SDA 2B or 1C

newrival

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

Yes I agree but I did say thats just me.. And you know as well not all gear is going to give the SDA's what they need to shine in the low end department.

I'll concede that point. All of the SDA's I have experienced did exhibit varied bass responses to different amplifiers. The bass seemed to be more effected than any other parameter that I noticed when comparing amplifiers.

newrival

nspindel wrote: »

I've owned both. I've modded both. I've listened to both with a beefy Krell amp. The fact of the matter is, you'll be happy with either one. The 1C has a beefier "presence." It's a larger speaker, with more drivers, it sounds bigger with a bit more "oomph." But when I say a bit, I mean a bit. The 2B's, when TL'ed and modded to the hilt, are simply beautiful sounding speakers. But so are the 1C's, although they're not TL-able. At the end of the day, either one is going to put a smile on your face. Go find either one - focus on cabinets that are in good condition, working drivers, good grills, perfect passive radiators (the hardest part to replace), at a good price and close to where you are located. I wouldn't worry about which one it is that you find, you'll be happy with either one.

I totally agree here. It's easy to get caught up in the minutia when discussing the things we are intimately familiar with. And, unfortunately, Much to the confusion of the person that has yet to experience either.

heiney9

There are some electrical complexities going on with the x-overs and cross-feed signal and some amps don't deal well with it and some do. I get profound bass out of my 1C's, earth shaking in some instances.

H9

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

According to the Stereo Review lab tests, 1C's (unmodded, obviously) had on overall freq response +/- 5dB 20Hz-18kHz,

H9

I agree thats pretty good and impressive for its time, but consider that 3db is a percieved doubling in volume and it starts to apear less-so. Also compare these stats to current speakers that are measuring 20-20,000Hz within .5db and the state of the art becomes more clear. Again, I'm not putting SDA's down. all of us here have a certain affinity for them, I'm just saying That while the bass is pretty good on SDA's its not much more than that. IN STOCK FORM. I cant comment on some of the more extravagant mods like the custom wound heavy gauge inductors.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

There are some electrical complexities going on with the x-overs and cross-feed signal and some amps don't deal well with it and some do. I get profound bass out of my 1C's, earth shaking in some instances.

H9

I don't doubt it. My SRS's would shake my subfloor on a Handel recording I had with this ultra deep swelling contra-bassoon line. The impact was breathtaking. Almost quite literally. haha.

H9, I dont know if you're familiar with the work of Earl Geddey on multiple subwoofers (not exactly a new concept, but perhaps the most well documented), but if you've ever heard one of his systems, you may never think of subwoofers the same again.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

I agree thats pretty good and impressive for its time, but consider that 3db is a percieved doubling in volume and it starts to apear less-so. Also compare these stats to current speakers that are measuring 20-20,000Hz within .5db and the state of the art becomes more clear. Again, I'm not putting SDA's down. all of us here have a certain affinity for them, I'm just saying That while the bass is pretty good on SDA's its not much more than that. IN STOCK FORM. I cant comment on some of the more extravagant mods like the custom wound heavy gauge inductors.

That spec deosn't even begin to define the performance, because the SRS's measure almost exactly the same (within 0.5dB) and they both perform a lot differently. Speaker spec's especially don't mean alot other than "raw" data. I quoted that to show they do operate below 40Hz as you indicated, but beyond that there is no way a combined freq response is going to tell you much unless there are some glaring abnormalities in the curve. Measruements are a useful tool in the right hands, but printed on a piece of paper for the consumer to read, not so much.

H9

newrival

And I should add that the mid-range and mid-bass on the SDA's is where the magic is at. Especially on some fresh high-end caps.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

Measruements are a useful tool in the right hands, but printed on a piece of paper for the consumer to read, not so much.

H9

A good point that

heiney9

Not against well integrated subs, done correctly, etc. But honestly I don;t want to take the time, real estate and cost involved in doing a supremely proper job. I am against the person who buys a medicore powered sub and flops it in the room, etc. I have never felt the need to add subs for my 2ch rig. Most if not all the music I listen too doesn't really hit much below 30Hz.

H9

MillerLiteScott

2B TL'd is my choice because of the simplicity of a single tweeter, single stereo driver and single dimensional driver. KISS. I think the TL mod just gives the 2B's that little bit that the 194 does not provide. YMMV.

WilliamM2

newrival wrote: »

I agree thats pretty good and impressive for its time, but consider that 3db is a percieved doubling in volume and it starts to apear less-so. Also compare these stats to current speakers that are measuring 20-20,000Hz within .5db and the state of the art becomes more clear.

If I recall, the -3db point of the 1c's is 32hz, I'll have to see if I can find the old review somewhere. What modern speaker measures .5db from 20 - 20,000? That's quite a feat.

newrival

WilliamM2 wrote: »

If I recall, the -3db point of the 1c's is 32hz, I'll have to see if I can find the old review somewhere. What modern speaker measures .5db from 20 - 20,000? That's quite a feat.

off the top of my head:
-NHT xD
-Emerald Physics (all but the CS3, which require a sub)

Full disclosure, I have a pair of CS2's. But I've heard Hawthornes can. And really many actively xover systems that are bi/tri-amped can achieve this. Look into DEQx and Spatial technologies. Additionally, I dont recall the name but they look like a giant model of your ear canal, they have similar performance (frequency range-wise).

Marty913

Still probably not fair to compare (or criticize) 20+ year old $400 Polk's to digital processor equipped speakers costing $6,000 (NHT xD) or $10,000 (CS1). According to the specs the CS1 is plus or minus ? dB from 100 Hz to 20,000.

newrival

Marty913 wrote: »

Still probably not fair to compare (or criticize) 20+ year old $400 Polk's to digital processor equipped speakers costing $6,000 (NHT xD) or $10,000 (CS1). According to the specs the CS1 is plus or minus ? dB from 100 Hz to 20,000.

First, I think it's pretty obvious I was hardly criticizing. Merely comparing.

Second, Never did a pair of SDA's cost $400. I'm not even sure they could be had for under a G.

You're citing current MSRP on the NHT's and EP's, but then use a lowball second-hand price on the Polks? Polk's were just as expensive! The SRS's that I owned retailed for $3,000 in 1986. Accounting for inflation that would be like a $6,200 pair of speakers. So my comparison seems right in line.

Third, your mention of age only goes to my point.

I understand, you have SDA's and you have some identity wrapped up in them and are sensitive to any comment that isn't glowing. But reread my post and read what I said, The actual words without letting your emotions read inferences that aren't there.

I think it is absolutely fair that I compare the speakers. Especially since you can purchase the Emerald Physics CS2's and sometimes the CS2.3's for nearly the same price as the SRS line of speakers on the second hand market.

gmcman

Thanks for all the input here....all is taken into consideration.

I found a pair of 2B's near me in excellent condition...if all goes well hopefully I can get them early next week.

Like many have stated, I can't go wrong with either but the consensus seems to be the 2B gets the vote for more of a critical 2ch listening pair. I guess I just need to get both at some point...:razz:

falconcry72

gmcman wrote: »

...the consensus seems to be the 2B gets the vote for more of a critical 2ch listening pair.

If you're going to TL them.

Good luck on the purchase!:cheesygrin:

gmcman

falconcry72 wrote: »

If you're going to TL them.

Oh, most definately. Won't happen right away but i'll enjoy them for awhile then pursue the mod. I figure this way I will at least have a basis for comparison.

evhudsons

I'm getting goosebumps reading this thread! I'm finally have a real amp coming for my crs, the little bro to the 2b. I liked my friends 1c's, actually I love them. But...there seems to be a wider spatial soundstage even on my little speakers in comparison with the 1c's. I use a sub now, but ill see after adding power and larry's rings how much I need a sub.
I'm sort of in a quandary too, I want to snag my friends 1c's. I want more SDA. Is there a rehab center for SDA addiction? Do the 2b's have a lot more bass than the crs? The 1c was incredible on bass certainly no sub needed. But really, I loved all the responses!

falconcry72

evhudsons wrote: »

But...there seems to be a wider spatial soundstage even on my little speakers in comparison with the 1c's....

I believe that the CRS's have more distance between the stereo and dimensional drivers, like the other SRS's do. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

I want more SDA. Is there a rehab center for SDA addiction?

If there is such a place, it is not here. This place is nothin' but enablers...:cheesygrin:

Do the 2b's have a lot more bass than the crs?

Yes.

But really, I loved all the responses!

Aww shucks...:redface: We love you too, sweetheart!:cheesygrin:


As far as your CRS's go (and this goes for all special, somewhat rare speakers): don't sell them before you buy their could-be replacement. Buy their could-be replacement first, and then compare them head to head, if you must, but don't sell the CRS's first just based on something you read. There are those who find the CRS +'s to be the sweetest of the bunch!

evhudsons

Thanks for the sage advice, fo sure! I bought mine new in 1989, so they'll never leave the house. They are my pride and joy. But I did like my friend's 1c's, they rock!

If I get sent to an old folks home, I might share the 1c's with my friends in the parlor, and keep the crs+ in my half of the room.

I'm curious as heck to hear my crs after I add the high current amp, and Larry's rings tweak. It'll be interesting to see how much extra bass there is. I do use my sub, but just leveled up to accent the crs as if it were a little bigger. Tonight Trace Adkins sang the anthem at the world series, and it sound so good mixed together. I rewound the dvr and listened without the subwoofer. He sounded just as great but without the deep voice. My speakers are on stands far from the wall. I'm sure if I backed them up a bit it would be much more bass. I can hear it from the rear when I listen close, it's really awesome after my mods, but there is nothing to project it back. What if I put satellite dishes behind them?




ha ha, just kidding! Don't tase me bro!

I noticed the actual distance on both the crs and the 2b's are wider than the 1c's. I'm assuming that may be the difference?

Either way, the OP can't go wrong with his decision!

falconcry72

evhudsons wrote: »

I noticed the actual distance on both the crs and the 2b's are wider than the 1c's.

WRONG!:razz: (just checked mine to be sure )

The 1C's and 2B's are spaced the same.


I'm pretty sure there were only 2 different spacings used throughout all the SDA models:

Narrow: 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 2A, 2B

Wide: CRS, CRS +, SRS, SRS 2, SRS 1.2, SRS 2.3, SRS 3.1 (plus all the TL's, of course)

falconcry72

evhudsons wrote: »

... I bought mine new in 1989, so they'll never leave the house. They are my pride and joy. ...I'm curious as heck to hear my crs after I add the high current amp, and Larry's rings tweak. It'll be interesting to see how much extra bass there is. ...

Very cool! I don't think there are a whole lot of original owners 'round here!:biggrin:

What amplification are you coming from/going to? Eithier way, unless you're currently powering them with a Fisher Price, I wouldn't expect a lot more bass, but I'd expect better, tighter, more articulate bass.

Joe08867

falconcry72 wrote: »

WRONG!:razz: (just checked mine to be sure )

The 1C's and 2B's are spaced the same.


I'm pretty sure there were only 2 different spacings used throughout all the SDA models:

Narrow: 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 2A, 2B

Wide: CRS, CRS +, SRS, SRS 2, SRS 1.2, SRS 2.3, SRS 3.1 (plus all the TL's, of course)

Actually the SDA II originals are wide like CRS's. 2a's and later are all narrow.

nspindel

falconcry72 wrote: »

Very cool! I don't think there are a whole lot of original owners 'round here!:biggrin:

Hey, speak for yourself :cool:

+1 for 1989 entrance to SDA ownership!

evhudsons

lol, I stand corrected on the width vs narrow! I never measured them, just assumed the 2b's were wide like the crs because everything else is so similar.

I'm going to power them with a Parasound hca1500. I'm still waiting on it to come in the mail. I got Larry's rings today (I've been out of town). I was going to just put everything in together, rings, amp, inductor but Now I'm going to first do the rings, then listen, then the amp, listen, and then inductors when the smoke settles on some inductor studies/experimenting/debating going on right now.

I don't need the bass with the sub I have. It's a monster sized sub with a pioneer avr pushing just it. I plan on getting rid of all the recievers eventially and go with preamps, but for now I'll use the pioneer elite for the preouts. It's a hobby, I'm in no hurry, and I want it to be done right.

I have all the old docs, ads, manual and everything for the speakers that I bought in 1989. I'm not the most careful with some of my stuff over the years but these speakers and the documentation have been kept and protected over the years.

I find it cool to see that kind of stuff sold on ebay. Until I found this forum I didn't even think hardly anyone knew about these speakers much less have a following and upgrading group. I'm loving life! My little speakers got very little respect over the years, but occassionaly when friends would sit long enough, they started looking around for more speakers and would remark about the surround sound. That was long before I added any extra speakers or sub.

The bass gets much better when against or near a wall but my living room prevents that now.

I'm glad to be in a unique group of people enjoying these as much as I have and will. I agree, they really are unique, special, and rare. And much loved by me.