kicking SDA in the nuts

Aaron

Since it has been such a borng day on the forum, I figured I'd throw out a question that's been nagging me for awhile. This post is akin to comparing someone's athletic skill that is in their 40's compared to someone in their 20's. (kinda like Michael Jordan now that I think about.....oh, well)

This summer I listened extensively to the Polk RTA-11t speakers. They use the same tweeter and midranges that many SDA's do. I wasn't impressed with the speakers at all and thought they couldn't hold a candle to the newer RT55 and RT800. Perhaps this is a false assumption, but I fail to see how any SDA speaker (except the SRT which uses all the newer drivers) can compete with the newer Polks in terms of audio quality, much less the new LSi's. I'm sure the SDA's kick the snot out of the current speakers in terms of dynamic range, presence, bass performance, and the size of the soundstage, but I don't think audio quality is one of them. Alright boys, let me have it!

Aaron

wangotango68

i think some of the older sda's lack some of that midrange punch.
just my opinion.

scott:cool:

I-SIG

Aaron,

I know exactly what you are talking about. I noticed this after listening extensively to my RT55i's this semester. As you yourself noted, the RT's can't hang with the SDA's in soundstage, dynamic range, bass, presence. Last time I checked, 4 out of 5 ain't bad at all! All things considered, I'll keep my SDA's!

Maybe if I get bored when I get out of college, I might try to build my own SDA's and use my 1C's as a basis.

Wes

Aaron

The bass deficiency could easily be compensated by a nice subwoofer and the combo would still cost significantly less than the SDA's (taking into account inflation) and require a lot less amplifier power.

According to George, the Carver Sonic Holography is very much like SDA. If this is true, I don't think I'd even like SDA from my experience with Sonic Holography. Sure it expands the sound stage to enormous proportions, but it destroys the imaging and often sounds very false and contrived.

I realize I'm partially talking out my **** since I have never even heard any SDA speaker. I'm just doing my best to extrapolate.

Aaron

TroyD

Are we talking about Aaron's rears again?

I agree, I am not a big fan of Carver's Sonic Holography. I tend to think of it as a gimmick. I am not a huge fan of gimmickry, DSP's etc....

My experience with SDA was minimal and it was a long time ago but I will say that the older Monitor speakers I thought tended to be somewhat muddy in the midrange, not unpleasant just not the definition and clarity that the newer RT series has.

Anyway you slice it, there are inherent advantages to big speakers though.

Troy

Micah Cohen

SDA was definitely a "gimmick." It worked, and was very very cool, and gave Polk something no one else had, but I think one of things that keeps us from re-doing it is that it is sort of gimmicky. It's like "quadrophonic." Listening to stuff like "Dark Side of The Moon" and "Whole Lotta Love" on the SDAs (which I have done here in a demo room) is very way cool -- they were loud and that SDA effect was pronounced and neet-o keen-o.

But I wouldn't want them in my house. Too big, too little off-axis response, too much volume and not enough detail.

I think, personally.

My 55s kick ****, and I can't get them above the 9am position on my NAD receiver without causing my neighbors' pace makers to malfunction, so I'd rather have convenient size and sound, than "gimmick." But SDA "made" Polk Audio. That's nothing to sneeze at.

MC

TroyD

I dunno, IF I were going to plunk down that kind of wampum for a pair of big speakers, which at this time, AIN'T friggin happening, I would probably go with a pair of electrostats.....

I'm not knocking the SDA's mind you, but that's how I would would do it.

BTW, MC, what HAVE you guys got in the demo room?

Troy

Aaron

It's too bad the McGowan brothers aren't around these parts much anymore. I'm sure I'd have them fired up pretty good with this thread. Hah! I expected some heated responses from some of the diehard SDA fans on here. Are you guys holding back or do you agree?

Aaron

I-SIG

Maybe it's the music I listen too, but the effects that they impart on my music seem to be right in line with what the music is doing. For example: in Riders on the Storm, the organ is in the left channel and the guitar in the right channel, with Morrison and the drums in the middle. The SDA only helped to widen the soundstage and place the instruments in the same locations, just outside the speakers. Sounds spectacular. On some rhythm guitars set in both channels, the guitar seems to be coming from the whole wall, rather than the speakers. Seems pretty desirable to me. Like I noted earlier, these new cables only enhance the definition of the sound with the RTi's, so I can't imagine how much they'll help the SDA's

Wes

stubby

I agree with Wes on this one. SDA seems very natural to me. Of course, it only "works" with recordings having strong left to right seperation. That's when its most noticable. After extensive listening, you realize it also helps with subtle aspects as well. Ambience is retrieved nicely, especially on good classical recordings. When I watch movies with rear channel info, the sound literally comes out into the room.
SDA's biggest downfall is listening position. The sweet spot is the only place you get the effect, in my room, anyway. I will also concede on the detail aspect. The new Polks have them covered. I will stick with my SDA's, though. They just have a "presence" about them.
Stubby

Aaron

From what you guys are saying I'd guess that SDA must work a bit better than Sonic Holography. That or I just didn't play with the settings enough. I really need to get a listen in on a pair of them....

Aaron

I-SIG

Thanks for the back up, Stubby. BTW, How's the M4.0-t treating you these days?

Let's put one thing aside, that everyone can agree on, if some modern SDA's were made with RTi or LSi drivers, then this agrument would be moot. As is, we're comparing apples to oranges. With that greed upon by everyone, the only way that SDA's lose, is in the size department. I can personally say that some effects remain, even when off axis. While I haven't heard anything with Sonic Holography, I can say for sure that imaging is there with the SDA's, big time. I have also heard the SRT's. In fact, they were demo'ed by The Man himself. In every aspect, the SRT's are completely effortless. IF we want to use the SRT, then yes, we are comparing apples to apples, the only problem is, I have a bushel, and you non-SDA guys have but a core.

Wes

TroyD

Like I said, I haven't heard SDA so I can't comment but I will take your word for it that it has to be better than Sonic Holography.

Personally, I like big speakers and I think Wes has hit the nail on the head, if SDA's had the newer drivers than we would be talking apples to apples. Discounting SDA, speakers that size make me horny.

My question on the SDA effect is, as stubby noted that it only works with some recordings, what about the everything else? With SH, sure it works well with some things but makes others sound like pure crap. Is the SDA effect just non-existent? I'm not judging, just asking because I don't know.

Troy

rskarvan

Hey guys... I'm a BIG fan of SDA.
I have two sets.... a CRS and SRS SDA 3.1TL.
The 3.1's have a subtle SDA effect.
The CRS's have a DRAMATIC SDA effect.

Anyway, both sets are wonderful speakers.
I also have the Monitor 10's.

The bass of the CRS's is incredible (kicking the Monitor 10's butt).
The absolute sense of involvement in the music
makes the CRS SDA effect absolutely spectacular.

Yes, the older drivers are a bit muddied in the middle.
But, they have great bass extension and they sound
warmer (tube-like) when compared to the newer plastic blue drivers. My goal is enjoyment... not accuracy.

SDA is not a gimmick. It simply enhances the natural
speaker/human-head interface. I've never found the
sweet spot of sda speakers to be all that small.

Carver sonic holography is crap compared to the Polk SDA effect.

I-SIG

Troy,

In my experience, when SDA isn't enhancing the audio experience, it steps to the background very nicely and one is left with a very solid pair of stereo speakers, that have everything but super detail in the mids.

Wes

RuSsMaN

....Are the actual dimensions big, yes. But there really isn't anything big about the drivers. Biggest driver is a 6.5, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, they use multiple drivers, but the only thing REALLY big, is a PR.

Putting the affect aside, all I really see is a very large speaker, trying to act as a line array, but not really doing it. How low are these sixer's REALLY going.... All the PR can do is share the acoustical load, it certainly won't help them reach deeper.

I'm not knocking anything here, but I think for the SDA to get the 'big' speaker praise it seems to, a couple active 10's, or 12's would do that. A few 6.5's and a huge PR a big speaker do not make. They do have a certain appeal though, I miss the PR designs of the 80's and early 90's.

Cheers,
Russ

(I do plan on adding a small pair to my collection, but I don't think they are the last word in Polk speaks.....)

hoosier21

I have always had a tuff time with the mids and tweets, getting a good balance between ear piercing highs and dull muted treble. The older Polks are great to my ears, kind of a softer milder sound. Does this make them muddy? I think not.

I have had the RT55i's in my house and liked them, but when asked to play loud, they went from a good sounding speaker to a .. well to a NOT so good sounding speaker, treble overload.

Russman, you do realize that multiple smaller drivers = single larger drivers displacement, and by adding the PR shores up the bottom end, I think Polk specs say the PR handles everything below 100hz (somebody check me on that) The 2.3's or 1.2's at low volume will produce acurate bass that can feel, and per Stereo Review "we have never measured a low bass distortion level as low as that of the SRS" If you heard these SDA's and the bass they produce your doubts would be erased. As Rskarvan said, the smallest SDA the CRS has room filling bass that is incredible.

Muddy midrange?? Lack of detail?? I like the sound of these speakers, I have had Paradigm Reference 100v2, Infinity Kappa 8.1 series II, Klipsch KLF-30's (puke), PSB Status Gold i, great speakers, top of the line stuff, but all had something that bugged me, SDA's are not perfect, but give me most of what I want out of a speaker at a very good price (used market).

I have not even brought up the SDA effect and its added value and enjoyment.

RuSsMaN

I hear ya on the displacement issue, what I really need is a good demo, with material I know well.

Cheers,
Russ

Aaron

Which SDA's do you have? What didn't you like about the Paradigm's?

Aaron

rskarvan

There are a lot of advantages of multiple smaller drivers for bass vs. a single larger driver. Bass moves a bunch of air. Multiple smaller drivers have less mass (each) and can respond faster than a larger single driver... F=MA still applies here folks. Regarding bass, my 3.1TL's can go down to 15 HZ with ease.

I think the reason the CRS outperforms the Monitor 10's for bass extension is the quality of the crossover components.

I also like passive designs with sealed enclosures. Or, said differently, I dislike having a hole in my speaker (some call it a tuned port). Speakers with holes aren't as tight as speakers without them. The fact is that you can make a speaker with a hole smaller than one without one. A smaller speaker is not necessarily a better speaker... but, it is less expensive to produce, ship and warehouse. Lets not forget that Polk is in business to make money. (of course, if they happen to produce good speakers, thats ok too).

hoosier21

Aaron you caught me, I did like the Paradigms very much, if I could keep all the speakers I like, I would still have these.

With the Paradigms, they did not really come alive until you stepped on the gas, don't know if that is really a bad thing, but when you share a listing room with 2 kids and a wife and have to listen at lower volumes when they sleep, it does matter to me.

Aaron

The reason I asked about the Studio 100's is because those are on my short list for my future pair of speakers. I'm somewhat surprised that the those speakers exhibited that behavior. What were you driving them with? I would think the SDA's would be like that or worse since everyone is always saying how much power they crave.

Aaron

hoosier21

Let me know when you get serious about the Paradigms, I have a connection wink wink.

I believe most have been saying use good clean power or use a high current amp, a lot of the guys around here use the Carver amps in mono for 500 750 1000 watts a channel, but are they really listening at those levels?? the SDA's are efficient 90 - 92db, so they don't have to have the 1KW, but having up to 24 drivers a pair you need an amp that can handle a serious load.

I have bridged a pair of Carver M1.0t's @ 1000 wpc hooked up to a pair of SDA 1.2's and man it was good, but I also hooked up my favorite low cost NAD 150wpc stereo amp and got better sound. I like the high current better than the Carver high voltage design, nothing wrong with Carver its just that I like the NAD amps better.

Aaron

....nothing wrong with Carver its just that I like NAD's better.

Heheheh, you said NAD!

I'll take your word on the Carver vs. NAD thing. I really haven't put any quality listening time into a really good amplifier. The best I've really listened to have been the Carvers, but that isn't really saying a lot considering the ones I've compared them to. I'll definitely let you know if I really dig the Studio 100's. Thanks!

Aaron

craverk

I'll throw in my (very biased) $.02 worth on this one...Although I haven't heard ANY of the newer 'top of the line' Polks, I will stick up for the SDAs! I have the SDA 1.2s as fronts, and also have the 2.3s as rears (playing even when I'm in 2 channel stereo mode, which is most of the time - I 'split' the signal to the amps). I'm powering these with a cummulative of 2,375 watts of Carver power, and to me (and everyone else who hears my system), I'm in 'sonic heaven'! To me, the SDA effect is truly just an additional bonus...they're pretty awsome even without it. IMO, this setup lacks nothing AT ALL - I love it so much that I've even stopped 'tweaking', and now I just emerse myself in the music, and couldn't be happier! I wouldn't trade my SDAs for anything! ....but, I WOULD like to hear a side-by-side comparison with Polk's latest 'top of the line' someday.... Later....Keith

Aaron

I think the SRT illustrated the "problem" with SDA line. To take the SDA and upgrade all the drivers brings the price from around $3000 to a pretty hefty $7300. (Granted some of this cost is due to the subwoofer amplifiers.) The "problem" that I'm alluding to is that the SDA and SRT speakers are on a large scale (big speakers, lots of drivers), so to make a significant improvement on them it will cost a lot of money. I'm sure the LSi speakers will blow the SDA's out of the water in terms of sound quality, but you know they will never deliver the presence and power that the SDA's exude. They're just not big enough speakers. I think one would have to spend an obscene amount of money to get something to deliver both stellar sound quality and the sheer presence and power that the SDA's deliver.

So I guess the bottom line is which you prefer: sound quality or power/prescence

Aaron

madmax

I'll reply to this SDA question. I sets of most of the different models and power them with a lot of high power amps. I have listened to a few "high quality" speakers and can usually say I hear the quality difference between them and the SDA's. The end result is always that I enjoy the definition or better quality of some aspects of other speakers and after a little while I'm ready to quit listening and go do something else. On the other hand when I go home and turn on the SDA's all of a sudden I realize I've wasted away the day and it is time for bed but I'm not ready to turn them off yet. The longer I listen the longer I want to listen. When this is no longer the case I'll probably turn to a higher end speaker but as for now my ultimate enjoyment comes from the SDA's. Not as good as some others for quality but the enjoyment factor can't be matched!
madmax

I-SIG

Low level listening was one of the first things I noticed about the SDA's after I got some modest (read 200W/ch) power hooked up to them. At low levels, they still had a suprisingly full sound, even without the PR doing anything at those low levels.

BTW, I think the PR, at least on the 1C's, they help with response below 60Hz.

As far as listening enjoyment, the RT55i's don't hold a candle to my SDA 1C's. The SDA's bring a smile to my face every time.

Here we go with cost again. Throwing in not one, but 2 powered, dual driver subs, in a more expensive to design and build HVCP box is going to cost a whole lot of moola. Get rid of those massive subs (that kick incredible amounts of ****), and either thrown in a passive 10 or 12, or a powered 10 or 12, and then I think we talk on economies of scale. Now, using RTi drivers, I suspect that a new SDA design would be right in line with the new LSi speakers, and obviously a little bit more with LSi drivers.

Wes

stubby

One of the great things about SDA is when its not "working" it has no ill effect on the sound. I have several recordings that aren't spectacular for an SDA demo, but it still sounds great due to the over all quality of the speaker. I have never had a Carver SH demo so I can't pass judgement on it. However, since SDA is passive you can't really screw it up. And I have never heard a recording that sounded artificial (OK, maybe some Hendrix).
And Wes, I haven't seen my amp yet. He said he MAY get to it after the first of the year. He has a BUTT load of these things to work on. He thought he could find what he needed from all his other Carver carcasses. I can only hope.
If anyone wants a good SDA demo in the KC area just let me know, you can hear and feel what all those little 6.5 drivers can do.
Stubby

mesquitehead

well i own a pair of sda1's and i dont really care for them near as much as my rt-16's i sold like a dummy..... they dont have the presence of the 16's in my earpinion. in fact i am putting them up for sale today so i can get something else.....i wish i could find some 16's again...also consider the low sensitivity of the sda1's -they need lots o juice to really get moving. my 16's bi-wired were lots of bang for the bucks. adios amigos

mjmcg

Do I think that SDA's were the best sounding speaker ever? No. Do I happen to think that when you weigh all their attributes that appeal to me together against speakers like the touted RT55's, Paradigms, electrostats etc. they out shine them all? Sure. Why? Because catagoricly, electrostats have a natural, open sound that rivals anything out there, however they are inefficient as hell, can't handle huge amounts of power nor produce concert like spl's and they have little to no"slam you in the chest" bass output. (and yes, I've heard most all of them) The RT55's were huge leap as far as sound quality from a small speaker...but therein lies the problem, "small speaker". They lack room filling capability. I hate to open this next can of worms by picking soley on Paradigm as a name brand, so I'll toss whatever brand you like into the ring. Most, and I say most, not all speakers out there will have either exciting natural open realistic reproduction qualities, or they will have out of this world efficiency and sound terrible. With the SDA's, and I'll focus on the pair I happen to have settled down with out of many owned...the SRS-2.3TL. We're talking greater than 90db spl's depending on what you read, 750watt handling capabilty, enough drivers to start a tornado and a frequency response that certainly lacks nothing. No farting around to set them up. Easy spacing, face forward. Oh, yes they require huge amounts of quality amplification to make them shine, which by the way, 9 out of 10 guys who disliked SDA's wouldn't know what real "quality" power was if it bit them in the ****. To them, when their Onkyo receiver couldn't drive a pair of 1C's they chalked it up to the speakers sucking. Yeah, ok buddy, whatever! I don't mind that fact, because I have and like huge amps with gobs of reseve power on tap. The amps that some of use on our SDA's have more output at idle than most guys think they have at full tilt! Hell, you'd need a shoehorn to pack just one of my caps from my monos into the whole case of some of these so called "high current receivers." Get real. Those of us over at our companion SDA page know what I mean. In a fantasy world, there would be plenty of other better speakers gracing my rooms to listen to, but in the real world where I can only have one or none, I still say that the big SDA's embody the best of many worlds of audio reproduction. You have to understand that they have many different positive attributes. They may master none, but they acomplish more across the spectrum than alot of other little piss ant speakers can even think of. I'm not about to give up all the qualities that my big SRS's have to get a set of speakers that only have one perfect area of quality, such as midrange purity, or high details, etc etc. I have a good blend of all those, and more.