Looking forward to L800 but have concerns, what are your thoughts?

tratliff

mpitogo wrote: »

Thank appreciate the feedback. Hoping I am worrying for noting when they land next week. They don’t do Saturday delivery 🤨

@Emlyn yes the REL article did not mention it since it was referring to monoblocks, I couldn’t find similar articles but it does refer to amp topology at the bottom. Single ended vs balanced different. The topology is the same in the MC452 in a shared chassis.

I am interested in hearing how this works out for you. I would like to try the L800's but not sure how my equipment would work with them.

I had some of the same concerns when I was looking at getting the REL subs to add to my system. I'm running a pair of MC601's and wanted to add a pair of subs. I got very interested in the REL Carbon's. Read many documents about how to connect them and what may or may not work. Using a single sub was not what I wanted to do but how to connect them to the 601's concerned me.

I talked with a rep from REL who told me not to worry about it. Give it a try with a few different combinations and I would find what works the best.

My dealer was ready to place the order on the Carbon's and let me test my system with a single S5. While I had the single I did not observe any of the problems that REL describes in that document. But I did only have it connected to one of the mono blocks so I was just getting half of the stereo signal.

Once I got the pair of Carbons and connected them to each 601 I was blown away with how much the lower end was improved. It took time to dial in and I have moved them from the 8 ohm taps to the 4 ohm taps. So my mains are connected to the 8 ohm taps and my subs are connected to the 4 ohm taps.

I have read many discussions on which taps to use and have tried both over time. When I was just running my mains without subs I found that when connected to the 4 ohm taps the speakers did have more low end (+3db) but over time I found that it was muddy and switched back to the 8 ohm taps which tightened the lower end and provided more clarity.

When I added the subs I found the 4 ohm taps to provide just the right signal for them as I have more control with the subs internal crossover and level.

What I have found is that lots of experimenting is needed with the McIntosh amplifiers. If you have a pair of bi-wires you might even try the lows to 4 ohm and the highs to 8 ohm. McIntosh recommends this is some configurations.

Good luck with whatever you find.

stevep

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Which dealer hosted this event?

ListenUp in Boulder.
They held three events in Colorado, Boulder, Denver, and Colorado Springs.
https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/188519/l800-sda-at-listen-up-tomorrow-evening#latest

mpitogo

I went to NY Audio Show. The dealer not yet listed on Polk’s website is Electronics Expo.

K_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Head in a vice ?? With SDA's ?

When I see extremely misinformed comments like that it makes me wonder if the person isn't just parroting what they read elsewhere, rather than speaking from personal experience.

When I see extremely different opinions, than mine, it makes me rush to tell them they must be wrong!....Fixed!

I am not certain I would call Matt Polk unbiased in regards to something he designed and sold......

K_M

soupbone wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Head in a vice ?? With SDA's ?

When I see extremely misinformed comments like that it makes me wonder if the person isn't just parroting what they read elsewhere, rather than speaking from personal experience.

Well...I must have been doing something wrong that last 33 years. Three different houses and a lot of different equipment. My image has always been high & wide with lack of depth. So wide that, while on the second floor, I've checked the porch door for someone knocking while listening to Phil Collins, One More Night. I've been startled out of my mind with sonic images a full 90 degrees to the left or right. I love the SDA sound and the illusion it provides but my listening position has always been super tight to keep that illusion balanced. While listening to Karen Carpenter I can hear the piano well to the right of the speaker but if I move my head a few inches it collapes and the piano shifts to right edge of the speaker. Maybe I'm doing something wrong:(

No, you simply have a different experience or opinion. I kind of agree to me it sounds closer to what you say, but maybe just not to the same degree.

Either way, I have seen many claim that to be the biggest weakness of SDA, so some may find it ideal as DK says, but many claim it not ideal.

You have to separate the Haters and Fanboys, to get a clear idea or consensus on what most listeners have experienced.

SIHAB

I don't care about consensus. I care about me.

Emlyn

Consensus is for wimps.

K_M

Emlyn wrote: »

Consensus is for wimps.

Let's see how many agree with that comment!





(joke for those that never get jokes)

F1nut

K_M wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Head in a vice ?? With SDA's ?

When I see extremely misinformed comments like that it makes me wonder if the person isn't just parroting what they read elsewhere, rather than speaking from personal experience.

When I see extremely different opinions, than mine, it makes me rush to tell them they must be wrong!....Fixed!

I am not certain I would call Matt Polk unbiased in regards to something he designed and sold......

In your haste to be wrong you forgot that you told everyone you put DarqueKnight on ignore.

OH SNAP!!!

K_M

F1nut wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Head in a vice ?? With SDA's ?

When I see extremely misinformed comments like that it makes me wonder if the person isn't just parroting what they read elsewhere, rather than speaking from personal experience.

When I see extremely different opinions, than mine, it makes me rush to tell them they must be wrong!....Fixed!

I am not certain I would call Matt Polk unbiased in regards to something he designed and sold......

In your haste to be wrong you forgot that you told everyone you put DarqueKnight on ignore.

OH SNAP!!!

He still is.....

I saw a quote from member Soupbone, that included Mr. DK's comments was all.
See not so clever, are you>??

Oh and for seeing your comment. I guess I am "Busted".

"A" for effort!

SIHAB

I think use guys should form a trouple.
Back to the new speaks discussion...

Kex

SIHAB wrote: »

I don't care about consensus. I care about me.

This is actually a very relevant comment! Everyone’s appreciation, hearing and listening habits (loud, soft etc.) are different, so your hearing and appreciation are the only things that matter when choosing your speakers IMO.

F1nut

K_M wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Head in a vice ?? With SDA's ?

When I see extremely misinformed comments like that it makes me wonder if the person isn't just parroting what they read elsewhere, rather than speaking from personal experience.

When I see extremely different opinions, than mine, it makes me rush to tell them they must be wrong!....Fixed!

I am not certain I would call Matt Polk unbiased in regards to something he designed and sold......

In your haste to be wrong you forgot that you told everyone you put DarqueKnight on ignore.

OH SNAP!!!

He still is.....

I saw a quote from member Soupbone, that included Mr. DK's comments was all.
See not so clever, are you>??

Oh and for seeing your comment. I guess I am "Busted".

"A" for effort!

So, you admit to lying. Got it.

mpitogo

OK, I've ignored it long enuf. For fuscks sake move your shists to here ->the clubhouse

OK good did not get filtered... ya I know how to spell!@#$

DarqueKnight

mpitogo wrote: »

Do anyone who own the older SDA use balanced amps with your setup?

My Pass Labs X600.5 monoblock amps used with my SDA SRS 1.2TLs are a fully balanced design with differential inputs. I did not experience a diminished sound stage. It was exactly the opposite.

mpitogo wrote: »

Yikes I am in for a world of hurt.

Maybe not. It all depends on how the amp is designed.

Thank you for your insights on the L800s.

pitdogg2

I'm listening to them right now. I like what I hear very much. I do however think my 2.3tl's with all mod's are leaps better. I do hear that these have great potential. One thing about them is the tweeters, they really seem to be better than the past ring radiator tweeters I've heard in the past.

Keep in mind that as with the very first SDA there will also be a learning curve. Polk brought out the first SDA and knew it could be improved and went about doing just that with future generations of SDA. These are a great value as there are other speakers here that are much better yet they cost 3x more as well.

K_M

pitdogg2 wrote: »

I'm listening to them right now. I like what I hear very much. I do however think my 2.3tl's with all mod's are leaps better. I do hear that these have great potential. One thing about them is the tweeters, they really seem to be better than the past ring radiator tweeters I've heard in the past.

Keep in mind that as with the very first SDA there will also be a learning curve. Polk brought out the first SDA and knew it could be improved and went about doing just that with future generations of SDA. These are a great value as there are other speakers here that are much better yet they cost 3x more as well.

Could you elaborate?
Better in what regards?
Are you saying you think your vintage ones ARE better, or you like the sound of them better?
I was looking forward to these besting our vintage SDA's as when the L800's were designed they were compared directly TO the vintage ones and found to be better, with obviously better drivers and far better measuring and computer modeling of crossover, distortion and phase angles and dispersion characteristics.

I'm not sure I get the "mod" thing truly either. I understand what all the mods do and why, but there was never a realistic way to compare modded/unmodded as virtually all original sets had caps that were degraded a good bit, and one was comparing New better caps to old caps that were no longer in prime condition.

Kind of an Apples/oranges comparison.
Any vintage SDA can be greatly improved by ANY new cap, if you follow, since due to age the original caps are all in poor condition.

SIHAB

You might have to be patient and wait till you get your ears on them @K_M
OTOH, keep the impressions coming. Thanks!

pitdogg2

Kelly you had the same chance as everyone else to come and hear for yourself. A few drove 8-10hrs. and were happy they did.
You totally get the "mod" thing so please do not play dumb.

So keep playing the vastly superior speaker builder keyboard warrior.

Are they better? Well that is a very personal opinion, you care little about our opinions here. So go and get your ears on them and form your own.
After all your opinion is all that matters..correct.

soupbone

I really like my SDA's but I'm not driving 8 hours to hear them, but that's just me. I am looking forward to hearing them someday. Opinions WILL very, they always do, BUT...If the L800 doesn't SMOKE the old SDA's in EVERY way...it would be an EPIC fail.

Remember, dealing with opinions here. But I don't think there is anything you could do to make an older model better than a newly designed L800. That would include changing out every single component.

K_M

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Kelly you had the same chance as everyone else to come and hear for yourself. A few drove 8-10hrs. and were happy they did.
You totally get the "mod" thing so please do not play dumb.

So keep playing the vastly superior speaker builder keyboard warrior.

Are they better? Well that is a very personal opinion, you care little about our opinions here. So go and get your ears on them and form your own.
After all your opinion is all that matters..correct.

Wow, talk about over reacting......

You said your's are LEAPS BETTER. Yet you make no mention of specifics, or in what way. I was asking you to be a bit more specific was all.....

That vast a difference means either Polk's Engineers today made a total flop, or your description is maybe quite exaggerated, since you went into no detail at all.

I do value opinions, of all members......
Did Polk fail, or are you saying that as a fanboy that will never see a speaker that can improve on the older SDA's.

I think that is a very valid question. And I ask that sincerely.

K_M

DSkip wrote: »

Good: improved build quality
Punchy and rocking
Crisp and clean

Bad: zero depth. Not even a hint of it
Phase issues with sda
Really energetic, almost too much for me.

Overall they are much better than the past flagship series Polk has released. MUCH better. They are capable of more details and cleaner sound than I’ve heard from any Polk to date, even highly modified SDA. They aren’t quite the eyesore in person that they appear to be in pictures. I’m not sure I would like it in anything but black as it keeps that weird bottom cutout from looking weird.

The issues I was experiencing were not due to improper placement. The sda was very expansive and capable of throwing stuff tens of feet to the left or right. Unfortunately it had more of a wrap around effect than a linear effect and at times sources that were supposed to be in front of you were placed well behind you. I never had that issue with original sda.

The sda phase issues and irregular center image make me wonder if the angled baffle is causing irregular frequency issues do the drivers being so far off axis, creating a completely different response than the non sda drivers. I could easily see this causing a lack of stability in image location.

Hopefully I’ll get to play around a bit more today and improve their sound. I even tried building a false wall to improve the sound but it did nothing for the phase issues.

I’m still giving these speakers a thumbs up. They will be some guys huckleberry and that’s cool.

Thank you~
What were your opinions as far as deep bass in regards to how low they will play and at what levels?

K_M

soupbone wrote: »

I really like my SDA's but I'm not driving 8 hours to hear them, but that's just me. I am looking forward to hearing them someday. Opinions WILL very, they always do, BUT...If the L800 doesn't SMOKE the old SDA's in EVERY way...it would be an EPIC fail.

Remember, dealing with opinions here. But I don't think there is anything you could do to make an older model better than a newly designed L800. That would include changing out every single component.

I suppose one could simply prefer an older model speaker, maybe even if the newer one is better.

We have several very old speakers from the 60's that I Love the sound of, and at times not even sure WHY I like them so much.
They are in our basement, and I can not imagine listening to christmas music with any other sound......Maybe nostalgia also..?

But at other times, I listen to them, and think "they are lacking" in some key ways that most newer stuff rarely is.

Maybe what appeals to me is their lack of clarity and focus and detail. They are just enjoyable.

Emlyn

I have owned several sets of the old SDA speakers and also found them to be very enjoyable to listen to, but there are reasons I no longer own them. One is the size of the big ones overloading the room I have my two channel system in while also being picky on requiring placement close to the front wall. Because of windows in my home theater space the old SDAs would not work in that room. Another is detail retrieval even with replacement tweeters. This is comparing them to older JM Lab/Focal speakers.

Two things I have never heard better though are the SDA imaging and the way the midwoofers worked with the passive radiators so seamlessly. To me those two factors are what made them so fun to listen to.

Interesting things I have heard so far are the new tweeter seems to be better than any Polk has used before, mixed opinions on the SDA functionality, bass integration may not be as good as with modified original SDA speakers, placement seems best somewhat away from the front wall, and the jury is out on whether the new speakers play well with dual mono design stereo amplifiers or mono amps.

It would be nice if someone from Polk could chime in on that last point.

SIHAB

You don't comment on your art for people. You let them form their own opinions.

I haven't caught anyone mentioning what they used to drive them...

K_M

Emlyn wrote: »

I have owned several sets of the old SDA speakers and also found them to be very enjoyable to listen to, but there are reasons I no longer own them. One is the size of the big ones overloading the room I have my two channel system in while also being picky on requiring placement close to the front wall. Because of windows in my home theater space the old SDAs would not work in that room. Another is detail retrieval even with replacement tweeters. This is comparing them to older JM Lab/Focal speakers.

Two things I have never heard better though are the SDA imaging and the way the midwoofers worked with the passive radiators so seamlessly. To me those two factors are what made them so fun to listen to.

Interesting things I have heard so far are the new tweeter seems to be better than any Polk has used before, mixed opinions on the SDA functionality, bass integration may not be as good as with modified original SDA speakers, placement seems best somewhat away from the front wall, and the jury is out on whether the new speakers play well with dual mono design stereo amplifiers or mono amps.

It would be nice if someone from Polk could chime in on that last point.

Agree with most of your points.
The bass of our SDA's is quite good but they just seem to lack in detail and clarity. clarity seems to be a bit lacking in comparison to many of our Monitors we have owned.
Not enough to ruin the sound but every time I would go back to the Lsi15, for instance, the treble just seemed in another class.
Just more refined and airy.

Emlyn

I have to take back one of my comments. Spendor and Harbeth do bass integration better than old Polks with their simple speaker configurations, but they lack low bass for typical American sized rooms.

nooshinjohn

I wondered about the angle front baffle as well. I though the inboard drivers would be ok, but feel the outboard ones needed to be pointing straight ahead. Again, just speculation as I want to hear them for myself.

DarqueKnight

soupbone wrote: »

Remember, dealing with opinions here. But I don't think there is anything you could do to make an older model better than a newly designed L800. That would include changing out every single component.

Some of us have gotten very close to changing out every single component. In my SDA SRS 1.2TLs, the only stock parts are the 6.5" drivers and the MDF cabinets, and even the cabinets are modified with driver retaining rings.

K_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

soupbone wrote: »

Remember, dealing with opinions here. But I don't think there is anything you could do to make an older model better than a newly designed L800. That would include changing out every single component.

Some of us have gotten very close to changing out every single component. In my SDA SRS 1.2TLs, the only stock parts are the 6.5" drivers and the MDF cabinets, and even the cabinets are modified with driver retaining rings.

Not saying this in an antagonizing way,(even if it comes off that way) but are you alluding to thinking the Original 1980s Midwoofers can not be bettered?