Do these seem wrong?

Flathead38

Going to see theses tomorrow. Something seems strange with the drivers overlapping. What do the members think?

FestYboy

Those are early 5s and that is normal.

msg

Listen to FB.
He's assumed ownership of nearly every available vintage Polk in the hemisphere.

FestYboy

Life goals....

Flathead38

Thanks.

mhardy6647

They look wonderful to me...

FestYboy

Yeah... I'm wishing they were coming to me... I'm kinda jealous.

mhardy6647

I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.

Flathead38

The gentlemans selling them with a Scott 320r receiver. I believe it's a bout 18-20 watts, but he says they sound great together. Looking forward to it.

rooftop59

I had a pair of those with the peerless tweets, they sound quite nice me thinks. I used them as near-field desktop monitors (yes, overkill) and really, really enjoyed them. the sound is very natural, the bass is tight and punchy but most of all just has the right texture. The highs are a bit rolled off, but you can listen enjoyably for hours and hours...I would love another pair to rotate in on occasion!

delkal

I am wondering what kind of gasket they use to make the speaker airtight. The thin gaskets I have seen on the other Polk models wouldn't work with the driver overlapping.

msg

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.

Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?

FestYboy

delkal wrote: »

I am wondering what kind of gasket they use to make the speaker airtight. The thin gaskets I have seen on the other Polk models wouldn't work with the driver overlapping.

The MW is surface mounted and the passive is recessed and it looks like there would be an air gap, but if you were to remove the MW, you would see plenty of surface area for a proper seal. In that configuration, a simple O-ring on the basket of the MW would be more than addequate.

mhardy6647

msg wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.

Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?

I like the treble from the Peerless better; otherwise, I don't think there was/is much difference

pkquat

msg wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.

Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?

mhardy6647 wrote: »

msg wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I don't have a pair of (original) Monitor 5s. I do have a pair of the later 5s with the SL2000 tweeters in 'em. They're not bad (indeed they spent a couple of years at McDaniel College in Westminster, MD with our son when he was a UG and served him well) -- but they ain't in the same league as the originals.

Interesting. Mark, what would you say the difference between the originals and later models is?

I like the treble from the Peerless better; otherwise, I don't think there was/is much difference

I have to agree with the peerless sound. There seams to be a better blend or clarity in the midrange as well. IMO The later 5's have better bass extension, but seam a little boomy at frequencies. The cabinet size and PR's are different. I tried a newer PR in an old 5. It worked, but sounded different. Some day I'd like to run some actual tests.

I've wondered what 5's or 7's would sound like with 6503 drivers vs. the 6502. I think a peerless or knockoff tweeter would be needed.

FestYboy

@pkquat, I suspect that the driver change would (or should) necessitate a bit of mass added to the PR to accommodate the lower resonance of the 6503.

[Deleted User]

I'd imagine adding some mass to the PR would help with either mid-woofer.

Flathead38

They were in mint shape except for a little white pitting on tweeter from being near the coast, doesn't affect performance in any way. Both the receiver and speakers came with owners manual and original receipts.

FestYboy

Good deal!!! Totally jelly...

@la2vegas ... You shut your mouth.

pkquat

@Flathead38 I would do a quick check on the PR surrounds for any cracking where it meets the basket. As I recall these do not have any issues, but it is good to check early. The later black basket peerless PR's have cracking issues and either they had a stiffer surround or its due to age. Sorry I didn't mention this sooner. There is a fix as long as they are not torn.

Is been too long since I new much about speaker spec's and that was mainly for subs, or simple box volume calc., not any of the dynamics. I've thought about the mass change for PRs, but wondered about the differences in suspension between the M5 versions. I think there is more than just mass to the tuning. I also noticed the MW's are much more active on the my M5 series 2 vs the peerless.