Would you buy new, slim, SDA speakers?

PolkWannabie

DJ,

Don't get me wrong ... I enjoy HT as much as the next guy and there is equipment in the same rack for 2 Channel. However, in my case it's not my primary 2 channel listening environment as my HT happens to be in a family room which is pretty good size as opposed to a dedicated room elsewhere and as a result needs to serve multiple purposes. The 2 channel areas serve as listening areas for one or at most two listeners at a time.

madmax

Originally posted by disneyjoe7
I came with strong idea's some good, some bad.

You all have made very strong points here. So I will say I'm only human, and man enough to admit I was wrong.

We are always right, didn't you know that?

madmax

tonyv1

Back in the 1980's, Audio magazine did an article on the SDA effect authored by Matt Polk. I remember a schematic that showed the cross-talk cancellation effects. I built a prototype and tested it on my stereo at the time and it worked just like the Sonic Holography. I hooked it up to function generator at work and looked at the output on an oscope. You could see the summed signal superimposed when the circuit was active. If and when I found a copy of the schematic, I'll post it.

Tour2ma

Since the mid-80's the CPI has risen about 74%, so in constant dollar terms, if SDA's were reborn this year the TOTL would be in the $4500 area. Enough to make more than a few here double check their wallets.

But of course there are some apples and oranges mixed together here. It'd be interesting to see how much the overseas production move and improved manufacturing processes would do to impact this cost.

VR3

Originally posted by madmax
That is a pretty bold statement there MX. I assume you have data to back it up? Just for the record I think you are totally wrong. SDA's will be made again someday!

Actually I do.

Chuck...

You were in the room when the above was said. It came from a Polk Audio employee. :rolleyes:

Not exact words...

"Most people in the market want small speakers, that dosnt take up 25% of their den. When people walk in places like Circuit City they are not looking to spend 2-3 grand on huge speakers. They want small bose cubes that they can hang from the ceiling!"

That is an indirect quote, basically in my words, but basically what I remember them saying. I agree though, they will come back. I just can't see the price anything close to my price range. What yalls price range is, I dont know. But mine isnt that high Which is what I meant from the get go........

VR3

Originally posted by ken brydson
I already tried to go there. He thinks we all a bunch 'o po folks

no, but if you have never heard the 1.2, it compares to speakers at 90,000 now (IMO). New. There isnt much improvement to do to the 1.2 (IMO). Just my opinion, that speaker is one of my favorites

BTW, if yall are loaded......I'll give you my address. I accept money order.

madmax

Well you wouldn't mind paying $4500 for it new today then would you?
madmax

VR3

Yes, because I'd just buy it on EBay

If they could truly release a new 1.2 type speaker for 4,500 they would have. The SRT cost 7 grand a pair. Not exactly 4,500.

PolkWannabie

The SRT's have other significant parts to them including

Powered Sub's
External Controls

And at least in some configurations ...

An Excellent Center
A decent pair of surrounds

VR3

The center and surrounds are extra, for the system it is like 9 grand!

The powered subs, I could do without. The PR design and new Polk midbasses would make killer bass. A internal SDA crossover would be fine by me as well.

4 Tweeters are a must.....

disneyjoe7

Ok, I'm interested.

Originally posted by tonyv1
Back in the 1980's, Audio magazine did an article on the SDA effect authored by Matt Polk. I remember a schematic that showed the cross-talk cancellation effects. I built a prototype and tested it on my stereo at the time and it worked just like the Sonic Holography. I hooked it up to function generator at work and looked at the output on an oscope. You could see the summed signal superimposed when the circuit was active. If and when I found a copy of the schematic, I'll post it.

PolkWannabie

4 Tweeters are a must.....

Ok I'll bite and I could probably supply my own answer, but I'm interested in yours here ...

ken brydson

Originally posted by PolkWannabie
Ok I'll bite and I could probably supply my own answer, but I'm interested in yours here ...

Bad idea :rolleyes:

PolkWannabie

It's always good to at least HEAR the opinions of others ... one of course is then free to dismiss them at will. As in "4 tweeters are better than one because then I can play it at 120 db w/o fear of them blowing their guts out" ... oops that's already been proven wrong so that's obviously not the explanation ...

VR3

Well, We have 1 tweeter. Right? Science says, 1 tweeter is as good as 4. I run 2 tweeters in my main setup here, and I can bet my entire system that when I turn off one or the other speaker you will hear a loss in highs and mids. Greatly.

This is also so with the 1.2. The 4 tweeters offer dynamics that one tweeter cant provide. 8 Tweeters can move more air than two, and also. Maybe this is common sense to me, and not to a speaker, but if I make a crossover that is designed to send a certain signal to each tweeter (like the SDA), instead of the entire signal to one, that all 4 tweeters will play cleaner, and more detailed than just one. That is my insight. That is one reason why I like the SDAs' so much. Multiple tweets and midbasses.

You may not agree with me here, but I havn't heard a speaker with 2 tweets that can provide the same dynamics as 8

You guys also dont understand the fact I didnt even blow the SDA tweets. I dont even listen to music over 102db. If I do it is rarely.

Also while I'm at it.....

I'd like to have a speaker with 16 midbasses, 2 PRs, and 8 tweets per side.....now that is my kinda speaker!

VR3

MUAHAHAHHAHA!

NOW THATS*** MY *** KINDA SPEAKER!

Tour2ma

There you go PW...

madmax

Great answer! However I disagree slightly. They originally used 1,2,3 and 4 tweeters to match the output of the midbass drivers so in essence, they did do it so YOU wouldn't blow them out. In your particular case though I would recommend 20 or 30.

One other point is that they offered models which ranged from around $1000 to $3400. I think today they would probably start with one model but eventually offer models from maybe $1200 to $4500.

I would be interested in something between $2500 to $4500 if offered. Maybe even more if they really outclassed the 1.2's.

madmax

VR3

I already know the response, some science mess proving 1 tweeter is the same as 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 tweeters.

Hearing is hearing, reading is reading. You hear, I hear, what I hear is not nessicarily what you hear. Me..

I like huge arse speakers with ALOT of drivers......if it were up to me, I'd stack the 1.2!

Yeah, I understand the logic of the SDA *barely*. But I can tell ya, I like the sound of multiple tweets working together...

Chuck,
You know you sit there looking at them drivers thinking *DAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG*

You go in tweeter and you see these little 3 driver speakers and just laugh, go home, pull off them 1.2 grills, and smerk ear to ear! You know you do!

djreef

Hell,

If Matt lit up a new SDA line I'd drop $4500 in a flash. Even in my deprived econ state. What about us who use our HT rigs for 2 channel. You know that is doable!!!!!!!

You use SDA's for your mains Lsi's/Rti's for everything else. Have the mains amped up separately using the preamp outputs from the head unit. Bang! 2 channel/HT hybrid system. Saves the space/$ of a dedicated listening room.

DJ
= 8-->{I>

polktycoon

I don't see why Polk couldn't release an updated Sda-CRS. These effectively have the same sound as the 1.2's. Or so Madmax says. they are small enough that even todays buyer would probably consider buying a pair as long as they were reasonable priced. I currently use my pair for mainly HT, but I also use them for 2 channel.

Tour2ma

Originally posted by polktycoon
... Sda-CRS... effectively have the same sound as the 1.2's. Or so Madmax says.

The CRS's are good, surprisingly good in fact, but let's not get too carried away.

VR3

I can imagine the CRS holding similar traits, but you cant take two 2 woofs, 2 tweets, 10 inch pr and replace 4 tweets and 8 woofs and a 15 inch PR. Know what I mean?

Granted, I'd love just to own the CRS, but I would like to have some towers...with unlimited amounts of drivers

madmax

Originally posted by Tour2ma
The CRS's are good, surprisingly good in fact, but let's not get too carried away.

Side by side tests proved otherwise.

SDA-SRS powered with two Carver Silver9t monoblocks in a 12X18' room (with some odd shapes cut out in the back of my livingroom) with the speakers set up for optimum sound quality in a triangle with the seating. All impressions were gathered from the sweet spot. The SDA cable was attached obviously. The source was a Luxman tube CD player with volume control, no preamp. Interconnects were of decent quality but not a well known brand and the speaker cable was Audioquest type IV. The components were powered through My LCR2400 tripplite power conditioners.

This had been my normal setup for approximately six months and I had a LOT of listening time on it so I knew very well what to expect from several demo CD's.

For comparison purposes I was able to set the CRS+ on their original stands on the outside of the SDA-CRS. They had to be slightly forward of the SDA-SRS to achieve the proper imaging. They were alligned using a string to insure they were straight (just as I did with the SDA-SRS). I determined that they were in the proper position for my room. Luckily they wanted to be further apart than the SDA-SRS which made it nice that I didn't have to mess with moving the big boys around. At the time I had a home made sub with two 12" drivers which I powered with a Soundcraftsmen 350 watt amp and used an AudioControl bass equalizer which allowed me to tune the low bass to sound just like the SDA-SRS except that it was not quite as quick. This was only a minor difference so I decided to continue. I shut the system down, went to bed and dreamed of polk all night.

Here is the CRS experience:

The next evening I powered up the system and let everything warm up for a bit. I started with the CRS+. Immediatly I noticed the bass seemed a little detached from the rest of the sound. I moved the sub further back a little and fixed that problem. Listening to several songs off of different CD's I could not tell the difference between the CRS+ sound and what I was used to with the SDA-SRS. I kept looking at both sets of speakers and truthfully though I could not tell which ones were playing. I spent several weeks with this as my setup.

It is time!

One evening I turned the CRS+ system on and played through several songs and enjoyed myself for about an hour. I decided it was time to switch the speaker wires back to the big boys. (Obviously I turned off the sub as well)

Time to compare!

When the SDA-SRS started playing there were some very small differences.
*The lower midbass was a little more full sounding. Not much but definatly noticeable.
*The bass sounded more detailed on the really low end stuff but pretty much the same on most material.
*The power meters on the Carvers showed me that I was using less power to achieve the same sound level.
*Everything from the lower mid-bass on up sounded the same.
*The imaging was the same.
*Once again I couldn't tell which were playing while sitting there looking and listening.


Conclusion?
*They both can sound the same except the lower mid-bass and low bass if set up properly.
*With the CRS+ the low bass can be compensated for with a tuneable sub.
*The CRS+ will not work in as large of a room as the SDA-SRS. (because of the higher power consumtion for the same volume level given the lower power rating of the CRS+.
*The lower mid-bass of the SDA-SRS has a slightly fuller sound than the CRS+.

madmax

Tour2ma

So your point is they are exactly the same except for:
- the bass
- the mid-bass
- the efficiency

I can see why you'd contest my statement...

rskarvan

I love my CRS+'s. Wonderful speaker. They image far better than my 3.1TL's.

Once, I compared the 3.1TL with the 2.3TL and 1.2TL. This was done in a botique stereo shop when they were all new models. The 2.3TL was just a little less than the 1.2TL. Likewise, the 3.1TL was just a little less than the 2.3TL. All three speakers had exactly the same timbre. The real noticable difference was the low end extension. All three speakers sounded much more the same than different. It was because of the similarities that I elected to purchase the 3.1TL as the "most bang for my buck". The 1.2TL's definitely sounded better. But, only about 20% better. All the SRS-SDA TL's are wonderful choices.

PolkWannabie

I'd be interested in whatever comments you have regarding the differences between the 1.2 TL's, the 1.2 NON TL's and the SRS's.

madmax

Originally posted by Tour2ma
So your point is they are exactly the same except for:
- the bass
- the mid-bass
- the efficiency

I can see why you'd contest my statement...

Three differences out of hundreds of parameters aint bad. I believe it was the lower bass, the lower mid-bass and the efficiency that was different...

madmax

djreef

Well crap,

that's close enough for me. Let's get that mock-up started. Where's the re-design team!!! I'm ready to drop some cash on a redesigned pair of CRS's.

DJ