Old Polk vs new Polk

Nabman

Hi. Curious to know how new Polks compare to old Polks. Anyone had the chance to compare the Reserve R200 to say Monitor 5 II (imaging, stage, clarity of mids, controlled lows, unfatiguing highs, etc.)? Bill

mhardy6647

(Speaking only for myself)
Not yet.

skrol

Comparing my RTA-11TL to the LSi15, I have to say that they are just different presentations and neither is necessarily wrong. The LSi has wonderful imaging and I love the mids-highs. They are probably more accurate. My moded RTA's also image very well and are very cohesive. I love the bass. In some ways I enjoy then more than the LSi. When I got the LSi's I thought I'd get rid of the RTA's but I still like them too much.

dromunds

I have Monitor 5 Peerless and R200’s so I could compare them but haven’t yet. My general sense from having pretty much all the bookies at one point or another including currently having the L200’s, LSiM 703’s, LSi-9’s and several of the RT and RTi’s is that the R200’s (and L200) represent a progression of Polk’s institutional memory and engineering knowledge. (The R200 is obviously an effort to economize the L200 but they still share many attributes.) I can tell you the R200’s are really nice and I think most would agree perhaps the best speaker out there under a grand. When Polk recently offered them to forum members for nearly half off they became the best bang for the buck speaker out there. They have excellent deep lows and at the same time very nice high frequencies. This assumes good source and power although they sound pretty decent even with my Pioneer Elite SC-27 receiver. But with tubes they shine. BTW, I actually prefer my Monitor 4 Peerless to my Monitor 5’s, although both are nice speakers, the 4’s constantly amaze me with how much comes out of those little boxes especially the LF’s. I will attempt soon to put the Monitor 5 Peerless up against the R200’s but it may be a bit yet. The old and new each have their attributes. But like I said, generally speaking, (IMHO and with some exceptions which may be influenced by gear and personal preferences), there is a progression with Polk bookies.

mhardy6647

Re: the nice summary post above: My knee-jerk thought was that the original morph of the "Monitor 4" (which, as mentioned above, used the redoubtable Peerless silk dome tweeter) was the "best" comparator of old vs. new at the R100 or R200 level. The original Monitor 4 was/is a really, really nice little loudspeaker.


source: https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/148194/opinion-on-polk-monitor-4-with-peerless-tweeters

Nabman

Thank you all for answering.

Sigfried

dromunds wrote: »

I have Monitor 5 Peerless and R200’s so I could compare them but haven’t yet. My general sense from having pretty much all the bookies at one point or another including currently having the L200’s, LSiM 703’s, LSi-9’s and several of the RT and RTi’s is that the R200’s (and L200) represent a progression of Polk’s institutional memory and engineering knowledge. (The R200 is obviously an effort to economize the L200 but they still share many attributes.) I can tell you the R200’s are really nice and I think most would agree perhaps the best speaker out there under a grand. When Polk recently offered them to forum members for nearly half off they became the best bang for the buck speaker out there. They have excellent deep lows and at the same time very nice high frequencies. This assumes good source and power although they sound pretty decent even with my Pioneer Elite SC-27 receiver. But with tubes they shine. BTW, I actually prefer my Monitor 4 Peerless to my Monitor 5’s, although both are nice speakers, the 4’s constantly amaze me with how much comes out of those little boxes especially the LF’s. I will attempt soon to put the Monitor 5 Peerless up against the R200’s but it may be a bit yet. The old and new each have their attributes. But like I said, generally speaking, (IMHO and with some exceptions which may be influenced by gear and personal preferences), there is a progression with Polk bookies.

. Did you ever get a chance to do that comparison between your Monitor 5's and the R200's? I'm really curious of your findings if so. I have a pair of 5jr's and was wondering if the R200's would be a worthy next step or side step?

Hansvelton

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Re: the nice summary post above: My knee-jerk thought was that the original morph of the "Monitor 4" (which, as mentioned above, used the redoubtable Peerless silk dome tweeter) was the "best" comparator of old vs. new at the R100 or R200 level. The original Monitor 4 was/is a really, really nice little loudspeaker.


source: https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/148194/opinion-on-polk-monitor-4-with-peerless-tweeters

As much as I like several of the older vintage monitor line, and having not heard the upper(recent) lines of Polk, from all I have read, they seem to be simply in another league as compared to the older 80s models.

Hansvelton

skrol wrote: »

Comparing my RTA-11TL to the LSi15, I have to say that they are just different presentations and neither is necessarily wrong. The LSi has wonderful imaging and I love the mids-highs. They are probably more accurate. My moded RTA's also image very well and are very cohesive. I love the bass. In some ways I enjoy then more than the LSi. When I got the LSi's I thought I'd get rid of the RTA's but I still like them too much.

I did some really in depth comparing of an older Rta11t with the Lsi15 and I have to agree with what you found!

I thought the bass of the Rta11t was just better overall than the Lsi15, but the mids and highs on the lsi are just really great!

skrol

I have the RTA11TLs and the LSi15. I agree that I love the bass of the RTA11TL over the LSi15. However the LSi15 is better in the mids uppers and imaging. However, I do still enjoy my RTA11TLs very much in a different way.