Have you moved on from SDA's?

cnh

When my father passed away a couple of years ago he left us his near 60 year old Martin 'classic' guitar (Martin is not known for making classic guitars but Acoustic, etc.--I'm sure you've heard of them (about a few miles from where I grew up).

That guitar cost about $400 in the late '40s early '50s. Imagine what it would cost today? Is it the 'best' guitar you can 'buy'? No.Is it a damned good guitar made of the finest woods and good craftsmanship...? You bet!

Does it have a wonderful 'sound'? Yes. The only thing it is lacking is the projecting resonance of a lighter build concert class guitar. But the sound it does put out in your living room is very 'sweet' and soothing!

Is it a Fleta or Ramirez class concert guitar. No? But it sounds wonderful in your home!

So what am I saying? There are some things that are Vintage, they even get 'better' with age. This is certainly true of the guitar! It might also be true of some speakers like SDAs!

But let's face it, some of us are 'fickle' we change speakers, amps, cords, sources like my daughter changes her clothes...not always because we are 'upgrading' or getting better gear but because we are 'reckless' and 'unsure' of ourselves. And so we have one system for six months and another for three months and..and...ever restless...suffering from the 'Dis-Ease' of 'Modernity' we wander the ever 'morphing' Audio landscape searching for something, that, in fact, we may have already 'heard' but forgotten. Trying to convince ourselves that we are 'hip', 'cool', 'cutting edge' because we 'change' so OFTEN. lol

Now I'm not suggesting that we never change or tweak, but that we don't get caught up in the Western 'fadism' of the present, the NOW!

The fact the Matt Polk is still tweaking SDA design/ideas should mean something, just like the fact that Henry Kloss continued to put out two way Acoustic Suspension designs up till his death?

While I'm at this, and since I referred to Kloss...there was an article in a mag a while back about the new entry level Pioneer speaker where the designer touted using COMPLEX six element crossover designs because midrange/high integration was hard to achieve with one or two capacitors-in a two way speaker system? As I read this, I thought, did 'anyone' ever inform Henry Kloss about this? Because he seems to have done just that for most of his life! (simple crossovers--that is)!

Enjoy what you have. But don't get wrapped up in the 'latest' and 'greatest'. Some of that is good, and some of it isn't worth your time!

cnh

VR3

I just wanted to throw in to the ring that new driver technology does not just mean cone material...

Basket size and construction (and material) you can dynamat it but it still is not even close.
Different magnet materials -

And I would say if anything current tweeters are leaps and bounds over old tweeters, in fact it is not even a contest... The new RDO stuff is better, I have heard them but I would put their quality in between the LSi and RTi series...

I would definitely say cabinet design has improved as well...

Im just saying the fact they use paper cones is all well and good and paper is still used widely today - but there is obviously more to drivers than just their cone material...

I know just some other enhancements is XBL^2, just the use of copper shorting rings, surround shapes (or no surround at all) even spider technology and material has improved tremendously to be stronger, lighter -

Then of course tweeters are a whole other monster.

Anyways - I think Leroy is saying what I am saying but in a trollish way... the SDAs for what they can be had at are great speaker and with mods they can be very very good, fantastic speakers. But realistically if you do EVERY mod - and I mean everyone you could easily be in the 4,000 range as well.... just sayin

SDAs are cool to listen to for me sometimes though - just not my bag baby

heiney9

I don't buy the "just because it's new and modern material" it's automatically better. All of Polks current drivers and even those manufactured in the past 10 years use all this "new material" and they don't sound better, IMO.

Add to that the fact that the drivers are going on 30 years old and still intact and playing as new, I think that's a tremendous comment to the materials used, quality and manufacturing of said drivers.

If they are not your bag, I completely understand, but you are not entirely correct in you analysis about old vs. new being the reason you percieve they don't compete.

H9

P.s. to comment along the lines of the guitar analogy. I would take a 1958 or 1959 Les Paul over any currently made Les Paul in the past 20 years. Not even a hesitation. For that matter, any current guitar on the market.

VR3

I guess thats why they call them opinions...

We can argue about that all day, my opinion is the reason SDAs cant compete it everything I am stating above...

Read it, disagree with - respond with an equally logical response, I may or may not respond to expand upon my opinion but at the end of the day this entire hobby is an opinion.

cnh

What, no love for musical instruments?

How about this: A number of years ago the Chinese sent quite a few apprentices to Italy to LEARN the art of Violin making from the masters there. Why, because modern automated techniques and computer assisted analysis were just not as good at producing the perfect violin as the knowledge and handcrafting of the Italian masters!

Are there 'no' parallels to such knowledge in speaker design? Is speaker design, 'simply' the result of scientific advancements in technology and materials? If so, then let's see someone 'duplicate' a Stradivarius! Just saying--this is not an 'either/or' proposition', i.e., either it's 'modern' or it's 'passe' and inferior. It's a dialectic of human ingenuity and technical knowledge and always has been.

I'm done here. There are more important venues for my writing, I'm afraid.

cnh

heiney9

What Trey (and others, not just picking on Trey) is saying in essence is, if Polk could make SDA's with modern drivers and put them in a modern cabinet with modern materials then they could compete with modern designs of today.

H9

sda2mike

my 2btl's are just a pile of old and some new crap...that pile reproduces music at levels and with clarity almost equal to a live event...dem's my 2 cents

VR3

Actually thats not what I am saying at all - I think if Polk could made a SDA speaker with drivers like Scanspeak Revelators or Seas Excel..... utilize them in a proper line up using QUALITY crossover components - I think they could easily BEST alot of speakers today.

The technology is sound and in theory is completely awesome but the SDA effect for me sounds a little unnatural at times...

Either way - I think my horse has been beat enough, enjoy

heiney9

Right, so there in essence is your argument, you don't really care for SDA even if they used what in your mind is "top" notch components, so in reality all the talk about not being modern really has nothing to do with it. It's the actual design. It took dozens of posts to draw that out of you. I completely understand people who don't care for SDA's, but thinnly veiling it as "not using modern materials and methods" is not really the issue.

H9

drumminman

Advanced technology is important, but synergy is even more so.

There are many examples of products that are better than their somewhat average individual parts would indicate. The original Shelby Cobra was essentially a parts bin car derived from the AC Bristol (which my dad raced), aka the Ace. No way should it have been that competitive, but you take a tweaked design, stuff a large Ford pushrod V 8 in, and it gives Ferraris, (which were/are totally high tech, custom engineered, hand cast parts, etc.) serious competition.

Maybe that's what makes the SDA's special? Very clever design that gets the most out of components that are very good, if not state of the art.

Every time I play mine, even with CD's I'm familiar with, I hear so deep into the soundstage I notice instruments/chords/etc.that I'm hearing for the first time. I feel like I'm hearing music as it was intended by the musicians.

Would I move on to another speaker at some point? Maybe - but I feel no compelling need to look.

heiney9

Trey, I can agree to disagree :cool:

H9

Toolfan66

Family Polk Hug Time ??

VR3

Next Polkfest a beer is on me

Xoxoxo

nooshinjohn

cnh wrote: »

What, no love for musical instruments?

How about this: A number of years ago the Chinese sent quite a few apprentices to Italy to LEARN the art of Violin making from the masters there. Why, because modern automated techniques and computer assisted analysis were just not as good at producing the perfect violin as the knowledge and handcrafting of the Italian masters!

Are there 'no' parallels to such knowledge in speaker design? Is speaker design, 'simply' the result of scientific advancements in technology and materials? If so, then let's see someone 'duplicate' a Stradivarius! Just saying--this is not an 'either/or' proposition', i.e., either it's 'modern' or it's 'passe' and inferior. It's a dialectic of human ingenuity and technical knowledge and always has been.

I'm done here. There are more important venues for my writing, I'm afraid.

cnh

Things crafted by the hands of men passionate about their craft are imbued with a piece of their soul, to the point of becoming a living testament to the maker's skill. Classic Ferrari, the Les Paul, and the Strativarius, and a host of other items have a soul. For me the SDA's are no different. Matt Polk and his team bet all on a revolutionary design concept, putting their hearts into the effort. They put everything into the design, without aid of computers and worked prototype by prototype until they had it right. Even then it was not good enough and they stayed with it until they had taken it as far as they could. There is a wide gulf between those first SDA's and the last, just as there is between the first Strad and the last. Each however, was the creation of a man of passion for his craft. When I listen to my SDA's I hear more than just a speaker, or the music. Just like the legendary violin, I can hear the soul of the man that gave them life.

And what sweet music it is.

bikezappa

I have 5 pairs of these SDA speakers. I have two 2 channel rooms and three sets in my movie room. I am the original owner of the big SDA boys and bought the others used. All are original except I upgraded one set with 8 new tweeters.

I'd like to try or trade for some Acoustic Reseach 9s and the big Maggies some day but never found a good deal locally.

Visitors are always amazed at the sound even when listening in other rooms.

F1nut

But let's face it, some of us are 'fickle' we change speakers, amps, cords, sources like my daughter changes her clothes...not always because we are 'upgrading' or getting better gear but because we are 'reckless' and 'unsure' of ourselves. And so we have one system for six months and another for three months and..and...ever restless...suffering from the 'Dis-Ease' of 'Modernity' we wander the ever 'morphing' Audio landscape searching for something, that, in fact, we may have already 'heard' but forgotten. Trying to convince ourselves that we are 'hip', 'cool', 'cutting edge' because we 'change' so OFTEN. lol

Nail, head, hammer!!!

audiocr381ve

heiney9 wrote: »

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

You've listed literally 1/4 of the gear that I have cycled through. Not hardly high end but my favorites were the NAD C272 amp, NAD C162 pre, and Onix SP3 tube integrated. But really all it takes is a visit down the street for me. A 3 minute drive to one of the biggest hifi shops in San Diego, Stereo Design. Or Stereo Unlimited that is 15 minutes away. I've spent a ton of time at these places because it's the closest I'll ever come to owning real high end stuff. Even if I didn't have a chance to hear some of the best gear out there, speaker-wise, I've owned the Maggie 1.7's, Maggie MG12, Monitor RS6's, Strata Mini's, all of which resolved better, but didn't necessarily sound more pleasing to me.

Should have added, YMMV.

audiocr381ve

heiney9 wrote: »

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

You've listed literally 1/4 of the gear that I have cycled through. Not hardly high end but my favorites were the NAD C272 amp, NAD C162 pre, and Onix SP3 tube integrated. But really all it takes is a visit down the street for me. A 3 minute drive to one of the biggest hifi shops in San Diego, Stereo Design. Or Stereo Unlimited that is 15 minutes away. I've spent a ton of time at these places because it's the closest I'll ever come to owning real high end stuff. Even if I didn't have a chance to hear some of the best gear out there, speaker-wise, I've owned the Maggie 1.7's, Maggie MG12, Monitor RS6's, Strata Mini's, all of which resolved better, but didn't necessarily sound more pleasing to me.

Should have added, YMMV.

evhudsons

For pretty much all of us this is an ever expanding-universe-of-audio hobby. I'm trying to recreate a live performance at home. I also like movies with a theater punch. This is a hobby that gives back to me more than I put in. For me I have to go with H9. Even great equipment isn't the best equipment. To fully appreciate therefore compare the fully upgraded and broken in SDA to other speakers you would have to have a dedicated listening room with proper (perfect) treatments, total climate control, the best equipment, cables, source material etc and then you could begin to make comparisons.

If you were to take your room, split it into two, seal yourself so that your left and right ears were completely separated, then the modern speakers may start to make a dent into the SDA. But at the same time would it sound artificial like headphones? Even SDA isn't perfect in elimination of crosstalk, but it has a unique advantage in that it eliminates most of it in a natural way. With SDA some of the crosstalk gets through but in the same way it does in live performances. Well made recordings being replicated at home should be as close to original as possible, IMHO. I know that there are speaker replicating the 3d audio, but do they still eliminate crosstalk as effectively? I can walk across a room and hear excellent stereo from one end to the other, even past each speaker. In fact this is what sold me back in 1989. I have wonder aloud though if Trey is onto something as I have wondered the same. If you took Mathew Polk's SDA, put modern research and design back into it, what would they come out with? I don't mean FrankenPolks, I mean something new. It may be that they come back with the exact same design and crossover. There is software that can deal with crosstalk elimination but you would have to run it through software on special players. SDA does it through hardware configuration and whether the effect is fully designed to be as natural as it is, I would be on one side arguing that the SDA works very well. My drivers are 21 years + old, and they sound fantastic.
So Trey may be right in that SDA coupled with modern drivers and cabinet design may give original SDA's a run for the money, he may also be wrong in that the original materials and design were and are hard to beat. The greatest line I read in this thread is from H9, "the speakers are the most subjective part of the system", everything else being equal.

I think in this hobby changing sounds is sometimes a good thing whether it be new "modern" speakers, or simply changing out gear. I have an old Harmony Guitar from 1965. It was considered junk because it was mass produced and sold in Montgomery Wards. It was "common knowledge" back then that they were all laminate wood. In reality they were well made in the USA by excellent craftsmen, and they were all made of solid mahogany. After 46 years my guitar can give any modern guitar a run for the money. The neck alignment and such may be off, but the sound is incredible. The wood dries out over many years and there is no substitute for the sound of properly dried wood with the resonance. If you make a modern guitar you are going to have to wait 46 years to have it sound as nice as it could be. That being said, plucking a guitar is a hobby and I can't wait to try any guitar I see. They are all different with different sounds and trying a new one is like reinventing the hobby. I have three acoustics and one electric so that I can get excited about guitars each time I pick up another guitar, because it is different. Many people trashed those guitars because of the crap guitar myth and there are not too many Harmony H165's left in great condition with the original guitar case. The values have gone up, but give another 10 or 20 years and they will actually be pretty high. They aren't Martins or Gibsons, but they aren't crap.
I would rather upgrade my SDA's, and then change the gear to keep up the excitement. I'm not sold on newer speakers after hearing the difference upgrades and tweaks make, and finding out the rabbit hole runs very deep with gear. Until I hear how other speakers deal with cutting down on the crosstalk thereby revealing the recording as it happened in a studio or live event, I will mess with the gear and environment before changing speakers.

When I give up SDA, I will be a self actualized old man, and I will be the envy of the world.

heiney9

EV, current SDA technology is active. Classic SDA technology is passive. When we were at Polk HQ for Polkfest 2008 we broke into groups and spent time talking with Matt and he said if he were to do it again for a common floor standing loudspeaker he would combine aspects of both active and passive properties for a modern day SDA type speaker.

Have you heard any of the current SDA offerings? The Surround Bar 360, is simply stunning for a small unobtrusive slim speaker array that fits under a flat panel. Simply stunning in what it can do. Imagine if it were a full blown full range speaker. It took Matt and a few engineers 7 years to develop the algorithms for the Surround Bar products, they even had to wait for some technology to catch up before they could bring the product to market.

H9

evhudsons

I haven't heard them yet but read about them here on the forum, and looked at them on this site under products. I have a friend wanting to get a sound bar so I told him about it. He's a wishy washy guy so who knows what he'll do but I would love to hear them. I think making loudspeakers will once again become vogue. That would be great if Polk brings the technologies together for a new SDA loudspeaker!

That's exciting stuff

heiney9

evhudsons wrote: »

I haven't heard them yet but read about them here on the forum, and looked at them on this site under products. I have a friend wanting to get a sound bar so I told him about it. He's a wishy washy guy so who knows what he'll do but I would love to hear them. I think making loudspeakers will once again become vogue. That would be great if Polk brings the technologies together for a new SDA loudspeaker!

That's exciting stuff

Well as you know in 2009 Matt essentially sold the company to Directed Electronics and retired. But I envision some sort of speaker lab in his house out on the Island where he lives and him tinkering with some new type of SDA enabled speaker.

H9

evhudsons

Not FrankenPolks I hope! Well if he makes them I'll be interested.

newrival

I think SDA's are perfect for HT. I've said this numerous times, and I whole-heartedly believe it. A little smearing across the soundstage is acceptable and the width the SDA effect creates can be uncanny. And it fits into the suspension of disbelief. If you have the room necessary to put sda's in the front and rear, its really a tough experience to beat. Ive heard some incredible discreet 7 channel setups, but I'v never been so enveloped as I was with my SDA 6 channel setup. Unfortunately I have significantly less space in the HT room and the RT5000p holds its own on excitability with less room needed.

evhudsons

I'm interested in how you hooked that up. I'm thinking if I had some 1c's how I might conjoined them with my crs+. I agree fully with sda as perfect with HT as long as the center is not used.

newrival

evhudsons wrote: »

I'm interested in how you hooked that up. I'm thinking if I had some 1c's how I might conjoined them with my crs+. I agree fully with sda as perfect with HT as long as the center is not used.

I still used centers although I had them set to narrow dispersal. I had a Front and a rear center. Both CS1000p's. Front were 2b's rears were CRS+'s and two 15" dayton titanic mkIII's. I never got to try with SRS fronts but I imagine it would've been comparable. The important thing to remember is to allign the sda speakers properly in the rear so the the sda drivers are still on the outside. this is to say that the "left" SDA speaker is at the rear right position and the "right" SDA speaker is at the left rear position. Additionally, you need to use all standeard SDA set-up rules: 3' from side walls, distance from listening position to front plane of speaker = or > the distance between left and right speaker, etc. it really is impressive when set up properly.

the centers do not clas with SDA as you might be fearing. The key is to play with the dispersion, ie the amount of the center signal that is played through your left & right fronts. the cs1000p's matched very well. before them i was using a pair of 10b's and before that a pair of CS400i's. The 10b's were great, and the CS400i's were pretty decent as well. The trouble I found was when using something like the CS350 that had a MUCH different sound tonally. timbre was way off.

PolkClyde

I have not moved on,but back and forth.To the Infinity Kappa 9's back to the Polk 1.2's... The 1.2's Rules. having a lot of fun.