Have you moved on from SDA's?

VR3

I never said they were junk.

I said comparing SDAs to MODERN HIGH END SPEAKERS - saying that SDAs can do things they cannot is CRAZY.

I have heard plenty of new designs that image just like SDAs and better at that.

All I am saying is "Have you moved beyond SDA..." the answer should not seem like a shocker - there are options out there, you will have to pay alot more to achieve that better sound...

I just highly recommend if you can spent into the 4k range to do so - as you will find an improvement in your sound reproduction, imo.

But I never said SDAs are junk.

Toolfan66

heiney9

No Trey you didn't say it, but it seemed like your 1st post was intimating that. Yes, I probably overstated your intention. I agree with you up to a point. Also there is far too much subjectiveness with speakers as well as a host of other factors that affect what we finally hear. It's almost impossible to compare them head to head or get repeatable results in different venues. In a word "synergy". What sounds good to you in your room with your gear won't necessarily sound as good to me in my room with my gear. I think speakers are the most subjective piece of gear in this hobby, unless you are talking about speakers at the extremes. A handful probably sound fantastic just about anywhere and some are junk no matter what you do. It's the middle pieces that gives us all the variety.

H9

Joe08867

Trey, I have a question. Did the Tyler's image better before your mods or after? I have heard Tyler's and while they are great speakers saying they have a Stage that's 20 foot wide is not being honest at all. I will say it was wide but 20ft it is not.

I will agree with you on the LSiM's. They have an awesome sounstage. Open, airy and wide.

VR3

I only say this because I have many different sets of ears who were there for the change to substantiate this next claim.

The modifications -

Diffraction be gone
No Rez
Crossover mods

Took the Super Towers to beyond Wilson Audio Alexandria levels - I think they easily compete with the $20,000 + class and there are quite a few people that agree with me.

The only thing I lack is bass and if I could ever scrounge the money up and get off my butt I could finish up my 3000p subs and have that issue fixed...

Staging and instrument/vocal weight is intense.

My room is a little lively - but I plan to add treatments later on!

But to directly answer your question - my speakers imaged two to three times the size with the mods than stock... it was a crazy difference as I did the left speaker first then the right - literally once the mods were done the left speaker was louder and larger sounding the right.. it was almost like the right speaker was not even on.

To quote Mike (Face), "the Clarity Cap MR and Duelund resistors are like they are not even there"

Toolfan66

I love the Dulands!! and can't wait to try the Clarity Cap MR's..

Joe08867

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

I only say this because I have many different sets of ears who were there for the change to substantiate this next claim.

The modifications -

Diffraction be gone
No Rez
Crossover mods

Took the Super Towers to beyond Wilson Audio Alexandria levels - I think they easily compete with the $20,000 + class and there are quite a few people that agree with me.

The only thing I lack is bass and if I could ever scrounge the money up and get off my butt I could finish up my 3000p subs and have that issue fixed...

Staging and instrument/vocal weight is intense.

My room is a little lively - but I plan to add treatments later on!

But to directly answer your question - my speakers imaged two to three times the size with the mods than stock... it was a crazy difference as I did the left speaker first then the right - literally once the mods were done the left speaker was louder and larger sounding the right.. it was almost like the right speaker was not even on.

To quote Mike (Face), "the Clarity Cap MR and Duelund resistors are like they are not even there"

Well that is the point right there. You just said it yourself. 4000 isn't going to buy you better speakers. 4000 plus a bunch of mods will get you close but then you still need a sub to compete with the big SDA's.

I am not trying to argue but your claim that the Modded Tyler's are better and then you say they need more bass. Not really true than is it? They stage wider which is a plus but I don't want a sub in my 2ch system. Needing to add a sub tells me that you are compromising one thing for another. Something I never needed to do with the bigger SDA's.

Overall the SDA is quite an extraordinary design and is still hard to beat. Not saying it can't be done it is just gonna cost you a good penny to do it.

cnh

I can understand, to an extent, both sides here. I have a set of SDAs (however, they have no mods); they're good but I've never been wowed by them. The SDA effect is interesting but problematic with certain recordings as mentioned above. However, one thing they really do well is bass...no smaller tower is going to match that, it's physics!

I also had the opportunity to spend a day in a High-End shop in Japan. Heard a dozen or so 10K-100K speaker systems. All new, all 'cutting edge' tech. Most left me wondering why they cost so much and if 'there really had been a tech-revolution' in drivers and crossovers in the last two decades. Some were 'absolutely' awful, really bad.

Everyone has his 'babies' Tyler Acoustics is one of them, B&W another, and so on. SDAs have their fans here, other sites make fun of us, you know "Polk Audio, yeah the guys who think some dated speakers that they make tons of mods to so that they are not even 'original' anymore are the bees knees and better than most anything else "currently available at ANY price"--those guys!" Yeah, we're the brunt of jokes from people who make arguments like Trey's above (though I realize that he's being very even-handed compared to those who have a mocking tone).

The idea that 'engineering advances' = fantastically improved audio performance has to be demonstrated because it assumes a 'direct relationship between objective tests and subjective appreciation of audio' and many people on this site have a problem with that.

Is it really true that there has been such a revolution in audio in the most recent years? Yes, tech is better but, in some ways, aren't the drivers, the materials used to manufacture them and the ideas not really that 'new'. Take some examples:

Carbon fiber, Kevlar, Diamond, Titanium, Beryllium, polycarbonate, [add your favorite driver material here] have been used by many manufacturers for years and years and years. Look at Polk's new LSI-M (are there any NEW materials being used there)?

The Vintage market in speakers is Legendary and there are thousands of Audio-types who swear by this or that Vintage speaker and would never touch a new speaker! Some believe that making something 'more and more complex' is actually a way of making it 'worse' and that the Simplest solution is often the 'best'--kind of like a physicist looking for an elegant equation of 'everything' not several chalkboards full of more and more esoterically complex mathematics.

Let's take a perennial favorite at Club Polk as an example: the Carver Amazings (best model) powered by Carver Silver mono-blocks. Can anything reproduce a Concert Hall Orchestra like these? They are not new!

Newer is not 'always' better. But it may be 'sometimes'. That is the wisdom one should carry with one in order to remain humble and open to all possibilities.


cnh

BlueFox

cnh wrote: »

Is it really true that there has been such a revolution in audio in the most recent years? Yes, tech is better but, in some ways, aren't the drivers, the materials used to manufacture them and the ideas not really that 'new'. Take some examples:

Carbon fiber, Kevlar, Diamond, Titanium, Beryllium, polycarbonate, [add your favorite driver material here] have been used by many manufacturers for years and years and years. Look at Polk's new LSI-M (are there any NEW materials being used there)?

Cabinet design is one area that evolved over the years. Instead of the rectangular box, designers are using curved cabinets, with chambers and internal bracing, to eliminate reflections and other distortions. Even the new LSiM use the curved cabinet model, with bracing, and individual speaker chambers that are now common. Add in better drivers, even if they are built with 'old' material, and you have much better speakers than 20 years ago.

And if you want music behind you then get a multi-channel system with SACD, or use one of the matrix options on your pre/pro.

cnh

I believe that there are some very old speakers that do 'not' have rectangular cabinets as well? And what does one do with things like Aperiodic enclosures which have 'other' ways of eliminating the box problems, infinite baffles, horns, etc.? Just saying.

I'm not the vintage expert here, for sure. But the more I see 'older' speakers, the more I see the semblance of current designs.

cnh

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

Cabinet design is one area that evolved over the years. Instead of the rectangular box, designers are using curved cabinets, with chambers and internal bracing, to eliminate reflections and other distortions. Even the new LSiM use the curved cabinet model, with bracing, and individual speaker chambers that are now common. Add in better drivers, even if they are built with 'old' material, and you have much better speakers than 20 years ago.

And if you want music behind you then get a multi-channel system with SACD, or use one of the matrix options on your pre/pro.

But has cabinet design evolved because of aethetics or because the cabinet truly are better sounding? I vote the pressure came from aesthetics more than an engineer saying "hey if we do it this way, it's a revolutionary new way to make things sound better". I believe it's both, certainly, but I also believe it was heavily driven by making a floor standing speaker, smaller, less intrusive and more attractive also.

H9

nooshinjohn

BlueFox wrote: »

Cabinet design is one area that evolved over the years. Instead of the rectangular box, designers are using curved cabinets, with chambers and internal bracing, to eliminate reflections and other distortions. Even the new LSiM use the curved cabinet model, with bracing, and individual speaker chambers that are now common. Add in better drivers, even if they are built with 'old' material, and you have much better speakers than 20 years ago.

And if you want music behind you then get a multi-channel system with SACD, or use one of the matrix options on your pre/pro.

It is entirely possible to overthink and over-engineer something to the point that the very things that made it enjoyable to begin with are completely removed from the equation, leaving behind only an echo of what it was that you were trying to achieve in the first place. The CD was supposed to revolutionize audio reproduction, but it has failed in most respects to be better than the vinyl it replaced. It was however a great marketing move.

How much of what is passed off in audio is actually a significant step forward vs. engineering simply for the sake of marketing? I have heard many of the newer designs in speakers and have been left completely unimpressed. A pretty box built with the structural integrity of solid steel is useless if it has no soul.

F1nut

I have heard them at several Polkfests and I can without a doubt say if you are willing to get speakers with drivers that are leaps and bounds above what the SDAs use (which at this point in time are really nothing much)

That must be why many still consider doped paper drivers the best out there.

- Pinpoint accuracy, detail, texture, microdetails, depth, weight of sound -

All present and accounted for in spades and thundering bass too boot.

VR3

lol

I love the Polk forum

The Super Tower design is a compromise by design - it is not a bass heavy speaker...

I have said it hundreds of times - I dislike having bass drivers built into my tower speaker, always have and always will. I know there are disadvantages to 2 ways and so forth but I like a straight 2 way design.

I like the ability to move my subs and blend them in my room under my terms...

The Linbrook Signature System with the appropriate mods should give similar performance and all the bass slam and extension your heart could desire I would say...

Jesse you said so your self the SDAs do not have the resolution of current loud speakers at Polkfest 09 so I dont wanna hear it

SDA power!

F1nut

Jesse you said so your self the SDAs do not have the resolution of current loud speakers at Polkfest 09 so I dont wanna hear it

That was pre rings.

falconcry72

I still listen to my SDA's, but I spend more time listening to my Magnepan 3.6's. They have an articulate, tactile realism that the SDA's can touch. I love the velvety, enveloping nature of the SDA's though; that's why I still listen to them.:cool:

When I had the Magnepan 1.6's I was about 50/50 between them and the SDA's. Now with the 3.6's I'm more like 90/10.

Both speakers do unique things that the others can't do, but I prefer the unique things that the Maggies do to the unique things that the SDA's do.

It's subjective, and, unfortunately, I have yet to find the perfect loudspeaker.

audiocr381ve

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

lol

I love the Polk forum

The Super Tower design is a compromise by design - it is not a bass heavy speaker...

I have said it hundreds of times - I dislike having bass drivers built into my tower speaker, always have and always will. I know there are disadvantages to 2 ways and so forth but I like a straight 2 way design.

I like the ability to move my subs and blend them in my room under my terms...

The Linbrook Signature System with the appropriate mods should give similar performance and all the bass slam and extension your heart could desire I would say...

Jesse you said so your self the SDAs do not have the resolution of current loud speakers at Polkfest 09 so I dont wanna hear it

SDA power!

There is no doubting that they don't have the resolution of current designs. I've had speakers come through my system that resolved 10x better than my 2B TL's. They don't have the top end sparkle that I've heard in high-dollar current speaker designs. IMO what they lack in resolution they make up for in tone. It's like an old Les Paul guitar. The new stuff can resolve much better but there's nothing like vintage Les Paul. The way it looks, feels, plays, sounds...it's just special. I don't know if it's the drivers, the cabinets, or a combination of those things but the SDA's have a special sound. In the words of Forest Gump, that's all I have to say about that :P

Schurkey

falconcry72 wrote: »

I still listen to my SDA's, but I spend more time listening to my Magnepan 3.6's. They have an articulate, tactile realism that the SDA's can touch.
Both speakers do unique things that the others can't do, but I prefer the unique things that the Maggies do to the unique things that the SDA's do...

...It's subjective, and, unfortunately, I have yet to find the perfect loudspeaker.

I had a wonderful demonstration experience with Maggie 3.3s many years ago. Perfect, blissful sound...and a sweet spot one listener wide.

I have wanted--but failed to sacrifice for--a pair of bigger Maggies ever since. Maybe someday.

falconcry72

falconcry72 wrote: »

I still listen to my SDA's, but I spend more time listening to my Magnepan 3.6's. They have an articulate, tactile realism that the SDA's can't touch. I love the velvety, enveloping nature of the SDA's though; that's why I still listen to them.:cool:

When I had the Magnepan 1.6's I was about 50/50 between them and the SDA's. Now with the 3.6's I'm more like 90/10.

Both speakers do unique things that the others can't do, but I prefer the unique things that the Maggies do to the unique things that the SDA's do.

It's subjective, and, unfortunately, I have yet to find the perfect loudspeaker.

typo fixed.

newrival

Ive moved on, but SDA's are great speakers. I think they're one that need to be experienced by anyone passionate about audio. Much like Dahlquist D-10's, Magnepans, Ohm walsh's, DCM TimeWindows, Carver Amazings, anything with a Heil transducer, Quad ESL's, etc, they are very special. I'm glad to have owned them. They showed me a sound stage to search for, much like the Carver amazings and maggies to some extent, gave me razor sharp imaging to search for. My Emerald physics take all my favorite things from most of these speakers and combine them into a fantastic experience.

When I have room for a second stereo rig I will come back to CRS+'s (The best SDA speaker made, IMO) for that purpose. It's relaxing and perfect for those days when you want to be enveloped in the music rather than the recording. My tastes just dont call for that at this moment. At this juncture, I require a precision and realism that the SDA's couldnt meet.

heiney9

audiocr381ve wrote: »

There is no doubting that they don't have the resolution of current designs. I've had speakers come through my system that resolved 10x better than my 2B TL's. They don't have the top end sparkle that I've heard in high-dollar current speaker designs. IMO what they lack in resolution they make up for in tone. It's like an old Les Paul guitar. The new stuff can resolve much better but there's nothing like vintage Les Paul. The way it looks, feels, plays, sounds...it's just special. I don't know if it's the drivers, the cabinets, or a combination of those things but the SDA's have a special sound. In the words of Forest Gump, that's all I have to say about that :P

I have yet to see a piece of gear you've mentioned you have spent time with that is all that resolving. Put resolving gear and cables with the SDA's and you will be rewarded.

H9

audiocr381ve

heiney9 wrote: »

I have yet to see a piece of gear you've mentioned you have spent time with that is all that resolving. Put resolving gear and cables with the SDA's and you will be rewarded.

H9

I disagree, but the point was: SDA's are special.

heiney9

audiocr381ve wrote: »

I disagree

Please elaborate? A Carver amp, a Marantz receiver, Emotiva amp, Emotiva pre and a Carver pre-amp. Hardly gear that is close to being in the upper tier of resolving all that well. Not picking on you, but since you've owned the SDA's and done the mods..............it's been what, 3-4 months and you are now an expert on how these resolve compared to all other newer speakers out there? Your mods are barely even broken yet and you have been on a merry-go round of middle of the road gear, etc. It's hard to take your general and blanket statements seriously.

I agree they are special, and I'm not saying they resolve better than anything out there, but your statement is ludicrous based on your gear choices, room inadequacies, newness of all the mods you've been doing, etc. Put some really, really good gear and cables in the mix and you'll see what I'm talking about. They aren't the be all, end all..........but they compete heavily with lots of stuff out there today.

H9

drumminman

Spent a couple hours listening to my 2.3TL's last night. Put some music on (Fairport Convention) and sat down with "A Storm of Swords" (the third book of the Song of Ice and Fire" series) and started reading.

Love that book, but every minute or so I got distracted and started focusing on the music. These speakers, with the mods done so far, pull me into music like nothing I've heard. They convey the emotion of the musicians by creating an unbelievable 3d soundstage, with dynamics within the soundstage. IOW, each instrument sounds separate and yet integrated into the mix. As much as I liked my modded Def Techs, these have a realism that is truly breathtaking at times. Even on crappy recordings.

Sitting in the sweet spot is where the true magic is, but the quality of the sound is also impressive at the back of the room 30 feet away.

I can't imagine a more satisfying experience with a home system. Unless. . . . . . hmmmm, I wonder what doubling the amplification would sound like

leroyjr1

audiocr381ve wrote: »

I disagree, but the point was: SDA's are special.

They're special because of their value. That's it.

Joe08867

leroyjr1 wrote: »

They're special because of their value. That's it.

Care to elaborate on your feelings? You have added to very nondescript responses with zero reason or explanation.

Maybe you can enlighten us with your thoughts..

heiney9

Joe08867 wrote: »

Care to elaborate on your feelings? You have added to very nondescript responses with zero reason or explanation.

Maybe you can enlighten us with your thoughts..

He's semi-trolling. He has made it known that he thinks SDA's aren't all they are cracked up to be. Ignore him.

H9

leroyjr1

heiney9 wrote: »

He's semi-trolling. He has made it known that he thinks SDA's aren't all they are cracked up to be. Ignore him.

H9

Not trolling at all just giving my opinion just like you have a millions times in this and other threads concerning SDA's. Dont want to overshadow your sda love making. They're
special because of the price vs performance. If someone's not saying all positive things about your
SDA's then there's a problem with you, they're not for everyone. Chill out and check your pad.

heiney9

Like I said semi-trolling.

H9

Joe08867

heiney9 wrote: »

Like I said semi-trolling.

H9

Agreed, Thought he was better than that. Ignore him I shall.