SDA

F1nut

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

Exactly! finally.

If they hear it in the studio, it is accounted for.
By using the SDA "effect" one is effectively applying another fix onto something that was previously accounted for in the studio.

No it's not!

SDA's aren't fixing anything, they are exploiting a naturally occurring flaw in stereo playback.

Sheesh,,,,,,people are.................

Anyway

Dead horse, beat vigorously.

H9

^ BINGO ^

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

Exactly! finally.

If they hear it in the studio, it is accounted for.
By using the SDA "effect" one is effectively applying another fix onto something that was previously accounted for in the studio.

No it's not!

SDA's aren't fixing anything, they are exploiting a naturally occurring flaw in stereo playback.

Sheesh,,,,,,people are.................

Anyway

Dead horse, beat vigorously.

H9

There is still time to hit the "Edit" button and fix your post....quick!!

heiney9

K_M wrote: »

There is still time to hit the "Edit" button and fix your post....quick!!

There's nothing to edit, the information is correct. I just deleted out a less than flattering word so as to not hurt anyone's feelings.

H9

heiney9

Derek, I agree. No one should abide by or assume what the engineer meant at the mastering/mixing stage.

[Deleted User]

DSkip wrote: »

Just enjoy the dadgum music.

I think I can agree with that philosophy !

nooshinjohn

...and all I wanted was concept art.

heiney9

I guess we just see it differently. I feel we are still worlds apart and my world is way more appealing than her world......lol.

I've seen the multiple PM's she's been blasting to anyone who will listen to her wrongful plight.

She hasn't a clue what she is talking about when it comes to SDA technology.

She even said Polk is trying to fix something that doesn't exist and it was a great marketing ploy by Matt Polk.

H9

heiney9

I am not even commenting subjectively about how effective or how accurate SDA's are at musical reproduction. I get it, not everyone cares for them or even likes that type of presentation. That's fine, they aren't the end all be all of speakers.

But if you are going to argue about why they work or don't work you need to have a pretty ironclad grasp and she clearly doesn't. Myself and some other won't let that slide.

H9

The new SDA's are based on digital algorithms so that's an entirely other ball of wax so to speak.

heiney9

Really, I'm being hostile because I stick to my convictions? I'm not PM'ing a bunch of random people and bashing thread posters behind their backs. To me that's being hostile and childish.

Anyway the intention is not to get this thread closed, so I've said all I can say.

H9

mikeyb128

Sooo Polk is making a new SDA speaker?

How about them big gulps?

heiney9

All of the "surround" bar home theater units use an electronic version of SDA concepts.

When we visited HQ a few years ago( I guess more than a few years ago now) Matt and the team were continuing to develop SDA technology exploiting digital algorithms. Matt's idea at the time (before he sold the company) was to marry passive and active SDA concepts into a new line......it obviously never really came to fruition beyond the HT sound bars, etc.

H9

heiney9

In talking with Matt at a round table, it was always on his mind. He was very passionate about it. Even had (4) LSi 9's in the front stage of his rig at his house wired from parts on a plywood board for his own personal SDA's. People who were lucky enough to hear it said it was very impressive. Run by the Threshold mono's that some lucky Polkie bought from him through Ken here on the forum not too long ago.

So yes, I bet there were a plethora of idea's iterations, etc.

txcoastal1

heiney9 wrote: »

Run by the Threshold mono's that some lucky Polkie bought from him through Ken here on the forum not too long ago.

That would be me

DarqueKnight

K_M wrote: »

Sorry about the "Fanboy" comment truly!

Apology accepted.

K_M wrote: »

I think we are simply as odds with what is being done with the SDA effect.
The final mastering or mixing stage was done with those flaws inherent to the sound and they used that as the determiner for the final sound.

No, our disagreement is due to the fact that I understand the limitations of the stereo recording and reproduction processes and you don't.

With all of the thousands of speaker models in existence, how can a recording engineer possibly make an accurate "adjustment" for how something will sound on every set of loudspeakers the recording might be played on? That is how we end up with 15 foot wide pianos when played back through SDAs. The recording engineer guessed about the sound stage limitations that the recording might encounter with conventional speakers and adjusted the sound images in the recording according to that guess. In other words, the engineer added a distortion effect (enlarged the size of sound images) that was not present in the original recording. When that bloated sound image is played back on SDAs (which do not have a reduced sound stage due to large amounts of interaural crosstalk distortion) it is further enlarged.

K_M wrote: »

Yes, SDA is not actually adding anything, but merely creating a false sound stage that was never intended. Same with how headphones work.

Now you are contradicting yourself. How could SDA create a false sound stage without adding something?

Everything you are saying about the SDA process is true of the compensatory recording techniques used to mitigate interaural crosstalk in conventional speakers. Again, SDA does not create a sound stage, it allows whatever sound stage is IN THE RECORDING to be reproduced more accurately. If the recording was naturally miked with little to no messing with the sound images, SDA will produce a naturally sized sound stage. If the recording was unnaturally miked, say with five microphones on the piano and then further enlargement of the piano image in mixing, then SDA will produce a HUGE piano image because a HUGE piano image was put into the recording.

K_M wrote: »

Since they mix and master with normal 2 channel speakers being used, that becomes the defacto standard as to what size the soundstage will be and where instruments will be placed.

No, the defacto standard is where would the instruments be placed in an actual performance and what would be the relative sizes of those instruments. The stereophonic sound stage is supposed to be a reproduction of the actual performance stage.

K_M wrote: »

I guarantee you, that Piano was 5 foot wide not 15 foot.

I agree. However, if you are hearing a 15 foot piano through SDAs, that is how it was recorded and mixed, rather than a distortion caused by the SDA process.

With my audiophile recordings that used natural miking and mixing techniques, my SDA SRS 1.2TLs produce life size images with naturally proportioned image sizes.

When doing critical evaluations of audio gear, one of the things I measure is the size, placement, and sound quality of sound images. I make lateral and aerial maps of the sound stage for comparison of the sound stage attributes with one piece of gear compared to the other piece.

This is an example of a sound stage chart for an evaluation done in July of 2014:


Lateral sound stage chart for "Take Five" 180 gram vinyl version. The +/- numbers indicate in feet how far ahead or behind the speaker plane a sound image was localized.

Notice that the sound image of the piano is not 15' wide. It is about 5' wide and the other sound images are proportionately and realistically sized.

The sound stage chart above is from this thread:

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/comment/2065605

The chart corresponds to this equipment cabinet and speakers:

F1nut

txcoastal1 wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

Run by the Threshold mono's that some lucky Polkie bought from him through Ken here on the forum not too long ago.

That would be me

You have a fire exit door in your listening room?

txcoastal1

F1nut wrote: »

txcoastal1 wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

Run by the Threshold mono's that some lucky Polkie bought from him through Ken here on the forum not too long ago.

That would be me

You have a fire exit door in your listening room?

Yeah and don't you love they way I hung the TV.

voltz

BTW That was a Killer Setup, I'm so glad I was able to hear it and can only imagine how they must sound in a better room.

lightman1

Jeez Louise! Is B-rock always this unsettled?

voltz

Btw Russ ,you SDA 3.1TL's sound excellent when I got my ears on them at Skip's House! They were better then my CRS+'s... Hope your enjoying them!

lightman1

voltz wrote: »

Btw Russ ,you SDA 3.1TL's sound excellent when I got my ears on them at Skip's House! They were better then my CRS+'s... Hope your enjoying them!

Haven't seen them since December, Daryl. I should be back home by the end of the month for a few weeks though. Almost finished up in Indiana.

DarqueKnight

DSkip wrote: »

The biggest issue would be getting over the Polk stigma that clouts 'audiophile' circles. Polk has a great house sound and that is forgotten by many when the hobbyists are just used to seeing the budget models at Best Buy.

Polk would have to create an upscale audiophile brand to distinguish itself from their mass market stuff...similar to the way Toyota did it with Lexus and Nissan did it with Infiniti.

DarqueKnight

DSkip wrote: »

I know it was a consideration with the old regime but they didn't want to do it because they were proud of the products.

I wouldn't consider the launch of a premium brand to be a dig against the mass market products.

I was told, by a very credible source, that Polk didn't want to commit the resources required to establish a premium brand and build a dealer network, both of which are more difficult to do now with the smaller number of brick and mortar audio stores. I don't know how well direct Internet sales would work for a non-conventional product like SDAs.

mhardy6647

probably irrelevant.

lightman1

Perspective post, Doc.

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

DSkip wrote: »

I know it was a consideration with the old regime but they didn't want to do it because they were proud of the products.

I wouldn't consider the launch of a premium brand to be a dig against the mass market products.

I was told, by a very credible source, that Polk didn't want to commit the resources required to establish a premium brand and build a dealer network, both of which are more difficult to do now with the smaller number of brick and mortar audio stores. I don't know how well direct Internet sales would work for a non-conventional product like SDAs.

....in a down economy yet too. People, many more than before anyway, don't have the disposable income for higher end audio luxuries. Doesn't make good business sense to go down that road.

xsmi

Yes. But how are people buying Sonus Fabers and Wilsons? The store that I've brought up before in Ann Arbor carries both lines and SALES both. So, if Polk makes a decent SDA speaker and it's priced right, I can see it saling as long as it's seen as a good product and decent value.

stones89

I would love to see it! Just not sure how to build a consumer base in our aging and shrinking hobby. Vinyl did so it can be done just needs a total and integrative marketing strategy.

heiney9

Regarding conventional large SDA's, not the surround bar products....

It's a tough call because I see where DK's source is coming from. The expenditure to get it off the ground is immense. When I sold SDA's at the local high end store (which is no longer in business btw) the idea was to spend time with the customer demoing but also explaining the technology and its merits. 30 minutes minimum it seemed

Today's model of sales for items like these don't allow for that. I have found most consumers, unless extremely interested, aren't going to do the information gathering on their own. Meaning if it's too complicated to understand and no way to hear for yourself, it's a hard sale, which means Polk would have to put in a bunch of extra effort ie; $$$ to sell at a satisfactory level. There was talk (spit balling) of actual in home demo for a new line of SDA's.

I for one would not be as interested in a fully active 2ch SDA speaker. They would need to maintain a passive element augmented by an active element, that was Matt's thought at the time 7-8 years ago.

I'd rather prefer a fully passive SDA if they ever did them again.

H9

xsmi

I'm going to this event in a couple of weeks. Couldn't Polk do something like this?

tonyb

xsmi wrote: »

Yes. But how are people buying Sonus Fabers and Wilsons? The store that I've brought up before in Ann Arbor carries both lines and SALES both. So, if Polk makes a decent SDA speaker and it's priced right, I can see it saling as long as it's seen as a good product and decent value.

There are still well to do folks out there that buy higher end stuff, but those folks aren't going to be looking at Polk products. These types don't necessarily put value for dollar spent as the top priority, they like brand recognition as a statement of their own personal successes.

Many of those brands have been in the game of higher end for a very long time. They have established their brand firmly, have dealers in place and marketing within the right circles. A new brand has more of a chance breaking into those circles from the start, like a new boutique brand, than Polk does. Polk has brand recognition, but not in the higher end circles, which makes it harder for them, and more costly.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your trying to shoot for that middle ground. the area that's not lower end and not quite higher end. A middle class of audio in a way. Middle class, on the consumer side, is the one disappearing and struggling the most these days. Shooting for that target consumer base in my opinion is a losing proposition.