new to polk sound

leftwinger57
leftwinger57 Posts: 2,917
edited February 2011 in Speakers
Hi Guys, I've been here before for other technical advise and comparisons. I was a Klipsch Heritage guy but now it seems there prices are getting to high. Now about the vintage Polks, I just saw on E-Bay a pair of vtg monitor 10s for a starting bid of $149. Is there a place like Klipsch has to do comparisons on their vtg spkrs. First to products then to floor standers then to archive and there it is the whole history of the Klipsch line. Now I could use something like that for the Polk line. Right now for my 2-ch speakers I have a pair of pristine refoamed InfinitySM112s, how do the moniters stand up to my spks. Is there any comparison are the Polks better and I've read reviews of my own speakers so I do know the + and= of the model.So the archive would be of the most help w/specs and design. Thanks ...
2chl- Adcom GFA- 555-Onkyo P-3150v pre/amp- JVC-QL-A200 tt- Denon 1940 ci cdp- Adcom GFS-6 -Modded '87 SDA 2Bs - Dynamat Ext.- BH-5- X-Overs VR-3, RDO-194 tweeters, Larry's Rings, Speakon/Neutrik I/C- Cherry stain tops Advent Maestros,Ohm model E

H/T- Toshiba au40" flat- Yamaha RX- V665 avr- YSD-11 Dock- I-Pod- Klipsch #400HD Speaker set-

Bdrm- Nikko 6065 receiver- JBL -G-200s--Pioneer 305 headphones--Sony CE375-5 disc
Post edited by leftwinger57 on
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • tonyb
    tonyb Posts: 33,019
    edited February 2011
    I would imagine the Monitor line would be miles better than Infinity's SM line. Maybe some older Infinity's from the RS line may be better than your current SM's, if you want to stay in that brand but as far as the Polks go, I would say yes, better in every way.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1420
    lsi 9's
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • EndersShadow
    EndersShadow Posts: 17,596
    edited February 2011
    tonyb wrote: »
    I would imagine the Monitor line would be miles better than Infinity's SM line. Maybe some older Infinity's from the RS line may be better than your current SM's, if you want to stay in that brand but as far as the Polks go, I would say yes, better in every way.

    Eh I have had the SM 185's (and SilverTuner modded them after I sold them to him) and they were decent. I also have Polk Monitor 40's, and Infinity Primus 162's as fronts as well in my office.

    Here are my thoughts:

    Infinity Studio Monitors:

    The SM185's need room to breathe. The highs and mids are quite good, but you really have to pump up the volume on them to get bass.

    They are rear ported and not put together the best. After Forum member SilverTuner modded them by adding some additional polyfil to the speaker cabinet and also messing with the crossovers (will have him post what he did) he said they sounded much better and had a much improved bass response.

    The overall sound from them I would call quite smooth and relaxing but lacking deep bass of any kind. You will need a sub with these (and any of the others)

    Monitor 40's:

    They produced a decent amount of bass but also are rear ported and need space to breathe. The bass they do produce can sound muddy and it can feel like they are straining to produce it. Highs are a little more accentuated but not what I would call bright.

    They are brighter compared to the Studio Monitor 185's but not by much.

    Infinity Primus 162's

    They are front ported and seem to be put together decent (havent opened them up). They like the Studio Monitor 185's are not in the slightest bass heavy and do a great job of being smooth and relaxing.

    Of the 3 I personally like the Primus 162's best for a pair of fronts for stereo. I would add in a sub however since while they do go deeper than the 185's they still need the extra fill volume of a sub.
    "....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • silvertuner
    silvertuner Posts: 496
    edited February 2011
    those 112's are vastly different from the 185.

    i am not a huge fan of infinity speakers, but i did bypass the polyswitches (these DESTROYED the top on these) to get rid of the what i would refer to as "the eye dimming" highs that it had. reassembled, retested, MUCH cleaner sound.

    added 3 sheets of polyfill on top of the one sheet that was there. before, i swear they couldnt go below 180hz. i couldnt hear or feel the bass. after the polyfill they would shake the floor from the bass.

    IMO, i would take the monitor 10's over the infinity's, but im also bias, i miss my old 10's and think they were a great speaker especially at their price point. im going to have to agree with tonyb, the polks will be miles better, but i cant tell you what your ears will like.

    some cheap free sony speakers
    psw125
    denon 1610
    3.1 channel because i hate cables ran across the living room like that
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • EndersShadow
    EndersShadow Posts: 17,596
    edited February 2011
    hehehe.....so i just googled the SM112's and realize they are indeed much diff than my SM185's.....

    so take my comments lightly.......

    I have no experience w/ Polks Monitor 10's myself so going to defer to silvertuners comment...
    "....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • leftwinger57
    leftwinger57 Posts: 2,917
    edited February 2011
    I to read the reveiws of my sm112s on Audiokarma and out of 30 some odd personal reveiws most people liked what they heard BUT were a bit lacking in bass. At first when I used then as my zone 2 off my Yamaha 665 I was not impressed.Now that they get pushed w/ an Adcomgfa555 I'm pretty happy w/ them. For some reason I have a hard on for OHM/WALSH 2s and their omni directionality.
    2chl- Adcom GFA- 555-Onkyo P-3150v pre/amp- JVC-QL-A200 tt- Denon 1940 ci cdp- Adcom GFS-6 -Modded '87 SDA 2Bs - Dynamat Ext.- BH-5- X-Overs VR-3, RDO-194 tweeters, Larry's Rings, Speakon/Neutrik I/C- Cherry stain tops Advent Maestros,Ohm model E

    H/T- Toshiba au40" flat- Yamaha RX- V665 avr- YSD-11 Dock- I-Pod- Klipsch #400HD Speaker set-

    Bdrm- Nikko 6065 receiver- JBL -G-200s--Pioneer 305 headphones--Sony CE375-5 disc
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tony M
    Tony M Posts: 11,197
    edited February 2011
    leftwinger57 wrote: »
    I to read the reveiws of my sm112s on Audiokarma and out of 30 some odd personal reveiws most people liked what they heard BUT were a bit lacking in bass. At first when I used then as my zone 2 off my Yamaha 665 I was not impressed.Now that they get pushed w/ an Adcomgfa555 I'm pretty happy w/ them. For some reason I have a hard on for OHM/WALSH 2s and their omni directionality.

    They are omni dirictional from the midrange down. You still have to position each tweeter pointing toward the sweetspot. I think that's what mine were like. Pretty Holographic sound stage for sure but it still was anchored in the center. SWEET SPEAKERS......:cool:
    Most people just listen to music and watch movies. I EXPERIENCE them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter