Directed.....Def Tech and Polk

halo71

Maybe I am, again, late to the party of what others may have already figured out. But after reading about other brands being acquired by Directed. It hit me....just how much the LSiM's look so similar to the newer model DefTech's.

zingo

Never noticed that, but they both do use the oval woofers and a MTM looking top section.

halo71

Yep....

Notice how even the backs of the cabinets on top are rounded over? hummm.....

Polkersince85

You may need to call Snowden and see if he has an extra room. Top secret information releases are not taken lightly. Nice knowing you.

cnh

Really? You think those speakers look alike? How?

Aside from the race track drivers which have been around since before Def Tech existed, what else is the same? The mid driver/ring radiator design with a mid-woofer as opposed to the DTs metal dome in a D'appolito array, or the wood veneer the DTs don't have. The greater weight/size of the Polks? The totally different crossover designs and internal cabinet bracing/compartments? Something else?

cnh

mantis

halo71 wrote: »

Yep....

Notice how even the backs of the cabinets on top are rounded over? hummm.....

Pretty cool picture of my speakers , Still love them

mantis

I just want to go take my grills off now and go naked.

[Deleted User]

mantis wrote: »

I just want to go take my grills off now and go naked.

Pics or it didn't happen! Haha

Halen

halo71

cnh wrote: »

Really? You think those speakers look alike? How?
cnh

Guess it was more of an perceived observation that after each companies acquisitions they came with tall skinny towers with race track drivers. In similar enclosures. But now that you mention it, I would like to see cutaways of both designs as well as XO's.

WLDock

I think both co's were just trying to make a slick, slim, elegant speaker. Think about it....Polk has done the super wide baffle speakers like the SDA, etc. Both Polk and DT have done narrow but deep speakers with side firing subwoofer. In this day and age of "pretty" speakers a plain narrow baffle square rectangle speaker is boring...and both have done that also...RT line as an example. Then, Polk did a tapered design with the RTi, etc.

So, it makes sense in this age of CAD design long throw drivers that capable oval drivers are a possibility. So, I think it’s just a coincidence that both are doing the curvy tapered cabinet (that reduces enteral volume) and narrow large surface area oval drivers. However, the polks don't taper as much and are flat in the back. Others like these B&W's next to the Polks are more rounded like the DT's: http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff26/marcyao/IMG_4729.jpg

Jstas

cnh wrote: »

Really? You think those speakers look alike? How?

Aside from the race track drivers which have been around since before Def Tech existed, what else is the same? The mid driver/ring radiator design with a mid-woofer as opposed to the DTs metal dome in a D'appolito array, or the wood veneer the DTs don't have. The greater weight/size of the Polks? The totally different crossover designs and internal cabinet bracing/compartments? Something else?

cnh

+1

yup

Jstas

WLDock wrote: »

I think both co's were just trying to make a slick, slim, elegant speaker. Think about it....Polk has done the super wide baffle speakers like the SDA, etc. Both Polk and DT have done narrow but deep speakers with side firing subwoofer. In this day and age of "pretty" speakers a plain narrow baffle square rectangle speaker is boring...and both have done that also...RT line as an example. Then, Polk did a tapered design with the RTi, etc.

So, it makes sense in this age of CAD design long throw drivers that capable oval drivers are a possibility. So, I think it’s just a coincidence that both are doing the curvy tapered cabinet (that reduces enteral volume) and narrow large surface area oval drivers. However, the polks don't taper as much and are flat in the back. Others like these B&W's next to the Polks are more rounded like the DT's: http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff26/marcyao/IMG_4729.jpg

The LSiM is anything but slim. It's one of the largest speakers I've seen on the market.

WLDock

The 707 enclosure is 9-1/2" wide (In comparison my RT3000P is 10" wide top, 11" wide bottom.) The two 6"x9" woofers have about the surface area just larger than a 10". The drivers go out to the edges of the baffle. Yes the 707 is a LARGE flagship....but think of how much larger the enclosures would be and look if it were a straight rectangle and had 8" drivers or a 10" driver?

Jstas

But your RT3000p isn't on the market anymore.

I don't know what you're getting at with this 8" or 10" driver? Of course it would be larger. It would need to be to accommodate the drivers. I'm not sure what that has to do with whatever point it is that you are trying to make.

WLDock

Jstas wrote: »

But your RT3000p isn't on the market anymore.
I don't know what you're getting at with this 8" or 10" driver? Of course it would be larger. It would need to be to accommodate the drivers. I'm not sure what that has to do with whatever point it is that you are trying to make.

Recap

- The OP stated that the LSIM look like the DT.

-Also, the OP and others stated that the similarities are the Oval woofers and the taperd cabinets.

-I stated the similarity is just the evolution between the two company's past cabinet design and driver arraingnment.

-I stated I think both used oval woofers because they allow for a narrow baffle. EX. two 6"x9" ovals have about the surface area just more than a single 10" driver. Both, co's have used different cabinet/ driver designs in the past. The tapered sculped cabinet looks more exciting and high end than a basic rectangle of past cabinets....like my wider no longer made RT's.

So, I think it is by coincidence that both company's design has some similaritied but both were after a narrow baffle sculpted enclosure using oval drivers that can output the bass of an 8"-15"driver, etc.

Not sure how much more clear I can be? Don't take it from me...I'm not a speaker designer. But, reading the literature from both , I get the gist of what they are talking about and get why they both went with the designs that they did:

MYTHOS ST

Revolutionary Subwoofer System
The subwoofer is built around a 6 x 10 inch racetrack-shaped polymer/carbon composite cone driver powered by a built-in 300-Watt Class D amplifier and pressure-coupled to two 6 x 10 inch racetrack-shaped planar low-bass radiators for a total bass radiating area greater than a 15 inch woofer but with far greater control, definition and speed than a single sluggish large woofer
Racetrack shaped carbon fiber active driver pressure coupled to two low bass radiators equal the surface area and bass output of a 15-inch woofer but with far greater control, definition and speed


Rock-solid Stunning Enclosure
The Mythos ST's styling emanates from a parabolic form, grounded as much in technical appropriateness as visual beauty. With emphasis on a narrow, deep column, the parabolic theme is repeated in the lines of the cap and granite base. There is an unabashed acknowledgement of classic "American Streamline" principles in the ST, communicating motion, direction and clean utility.

The slim, curved shape of the enclosure reduces diffraction contributing to the ST's remarkable imaging that is truly startling in its ability to float utterly lifelike sonic images across a broad and deep soundstage.

LSiM

Cassini Oval Subwoofer Drivers
Our newly designed subwoofers incorporate Cassini ovals cones to increase surface area without adding width to the cabinet for deeper, more musical low frequency response and dramatically improved imaging. Overhung voice coil designs allow larger excursions and higher power handling. Bass is deep, and blending is smooth.

5" x 7" & 6" x 9" Cassini Oval Subwoofers
The oval shape was purposely chosen by our engineers to give an increase in surface area while enabling a narrow baffle design.
Like the mid-woofers, the geometries and technologies are the same in both the 5" x 7" and 6" x 9" subwoofers. Again, size is the differentiating characteristic of these subwoofers. Cones are made of Super Cell Aerated Polypropylene. Magnets are ferrite. Baskets are the cast aluminum splayed-strut design. Both drivers use dual spiders for increased stability and linearity. The one exception are voice coils. A conventional “overhung” coil design is used. This design allows larger excursions and higher power handling. Shorting rings are incorporated for inductance modulation.


The LSiM Enclosure
The enclosure is an integral part of the sound design of the new LSiM Series. The narrow baffle with its wide radiuses enhances the imaging for a very wide, deep and well-defined soundstage. The towers have no parallel surfaces; they do have massive bracing and curved tops, all of which help to eliminate resonance and standing waves..

Aside from its aesthetic appeal, the curved cabinet design also enables subwoofer columns of different lengths and shapes. This creates less organ pipe resonance (less column resonance). Our engineers spilt the energy generated by the subwoofers into two small peaks, rather than one large spike.

If that does not explain why both speakers have curved cabinets, narrow baffles, and oval woofers then I'm not sure what else will?

PolkieMan

Well they are owned by the same company right?

Jstas

WLDock wrote: »

Recap

- The OP stated that the LSIM look like the DT.

-Also, the OP and others stated that the similarities are the Oval woofers and the taperd cabinets.

-I stated the similarity is just the evolution between the two company's past cabinet design and driver arraingnment.

-I stated I think both used oval woofers because they allow for a narrow baffle. EX. two 6"x9" ovals have about the surface area just more than a single 10" driver. Both, co's have used different cabinet/ driver designs in the past. The tapered sculped cabinet looks more exciting and high end than a basic rectangle of past cabinets....like my wider no longer made RT's.

So, I think it is by coincidence that both company's design has some similaritied but both were after a narrow baffle sculpted enclosure using oval drivers that can output the bass of an 8"-15"driver, etc.

Not sure how much more clear I can be? Don't take it from me...I'm not a speaker designer. But, reading the literature from both , I get the gist of what they are talking about and get why they both went with the designs that they did:






If that does not explain why both speakers have curved cabinets, narrow baffles, and oval woofers then I'm not sure what else will?

Sorry, you've gone way past my level of care at this point.

halo71

PolkieMan wrote: »

Well they are owned by the same company right?

Yup....

Jstas wrote: »

Sorry, you've gone way past my level of care at this point.

It is not really that big of a deal what I posted. I just found it interesting, however uninteresting it may be to some, that both companies are now producing "somewhat" similar designs. After being owned by the same company. I guess what I am really wondering is who at Polk is designing the new stuff. Or is it someone from Distributed that is designing stuff now. IF I had the means I would damn sure have both the above models sitting in my den to compare. But then again I would love nothing more than for Polk to come back with a new big ****$ SDA design. I know sound is the ultimate goal but I've never been all that fond of the tall narrow deep cabinets that seem to be the norm these days.

F1nut

I guess what I am really wondering is who at Polk is designing the new stuff.

Mark Suskind is the main designer.

WLDock

Jstas wrote: »

Sorry, you've gone way past my level of care at this point.

Well, when you quote and post on the internet forum be prepared for a reply. You get my point now? Lets see....

So, when you did not understand what I was talking about you tried to question me or call me out.

Now, that I drove my point home in way that is clear as a bell for anyone to understand you don't care. I was just giving my thought about the OP's question. Huh? Am I missing something?

What was the point of your post again? What did it add to the OP?

Somebody please help me understand???

On second thought...it does not even matter....its just speakers.


...it sure is funny how people are quick to jump and post when they don't like something. I tell you...having a low post count on this forum is like being a sitting duck. Polk me once shame on them....Polk me twice shame on me.



....on to a boxing forum where I expect to get jabbed all the time.

halo71

WLD, thanks for your posts. You just gotta realize Jstas is just like "that". lol Just the way he is.....don't worry about it.


Might be ADD or something. I think he tends to lose interest in stuff pretty quickly.

WLDock

Hey thanks man...just trying to contribute what I can to the forum.... but I've been Polk ' ed here several times and I find it a bit odd. Is there a Polk initiation that I know nothing about? POLK'ed LOL!

My thing is....if one is going to come at me...TEACH ME SOMETHING! Other than that, go listen to some Blues or something....and leave me alone.

Nevertheless, most of the kinder, gentler members that I have met here have inboxed me and welcomed me and warned me about how quickly things can go South with some of the members here....Never question the "High End" or its on!!! Too funny.

We all arrived here by way of different paths...but we are here in the name of good music, sound, and movies, etc.....OK, so much for that kumbaya audio brotherhoood. The truth is.....I think I will be more of a lurker than a poster.

cfrizz

Who cares how they might resemble each other, so long as the sound is what your ears enjoy that is all that matters.

halo71

Cathy...thanks for pointing out the obvious. Not sure why so many feathers are ruffled over this. I just found it odd the similarities is all. Guess I should have kept my thoughts to myself. If everyone had the "who cares" attitude this forum probably would not have half the threads it does! :rolleyes:

cfrizz

Well there are only so many ways that you can design a box. Honestly, can't you guys go at least one day without some kind of made up drama?:rolleyes:

halo71

Made up drama? lol Where is the drama in this thread? If you don't care how they resemble each other or have anything constructive or even meaningful to add. Why post?

Jstas

ANNNNNNNDDDD....


...welcome to the bozo list.

WLDock

halo71 wrote: »

Made up drama? lol Where is the drama in this thread? If you don't care how they resemble each other or have anything constructive or even meaningful to add. Why post?

My thoughts Exactly! Also, at $2000 each these are not exacly cheap and alone in the crowded marketplace. If the cabinets looked like crap the same people that post that they don't care how a speakers look will be posting about "why did Polk make their new flagship speaker look like crap!"

"Its not about the looks of the equipment but the ability of the equipment to accuratly playback the sound!"

"Its not all about the accuracy of the equipment playback but the equipment having the ability to convey the emotions of the music!"

"It not all about recorded music playback because the medium can't touch the the experience of listening to live music!"

...and on and on.....


Everyone has a certain level of interest, thought, and belief. If enclosure appearance aint' one of them....its cool! But go tell the that to the enclosure designer. :biggrin:

halo71

Jstas wrote: »

ANNNNNNNDDDD....


...welcome to the bozo list.

I was just kidding with you! I never knew you to be so sensitive. I'm sorry!

F1nut

halo71 wrote: »

I was just kidding with you! I never knew you to be so sensitive. I'm sorry!

I'll quote this so that John can see it.

halo71

I talked to John. I thought I was the one he was referring to, seems I wasn't though. I'm sorry if this thread pissed off anyone else. It was not the intent I promise.

Maybe this thread should be deleted?!?