Does anyone actually dislike SDA?

gudnoyez

I love my 2.3tls I own 3 pairs of SDA'S they put a lot of my other speakers in storage, plus I sold some of the others because of them.

tonyb

DSkip wrote: »

I don't think the brightness issue is as much an issue with the speakers as it is the synergy of the system. I think many go for that hi-fi sound and toss musicality out the window. I've never understood that philosophy.

Agreed Skip, some tend to put the blame solely on the speakers themselves when things don't sound so good.

heiney9

Another great thing about them is when you move up the ladder with gear, the SDA's improve as well, atleast with mildly modded ones. Can't say that about every speaker. So even as our gear improves you don't have to worry about the SDA's being "out classed".

H9

BlueFox

mhardy6647 wrote: »

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 ;- )

Same thing applies in HT. It amazes me how many people think a good HT system demo is to make explosions.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

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 ;- )

Same thing applies in HT. It amazes me how many people think a good HT system demo is to make explosions.

That can be said for car stereo too. Sounds like arse but can hit those low notes like a cannon shot.

There's an appreciation for the rest of the musical spectrum that sometimes doesn't befall people until they age a bit. Probably why not too many youngsters are into good hi-fi sound, judging by the MP3 earbud crowd anyway.

Musicality is what I shoot for in anything I add or subtract from my system. The boom and sizzle stuff is for youngsters and those with little appreciation for good sound.

SCompRacer

I got no problem with SDA's. They are a great speaker. I was told I'd regret it after selling them, but that hasn't happened.

I quote a statement from ESP.

"Our belief is that a properly designed and configured system can be both highly accurate and musical at the same time, assuming well-recorded source material. Accuracy and musicality converge when a system sounds transparent without being hyped; when detail emerges clearly but in a relaxed, rather than spotlighted, fashion. This requires the right combination of electronics and speakers."

This is what I go for, details without exaggeration. I've heard plenty of live music. I want to hear instruments in experienced hands convey the emotion they are capable of. YMMV. Your definition of how to get there might be different than mine.

westmassguy

DSkip wrote: »

westmassguy wrote: »

I would venture that SDAs are far less forgiving of poorly recorded sources and other components in the chain, than many other speakers.

I'd actually disagree with that statement. I think SDA's are quite forgiving, especially compared to today's speakers that compete with their adjusted MSRP. Everything nowadays is built for hyper-detail where SDA's are built for musicality. I think that is why they get recommended so quickly and people are so satisfied with them regardless of the gear. New speakers take some time and energy to get them dialed in with gear appropriate for their sound signatures.

Let me put a finer point on what I meant. Recordings with poor channel separation collapse the large sound field created by the SDAs. The sound field would be no different than conventional speakers, which negates the benefits of crosstalk cancelation.

mhardy6647

BlueFox wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

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 ;- )

Same thing applies in HT. It amazes me how many people think a good HT system demo is to make explosions.

I actually was going out of my way not to throw HT under the bus ;- )
(I have zero interest in HT, even for music video, FWIW)

chefkungfu

I like them both... SDA & Stereo. Whenever I listen to my SRT's it provides a different listening experience. Whenever I want to listen in 2ch, I just go into the spare room & sit back with a cold one & enjoy!
This is the first time I've ever had the pleasure of having my ears on SDA's... I can say that I enjoy both types of sound...
Frank.

On3s&Z3r0s

I'm actually a little surprised at myself for how much I took to the SDA thing. I've gone through several brands of speakers... Polk is my favorite family of speakers overall, and the small SDAs (2BTLs) are my favorite of those overall, though I haven't spent significant time listening to the recent flagships like the LSi(m) very much.

That said, they have their strengths and weaknesses like anything else. I totally agree with what westmassguy and others have said about the wide and enveloping soundstage when in the sweetspot. It's pretty amazing, and that, plus the musicality F1 mentioned, are the two factors that keep me hooked. But, I totally also hear what others are saying about certain recordings sounding wrong on SDAs.

I've heard that "piano all around you" effect, which probably has everything to do with how the piano was mic'd and the recording mastered, but whatever the reason it doesn't sound right and SDA makes it worse. Also, on some really dense orchestral music with a lot going on my SDA rig starts to sound muddy and congested. I don't mean just trying to separate out strings in a big classical orchestra, I get it on things like Nine Inch Nails where there are 15 layers of drums and loops shifting around the stereo field. This could be a power thing, but I've swapped out the SDAs for other power thirsty conventional speakers (like Vandersteens), and that always cleans it up. Still, they get enough right, enough of the time that they are pretty much always in my 2-channel rig, even if another pair gets set next to them temporarily.

Regarding the new vs. rebuilt XO's and etc. I actually think Polk did/does a pretty good job of putting in components that make their stock speakers sound exceptional for the money when new. I've been very pleasantly surprised by a pair of RTA-8TLs that were close to new-old-stock condition. Replacing XO components and tweeters and adding damping material improved them, but it was subtle and they were very decent to begin with for their size and design. And when I bi-wired a pair of Monitor 70's that I got new on sale for $320 to a good amp I was blown away. Completely unmodified, those sound way better than any speaker in that price range has any right to. So, I don't doubt that when new the SDAs were very impressive.

motorstereo

My best friend in the audio field (recently deceased) made no bones about not liking my sda's no matter what upgrades I did. But he also made no bones about really liking the vintage Mac gear I'm using to drive them. I respect his opinion even though mine is totally opposite. I've been running sda's since 2006 and I've yet to hear anything that I like better.

On3s&Z3r0s

It's interesting that I don't think anyone has mentioned the "dimensional tweeter" thing. I guess cause Polk fixed that pretty early on. I owned a pair of the original SDA 2's with the dimensional tweeter briefly, and for sure if the SDA design hadn't advanced beyond that I'd be squarely in the SDA sounds bad camp. Definitely more recordings sounded bad than good with the side-by-side tweeters.

DarqueKnight

cnh wrote: »

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.

Actually, it is a matter of the original parts limiting the potential of the original design.
SDAs were ahead of their time with regard to the requirements for high current, low noise amplification and high quality crossover parts. Modded SDAs are much closer the original design goals than stock SDAs. It was a Polk engineer who frankly told me about parts that compromised performance and who recommended modifications to improve sound.

The basic design of my modded SDAs is the same. They are just realized with better parts and therefore exhibit better performance.

cnh wrote: »

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.

For a while I had a stock pair of SDA 1Cs and a modded pair. The difference between them was shocking. I also have three pairs of CRS+s and was able to do comparisons between a modded and a stock pair. Again, the difference was shocking.

audiocr381ve

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Actually, it is a matter of the original parts limiting the potential of the original design.

Understood, but the same can be said about a lot of speakers. Actually, most speakers. I've been following your modification threads for years and you've invested thousands into your SDA's to unlock that potential you speak of which is great. In your eyes, I'm sure it was/is worth every penny. I'm sure there is a great deal of pride in the work you've done which makes them even more valuable to you. If you're content and happy, more power to ya. Having owned three pairs of SDA's myself, I can totally relate.

If one were to quantify the time, effort, and money, that goes into unlocking the potential of SDA speakers, one could make the argument that with that same amount of effort you could find better speakers from the start without needing to modify them. But saying something like that is tricky, mostly because better sound is so subjective and how could you possibly quantify the time that went into modding a pair of SDA's unless you were some weirdo who timed it all.

leftwinger57

My 2Bs, I do love them. I got them at a desperate house wife's moving sale for $50 2013. The entire modding process had such a positive effect. If you guys remember I thought I had the most perfect stock '87 2Bs out there that I awoke from a coma. Dislikes, the critical placement no tow in/out, front firing only, 7-10' spred, room to breathe rap which while not as bad as Bose 901s is a limiting factor. My ancillary gear is enough to cleanly push them but if had the chance I would go for Vandersteen 3A Sigs or Ohm/Walsh 2XOs. Still they do rule the roost and all others go down in a sliding scale... My Polk F. Sig tells tale of the tape.

DarqueKnight

audiocr381ve wrote: »

If one were to quantify the time, effort, and money, that goes into unlocking the potential of SDA speakers, one could make the argument that with that same amount of effort you could find better speakers from the start without needing to modify them.

If you are an "imaging" and "sound staging" junkie like me, then there are no other speakers with the spatial performance of SDAs. The interaural crosstalk (comb filtering effects) inherent in the design of conventional speakers limit their imaging and sound stage performance. That is why SDA loudspeakers are truthfully "true stereo" loudspeakers. I have heard some $25,000 and $35,000 loudspeakers with excellent (but not SDA-level) sound stage proportions, but the sound stage collapsed if I moved my head 1 micro-millimeter out of the razor-thin sweet spot. The sound stage of my SDA SRS 1.2TL's does not collapse if I move my head 18 inches to either side of dead center. It also does not collapse if I turn my head 90 degrees to the left or right. The sound stage is diminished, but does not collapse, even if I stand up at the listening position.

Reference what was said in Stereophile about a $120,000 pair of Sonus faber Aidas:

"But as I had found in New York, the true magic of the Aida was only to be found if you sat exactly in the sweet spot, when the speakers disappeared and the end of the room dissolved into the recorded acoustic."

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-aida#mx6VIxvSaFxIzcxQ.99

audiocr381ve wrote: »

But saying something like that is tricky, mostly because better sound is so subjective and how could you possibly quantify the time that went into modding a pair of SDA's unless you were some weirdo who timed it all.

That weirdo would be me...

...but I see nothing weird about documenting the time required for a modification. In my mod reviews, I usually mention the time investment required. I always record the time I start working and the time I stop during a mod session. The total mod time for my 1.2TL's was 156.5 hours. At a reasonable electronics repair bench rate of $25/hour, the retail value of that mod labor is $3,912.50. I have spent $7,884.42 in parts. Therefore, my total modification investment is $11,796.92. When the cost of the speakers is added, my total investment exceeds $15,000.

So why not just buy a pair of $15,000 loudspeakers? The simple answer is that my modded SDA's have outperformed all of the $15,000, $20,000, $25,000, and $35,000 loudspeakers I have auditioned. Those speakers usually did one or two things better than the SDAs, but they all were deficient in sound stage properties and most were deficient in bass performance.

Toolfan66

I love'em, So glad I bought my RTiA9's when I did and joined the club, had I not I still wouldn't know what a SDA is..

motorhead43026

My SDA's give me eargasms. Let It Bleed 2002 remaster sounded fabulous last night on the SDA's.

drumminman

Marcia Ball, Irma Thomas and Tracy Nelson were center stage in my living room last night. As was Bobby "Blue" Bland.

heiney9

drumminman wrote: »

Marcia Ball, Irma Thomas and Tracy Nelson were center stage in my living room last night. As was Bobby "Blue" Bland.

So were Al DiMeiola, John McLaughlin and Paco DeLucia in mine.

H9

chefkungfu

My SRT's are singing along at 99db (easily) right now & I love every minute of it!! I'm happy right now. I'll hang on to them!
Frank.

chefkungfu

I used a digital SPL meter in the listening position. Not so sure if it was done accurately or what... but that was the number displayed. It was pretty loud & what scared me, they were begging for more juice!
Just curious, have you guys out there measured your rigs in that manner, or have gone to higher levels??
I apologize for the hijack.
Frank

BlueFox

Oh yes, and much louder. Multiple times I was bouncing +/- around 110db. Unfortunately, one night I went crazy and damaged both speakers. The right speaker immediately blew the tweeter and midrange. A few months later the crossover went on the other speaker, and then a few weeks after the midrange went. Quite an expensive mistake, but everything is fine now, and I never go higher than the low 90s, max.

transchris

I recently purchased a pair of sda2a's and I am very impressed I paid 200 and they are in very good condition. ..I am running them as mains in a 7.1 system consisting of mainly emotiva amps....could anyone tell me how the rta12'scompare to the sds2a's...????

chefkungfu

BlueFox wrote: »

Oh yes, and much louder. Multiple times I was bouncing +/- around 110db. Unfortunately, one night I went crazy and damaged both speakers. The right speaker immediately blew the tweeter and midrange. A few months later the crossover went on the other speaker, and then a few weeks after the midrange went. Quite an expensive mistake, but everything is fine now, and I never go higher than the low 90s, max.

Oh lord, BlueFox!!! +/-110db???? How are your ears?? I just had mine a hair past 100db!
I'm sorry you damaged some of the components in the speaker... but I'm glad you fixed them! That's a relief!!
Next time the wife and kids are out, I'm going to push them a little bit more!

audiocr381ve

DarqueKnight wrote: »

audiocr381ve wrote: »

If one were to quantify the time, effort, and money, that goes into unlocking the potential of SDA speakers, one could make the argument that with that same amount of effort you could find better speakers from the start without needing to modify them.

If you are an "imaging" and "sound staging" junkie like me, then there are no other speakers with the spatial performance of SDAs. The interaural crosstalk (comb filtering effects) inherent in the design of conventional speakers limit their imaging and sound stage performance. That is why SDA loudspeakers are truthfully "true stereo" loudspeakers. I have heard some $25,000 and $35,000 loudspeakers with excellent (but not SDA-level) sound stage proportions, but the sound stage collapsed if I moved my head 1 micro-millimeter out of the razor-thin sweet spot. The sound stage of my SDA SRS 1.2TL's does not collapse if I move my head 18 inches to either side of dead center. It also does not collapse if I turn my head 90 degrees to the left or right. The sound stage is diminished, but does not collapse, even if I stand up at the listening position.

Reference what was said in Stereophile about a $120,000 pair of Sonus faber Aidas:

"But as I had found in New York, the true magic of the Aida was only to be found if you sat exactly in the sweet spot, when the speakers disappeared and the end of the room dissolved into the recorded acoustic."

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-aida#mx6VIxvSaFxIzcxQ.99

audiocr381ve wrote: »

But saying something like that is tricky, mostly because better sound is so subjective and how could you possibly quantify the time that went into modding a pair of SDA's unless you were some weirdo who timed it all.

That weirdo would be me...

...but I see nothing weird about documenting the time required for a modification. In my mod reviews, I usually mention the time investment required. I always record the time I start working and the time I stop during a mod session. The total mod time for my 1.2TL's was 156.5 hours. At a reasonable electronics repair bench rate of $25/hour, the retail value of that mod labor is $3,912.50. I have spent $7,884.42 in parts. Therefore, my total modification investment is $11,796.92. When the cost of the speakers is added, my total investment exceeds $15,000.

So why not just buy a pair of $15,000 loudspeakers? The simple answer is that my modded SDA's have outperformed all of the $15,000, $20,000, $25,000, and $35,000 loudspeakers I have auditioned. Those speakers usually did one or two things better than the SDAs, but they all were deficient in sound stage properties and most were deficient in bass performance.

Didn't mean to call any names! I seriously had no clue you logged time. It's actually unbelievably impressive and not weird at all. Good on you for finding a pair of speakers you love that "do it" for you. Hard to argue with that.

BlueFox

DSkip wrote: »

chefkungfu wrote: »

I'm sorry you damaged some of the components in the speaker...

Not as sorry as he was.... trust me.

So true. That was $2400 that could have been used for beer. .

DarqueKnight

audiocr381ve wrote: »

Didn't mean to call any names!

No offense taken.

It never would have occurred to me that someone would view documenting modding time as weird. People who do mod work for a living have to document their time so that they will know how much time the same, or a similar job, will take and how much labor time to quote for price estimates.

F1nut

chefkungfu wrote: »

I used a digital SPL meter in the listening position. Not so sure if it was done accurately or what... but that was the number displayed. It was pretty loud & what scared me, they were begging for more juice!
Just curious, have you guys out there measured your rigs in that manner, or have gone to higher levels??
I apologize for the hijack.
Frank

Peaking at 115dB with some bumps to 117dB. It didn't really sound that loud because the amp has gobs of current. Still, I'm not likely to do it again.

On3s&Z3r0s

Objectively, I'd say the SDA secret society would have to be considered a fringe element in the brotherhood of audio extremists. I've auditioned my SDAs for others who consider themselves audio enthusiasts. If they see the connections they ask what the extra wires are for. If I then open the cabinet containing the dreadnaught and try to explain it and SDA, it has never failed that the next words out of their mouth are, "Cool... is it worth it?" And I always have to shrug and say, "Well, define 'worth it'."

I love my SDAs when I'm sitting in the sweet spot, but I'm sure it's not an exaggeration to say I listen to them that way maybe 15% of the time. If I had to do my own accounting...
TL upgrade to 2B's = absolutely worth it
1000VA dreadnaught for a pair of 2BTLs and a common ground amp = definitely not worth it
Larry's rings (hurricane nuts a close second, which I used for tweeters before brackets) = worth it
Letting Sonic caps burn in before judging = worth it
Custom ordered inductors = worth it
Tony's boards - beautiful, so easy to work with, not needed for 2B's but glad they're now part of the package
Crazy expensive binding posts and decent quality speaker wire = worth it
Spikes = worth it
Dynamat = actually don't hear the difference but don't begrudge it
Blackhole 5 = bit of a mixed bag, but it's there now

All things considered, having a list of that length, effort, and obsessiveness or greater (which pales in comparison to many) = unequivocally weird

I think for most of us, SDAs would have to disappoint us something fierce for us to not love them after all that.