Polk Audio SDA 1.2 TL's vs Polk Audio LSiM707's

F1nut

They have a better balance from top to bottom.

PolkieMan

The 2.3tls use the same 6510 driver through out, a plus. I listened to both 1.2tls and 2.3tls when I bought mine new in 1990. Money wasn't a problem, I had $5k, spent four days, at Shefield Audio took off work during the week when they were not so busy, lugged records and cd's over there I was a real pest, didn't care! The biggest guys are more impressive with the crossover plate and extra wood sides but I could not justify them they just didn't sound better. I've listened to other speakers over the years. I like SDA speakers, and the effect, period. I bought 1C used $250 for a smaller room. As for as prices I have seen nothing but an increase have not seen 1C for $250 lately :-).

BDT

Agreed, I think that the 2.3tl was the best SDA made (YMMV). Just my experience.....I'd also say that the SRS 2 (w/tweeter upgrade) would be my second favorite.

A pair of 2.3tl's is on my list of things to re-aquire. I kick myself almost daily for letting mine go.

BDT

K_M

I am not going to state my preference on the new LsiM series or the vintage far bigger speakers, as it is mostly preference and related to room size and many factors, but I think the decision would be far easier to at least consider, if we had access to being able to hear the LsiM series at Retail locations.

Most of us know what the Vintage Polk sound is, and they were able to be heard in numerous locations, but the LsiM came at a time, when retail audio and brick and mortar stores is becoming a unicorn!

PolkieMan

No SDA, regular speakers......next!

dpowell

I've had both the 707's and SDA's in the house. I did a side by side comparison of 707s and 2.3TL's. the 707's were part of the Polk demo program and I had them for about 3 weeks. I personally would not consider buying a pair of them and will stick with the 2.3TL's. As Nooshin said, the 707's lack soul and don't have the vast sound stage that SDAs are capable of delivering. That said, they produce very natural sounding vocals which is why I selected a LSiM706C to serve in the center channel position between the SDA's.

One word of caution on the LSiM towers is that they are VERY picky about room conditions. I have heard them sound completely different when placed in different rooms of the house. While the gear you drive any speaker with is very important, the LSiM's seem particularly picky about what they are driven with and you may find that finding synergy between the speakers, room and gear is much more complex than with other speakers.

Another vote for SDA's.

K_M

s,

dpowell wrote: »

I've had both the 707's and SDA's in the house. I did a side by side comparison of 707s and 2.3TL's. the 707's were part of the Polk demo program and I had them for about 3 weeks. I personally would not consider buying a pair of them and will stick with the 2.3TL's. As Nooshin said, the 707's lack soul and don't have the vast sound stage that SDAs are capable of delivering. That said, they produce very natural sounding vocals which is why I selected a LSiM706C to serve in the center channel position between the SDA's.

One word of caution on the LSiM towers is that they are VERY picky about room conditions. I have heard them sound completely different when placed in different rooms of the house. While the gear you drive any speaker with is very important, the LSiM's seem particularly picky about what they are driven with and you may find that finding synergy between the speakers, room and gear is much more complex than with other speakers.

Another vote for SDA's.

Yes, but how much of your choice is based on simply wanting the SDA "effect"?

Is part of that also, having the 2.3 TL's for many years, and becoming used to the sound they have?

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison.
We are talking a vintage speaker with what was and is still, mass market drivers that were not truly anything special.
I mean not to bash on them, as we own some vintage Polk offerings also, but they are in reality quite average drivers, with limited excursion, stamped frames, and other issues, that many better drivers today do not have.

Would someone used to the Lsi or LsiM line feel the opposite?

Less detail, worse imaging, less clarity etc.

Does it depend a lot on what one is used to hearing first, I mean....?

F1nut

First off, who is this we you keep speaking of in just about all your posts? Secondly, you are quite mistaken about the MWxxxx drivers being nothing special. Doped paper is still one of the best cone materials available. Among others today, Sonus Faber uses them because they produce a natural sound. Then there are the very unique rubber surrounds, which have quite a large excursion. In fact, they are so unique that no one has yet to make an after market replacement and Lord knows there is a market for them.

The one thing you did get right was the apples and oranges comparison as the LSiM's don't even come close to the natural musicality of the SDA's.

afterburnt

"Doped paper" made out of blotter? They get my vote!

tonyb

A speakers worth doesn't rest on drivers alone. You can probably look at many higher end speakers today with better drivers but off the shelf cheap crossover parts too. All in all, the only thing that matters regardless if it's put together with chewing gum and paper clips is the sound coming out of them.

What used SDA's go for these days, pretty hard to get that same quality of sound in a new speaker for the same price. Not the most attractive things though, but they do sound good, as with many older speakers using mundane drivers.

You have to remember too, back in the day HT wasn't even born yet or least in their infant stages so everything was voiced for 2 channel. Todays speakers are more dynamic and upfront to accommodate HT and music.....but in that process, imho, they lost some musicality along the way. Not all mind you, but a lot. Just my .02, as this isn't the first time I've heard someone comment about Polks drivers being nothing special.

heiney9

Tony you're being rational.

H9

Nightfall

I love my "not high end" (credit to Mystery) made with "average drivers" (Credit to K_M) SDA's.

tonyb

LOL....just sayin'. Can't speak for anyone else but when I listen to a speaker, I don't listen to drivers.....well unless it's real bad and obvious. I listen to the overall sound coming out of them regardless if it's a vintage mundane paper cone, Kevlar that will stop bullets, or 2 squirrels chasing a nut on a wheel inside. Am I right or what ??

That's not to take away from the influence each driver has on the sound either, because they obviously do to some extent, depending of course. I would suggest though that if you find yourself paying too much attention to a certain driver in a speaker, it's not a very good speaker.

tonyb

rmpolk wrote: »

Isn't the capitalistic motto for a reputable company's success "Build the best product possible for the least amount of money"?

LOL....In many ways yes. They build to a price point marketing dictates they need to stay under to sell x amount. Now think about what sells products.....Diamond tweeters, special drivers made from the 4skin of Amazonian tribesmen, certain dac chips, etc.

You never hear anyone tout their crossover parts, analog output stages, wire used inside, volume pots...doesn't sell products. Some higher end companies do, no doubt, but generally speaking.

Which, it's part of life to build things to a price point, that's fine and dandy. Like I said, it's the sound coming out of them that dictates their worth, not parts used.

F1nut

K_M wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

First off, who is this we you keep speaking of in just about all your posts? Secondly, you are quite mistaken about the MWxxxx drivers being nothing special. Doped paper is still one of the best cone materials available. Among others today, Sonus Faber uses them because they produce a natural sound. Then there are the very unique rubber surrounds, which have quite a large excursion. In fact, they are so unique that no one has yet to make an after market replacement and Lord knows there is a market for them.

The one thing you did get right was the apples and oranges comparison as the LSiM's don't even come close to the natural musicality of the SDA's.

Uh oh, we have an unhappy customer!

Better Let Polk's Speaker Engineers know they made a huge mistake!

"We" meaning a plurality of people, my family. Nothing mysterious!

Unhappy? That would be a negative. However, I do not suffer fools, so welcome to my Bozo list.

EndersShadow

F1nut wrote: »

Unhappy? That would be a negative. However, I do not suffer fools, so welcome to my Bozo list.

At this rate Jesse your gonna run out of room soon ... Maybe we need to go to 200 lol

F1nut

Amazingly Dan, I only have 4 on the list right now. Call it the kinder, more tolerant F1.

That said, I had about 80 before the switch to Vanilla.

westmassguy

K_M wrote: »

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison.
We are talking a vintage speaker with what was and is still, mass market drivers that were not truly anything special.
I mean not to bash on them, as we own some vintage Polk offerings also, but they are in reality quite average drivers, with limited excursion, stamped frames, and other issues, that many better drivers today do not have.

Here are the T/S Parameters for a typical 6.5" Woofer used in SDAs and some Monitors from that era:

MW 6503
Fs: 29.8600 Hz (Free air resonance)
Vas: 3.0017 ft^3 (Compliance volume)
Qts: 0.3100 Total Q
Qms: 1.7680 Mechanical Q
Qes: 0.3760 Electrical Q
Sd: 0.0130 M^2 (Piston area)
Xmax: 3.1800 mm (Cone excursion, linear)
Revc: 6.5400 ohms (DC resistance)
Znom: 8.0000 ohms (Nominal impedance)
Pmax: 35.0000 watts maximum rated power

If you can find a current replacement from any manufacturer that even comes close, or sounds half as good, I'd like to see it.

K_M

westmassguy wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison.
We are talking a vintage speaker with what was and is still, mass market drivers that were not truly anything special.
I mean not to bash on them, as we own some vintage Polk offerings also, but they are in reality quite average drivers, with limited excursion, stamped frames, and other issues, that many better drivers today do not have.

Here are the T/S Parameters for a typical 6.5" Woofer used in SDAs and some Monitors from that era:

MW 6503
Fs: 29.8600 Hz (Free air resonance)
Vas: 3.0017 ft^3 (Compliance volume)
Qts: 0.3100 Total Q

Xmax: 3.1800 mm (Cone excursion, linear)

Znom: 8.0000 ohms (Nominal impedance)
Pmax: 35.0000 watts maximum rated power

If you can find a current replacement from any manufacturer that even comes close, or sounds half as good, I'd like to see it.

I guess you would have to define "Comes close", as to what parameters you feel are unobtainable by replacement drivers first.

"Sounds half as good" that is quite open to interpretation also.

But if your question is serious, the 30hz Fs and Xmax of 3.18mm and Qts of .31 and Impedance and power handling are all easily matched.

The Vas, measurement are somewhat high on the old Polk Drivers, and most newer drivers will have lower corresponding figures relating to a smaller sized enclosure with equal deep bass response.

By far the closest driver, is the Parts Express 6.5" woofer.
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/295-306-dayton-audio-dc160s-8-specifications-46147.pdf

There are other drivers, but that is the only one that is nearly exact specs wise.

You may want to ask your question at Parts Express DIY Speaker building forum, you will get even more help.

But I can tell you most replies will tend towards, "You can actually do better" for less money.

westmassguy

I've used that driver, and while it does perform well, it's no match VAS-wise, The suspension is much too stiff. In addition, it doesn't match Polks classic sound or SQ.

K_M

[quote="F1nut;2218583"
Unhappy? That would be a negative. However, I do not suffer fools, so welcome to my Bozo list.[/quote]

The thread was one speaker versus another, and for posters to give their ideas and opinions on the matter. No matter what they are.

When someone gives an opinion that differs from your's, it may benefit all involved, if you take a step back and consider, that other people may simply disagree with you.

It is not something to take personally, nor argue about, nor call names about.

People are simply giving opinions. All opinions are welcome!
Not all will be the same. If they were, the discussion would be quite boring.

One can not throw a virtual temper tantrum simply cause another view is put out that differs with a view you tend to hold dear.

Also, "Ganging up" on someone with a differing view, or perspective, is not seen as an adult way of getting your view across.

Stating your view is fine, but expect some to disagree. Expect that you may even be wrong.
Hopefully we can agree we are all simply expressing views.
Doing it politely and maturely will help avoid conflicts and bickering.

In the future, try to not get so hung up on everyone agreeing with you, and open your mind to realizing other views and perhaps posters coming from other backgrounds and levels of expertise, may simply not agree, or may have more in depth information they are basing their comments on.

Thank you, and hopefully we can both view this as adults, and avoid any further bickering or conflict!

heiney9

K_M wrote: »

But I can tell you most replies will tend towards, "You can actually do better" for less money.

That's open to interpretation as well, define "better"? If it doesn't sound like the classic Polk driver, then I doubt you'd get much agreement that it's "better".

If you are not into the classic Polk sound, that's fine, but just because it doesn't float your boat doesn't mean newer designs are "better".

H9

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

But I can tell you most replies will tend towards, "You can actually do better" for less money.

That's open to interpretation as well, define "better"? If it doesn't sound like the classic Polk driver, then I doubt you'd get much agreement that it's "better".

If you are not into the classic Polk sound, that's fine, but just because it doesn't float your boat doesn't mean newer designs are "better".

H9

You missed where I said we actually own a few vintage Polk models!
I really love the 5jr+ and even mentioned it on a previous thread.

But we own newer designs also, and I value them in other ways.
We (household) also own other brands of speakers and they have things that set them apart and yes at times better than the older and newer Polk offerings we own.

Each has different strengths and weaknesses.
Speakers under $5,000 or so are all semi-compromises in one way or another.

Honestly I tend towards a B+W sound And Epos.

nikolas812

A few years ago, I almost bought some Epos ESL-3's for the bedroom. Regretted not getting a chance to hear them

Nik

tonyb

K_M wrote: »

[
Each has different strengths and weaknesses.
Speakers under $5,000 or so are all semi-compromises in one way or another.

Honestly I tend towards a B+W sound And Epos.

No offense pal, but where do you come up with this stuff ? I've heard 20k speakers that in my opinion would classify as compromised. Blanket statements like that don't fly too well in the audio world.

Thing is, there really can be no such thing as compromised since what each of us hear is subjective. Compromised to you may be accurate to another. A come to Jesus sound to me may be just so-so to another. It matters not, except that you enjoy the sound your getting, be it from vintage or new, paper or plastic, caps wound with hair from Unicorns. Just because your preferences are different doesn't make anothers flawed.

tonyb

DSkip wrote: »

Quite the opposite tony. Every speaker is flawed, regardless of price. If you truly are approaching live performance quality, it simply will not happen.

That goes without saying Skip, we can also assume every set of ears is flawed too in one fashion or another. Point being, there is no way to even out the variations in subjectivity.

pitdogg2

Emlyn wrote: »

nooshinjohn wrote: »

i could not disagree more with this part of your statement. Prices seem to have actually gone up quite a bit, but this could also be a regional thing.

I am referring to market indicators like sales on EBay. There have only been four sets of SDA speakers sold there (searched on the words Polk sda) since the end of October and none sold for more than $500. Before the recession, there were far more listings, the speakers were in high demand and sold quickly, and the prices sold were about 50 percent higher from what I remember. Of course that was almost ten years ago now when the speakers were not as old. Some of the third generation SDAs are going on 30 years old. Craigslist seems to be about the same in my area and they sit for a long time. For the quality of the speakers, the prices commanded are basically give away prices now. However, I would not recommend putting a lot of money into modifications unless someone loves the basic sound quality and intends to keep the speakers for a long time. Mods don't add much value in the used market. I had ten different pairs over the years and got tired of them when there are so many other options out there.

Emlyn,

There have been a ton of SDA's on the bay, problem is most in the past year have been auctioned for about what the sold for new or very close to it. How do you search for auctions that didn't sell ? I believe you would be surprised on some of the asking prices like they appreciate with age like fine wine.

dpowell

K_M wrote: »

Yes, but how much of your choice is based on simply wanting the SDA "effect"?

Is part of that also, having the 2.3 TL's for many years, and becoming used to the sound they have?

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison.
We are talking a vintage speaker with what was and is still, mass market drivers that were not truly anything special.
I mean not to bash on them, as we own some vintage Polk offerings also, but they are in reality quite average drivers, with limited excursion, stamped frames, and other issues, that many better drivers today do not have.

Would someone used to the Lsi or LsiM line feel the opposite?

Less detail, worse imaging, less clarity etc.

Does it depend a lot on what one is used to hearing first, I mean....?

My preference/choice comes from a desire not to listen to music that sounds constipated. That is how the LSiMs sounded to me... and others who came to an audio gathering to have a listen. It was like the speakers had a semi truck jack knifed in their colon were pushing hard just to get the music out.

The SDAs are musical without the interconnect attached. They are astounding with it connected. In other words it's the icing on an already great cake.

You are correct it was an apples to orange comparison. LSiM vs SDA.

You are also not correct in a sense. It was an apples to apples comparison. My ears vs. My ears.

Which comparison matters more is subjective and personal.

The limited excursion you reference is irrelevant when the drivers are properly paired with the right cabinet and bass radiator. My 2.3TLs produce so much silky smooth, undistorted (look at the specs) ultra deep bass in 2 channel mode that my dual SVS PB13 Ultras are not necessary. I use them only for HT.

At the time of demo, I had been in possession of the stock with ancient xo 2.3TL speakers for only 2 weeks and that is what my opinion was based on at the time.

You should hear them now. Upgraded tweeters, Xo's and boards, dynamited driver baskets, new binding posts,.... And a dreadnaught.....all in still less $ than a new pair of 707s.....and a far superior music and home theater experience. But that's just my opinion.

nooshinjohn

I share your experiences Doug. The SDA is the better speaker for audio. Some of the best sound I have heard came fro your speakers with my tube amps and the X1 connected to them. The 707 did great as a center channel as I recall.

dpowell

Lol that should be dynamatted driver baskets but android wouldnt let me save edits before the 1 hour was up. I don't believe dynamited driver baskets would sound very good.