Who has the Polk Reserve Signature book shelf speakers?
I remember seeing a few posts that someone who purchased them.
They look great and wonder how they sound, look in person and overall built quality vs the regular R200's?
They look great and wonder how they sound, look in person and overall built quality vs the regular R200's?
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
Comments
-
Living Room 2.2: Usher BE-718 "tiny dancers"; Dual DIY Dayton audio RSS210HF-4 Subs with Dayton SPA-250 amps; Arcam SA30; Musical Fidelity A308; Sony UBP-x1000es
Game Room 5.1.4: Denon AVR-X4200w; Sony UBP-x700; Definitive Technology Power Monitor 900 mains, CLR-3000 center, StudioMonitor 350 surrounds, ProMonitor 800 atmos x4; Sub - Monoprice Monolith 15in THX Ultra
Bedroom 2.1 Harmon Kardon HK3490; Bluesounds Node N130; Polk RT25i; ACI Titan Subwoofer -
I got a pair.
Fit and finish is great but so they should for the extra money.
Sound wise. They are pretty good but not great IMO.
Top end is very refined (maybe a bit too much so) and bit too subdued especially at lower levels. My R700s seam to have a better balance in this area.
They have to be played with some volume to come alive. Or turn up the treble control if you are that way inclined. They sound a bit like you have the loudness button on for those who remember what they did.
Overall IMO Polk tried too hard to make a stand mount sound like a floor stander and missed the mark for why some prefer the sound of a good stand mount. Precise, Articulate, Lighter on its feet.
I like them but don't love them. But i mainly got them as a collectors item being and old Polkie.
I may have a play with the caps and resistors at some stage since the CB on them is nice and easy to work with.
Ive not heard the std R200 so would be very interested if someone here could compare the difference. If any.
-
So to expand on those comments...
I sold mine because the midrange performance was well below my expectations in the end.
I really really really wanted to like them and keep them but my 20 year old Def tech pm500s performed far better in my application, to my ears. Ymmv
Absolutely beautiful speakers though and Polk knocked the build out of the park.
- Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit. -
So to expand on those comments...
I sold mine because the midrange performance was well below my expectations in the end.
I really really really wanted to like them and keep them but my 20 year old Def tech pm500s performed far better in my application, to my ears. Ymmv
Absolutely beautiful speakers though and Polk knocked the build out of the park.
Yeh I prefer my JBL L50s TBH. -
I find it extremely hard to compare polk speakers to Def Tech's. Model for model , Def Tech's always seem a notch above polk. Sound is personal but I always seem to prefer the sound of the Def Tech's.So to expand on those comments...
I sold mine because the midrange performance was well below my expectations in the end.
I really really really wanted to like them and keep them but my 20 year old Def tech pm500s performed far better in my application, to my ears. Ymmv
Absolutely beautiful speakers though and Polk knocked the build out of the park.
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
Def tech has a house sound that one would love or hate. The reserve series is very reserved and as mentioned they need alot of volume to wake up and do their thing. Just not a good fit for near field- Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
-
Most bookshelf speakers are not near field suited. Your Ould have to get a set of studio monitors for that kind of duty.Def tech has a house sound that one would love or hate. The reserve series is very reserved and as mentioned they need alot of volume to wake up and do their thing. Just not a good fit for near field
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
The R200s are, though.
I dam near hated them initially. Boomy, edgy when set up similarly to 703s and L200s with their Power Port diffusers.
It wasn't until I had them in a temp setup for testing a new-to-me integrated, out 8ft from the wall and in a 4ft triangle, that they became beautiful and capable performers.
I was experiencing imaging I'd never experienced before. For example, I have never heard music approach me from a distance ahead during a track fade-in. I was blown away with this.
I found them to work best with integrated amps. They did not pair well, in my case, with an earlier Yamaha AVR.
I didn't get a chance to thoroughly test them on a B&K AVR 507, only just briefly. Pretty sure they'd have been better than on the Yamaha, but still not as good as the integrated's. B&K stuff to me has always been more laid back, fatter, and easier on the ears.I disabled signatures. -
Side note - to be fair, that wasn't a fair comparison - The X-port is different; essentially rear-ported, no diffusion vs the Power Port. These speakers need a LOT of breathing room, at least in my spaces experiments. I didn't like them when placed near walls, or closed in.I dam near hated them initially. Boomy, edgy when set up similarly to 703s and L200s with their Power Port diffusers.
I disabled signatures. -
Yes they most definitely need space to tame the bass Polk built into them. I had to pull mine way out onto the room the get some sort of balance.
-
They have bass for days that's for sure.
Side note, going to have to disagree on the near field and only studio monitors bit. I have ran the huge Wilson cubs, Duette and the Def tech monitors all with very positive results- Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit. -
I think they would need Room correction to get the best out fo them. Or at least acoustic panels behind them to tame the reinforcement of bass coming out of the port.
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
