kicking SDA in the nuts

RuSsMaN

Preface:
Not fighting here guys, and certainly not knocking anyones gear.

From the posts above, I am real confused. It seems to me SDA is essentially 'Jack of all trades, yet master of none'.

750 watt power handling? Why would these even matter for home use? More power handling, a better speaker does not make. 90db sens? Klipschorns can take 400 watts and are 104db sens, does that mean they are better than SDA?

I still don't quite agree with some of the statements on bass performance either.

15Hz? from 6.5's and a passive radiator? Are we saying that a speaker, quantity aside, whos largest ACTIVE driver is SIX AND ONE HALF INCHES, can reach lower than some of the most respected subwoofers on the planet, using in some cases multiple 12 and 15 inch drivers? I have yet to come across a 6.5 inch woofer with an Fs of lower than 32Hz. And that is low. But then again, I'm no engineer.

You guys like your speakers, thats great, I like em too, I just don't see why if they were/are SO great, that they aren't still made today, and no manufacturer I know is or has copied the design.....

Cheers,
Russ

predator

OK time to add my $.02, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the SDA are the best or are the most accurate etc etc, but there is a lot more to these big speakers than the SDA effect. The SDA's are a great value on the used market when compared to speakers costing much more. If $$ were no concern I would have different speakers. I have gone out and listened to many speakers but still come home to mine. When I listen to my 1.2's at well under 2K or even my old 1C's, I made a great choice in value and performance. The SDA's are not the most accurate sounding speakers I have heard. They just do so much so well!
Micah, I will note a lot of high end equipment have similar effects (in the preamp section) that deal with cross talk. To say it's a gimmick is exaggerating. It certainly was perceived as a gimmick by the audiophiles. Tell Matt, Bob Carver and every one over at Lexicon, etc that IC is a gimmick and you better duck. I may look for different things from my audio listening than you, that's it, if your happy with your RT55's then go for it. Micah, are you saying that the SRT's and all those extra drivers for SDA was just gimmick and they would have sounded better without them????? I want to hear Matt say he put them in as a gimmick. I think people just don't want big speakers in their living room. Aren't the RT55's the top portion of the RT3000's?? If so see my post below about the comparison of my SDA 1C's to the RT3000's and you will see what I think of them. One more thing, I would also love to know what is in the demo room. Details please like speakers, amps, preamps cords, interconnects etc. Come on give it up, we want to know!!!!! What do you guys compare stuff to????
I just upgraded from SDA 1C's to SDA 1.2's and I can't believe you guys are talking about lack of mid-bass punch and low end on either speaker. This is EXACTLY what I am not hearing from comparing new speakers over the past few years. As for the comments on Passive Radiators, well I don't even know where to start other than if you think the big Polks don't have mid-bass punch and low bass you must be smoking crack. The 1.2's have 15" Passive Radiators and I turn my two Snell 12" 550 subs powered by two 700 watt amps off when listening to music because frankly they don't add anything and too much low bass in music is unrealistic. I do use the Snell's for HT but they crossed at 40Hz. With the Snells I have +/- 3db from 200Hz down to 20 Hz in my HT and +/- 3.5 db without the snells. The Snells are only helping out below 40Hz, Go measure your room response with warble tones and we can talk about Bass. Russ the 6.5" driver doesn't produce low bass the PR does. All I can say is to each his own.
I have had Carver Sonic Holography and would say the sound stage was good but the sweet spot was very small in comparison to SDA.
Aron, there is a lot more to speaker design than it's drivers. Cabinet design, crossover design and quality components etc. The best drivers in the world crossed wrong or used with poor quality components won't make them sound better. The 1.2's have 4 1" tweets/cab and each of the four tweets in each cabinet have different crossover components. When I compare the 1.2's to the 1C's I would say the highs are cleaner with better detail and are less harsh in comparison to the 1C's.
I brought my old SDA 1C's to a buddy's house that ended up buying them. He has a set of RT3000p's in his HT setup and wants my 1C's for his music setup. He purchased a set of DefTech's he is sending back (no need to say more here). Well, needless to say I wanted to compare to two Polk speakers on the same setup, same day, same music etc…… We both agreed without question the 1C's sound much better and much more musical than the RT's. The MIDBASS was smoother, more accurate, cleaner and with more mid bass punch. Sorry guys but the 1C's blow the RT3000's away without question. Now the 1C's have modified crossovers, spikes and updated connections with all soldered connections but I still think they would have sounded better stock. Now the RT's have bass but I would be willing to bet the response is far from flat, which is probably why they don't sound as musical. Don't get me wrong the RT's sound OK and are great for HT, which is what they are being used for in his HT setup, but they don't hold a candle to the 1C's never mind the 1.2's! I really hate to say this but in comparison the RT's seem to have excentuated bass and highs like what Bose does but not with out mid-bass at all like Bose.. That's a little harsh and out of proportion but that's what went thru my mind when I listened to the two speakers side by side. Yes, the Polk's sound better than Bose but I wanted to make a point and of course the RT's sound better than any Bose I have heard.
As for the mid-bass and low-end issue. I can't believe I'm hearing this discussion at all. My comments would be COMPLETLY the opposite (see hoosier21 comments also). The mid bass in my setup with make your heart pound and make you feel as if someone kicked you in the chest and walk out of the room saying WOW!!! At least that's what every one says walking out of my setup. For example we watched JP3 this weekend and a neighbor was over and he jumped twice during the movie because the mid-bass punch scared the hell out of him. When was the last time a grown man jumped with your setup??? I have been to a bunch of high-end setups and have walked out of more saying "they sound nice but I wouldn't give up my setup for that". I couldn't agree more with madmax001 on enjoying listening to the Big boys until it's way past my bedtime.

If the Big Polks:
#1 Are properly powered: They will come alive, play loud, clean, and low.
#2 Are properly secured: They will have great mid-bass punch and will not be muddy. If the big speakers aren't properly secured they will physically move and this will make the mid-bass very muddy and low bass won't have that kick you in the chest feel. Securing the speakers properly is the single biggest improvement I made to both the 1C's and even more so with the 1.2's. I still put it after the power because you need the good clean power or don't bother. Any tall speaker is going to have this problem and if not secured would make anyone with a mildly trained ear say they sounded muddy. Just think about it, you have 4-8 drivers 4-6 feet off the ground. Of course they are going to move. The big Polks had what Polk called a bass brace and they need it. You can see my custom bass brace at Mike & Bob's excellent SDA adventure (I mean site).

I look forward to hearing the bigger Lsi's soon but don't think I will be giving up the big boys yet.

Ralph-

Aaron

I'm trying to put this as delicately as possible, so please don't take offense to it.

I don't think you're going to find a speaker under $5k with those qualities. It seems to me that the emphasis in audio these days is quality, not quantity. Those SDA's cost around $3000 over ten years ago. To upgrade that design they created the SRT, a system costing $7300. Technically speaking, that speaker isn't really that advanced, it's just moving the SDA's to the next level by using better drivers, a separate sealed enclosure for the mids/hi's, and sub woofers instead of passive radiators. Think what that speaker would cost if they took the drivers to the level of a B&W or Thiel? You'd hit the $10k mark in no time.

Back to my "quality versus quantity" statement. It seems that the trend has been to create fewer, higher quality drivers rather than lots of mediocre drivers. Sure that limits the SPL, but it doesn't sacrifice quality. Also, driver technology has improved significantly in the last few years allowing greater power handling and frequency response. I'd rather have less powerful, good sound than loud, mediocre sound. It's kind of like the choice between a pair of Polk speakers and Cerwin Vegas (this is bad, I know). With the Polks you get the more musical, accurate speaker, and with the Cerwin Vegas you get the rock-the-house sound at the expense of quality. Ultimately it comes down the age-old decision of what you prefer.

Aaron

RuSsMaN

Hate to be a stickler on the bass issue, but to help me understand, without having a pair myself to HEAR what the fuss is about....someone at Polk needs to tell me this.

What are the internal dimensions of the box, the Fs and Qts of the 6.5's, the resonant frequency and wieght of the passive radiator....(any given model will do). I still don't see subsonics (<20Hz) from this setup, as claimed.

As far as the SDA effect goes, I could care less really, if its there, I consider it a bonus. I would compare these on a straight 2 ch rig only, no effects. Seriously, we have 4 different high passes for each of the four tweeters? How about the mid/bass, are they low passed to match in some similar order? Does anyone have a pic/schematic of the internal network? Must be a hell of a sight.

Nice pic Ralph, I'll admit, I did sit jaw-agape for a few seconds before I popped back into reality. Also, I don't think I've seen that many Carvers in one setup before. Must be a hell of a show.

Cheers,
Russ

I-SIG

Aaron,

I understand your arguements on the cost issue, but did you read one of my previous posts? I noted that if a standard design sub or passive woofer were used in the SRT, cost would have been markedly reduced. Also, one thing to keep in mind, Polk built the SRT to be the end-all of end-all HT/HS systems, not something that many J6P's would be able to afford. The SRT's were speaking to different audience. Besides, I thought the reason that we all bought Polk speakers was the fact that they have a quality about them that can hang with speakers costing much more.

I'm not sure how you call the SRT not technically advanced? If you recall, the High Velocity Compression Drive (HVCD) subwoofer system developed for SRT, and later applied to some PSW subs, got Polk 2 or 3 more patents, not counting the advancements they had made on their own previous SDA patents. Last time I checked, patents tend indicate some kind of advancement or uniqueness of some new idea.

I thought the main reason for the reduction of the number of drivers was space, or lack there of. One SDA-1C only has one more active driver than a RT3000, and it's a tweeter. A pair of SDA-CRS+ has the same number of drivers as our RT55i's. I highly doubt driver design and technolgy had as much to do with the reduction of quantity of drivers as space efficiency did.

__________________________________________________

RuSsMaN,

Actually, disconnecting the SDA cables reduces the overall clarity, imaging, and detail of the SDA's, SDA effects notwithstanding. Comparing them with the cable disconnected would be like hooking up some RTi's that feature dual binding posts, but removing the connector and only running wire to one set of posts.

On the bass issues:

(1)I'm not sure who claimed the SDA's would do sub-20Hz bass, but I'm not even sure about that. I doubt it, personally. If we want to include the SRT (even though I mentioned it not catering to the same audience, above) then yes, SDA's do get good response below 20Hz.

(2)My SDA-1C's have been about the only home stereo speaker that made me feel like I was in my truck. Now, in my truck, I basically sit on a 10" Kicker XPL sub, so I think I have a very valid point of comparison of bass and mid-bass. The great thing about the 1C's, is that there is a ton more accuracy in the bass, but it still has a lot growl and punch. In my fraternity house, a lot of guys have powered subs, and occasionally, they are asked to turn the sub down for quiet hours. I have been asked this a before. Obviously, I can't turn down the bass! And no, my preamp does not have bass level adjustments.

Wes

hoosier21

Russ

The lower FR of 16hz is not within the +/- 3db responce limits

here are the facts from Polk sales flyer I have here at work

SDA-SRS 1.2 10Hz-26kHz overall 27Hz-20kHz +/- 3db 1000w max
SDA-SRS 2.3 12Hz-26kHz overall 30Hz-20kHz +/- 3db 750w max
SDA-1C 15Hz-26kHz overall 35Hz-20kHz +/- 3db 500w max
SDA-2B 20Hz-26kHz overall 38Hz-20kHz +/- 3db 350w max
SDA-CRS+ 25Hz-26kHz overall 42Hz-20kHz +/- 3db 200w max

hoosier21

Somebody help me understand this SRT system.

Aaron you say it cost 7300.00, was that for the Front speakers only? or was that for the system (RF C LF RR RL and sub)

If that 7300.00 was for a pair of speakers, Polk was f'ing nuts!

Justin, please make an area for older models, I can see where you might not have the time to create links for the early 80's and 90's models, but when information WAS on the website please don't delete it, just move it to the retired model page :rolleyes:

Found this hidden away on the net

"In another system configuration, we auditioned the Bryston amps with Polk Audio's Signature Reference Theatre. The rather elaborate array of loudspeakers consists of five enclosures, two powered subwoofers and a system control centre"

If this is the SRT that was 7300.00, please don't use this cost as the updated cost for a pair of SDA 1.2's.

I-SIG

A stereo pair of SRT fronts was $7300

The basic SRT HT system was $10,000. That included a matching center and (I think) Polk's first dipole/bipole surroiund speakers. Can't remember the exact model.

The next SRT HT system was "Enhanced" or something like that. It costs about $11,000+. It included some PSW300's to increase the bass of the previously mentioned surround speakers.

The next SRT HT system had 4 SRT sub/satellites and 2 centers. I think it was something like $15-17,000.

Finally, there was the SRT SEISMIC system. It had 4 SRT sub/sats, 2 centers and 2 LFE subs. I think it rang in at right under $20k.

Wes

hoosier21

Well then Polk was f'ing nuts

RuSsMaN

Thanks for the good posts, and the great info. Now, if I can only find someone within a days drive and have me a listen.....

Cheers,
Russ

madmax

Russman,
I'm not from polk but I do have some opinions on bass and some experience with subs and theory. (not a master though) Keep in mind that you are comparing the 6.5" size of the driver with possibly multiple 12" drivers. There are actually four 6.5" driven drivers, four 6.5" drivers which are not driven but are being moved because they are in the same cabinent (but have a matrix around them so they are not out of phase) and a 15" passive radiator which is driven at resonance. That is almost 402 square inches of driver area. A dual 12" sub has about 226 square inches. It would take almost four 12" subs to have the same surface area (but this is misleading because only 4 of the drivers are actually doing the driving). But even at that you still have 113 square inches. (About the same as a single 12"). So lets say you have a single 12" in one box and four 6.5" in the other box. The only difference is that the four 6.5" setup will be able to change speed more rapidly (because each driver has less mass to change the direction or speed of) and will have better definition of different sounds. Also keep in mind that doubling the cone area doubles the amount of air moved but to double the amount of sound you would need a factor of 10 difference. This all points to the fact that a speaker like the 1.2 SDA is very much equal to a speaker which may use two 12" subs except that the definition will be better.
(Don't make me use my calculator again because now I have a headache)!!! In my world the perfect sub would be something like a 9x9 block of 6.5" woofers. OR maybe even 4.5" woofers. That would be interesting!
madmax

rskarvan

SDA-3.1TL 15Hz-26kHz overall 35Hz-20kHz +/- 3db 500w max

Note: These are the same spec's as the 1C. Except, each 3.1TL has 5 drivers. Four are vertically alligned and one is an SDA driver.

The 3.1TL is the most over-looked Polk speaker because it only was produced for one year (rare). Its modest in size relative to its bigger brothers. But, the sound is anything but modest.

I have a PSW650. I honestly can't hear it much at all even when cranked near full volume. That is because those 6-1/2"ers in the 3.1TL are kicking the PSW650's butt in the bass department. I'd turn up the sub more.... except, it would distort. The 3.1TL's aren't anywhere near distorting at this volume. In fact, I've never heard the 3.1TL's come even close to sounding distorted (even with the deepest bass music sources).

Don't get me wrong... I'm satisfied with the PSW650 (for home theater LFE's). Its great for movies. But, when it comes to music.... the sub doesn't add a thing to the bass of the 3.1TL's.

Aaron

I understand your arguements on the cost issue, but did you read one of my previous posts? I noted that if a standard design sub or passive woofer were used in the SRT, cost would have been markedly reduced. Also, one thing to keep in mind, Polk built the SRT to be the end-all of end-all HT/HS systems, not something that many J6P's would be able to afford. The SRT's were speaking to different audience.

If also noted in previous post that a subwoofer costs significanly more than a passive radiator. However, the subwoofers do not make up the $4300 price difference. A significant portion of that cost is in the drivers and more advanced cabinet design. The SDA's don't really cater to Joe Sick Pack either, at least the $3000 ones that I'm talking about.

I'm not sure how you call the SRT not technically advanced? If you recall, the High Velocity Compression Drive (HVCD) subwoofer system developed for SRT, and later applied to some PSW subs, got Polk 2 or 3 more patents, not counting the advancements they had made on their own previous SDA patents. Last time I checked, patents tend indicate some kind of advancement or uniqueness of some new idea.

I recall the HVCD, but I don't remember exactly what they claimed it did. I will simply say that Polk subwoofers have never been touted as anything special, though I don't have any complaints with mine. They did developed some nice trickle-down technology like the Power Port from the SRT. When I said technically advanced, I was referring to something that was so completely unique or ground breaking that other companies have copied it. Some examples would be like new driver materials (i.e. kevlar), tweeter on top mounting, external crossovers, etc. That's pretty unusual stuff.

I thought the main reason for the reduction of the number of drivers was space, or lack there of. One SDA-1C only has one more active driver than a RT3000, and it's a tweeter. A pair of SDA-CRS+ has the same number of drivers as our RT55i's. I highly doubt driver design and technolgy had as much to do with the reduction of quantity of drivers as space efficiency did.

Yeah, you're right. I guess what I was trying to say was that you don't see any speakers resembling an SDA today (a speaker with a bunch of the same drivers and then some passive ones). What you typically see is 2.5-3.5-way speakers with 3-4 high quality drivers.

My SDA-1C's have been about the only home stereo speaker that made me feel like I was in my truck.

Are you sure you want to admit that???

Aaron

Aaron

Thank you all for your comments! There were a lot of good points and well-composed arguments and all the while not a single person lost their temper. How 'bout that Papa Polk? See, we're a mature bunch.

I think you've answered all my SDA, soul-searching questions. The only thing left to do is audition a serious pair in a serious sytem. Does anyone live near the Allentown, PA or Harrisburg, PA areas and would be willing to give me a demo?

Aaron

madmax

But Aaron,
You can't end the debate right before the first punches are thrown!
madmax

RuSsMaN

Lets drop the 'overall' response rating. Anything outside of +/-3db is essentially useless anyway. A 6db downpoint MAYBE in some scenarios.

Aaron makes some good points, I would like to hear a semi-official take on it. (Micah is probably brewing a politically correct statement that bears the facts, but doesn't bash/promote anything...)

Great posts guys. I agree, lets settle this, and get the facts.

Cheers,
Russ

I-SIG

The facts are this:

[NOMEX]
SDA is the best!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D
[/NOMEX]

Wes

LordSpeakaMinch

I appreciated the comments of Predator, rskarvan, hoosier21, mjmcg, and madmax001. It is always refreshing to read a cogent, informed opinion. I think that most people who have listened to the SDAs and didn't like them were using under-powered, current limiting amps or receivers. Make no mistake about it: these speakers require a clean, high power, high current amp to come alive. A room of the proper size to allow the speakers to "breathe" (i.e. image properly) is an essential ingredient. The lack of midrange detail that some have spoken of can most probably be attributed to lack of proper electronics and room resonance.

Before I proceed with my post, I would like to preface my comments by stating that I currently own the SDA SRS 1.2TL (for my "audio only" rig, two pairs of the SDA 1C (they are the fronts and rears in my home theater system), and one pair of the SDA 1B (in my master bedroom system. I also own the RT55i model, which are in my home office system, and the RT35, which are in my office at work. I am also a saxophone player by avocation and am regularly immersed in the sound of real music.

I have not yet heard a speaker that sounds as "natural", particularly with jazz, as the SDAs. With the 1.2TLs, on well-recorded material, the musicians are right in the room with me. It's always a heartwarming experience to sit some unsuspecting soul in front of the 1.2TLs and see their lower jaw drop to the floor in astonishment at the solid, life-size, aural illusion of real musicians playing in a real space.

Getting back to the lack of detail complaint, I have never experienced such. However, since I am a "tweak", I did replace the crossover capacitors and resistors with premium parts. The improvement was analogous to looking through a very clear glass windowpane and then having that windowpane moved from in front of you. True, everything was sharply in focus before, even with the glass in front of you, but with the glass removed, everything is a little more "real". The improved crossover parts also improved the soundstage solidity, widened the sweet spot, and improved the low bass definition.

One really can't compare the SDAs with what Polk is making today. Back when the SDAs came out, Polk was a "boutique" manufacturer of high end speakers geared toward the audio enthusiast market. Back then you only found Polks in small audio specialty shops. I first heard Polk speakers in such a shop in Kansas City in 1985. Been hooked ever since. Polk speakers offered a high price/performance ratio. Now, Polk is solidly in the home theater market and are a major player in the home speaker industry. For this market, "impact" rather than high definition sound is of most importance. I congratulate Mr. Polk and Company on their marketing strategy. Some high end speaker manufacturers who couldn't see things coming are no longer around. Not many companies have been able to successfully reinvent themselves. Even though Polk is no longer making speakers for the "critical listening" folks, I am pleased that the company is still around should I ever need service, repair parts, or technical support.

To answer RussMan's question concerning "why are the SDAs no longer around if they were so great?" Well RussMan, the market shifted bigtime. Furthermore, most people these days do not want a big speaker, particularly one over five foot tall, in their house, no matter how wonderful it sounds (I hear you Micah!). I perceive that some of the Polk engineers who were around during the mid eighties/early nineties long for a return to the good old days when Polk made products for the critical listener. I suppose the new LSi series addresses this deficiency. I wish them success with their return to high definition sound.

In summary, if you're a real tweak, critical listener, and audio enthusiast, and if you are willing to invest in the proper accessories for these speakers (high power, high current amps, quality source components, cables, adequate size room, etc.), then you'll be generously rewarded with sound the likes of which can't be bought on today's market, at any price.

jrausch

I have a HTS setup with a pair of 2.3tl's and a pair of CRS+'s for the rears. I like the new Polk’s as well. Like others say, "They have tighter midrange definition." So midrange I completely agree. High's are better defined with the Sl2000's and sl3000's (Lsi's have not been demo'd yet, so don't get your panties in a twist.) in my opinion. As far as bass in concerned, the new Polk’s have more Bass at lower volumes. The Bass is powered and ported, so you get more. If you crank up the SDA's and you have a large room to get them moving (Tape up the windows so you don't shatter them, those who have the reference series know what I'm talking about).

A friend of mine cracked both of his basement windows 10 years ago. Back when he first got his 2.3's. It seems like yesterday when he decided to play the movie "Die Hard" at a substantial volume. Everything was sounding at its best until the helicopter blew up over tower shattering the buildings windows and cracking my friends at the same time. Luckily they were small and fairly cheap to replace and we had a good laugh about it. He did'nt need bass shakers to rumble his couch. So those in doubt about bass performance should take note before testing any theories you may have. For deep bass testing find some nice church organ music with very low freqs and watch those PR's move very slowly with a wide uniform extension.

I prefer the PR sealed bass because of the tight energy it produces. The new Polks also have great performing bass, it just sounds a bit different. The biggest problem I find when I demo the new speakers @ CC is the equipment they use. When I first bought my SDA's they were hooked up to a 250w/ch Adcom system. The reference series 1.2's and 2.3's were running on either a Carver 350 w/ch system or a McIntosh 500w/ch system. They were placed in fairly large rooms by themselves properly setup with a leather couch to sit on. CC demo'd the new Polk’s using a 165w/ch JVC receiver! in a small room with probably 6 other brands of speakers. The speakers sounded bland and muddy. Apples to oranges to say the least. This is yet another great reason to market the new LSi's in a quality audio store. I can't imagine buying a pair of $3000 speakers being demo'd on a 165w/ch JVC POS. I need something with some potential at least.

Like all of the die hard SDA fans here are saying "Bring lots of clean power to the game or go home." I first played my 2.3's on a 125w/ch Yamaha receiver. I was amazed at how efficient they were, but there was no definition, no bass and very little if no SDA effect. I then purchased a 300w/ch Adcom system. Very smooth, deep bass and the SDA finally kicked in. I thought I had a great system until I saw an add on EBay for a brand new Parasound TOTL Pre-Pro and TOTL 5/ch amp Combo for less than half price W/full 10yr warranty. This definitely raised the bar to a new level.

This setup enhances music and surround sound on a very high, very smooth, very detailed level and play equally as well (0 fatigue). The SDA effect has also been taken to a new level. I never understood the word "Blackboard" in audio terms until this setup. Music seems to come straight out of a 6ft x 10ft flat wall. Highly detailed 3D musical phantoms best describes this new setup. For those unfamiliar with the SDA effect, it's the same imaging you get when you put on a pair of high Quality headphones. Except you feel the clean bass energy instead of just hearing it. Some of the guys at polk might be scratching their chins at this, but the performance of new high end equipment enhances the old polks to a new level. On most recordings I actually prefer the speaker imaging over the headphones (It's that good). If this was not the impression you had when you Demo'd a pair, your setup was not ideal.

Carver,Bryston,Krell,Acurus and Parasound are the brands I recommend for powering the SDA Line. To achieve ultimate separation and definition use Class A A/B Bipolar transistor Amplifiers 200-1000 w/ch. There are probably more brands out there that will do the job just as well. Those with Tube amps and Mos-Fet amps are enjoying a smoother sound. Personally I prefer the crisp snap you get with bipolar amps it seems to keep the SDA's effects clean, but if you listen to mostly Classical and Jazz recordings Tube/Mos-Fet is the way to go.

SDA may not make a come back due to the 24/96 5.1 surround music just around the corner. I say for those non-believers of SDA technology. "To each his own"
As for the rest of us. I know why you have had that big cheshire cat grin your face for the past 15 years. "You Dam Skippy"

I-SIG

Great posts, jrausch and LordSpeakaMinch. The more I keep hearing about those 1.2's, tl or not, the more I start drooling. I will have a pair one, if don't get the SRT first!

Wes

mjmcg

I have not been to the site much in the past several months, though I know my SDA deciples have been here spreading the gospel. I have only poked back in to see how much further this debate has gone, and I quite enjoy all the info being tossed about on the subject. I took note of many good points being made, some accurate, some factual, some mere opinion and some yet just pure conjecture. Overall, the fellows who have owned/own SDA's have a firm handle of why we SDA owners like the breed. I see that because there is such a steadfast following in the models, that curiosity seems to be the major issue surrounding them at this point. I especially took great interest in one post, by MAX, (I think), whom I am unofficially aquainted, but I may have been mistaken in his interpretation of the layout of the drivers in an SDA vs. a conventional large woofer design, only in that I read the post to mean that in a 1.2 system (or equivelent) of the 8, 6.5" drivers, only 4 were active??? In actuality, in all SDA's EVERY 6.5" cone is actively driven with the full signal, it just so happens that the "array" stack also produces a portion of the opposite channel's material across a specified frequency range out of phase with the original channels output to ruduce crosstalk.
I also wanted to clarify that I was not stressing that more power/more output equated to better speakers, but pointing out that they have the output capabilities that flat pannels lack, and the abilty to produce high, <<listenable>> output levels like that of the ultra sensitive Klipschs, but with better imaging and overall quality. No offense intended here either, just my personal opinion...but I have yet to audition ANY horn loaded, ultra sensitive boxy speaker that could image worth a damn or sound musical to any degree. Put you through a wall with SPL?..Oh yeah!, quality sound?...not in my book.
That one poster up there somewhere hit the nail on the head and reittereated what I meant all along. SDA's do not represent the pinacle of audio nirvana, but they embody so many quality points that they are a bargain at any price.
Since I only come in once every month or so, can we pick a new topic so I don't really miss anything?

wire

I have the 2b's powered by A 4b and a carver ct17 pre , ive left the audio world for many years now ( thats why the old equipment , but have found it again , now that i am learning to salsa dance , it has givin me new life and a door to some great latin music . But i find my system that has not been used for many years sounds as good as anything out there and now i find it a very good longterm investment , when a few years ago it just sat there , it seemed to be a bad investment .
But i must say the Old Polks , My Old Bryston and the the Old Carver Pre . Sure are good to me again and i really dont want to upgrade any of my system , i think if i did (like the amp) the upgrade would be minimal .

dorokusai

Wire - Excellent to hear that, perfect example of an vintage speaker still working the magic. Dance away

I-SIG

Damn. I had forgotten about this thread! Good stuff though. I can't wait to see how a transport/DAC combo improves the sound. Thanks to Sean's comments on that NEC external CD-ROM, I snagged one off eBay. Should be here next week. I'll do a comparison of it and my Onk DVD player using their internal DAC's.

Wes

RuSsMaN

Wow, talk about bringing a post back from the dead.

Kinda neat to read some of my own comments when I was once a SDA skeptic.

Hearing really is believing with SDA.

Cheers,
Russ

Dennis Gardner

Russ,

I read through the first couple of pages of this post without realizing how old it was.

I just thought that I woke up this morning in some sort of weird " Bizarro Russ"world where you were suddenly transformed into an SDA hater.:D

It was put into perspective when Ralph S. posted his huge Carver,
SDA 1.2tl setup that I am familiar with, but never remembered him posting in the recent past. His post was 2001 and has really never posted since.

Suddenly I am transported back to present day with your remembering those pre-SDA days. A number of 6.5 inch woofers really can make some bass noise!

I thought I was going crazy!

Dennis

I-SIG

Originally posted by RuSsMaN
Hearing really is believing with SDA.

Cheers,
Russ

Hell yeah!

Wes

Toolfan66

Hummmm found another great old thread!! Where is this Aaron guy at? Didn't care for the old Polk sound but made for some good old reading..

Toolfan66

Lol!!!!

VR3

I think the SDA sound is unique but anyone who thinks those drivers can compete with newer high end drivers in detail, transparency and so forth are kidding themselves...

Other than that - for the money SDA can be purchased for they are an audio steal, for sure