Calling all SDA SRS 2, SRS 2.3, SRS 2.3TL Owners
MAD
Posts: 105
After reading through many posts, I am now confused.
Some have said the SRS2 have more bass than the 2.3 (maybe a bad pair of 2.3 or do the srs 2 have more in terms of ratio between bass : mid/treble) . I know the 2.3 will output more volume when cranked but at average listening levels will the SRS 2 seem to have more bass?
I want to own 1 pair of SDA's at this moment, do the upgrades and be happy, as I have a bit of a speaker addiction problem.
Some of you have helped me out in the past, and I appreciate all the input, if you could give me your opinions.
I am deciding between the
a)sda srs 2 blade/blade (going to do the rod 198tl mod and at least daytons in the upper portion of the crossover)
b)sda srs 2.3 (going to do the rdo 194 mod and at least daytons in the upper portion of the crossover)
c)sda srs 2.3tl (going to do the rdo 198 mod and at least daytons in the upper portion of the crossover)
I currently own the sda srs 2.3
I usually listen to the 2.3 with the bass knob on 5 out of 10.
I love the width and height of the soundstage of the SDA 2.3.
Listen to rock, hip/hop, some rap I love bass.
I listen at low to medium volumes (1w to 30wpc on the output meters of the amp) and occasionally crank it. \
Probably max 90db.
People rave about the rdo 198 and I do love sweet detailed treble.
I'm sure the 2.3 will put out more bass at higher volumes, but some people say polk sda srs 2 have more pronounced bass at a given volume and they were designed that way, is this the general consensus? There are a few posts mentioning that some were let down going from the srs 2 to srs 2.3 is this the case.
I have a few questions
1. Is there a major difference between height and width of the soundstage between the models?
2. Do the SRS 2 actually output more bass (is the bass : mid/treble ratio different between models)?
3. Will I regret selling the SRS 2.3 and going with the SRS2 ?
4. Is the srs 2 TL mod a fairly easy straight forward option?
5. If you could rank the speakers from best to worse?
Thanks in advance for any opinions,
Some have said the SRS2 have more bass than the 2.3 (maybe a bad pair of 2.3 or do the srs 2 have more in terms of ratio between bass : mid/treble) . I know the 2.3 will output more volume when cranked but at average listening levels will the SRS 2 seem to have more bass?
I want to own 1 pair of SDA's at this moment, do the upgrades and be happy, as I have a bit of a speaker addiction problem.
Some of you have helped me out in the past, and I appreciate all the input, if you could give me your opinions.
I am deciding between the
a)sda srs 2 blade/blade (going to do the rod 198tl mod and at least daytons in the upper portion of the crossover)
b)sda srs 2.3 (going to do the rdo 194 mod and at least daytons in the upper portion of the crossover)
c)sda srs 2.3tl (going to do the rdo 198 mod and at least daytons in the upper portion of the crossover)
I currently own the sda srs 2.3
I usually listen to the 2.3 with the bass knob on 5 out of 10.
I love the width and height of the soundstage of the SDA 2.3.
Listen to rock, hip/hop, some rap I love bass.
I listen at low to medium volumes (1w to 30wpc on the output meters of the amp) and occasionally crank it. \
Probably max 90db.
People rave about the rdo 198 and I do love sweet detailed treble.
I'm sure the 2.3 will put out more bass at higher volumes, but some people say polk sda srs 2 have more pronounced bass at a given volume and they were designed that way, is this the general consensus? There are a few posts mentioning that some were let down going from the srs 2 to srs 2.3 is this the case.
I have a few questions
1. Is there a major difference between height and width of the soundstage between the models?
2. Do the SRS 2 actually output more bass (is the bass : mid/treble ratio different between models)?
3. Will I regret selling the SRS 2.3 and going with the SRS2 ?
4. Is the srs 2 TL mod a fairly easy straight forward option?
5. If you could rank the speakers from best to worse?
Thanks in advance for any opinions,
Post edited by MAD on
Comments
-
Idk x 6
-
The 2.3's lack no bass, and if you feel you are, you need a better amp, and or gear..
Not sure what your using, but IMO keep the 2.3's and upgrade them, the 2's and 2.3tl's will be minimal gain depending on your gear, and what you can afford moving up the chain in gear.
Also I see you state you keep the bass knob at 5 so I'm guessing you have tone controls, I personally hate them, and when it comes to using a bass knob it always sounds bloated to me..
Post what gear you are running to power the 2.3's cables and all.. The 2.3's are a fantastic speaker one of my favorite SDA's and I hate when I see someone pass them up in hopes to land the TL version..
Again this is my opinion, YMMV -
Oh and forget the Dayton's get Sonicaps, and the RDO 194's
-
The gear I'm running as of now:
Pre amp: Hitachi hca 8500 mk2 pre amp
Power amp (alternate between): Kenwood 700m unrestored power amp (sometimes running/blending in hitachi ham 8500 for the tweets) / adcom gfa 5800 / rivera hammer 320 tube amp.
Custom home made interconnects - they sound spectacular I used Cat 5 cables wrapped around rope, taped and wound where either cable never comes closer than a 1/2inch of one another, tri-eutectic solder, 1877 rca jacks.
ultralink audiophile reference grade speaker cable (got it for free somewhere fairly thick).
I'm not looking to ditch the speakers, but as I have read different posts (raving about rdo 198 vs 194) and it does make you wonder (I know different setups yield different results and some caps may have not warmed up/ some drivers miswired). Maybe they are tiny differences?
Thanks for any advice -
Well, I've owned all three of the models you list. They are all a good example of what the SDA technology has to offer. I have never thought that any of them lacked BASS, the cabinets need to TIGHT (all interior joints re-glued, new gaskets, Hurricane Nuts or Larry's Rings for the drivers) and SPIKED, plus proper placement to achieve the best Bass response.
I prefer the sound of the 2.3TL's, but that's just me, the RDO-198's do have an edge in the smoothness department. -
The SRS 2 Blade/Blade can't take the 198, it is setup for the 194. I don't recall anyone on the forum ever claiming that the SRS 2 had more bass than any 2.3 model. The bass is created by the mids acting in conjuction with the bass radiators. The 2.3 with 6 mids will always put out more bass than an properly working SRS 2.
When someone claims that their SDAs aren't producing enough bass, it is usually found to be drivers wired wrong, cabinets have leaks, or drivers aren't working at all, wires have worked their way loose. SDA crossovers are some of the most complicated around and over the years, lots of people have been into the cabinets with little knowledge of how the speaker were designed to work.HT Optoma HD25 LV on 80" DIY Screen, Anthem MRX 300 Receiver, Pioneer Elite BDP 51FD Polk CS350LS, Polk SDA1C, Polk FX300, Polk RT55, Dual EBS Adire Shiva 320watt tuned to 17hz, ICs-DIY Twisted Prs, Speaker-Raymond Cable
2 Channel Thorens TD 318 Grado ZF1, SACD/CD Marantz 8260, Soundstream/Krell DAC1, Audio Mirror PP1, Odyssey Stratos, ADS L-1290, ICs-DIY Twisted , Speaker-Raymond Cable -
The 2.3 and 2.3TL's bass is tighter than the SRS 2's, which may lead some to think the SRS 2's have better bass when in fact they don't.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Thanks for the replies,
Toolfan: I will probably end up going sonicaps, but daytons would be the minimum.
Mike: I have done nothing yet to the 2.3, I'm sure after the upgrades there will be huge improvements.
Dennis: I read some post where a guy on here changed the cap value to 5.8u of the sda srs 2 (I thought it was blade/blace) in order for it to accept the rdo 198 instead of the rdo 194. I don't know if this is an accepted mod or someone tinkering? I will try to find the post.
F1: maybe I am mistaking sloppy bass for more bass as at lower volumes it would be perceived as more bass.
As for bass, it is there and full sounding, but in comparison to my set of pioneer DSS9 which have a 12" ported dual coil graphite woofer, the bass of the pioneers is more satisfying on some track (but maybe more sloppy or their efficiency could help that they put out more bass). Do I enjoy sloppy bass?
I still feel the polks are the most overall pleasing speakers that offer a tall, wide soundstage that seems alive (as instruments move between and outside the speakers) -
The 2.3's do throw an impressive (wide) soundstage with the four dimensional drivers, I would have liked to have kept mine, but funds dictated otherwise. Part of the magic of SDA's is their ability to turn a studio recording into a live performance.
Perform the usual upgrades as time and money allows, every aspect of the speakers presentation is enhanced. You will be rewarded for your efforts! -
Mike, slight correction. The 2.3's have 2 dimensional drivers.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Mike, slight correction. The 2.3's have 2 dimensional drivers.
You don't include the donut drivers as dimensional? -
Mike, slight correction. The 2.3's have 2 dimensional drivers.
To elaborate, Mike, they are the center 2 drivers on the 4 driver side. The donut drivers play the stereo signal along with the 2 driver side."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
To elaborate, Mike, they are the center 2 drivers on the 4 driver side. The donut drivers play the stereo signal along with the 2 driver side.
Thanks Ryan, You have cleared that up for me. I was always under the impression that the donut drivers were a part of the "array" of dimensional drivers.
I still feel like the 2.3's throw a wider stage than the TL models, the TL's have them beat in stereo imaging, at least to my ears. -
Mike to confirm from your post you feel the 2.3 have a wider soundstage but miss out on some of the precision of instrument placement?
Another thing to consider
Thanks again,
I was always curious about the donut driver. I figured the extra mass was to prevent some treble from coming out. -
Mike… to confirm from your post you feel the 2.3 have a wider soundstage but miss out on some of the precision of instrument placement?
Another thing to consider…
Thanks again,
I was always curious about the donut driver. I figured the extra mass was to prevent some treble from coming out.
MAD, Don't let my ramblings sway your feeling toward your 2.3's. They are a very good example of the SDA lineup, I've read where the donuts were added to calm down the mid-range a tad bit. -
I figured the extra mass was to prevent some treble from coming out.
They are actually labeled as sub-bass drivers. As Mike noted, the donuts are used to limit the mid-range frequencies.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
To elaborate, Mike, they are the center 2 drivers on the 4 driver side. The donut drivers play the stereo signal along with the 2 driver side.
I just learned something new!!! I did not know that :-)
