Comparison of Polk's RTi10 and RTi8 Speakers

Joel McIntosh · February 2004

I wanted to take a few moments to offer my impressions the new Polk RTi10s. I'll also discuss how these speakers compare to the RTi8s. I just used my Circuit City upgrade to move from the RTi8s to the RTi10s. I have been using RTi8s since October 2003, and I want to say up front that I think the RTi8 is a fine speaker that, when combined with a good subwoofer, can provide a solid HT experience. Having said that, the RTi10s offer a superior listening experience to the RTi8s.

The two speakers have several physical differences. The 8s have two mid-range 6 1/2" drivers whereas the 10s have only one. The 10s, however, have two 7" woofers that the 8s lack altogether. Also, the 10s have a more pronounced bass venting system (Polk calls it Power Port Plus). The tweeters on the 10s and 8s are the same.

First, let me address the high sounds produced by the tweeters on both the 8s and 10s. I find the highs produced by the Polks 1" silk dome tweeters to be sharp and clean. I felt no fatigue from the highs of either speaker. Next, Ill address the mid-range sounds. I've been listening to the new 10s for two days, and, to my ears, I can't identify a difference in the mid-range sound produced by the 10s' single mid-range driver and the 8s two drivers. The 10s mid-ranges seem pronounced and unforced. The 10s midrange sounds seem as crisp and clean as those produced by the 8s. Now, let me speak to my impressions of the bass from these speakers. Bass is the area where the 10s truly shine. Bass with the 10s is full and more pronounced than with the 8s. You can hear and feel the accurate, large bass produced by these speakers. To get full bass response with the 8s, you have to supplement them with a good subwoofer. I can only speak from my personal experience with this, but there is a clear difference between using the RTi8s set to "small" and supplemented with a subwoofer and using the RTi10s set to "large" (given the 8s lack of a woofer, setting them to "large" really isn't an option). Being able to fire all of the bass to the 10s brings the bass in-the-room and in-your-face in a pronounced and accurate way that the speaker/subwoofer combo doesnt (at least a subwoofer in the price range of the $499 HSU VFT-2 subwoofer that I own a higher-end subwoofer might offer a different experience).

I do want to add here that I am running 10s with a 225 wpc NAD amplifier. I am sure that the two 7" woofers on the 10s require some juice, I don't know if my very positive experience with the 10s would be the same with a system powered by a weaker amplifier. Also, I am using these speakers in a room that is approximately 14' x 14'. The two woofers on the 10s are perfect for a room this size or slightly larger.

______________________
Fronts: Polk RTi10
Center: Polk CSi5
Back Surround: Polk CSi3
L/R Surround: Polk RTi6
Subwoofer: HSU VFT-2
Receiver: Marantz SR7300
Amp: NAD 218 THX (225 wpc to fronts)
DVD/CD/SACD/A-DVD Player: Marantz DV-8300
Turntable: Rega P3
Sony Wega 40"

Frank Z · February 2004

Excellent review!

Loud & Clear · February 2004

Yeah, nice post. I've always wanted a Nad 218 THX but for some reason haven't ever pulled the trigger. How awesome is it?

PolkWannabie · February 2004

And IMHO from my listening this is why the 12's are better yet as they have the two (2) mid ranges albeit slightly smaller than the 8's but add an additional woofer over the 10's.

Powering them at low to middle volumes even with a 100 wpc receiver produces a very nice overall sound even in the lows where one might expect them to be a little weak but this doesn't appear to be the case to my ears.

Adding more amplification does appear to make a difference in the low end at higher volumes.

Joel McIntosh · February 2004

Originally posted by Loud & Clear
Yeah, nice post. I've always wanted a Nad 218 THX but for some reason haven't ever pulled the trigger. How awesome is it?

I bought the NAD 218 THX back when I was trying to drive my old RTi150s with my 105 wpc Marantz SR7300. The Marantz got thrown into "protect" mode during some base-intense scenes in a handful of movies like "Independence Day." Also, I didn't think I was getting the full benefit the sound the 150s could produce without the extra juice. As such, I invested in the NAD. With the RTi10s and the NAD, I think the system has plenty of power and can really breath. I haven't experimented with the 10s without the NAD, so I don't know what they would sound like without it. I do know that the 150s really filled out once I added the amplifier to the system -- I assume the same is true (maybe to a lesser degree) with the 10s.

lxshteyn · February 2004

I purchased R50 several month ago and was thinking to upgrade them to RTi8. But after reading your execellent review I now have doubts. What would you choose between R50 and RTi8. I'm not a big bass listener. Clarity is more important.
Thanks

Joel McIntosh · February 2004

Originally posted by lxshteyn
What would you choose between R50 and RTi8? I'm not a big bass listener. Clarity is more important.

I actually liked both the RTi8s and the RTi10s. I think that with a high quality subwoofer, the RTi8s can be very satisfying. However, let me mention a couple of things. I'm not a "big bass listener" either ... if you mean "bass listener" as in window-rattling bass that is unnaturally overwhelming. But, I do like bass in the sense that my sound system should be able to accurately reproduce a full range of sound -- including bass sounds. If you have a subwoofer that is up to the task of supplementing the 8s more limited bass response, the 8's are good speakers and are a step up from the R50s. I think the RTi10s simply offered a more filled-out bass response, and, to my ear, they didn't lose any of the mid-range clarity of the 8s. The difference in price between the RTi8s and RTi10s at Circuit City was about $160, and paying this extra amount to get the more full-range bass seemed worth it to me. However, I definitely think the RTi8s are an improvement over the R50s and offer a more full range of sound. To my way of thinking, the question for you is whether to up upgrade to the RTi8s or the RTi10s, not whether to stick with the R50s.

Joel McIntosh · February 2004

Originally posted by ATCVenom
Personally, I believe the star of the line-up is the unassuming RTi 6. Incredibly precise and accurate.... the most "musical" and coherent of the group. However, I am not sure if a bookshelf speaker would suit your needs.

ATCVenom, I noticed that you have posted similar feelings about the RTi6 elsewhere on this board. What is it you like so much about the 6s? They use the same tweeter and mid-range driver as the 8s and 10s, but they lack some of the bass range. What makes them more "musical" and coherent than the other speakers in the series? By the way, I use the 6s for my L/R surrounds. I do like them, but I wouldn't call them the "star of the line." I was just wanting to hear more details that would explain your opinion of the 6s -- it's always interesting to hear how others judge such things.

Joel McIntosh · February 2004

Originally posted by ATCVenom
I must first commend you on an excellent memory... At the end of the day, I would bring home the Rti 6's and pair them with a good sub. You may do the same, or you may not:)

My memory is getting poorer as I get ... what ... what was I saying ... shoot ... can't remember ...

Actually, I only remembered your comments from an earlier post you made comparing some of the various attributes of the RTi speakers. I thought your comparison was very helpful when I was thinking of upgrading to the 10s.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to summarize your opinion of the 6s -- it helped me understand your thoughts on the subject. I suspect others may want to give the 6s a closer look after reading your post.

lxshteyn · February 2004

Thank you everyone for response. I like to hear that RTi8 is a step up and it is worth the money. My subwoofer is PSW303. Do you think it will work well with RTi8 (if I'll go with them) or I need a better one ?
Another silly question. Does cherry color looks good ? They don't have them at CC and I'm not sure if they'll look good on a hardwood floor - big convincing point for my wife to upgrade.

Thank you.

RVJII · February 2004

Originally posted by lxshteyn
Does cherry color looks good ? They don't have them at CC and I'm not sure if they'll look good on a hardwood floor - big convincing point for my wife to upgrade.

I've got the 12's in cherry and they look great. Considering how big they are I was a bit worried about it. In fact, I had my parents over back in December and expected my mom to be shocked by the cabinet size. Instead her first comment was how nice they looked.

therockman · February 2004

I really enjoyed all of the comments in this thread because the RTi line is the one I am considering buying into. I am leaning towards the RTi 8's in the front and possibly 6's in the back, so all of your comments are very much appreciated. But although I now have the PSW 505 sub-woofer, I listen to most of my music straight from my SACD player to analog on my pre-amp, so it would preclude the operation of the sub on most 2 channel music, although with my 5.1 SACDs the sub would naturraly kick in. Considering this factor, I might lean towards the RTi 10's. Still looking into the matter.

spyderman · February 2004

I recommend doing an a/b switch between the two. I did one and found that the 10's sound awesome compared to the 8's. I found that the 8's sounded too bright and I felt fatigued.

If you're upgrading from 50's you might want to try to get some 70's from Circuit City on close out at $149 ea...

PolkWannabie · February 2004

Now try that between the 12's and the 10's ...

spyderman · February 2004

The imagery on the 12's was spectacular!!!

outerlymitz · February 2004

I have recently purchased the 8's about a month ago. I saw this thread pop up and so I went back to CC to demo both the 10's and 8's just to make sure I got the right speaker. Now keep in mind I did not listen to a home theater mix but just listened to evaluate 2ch music.

CC Setup in sound room:

Head Unit: Onkyo tx-sr801
DVD/CD: Sony: DVDNS725P
Cables/interconnects: Generic Crap
Subwoofer: Velodyne CHT10

Settings:

2Ch Direct mode
CD: Introduction to SACD (CD Layer) Chesky

I had two other people besides myself auditioning these speakers and came to the same conclusion. The 8's excelled in midrange clarity and transparency over the 10's. Now the 10's were much fuller overall when it came to just the towers themselves. But when coupled with the Velodyne Sub the 8's absolutely outshined the 10's in sheer performance, clarity, transparency, and liveliness. Not that the 10 was a slouch but there was just too big a difference with the A/B comparison not to conclude that the 8's were a great little speaker. I also noticed a huge discrepency in overall volume when switching A/B. The 8's were almost twice as loud. I attributed that however to the extra midrange.

* But then again this was just the opinion, that month, on that day, at that hour, at that circuit city store, in lowly Bellevue Washington.

*Disclaimer
(Opinions May vary)

Originally posted by spyderman
I recommend doing an a/b switch between the two. I did one and found that the 10's sound awesome compared to the 8's. I found that the 8's sounded too bright and I felt fatigued.

If you're upgrading from 50's you might want to try to get some 70's from Circuit City on close out at $149 ea...

PolkWannabie · February 2004

Did you by chance include the 12's in your listening demo ?

therockman · February 2004

Mr outerlymitz,
Thanks for the review. I am really leaning towards the 8's, and your description just might put me in favor of the favor the 8's.

outerlymitz · February 2004

Hey no problem at all. Just make sure thou to listen to them both before you buy and make a choice you would be happy with.

Originally posted by therockman
Mr outerlymitz,
Thanks for the review. I am really leaning towards the 8's, and your description just might put me in favor of the favor the 8's.

Joel McIntosh · February 2004

Originally posted by outerlymitz
I went back to CC to demo both the 10's and 8's just to make sure I got the right speaker. ... Not that the 10 was a slouch but there was just too big a difference with the A/B comparison not to conclude that the 8's were a great little speaker. I also noticed a huge discrepency in overall volume when switching A/B. The 8's were almost twice as loud.

It sounds like you are happy with the 8s, and, in the end, that's the important consideration. However, I want to raise a couple of concerns.

As for as the 8's being twice as loud as the 10s in the A/B switch test ... this is not my experience. When I replaced my 8s with 10s, I re-calibrated my system with a sound level meter at reference -- there was no difference between the sound levels output by the 8s and the 10s (i.e., the receiver-level settings for the 8s to output 75db at reference and the settings for the 10s to output at 75db were within plus or minus 1db). I am wondering about that Onkyo 801. I know the Onkyo is rated at 100 wpc with dynamic wpc of 130. It should have driven the 10s just fine. However, I don't have any direct experience with the 801. My set-up runs the 10s with a NAD 225 wpc amplifier hooked up to a Marantz receiver, so maybe the 10s respond better with more power. On the other hand, maybe the 801 was at fault and wasn't outputting to it's claimed power levels. I really don't know, I'm just saying that this is not a problem I experienced, and I'm measuring the output with a sound meter. It makes me wonder if aspects of the 10s sound fidelity were affected by this low-power problem. This may have had an impacted on the results of your test.

You didn't explain how you conducted the A/B switch test (of course ... why would you?), so I'm assuming some things here. I don't believe that the A/B switch test as it is normally performed is a fair way to compare the 8s and 10s. In my original post, I said that the 10s outperform the 8s when the 10s are set to "large" in the receiver and the 8s are set to "small" and supplemented with a subwoofer (at least a sub in the less than $1000 price range).

If you just do an A/B switch test in a CC store with the speakers set to "small" (as you would expect to find in 99% of the CC stores out there), you all but cripple the 10s. The 10s are designed to be a full-range speaker. The full, masculine bass offered by these speakers is gutted by a standard A/B switch test with the speakers set to "small." The 10's would have been prevented from producing any deep bass below the crossover (likely set to 110 or 120 at the CC). Under these circumstances, you are essentially comparing the 8s to a modified RTi6 with crippled woofers.

The 10s were designed for people like me who like their fronts to be full-range (and, by the way, this is clearly not an opinion everyone shares). Try this experiment ... play a deep bass intensive song like "Pink and Blue" from the Outkast's CD "The Love Below." Play it once with the 10s set to "large" and play it a second time with the 10s (or 8s) set to "small" and supplemented with a mid-priced subwoofer. It will sound like an entirely different song -- the 10s at "large" will vibrate your chest.

Anyway, I want to reiterate my concern about the significant drop in volume with the 10s that I discussed above. This problem should not have happened and may well have skewed the whole test.

outerlymitz · February 2004

Sure no problem I can reiterate on my listening expedition. Here goes nothing.

1) You raised questions about my claims that the 8's were twice as load. I should clarify. Not that there was twice as much output I am just saying there was a noticeably huge volume discrepency when A/B switching between the 8's and 10's. I hope this makes sense. The exact same sense I got when I auditioned my old pair of rti70's vs. the rti100's.

2) As for the A/B audition. There were a couple of things I do to audition speakers and that is to 1)Make sure the if the head unit the Sony DVD player was set to Full in the Sony setup. 2) With the onkyo reciever or with any reciever i set the source unit to play in direct mode. When playing in direct or Pure Audio mode this bypasses all the sound processing done with the source unit. Hence the settings of small or full does not affect the sound output. But just for giggles during this test I looked to see if it was set to full and it was. I also set the treble and bass to 0 becuase we all know that you will always have somebody turn it to +10.

3) As for power output of the 801 I don't think that was the issue. The OINKS supply enough power to drive 8ohm speakers. The 601 numbers were impressive enough that it leaves me with no doubt the 801 would not be better in terms of power.

Maybe there was something wrong in the setup with the 10's. It's not like I got a sense maybe something was not hooked up right. Oh yeah the A/B switching was done by an electronic speaker selector. Basically the 10's were speaker number #6 and the 8's were #7. During our audition in the same song we would switch over speakers to listen to the difference. I do agree that the 10's had more bass. But it was my impression along with a couple other peoples that the 8's midrange register was better then the 10's that day. I hope this helps.

Originally posted by Joel McIntosh
It sounds like you are happy with the 8s, and, in the end, that's the important consideration. However, I want to raise a couple of concerns.

As for as the 8's being twice as loud as the 10s in the A/B switch test ... this is TOTALLY NOT my experience. When I replaced my 8s with 10s, I re-calibrated my system with a sound level meter at reference -- there was no difference between the sound levels output by the 8s and the 10s (i.e., the receiver-level settings for the 8s to output 75db at reference and the settings for the 10s to output at 75db were within plus or minus 1db). I am wondering about that Onkyo 801. I know the Onkyo is rated at 100 wpc with dynamic wpc of 130. It should have driven the 10s just fine. However, I don't have any direct experience with the 801. My set-up runs the 10s with a NAD 225 wpc amplifier hooked up to a Marantz receiver, so maybe the 10s respond better with more power. On the other hand, maybe the 801 was at fault and wasn't outputting to it's claimed power levels. I really don't know, I'm just saying that this is not a problem I experienced, and I'm measuring the output with a sound meter. It makes me wonder if aspects of the 10s sound fidelity were affected by this low-power problem. This may have had an impacted on the results of your test.

You didn't explain how you conducted the A/B switch test (of course ... why would you?), so I'm assuming some things here. I don't believe that the A/B switch test as it is normally performed is a fair way to compare the 8s and 10s. In my original post, I said that the 10s outperform the 8s when the 10s are set to "large" in the receiver and the 8s are set to "small" and supplemented with a subwoofer (at least a sub in the less than $1000 price range).

If you just do an A/B switch test in a CC store with the speakers set to "small" (as you would expect to find in 99% of the CC stores out there), you all but cripple the 10s. The 10s are designed to be a full-range speaker. The full, masculine bass offered by these speakers is gutted by a standard A/B switch test with the speakers set to "small." The 10's would have been prevented from producing any deep bass below the crossover (likely set to 110 or 120 at the CC). Under these circumstances, you are essentially comparing the 8s to a modified RTi6 with crippled woofers.

The 10s were designed for people like me who like their fronts to be full-range (and, by the way, this is clearly not an opinion everyone shares). Try this experiment ... play a deep bass intensive song like "Pink and Blue" from the Outkast's CD "The Love Below." Play it once with the 10s set to "large" and play it a second time with the 10s (or 8s) set to "small" and supplemented with a mid-priced subwoofer. It will sound like an entirely different song -- the 10s at "large" will vibrate your chest.

Anyway, I want to reiterate my concern about the significant drop in volume with the 10s that I discussed above. This problem should not have happened and may well have skewed the whole test. [/QUOTE

bigsexy1 · February 2004

Joel, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you have a pair of 150s at one time? If so, why did you get rid of them and now have 10s? Just curious cause given a choice between 10s and 150s, I'd take the 150s every time myself.

The 12s however would be an entirely different story. To me, I think the 12s are the best speaker Polk makes today, and that includes the LSis.

Joel McIntosh · February 2004

Originally posted by bigsexy1
Joel, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you have a pair of 150s at one time? If so, why did you get rid of them and now have 10s? The 12s however would be an entirely different story.

I did have a set of 150s (honest to God, over the last year, I have used/tested as my L/R fronts RTi38s, RTi70s, RTi150s, Rti8s, and RTi10s -- I think I have discovered the most patient and flexible CC sales guy in the US). I found that even when I properly powered my 150s, their bass was too loose and overblown -- also, their bass seemed to overwhelm the mid-range and high-range frequency output. This may well have been related to all kinds of factors including placement and room configuration, but after jacking around with the 150s for awhile I gave up. The 10s' bass seems much tighter and doesn't overwhelm the mids and highs (at least to my ear). I haven't heard the 12s, but from what I understand they sound great. Out of curiousity, I plan to give them a listen when they arrive at the local CC stores. However, I'm satisfied with my 10s and have about petered-out my budget -- so I'm sticking with the 10s.

landry_p2000 · July 2004

I took the RTi8s and upgraded to the RTi10s about three weeks ago, and got back 8 cents change! I have found that these speakers in my opinion are a better deal at the $699.00 price tag that was on the RTi8s. I love these RTi10s. I am not as experienced in sound as you other guys are, but I know what I like. I think you did a good thing. (GREAT REVIEW! Makes me proud to own the RTi10s)

agw · August 2004

I liked your post on your comparison in July between the rti8 and rti10. I too have come to the same conclusions on the comparison having lived with the 8's since last Nov. and having upgraded to the 10's. I have the same sub (vtf-2) as well. My question is are you bi-amping the 10's or are you driving the 10's exclusively with the NAD?
I have a yamaha 1400 and a high current H/K 2 channel amp and was thinking of bi-amping the 10's.

Joel McIntosh · September 2004

Thanks for the kind comments about my comparison of the 8s and 10s. You asked about whether I am bi-amping the 10s. No; I am using just the NAD THX218 to drive the 10s. I think the NAD is rated at 225 watts per channel. This seems like plenty to me for these speakers. I would be more likely to up the juice for the 12s, but I think the NAD offers plenty for the 10s.

agw · September 2004

Thanks for your response Joel. I think I will try bi-amping first to see how that works. I have owned many different pieces of equipment including seperates over the years. That yamaha receiver is very sweet and detailed thus the reason I was thinking of bi-amping.

Comparison of Polk's RTi10 and RTi8 Speakers

Comments