Inquiries about building around the Monitor 10 B.

Aural Euphoria

I have Monitor 10 B's, with RDO 194's on the way, and am having the damnedest time trying to build a HT around them. I ended up with a CS 20, which sticks out badly but is a great speaker for the price, and, now, a CS 350 LS, which matched the monitors better but lacks the very high frequency response, and upper bass of the CS 20. It's becoming obnoxious. Anyways, I'll sell the CS 20, and grab two for the rear. I was wondering how any of the following might mesh with those 3 in the front: LS F/X (dipole; matches CS 350, but has small cones ), or the RTi38 (large enough cone, but i do not know if that generation of RTi is too distant from the Monitor 10's), or the F/X 1000 (obviously my first pick but they are more expensive and with busted boxes; also concerned with how modern the drivers are, as far as timbre matching with the rest). Since it's not the side speakers, I shouldn't be too concerned with the multi-directional drivers, my main concern is not having surround that stand out like the CS 20 did, or not be so small that they can't bring a full-bodied sound from the rear. Any opinions or thoughts on this matter would be welcome .

Nightfall

Monitor 4, if you have no spouse and the room Monitor 5 or 7.

cnh

Nightfall wrote: »

Monitor 4, if you have no spouse and the room Monitor 5 or 7.

People here have used Monitor 5s or 7s as centers with that kind of L/R set up. As long as the tweeters match, you should be fine with either of these as a center. If you buy a pair you can always use the other as a sixth channel back surround for 6.1?

cnh

Aural Euphoria

Well, I just got my RDO 194's and there is no indicator of polarity on the tweeters. They are perfectly symmetrical on two axes. I am quite annoyed by this.

Aural Euphoria

Any advice to test which terminal is posi and nega?

Aural Euphoria

I do not have a setup to do an impulse response test....

TennMan

Aural Euphoria wrote: »

Well, I just got my RDO 194's and there is no indicator of polarity on the tweeters. They are perfectly symmetrical on two axes. I am quite annoyed by this.

Look carefully at the terminals to see if you see any red coloration on one of them. It may look like it has been marked with a weak red magic marker.

westmassguy

Monitor 5Bs, 5jrs, 5jr+s, 4.6s will all match your 10s. All from the same era. The 4.6s have the SL2500, which will take the RDO-198s, all the others will take the RDO-194s

Aural Euphoria

I looked. No markings. Manual, with a marker, or otherwise. Obnoxious. I assume I am going to have to fire them at each other, switch one's phase, and then see which of the two setups results in more sound, as the inappropriate setup would cause them to partially negate each other.

Aural Euphoria

And I think I'm going with the RT55 (no "i") for the rears. Plenty of midbass, dogs can't knock 'em over, and, most importantly, the trilaminate tweeter matches the CS 350's.

Aural Euphoria

I would keep with the vintage Monitor series but, eventually, I don't intend to use the 10 B's as L/R's as I don't think they are optimal for HT, such as they are music.

Aural Euphoria

Also, I missed out on a pair of 100 dollar SDA-2. Am pissed. Just thought I'd share.

Nightfall

Aural Euphoria wrote: »

I don't intend to use the 10 B's as L/R's as I don't think they are optimal for HT

I respectfully disagree.

Aural Euphoria

Oh, and, BTW, thank you for responding, westmassguy. We have met before. I have little problem deferring to your advice. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the situation. Hope all is well in your world.

Side note: Should I have any concern about the 1st gen and 2nd gen dynamic balance, trilaminate tweeters, other than making sure I match them? I mean there isn't a vast difference in their quality, is there? (I see a better deal on RT55i's than I do RT55, but, at current, want the RT55's to match the CS 350 LS that I have. I see LS F/X, but 4 1/2 cones? No thanks. At least the center has 4 of them. That **** just sucks down the watts. Hungry lil guy. Boooo to front porting though.)

HTguru1982

Rt55s as rears are awesome fwiw. I'm using mine for surround duty with my rt1000 up front, and couldn't be happier. I would pass on those ebay fx1000
personally. Also wouldn't suggest lsfx either - too small for my tastes.

westmassguy

Nightfall wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

+1 10s are outstanding for double duty HT and 2 channel.

westmassguy

Aural Euphoria wrote: »

Oh, and, BTW, thank you for responding, westmassguy. We have met before. I have little problem deferring to your advice. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the situation. Hope all is well in your world.

Side note: Should I have any concern about the 1st gen and 2nd gen dynamic balance, trilaminate tweeters, other than making sure I match them? I mean there isn't a vast difference in their quality, is there? (I see a better deal on RT55i's than I do RT55, but, at current, want the RT55's to match the CS 350 LS that I have. I see LS F/X, but 4 1/2 cones? No thanks. At least the center has 4 of them. That **** just sucks down the watts. Hungry lil guy. Boooo to front porting though.)

Thanks, Hope all is well with you.
I would defer to others on the more recent Polk models.

HTguru1982

westmassguy wrote: »

+1 10s are outstanding for double duty HT and 2 channel.

I use to have RTA12C's as my mains in an all vintage set up and they were amazing for home theater. Monitor 7's as center and rears. Too bad I had to let them go. My current set up is pretty awesome but they don't come come close to the RTA's and Monitor's for musicality. Dynamics might be another story. Apples and oranges really.

westmassguy

HTguru1982 wrote: »

I use to have RTA12C's as my mains in an all vintage set up and they were amazing for home theater. Monitor 7's as center and rears. Too bad I had to let them go. My current set up is pretty awesome but they don't come come close to the RTA's and Monitor's for musicality. Dynamics might be another story. Apples and oranges really.

Well you see my sig, all vintage and custom vintage

teekay0007

westmassguy wrote: »

+1 10s are outstanding for double duty HT and 2 channel.

+1 to WMG and Nightfall. I REALLY like my Monitor 10B-fronted 5.1 system, for both HT and 2-channel. With a CS400 center, Monitor 5jr surrounds and a DSWPRO550wi sub, it's an all-around fantastic system!

HTguru1982

westmassguy wrote: »

Well you see my sig, all vintage and custom vintage

Not to derail anything but I read through your custom build threads and *claps*. Epic. That center speaker, especially.

westmassguy

HTguru1982 wrote: »

Not to derail anything but I read through your custom build threads and *claps*. Epic. That center speaker, especially.

Thanks, doing the rears with the same back to back Monitor 4.6s


Aural Euphoria, perhaps you should hold off any major decisions until your new RDO-194s are installed. They have a significantly different and better sound than the SL2000s

Aural Euphoria

"I respectfully disagree. "

Didn't see your post, Nightfall. ...context... Anyhow, the M 10 B's are great, but their propensity to make the really low notes at least audible, unlike a typical 2-way with two 6 1/2' cones, seems to come at the price of upper bass punch. When I was using a CS 20 in the center, there was significantly more 90-150 Hz bass than without. Than with the CS 350 LS, even. I intend to put in new capacitors, but they'd have to give miraculous gains to give these things the kick of more modern speakers with similar driver sizes, IMO.

Aural Euphoria

@westmassguy:

Ya damn right. These RDO 194's are wonderful. Had 'em in for 10 minutes. Not even broken in, they're much better. My lawd. The imaging is noticeably improved. And no annoying frequency spike, that seemed to result in horrible sibilance at high volumes, that I have to EQ out. (ran em real light for a few minutes, to get 'em warmed up, then tried 'em out on Radiohead's "Reckoner", a fantastic track for testing the full bandwidth of a tweeter.) Now we're getting somewhere. The left-right dispersion and blending between the M 10 B's (w/ RDO 194) & the CS 350 LS is light years beyond the setup of M 10 B's (w/ SL2000) & the CS 20. Hot damn, I guess I will have a nice home theater after all. Now, for capacitors, various other X-over components, and a pair of RT55's. ...btw, all of this is being bolstered by a PSW 505. not the cleanest, tightest sub, but with the high frequency bass lopped off with the crossover, and for $200 & free shipping, it's really hard to complain about it.

westmassguy

Aural Euphoria wrote: »

@westmassguy:

Ya damn right. These RDO 194's are wonderful. Had 'em in for 10 minutes. Not even broken in, they're much better. My lawd. The imaging is noticeably improved. And no annoying frequency spike, that seemed to result in horrible sibilance at high volumes, that I have to EQ out. (ran em real light for a few minutes, to get 'em warmed up, then tried 'em out on Radiohead's "Reckoner", a fantastic track for testing the full bandwidth of a tweeter.) Now we're getting somewhere. The left-right dispersion and blending between the M 10 B's (w/ RDO 194) & the CS 350 LS is light years beyond the setup of M 10 B's (w/ SL2000) & the CS 20. Hot damn, I guess I will have a nice home theater after all. Now, for capacitors, various other X-over components, and a pair of RT55's. ...btw, all of this is being bolstered by a PSW 505. not the cleanest, tightest sub, but with the high frequency bass lopped off with the crossover, and for $200 & free shipping, it's really hard to complain about it.

I think we spoke about the crossovers/capacitors in another thread. Yours are most likely aging and need to be replaced. This would account for any irregularities in the bass of the 10s.

Aural Euphoria

I look forward to it, then. I'll probably be back to ask annoying questions about what to replace everything with without being completely opulent about it.

Aural Euphoria

HTguru1982 wrote: »

Rt55s as rears are awesome fwiw. I'm using mine for surround duty with my rt1000 up front, and couldn't be happier. I would pass on those ebay fx1000
personally. Also wouldn't suggest lsfx either - too small for my tastes.

I am curious as to why to pass on the F/X 1000 though. Did you look them up? Do you say this because they're broken? As I live in rural America now, there are woodshops everywhere. If you didn't look 'em up, they are indeed busted. Cabinets would need a real work-over. The matching Tweets (CS 350 LS) and dipole/bipole setup is tempting.

HTguru1982

I'd pass because of the damage to the cabinets. I would be unable to repair or rebuild them but if you're able to, then that might be quite a bargain for you. The FX1000's are considered by many to be Polk's best surround speakers. They were part of Polk's RT5000 system. They are lusted after by many, including myself. That being said, I find the RT55's to be incredible performers. Despite them not being bipole/dipole speakers, I feel they are plenty immersive for home theater.

http://www.polkaudio.com/products/FX1000#reviews
http://www.polkaudio.com/products/rt55
http://www.polkaudio.com/products/rt5000system

Aural Euphoria

Ah. Informative. And, yeah, I really wanted the F/X 1000s, but not for rear, so much as side surrounds. I could fix the cabinets, I'm sure. As a mechanical engineering major, I have access to a lot of nifty parts for free, or really cheap. However, I do not wish to bother my friend with two projects. I already have to build a TV stand. I imagine that, for $215 w/shipping, they will be just fine. I do hope that the fact that they are bookshelves doesn't make the resonate too bad. The big Monitor 10's sound much better than the CS 350, mainly, IMO, due to the lack of box and port resonance. It's just such and unpleasant ringing. I hate it. Meh, I have dogs, and they would knock towers over.

Aural Euphoria

DSkip wrote: »

The rt55 are not intended for wall mount, so you'll have to get some other mounts for them to make it work. The trilams are the same, so non-i vs. i shouldn't matter. The fx500 should fit the bill nicely as surrounds and a presentable pair should be much easier to find at a lower cost.

I wouldn't bother on those 1000 for the price. They aren't worth that in parts as far as I'm concerned. The cabinet was where a lot of the value is at if they were built anything like the rt3000 was.

The RT55 isn't wall mount? Why would anyone buy speakers to be at least 5 feet apart and behind you ( I know they can be used as fronts, but I have not referred to them in the context of L/R ), that isn't made to be mounted? Who has two bookshelves, or one bookshelf that's 8 feet wide, behind them and isn't blocking a doorway? If they did, they'd probably have the kind of money to afford something better. Now, I'm starting to regret buying them. I should have just driven down to Nashville and got the RTA 12's with the clearly mismatched tweeters, and threw in the old SL2000s, temporarily. I mean did I pay too much for the RT55's? I'm out 210 with shipping. Argh. I am out of money and would like a damn home theater now... I've been running 3 channels for a year now... None of these farmboys where I live even give a crap about true high fidelity sound. They've got 2000 dollars ecosystem destroying stovepipe exhausts, but $50 15", obscure, joke-brand subs in their over-sized trucks. And ghetto blasters in their homes. And an inheritance and a lockdown nepotistic society, that got them all of that. ...sorry, got angry again. When someone appreciates something and does the relevant research surrounding it, I would like things to work out for them. In this case, me.

Anyways, I like the new RDO 194s in the M 10B's. I love 'em actually. And, by god, I'm gonna have at least two "audiophile" grade, or whatever, speakers. I have the aptitude, capacity to learn, and steady hands to do anything I want, so long as I can afford it (as you can tell I'm overtly antisocial so the call center jobs don't work out for me), so I hope I can find components that vastly improve my aged crossovers, without delving into that upper echelon of components that yields that elusive top 1% performance gain, but at 10 times the cost. This vintage home theater setup has been an incessant obstacle course on the way to efficiency and pragmatism. If I had reasonable funds, I am certain that with all I've researched, with the creativity and knowledge found in the minds of the people in these forums, and the effort and desire to get into a complex DIY project, a wonderful sounding home theater could be made with practical costs, and without giving into the tick-tock marketing and planned obsolescence of so many brick-and-mortars.

Sorry for bitching, but I've always been serious about having a nice sound in my home. And I believe if you do something, you should do it to the best of your ability, otherwise you're a waste of space.

oh, man.. what a rant... sorry bout that. hope ya don't read this on a data plan. should change my username to "Angry&PoorStereoGuy"

Nightfall

Aural Euphoria wrote: »

I should have just driven down to Nashville and got the RTA 12's with the clearly mismatched tweeters, and threw in the old SL2000s

You could have left the SL2000's in the Monitor 10's and put the new RDO's in the RTA's. Would have been superior to the RT55's AFAIK, they are the best vintage non SDA Polks that exist IMO.

Keep an eye on Craigslist for some taller speaker stands, problem solved?