SL2000 so you are in the real majority. If matched with the right gear it sounds just fine. if not it can be bright.

Aside from the audio insult for the few of us, you're correct as the majority of owners had/have no issues with either lineage of tweeter. It is documented that they have anomalies response wise and the history of the design is inherent with the model number, the SL3000 being the final iteration of the same frame. It's an evolution of a driver if there ever was one.

DON73

People are influenced by what they read in forums like this one. They rock along for years listening to and enjoying their audio system then they read a less than favorable statement about their speakers, electronics or cables and they start worrying about their equipment instead of continuing to enjoying the music.
Certainly don't want to insult anyone

dorokusai

DON73 wrote: »

People are influenced by what they read in forums like this one. They rock along for years listening to and enjoying their audio system then they read a less than favorable statement about their speakers, electronics or cables and they start worrying about their equipment instead of continuing to enjoying the music.
Certainly don't want to insult anyone

That's a perfect way to put it DON....we all ended up here for some reason and those that stay almost ALWAYS end up tweaking something. It's only the Golden Oldies that tend to stay in their stream of audio amongst a deluge of suggestions.

nadams

Haha... I wouldn't consider myself a "Golden Oldie", but I've hung on to my SL2000's. Granted, I unhooked one per side

And the RD0's are still on my list of tweaks to try... I just haven't been compelled to run out and get some in the last 5 years that I've had my SDA's.

geppy1

Your funny Mark. No insult intended and I am not a huge fan of 2000s either just pointing out your not a loser if you like them or do not like RDOs.
I will say this (again) one really have to give credit to Polk (if you like RDOs or not) for supporting a line or lines of speakers dating back 25 years. Hardly anybody else does that.

DON73

I'm an "oldie" for sure but no one will be calling me "golden" again (not that they ever did). I will admit that I lean toward the older audio components. I can remember a time before stereo when one of the guys in the barracks had made a speaker for his mono Hi FI.
That was the first time I had heard the words "woofer"and "tweeter". I also remember when the AR3 and large Advents were considered the "ultimate" speakers. The little AR turntable was very popular as were the Dual German made turntables. The older Pioneer, Sansui and Kenwood receivers with their wooden cabinets and beautiful blue lights still have a place in my memory. I remember using telephone wire between my Kenwood 45 watt receiver and AR2ax speakers. Sounded pretty good to me then.
I know they're old and probably need lots of TLC to make them reliable again but so do I. But I'll just take a pain pill and go on about my business.
I'm not against tweaks at all. I have a friend who knows more about audio than anyone I've ever met and he uses $500 interconnects between his tube amp and his B&W 801s. I believe him when he says he can hear a difference but I can't. I'll probably try a few tweeks myself shortly.

heiney9

nadams wrote: »

Haha... I wouldn't consider myself a "Golden Oldie", but I've hung on to my SL2000's. Granted, I unhooked one per side

And the RD0's are still on my list of tweaks to try... I just haven't been compelled to run out and get some in the last 5 years that I've had my SDA's.

When I owned my RTA 11T's I was right with your line of thought. I wish now that I had bought the RD0's way back then. A vastly superior tweeter in every regard, a true evolution that many companies would never have under taken on a long discontinued line of models.

I do suspect if the manufacturing process of the sl3000 tweet wasn't so environmentally unfriendly and the manufacturer hadn't stopped producing them for Polk for that reason, perhaps the RD0 tweets would never have been R & D'd. Polk could have just stopped supporting drivers for older models, but they chose to move ahead with a more refined and current design.

I for one am glad they are avail.

H9

sbolt

Newbie here, but I bought a pair of Monitor 4's w/Peerless (1984) and a pair of Jr's w/ SL 2000's (1987 I think) over the holidays.

I think the sound of these are just fine, and my listening room isn't really optimal yet. I don't feel the need to spend $$ on replacements.

When I rebuild the crossovers I may experiment with higher value resistors to bing the volume of the tweeters down slightly, but I don't think the old tweeters are harsh at all, but they are very detailed. They are just a little unbalanced in volume with the speaker as a whole.

But again there are a lot of hard surfaces in my room.

rayslifecycle

sbolt wrote: »

When I rebuild the crossovers I may experiment with higher value resistors to bing the volume of the tweeters down slightly

I think someone on this forum may have experimented with this a couple of years ago.......you may want to do a search

jcandy

DON73 wrote: »

Just finished replacing the 2000 tweeters in my Monitor 7s with the RDOs. Haven't done any extensive listening but I can't tell any difference.....if anything the RDOs sound a little brighter than the 2000s.

In fact there is little difference between tweeters. Here are some measurements I made recently comparing SL2000 with RDO194. RDO is 1dB brighter at 3kHz, 1dB lower from 5KHz to 15kHz, > 1dB brighter past 15kHz (where most of us can't hear anything).

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1418356#post1418356

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

In fact there is little difference between tweeters. Here are some measurements I made recently comparing SL2000 with RDO194. RDO is 1dB brighter at 3kHz, 1dB lower from 5KHz to 15kHz, > 1dB brighter past 15kHz (where most of us can't hear anything).

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1418356#post1418356

There is a huge difference, just listen to both of them sometime.

H9

heiney9

sbolt wrote: »

When I rebuild the crossovers I may experiment with higher value resistors to bing the volume of the tweeters down slightly, but I don't think the old tweeters are harsh at all, but they are very detailed. They are just a little unbalanced in volume with the speaker as a whole.

That's been tried and it doesn't work to tame the hump at about 13-15kHZ. The RD0's are the better sounding tweet.

H9

geppy1

You will have to listen and decide for YOURSELF. To my ears the RDOs are smoother and more subtle. They are more fluid. Pleasent to listen to It is hard to describe. The down side is they do not seem as transparent , the stage is not as tall and I do not get the sense of the venue or as much extension and openness above the speakers as the 2000s. On the other hand the 2000s can be annoying. Bottoline it is gear depedent, music listened too dependent and personal preference

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

There is a huge difference, just listen to both of them sometime.

There is not a huge difference. Obviously I've listened to both of them. The responses are intertwined, never departing more than roughly +/- 1dB. Making the baffle an inch or two wider will affect the response (via edge diffraction) about as much.

jcandy

In fact, someone considering the upgrade can do this test: take the grill off your speakers. If you find the sound with the grill off harsh and fatiguing, then it is likely that the RDO will sound better (or at least different) to you.

If you look at all the measurement plots I posted, one shows that removing the grill alters the SPL about as much as switching tweeters. The effect of the grill on diffraction is well known, and that's why some companies (Paradigm, for example) integrate the drivers into the grill:

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/907para

"The two drivers are set into a mounting plate that stands proud of the baffle's surface but fits flush into the grille, to reduce baffle diffraction. Paradigm recommends leaving the grilles in place."

F1nut

heiney9 wrote: »

There is a huge difference, just listen to both of them sometime.

H9

Just goes to prove that measurements do not tell the full story and another reason why he is on my bozo list.

Face

You know better than just relying on SPL.

F1nut

rayslifecycle wrote: »

I think someone on this forum may have experimented with this a couple of years ago.......you may want to do a search

That was Carl and his 2.2uF cap BS.

sbolt

F1nut wrote: »

That was Carl and his 2.2uF cap BS.

OK thanks for saving me the time. (no sarcasm either).

After I refurb the crossovers, I'll see how they sound. If I still have a problem, I'll get an EQ to knock down the highest freqs a little.

jcandy

F1nut wrote: »

Just goes to prove that measurements do not tell the full story and another reason why he is on my bozo list.

The OP said he can't tell any significant difference. Measurements confirm his subjective impression. Anyhow, my post was aimed at the more moderate (read: less aggressive and rude) Club Polk readers who might actually be interested in data.

jcandy

Face wrote: »

You know better than just relying on SPL.

If I was comparing two loudspeakers with very different baffles, or very different transducer (tweeter) designs, I'd be more concerned about THD and polar response. In that case the SPL on a single axis would be less "damning".

But these are largely the same transducer in the same baffle. And they sound the same to the OP. And they measure the same.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck ...

Face

The RD0-194 was designed to have the same FR so no changes to the crossover would be necessary, otherwise I wouldn't consider them largely the same transducer. I can dig through my SDA Compendium tomorrow for the exact differences.

Joe08867

jcandy wrote: »

In fact there is little difference between tweeters. Here are some measurements I made recently comparing SL2000 with RDO194. RDO is 1dB brighter at 3kHz, 1dB lower from 5KHz to 15kHz, > 1dB brighter past 15kHz (where most of us can't hear anything).

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1418356#post1418356

Sound quality is more than test numbers. It is the actual sound you hear from the speaker.

Numbers are good and can give you a ballpark to play in but you need to really hear the two side by side. Worlds apart IMHO.