the next sda srs 1.2 tl
Comments
-
Magnepan MG 3.7's or 20.7's for my money...The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson -
nooshinjohn wrote: »Magnepan MG 3.7's or 20.7's and a good sub for my money...
Fixed it for ya.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 -
They sounded like crap to me.
If you want to hear a done right, none SDA speaker check out one of the upper end Sonus Fabers.
Magnepan MG 3.7's or 20.7's and a good sub for my money...Fixed it for ya.
This^^^^^ -
I'm just wondering something. You seem to be on a mission to build a better 1.2TL than the 1.2TL. Do you actually own 1.2TL's? Do you have a pair of restored 1.2TL's in a good room, with gobs of good power? And you're listening to these 1.2TL's and saying "Eh. They're ok. But I can do better!" Are you dissatisfied with the sound of a properly set up and powered pair of 1.2TL's, and think you can do better if you just make them bigger? I'm trying to understand why one would embark on a project like this, as opposed to laying hands on a pair of 1.2TL's and restoring them and upgrading them to their full potential?Good music, a good source, and good power can make SDA's sing. Tubes make them dance.
-
Neil, way too much logic there. Don't try and understand, your brain may explode.I'm just wondering something. You seem to be on a mission to build a better 1.2TL than the 1.2TL. Do you actually own 1.2TL's? Do you have a pair of restored 1.2TL's in a good room, with gobs of good power? And you're listening to these 1.2TL's and saying "Eh. They're ok. But I can do better!" Are you dissatisfied with the sound of a properly set up and powered pair of 1.2TL's, and think you can do better if you just make them bigger? I'm trying to understand why one would embark on a project like this, as opposed to laying hands on a pair of 1.2TL's and restoring them and upgrading them to their full potential?Home Theater/2 Channel:
Front: SDA-2ATL forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/143984/my-2as-finally-finished-almost/p1
Center: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/150760/my-center-channel-project/p1
Surrounds & Rears: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/151647/my-surround-project/p1
Sonicaps, Mills, RDO-194s-198s, Dynamat, Hurricane Nuts, Blackhole5
Pioneer Elite VSX-72TXV, Carver PM-600, SVS PB2-Plus Subwoofer
dhsspeakerservice.com/ -
I'm just wondering something. You seem to be on a mission to build a better 1.2TL than the 1.2TL. Do you actually own 1.2TL's? Do you have a pair of restored 1.2TL's in a good room, with gobs of good power? And you're listening to these 1.2TL's and saying "Eh. They're ok. But I can do better!" Are you dissatisfied with the sound of a properly set up and powered pair of 1.2TL's, and think you can do better if you just make them bigger? I'm trying to understand why one would embark on a project like this, as opposed to laying hands on a pair of 1.2TL's and restoring them and upgrading them to their full potential?
He seems to have 1.2TL's and 3.1TL's.moving on polk 1.2 tl subject poly switch the upgrade info calls out for a jumper or resistor .1 to.5 ohm what works ! and why also i have a nice set of 3.1tl what should i sell them for or ask?
He also has this, which may do ok with the 3.1TL's, but certainly not enough for the 1.2TL's.so my driver for this is my mint sansui g9000 160 watts pre at .01Political 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 -
I'm just wondering something. You seem to be on a mission to build a better 1.2TL than the 1.2TL. Do you actually own 1.2TL's? Do you have a pair of restored 1.2TL's in a good room, with gobs of good power? And you're listening to these 1.2TL's and saying "Eh. They're ok. But I can do better!" Are you dissatisfied with the sound of a properly set up and powered pair of 1.2TL's, and think you can do better if you just make them bigger? I'm trying to understand why one would embark on a project like this, as opposed to laying hands on a pair of 1.2TL's and restoring them and upgrading them to their full potential?
Ben once thought the same thing, and had the help of MP to do it and still failed.
The only thing I see as a possibility is a more rigid box designed to reduce cabinet resonance, and standing waves within the box would have a potentially dramatic change in sound, but going the route the OP has chosen will do nothing but make a sonic mess, IMHO.The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson -
I saw "Porsche" mentioned in this OP's postings.
Could this be PFB?Family Room, Innuos Statement streamer (Roon Core) with Morrow Audio USB cable to McIntosh MC 2700 pre with DC2 Digital Audio Module; AQ Sky XLRs to CAT 600.2 dualmono amp, Morrow Elite Speaker Cables to NOLA Baby Grand Reference Gold 3 speakers. Power source for all components: Silver Circle Audio Pure Power One with dedicated 20 amp circuit to main panel.
Exercise Room, Innuos Streamer via Cat 6 cable connection to PS Audio PerfectWave MkII DAC w/Bridge II, AQ King Cobra RCAs to Perreaux PMF3150 amp (fully restored and upgraded by Jeffrey Jackson, Precision Audio Labs), Supra Rondo 4x2.5 Speaker Cables to SDA 1Cs (Vr3 Mods Xovers and other mods.), Dreadnaught with Supra Rondo 4x2.5 interconnect cables by Vr3 Mods. Power for each component from dedicated 20 amp circuit to main panel, except Innuos Statement powered from Silver Circle Audio Pure Power One. -
nooshinjohn wrote: »Ben once thought the same thing, and had the help of MP to do it and still failed.
Yep and didn't look too much different than the OP's idea. Another epic fail.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 -
I like what you say Jesse, you make me feel like the 2.3tls are top world class and when I listen to then in two channel mode with good material I often feel that way.Why? Doped paper cones are excellent and known for their natural sound.POLK SDA 2.3 TLS BOUGHT NEW IN 1990, Gimpod/Sonic Caps/Mills RDO-198
POLK CSI-A6 POLK MONITOR 70'S ONKYO TX NR-808 SONY CDP-333ES
PIONEER PL-510A SONY BDP S5100
POLK SDA 1C BOUGHT USED 2011,Gimpod/Sonic Caps/Mills RDO-194
ONKYO HT RC-360 SONY BDP S590 TECHNICS SL BD-1 -
I think what these guys are trying to tell you is that no matter how smart you are you will never be able to even match much less exceed the product which was the result of many years of trial and error and improvement by an entire team of specialized audio engineers with access to large R&D budgets, perfect rooms, and anechoic chambers and very expensive testing equipment Calibrated and designed to the purpose. You do not have the resources, the time, or the knowledge required to achieve this.
Then there's the manufacturing of the parts to exact specifications required. That's why polk didn't just go use JBL's drivers in the first place. And it's why it won't work for you either. Can the 1.2tl be improved on? Yes by upgrading in the areas they had to compromise to hit a price point. Are you going to improve the fundamental design of these loudspeakers? No way -
I'd be curious to hear you elaborate on this point.
I will not elaborate on this as there is no specific detail asked for and my point encompases several factors. I will comment on the next two as they are more specific questions/ comments.If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of Progress?!
Monitor 5Jr, Monitor 5, RTA12, RTA 15TL, SDA 2A, 1c, SRS 2, 1.2TL, CRS, Atrium. -
Me too.....also the "more drivers the more the sound gets cluttered" statement.
Without going into great detail... the more points of origin a sound comes from the more points in space the brain locates for that sound. these points are normally not at an exact same distance or angle and therefore will incurr time/phase problems for the brain to pinpoint the exact location the sound "should have" come from. This clutters the sound.
Take the Sonus Fabers that Toolfan mentions; only 1 driver per frequency range with the baffle designed in such a way as to place all voice coils originateing from the same depth from the listeners ear. No multiple mids at different locations on the baffle. Or kef's UniQ design to take the point source a step further. Single full range drivers are another way of controlling this phenomenon.
The same basic principle as delaying the speaker channels in a surround sound system. With a non-SDA speaker such as the monitor 10 this can be controlled somewhat with speaker toe and placement. With line arrays as the OP eludes to it can be controlled to some extent with the angle of the baffle, but this then effects the on/off axis properties. With the SDA's that is not an option.If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of Progress?!
Monitor 5Jr, Monitor 5, RTA12, RTA 15TL, SDA 2A, 1c, SRS 2, 1.2TL, CRS, Atrium. -
I find nothing inherently wrong with the premise of bigger is better. Matthew Polk thought the same way, he was just wise enough to know that the SRS 1.2s fit 99% of the listening needs of his buyers and that outside parks and gymnasium homeless shelters were best left to the pro audio markets. That is the understanding that is obviously lost on those that must build bigger for no apparent reason.....he didn't wear a lab coat because of a draft in the room.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 -
westmassguy wrote: »Same here. The Polk drivers are unique to say the least. Would cast frames and exotic cone materials have been better? Sure, but the SDAs would have been 2-3 time more expensive to build. I have yet to find (and I've searched quite a bit) any 6.5 " driver that even comes close to the TS Parameters of the older drivers. The FS and VAS are off the chart for a woofer of that size, and doped paper cones are quite good for the intended purpose
I will answer this in the reverse order that you discuss it.
Doped paper is a fine material and was excellent for the day. However technology has come long ways since then with lighter stiffer materials. Doped paper is sufficiently stiff when the driver is moving forward but can have a tendancy to flex when the driver is compressing the air inside the cabinet with the cone moving backwards. This causes distrtion and loss of low end output, especially when coupled with the large passives used in the Polks. The cone flex under compression reduces the potential output from the passive. Used only as a mid; doped paper has few problems. This is not the case in these old Polks.
I agree completely the Fs and Vas is exception for the size driver. Mosst manufacturers don't even try to come close to these as they would rather sell you a larger driver for more money. However, without doing any research, I know that Morel is one brand that could come close to these specs with better technology and stiffer cone materials.
Polk drivers are indeed unique (especially for their time), but better technology is to be had today. things such as open basket designs to reduce self induced distortions from rear soundwaves bouncing off of the frame and back into the cone. Smaller rare earth magnets for the same purpose, stiffer cones for less flex on compression, properly designed phase plugs to eliminate compression under the dustcap and venting induced noises from the compressed air coming through the dust cap as well as distortion from the sound bouncing back to the pole peice and then back to the dust cap. Cost was not figured into my statement. Indeed cost could be prohibitive to obtain drivers with all the best technologies, but they are available if someone wants to use them for any intended purpose.If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of Progress?!
Monitor 5Jr, Monitor 5, RTA12, RTA 15TL, SDA 2A, 1c, SRS 2, 1.2TL, CRS, Atrium. -
I need to hear from someone that was present with MP when the question came around as to why upgraded M/W drivers for the SDA line has never been undertaken, I know this was asked when the LSi type drivers were a Klippel aided design and the minions wanted a 6.5 mid/woof similar for their SDAs. Polk felt the tweeters needed redone, but not the M/Ws?
We all know how and why the line ran its course, but Polk's R&D was second to none and MP has been very helpful with other upgrades for this line. Are there no appreciably better driver upgrades at any cost or were there too many varieties to make it viable? SDAs fans are as avid as Klipschorn fans about improving an already great design.
I think sometimes that a shiny driver cone gets in the way of understanding the how and why of good acoustical physics, and sometimes the shine is just a shine. Another example of this is the A/D/S stiff lite layered pulp wasn't the prettiest driver in the world, but they are hard to beat with any shiny technology.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 -
There is no right way to build a speaker, but there are wrong ways. The OP's intent is a wrong way to do it. However, how many drivers you put in a speaker isn't that bad depending on what you're trying to achieve. The GR Research LS9's are some of the best speakers I've heard. I never heard any issues mentioned. In fact, that speaker was able to achieve better vertical placement than any speaker I've heard to date. Either way, every design is going to have a compromise, even if you're dropping $200k on a pair of speakers. The compromises you can live with are what matter.
I agree the OP did not appear to be going about the project in what i would consider the correct way.
I also agree that more isn't always bad. Line arrays such as the LS9 you mention are a good example. But their intent is not pinpoint placement and pure accuracy. That model as many other line arrays use several concepts to minimize the effects of the many drivers; driver spacing/ driver size, baffle width, etc. that model also uses ribbon tweets which do not always react and obey the same constraints as cone/ dome tweets. A lot of the minute details I mentioned previously are details that color the sound that we may not even realize we are hearing because we hear them as that coloration and not isolated by themselves.
I also agree completely that every design is a compromise and no one design is perfect for every situation and every person.If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of Progress?!
Monitor 5Jr, Monitor 5, RTA12, RTA 15TL, SDA 2A, 1c, SRS 2, 1.2TL, CRS, Atrium. -
The new replacement drivers have a different coating than to 80s versions. I wonder if some of the deficiencies were mitigated by the new coating. If cost is no object, then I'm sure drivers could be located that closely match the originals. When I searched for replacements other than the OEM Polks, I found nothing that could compare at reasonable price.Mr. Bubbles wrote: »I will answer this in the reverse order that you discuss it.
Doped paper is a fine material and was excellent for the day. However technology has come long ways since then with lighter stiffer materials. Doped paper is sufficiently stiff when the driver is moving forward but can have a tendancy to flex when the driver is compressing the air inside the cabinet with the cone moving backwards. This causes distrtion and loss of low end output, especially when coupled with the large passives used in the Polks. The cone flex under compression reduces the potential output from the passive. Used only as a mid; doped paper has few problems. This is not the case in these old Polks.
I agree completely the Fs and Vas is exception for the size driver. Mosst manufacturers don't even try to come close to these as they would rather sell you a larger driver for more money. However, without doing any research, I know that Morel is one brand that could come close to these specs with better technology and stiffer cone materials.
Polk drivers are indeed unique (especially for their time), but better technology is to be had today. things such as open basket designs to reduce self induced distortions from rear soundwaves bouncing off of the frame and back into the cone. Smaller rare earth magnets for the same purpose, stiffer cones for less flex on compression, properly designed phase plugs to eliminate compression under the dustcap and venting induced noises from the compressed air coming through the dust cap as well as distortion from the sound bouncing back to the pole peice and then back to the dust cap. Cost was not figured into my statement. Indeed cost could be prohibitive to obtain drivers with all the best technologies, but they are available if someone wants to use them for any intended purpose.
The crossovers are also designed with all the T/S parameters taken into account. We have some, but not all those parameters, SPL being one important value.
The dimensional SPL is also reduced, so reverse engineering the crossovers would have to be done, but seems impossible given the lack of information on the original components, and attempting to substitute better quality parts.Home Theater/2 Channel:
Front: SDA-2ATL forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/143984/my-2as-finally-finished-almost/p1
Center: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/150760/my-center-channel-project/p1
Surrounds & Rears: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/151647/my-surround-project/p1
Sonicaps, Mills, RDO-194s-198s, Dynamat, Hurricane Nuts, Blackhole5
Pioneer Elite VSX-72TXV, Carver PM-600, SVS PB2-Plus Subwoofer
dhsspeakerservice.com/ -
Lesson one. Don't expect the internet to support your crazy off the wall idea especially if it flies in the face of long established convention.
Lesson two. If you are going to ask the internet anyway, expect to be rediculed and told it will never work.
Lesson three. Ignore the internet and just do it. Follow your idea. But keep in mind, Only you will know if it works or not, and you will never convince anyone even if it does.Up
LSi15 LSiC - RX-V3000
Down
LSiM707 - 706c - 702f/x - Dual HSU VTF-15H Mk2
Parasound HCA-3500 - HCA-2003A - Marantz SR7005
Sim2 D60 - Dragonfly 106" Panny 500 -
all I wanted to know is how to add or wire two more tweeters into the tweeter array like for tweeter 5 use this cap and coil but no one has stepped up ! to tell me .look I am 50 years old my hearing not the best all I am trying to do is building my dream speakers I care less if there not to everyone like or sound but I do care about building them right (giving it my best shot) for my ears and listing taste the speaker to me that sounded good were the speakerlab 7 here are my crossovers boards so far that I have designed
-
-
Try the forum at Parts Express. There's lots of experimenters on there. Maybe someone there will have the answer to your question.
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/forumdisplay.php?2-Tech-Talk-Forum -
-
here is the wiring for the 1.2TL
-
I doubt anyone here will "step up" and design it for you. You don't fix what isn't broken. As others have pointed out, a lot of very smart engineers worked on the SDAs. There's no secret formula for simply adding more tweeters to the progressive point source array that Polk designed. On the woofer side, you can't just add two more. They're wired in a series/parallel configuration to maintain the 4 and 8 ohm nominal impedance seen by the crossover. The next step up would not be six drivers, it would be nine. If it were me, I'd just buy a pair of 1.2TLs and rebuild them with the best quality replacement components I could afford.Home Theater/2 Channel:
Front: SDA-2ATL forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/143984/my-2as-finally-finished-almost/p1
Center: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/150760/my-center-channel-project/p1
Surrounds & Rears: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/151647/my-surround-project/p1
Sonicaps, Mills, RDO-194s-198s, Dynamat, Hurricane Nuts, Blackhole5
Pioneer Elite VSX-72TXV, Carver PM-600, SVS PB2-Plus Subwoofer
dhsspeakerservice.com/ -
Why not take the easy way (like I did) if you want to try the extra driver path? Pick up a pair of crs's and stack them on top of your 1.2tl's. You'll be able to play around with placement on the crs's (forward, backward or pointed towards the sides for a bigger sda effect). Then you'll also know firsthand what a bad idea this is.
-
He want's to add four more woofers and two tweeters. A pair of 1Cs, inverted, sitting on top, would be a better disaster. At least the drivers would line up.motorstereo wrote: »Why not take the easy way (like I did) if you want to try the extra driver path? Pick up a pair of crs's and stack them on top of your 1.2tl's. You'll be able to play around with placement on the crs's (forward, backward or pointed towards the sides for a bigger sda effect). Then you'll also know firsthand what a bad idea this is.Home Theater/2 Channel:
Front: SDA-2ATL forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/143984/my-2as-finally-finished-almost/p1
Center: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/150760/my-center-channel-project/p1
Surrounds & Rears: Custom Built forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/151647/my-surround-project/p1
Sonicaps, Mills, RDO-194s-198s, Dynamat, Hurricane Nuts, Blackhole5
Pioneer Elite VSX-72TXV, Carver PM-600, SVS PB2-Plus Subwoofer
dhsspeakerservice.com/ -
I think this project should stay inside Photoshop until all the bugs are worked out, which is going to take a long, long time. That way it will be much easier to make changes to your design and you can add as many drivers as you want. When you want to try it out to see how it sounds, all you have to do is play your favorite CD thru your computer speakers. For computer speakers I recommend a pair of Polk 1.2TLs that have been upgraded with the best components you can get.
- SDA 2BTL · Sonicaps · Mills resistors · RDO-198s · New gaskets · H-nuts · Erse inductors · BH5 · Dynamat
- Crossover upgrades by westmassguy
- Marantz 1504 AVR (front speaker pre-outs to Adcom 555)
- Adcom GFA-555 amp · Upgrades & speaker protection added by OldmanSRS
- Pioneer DV-610AV DVD/CD player
- SDA CRS+ · Hidden away in the closet
- SDA 2BTL · Sonicaps · Mills resistors · RDO-198s · New gaskets · H-nuts · Erse inductors · BH5 · Dynamat
-
thanks for every ones input its like talking to a bunch of polk sda groupies I am going to build them l already have all the parts and I will figure out my own crossover points besides yes i could go on ebay right now and buy some 1.2TL or build a set with all sda hand book upgrades with the parts I have but and that's a big but i will just have the same speakers every one has and what the fun it that ? as they say to each there own Rod Grant
-
Look club maybe it's not a bunch of "sda groupies" hating on you. Maybe you just don't want to hear the correct advice that 90% of the replies here have given you. If you want to build your own speakers that's great! There are entire websites and forums dedicated to that. Some very smart people even have kits designed that you can buy and build your own. But do not sit there and delude yourself into thinking you are doing anything besides mutilating a fantastic set of speakers. It will not sound better. It will ruin your 1.2's.
