Polk Audio T50 Speaker System Review

don0

Some might be interested in this review.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/polk-audio-t50-speaker-system-review#4kYtsbOlLOR16Aaf.97

msg

Good read.
Yes, I was pleasantly surprised with the T50's in the time I had them, before gifting them away. I kinda didn't want to let them go after testing them, even though from the get go I'd planned to gift them after checking them out. "Surprisingly good" is what kept coming to mind, as I found myself playing track after track after track, staying up waaay too late, testing, "okay, just one more..."

In a word, "fun", and, I would imagine, quite a neat little setup in full surround. I'd definitely recommend these over a soundbar any day, even if it was just two fronts and a sub. Even without the sub at first, if just to get started. They really do surprisingly well on their own. Obviously won't get sub-low, but pretty decent with proper placement. And smooth. That's another thing I noticed.

boston1450

Scott got a few questions. 1) what was you using to power them 2) did you 5/1 them 3) did you try the fronts without a sub. 4) are those fronts spikable ? I read up on those when they were introduced & not sure where that is now. I bought & listened to the T15's about 1-1 1/2 years ago & they sounded pretty good with a sub for the price.

boston1450

Wasnt sure if they came with them...A few years back i had the R30 towers IIRC & they sounded just ok with HT & when it came to 2 channel listening the stunk. I like read'n & hear'n thoughts about products that most would say to go up the chain.... I kinda thought that recently with the Paradigm Monitor 7's which i thought sounded pretty good without a subwoofer & sounded great HT & not bad on 2 channel lisening & i added stock spikes to them & it did seem to improve the sound enough to feel good about adding them

msg

boston1450 wrote: »

Scott got a few questions. 1) what was you using to power them 2) did you 5/1 them 3) did you try the fronts without a sub. 4) are those fronts spikable ? I read up on those when they were introduced & not sure where that is now. I bought & listened to the T15's about 1-1 1/2 years ago & they sounded pretty good with a sub for the price.

Hey Randy,

1. I ran them through my main system, Parasound 2205 amp. I also tested them with the little receiver I'm going to be setting up as part of the gifted system - an entry level Pioneer VSX AVR that I think is rated at 75wpc. Not quite as nice, but still pretty good. I will also be putting a sub in place with the little Pioneer because they'll be used in decent size room and for combo music and tv.
2. I wasn't able to 5.1 them. my testing was mostly for the 2ch curiosity, but toward the end, I did 3.1 them. They're not as loud as my 706 center, so I think I drew the 706 level down. I don't remember anything bad about them in that arrangement, except for the lowered output for a given volume. I was going from LSi7's or 703's at the time.
3. Yes, ran them without a sub for the whole of the 2ch test. They'll put out some sound, best in a smaller space with room/placement tricks, but will be understandably strained at the lower frequencies and output at these frequencies. They hit the frequencies I listen for in some of my lower test tracks, but lacking the presence, understandably. It was a good test, though.
4. Like Skip says, they're "affordably" built, so not solid enough to take spikes. I set them up on some pieces of naked MDF I have. You could spike an MDF baseplate, and then stick the speakers on that if you wanted, maybe play around with coupling, I guess, but not sure whether you'd see much improvement.

The T50 is nice, but it does have its limits. It's just surprisingly good for what it is. It's a bit like a toy system compared to some of the other stuff you have, but they're smooth and fun. I think I remarked at the time of my testing that had I bought those initially instead of the RTi10's (which was what prompted me to get on this forum because the RTi10's were awful for me) I'm not sure I'd have gone any further in my audio journey. With a modest sub, and the center, you could build a respectable little 3.1 system. I think they'd be a great choice for a smaller space, or a bedroom or something, or if you don't want super-serious/critical HT or 2ch. They're just surprisingly enjoyable, with limits. I think that's the best way I can describe them. And they're neat.

I was trying to find the review/notes I posted when I received and spent some time with them, but can't seem to find it. I'll keep looking and will link back if I find it. I don't recall whether there was a whole lot to it, though. I may have taken my notes and not completed/organized and maybe didn't post it? I'll see what I can dig up.

I have to agree with what Skip says above about them being gamechangers for extreme-budget conscious. I'll also go as far as to say I think they're pretty good even if you're not. They're not going to replace your serious stuff, but they're good. My measure for good, overall, is, does it provide a pleasing listening experience? That's different for a lot of people. For me, with an appropriately configured sub, they could be a speaker that I could spend an evening playing music through.

PS.
You got enough stuff!
Wait for the new Elacs, maybe

msg

Found my notes in Evernote. I didn't post that review; I wasn't done. I remember at the time, I was wondering whether my notes would offer any context, because my test tracks would be unfamiliar to most, and I think, instead, that prompted a different post entirely where I was asking for input on good test tracks. I didn't make the time to go back and test again with the contributions others made to the list, though.

jwb0007

Have not listened to the series of speakers, so I can only accept (for now) the generally favorable comments about them. Or, generally favorable relative to a low price.

My thought/question is if a price point is the over-riding issue in one's choice, wouldn't it make sense to consider used speakers as a likely option/real world alternative? Unless, perhaps, trying to confine the discussion to one of brand new speakers, and their relative merit and value.

I, for one, would choose any number of used speakers with "superior" sonics/specs to those with lesser sonics & specs, but boasting new condition and low price.

Guess that is why there is vanilla, and chocolate, and strawberry, AND Neopolitan, right?

msg

jwb0007 wrote: »

Have not listened to the series of speakers, so I can only accept (for now) the generally favorable comments about them. Or, generally favorable relative to a low price.

I have to remind myself to be careful with use of this phrase when talking about these speakers. I'm inclined to say the same thing, but I feel like I should really only use that phrase to describe speakers that have significant shortcomings, which can be an obvious expectation at lower price points.

There are shortcomings with the T50's, but to me, not in the usual way. They have a sound quality that I've typically found lacking in cheap speakers. Instead, the main limiters I noticed, in comparison to more robust speakers, were output volume and output level in the lowest frequency range. These may not be a big deal to person with a smaller space and with a sub, or to someone who prefers quality over volume. It's not to say they can't get loud, I think it was more that they start to level out and sound compressed after a certain volume.

These are a solid consideration for budget systems at regular price, and can be a bit of a no-brainer for same systems when they're offered at half off.