Tweeters

arcspark

So what’s the general consensus?...is the rdo194 ultimately the better tweeter than the original peerless in the monitor line?...thanks for listening, arc

aprazer402

Keep the Peerless. My two cents.

pitdogg2

The RD-0194 is not a replacement for the peerless. In order to use it you will need to recut the opening.

arcspark

Ok thanks...I knew it was not a drop in replacement but am sort of asking in more of a performance sense as everything else has been judged against the peerless over time...in the monitors

Gardenstater

DarqueKnight did a great thread comparing the tweeters, but for whatever reason did not want or didn't choose to evaluate the Peerless. I've always felt that Polk must've had some sort of falling out with Peerless, or at least something caused them to try to create their own version with the SL1000. It would be great if somebody would try to evaluate the Peerless relative to all the other tweeters, both subjectively with listening tests, and Thiele Small Parameters and sensitivity, phase, and impedance curves.

I will say that I love my 1979 7514xxxx Peerless tweeters. Could something sound better though? Probably.

arcspark

Yes, something caused Polk to shift gears with the peerless...fallout like stated and likely due to money etc ....at any rate I would, for the fun, love to know about a comparison between peerless and rdo194... by the way I’m damn happy with my peerless as they are even now...thanks for listening, arc

F1nut

There is no comparison because they are not interchangeable. Move on.

arcspark

Got it....but I’d still like to know which is higher quality sonically...thanks for listening, arc

Gardenstater

If there are any members who have both an early Peerless version of the Monitor 7 (for example) and who also a 7C (SL2000 tweeter) that they have swapped out for the RD0-194 that would be a fair way of getting some idea of which tweeter is better, subjectively speaking.

Edit - corrected

F1nut

arcspark wrote: »

Got it....but I’d still like to know which is higher quality sonically...thanks for listening, arc

The sonic quality of the tweeter depends not only on the tweeter, but it's relationship with the other drivers and crossover circuit. IIRC, the drivers and crossover circuit in the Peerless equipped 7's are different than the later versions, so again there is no way to make a valid comparison to the RDO194.

pkquat

@F1nut is right it is hard to truly compare because there are many differences. I have Monitor 5's with the American made Peerless but I have not rebuilt the crossovers yet, and Monitor 5's Series 2 with RD-0198 replacements and rebuilt crossovers. They sound different but both are good. The RD-0198 is clear smooth and easy listening. That said, IMO the speakers with the Peerless have a more pleasing sound. People seem to prefer the original Danish version of the Peerless tweeter slightly more than Polk's American version (not the SL1000), but both are considered very good. It could be nostalgia, or I just used to their sound. I have only found one possibly negative thing I noticed with the Peerless at higher volumes. Others have said they didn't notice it, so it may be due to my old crossovers so I won't comment on what I heard until I rebuild them.

Polk originally used Peerless tweeters from Denmark that were customized for Polk, i.e. the hole in the center (although I think another speaker manufacturer also used some with a hole). The tweeters normally did not have a hole. I think the hole was added to work with Polk's crossover to reduce some point distortion at certain frequencies and/or improve the frequency response. The Denmark tweeters start with 7514 stamped on the back. At some point around 1980-82 Polk acquired a license to build the tweeters in the US. These start with 5514 stamped on the back and/or have a machined drill point dimple on the back of the magnet assembly. If I remember or heard correctly Polk still used the same tweeter membrane from Denmark but sourced the other parts and assembled them in the US for cost savings. At some point the mold for the tweeter membrane broke and all similar, even non-polk tweeters without the hole were no longer available. What I am not sure about is when this happened relative to SL1000 tweeter that was designed and developed in house by Polk. The SL1000 looks similar to the Peerless and has the same size dome and face plate. It also sounds really harsh. From then on Polk designed their own tweeters and slowly got better at it.

Gardenstater

@pkquat Always nice when you contribute to the discussion. It sure would be nice if someone on the inside would come forward and clear up all the mystery. I'm not entirely sure about some of these things. For a while I was screenshotting any interesting sales and even posted some here on this forum. Here's one that gives some doubt to the 7514s always being Danish made.

pitdogg2

I think the hole was added to work with Polk's crossover to reduce some point distortion at certain frequencies and/or improve the frequency response.

Correct Polk burned a hole in the dome with a soldering iron from my understanding.