Your opinion please

HUNTER

This is just my opinion,
If the RT55i" is the top of the line polk book shelf speaker and the RT3000 is the top of the line polk floor standing speaker both of which have two 6.5 drivers then wouldn't you consider the RT800i a notch above the 1000 or 2000. Before you say no consider this logic; If the 55 and the 3000 both have two 6.5 drivers then why wouldn't the 1000 be a powered dual 6.5 driver tower or the 2000 be a powered dual 6.5 driver instead of a single with two 8" subs. My point you ask? Well If you add a good power sub to the 55s or the 800s then you esentially have the 3000 (top of the line), but if you add a good powered sub to the 1000 or the 2000 then you still have a single 6.5 driver two carry the mid range. Now if polk had a powered dual 6.5 driver tower this logic would not apply but they do not. I know that speaker sound is subjective but if you were to base a logical debate on the top of the line speakers then I believe that one would have to conclude that the 800 was designed more like the 3000 that either the 1000 or the 2000 when coupled with a good sub.
Now look at the top of the line Lsi speakers, both towers have dual mid range. From my assesment polks engineers feel that dual midrange are better than singles or they would have singles in the new models.

juice21

i'm right on with ya brotha! i feel the same way about the dual midrange drivers, the 800's are my favorite tower speaker, next to the 3000's of course...

just my opinion of course...:D

jcaut

I have 800's and 55's, and I think both are great.

I think the reason for the extra driver is to give more bass-radiating area, and possibly power-handling ability---Not for some inherent benefit to the midrange. In fact you could argue that the interactions between the two drivers reproducing the same frequency range could muddy the midrange slightly. Some say the openness and clarity of the midrange is better on the single driver speakers like the RT35i's, 600i's, 1000i's, etc.. The "cascade tapered array" crossover on the 3000i's (and LSi's, I believe) helps remove these interactions. Someone correct me if I'm giving out bad information about that.

Jason

HUNTER

jcaut,
Here is a cut and paste from the specifications of the rt55 and the rt3000 respectively.
The "Cascade Tapered Array" states that the cross overs are set differently between the 6.5 drivers on the cross over. There are no specs for the cross over on the rt800 so I used the rt55 which is the same speaker right?
rt55i
Top driver 2nd order Low Pass Filter @ 2kHz, bottom driver LPF @ 1.2kHz. Tweeter 2nd order High Pass @2kHz
rt3000i
driver #1 (bottom) 2nd order LPF @ 1.2kHz;driver #2 (upper, near tweeter) 2nd order LPF @ 2kHz, 80Hz 2nd order electrical HPF on both drivers
Now if you look at the cross over ratings they are exactly the same except for the 3000 which has an 80hz 2nd order electrical HPF for both drivers which has nothing to do with the cascade array, it is the bass cut off since it is coupled with the lower unit subs. The cs400i is stated to have the cascade array aswell I'll bet the cross over is the same.

juice21

Originally posted by jcaut
In fact you could argue that the interactions between the two drivers reproducing the same frequency range could muddy the midrange slightly.

actually, each driver focuses on a different frequency range, and is why it actually does sounds a lot better in midrange reproduction than the single driver speakers, or at least has the ability to. IMO anyway...

jcaut

There's a discrepency between the specifications section on the Polk site and the printed manual that comes with the speakers. I haven't downloaded the .pdf manual, but I bet it's just like the printed one. Having seen the crossovers, I believe that the woofers are wired in series, and share a Low-pass crossover frequency of 2KHz. (The 800i's are at 2.5KHz)

If they did (or do) use the cascade tapered array, then I'd agree with your point. The CS400i uses different crossover points for the two drivers.

I'm attaching a scan of the specs from my RT55i manual.

Jason

juice21

maybe polk can jump in here to clarify on this...

-justin-

Note: Specifications are subject to change without notice

Seriously though, I'm not sure about this one. I will talk to customer service and get them to tell me which is right.

~JB

-justin-

You are the winner. Looks like a website (gulp) error. They share the same cutoff @ 2kHz.

~JB

jcaut

What exactly do I win?:D
---Nevermind, I don't want to know..

Seriously though, I seem to remember wondering about this myself before I bought my RT800i's, and (I can't really remember if it was by e-mail or through the forum) Ken told me that the drivers were wired in series and shared the crossover frequency.

Going by the specs on the website it looks like the 3000i's don't have much of an advantage on the 55's/800's, where in reality I bet there's a pretty significant advantage.

Jason

P.S. I see you already changed it. Thanks, Justin.

HUNTER

Upon finding out that there is an error on the 55 specs xover I decided to check out the xover on my 800s and 400. The 800s 6.5s are wire together so no cascade array however the 400s 6.5s are a cascade array and indepentenly wired to the xover. I am now interested in changing the xovers in the 800s to the 400 xover. Has anyone done this? I contacted polk to ask their opion, which I sure will be not to do it, but if the price is right I might try it. It should work.

rskarvan

Interesting thread.... it appears there is more to two drivers than meets the eye.

The older SDA series like in my 3.1TL's are a cascaded array.
I think the theory is that if a driver is asked to ONLY reproduce a narrow frequency band; it can, indeed produce that frequency band with more precision.

Now, it seems to me that if you are working in a cascaded configuration, improvements could be made by optimizing the design of that particular driver for that particular frequency range. To the best of my knowledge, Polk doesn't do this. Instead, they rely on commonization of parts to keep costs low at the expense of an optimized sound.

Of course, the counter-argument to this theory is that by using identical drivers, Polk assures themselves of a natural (matched) sound from all the cascaded drivers. I am sure, to some extent, this is true also.

I have a question though. In the vintage Polk speakers like the
3.1, 2.3, 1.2, RTA15... how many crossover points are used for the four vertical drivers main (non-sda) drivers? Are these in fact 5-way speakers (counting the tweeter)... or, is it some other configuration. I am certain that lots of inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.

jcaut

Hunter,
If the drivers are the same, then it might work. I don't think they are, however. Of course, I'm no expert on this, and I don't know what would happen---It might work. I do know that crossover design can be pretty complicated and that it would be highly unlikely that the crossover in a center channel speaker would be anywhere near OPTIMUM for a different speaker. There are just too many other factors involved. My thinking is that since the 6.5" drivers in the 800's are wired in series, then there's a good possibility that individually they are 4 Ohms, which wouldn't work with the CS crossover. If you're happy with the sound of the 800i's as they are, then swapping the crossovers out is probably a bad idea. You might consider upgrading the crossover COMPONENTS, if you really want to try and tweak it.

Interesting, about the SDA x-overs, too....

Jason

HUNTER

jcaut,
Thanks for your input. The other option I was thinking about was replacing the 800 xover with the 3000 xover. The the 3000 sat is just a RT55 with a different xover so it should be a good upgrade for the 800. The only problem is that the 3000 sat xover has an 80 Hz cut off since it is used with the subs so you would not be able to run them as "large" They would always be seen as a "small" speaker by the receiver. I beleive that if this xover change was performed that the 800 would in essence be a 3000 when used with a good subwoofer.

Rt800i = $300.00 x 2 = $600.00
good sub = $500.00
3000 xover = $66.00 x 2 = $132.00

Total = $1,232.00

rt3000p = $1000.00 x2 = $2,000.00

RuSsMaN

How about just putting a cap inline on the postive wire of the 800, to cut everything below 80hz?

Cost $4

SERENITY NOW!!!!!

R

jcaut

The the 3000 sat is just a RT55 with a different xover

Well, not exactly. Also, many people assume that the RT800i is just a floorstanding version of the RT55i. I don't think that's true either. I'm pretty sure Ken Swauger told me that the only thing they have in common is the tweeter. Crossovers and 6.5" drivers are different. The same is true with the 3000's: The tweeter is the same, but everything else is different. The 3000 sats are sealed, as well. I know it seems that the crossovers should be interchangable, and I'm sure they'd function---I'm just not sure the end result would be better than what you started with.

The 800i's are sweet speakers and, I believe, well engineered, for their price bracket. It would surprise me if they could be improved by swapping in a crossover that was tailored for a different speaker. A collection of great parts doesn't necessarily make a great speaker. Good sound is in the details: How well the parts work WITH EACH OTHER. This is, of course, just my opinion, and I may be wrong. Before you buy any parts, though, I think you ought to talk to someone at Polk, like maybe Ken Swauger, about what you're wanting to accomplish. He won't steer you wrong.

Good luck!
Jason

johnnyamerika

I would agree, if you dedicate a certain range to a driver, it would be able to produce that sound better. But at the same time, I listened to both the 800s and 1000s for quite some time, and found that the 1000s had much more clarity and transparency. Perhaps the 2 drivers overlap more than they should, although it seems the information tells different? I found the 800s mid range to be too cloudy...but maybe that's just my listening tastes.

hoosier21

This is not to slam Polk, really!

But do you really think the mass produced RTi speaker line, that Polk has several versions of the 6.5" driver for each model?

Last time I looked, the parts list did not have the RTi line listed, so I can not be certain, but I will be suprised to find any difference in model numbers for the 6.5 mid-woofer, for the CS400i RTi 35 55 600 800 1000 2000 and even the 3000 sat.

Just my 2 cents.

RuSsMaN

Could not agree more

Cheers,
Ed Zachry

HUNTER

From the specs and the looks the rt55i appears to be the exact same speaker as the rt3000p sat. They each have an ARC port so they are not sealed boxes. The only difference between the two appears to be the xover.
I find it hard to beleive that polk uses all different 6.5 drivers. I'd bet that all the rt line 6.5 drivers are the exact same and probably have the same part number.
Now the rt800i appears to have a power port at the bottom like the 1000 and 2000 but since it also has the ARC port I suspect that the power port on the bottom is not functional and is probably there because they use the same box for the 1000.
Why would you have an ARC port and a power port when the 1000 and 2000 only have a power port (the 1000 and 2000 are not described as having an ARC port).
Based on the various spec sheets, and visual inspection I beleive that:
#1 The Rt55i is the Rt3000p sat with a different crossover.
#2 The Rt800i is the Rt55i with a built in stand and non functional power port.
#3 Replacing the Rt800i xover with the 3000p xover will yeild a rt3000i floor standing speaker with out the subs.
I will attempt to verify or refute my beleifs by pulling the 6.5s out of a rt800i to see if the power port is functional. I will have a hard time determining if the all of the 6.5 drivers are the same unless I can find a spec sheet on the drivers; voice coils, throw, magnets etc.
If anyone has any verifiable information please let me know.
Its not that I am unhappy with my speakers but if they can be upgraded great if not then fine but at least we will know exactly how these speakers differ.

johnnyamerika

Originally posted by HUNTER

Now the rt800i appears to have a power port at the bottom like the 1000 and 2000 but since it also has the ARC port I suspect that the power port on the bottom is not functional and is probably there because they use the same box for the 1000.
Why would you have an ARC port and a power port when the 1000 and 2000 only have a power port (the 1000 and 2000 are not described as having an ARC port).

No, I don't think the 800's power port is not functional...and they definatley aren't the same box as the 1000s, which are substancially bigger. The 1000s and 2000s also 'do' have ARC, the smaller version that is located below the main driver.

jcaut

Ok. I give up.

The Power Port on the 800i's is FOR A FACT, functional.

RuSsMaN

ARC, Acoustic Resonance Control, to help 'deaden' the cabinet from unwanted resonance, probably tuned to the resonant frequency of the materials used...

Power Port is for bass extension, functioning as a common, tapered port.

R

They are both functional, and serve different purposes.

johnnyamerika

Maybe if we get rowdy enough, some Polk engineer will come around and smack us down with the correct info.....till then, please keep all appendages away from the power ports, as they are functional....that goes for all you speakerphiles out there, sick ****!

Aaron

I can't even begin to correct all the mistakes people are saying on this thread! Unbelievable!

Aaron

RuSsMaN

The freakin Polk Special Olympics are in full swing.....

SERENITY NOW!!!!!

Cheers,
Russ

johnnyamerika

woah, I just saw corky from 'Life Goes On' testing out a new pair of Lsi15's!

HUNTER

Well this does'nt need to get heated. I had some questions that I wanted to find answers for.
I didn't say that the power port was not functional I merely stated that I had my doubts and that I would do my on research which I have.
The 800 does have a fuctional power port as the others have attested. I don't alway take what is written and what people say as fact I do my own research.
Now I ask if a power port is for bass extension and tuning and when using cabinet lining you want to avoid impeding the port then why would the 800i have the stuffing or lining between the drivers and the ARC port and power port. These questions can go on but since we can't compare the rt800i to the rt3000 sat enclosure at least tell me how the rt55i is different from the rt3000p.

RuSsMaN

The wadding or 'stuffing' has more to with cancelling the 'back wave' from the drivers, which also, helps to tighten up bass extension (added bonus). Rarely, will you find a CLEAR path from the back of the driver(s) to a port.

Put on some bass heavy music, and stick your hand down by the power port? Feel air? It is doing what it is design to do.

55 vs 3000, straight from the Polk website....

RT55(i)
Crossover
Drivers 2nd order Low Pass Filter @ 2kHz. Tweeter 2nd order High Pass @2kHz

RT3000p
Crossover
(mid-high array) driver #1 (bottom) 2nd order LPF @ 1.2kHz;driver #2 (upper, near tweeter) 2nd order LPF @ 2kHz, 80Hz 2nd order electrical HPF on both drivers

So the 55 is a 2-way design, the 3000 (top section) is a 2 1/2 way design, using a bandpass filter

And the drivers are IDENTICAL.

Thats it for me, I need WHISKEY.

R

HUNTER

Russman,
I really appreciate your response with facts rather than just making some sarcastic remarks like some others.
We are all in this for the same reason to improve the enjoyment. If we can perform some tweeks to make these great products better then great if not then so be it.
It seems that the people that reject any notion of change beleive that the manufacture of the product didn't over look any details and attempted every configuration to make their mass market product perfect.
Isn't the band pass filter a part of the xover, if so then simply changing the xover on the 55 to the 3000 would duplicate the rt3000i speaker.

johnnyamerika

Hey Hunter,

I'm not trying to make sarcastic remarks here, man. It just seems everyone is getting a bit 'heated' on this topic, so I was just trying to get some laughs in. Sorry if I offended you!