Polk R200-GR Research Kit

HalfOhm

Good day Polkies.
I was curious if any members here have tried or listened to the GR Research crossover Mod?

I bought a pair of R200 a long time ago. I liked them. Used them for digital streaming & applied PEQ for any room abnormalities...which were limited. Not much EQ needed for these in my room.

I ended up selling that pair around the time I picked up the R700's. Shortly after though I came across a new pair of R200's for under
$500 & grabbed them...with the intention of eventually just upgrading the original crossover with better parts.

Since the time that I sold my original R200's the other bookshelves I've owned were the Linton's, R3 Meta's, Martin Logan XT-B100, & the Elac Vela BS 403. All of them are very good to decent speakers. Yet in comparison I do still like something about these much cheaper Polk's. That's not to say I didn't like a lot of things about those other speakers. My point is that I'm ready to upgrade the R200 crossover.

I have no experience with crossover work. I've done a few tube preamp/amp builds & repairs. So I'm not familiar with speaker crossovers..but not afraid to rip something apart & then put a soldering iron to it.
I saw a naked R200 board in this forum somewhere & took note of the values. As I was pricing parts I realized that the GR Research kit really wasn't much more in price. I emailed them & of course they are quite confident I'll be impressed with their redesign.

For the original crossover I was looking at 12w Mills resistors everywhere except for the 15w 4.7R..which I could replace with Mundorf or Ohmite. The Mills are on sale. Also removing any electrolytics for poly's & ditching the iron cores.

So I am asking if anyone has any experience with GR Research at all...or with the R200 GR Kit? Any feedback on just upgrading the original crossover with better parts & leaving the values be? Any advice or criticism on anything I've said? Thanks for taking the time to read thru this. Any feedback or criticisms are appreciated

treitz3

Hello and good afternoon to you. I would (if I were in your shoes) leave the crossover values as they were intended by Polk. I don't wish to say anything bad about Danny, so I will just leave it at that.

Tom

Gardenstater

I would have to watch that video again but IIRC he didn't change the values and said Polk did an excellent job. Just upgraded parts to correct the "cheesy".

https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/200085/danny-richie-does-the-polk-r200#latest

Edit - Nope. Maybe I was thinking of the L200. He made some improvements to the crossover and got rid of a hump and ringing at 1kHz, which is the upper range of female vocals and effects piano etc..

HalfOhm

Yeah I wouldn't want anyone to speak ill of another. Danny does not give these away for free so I see no issue of being critical about his work... especially if one has hands on experience with his work.

I certainly question some of his beliefs..but that would also be true of my thoughts on a lot of people that are known in the industry. I personally don't get caught up in people's overly subjective opinions or thoughts on many upgrade tweaks & supposed "snake oil" products. I leave that for others to debate.

I don't know anything about his crossovers though. He seems to have quite the following but I was unable to find people discussing his upgrade kits...for better or worse. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places though.

Sticking to the original or trying something different is where my thoughts are at. Also if upgrading the parts are even worth it. With electronics I've come to the conclusion that sometimes better parts matter. Other times not so much. Maybe since I can appreciate the speaker as is, for its price point, that just upgrading original values is the way I should go. Though I have a curiosity to see/hear if GR Research can back up their claims.

HalfOhm

Gardenstater wrote: »

I would have to watch that video again but IIRC he didn't change the values and said Polk did an excellent job. Just upgraded parts to correct the "cheesy".

https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/200085/danny-richie-does-the-polk-r200#latest

From the couple of Polk videos I watched it was the L600 that he only upgraded the original values.

With the R200 he says he supposedly added another notch filter. Brought down the 1khz peak. Made some changes to widen the vertical response as well I think. I guess I should rewatch it again as well.

HalfOhm

Widen the vertical response lol. Bad wording on that one

VR3

Beyond the crossover, if you go all air core, high end caps etc they won't fit in the enclosure

Here's the l200, very tight fit

HalfOhm

VR3 wrote: »

Beyond the crossover, if you go all air core, high end caps etc they won't fit in the enclosure

Here's the l200, very tight fit

Beautiful layout & job...top notch.

And yes, I would go external if need be. Due to the original cost of the speaker I wouldn't be going crazy with boutique caps or Path Audio resistors. Size would be a determining factor. Air cores & spacing would be the size issues.

You really did a fantastic job with the L200's. I guess you already know that lol. After not being able to come across any L200's on the new or used market I emailed Polk not long ago. Apparently they will not be making them anymore.

Gardenstater

HalfOhm wrote: »

Gardenstater wrote: »

I would have to watch that video again but IIRC he didn't change the values and said Polk did an excellent job. Just upgraded parts to correct the "cheesy".

https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/200085/danny-richie-does-the-polk-r200#latest

From the couple of Polk videos I watched it was the L600 that he only upgraded the original values.

With the R200 he says he supposedly added another notch filter. Brought down the 1khz peak. Made some changes to widen the vertical response as well I think. I guess I should rewatch it again as well.

And the L200; he didn't change values with that one either. I thought the cleanup in the CSD plot was pretty obvious that his changes had merit, with the R200.

You could try audiocircle forum. Danny has a section in that for GR Research

VR3

Look, if having a laser flat response was this important we would all rock studio monitors and run dsp.

Some of the best speakers I've heard absolutely didn't have a flat response.

To top it off, audio in the last twenty years where flat response has been the goal has only sounded worse and worse. Alot of new gear sounds down right awful but it measures flat.

I'll put a handful of thirty year old speakers with crazy response curves up against any of these new flat response Chinese manufactured products coming out any day of the week.

Gardenstater

VR3 wrote: »

Look, if having a laser flat response was this important we would all rock studio monitors and run dsp.

Some of the best speakers I've heard absolutely didn't have a flat response.

To top it off, audio in the last twenty years where flat response has been the goal has only sounded worse and worse. Alot of new gear sounds down right awful but it measures flat.

I'll put a handful of thirty year old speakers with crazy response curves up against any of these new flat response Chinese manufactured products coming out any day of the week.

CSD plots are significant because they reveal ringing where energy doesn't dissipate rapidly causing smearing of the sound. He reduced that ringing at 1kHz pretty dramatically.

Also, I think he does more than test on axis response. Lots of speakers show large dropouts centered on a particular frequency in vertical off axis due to the drivers going out of phase and time delay. He seemed to fix that in the R200 as well.

Flat response in and of itself isn't always good sure. Doesn't mean the speaker has to sound good but when it has good bones like the Polk, how can it be bad to tweak it flatter?

VR3

All I can say is I am glad I started this hobby in an era where there was less emphasis on specifications and more on sound quality.

Maybe this was because dealers still existed or I would just randomly buy gear to try out and move what I didn't like.

Maybe this analysis paralysis plaguing this industry is due to this online only shift.

I have not once purchased a speaker based on a graph or a decay plot. In my experience it has no bearing on good sound experiences.

A prime example

Tyler acoustics Taylo 7u and super towers.

Madisound leap designed crossovers. Decently constructed enclosures by Ty. Ty himself admitted he was more of a cabinet maker than a speaker designer but he used the leap crossovers, tried and true principles with premium drives. The seas excel series and scanspeak revelator are insanely good drivers even twenty years later they are current models!

These speakers can sound absolutely incredible man, I have easily heard some of the best sound from this line up of speakers.

Ty replaced these models with the Decade series, a Danny Ritchie designed product. He used Danny's cheap Chinese seas excel knock offs drivers and Chinese premium gr research tweeter. The enclosures were built to Danny's spec and lined heavily with no rez internally and used high quality crossover parts.

Below 70db, they sounded pretty good. Great soundstage, etc.

They had absolutely no balls to them, they could not sustain anything above 75db. I tried multiple models, the d2, d3, etc all returned in under 2 weeks. My non audio friend ordered the D3, thinking my experience with the d2 was a fluke. But his exact words was it sounded like cardboard making noise. The line was insanely over damped.

On paper, I assure you the Decade series was better in every way, absolutely every way.

To date it is easily one of the poorest audio experiences I have ever been thru.

pitdogg2

I have not once purchased a speaker based on a graph or a decay plot. In my experience it has no bearing on good sound experiences.

BINGO!

treitz3

One of the biggest reasons for Ty to go from Seas drivers to Danny's drivers was cost. There was a huge difference in the cost of the drivers. This, obviously helped with profits. I was actually surprised to hear that Ty was still in business after making the Decade series for so many years. He will be closing up shop in the next couple of years but that's because he wants to retire. He no longer has the expansive factory I toured when I went to go pick up the Linbrooks.

I was able to hear one of Danny's flagship speakers down at LSAF one year. I sat down to listen to a few selections and then he was gracious enough to offer to play anything I wanted. Then I left the room, after about 30 or so minutes.

Later on during the event, a couple of friends of mine (along with people we had just met) were talking about the various rooms and what we were really impressed with. Since we were about 20 feet from Danny's room, one of the new guys pointed at the room and asked me what my impressions were. Now, this was after I had turned around to see if Danny was still in the room....as I didn't want him to know my true thoughts.

I ripped into his system for probably 2 minutes. Little did I know that he had overheard most of what I had said. Of course, this was discovered a little too late, but the bell had already been rung. Unfortunately, ya' can't unring a bell.

Later on during that show, I had to speak with him about another mutual friend of ours. *Big gulp* So, I walked into his empty room and he volunteered to me that he had heard what I said. I immediately apologized and stated that my observations were not for his ears. He was polite, and admitted that he had damped the room too much.

Ya' think?

I don't believe he did it just to the room, I believe that he also did it to the speakers. The life was literally sucked right out of the music, no matter how loud he had it or what selection was played. Now, he was a gentleman about the whole thing and we remain friends today but I think it just boils down to this....

He has his own theories of what good sounds like, and that's cool. I can dig it. From what I have read and with some of the folks I have spoken with over the years, a lot of folks like what the man does. I'll just say that what sounds good to him and what sounds good to me are two completely different things.

Tom

HalfOhm

The measurements era is upon us lol. Personally I'm a big fan of all the graphs & measurements. But I'm into anything audio related & the measurement thing is fairly new to me. Maybe the last 3 years or so that I have really taken an interest to it.

I've been into home audio since the 80's though. Measurements were the last thing on my mind. Until the last few years I don't think I ever even thought about it. But I somehow managed to find speakers I enjoyed.

Even with measurements being more accessible I personally feel that the linearity or frequency response of a speaker is only one small detail. My room & placement is going to have the final say as to what my ears hear vs the anechoic or Klippel measurements. Things like directivity, compression/dynamics, distortion, & high frequency peaks are important to me. But even some of these things can be worked around with placement & volume levels.

I've purchased well reviewed or measured speakers...& did not totally care for them. Something like the R3 Meta. Great speaker..most people would love them forever. They just didn't do it for me long term. Better clarity, imaging, & definitely more beautiful than a cheap R200. Yet I still own the Polk's & sold the KEF's. Polk has a fuller sound..deeper stage in my wonky living room.

So I enjoy all the specs. Especially with electronics. Things like power supply noise..overall dynamic range. But I know that good measurements are not the end all to great sound. At least not for me I should say. I can appreciate the engineering that goes into something like the Hypex Nilai amp that I truly enjoy. But still love the sound of a tube amp with all its controlled distortions & nonlinearities with certain tubes.

With speakers certain nonlinearities can give a speaker character. More punchy. More lively. But if you know the sound you like then measurements can help you find it. And like what was already mentioned I do agree that measurements are starting to become more important due to lack of dealers & local shops. I think the wrong message that is out there though is that if a speaker doesn't measure near perfect that it is no good or lacking in some way. Which can be detrimental to younger "audiophiles" or those without the experience of listening to a lot of different speakers. One could be missing out on a great deal or sale...because someone told them it didn't measure well so don't bother. It's like Erin from Erin's Audio Corner gave a big thumbs down to the R200. And a big thumbs up to a few other speakers I've owned...that I got bored with.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. I will say that the 1khz area can be audible on the R200..with higher volumes. I can dial it done with the PEQ on my Dac. But I don't always like to use that dac. I would be extremely happy if I could just get a little more transparency out of the R200..rid the slight smearing or blending of notes. More space between instruments. Which isn't too noticeable until you compare it side by side with a better speaker.

I think I'm leaning towards trying the GR Research. Compared to what I spend on my electronic kit builds the $400 isn't that bad. $489 with sonicaps but maybe I'll just supply my own tweeter caps. If anything I want the experience or opportunity to work on a speaker..& to see how much of a difference an upgrade to a crossover can actually make on a budget-ish type speaker.
As I've been looking over crossovers & DIY speakers I did come across a speaker build called The Virage. Uses the new-ish Purifi drivers & nice Satori tweeters. Paul Carmody I believe is the designers name. Looks like a real simple crossover...minimal parts. Maybe I should save that for my next project.