Thoughts on SDA's...
Comments
-
The 3.1tl is the best stock I've heard. They paled in comparison to a fully modded pair of 2.3tl. I think for most those are the go to models. I don't know how a fully modded 3.1tl compares.
The 2b is a nice little speaker I wouldn't mind spending more time with.
It seems the only common ground is that dual tweeter versions are the least desirable.
If we could convince @lightman1 to deliver his to my place, we could find out.
No convincing needed. Get basement finished and we'll make it happen. -
The 3.1tl is the best stock I've heard. They paled in comparison to a fully modded pair of 2.3tl. I think for most those are the go to models. I don't know how a fully modded 3.1tl compares.
The 2b is a nice little speaker I wouldn't mind spending more time with.
It seems the only common ground is that dual tweeter versions are the least desirable.
If we could convince @lightman1 to deliver his to my place, we could find out.
screw that I'm closer to him than you.....
DIBS and 3.00 -
The 3.1tl is the best stock I've heard. They paled in comparison to a fully modded pair of 2.3tl. I think for most those are the go to models. I don't know how a fully modded 3.1tl compares.
The 2b is a nice little speaker I wouldn't mind spending more time with.
It seems the only common ground is that dual tweeter versions are the least desirable.
If we could convince @lightman1 to deliver his to my place, we could find out.
No convincing needed. Get basement finished and we'll make it happen.
You did get the spikes at LSAF right?
I did! Thank you sir. -
The 3.1tl is the best stock I've heard. They paled in comparison to a fully modded pair of 2.3tl. I think for most those are the go to models. I don't know how a fully modded 3.1tl compares.
The 2b is a nice little speaker I wouldn't mind spending more time with.
It seems the only common ground is that dual tweeter versions are the least desirable.
If we could convince @lightman1 to deliver his to my place, we could find out.
screw that I'm closer to him than you.....
DIBS and 3.00
Let the bidding war begin! -
In my room, with my equipment - my SDA CRS+ are better than my 1C's. The only thing I miss from the C's is the height effect from the dual tweeters.
-
The 3.1tl is the best stock I've heard. They paled in comparison to a fully modded pair of 2.3tl. I think for most those are the go to models. I don't know how a fully modded 3.1tl compares.
The 2b is a nice little speaker I wouldn't mind spending more time with.
It seems the only common ground is that dual tweeter versions are the least desirable.
If we could convince @lightman1 to deliver his to my place, we could find out.
Those would be the ones. I wish things had gone differently during my time of ownership (selling those probably being the least important of all) so that I could have done modifications to them and enjoyed the transformation. I think that is why I jumped on the RTA15TL when they became available at a good price.
@DSkip I know you're not that far from me, I'mma gonna have to make a house call and get my ears on those 15s... Been hunting for a pair for almost 2 years on CL, and the closest I got was sold before I could pull the trigger. -
I really enjoy the SDA Effect on some music.
Between the 2 pairs we own, the SDA Effect sounds "different" for sure, but not sure I could say one or the other makes the effect better than the other.
On some music I do not prefer the SDA effect. It depends on how it was recorded or just created in general.
On some stuff I like the standard Rta11 sound or the Lsi15 sound.
I have heard SRS 2s and SDA 2B. Completely different environments and gear used.
The SRS 2s were in a garage and were running through an Adcom GFA555 with an Adcom EQ via Ipad.
SDA 2Bs were in my bedroom (13x15x9) run by a Yamaha AV34 integrated via Ipad pro.
I remember the SRS 2s being VERY bright but the bass was incredible, I wasn't caught up on terms and didn't know how to critically listen at the time so I can't comment much further or on the SDA effect.
My 2Bs had almost as much bass but to me was more balanced than I remember the SRS's. Granted I leave tone controls at flat for everything and I believe my uncle (Owner of the SRS 2s) liked more of a V shaped sound profile. I hate to think my 2Bs sounded better but I feel like I understood them more than he did. Those speakers forever changed me and got me into vintage audio or "hi-fi" audio in general.
My uncles idea of showing off the SDAs were to lay on the floor and feel the bass. Kinda tells me about his listening style =PJust a dude doing dude-ly things
"Temptation is the manifestation of desire which equals necessity." - Mikey081057
" I have always had a champange taste with a beer budget" - Rick88
"Just because the thread is getting views don't mean much .. I like a good train wreck doesn't mean i want to be in one..." - pitdogg2
"Those that don't know, don't know that they don't know." - heiney9
"Audiophiles are the male equivalent of cat ladies." - Audiokarma Member -
I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.
Why persist in trying to explain to a life-long flat-earther that the world is really spherical?
The simplest explanation for the earth's shape is that, according to the laws of physics, it is impossible for something as massive as the earth to be flat. This is because, over a certain limit, the force of gravity will force a body of mass into a spherical shape. But then, the flat-earther would have to have some comprehension of physics, and specifically, how mass and gravity works. Without that prerequisite knowledge, you are stuck with "the earth must be flat because it looks flat".Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Call me an optimist.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Asking on their own merits if there is a standout on SDA effect only.
This question comes up from time to time. It's only natural to want to know which SDA speaker provides the "best" stereo imaging.
The 5th generation models (SDA SRS 1.2TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, SDA SRS 3.1TL) and the "4.5th" generation TL mod for the 1989 version SDA CRS+ are considerably better than their predecessors in sound stage size, image stability, image weight, and stereophonic holography and three-dimensionality.
I have listening experience with all of the 2nd generation through 5th generation models. My ownership experience consists of three pairs of SDA CRS+ (stock and TL modded), SDA 2B (stock), SDA 1B (stock and modded), two pairs of SDA 1C (stock and modded), SDA SRS (stock and modded), and SDA SRS 1.2TL (stock and modified).
The best SDA listening experience, for me, has been with the 1.2TL in a room large enough for them. There is no comparison between the sound stage rendering between my modded CRS+s and modded 1.2TLs in my two channel system, although they are both excellent performers. The CRS+s provide a much smaller presentation. However, in a smaller room, like my home office, the 1.2TLs would not work.
So, the question is somewhat like asking is there a standout among Audis with regard to speed only. The R8 is going to be the fastest, but as far as practical performance in your driving environment, one of the other models might have overall better performance.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
So many great points this thread could make your head explode, and absolutely on point that SDA's are designed to reproduce sound WITHOUT the effect introduced by conventional speakers that ignore the inches of mass between your ears.
And that brings in the discussion about room acoustics and proper placement becoming more important.
2B's (TL'd) or the progression of essentially that same basic footprint, circuitry and complement of drivers to the 3.1 TL might be the answer if you could just pick one and are on a budget.
The big boys are pure fun and present some more challenges power-wise (and wife-wise).
The right answer in my mind though is experimenting - - - journeying through researching, buying, modding if needed and listening for yourself.
VTL ST50 w/mods / RCA6L6GC / TlfnknECC801S
Conrad Johnson PV-5 w/mods
TT Conrad Johnson Sonographe SG3 Oak / Sumiko LMT / Grado Woodbody Platinum / Sumiko PIB2 / The Clamp
Musical Fidelity A1 CDPro/ Bada DD-22 Tube CDP / Conrad Johnson SD-22 CDP
Tuners w/mods Kenwood KT5020 / Fisher KM60
MF x-DAC V8, HAInfo NG27
Herbies Ti-9 / Vibrapods / MIT Shotgun AC1 IEC's / MIT Shotgun 2 IC's / MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Cables
PS Audio Cryo / PowerPort Premium Outlets / Exact Power EP15A Conditioner
Walnut SDA 2B TL /Oak SDA SRS II TL (Sonicaps/Mills/Cardas/Custom SDA ICs / Dynamat Extreme / Larry's Rings/ FSB-2 Spikes
NAD SS rigs w/mods
GIK panels -
-
I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.
Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.
Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.
The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.
Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.Post edited by K_M on -
The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.
Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.
So SDAs may be quite enjoyable, fun, and even sound better, even if the recording engineer didn't intend to do that. Explain to me why this is a bad thing?So, are you willing to put forth a little effort or are you happy sitting in your skeptical poo pile?
http://audiomilitia.proboards.com/ -
I'm not an engineer, brain surgeon or doctorate holder, etc. so may not be understanding properly, but . . . .
. . . . I still don't think the recording engineers in their 4-5 decades of electronic recording brilliance are compensating for the distance from left to right eardrum.VTL ST50 w/mods / RCA6L6GC / TlfnknECC801S
Conrad Johnson PV-5 w/mods
TT Conrad Johnson Sonographe SG3 Oak / Sumiko LMT / Grado Woodbody Platinum / Sumiko PIB2 / The Clamp
Musical Fidelity A1 CDPro/ Bada DD-22 Tube CDP / Conrad Johnson SD-22 CDP
Tuners w/mods Kenwood KT5020 / Fisher KM60
MF x-DAC V8, HAInfo NG27
Herbies Ti-9 / Vibrapods / MIT Shotgun AC1 IEC's / MIT Shotgun 2 IC's / MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Cables
PS Audio Cryo / PowerPort Premium Outlets / Exact Power EP15A Conditioner
Walnut SDA 2B TL /Oak SDA SRS II TL (Sonicaps/Mills/Cardas/Custom SDA ICs / Dynamat Extreme / Larry's Rings/ FSB-2 Spikes
NAD SS rigs w/mods
GIK panels -
I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.
Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.
Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.
The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.
Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.
Here we go again
Mojo Audio Illuminati v3>>Quantum Byte w/LMS>>Rpi/PiCoreplayer>> Starlight 7 USB >> Mojo Audio Mystique v2 SE>>ModWright SWL 9.0 SE Signature>>Hafler DH-500 Amp+ (Musical Concepts Fully Modded)>>
SRS 2.3TL (Fully Modded)...Velodyne Optimum 8 subwoofer
1KVA Dreadnought
Marantz SA 8005
Pioneer PLX-1000 Turntable - Shure SC35C/N35X - V15III/VN35HE
Yamaha TX-540 Tuner...Sony BDP-S570
Sony PS4
Separate subpanel with four dedicated 20 amp circuits.
1. Amplification 2. Analog 3. Digital 4. Video
"All THAT IS LOST FROM THE SOURCE IS LOST FOREVER" -
I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.
Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.
Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.
The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.
Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.
2 channel stereo is an illusion since it's been mixed and manipulated down from multi channel recordings. Do you know why? Because that is the standard consumers are willing to accept and can be mass produced for the end consumer to turn on and push play. Not because it's better or more natural, but because it a compromise (standard) that has been the most accepted therefore the most profitable.
It's laughable that you think 2 channel stereo is the correct way to reproduce life like sound. It's not, It's incredibly flawed. SDA's provide a way to correct a few of the blatant flaws in the 2 channel mix down of a multi faceted real life event. Our ears and brains are much more sophisticated than to settle for a 2 channel mix down.
Also SDA IS a much more realistic and accurate presentation of the real life event, not stereo. Engineers can be incredibily heavy handed in mixing and mastering for a single particular attribute. Think of them as the same as a photographer using photo-shop to manipulate their photo's for the intended final result. Not realistic at all, but altered, manipulated to produce an intended outcome other than the real thing.
Are SDA's perfectly recreating the real event, no, but they are much closer than the same played in 2 channel stereo.
Stereo is an illusion.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
I moved my SRS from a 12 x 15 room to a 26 x 45 room. Properly set up in a smaller room, they can be quite pleasing. Power requirements are much lower and you can't "open them up", but they still present a decent sound stage and are very detailed. Now, in the large room you can feed them power and they produce a heart pounding experience. my preference is the larger space, but they are the best speakers i have listened to in a small space.Schiit Freya+, Krell KAV-250a, R-Pi network streamer, 8Tb NAS, Thorens TD-145 MKIII with Ortofon 2M red, Polk: Monitor-10B, SDA-1A, SDA-SRS
-
I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.
Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.
Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.
The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.
Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.
2 channel stereo is an illusion since it's been mixed and manipulated down from multi channel recordings. Do you know why? Because that is the standard consumers are willing to accept and can be mass produced for the end consumer to turn on and push play. Not because it's better or more natural, but because it a compromise (standard) that has been the most accepted therefore the most profitable.
It's laughable that you think 2 channel stereo is the correct way to reproduce life like sound. It's not, It's incredibly flawed. SDA's provide a way to correct a few of the blatant flaws in the 2 channel mix down of a multi faceted real life event. Our ears and brains are much more sophisticated than to settle for a 2 channel mix down.
Also SDA IS a much more realistic and accurate presentation of the real life event, not stereo. Engineers can be incredibily heavy handed in mixing and mastering for a single particular attribute. Think of them as the same as a photographer using photo-shop to manipulate their photo's for the intended final result. Not realistic at all, but altered, manipulated to produce an intended outcome other than the real thing.
Are SDA's perfectly recreating the real event, no, but they are much closer than the same played in 2 channel stereo.
Stereo is an illusion.
H9
Excellent explanation Brock (H9), Thank you. -
I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.
Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.
Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.
The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.
Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.
No, my comments are based on superior intelligence. The mistake you keep making is thinking that SDA is based off a recording style, it is not. It is based off of the presentation to the human ears. Now, repeat that a thousand times and it may sink in, but I'm no longer optimistic about your ability to learn.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Also to K_M, calling out Matthew Polk and a white paper as well as several patents and basically saying they are rubbish shows you either are extremely egotistical or just plain don't understand a thing about what you are saying. I'll go with the latter.
Now would be the time to present evidence of the contrary against a well established MIT educated engineer and the evidence he presented in a white paper as well as the patents he has for said technology.
I am all ears and eyes. Seriously, clue us clueless people in on your wisdom. I am always eager and willing to learn something new. But you need to provide me with something other than because you say so.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
Why isn't it used today licensed or otherwise ?
-
It is used today in Polk's surround bars and their new upcoming SDA speakers.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
New upcoming SDA's Jesse say it isn't so, big'uns small ones spill the beans why dontcha.Home Theater
Parasound Halo A 31 OnkyoTX-NR838 Sony XBR55X850B 55" 4K RtiA9 Fronts CsiA6 Center RtiA3 Rears FxiA6 Side Surrounds Dual Psw 111's Oppo 105D Signal Ultra Speaker Cables & IC's Signal Magic Power Cable Technics SL Q300 Panamax MR4300 Audioquest Chocolate HDMI Cables Audioquest Forest USB Cable
2 Channel
Adcom 555II Vincent SA-T1 Marantz SA 15S2 Denon DR-M11 Clearaudio Bluemotion SDA 2.3tl's (Z) edition MIT Terminator II Speaker Cables & IC's Adcom 545II Adcom Gtp-450 Marantz CD5004 Technics M245X SDA 2B's, SDA CRS+
Stuff for the Head
JD LABS C5 Headphone Amplifier, Sennheiser HD 598, Polk Audio Buckle, Polk Audio Hinge, Velodyne vPulse, Bose IE2, Sennheiser CX 200 Street II, Sennheiser MX 365
Shower & Off the beaten path Rigs
Polk Audio Boom Swimmer, Polk Audio Urchin
-
It's no secret, D2Lo has mentioned it and I believe there's some mention of it on either buttbook or nitwitter.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
-
-
I suspect the language in the white paper referring to SDA as like being in the concert hall was intended to be simple enough for the layman to understand the spaciousness of the sound the speakers are capable of producing. A little of that language is marketing magic too. It's best not to read things too literally and extrapolate that Matt Polk must have meant SDA speakers can take a Bruce Springsteen early 1970s studio recording and make it seem like a person is sitting in the third row of the Hammersmith Odeon during a live performance by him and his band in 1975. Now of course SDA speakers MAY make Springsteen's album from that performance sound more like a "live" performance than most standard stereo speakers can, but that is dependent on proper setup of the SDA speakers and expectations of what a live concert should sound like both from the mastering engineer's perspective and the listener's. Mastering engineers also listen to sound through headphones as well as monitor speakers and make choices that they either want to or are directed to.
The inventor of stereo in the early 1930s identified many of the shortcomings of music reproduction and perception but there was no incentive to address them back then. Polk addressed a few of them with SDA technology. What's remarkable is Polk did this not too many years after stereo speakers first became widely used in homes in the late 1960s. -
2 channel stereo is an illusion since it's been mixed and manipulated down from multi channel recordings.Engineers can be incredibily heavy handed in mixing and mastering for a single particular attribute. Think of them as the same as a photographer using photo-shop to manipulate their photo's for the intended final result. Not realistic at all, but altered, manipulated to produce an intended outcome other than the real thing.
This is something I never understood. I don't see how you can get imaging unless the song was recorded in one take with everyone playing AND it was recorded with just 2 microphones. I have some recordings like that and they do image.
But how can you get "imaging" from laying over different tracks recorded at different times. Or from a guitar plugged straight into the recording soundboard!
But the biggest question is how can SDA's make sense of the mixed recording that might not have any true imaging to start with.
![[Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/c42e30d069c0d43c9bdf07a3e4e17a6d_100.png)
This discussion has been closed.