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

dpowell

nooshinjohn wrote: »

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.

I agree your tube amps grabbed the 2.3s like no other amp and produced a magical listening experience. The X1 is simply amazing and hearing what it did is the reason I own one today. I would have never believed you or understood from your description what the SDAs are capable of without hearing it in person.

erniejade

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.

Actually if you think about it, even a live performance is "flawed" unless it is an acoustic show or not through an amplifier. Otherwise your hearing the instrument but through whatever processing, dsp, speakers, amps and hall acoustics........ you get the picture. So to me, the only true unflawed is un-amped close proximity of the instruments.
It's all a point of what flaws we like or what we are willing to live with. I like a slightly warmer flaw myself.

tonyb

That's why small jazz joints that smell like smoke and booze where you sit 5 ft. from the horns sound so glorious. That's the ultimate for me for sound reproduction, take the reproduction part out.

K_M

dpowell wrote: »

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.

Cool, you like the vintage sound. I get it.
I have heard the SDA speakers, and while they were nice, simply I had a different reaction.
Yes we are all only giving opinions.

Your comments about music sounding constipated etc, confuse me. Not sure what you are getting at?
Are you talking some frequency response issues?

K_M

tonyb wrote: »

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.

I said all speakers under $5,000 are compromised. Where did I come up with that at?

Are you inferring they are not?
The $5,000 mark was in reference to approximately the price range of speakers we were discussing.

K_M

tonyb wrote: »

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.

So when I say almost the same thing you bash me, but when he tells you,. you are wrong, you agree with him...lol

nooshinjohn

To ignore is bliss

lightman1

Hey Kids! It's dancing chicken time!

afterburnt

Moves like Jagger!

tonyb

K_M wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

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.

So when I say almost the same thing you bash me, but when he tells you,. you are wrong, you agree with him...lol

I don't see where I bashed you Kelly, my reference was more to the point of our hearing being flawed more so than speakers.....and the use of blanket statements. There is no perfect anything, unless your God....or Kate Upton.

dpowell

K_M wrote: »

Your comments about music sounding constipated etc, confuse me. Not sure what you are getting at?
Are you talking some frequency response issues?

The music sounded like it was having difficulty getting out and was squeezed in between the speakers. There was also a severe lack of dynamics; hence my reference to constipated music. No amount of toe-in or repositioning of the speakers changed the issue. Moving them to a different room brought somewhat different results but not anything that left me feeling they were a remarkable speaker. Like I said previously, I came to the conclusion after the in-home demo that the LSiMs are very picky about room conditions and gear. Those that love them may just have the right synergy to achieve good results.

halo71

K_M, what is your experience with Polk speakers in general? Monitor 5's are a long ways from any of the SDA models. Don't get me wrong, I have 5's, 7's and 3 pairs of 10's and a few pairs of SDA's. The 5's are great speakers. But if the 5's are what you are basing your blanket statements on....well, ya really shouldn't.

K_M

halo71 wrote: »

K_M, what is your experience with Polk speakers in general? Monitor 5's are a long ways from any of the SDA models. Don't get me wrong, I have 5's, 7's and 3 pairs of 10's and a few pairs of SDA's. The 5's are great speakers. But if the 5's are what you are basing your blanket statements on....well, ya really shouldn't.

I mentioned having a pair of 5jr+ speakers only in reference to someone assuming saying I was bashing the vintage polk line, and I randomly mentioned really liking those, and no mention of other Polk or other speakers we own.

Some people like the vintage Polk line better than anything ever.
Some people like the SDA effect and think nothing compares to it.

I can relate to that, as I love our vintage Polk models also, and I agree they sound fantastic. We own 3 pairs of what is known as the "Vintage" Era Polks. One is SDA, and it is in out other home, so not readily able at the moment to get the exact model number.

The 5jr+ and the Rta11t are in this house.
We also have B+W (forget model) and Epos Elan10 speakers.


We have so many speakers, simply from inheriting my husband's Uncle estate which had 4 Additional Sets of Polk speakers in addition to the ones we own currently.
I have not honestly heard all of the vintage ones we got as all are in our large garage now covered with blankets.

I was merely (IMHO)stating that if the Polk Engineering and Design Team read some of the comments about the LsiM series in this thread, I think they might feel a tad insulted, as they are very well designed and engineered speakers, and overall (this thread non withstanding) are often seen by many as the Pinnacle of Polk sound quality.

Honestly my preference, goes to the Lsi Series, not the LsiM, although I think the LsiM series is better in some ways!!
We have the Lsi15, and Lsi9 and LsiC and PSW1000 matching subwoofer.

I like the SDA effect at times, but at other times, not so into it.
They all have redeeming qualities.

I can see why some like the old and some like the newer ones.
We all have different preferences!

I need to devise a signature list of Polks we own!!