Polk 4's with Peerless Tweeters

StantonZ · October 2013

The short answer is it couldn't hurt to replace caps that old (translated: it may or may not sound better). However, here's the deal: since these are only 2-way speakers with only one crossover point/frequency, the change in roll-off may not be as critical as say a 3-way speaker, where you can get some interaction in the mid-range. That doesn't mean a film cap wouldn't sound "better", but (as I mentioned before) I thought my 4's sounded plenty good for center channel dialog and elected NOT to re-build the XO's even though I did so on my 10B's (and thought it made a big difference--along with installing RDO-194 tweets).

westmassguy · October 2013

Kim wrote: »

These are the original Monitor 4 that was manufactured from 1982 through 1984.
The low pass filter for the MW6500 driver consists of a single 0.3 mH air core inductor.
The high pass filer uses a 5.8 uF cap and a 0.4 mH inductor.
The tweeter fuse is the standard 1 amp fast blow AGC style fuse.

Hope this helps

Awesome Kim!
I would add, replacing that ancient NP Electrolytic with a Metalized Poly Propylene will do wonders for the Peerless

alkermes · October 2013

This has been most educational, thanks all for your input. It's nice to know the details on the crossover.
And what the heck, even if the crossover is not as complex as a three-way (and StantonZ thanks for this point) , it's only a few bucks to buy these caps, next time I order some caps I will pick up some for this project.

Nightfall · October 2013

After you recap them, sell them to me!

alkermes · October 2013

Nightfall wrote: »

After you recap them, sell them to me!

Sounds like a plan :-)

I want to try them stacked on my 10-B's (currently in use by my son).

mikemokr · February 2014

westmassguy wrote: »

BTW, the Peerless shown in the photo doesn't appear to fit properly either. It should be flush with the speaker baffle.

I picked up a pair of this era of M4s yesterday (marked 5/83 on an xo) and the Peerless does not sit flush. I bought these from the original owner and there's no indication he ever tried to pull the tweeter, and when I unscrewed one it did not come out easily (unlike on the 1978 M5s I also bought recently) so it seems likely they came from the factory this way. FWIW my speakers have s/n 16xxx, lower than Mystery's (per a separate thread), which from the photos above seem to be flush although when I look at this photo from that other thread I'm not so sure. Mystery?

When I pulled a terminal cap I could make out the 5514 marking on the back of the (U.S.) Peerless.

Here's a view of the Peerless casting its shadow on my M4

For comparison, my M5

Wonder if it was an issue with the thickness of the U.S. vs earlier Danish Peerless (anyone see this on other early '80s Monitors?) routing of the baffle and/or something else.

While I'm posting photos, the xo - like the OP's, not the most elegant thing I've ever seen ...

And that almost moist-feeling egg crate foam stuffed in the top of the cabinet (at the bottom, a tuft of white polyfill surrounds but does not obstruct the port - you can barely catch a glimpse in the photo above):

mikemokr · February 2014

p.s. re post #2 above, confirmed MW6500 in both

westmassguy · February 2014

Looks like they had a little quality control problem back then

mhardy6647 · February 2014

A few folks & I listened to audiokarma (and Polk forum, too, I think) member's Monitor 4s with the Peerless silk dome tweeters at my house, sittin' on Polkstands and powered by a Yamaha CR-1020 and they sounded almost amazingly dandy sans subwoofers. I do believe the owner had re-capped 'em, but they certainly weren't - and shouldn't be - bright. They were very well balanced and well behaved.

StantonZ · February 2014

mhardy6647 wrote: »

A few folks & I listened to audiokarma (and Polk forum, too, I think) member's Monitor 4s with the Peerless silk dome tweeters at my house, sittin' on Polkstands and powered by a Yamaha CR-1020 and they sounded almost amazingly dandy sans subwoofers. I do believe the owner had re-capped 'em, but they certainly weren't - and shouldn't be - bright. They were very well balanced and well behaved.

I did the same throughout my whole college dorm/apartment career, which lead me to the eventual purchase of *2* pairs of 10B's to augment my 5.1 setup! Monitor 4's were without a doubt the best sounding pair of (small) bookshelf speakers I'd ever heard, and they weren't even the most expensive (even better for a high-school student's budget at the time).

mhardy6647 · February 2014

well... I am also kind of partial to the original (unsuffixed) Teledyne-era AR-18, which at $65 a pop ca. 1977 I think was one of the best-ever cheap loudspeakers... but the original incarnation of Monitor 4 was (is) very fine, too. It came a little later of course and I think it was more expensive (but inflation was rampant in those long-ago days).

mikemokr · March 2014

Been listening to the 4s a bit lately and I can attest that the protruding Peerless doesn't seem to hurt the sonics. In fact it's amazing how sweet these little speakers sound, even in a large room. In my setup they do have the benefit of a sub, and no they don't exhibit quite the spaciousness or fine imaging detail of my Monitor 7s (not to mention the CRS+), but my kids had a hard time believing the sound wasn't coming from one of the bigger speakers.

......................................................................(^^^ GOOD DOG ^^^)

20140304_m4_m7_crs+.jpg

Yes on top of the CRS+ the 4s are maybe a foot higher than they should be, but I'm not going to sweat this for now.

Not A/B but I've played the same music back to back through the 4s with Peerless and 7s with SL2000 (using different but not wildly dissimilar amplification) and yes I find the latter edge into harshness by comparison, e.g. on Legion of Mary vocals, lead guitar and sax and Camper Van Beethoven violin.

p.s. WMG I like that grill cloth you recommended, via the ebay guy, seen here on the CRS+. Acoustically transparent to my ears and it looks sharp.

alkermes · March 2015

It's been a while, but I wanted to close the loop on this old thread. I finally got around to recapping them, I used two caps to add up to the 5.8uf value of the original. It was easy and worth it. I have these hooked up now in my home office to a Yamaha CA-810, a sweet combination. These speakers are splendid, the reproduction of instruments while listening to my favorite jazz station can be almost uncanny real. I am very glad to own them.

The external fuses can be a bit fiddly though, I wonder if people bypass them.

On3s&Z3r0s · April 2015

alkermes wrote: »

The external fuses can be a bit fiddly though, I wonder if people bypass them.

I had a pair of the same version of the Monitor 4's once briefly. They were not treated lovingly and had a host of problems, but the fuses had been bypassed and the tweeters were in perfect shape (except for having been silicone glued into their cutouts after someone stripped the screws). At least they were unblown and sounded great.

I'm sure lots of folks have bypassed the fuses on early Polks (just like removing the polyswitches), and if your friends can be trusted not to go party-crazy with the volume knob (or you just rock the 7's when you throw down a rager), I'd say you should be safe.

kevinko · March 2017

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but it's pertinent to this discussion.

Gary at Polk CS was kind enough to send me this schematic for the original Polk Monitor 4.

Unknown · March 2017

This content has been removed.

kevinko · March 2017

Not for the 4 with the Peerless and the MW6500.

Hence some of the confusion earlier in this thread.

Polk 4's with Peerless Tweeters

Comments