connections...

wangotango68

what if any difference is there in the cable of a pin/pin and pin/blade interconnect cable form a sda-crs speaker? is one better then the other sound wise? just wondering.

scott:cool:

rskarvan

Scott,

I doubt there is little difference in the actual cable.
I think Polk just standardized on the pin blade configuration because of its entirely obvious how the thing is to be plugged in.
My CRS+'s are the blade-blade configuration. The sda driver and the main driver are identical part numbers. Your speaker's configuration has different drivers.

The connection for plugging the umbilical cord into the back of my CRS speakers is kinda cheesey - sort of a weak design (mechanical wise). Whereas, the Pin/Blade of my 3.1's is a much more sturdier connection.

As far as the sound.... my CRS+'s sound fabulous. I call them CRS+'s; but, I'm not certain that is entirely accurate. They are the one tweeter model but the cabinet is labeled CRS (not CRS+). I suspect that my model was a transition year.

Generally speaking, the later model speakers (yours) have been tweaked and improved from earlier models (mine). So, you've probably got slightly more desirable model.

If you are ever in Indy... stop by and take a listen.
You'll get to hear the Monitor 10's with the new Polk drivers too.
Also, my CRS's have brand new Polk replacement SL2000 tweeeters (not the silver dome). These tweets sound fabulous - I think anyway. They are better than the SL2500's in the monitor 10 and the SL3000 in the 3.1's.

Ron

wangotango68

mine are the + model with the blade/blade connection.

scott:cool:

rskarvan

I took my CRS apart to replace the tweets and to kinda
clean it. There was factory cabinet hot glue dripped on the inside of the passive radiators (it peeled right off). I used a little armour-all (silicone generic actually) to condition the rubber surrounds and to clean up a decade of dust from the outside surface of the drivers. Then, I used a little windex (ammonia) to remove/minimize the white glue oxidation ring on the center felt dust covers of the drivers.

Anyway, if you ever get the chance, take a look inside of yours.
The double cross over design is VERY impressive sight to behold.
Its absolutely huge. All those hand wound inductor coils are pretty unique.

If your back grills are scuffed up, a black sharpie works fine to
restoren their appearance.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your CRS's as much as I do mine.

hoosier21

I don't know about sounding any different, but Ken S. at Polk told me the blade blade versions have a signal passing on both connections (each blade) and that the pin blade only has a signal on the pin, the blade only acts as a place holder. I am sure this means the crossovers are completely different, but I am not smart enough to know how or what.

rskarvan

Polk Ken or Polk Paul,

Can you elaborate on the significance differences between the CRS+ pin/blade and blade/blade configurations. Inquiring minds would like to know.

Thanks.

wangotango68

why would there be 2 crossovers in 1 single speaker?

scott:cool:

rskarvan

Scott,

The reason the SDA's have two cross overs is this.

One cross over is to send the highs to the tweets
and the lows to the main driver. This one is kinda typical.
The SRS ones are inductive compensated - this makes
them a little special - better. Also, the very-lows are
sent to both main and sda driver.

The other cross over is to process only a portion of
the signal sent via umbilical cord from the other
speaker. The SDA effect only works on the middle
part of the signal. This is then summed (added) to the
low bass from the other driver on the CRS.

I have an electrical schematic of how the CRS+ is wired
internally. Its an 8 1/2 x 11 size (A-size) print from Polk Audio.
If you want a copy, provide me a fax number and I'll send it.

Ron