LSi9s vs. vintage (long)

techlectic

Picked up some LSi9s from CL to see how they compare with my RTA-12bs and Monitor 10bs. There is a huge difference in efficiency, which made an A/B comparison difficult. I think there is a natural tendency to favor the louder speakers. But after much time switching back and forth, my conclusion is that while the LSi9s have an advantage in the upper mid and high end (with slightly weaker bass), the bigger speakers have a huge advantage in imaging. The LSi9s just sound like small speakers. I have to say, I think it's pretty cool that speakers from the early 80s hold up so well.

As for the 12s and 10s, I have to give the advantage to the 10s, which came as a surprise to me, given the much more sophisticated crossovers in the 12s. The 12s are even more efficient than the 10s, and they have a stronger bottom end, but the 10s have a big advantage in the high end. I know the SL2000s have a bad rap on this forum, but I love my 10s. The SL1000 (not Peerless) does not sound as good as the SL2000. I actually ordered the RD0194s to replace the SL1000s, but I wound up returning them because they didn't fit and I didn't want to hack up anything. I tried one in one of the 10s to compare it with the SL2000, but I didn't find it an improvement. It seemed less efficient than the SL2000 and the speaker lost some clarity. I recognize that there might have been a significant change if I had broken them in, but in the end I reached the conclusion that I'm happy with my 10s the way they are.

I am not totally happy with the 12s, so I am considering what to do with them. I'm looking for comments about the LSi9s. I had them up on coffee tables, but maybe they would sound better with proper stands. I'm considering swapping all the drivers from the 10s (SL2000/MW6503) to the 12s (SL1000/MW6600x) to see how they sound. I'm wondering if one or more caps is bad. I'm also considering getting rid of the 12s, which are actually too big for the space I have, and the LSI9s and picking up some LS70s (currently on CL here) or LS90s.

I have a PSW650, but I disconnected it for the test. I used a Pioneer SC-25 (140 wpc) for the test.

cnh

Nice review. I kinda agree. Love my 10As (peerless) but they are a bigger speaker that reaches lower. I think if you had the crossover mods to your LSi-9s you'd probably have a different opinion. I know that my LSi-7s, which are easier to drive, "image" just fine--nothing lacking there--only the bottom end some!

The other problem you have there is that a Pioneer SC-25 is NOT going to be able to give those LSi-9s enough juice. So it kind of biases the comparison between the 10s and the 9s?

Then there is synergy. For some "bizarre" reason, when I mate the 10As to the Marantz below things just seem "right"--and I don't particularly like Marantz receivers (or rather, they are NOT my first choice in vintage receivers).

Don't know the 12s that well.

VR3

Try moving the top driver to the bottom of the speaker (put the midrange driver below, the bass driver on top)

You can also just flip the speaker upside down and swap the side it is on...

This should help out on your imaging.

EndersShadow

The 9's need to be on decent stands honestly to sound their best IMHO. Also no mention if you had them toe'd in either. And as stated the Pio SC can drive them, but not as good as a dedicated amp would IMHO. I would try to borrow a 2 channel amp and re-run your test to see if the 9's do any better.

steveinaz

Personal preference will always be the driving force in speaker choices---as it should be. Newer doesn't always mean better.

EndersShadow

steveinaz wrote: »

Personal preference will always be the driving force in speaker choices---as it should be. Newer doesn't always mean better.

...But I agree 100% with Steve... "It only matters how it sounds to YOU!"

heiney9

Comparing a bookshelf to a large floorstander isn;t really a fair comparison. For what they are the LSi 9's are fantastic and I'd choose them over Monitor 10B's anyday modified or not. The 9's need better than average gear and proper stands as well as proper placement to sound their best. If you can't provide them with those 3 things and it sounds like atleast in the gear department you didn't, they won't reach full potential.

H9

nhhiep

I agree with you. My 2 months old Lsi9s are in the box now after I bought the SDA 1C set. About the bass, since I cross them at 60hz, this is a fair fight. Overall sound and soundstage, I like the 20+yrs old speaker more, especially with new RD194 tweeters.

I paid $400 total for each set. With the Lsi9s, I feel like I bought them because they're cheap and knowing I can easily resell them. With the 1C, I think it's a better purchase by accident because initially I didn't believe that they would sound better current Polk Top of the line.

I actually enjoyed the Lsi9s set before, but not anymore

Lietuvis91

techlectic wrote: »

I'm also considering getting rid of the 12s, which are actually too big for the space I have

Precisely... and this is why your comparison is completely apples to oranges. A very big factor in how a speaker sounds has to do with cabinet size and cabinet design. Bigger cabinets have an advantage, especially when it comes to low end. I wouldn't want either one of those big ugly things(10bs & RTA12s) in my nice living room. That is what Lsi 9's and accompanying subs are designed to address. Unfortunately, while addressing looks and aesthetics you end up compromising the sound stage. These limitations are exactly what modern speaker design has been trying to overcome. Small footprint, big sound. It's very difficult to do.

Now that you understand how fundamentally different the speakers are, you can better appreciate how lsi's do so much with so little. Consciously, I couldn't even attempt to compare these speakers, because vintage monitors were not designed with the same constraints in mind as the lsi's. Just food for thought.

cnh

Yeah, it is unfair to compare something with the cabinet volume of a Monitor 10 to a modern bookie--but really only as regards the low end. And, while it is true that modern speaker design has tried to deal with problems of style/loudness/range; I guess I'm old school because I don't find big boxy speakers like Monitors and SDAs ugly.

But then again, there is that WAF which is why the "important" gear is NOT in the HT room! I can see my wife saying, yeah those SDAs and that tube amp would be great in the living room! Let's see, honey, we only need 14' of free wall space, and oh, we can't have anything in front of the speakers, and then there's that thick black SDA I/C (maybe we can paint that to match the carpet and we can buy a special stand for the 50 pound tube amp that matches the drapes so well, etc.) lol

cnh

techlectic

I can't disagree that my speakers would sound better with separates, but I don't think my receiver, which is an pretty good one, is going to favor the vintage speakers over the LSi9s in any significant way. Within the last few months I've used a Harman Kardon and a Denon receiver both with much lower power ratings without detecting any significant change in sound quality. I use an old JVC receiver with my Monitor 10s in my bedroom and they sound great at the sound levels I use.

I tried different placements of the LSi9s without finding any significant change in the relative lack of imaging. Maybe high quality stands would help, but I tend to doubt it would in any significant way. I think the imaging must be a function largely of driver and cabinet size. This is one reason I wonder how the LSi15s would compare in the imaging department.

Would the bigger cabinet and extra driver of the LSi15s bring out the soundstage I hear with my vintage speakers that is missing with the LSi9s? Has anyone heard the LSi9s and 15s side by side?

smglbrth

steveinaz wrote: »

Personal preference will always be the driving force in speaker choices---as it should be. Newer doesn't always mean better.

Amen to that, I'm glad there are some voices of reason left in the world...

Lietuvis91

anonymouse wrote: »

The LSi9's are my next preference. They need to be modded and have decent gear. They tend to be very revealing.

This part in bold is very true about the lsi speakers and is important to understand. They really are revealing, the quality and adequecy of your gear and of your source shows very quickly. Every amp I have tried on my 9s has resulted in a slightly different sound and poor quality sources stand out like sore thumbs.

Consider the retail price point of these speakers. They are desinged and marketed to the crowd who run basic separates, at the very minimum.

And therefore, results are far less than pleasing when you pull this:

techlectic wrote: »

I used a Pioneer SC-25 (140 wpc) for the test.

No pun intended, bud.

heiney9

techlectic wrote: »

I can't disagree that my speakers would sound better with separates, but I don't think my receiver, which is an pretty good one, is going to favor the vintage speakers over the LSi9s in any significant way.

Sorry but you couldn't be more mistaken. Been where you are and I know, believe me. The LSi 9's need high current, clean power of which only a handful of upper echelon receiver are even capable. The 10B's are much less complex and easier to drive well.

H9

bluecomet

I agree. All of the Lsi speakers especially the 9's thrive on high current and clean power. I had 9's and they sounded like different speakers when used with a high current seperate amp. I had Monitor 10's with the peerless tweets. The Lsi 9's and M10's are really two different animals. I view the Lsi 9's in the same catagory as RT55's and CRS+ speakers. It's apples and oranges. I would try to lesson to the 9's with proper gear before dismissing them, especially if you use a sub with them.

Upstatemax

My 9's did not open up till I hooked my Parasound up to them... It was like I got new speakers.

Then I hooked up the Dared, it was amazing. Then started to roll NOS tubes and it keeps getting better.

As others have said, the 9's reward you for gear upgrades.

drumminman

Got to make a comment on the RTA 12b's. I have the 12C's which sound like they were originally built with identical components to yours (SL1000, MW6600, etc.).

Your Xover is shot, believe me, as it's approaching 30 years of age. I rebuilt mine with the usual suspects (sonicaps and mills), + did a number of other tweaks. The mid range clarity, the soundstage and the bass response are truly impressive. In these qualities the 12C's are close to my 2.3TL's.

The Xovers are complicated (expensive) with lots of caps, but the speakers are truly impressive after the refresh.

janmike

I have the 9's on decent stands filled with lead shot driven by a Proceed APM5 for my HT (5.1). I can honestly say I am very content with the result.
And the SVS sub provides any missing bass.

codyc1ark

heiney9 wrote: »

Sorry but you couldn't be more mistaken. Been where you are and I know, believe me. The LSi 9's need high current, clean power of which only a handful of upper echelon receiver are even capable. The 10B's are much less complex and easier to drive well.

H9

+1, I powered my 9's off of my SC-25 for a very short time, I can describe them as muffled on the AVR vs. an amp. Night and day difference.

Erik Tracy

So, all of the advice to the OP is to buy more stuff just to get the LSi9s so they sound better to him than the speakers he has now?

I'm all about helping others spend more money, but c'mon guys - his ears prefer the monitors and he fairly shared that.

heiney9

Erik Tracy wrote: »

So, all of the advice to the OP is to buy more stuff just to get the LSi9s so they sound better to him than the speakers he has now?

I'm all about helping others spend more money, but c'mon guys - his ears prefer the monitors and he fairly shared that.

Speaking for me, I was just giving him advice as to why they aren't playing to their full potential. It's up to him if he wants to explore it further. If not, that fine too. But he needs to understand what it takes to get them to sound their best. I think it would have been a disservice to just nod in approval rather than further explain how to get the best from them. I read his post to sound a bit disappointed in the 9's. I was simply explaining why.

H9

Joe08867

On that same thought. It is safe to say that almost any speaker would benefit from separates?

I have had many different Polk Speakers, while I liked the Lsi's I didn't keep them long. I prefer the sound of Polk's vintage stuff. And yes I ran them with very good amplification. They just were not my cup o tea.

That said the comparison is skewed in favor of the floor stander. I have only heard a couple of bookies that can compare bottom end wise to something like the Monitor 10. But I prefer more mid warmth than the 10's have. They are always a little to boomy for me. I prefer Monitor 7's or those RTA-12b's all refurbished.

Lietuvis91

Erik Tracy wrote: »

So, all of the advice to the OP is to buy more stuff just to get the LSi9s so they sound better to him than the speakers he has now?

I'm all about helping others spend more money, but c'mon guys - his ears prefer the monitors and he fairly shared that.

That wasn't the intent of my post(s). I was merely saying that the lsi is just a whole different ball of wax, with totally different intentions buy design for a whole different market audience and purpose. This speaker is clearly not for him. In fact if I were to give advise to the OP specifically, I would say sell the lsi9s and keep the stuff that sounds good to him now. In his case that makes the most sense.

As a side note, I wouldn’t call LSi’s “Top of the line”, I would call them “Hi-Fidelity”.

cnh

Joe08867 wrote: »

On that same thought. It is safe to say that almost any speaker would benefit from separates?

I have had many different Polk Speakers, while I liked the Lsi's I didn't keep them long. I prefer the sound of Polk's vintage stuff. And yes I ran them with very good amplification. They just were not my cup o tea.

That said the comparison is skewed in favor of the floor stander. I have only heard a couple of bookies that can compare bottom end wise to something like the Monitor 10. But I prefer more mid warmth than the 10's have. They are always a little to boomy for me. I prefer Monitor 7's or those RTA-12b's all refurbished.

I've heard a lot of people say this about the 10s. But that hasn't been my experience with them. In fact, to me they just sound like a bigger, badder version of my 5s that can kick harder, reach lower and still have great mids. Don't hear any boominess at all.

Might also be a function of what's powering them--a vintage receiver? Or "room" interactions.

I have yet to hear the 7s, but I can't imagine that they have the LOW end of the 10s (I can imagine that they might have better mids and image better--but even that is a stretch in terms of what I hear from the 10As).

cnh

Joe08867

cnh, it could have been room interaction, I was really just starting to understand that concept. I will say the equipment was up to snuff when I last owned 10's. B&K Pro 5 preamp, B&K ST202 amp or Rotel RB 1080 and Rega P3 Turntable.
Kimber Interconnects and speaker wire.

I also had SDA2's, Monitor 7's and CRS+'s all on the same system at one point or another.

It could also be my preference of sound. Boomy to me might be perfect for you.

techlectic

I really appreciate all the responses to this thread. I've come around to thinking that the Pioneer Elite receiver, while having the super efficient ICE amplifiers well above Polk's minimum power rating of 20 watts for the LSi9, are not really intended for 4 ohm loads. There are plenty of people who are reporting good results with 4 ohm speakers, so I don't think there is any problem at the sound levels I listen at, but I think it's very well possible that the loads presented by the vintage models are easier for the amp to handle and may be more favorable to them.

I like the idea that replacing crossover components would change how I feel about my RTA-12s, but I'm wary. My Monitor 10s are almost as old, and old caps haven't killed their sound. I don't doubt that the crossover upgrade will improve the sound on both sets of vintage speakers, but it seems more of a gamble upgrading the crossover for a speaker I'm not psyched about to start with. Especially when I'm not sure whether I have the best drivers in it. I still want to swap drivers from one Monitor 10 to one RTA-12 to see how that sounds.

I'm also going to see if a friend will loan me a power amp. I don't know what he has, but I know he has a tube pre and solid state power amp in a stereo that he is not using at the moment due to a dead CD player.

I was happy to see the RTA-12Cs on eBay for $795, but it's really a stretch to think anyone would pay that for them. I'd be really happy if I could get half that.

michael1947

H9 tells no lies so pay attention. I own most of the speakers mentioned and agree that driving the old stuff is much easier with average gear. I have my psi 9's set up in a 14x17 carpeted, draped room with one 6 foot opening back behind my chair and it is pure bliss. I,m using an HCA 2200 for power and Emotiva,s new reference cd and pre with MIT cables. Give those lsi 9's a chance..oh and I,m filling in thr lows with a little rel-3 sub and I forget the crossover point...but like so many have pointed out use some proper gear and you will see hear why the lsi,s are so highly regarded. Mp. Oh, my computer is busted and I,m using my I-pad and I,m lousy with it...actually I don,t like it a bit but it doesn't,t break.