SDA CRS+ vs LSi9 - What are your thoughts?

Bigerik

Hi Folks.
Just wondering what others have thought when they have made the comparison. I've got both right now, and even though my SDA's are all original (unmoved and no upgrades) they still beat the LSi9's resoundingly. Just a layer of mud in the sound that the SDA's don't have. I really want the LSi9's to be better, because they fit my room much better then the SDA's. But they just..... aren't.

Are things just not working in my system, or is this what others have found too?

agfrost

What are you driving them with?

Bigerik

I've tried three different amps. Sony 808ES, Moscode 300 and a Citation 22. All restored. All strong amps.

Bigerik

And the SDA's are unmodded, not unmoved. Gotta love autocorrect!

Polkie2009

They are like two different animals and I can see why the SDA CRS's sounded stronger. Let me tell you, that Citation 22 is no__ slouch of a amp. I had a Citation 19 back in 1982 that I ran ESS AMT-1B speakers for a couple of years til 1987 when I bought some SDA/SRS2 p/b . That 19 ran those polks fine too. By the way, what size room are you working with there Bigrik?

F1nut

I haven't heard both in the same room, but have heard both plenty of times. The CRS+ is the better speaker. It's also a bit easier to drive as the LSi9's are 4 ohm.

That said, the mud you are hearing could be due to the laid back nature of the LSi9 ring tweeter verses the ear bleeding SL2000 in the CRS+.

Bigerik

Polkie2009 wrote: »

They are like two different animals and I can see why the SDA CRS's sounded stronger. Let me tell you, that Citation 22 is no__ slouch of a amp. I had a Citation 19 back in 1982 that I ran ESS AMT-1B speakers for a couple of years til 1987 when I bought some SDA/SRS2 p/b . That 19 ran those polks fine too. By the way, what size room are you working with there Bigrik?

Thanks for the info.

I'm running in a too small for SDA's 8x12 foot room, with the SDA's on the 8 foot wall.

Bigerik

F1nut wrote: »

I haven't heard both in the same room, but have heard both plenty of times. The CRS+ is the better speaker. It's also a bit easier to drive as the LSi9's are 4 ohm.

That said, the mud you are hearing could be due to the laid back nature of the LSi9 ring tweeter verses the ear bleeding SL2000 in the CRS+.

No, the ear bleeding is there and accounted for in the SDA's. I have a pair of RDO-198's sitting in the same room, along with all the required crossover mods.

It's more the just that difference though. All through the range the clarity and magic isn't there. Isn't that a lot of what the Castle mods are supposed to fix?

F1nut

Isn't that a lot of what the Castle mods are supposed to fix?

Yes indeed.

Bigerik

F1nut wrote: »

Isn't that a lot of what the Castle mods are supposed to fix?

Yes indeed.

So, in your opinion, does it?

F1nut

Personally, I couldn't say as I haven't heard the modded version, but by all accounts it does.

Bigerik

Thanks Jesse.
Just curious.

Toolfan66

I have had both in my room, and I have no desire to own the LSi9's..

I do own the CRS+

Bigerik

Toolfan66 wrote: »

I have had both in my room, and I have no desire to own the LSi9's..

I do own the CRS+

I'm curious what you heard when you compared the two. Would you mind sharing your thoughts?

Bigerik

BTW, anyone done the same comparo with modded LSi9's?

Bigerik

DSkip wrote: »

Your observations are pretty spot on.

Thanks!

Bigerik

Any other thoughts?

tonyb

Could just be you prefer one speakers presentation over the other, nuthin' wrong with that. The LSI line in general is a departure from the classic Polk sound and more so an entry into the classic British sound....but not quite. May require different gear to get the most out of the LSI's.

In any event, we all like what we like so pick the one that blows your sack back the furthest and rock on.

erniejade

Maybe SLIM 703 for the smaller size might be more of what your looking for?

Bigerik

tonyb wrote: »

Could just be you prefer one speakers presentation over the other, nuthin' wrong with that. The LSI line in general is a departure from the classic Polk sound and more so an entry into the classic British sound....but not quite. May require different gear to get the most out of the LSI's.

In any event, we all like what we like so pick the one that blows your sack back the furthest and rock on.

Not that much of a presentation thing. I'm a big spendor fan also, and they don't have the layer of mud I'm hearing in the LSi9's. I'm just getting mess music through them, and I'm curious as to why.

erniejade

Dyslexia strikes again!

tonyb

Bigerik wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Could just be you prefer one speakers presentation over the other, nuthin' wrong with that. The LSI line in general is a departure from the classic Polk sound and more so an entry into the classic British sound....but not quite. May require different gear to get the most out of the LSI's.

In any event, we all like what we like so pick the one that blows your sack back the furthest and rock on.

Not that much of a presentation thing. I'm a big spendor fan also, and they don't have the layer of mud I'm hearing in the LSi9's. I'm just getting mess music through them, and I'm curious as to why.

Layering of mud is not an associated characteristic of those 9's. Check to see all your connections are correct. If your using bare wire, make sure none of the plastic is caught inside any connecting posts on the speaker side or amp side.

Polkie2009

+1 on what Tony mentioned. I've got a pair of these speakers and I can't say they sound muddy. Maybe if you could be more specific in what muddy sounding is to you. As F1 mentioned earlier, the SDA/CRS's have the SL2000 tweets that can be a bit bright. This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask, do you have the jumpers in place on the LSi9's? Sorry had to ask,lol.

Bigerik

tonyb wrote: »

Bigerik wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Could just be you prefer one speakers presentation over the other, nuthin' wrong with that. The LSI line in general is a departure from the classic Polk sound and more so an entry into the classic British sound....but not quite. May require different gear to get the most out of the LSI's.

In any event, we all like what we like so pick the one that blows your sack back the furthest and rock on.

Not that much of a presentation thing. I'm a big spendor fan also, and they don't have the layer of mud I'm hearing in the LSi9's. I'm just getting mess music through them, and I'm curious as to why.

Layering of mud is not an associated characteristic of those 9's. Check to see all your connections are correct. If your using bare wire, make sure none of the plastic is caught inside any connecting posts on the speaker side or amp side.

Good thought!

I had been using bare wire, then switched to banana plugs. I never torqued down the binding posts correctly. So I tightened them down, and I'll be damned if they don't sound better.

Thanks for getting me thinking down that path.

DarqueKnight

Bigerik wrote: »

BTW, anyone done the same comparo with modded LSi9's?

Yes, I have modified LSi9s, which I use as dual center channel speakers in my home theater system and I have modified CRS+s, which I use in my two channel system at work.

I have also compared unmodded LSi9s to unmodded CRS+s. Whether modded or unmodded, the CRS+s always beat the LSI9s. Even though my LSi9 mods resulted in a night and day improvement in sound quality, the modded CRS+s were better in every respect.

I tried a pair of LSi9s in my home office, but the CRS+s were better.
I tried a pair of LSi9s in my office at work, but the CRS+s were better.
I previously used a pair of CRS+s as dual centers in my home theater. They were better than the LSi9s in that application, but I use the LSi9s because they fit into my home theater equipment cabinet.

A report on my LSi9 mods is here:

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/72273/lsi9-crossover-modification-project/p1

Reports on my CRS+ mods are here:

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/111976/crs-1989-version-pcb-xover-and-sda-inductor-upgrade

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/157041/cardas-internal-wire-upgrade-for-the-sda-crs-1989-version

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/104384/driver-and-passive-radiator-rings-for-the-sda-crs

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/46489/4-1tl-modification-for-1989-version-sda-crs/p1

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/105441/sda-tweeter-brackets-for-sda-srs-1-2tl-sda-srs-and-sda-crs/p1

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/comment/2158451#Comment_2158451

leftwinger57

Sorry can't help w/ the comparison of these speakers but, I do know what Polkie was talking about. Just about my favorite speaker of the mid/late '70s were ESS HEIL AMT 1a. They have have a slightly more pyramid look to them as the AMT-b and both have have a huge footprint. Both had a 12'' passive in the rear and a 12" spkr front facing w/ the famous Heil radiator tweeter. My friend paired them w/ A McIntosh 2105, C-28 pre, Dual 29 tt combo...


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pair-Of-ESS-amt-1a-Heil-Air-Motion-Transformer-Loud-Speaker-System-SRB-/291573825011?hash=item43e3277df3:g:7xIAAOSw9r1WAyWq

Rex81

Thanks for this comparison. I was just wondering about this the other day.

Mikey081057

I have modded LSi9's and a Pair of SDA SRS 2.3 (modded) and here are my impressions.

1. Actually the LSi9's require more quality amplification. The 2.3's can sound fine on 50 tube watts. The 9's imho need 150-200 watts a 4 ohms . They sounded great on the Parasound A21, but really came alive with the Peachtree Nova 125 SE. I might recommend a class D with a tube pre with a decent pair of tubes to smooth down the class d. The 9's are not going to reach their potential on a receiver or AVR. If you can feed them these babies will roar.

2.The LSi9's sure beat any sda in WAF. A solid quality pair of weighted stands is a must for the 9's and you cannot plop them on a cabinet or bookshelf and expect to have them perform to their potential. I know it sounds silly but make sure you have the left on the left and the right on the right and have them at the correct height as well... the tweets on the 9's need to be at ear level. Towing them in to the listening position and getting them placed correctly is critical.

3. I think the 9's bass was better than my original non modded LSIM 703's and I am probably not the only one who shares that opinion. After Trey modded the M's that issue was better but still the 9's bass was less extended and had more accurate slam.

4. I don't think comparing sound stages between and SDA to a bookshelf speaker is fair so I wont even go there...

5. The 9's cannot and weren't designed to dig as deep as the CRS. but a moderate sub sized and tuned correctly would make a world of difference. The CRS has passives so the 9's cannot produce that low but a sub would be the equalizer and really round out the bass. On the 9's I never found the bass to be muddy. I found it to be boomy when they were at low volume or underpowered.

These are MY impressions YMMV!

boston1450

# 2 ^^^^^^^ that wasnt so silly. I thank you. I wasnt aware Lsi's have a left & right. When i got my 7's recently i took covers off 1 at a time & never noticed difference. When i got home i looked & my Lsi7's were wrong. I see the ports are different now. Thank you for being silly i have them hooked to a Carver 150wpc receiver & the bass is adjusted to 11:00 just right IMO.Although i did add a small sub (action movies)-i really didnt need it. Wife does like them over the crs+'s in mid size bedroom

tonyb

raginglunatic wrote: »

I've heard lsi9 but they were powered by weak 5.1 receiver. tweeters sounded very foggy

That's because they were underpowered, no entry level/mid level receiver will power 4 ohm speakers to their full potential.

The LSI sound in general is a tad more laid back than say the RTI series. The LSIM series is a better balance between the 2 lines.