Does anyone actually dislike SDA?

villian

I want to know why! What did you hear that your ears weren't so fond of?

audiocr381ve

I really enjoyed my SDA's but here's what I was not fond of. I never liked the mid bass much. To me it felt soft & lacked definition. One other member agreed with me on this but him and I are in the minority. I owned SDA-2BTL's and CRS+'s, both fully modded. Also, I always felt like the RD0-194, and RD0-198 tweeters lacked extension compared to other speakers that came through my rig.

I'd love to hear some of the highly modded big boys like DarqueKnight's SDA's. I have a feeling I'd change my mind about the mid bass in those systems heh.

mhardy6647

I don't actively dislike them -- but I prefer the smaller, simpler Polk loudspeakers of their early "Monitor Series". De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Deleted User]

I've been told by a couple of people who had them and gotten
rid of them that they move around to much and didn't like the
sound moving out of the sweet spot. FWIW.

[Deleted User]

"De gustibus non est disputandum" this saying has helped
me a lot mhardy. Now about those speakers you have

mantis

I don't prefer them. I had the SDA-2b's and thought when I purchased the brand new at the time RT1000p's , they out performed them in every way. The 2b's before I owned the RT1000p's I actually liked a lot. But you don't know until you compare side by side.
Not many on this forum dislike SDA , it's not that I don't like the way they sound , I've heard the bigger models sound wonderful. I just prefer a different style of sound.

smglbrth

The only thing I really don't like about them is placement. Yes, they have to placed, and spaced, correctly or they don't sound any better than anything else. Maybe worse than some other speakers. Plus you absolutely have to be in the sweet spot. Of course you need the "room" as well. Most don't have the room flexibility SDA's need. IMHO SDA's need all the above or the point of owning them is moot. This is the reason I like the smaller SDA's, easier to work with.

Right now I have the room and space but I have other speakers should I "not" have either in the future...

boston1450

Oh i love my SDA's

motorhead43026

Me too, like mine!

cnh

SDAs require a LOT more WORK than almost anything else I've owned. Everyone here MODS them so they are almost never running STOCK SDAs-which is a tad disingenuous. And the space requirements are very tight so that most of us who live in really OLD houses have trouble finding that one WALL with at least 14' of uninterrupted space. They sound fine, but all this other stuff means that mine are never doing constant duty, they're in a rotation and spend most of their time in the closet.

If I had a bigger space that would be different. So I have an ambivalent relationship with them. And the wife? Well that's another story that also keeps them in storage most of the time. lol

Moose68Bash

DSkip wrote: »

The SDA technology is great. However, I feel for some music it becomes gimmicky. The problem is the music is not recorded to optimize the SDA effect, therefore some instruments, such as pianos, become much larger than they would be in real life.

DSkip,

Great comment. I've noticed that my SDA SRS1.2tls, heavily mod'd, often make a piano appear to cover the entire soundstage. Not on all recordings, but some.

I'd never really been able to put my finger n the phenomenon, but you did ti for me.

Thank you.

tonyb

Don't dislike them, they are what they are and they sound good too. Until you get some ears on a bunch of stuff though, the SDA sound to me anyway sounds a tad clouded and dated.

If all you've heard is SDA's or similar, I can see where some are just happy campers and want to stay where they are at. Nuthin' wrong with that either, what ever floats your boat and curls your sack.

motorhead43026

So that is what's wrong with my sack.

BlueFox

What I disliked, and started me on other speakers, is cosmetic. The darn side panels on my SDA-2s warped off, and the cloth came off. I tried to glue them back on, but the warping was too severe, and once the cloth came off my patience expired. I replaced them with PSB Synschrony One speakers, and was very happy with that improvement in sound. Also, proper placement is difficult in my current home.

tonyb

motorhead43026 wrote: »

So that is what's wrong with my sack.

See what wearing skinny jeans will do to ya...

Herk

If the sda srs where a women id habe sex with her every night in every position lol. I might not have a phd in hi fi. So im not gonna be o this is better then that. They sound great, they look great, their used prices are great. Their is always something better no matter what hobby we have. Today speakers have years of techonlogy in em. But todays speaker is the size of walnut. Im old fashion go big or go home.

villian

I haven't tried any of the actual SDA models, but my SRTs sound soft, and lose definition in the 2khz and above range when running in SDA mode. I am just trying it for the first time, so of course there's a ton of small things and adjustments to be made.. But my first impression was that while my Soundstage definitely improved.. Widened and had more depth, the clarity and overall brightness was reduced noticeably. I think for movies this is no big deal, but for music it bugs me a little. I have a fully treated theater room, but I also do not have anywhere near the room or wall space that the SRTs or any SDAs demand to truly hear them at their finest. Hence I'm still interested in SDA and won't discredit it one bit.. It's just that it's not very impressive in my current setup. I mean.. 140dbs of SDA audio is impressive either way.. But I think you guys understand what I'm getting at?

F1nut

Reduced brightness is a God send. That's one of the things I hate about a good deal of todays speakers, ultra detailed ear piercing highs at the cost of musicality. Live music doesn't sound like that. Speaking of musicality, that is the SDA strong suit. I've yet to hear a speaker that does it better.

voltz

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I don't actively dislike them -- but I prefer the smaller, simpler Polk loudspeakers of their early "Monitor Series". De gustibus non est disputandum.

but In matters of taste, there can be no disputes!

heiney9

villian wrote: »

I want to know why! What did you hear that your ears weren't so fond of?

I think part of the problem for some, is that it can be a big departure from the typical "stereo" sound people are used to. When in fact SDA's recreate the source material more realistically in most instances than a left and right stereo signal or artificial digital processing (surround sound)

The concept is based upon a real aural phenomenon and it attempts to mitigate said phenomenon by acoustic means.

It's not trickery or unnatural, it's much more how you hear sound in everyday life.

But, if you are used to over processed 7 channel digital manipulation or a typical left and right stereo speaker, SDA's can sound quite out of the norm and I think people rail against them thinking they are a foreign sound, when in fact they are closer to natural sound than most set-ups.

Of course they are highly sensitive to source material and the recording process.

Live music playback, I have yet to hear a system, surround sound or not, that compares to the realism.

Check out the Cowboy Junkies Live DVD in Long Journey Home release on SDA's, freaking religious experience on SDA's. Like you are in the 2nd or 3rd row.

H9

Mikey081057

Having to move mine twice i dislike the weight. But they sound great.

F1nut

^ Well stated Brock ^

heiney9

cnh wrote: »

SDAs require a LOT more WORK than almost anything else I've owned. Everyone here MODS them so they are almost never running STOCK SDAs-which is a tad disingenuous. And the space requirements are very tight so that most of us who live in really OLD houses have trouble finding that one WALL with at least 14' of uninterrupted space. They sound fine, but all this other stuff means that mine are never doing constant duty, they're in a rotation and spend most of their time in the closet.

If I had a bigger space that would be different. So I have an ambivalent relationship with them. And the wife? Well that's another story that also keeps them in storage most of the time. lol

Stock SDA's have old, worn parts in the x-over. It's only logical to replace with updated caps and resistors.

PolkieMan

I've tried to go listen to quite a few newer designs. I'm not impressed, most of them sound shrill to me or lacking in the powerful lower end. These have been with me 25 years. I'm sure there is something out there for a whole lots of money but I just couldn't part with them and have another payment or bill.

Conradicles

I like em.

warren

My stock 2.3' are on a dedicated 30' wall couldn't be happier, they do what they were designed to do.. Make the music sound like the artist meant it to be, beautiful!!

Nightfall

I remember my dads 2.3's sounding fantastic to me. The reason I even got into this hobby.

cnh

heiney9 wrote: »

cnh wrote: »

SDAs require a LOT more WORK than almost anything else I've owned. Everyone here MODS them so they are almost never running STOCK SDAs-which is a tad disingenuous. And the space requirements are very tight so that most of us who live in really OLD houses have trouble finding that one WALL with at least 14' of uninterrupted space. They sound fine, but all this other stuff means that mine are never doing constant duty, they're in a rotation and spend most of their time in the closet.

If I had a bigger space that would be different. So I have an ambivalent relationship with them. And the wife? Well that's another story that also keeps them in storage most of the time. lol

Stock SDA's have old, worn parts in the x-over. It's only logical to replace with updated caps and resistors.

Don't really disagree with this, just saying that the MODS people make to SDAs usually exceed the original design. The new caps and their supporting cast are leaps and bounds better than what Polk used, the Polk replacement tweeters are better than the original, the various seals, rings and internal damping used are also more than original. I'd just like to hear what an original pair without all of this-or with all original parts that were not old or depleted "actually" sounds like. I'm old enough to have heard that but, frankly, the only Polks I knew of back then were the Monitor bookies that were ubiquitous in Sam Goody stores in NYC! Didn't even know about M 5s, 7s or 10s, let alone SDAs.

I believe Sam had mini-monitors in there, but with the SL-2000 tweeter, if there was such a thing? Most pics, like the one below, have the Peerless. But now I'm just rambling off topic. Sorry about that!

westmassguy

SDAs ability to cancel interaural crosstalk is what sold me. On a well recorded track, the sound envelopes you, extending well beyond the speakers, and in some cases wraps around you. Close your eyes, and you can pinpoint, the instruments and vocals quite easily. Only one other loudspeaker system I've heard, whose name shall not be mentioned, approaches this enveloping sound.
Carver's Sonic Holography addressed interaural crosstalk cancellation electronically, and could be used with any loudspeaker system. The Sweet Spot was even narrower than SDAs unfortunately.
SDAs are unique with respect to interaural crosstalk cancelation, but in almost every other aspect, they are not. All conventional speakers require proper setup, toe-in, distance from the back wall, sidewalls, listening position, room acoustics and size are just as important with other loudspeakers as they are with SDAs. Let's not forget everything upstream either. Garbage in, Garbage out. From the source, to every component in the chain, all affect what you hear. I would venture that SDAs are far less forgiving of poorly recorded sources and other components in the chain, than many other speakers.
Just my two cents.

drumminman

When I'm listening to music in the sweet spot, I'm constantly amazed at the precision of the soundstage and the detail I hear, even on old recordings. My 2.3TL's allow instruments to have an aural spread similar to what I hear live in a good auditorium. In other words when drums are struck the sound decays naturally, same with cymbals. Piano notes and chords resonate with a rich fullness.

Funny thing is while each instrument or vocal is recreated with a full measure of the sound of that instrument, there's little congestion. Everything is clear. I suppose what this all adds up to is it enables me to listen to the emotion of the performance as much as the technical aspects of the recording. This is my favorite thing about SDA technology.

I confess that mine are heavily modded. The rig has lots of power filtering and other tweaks as well.

mhardy6647

voltz wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I don't actively dislike them -- but I prefer the smaller, simpler Polk loudspeakers of their early "Monitor Series". De gustibus non est disputandum.

but In matters of taste, there can be no disputes!

or, as it is often rendered in English (and slightly more confrontationally, I'd opine):
There's no accounting for taste

;- )

DSkip wrote: »

... I think many go for that hi-fi sound and toss musicality out the window. I've never understood that philosophy.

I think I share your bemusement in this arena -- since the dawn of the hifi hobby, there's been an undercurrent of preoccupation with "hifi" effects -- boom and sizzle, loud/big/ear-catching (and/or eye-catching). Thats' why, I'd opine, there were - and, in a somewhat more subtle way, still are - hifi recordings of steam engines, thunderstorms, pipe organs, and bongos in "ping-pong" stereo ;- )

... and then there is music.

(and, for the record, I'll cop to owning a few "hifi demonstration" recordings, old and new)