Which set should I buy ? SRS 2.3 NON tl,or SRS 3.1tl

bassfann

I have local access to both sets. Very good condition 2.3's,and near mint 3.1tl's. 3.1 are $750,2.3 are $700 obo.

Schurkey

How big is your room?

First Guess: MOST folks would do better with the 3.1s.

The 3.1s have the added advantage that they only require two RD0-198 tweeters. The 2.3s will need six of the RD0-194s, (or crossover mods to accept the 198s.) Either way, 2 < 6 when it comes to tweeter upgrading.

F1nut

Get the 3.1TL's.

trav0810

I owned the 2.3tl's amd now have the 3.1tl's. I have never heard the standard 2.3's. I orinlginally had the big ones in my garage which was 17×28 or so and I loved them. Once they moved into my 14×15 living room, they didn't perform nearly as well. Now, the 3.1's in that same room are pretty spectacular.

bassfann

pretty big room,open floor plan. the 2.3's will definitely cost more to mod. the 3.1 set is supposedly mint,1 owner never modified. so they do sound better than the 2.3's ?

Schurkey

"Mint" cosmetically is one thing. "Mint" functionally is another, and unless they've had the caps and tweeters replaced, they're not "mint" in terms of function.

The electrolytic caps have a service life of ~20 years. They may show signs of aging (high ESR) before the capacitance value goes out-of-tolerance. Film caps will sound better than brand-new electrolytics, which is why nobody here that I know of is buying new electrolytic caps for the SDAs.

The ferrofluid service life in the tweeters is probably less than that.

Either speaker pair you buy, you're GOING to have to do some parts replacement, caps and tweeters at minimum. Big room, open floorplan...maybe the 2.3s work out better for you than the 3.1s. Maybe.

Just keep in mind that they're also going to cost more to get them back into proper condition.

bassfann

yeah,I know. Ive always wanted a pair of the 1.2,but can't afford them. I'm not afraid of upgrading the x overs myself,I can solder pretty well.

bassfann

So I picked up the 2.3's,they are in very be good condition,no nicks on wood,perfect baffles. I scored them for $700,including 4 8ft custom Audioquest Granite speaker cables ($1200 value),and a Krell ksa 300s amp in NON working condition.........but still. The amp weights in at 185 lbs. She has a ton of high end equipment, looking to sell.

F1nut

Everyone tells you to buy the 3.1TL's, yet you get the lesser model.

bassfann

I know F1nut. I couldn't resist,especially with that amp as a gift. The wires alone could pay for them if I sold them.......but I won't. I could also get over a grand for the amp as-is,and buy the other set.

bassfann

The 2.3's aren't the lesser model,but they definitely will cost more to mod.

bassfann

Didn't know, I was picking brains. I was supposed to look at the other pair today.This lady has TONS of equipment,and she's selling it all,so I'll now be able to get more stuff. These speakers are awesome as is.1 tweeter was replaced, so I'll have to replace the others.

F1nut

bassfann wrote: »

The 2.3's aren't the lesser model,but they definitely will cost more to mod.

Ah, but they are and everyone told you so.

bassfann

F1nut wrote: »

bassfann wrote: »

The 2.3's aren't the lesser model,but they definitely will cost more to mod.

Ah, but they are and everyone told you so.

I disagree. With th amp that was given to me,I can sell it and buy the 3.1's also. I can make these tl's,also.

F1nut

I see your angle. However, I dont think you fully understand what it would take to turn 2.3's into 2.3TL's. It would be a major expense.

PolkieMan

The older generation 2.3 speaker baffles are mirrors of 2.3tls to start with, meaning the left would be the right and vice versa plus X-overs, drivers are different too

bassfann

F1nut wrote: »

I see your angle. However, I dont think you fully understand what it would take to turn 2.3's into 2.3TL's. It would be a major expense.

I know. It's my 1st set,so I'm just glad I got them. My last speakers were ADS L520's,so this iis a huge upgrade in size and sound. I will probably end up with those 3.1's,but for now I'll be doing the necessary x-over rebuild.

bassfann

Is it possible for the polyswitch to die prematurely (i know they're 30 years old) ? Amp isn't clipping, but both speakers will lose treble at same time. I'm running an hk signature. They come back,though. I know a rebuild is in order.

F1nut

They become hypersensitive after being tripped numerous times.

bassfann

F1nut wrote: »

They become hypersensitive after being tripped numerous times.

I kinda figured. Maybe I don't have enough power,and is clipping, but I don't hear it. It's only 200x2 rms. I may buy a Carver tfm-45,more power.

F1nut

More power at this point will not help, the polyswitches need to be replaced with .5 ohm Mills 12 watt resistors.

As for power, you want high current and you do not want a Carver SS amp.

bassfann

F1nut wrote: »

More power at this point will not help, the polyswitches need to be replaced with .5 ohm Mills 12 watt resistors.

As for power, you want high current and you do not want a Carver SS amp.

I know the switches have to be replaced. I'm not sure which amp to go with. I have the Krell,but it needs overhaul, not sure if I want the expense.

Schurkey

bassfann wrote: »

I know the switches have to be replaced.

Not so much "replaced" as "eliminated".

bassfann wrote: »

I'm not sure which amp to go with. I have the Krell,but it needs overhaul, not sure if I want the expense.

Had the lid off? Krell isn't too fond of outside repair--they want everything shipped to them. Therefore, no service manuals or parts sales. Even so, a clever boy might be able to figure out what's wrong.

bassfann

Schurkey wrote: »

bassfann wrote: »

I know the switches have to be replaced.

Not so much "replaced" as "eliminated".

bassfann wrote: »

I'm not sure which amp to go with. I have the Krell,but it needs overhaul, not sure if I want the expense.

Had the lid off? Krell isn't too fond of outside repair--they want everything shipped to them. Therefore, no service manuals or parts sales. Even so, a clever boy might be able to figure out what's wrong.

I opened her up and checked for burnt components, but saw and smelled nothing. It was stored in a garage for some time,so it has a musty smell,maybe covering other smels. There is a disc of the schematic on ebay,so I might invest in it.

bassfann

bassfann wrote: »

Schurkey wrote: »

bassfann wrote: »

I know the switches have to be replaced.

Not so much "replaced" as "eliminated".

bassfann wrote: »

I'm not sure which amp to go with. I have the Krell,but it needs overhaul, not sure if I want the expense.

Had the lid off? Krell isn't too fond of outside repair--they want everything shipped to them. Therefore, no service manuals or parts sales. Even so, a clever boy might be able to figure out what's wrong.

I opened her up and checked for burnt components, but saw and smelled nothing. It was stored in a garage for some time,so it has a musty smell,maybe covering other smels. There is a disc of the schematic on ebay,so I might invest in it.

I do want to give them at least 400 watts,so not asure what to get. Adcom 5802 maybe.

F1nut

Still looking at watts when you should be looking at current.

littlewoodboats

F1nut wrote: »

Still looking at watts when you should be looking at current.

Don't the two go hand in hand in most applications? High current is mentioned often but I am not sure I understand the differences. Care to share the 101 basic course on watts vs current for myself and any others who might be interested?

[Deleted User]

littlewoodboats wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

Still looking at watts when you should be looking at current.

Don't the two go hand in hand in most applications? High current is mentioned often but I am not sure I understand the differences. Care to share the 101 basic course on watts vs current for myself and any others who might be interested?

http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Common_Amplifier_Myths.php

bassfann

F1nut wrote: »

Still looking at watts when you should be looking at current.

Amperage is part of the formula to calculate wattage.

pitdogg2

oh boy...

Schurkey

"Watts" is merely Volts X Amperes. The problem is that you can get a high-watts figure suitable for advertising in big, bold print by using a heaping helping of volts (very inexpensive) and hardly any amperes (amperes are expensive)

Now, at some point physics raises it's ugly head. The "industry standard" for loudspeaker load is 8 ohms. Of course, most speakers do not maintain their nominal load over the full frequency range. An 8-ohm speaker can easily dip to 6 ohms or lower at certain frequencies, and perhaps 20 ohms or even much higher, at others. And then there's loudspeaker/cable reactance which is a concept way beyond what I can write here, except to say that reactance makes hash of rated power, because rated power is performed using resistors, but the loudspeaker load has capacitors and inductors in addition to resistance.

So as it turns out, it's cheap to get high voltage out of an audio amplifier, but high current requires care, thought, typically lots of copper in the transformer, lots of aluminum for heat sinks, and lots of silicon (or glass) in the output devices. There are designs that get around that--but they tend to have other problems.

So if your speakers are a fairly benign (mostly resistive, little reactance) 8-ohm load, your amplifier has a fairly easy job. Dropping the load from 8-ohms to 4-ohms doubles the current required. This makes the amp work MUCH harder, requires heaps of heat-sinking, numerous output devices, and a big transformer with big storage capacitors. Drop the speaker impedance to 2-ohms, and the current required doubles again. Very few amps are rated for 2-ohm loads, and they're all "expensive"--relatively speaking.

Advertising got TOTALLY out-of-control during the '60s. Every manufacturer had a different way to rate the power of their products, so it was impossible to compare the power of one brand to another. The FTC stepped in, and produced a procedure, and a requirement for advertising the FTC "Rated Power" in bold print, to be more prominent than any other rating. Consumers were fairly well-served with this rating system except it only required one power spec, not a series of specs at progressively-lower impedance. An amplifier can rate well with an 8-ohm load, but fail miserably at 4-ohms.

Of course, manufacturers found ways to "cheat". One of the more popular now is to provide a switch on the rear panel to go between "high impedance" (8-ohm) and "low impedance" (6- or 4-ohm) loads. The switch engages circuitry that strangles the power supply, so the marginal heat sinking, under-sized transformer, and scanty output devices can't overheat and set fire to the equipment.

The short story is that Polk SDA speakers were advertised as "easy to drive" (moderate reactance) except for the lowish nominal impedance. A nominal 4-ohm load was common,for early Polk SDAs, later speakers ended up closer to 6-ohms--but both early and late had considerable variation dependent on frequency.

Any amplifier that's nearing it's amperage limit at 6-ohms is going to sound strained driving a Polk SDA. An amp rated for continuous 4-ohm duty should be OK. Ideally, you'd want the amp to be capable of driving a 2-ohm load or lower, at least in intermittent duty.

Never, in the history of home audio, have there been more speakers sold, or more speaker models available, that have a nominal 4-ohm impedance or lower, yet at the same time, the flood of Chinese or other Asian bottom-feeder amplifiers/receivers are entirely unprepared to deal with low-impedance loads.