Need some info on some SDA's

heiney9 · August 2011

Joe08867 wrote: »

All the brilliance was back without the sibilance or nastiness that the 194 had added.

Sorry Joe, but I have to disagree the 194 has NEVER in my experience had sibilance or nastiness. It's one smooth and extended tweeter. Something else must have been wrong.

H9

Mr. Bubbles · August 2011

Polk redesigned the crossovers in all of the Later SDA's to work with the Tri-Laminate tweeters as I believe they are a different Ohm Rating and have very different parameters to deal with in the crossover. As a result the 194 will sound completely wrong in a circuit designed for the 198.

I understand this completely. However what is really being said (I assume) is not that the 198's can't be used in almost anything, but that it would take major cross updates and changes to make it work properly and experience what they are capable of delivering. I get it though, as sometimes in car audio, though pretty much anything could be done, it didn't always make sense to do so.

If that is the case, I am surprised one of the crossover gurus around here hasn't been successful at putting these in something else.

This leads me to another thought; are replacement diaphragm/ coils available for any of these tweeters and if so how different are the magnet structures.

F1nut · August 2011

heiney9 wrote: »

Sorry Joe, but I have to disagree the 194 has NEVER in my experience had sibilance or nastiness. It's one smooth and extended tweeter. Something else must have been wrong.

H9

Brock, something was wrong. By mistake, Joe was using the 194 in a circuit designed for the 198.

heiney9 · August 2011

F1nut wrote: »

Brock, something was wrong. By mistake, Joe was using the 194 in a circuit designed for the 198.

Ah, ok.....so it was the 194 in the circuit designed for the 198. Not the 194 in a proper circuit.

Got it

H9

Joe08867 · August 2011

heiney9 wrote: »

Sorry Joe, but I have to disagree the 194 has NEVER in my experience had sibilance or nastiness. It's one smooth and extended tweeter. Something else must have been wrong.

H9

heiney9 wrote: »

Ah, ok.....so it was the 194 in the circuit designed for the 198. Not the 194 in a proper circuit.

Got it

H9

That was exactly the problem F1. Normally the 194's are awesome just not in the TL circuit. :eek:

H9, I agree the 194 is quite smooth and extended when used properly.

nspindel · August 2011

When I spoke to Polk customer service several years ago about it, they told me that the 194 and the 198 are the exact same tweeter, except that the windings are different which accounts for the different electrical characteristics. In my experience, the difference between SL2000 and RDO-194 is enormous. The difference between the 194 and 198 is there, but it's not earthshattering the way going from plastic dome to silk dome is. The 198 is better, but it's not a night and day difference at all. The 194 is a fine tweeter, and my 1C's sound just dandy with them.

heiney9 · August 2011

nspindel wrote: »

When I spoke to Polk customer service several years ago about it, they told me that the 194 and the 198 are the exact same tweeter, except that the windings are different which accounts for the different electrical characteristics. In my experience, the difference between SL2000 and RDO-194 is enormous. The difference between the 194 and 198 is there, but it's not earthshattering the way going from plastic dome to silk dome is. The 198 is better, but it's not a night and day difference at all. The 194 is a fine tweeter, and my 1C's sound just dandy with them.

Exactly +1.

The sl2000 and sl3000 were worlds apart and a completely different design from each other. The sl3000 being the better tweeter.

The RD0194-1 and RD0198-1 are extremely similar build and material wise, cut from the same cloth so to speak, with slight electrical differences based on the circuit they fit into.

Not a huge difference in overall sound and presentation, they are very close and both are great sounding tweeters.

H9

Mr. Bubbles · August 2011

Can I safely assume the 194 is a 4 ohm version and the 198 is the 8 ohm version.

heiney9 · August 2011

oliverbubbles wrote: »

Can I safely assume the 194 is a 4 ohm version and the 198 is the 8 ohm version.

Not quite as cut and dried as that. You keep asking about x-over guru's tweaking a speaker to use the 198 instead of the 194. It's all here if you can find it.

the 4.1TL is the only factory approved modification which allows for the use of the 198 in place of a 194 but only certain model SDA's can be done this way. Matthew Polk and other Polk engineers ahve been queried about this and have actually given their .02c.

Again, this has been covered exhaustively on Club Polk in the past, if you can find it. Our search engine is not very good.

H9

audiocr381ve · August 2011

heiney9 wrote: »

Not quite as cut and dried as that. You keep asking about x-over guru's tweaking a speaker to use the 198 instead of the 194. It's all here if you can find it.

the 4.1TL is the only factory approved modification which allows for the use of the 198 in place of a 194 but only certain model SDA's can be done this way. Matthew Polk and other Polk engineers ahve been queried about this and have actually given their .02c.

Again, this has been covered exhaustively on Club Polk in the past, if you can find it. Our search engine is not very good.

H9

Google your question with "club polk" included. Far better than the CP search engine will ever be.

inspiredsports · August 2011

nspindel wrote: »

When I spoke to Polk customer service several years ago about it, they told me that the 194 and the 198 are the exact same tweeter, except that the windings are different which accounts for the different electrical characteristics. In my experience, the difference between SL2000 and RDO-194 is enormous. The difference between the 194 and 198 is there, but it's not earthshattering the way going from plastic dome to silk dome is. The 198 is better, but it's not a night and day difference at all. The 194 is a fine tweeter, and my 1C's sound just dandy with them.

That is a great way to put it. I think most listeners will find the the 194 is perfectly matched to the 1C, and the 198 should be used anywhere else that it can be properly integrated.

Mr. Bubbles · August 2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverbubbles View Post
Can I safely assume the 194 is a 4 ohm version and the 198 is the 8 ohm version.

Not quite as cut and dried as that. You keep asking about x-over guru's tweaking a speaker to use the 198 instead of the 194. It's all here if you can find it.

I was primarily trying to understand why i keep reading that the 198 can't be used in this model or that model but can be used in a different model. please understand that I realize somethings are more complicated than others but most are still possible. i'm just trying to understand. I am a relatively new fan of the vintage polks. When i was in car stereo, Polk was nothing special, either for SPL or sound quality. That was several years ago and things may have changed by now. For my home sytems, I have primarily owned and listened to DCM, klipsch, and Cizek's in the past, for my home listening. i was actually purchasing a pair of DCM TF1000's from a guy who had recently acquired a pair of SDA1.2TL's. Listening to them didn't deter my purchase but definitely gave me the bug. I now have the 2B's and 1C's and am trying to learn as much as i can about these. The SDA's are definitely my fav's on my 2 ch systems. i tried them on my theater and they bombed in my opinion but with the functional theory they involve that does not surprise me and i wouldn't expect a perfect surround sound using SDA technology, though I notice a good many members here seem to use them for that.

I know a lot of this may not match this thread, but as i said i am just trying to learn as much as possible about the vintage polks and especially the SDA's.

heiney9 · August 2011

oliverbubbles wrote: »

I was primarily trying to understand why i keep reading that the 198 can't be used in this model or that model but can be used in a different model. please understand that I realize somethings are more complicated than others but most are still possible. i'm just trying to understand. I am a relatively new fan of the vintage polks. When i was in car stereo, Polk was nothing special, either for SPL or sound quality. That was several years ago and things may have changed by now. For my home sytems, I have primarily owned and listened to DCM, klipsch, and Cizek's in the past, for my home listening. i was actually purchasing a pair of DCM TF1000's from a guy who had recently acquired a pair of SDA1.2TL's. Listening to them didn't deter my purchase but definitely gave me the bug. I now have the 2B's and 1C's and am trying to learn as much as i can about these. The SDA's are definitely my fav's on my 2 ch systems. i tried them on my theater and they bombed in my opinion but with the functional theory they involve that does not surprise me and i wouldn't expect a perfect surround sound using SDA technology, though I notice a good many members here seem to use them for that.

I know a lot of this may not match this thread, but as i said i am just trying to learn as much as possible about the vintage polks and especially the SDA's.

It's real simple, Polk used approximately 7 different tweeters (or more) in the classic models the RD0194 and RD0198 are designed to be used as modern replacements since none of the 7 tweeters are still being produced.

The 194 has certain electrical characteristics that match up with certain models of the (7) original tweeters.

The 198 has certain electrical characteristics that match up with certain models of the (7) original tweeters.

Also some SDA's used a progressive point source in the tweeter array, some didn't. Some used a tweeter in the SDA circuit some didn't.

What is so hard about that? It's not rocket science, certain parts on the same model car only fit certain years, same goes here for same model speakers made in different years with slightly different parameters.

H9

P.s. Certain later model SDA's can be modified to use the 198 instead of the 194, this modification is a factory modification that never made it into production because the SDA line had stopped being manufactured before it could be implemented.

Joe08867 · August 2011

Here is a link to work Darqueknight did with the 4.1TL mod on some SDA CRS+'s.

This takes the 194 out and puts the 198 in. It is a good read.

4.1TL modification for SDA CRS+

heiney9 · August 2011

The 4.1TL mod being the name Polk gave this modification internally. Again, SDA's ceased production before this factory mod could be implemented.

H9

Mr. Bubbles · August 2011

The 194 has certain electrical characteristics that match up with certain models of the (7) original tweeters.

The 198 has certain electrical characteristics that match up with certain models of the (7) original tweeters.

Also some SDA's used a progressive point source in the tweeter array, some didn't. Some used a tweeter in the SDA circuit some didn't.

What is so hard about that? It's not rocket science, certain parts on the same model car only fit certain years, same goes here for same model speakers made in different years with slightly different parameters.

All this is already understood and you are right; nothing complicated about it. however, it still does not answer my question. Why do members around here refer to the 198's as not able to be used in certain models. I am from the world that almost anything can be made to work if you want it bad enough and are willing to put in the effort. i was originally under the impression (from reading here in the forums) that the 198 was much better than any other tweeter Polk ever produced. in fact that is very cl9se to the reply that 1 member gave here recently. I was simply curious that if they were that much better than anything else why it was accepted as not working in other models. Now I find that it is essentially the same as the 194, only slightly different for use in very similar but different circuits. So, since it is not the end all be all that i was impressed it to be, there is no reason to put forth the extreme effort that may be required to make it work in other models. Again not that complicated. i was just confused from reading the opinions of some members replies.

heiney9 · August 2011

oliverbubbles wrote: »

Why do members around here refer to the 198's as not able to be used in certain models. I am from the world that almost anything can be made to work if you want it bad enough and are willing to put in the effort..

As I said before, the answer to that question in detail is here amongst the archives, get you reading hat on.

oliverbubbles wrote: »

i was originally under the impression (from reading here in the forums) that the 198 was much better than any other tweeter Polk ever produced. .

The 194 and 198 are essentially the same tweeter except for some electrical differences. IMO, members overstate how much better the 198 is vs. the 194

oliverbubbles wrote: »

in fact that is very cl9se to the reply that 1 member gave here recently. I was simply curious that if they were that much better than anything else why it was accepted as not working in other models. Now I find that it is essentially the same as the 194, only slightly different for use in very similar but different circuits. So, since it is not the end all be all that i was impressed it to be, there is no reason to put forth the extreme effort that may be required to make it work in other models. Again not that complicated. i was just confused from reading the opinions of some members replies.

All sorts of opinions, etc. There was one person on here that praised the 198 over the 194 after futhur questions he admitted the 198's were used in a circuit with new premium parts (caps and resistors) and the 194 was used in a circuit with original aged parts. Also they were used in different speakers. So his opinion to me is invalid by a wide margin.

H9

F1nut · August 2011

Why do members around here refer to the 198's as not able to be used in certain models.

Because the high frequency circuit would need to be completely redesigned.

I am from the world that almost anything can be made to work if you want it bad enough and are willing to put in the effort.

By all means, knock yourself out.

i was originally under the impression (from reading here in the forums) that the 198 was much better than any other tweeter Polk ever produced.

For the SDA's that can use that tweeter, it is better than anything else.

I was simply curious that if they were that much better than anything else why it was accepted as not working in other models.

See my first comment.

Now I find that it is essentially the same as the 194, only slightly different for use in very similar but different circuits.

They may be close in build, but the end result favors the 198/TL crossover over the 194 by a good margin, IMO.

Read my comments here, http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46489

FTGV · August 2011

I have no experience with either the 194 or 198 but if I were a betting man ,would guess the differences between them relates to impedance and sensitivity.If thats indeed the case they would not be interchangable as it would require a reworking of the crossover.