gimpod SDA boards for 2.3

cincycat13

I am sure many of these types of threads may follow if you have been on the fence about a crossover rebuild. The gimpod boards and website make this project like "paint by numbers". Read the website, make a parts list, order and assemble once parts arrive. I did this for my SDA 2.3

Rough costs:
Sonicraft for caps and resistors on sale $265
Gimpod boards $100
Mouser clips and mounts $ 25
Tape/zip ties/etc $ 10
Solder / de-solder tools ? borrowed $ freebee
Ballpark cost $400

I have attached photos of a stock board, photos of a rebuild on a stock board, and my project on the gimpod board. I don't recall who's stock rebuild this was. I either got it from a thread or a member emailed it to me. It was going to be my roadmap as I saw a lot of others with worse positioning and liked this one the best. On the gimpod board, the space and location issues go away.

I also found my stock board hanging from the large inductor by like 2 clips when I opened the passive.

cincycat13

Rebuilding specific to this model the things I would do differently as I went along (my learnings)

1. Mount the caps by ? tape first, then zip tie, then solder.
2. Don't miss the J4 jumper under C6 and install the jumper FIRST.
3. There is a zip tie that will route by R3 ? leave some room.
4. I tried to be cheap and did not initially order new connectors for mounting the board to the inductor. This cost me time and freight money as the old ones were shot as noted above.
5. One of the mount holes is by the 5.8 cap above "L". Leave some room.
6. Digital pictures are a better reference than my notes and memory.

I have to do some Easter shopping. Hope to hook them up before the kids get home.

Vette C6.r

Looking good Jeff.

Please give your thoughts when they are broken in.

Clean work Sir.

Earthy

Inspiring! Someday I got to get motivated to put my new boards to use.

Joe08867

Nice Job! they look so much better on gimps boards.

PSOVLSK

Very nice work. I wish I was skilled enough to perform a job like this.

Toolfan66

Nice Job!!! The boards are fantastic to work with..

On3s&Z3r0s

PSOVLSK wrote: »

Very nice work. I wish I was skilled enough to perform a job like this.

I gotta tell you... and I don't mean to diminish at all what Cincy has done here, but these boards and the supporting materials Gimpod has put together take all the guesswork out of it. I had barely picked up a soldering iron a couple months ago, and using these boards I significantly upgraded my SDA 2B's.

I'd definitely follow Cincy's advice. Tape and tie the caps and inductors before soldering. Also, make sure you're paying careful attention to which inductors are which (L1/L2 esp) when removing from the stock crossovers. But these boards truly make an SDA crossover upgrade accessible to just about anyone.

Nice job on the 2.3 upgrade BTW! Those look a bunch more complicated than the 2B/TL, and looks like you parked it. Did you buy all new Sonicaps instead of re-using the ones from the earlier upgrade?

EDIT: nvm... just re-read and it sounds like that was just a picture of an earlier upgrade not one of yours. It definitely illustrates the point. :biggrin:

charley95

I ordered my boards from Tony yesterday. Very nice job Cincy! I'll be sure to follow your thread when I upgrade my 2.3's. Does anyone know how often the Sonicaps go on sale? Be sure to post your impression when your task is complete! Are you going to upgrade your wiring to a heavier gauge?

gimpod

Very good job cincycat13 glad you went with the new mounting hardware the original stand offs just won't get the job done and with the new hardware those boards aren't going anywhere.

charley95: A couple guys around here have rewired there's with heaver gauge and noticed no difference and concluded that it's not worth the effort and expense.

charley95

gimpod wrote: »

Very good job cincycat13 glad you went with the new mounting hardware the original stand offs just won't get the job done and with the new hardware those boards aren't going anywhere.

charley95: A couple guys around here have rewired there's with heaver gauge and noticed no difference and concluded that it's not worth the effort and expense.

I always wondered why do we use speaker wire as thick as a bridge cable,but yet they only used light gauge wire between the drivers & tweets?

I would think that heavy harnesses should be inside the cabinets from the factory.

Also why did Polk not use some kind of lining adheered to the inside of the cabinets? I know that cost was a factor but, do we really need to change the sonics inside the cab? The $$ they were getting back in the late 80's & early 90's was a serious chunk of change. I think the $2200.00 that was paid for my 2.3's in 88 was too damn much cash. Shouldn't that kind of $$ buy a serious pair of speakers today in 2011?

cincycat13

Yes, the new mounting hardware was a must as noted by the picture of the original boards alone coming off of the inductor mount clips. That being said, I struggled as well on how to use the new mounts when I got to that point because I did all of my soldering before I got the mount parts. There was just very little way the nut side would fit near the large inductor without serious cutting. That left the nut side for the board...and I didn't leave myself much room by L1 / L2 either. I might advise future people to use a piece of tape to mark some room for the spots.

charley95...I doubt I will rewire the harnesses. I have a lot easier fish to fry yet such as tweeters, "Larry's rings", and spikes. If you look at my 15TL ring install, you will see they have a custom harness. The weight alone made it a real PITA to get the driver connections redone just as a practical note.

F1nut

I always wondered why do we use speaker wire as thick as a bridge cable,but yet they only used light gauge wire between the drivers & tweets?

I would think that heavy harnesses should be inside the cabinets from the factory.

What matters is getting the signal to the crossover as best as possible.

Polk used stranded 16 gauge (not light gauge) tinned copper chassis wire. As evidenced by those that have changed it, the stock wire does an excellent job.

Shouldn't that kind of $$ buy a serious pair of speakers today in 2011?

$2200 does not buy a serious pair of speakers today, IMO.

gimpod

I hear ya, The mounting hardware can be a bit tight but it does fit. I found if you use the screw to attach the standoff to the big inductor to be the easiest way to go and as far as the nuts go I used a 1/4" drive socket for those or you can use a nut driver, it's a tight fit between C1 & L2 and the one by the "L" pad (Depending on the SDA model) but it will fit. It's a trade-off I had to make in the design in order to keep overall board size down and still accommodate all the different SDA models.

Man I have got to get that "Hint's and Tip's" section done and up this weekend!

BTW: Did you guys see what On3s&Z3r0s did to the jumpers on his. He used 1/16" red heat shrink tubing it's not really needed except where noted on the schematics but it just looks so damn cool I really like it. It just adds that little something extra. :cool:

cincycat13

Certainly not a complaint. I checked my Sonic Craft invoice and I got those parts 8/6/2010 so your contribution certainly got me over the hump. I ended up using a hemostat clamp to hold the nut to the hole and twisting the standoff into the nut. Then **** the inductor into the standoffs. Just sharing my lake of planning so others don't have to. I did see the shrink jumpers and liked that touch a lot.

gimpod

Don't worry about it. I didn't take your comments as a complaint besides you made a very good point about the mounting being a bit tough that I forgot to add to the Hint's and Tip's. Thank You.

Hemostats: Whatever works for ya. Let me tell ya they've saved my butt more than a few times. Just keep them out of sight of the cops or they'll think your a pot smoker. :rolleyes::biggrin:

audiocr381ve

Cincycat, any update on how things around sounding? Was it worth it?

petarnike

ok well in my sda boarding school there is a policy where you are not allowed to dance

cincycat13

audiocr381ve wrote: »

Cincycat, any update on how things around sounding? Was it worth it?

I owned them in stock form for just under a year. I went from stock SDA 2B to these SDA 2.3 I chose the 2.3 as I preferered the "more of everything" that the larger speakers provided.

I am using a Sony CDP-C70, rotel 995 pre, and an updated Carver TFM-45 as my set up. My first impression after the install was "more of everything" again. I only have about 30 hours on the new boards, but I feel some of the muddyness going away. For me, this was more cost effective than trying another speaker swap and probably more fun.

The purpose of my thread was to share my experience on how the boards make the project much easier, and the areas I had trouble with if you had been considering an upgrade. But to answer your question...YES...for me it was worth it. I found 20 year old production boards hanging from the inductor and now have better parts secure in the cabinets. I didn't dislike them before, but I will not be moving the parts back to stock form for sure!

DarqueKnight

charley95 wrote: »

I think the $2200.00 that was paid for my 2.3's in 88 was too damn much cash. Shouldn't that kind of $$ buy a serious pair of speakers today in 2011?

F1nut wrote: »

$2200 does not buy a serious pair of speakers today, IMO.

$2200 in 1988 dollars is equivalent to $4220 in 2011 dollars.

I don't know what the performance threshold is for a "serious" loudspeaker.

heiney9

$2200 was a lot back in 1988, I know because I sold Polks at a high end dealer. But in hindsight you should feel that money was very, very well spent. SDA's are unique and they have stood the test of time, not fallen apart, are still very relevant today; and Polk continues to support a 20+ year old speaker line.

I can't think of many $2200 speakers from 1988 that still compete today, have held together cosmetically and get support from the original manufacturer and have a healthy following.

I would say it would be hard to find a $2200 speaker of today that would be comparable 23 years from now. So what I'm saying is NO $2200 was not a lot of money for the 23 years you had the product.

H9

F1nut

DarqueKnight wrote: »

$2200 in 1988 dollars is equivalent to $4220 in 2011 dollars.

I don't know what the performance threshold is for a "serious" loudspeaker.

$4221.00 :biggrin:

FTGV

for $2.2k? Vandy 2Ce's .

charley95

heiney9 wrote: »

$2200 was a lot back in 1988, I know because I sold Polks at a high end dealer. But in hindsight you should feel that money was very, very well spent. SDA's are unique and they have stood the test of time, not fallen apart, are still very relevant today; and Polk continues to support a 20+ year old speaker line.

I can't think of many $2200 speakers from 1988 that still compete today, have held together cosmetically and get support from the original manufacturer and have a healthy following.

I would say it would be hard to find a $2200 speaker of today that would be comparable 23 years from now. So what I'm saying is NO $2200 was not a lot of money for the 23 years you had the product.

H9

Very well said! My 15's look just as good as the day I bought them new. I do stand corrected in my opinions on the older Polk's. I was fortunate enough to get a killer deal on my 2.3's a while back. It's very evident there's a lot more guys here that know a lot more than I do. I hope people will help when I have a million questions regarding my XO rebuild. Now to aquire all the parts!
Just got G-Pods boards, and need rings,caps. res. etc.