SRT Series: Who ownes these monsters? What are they like?

DarqueKnight

Generally, polk is not regarded as being an exceptionally accurate (i.e. fast) speaker.-rskarvan

Ron,
Is this meant for all Polk speakers in general or just for the newer stuff? I do not think it applies to the older SDA and Monitor lines. Polk has admitted to just recently returning to making products for the "critical" listener (with the LSi line). Who is providing this information on Polk accuracy? What's their measure of accuracy-the ability to reproduce test tones or the ability to reproduce music? Proficiency in one does not necessarily mean proficiency in the other.

Do you really agree with this inaccuracy business or are you just pulling our chains? I ask because you said this in a past forum:

I wonder if the 1c's were popular in recording studio's due to their exceptional accuracy? I remember back 12 years or so ago, and the Polk sales guy showed graphs displaying the sonic accuracy of the Polk speaker by utilizing a simple 2-way design with identical 6-1/2" radiators.-rskarvan

This was in response to my posting a pic of SDA 1C's being used as recording studio monitors. Well, maybe you've changed your mind since then or maybe some studio engineers are not after "accurate" sound. However, I do not believe that to be the case with the studio mentioned below.

Virgo Digital Recording Studios

presidan

Well said raife and RLW.
Doesnt Krell have a forum ?

johnnyamerika

There's always better speakers and equipment out there, is there not?

I'd highly agree that you wouldn't want to match a 10+ thousand dollar amp-preamp setup with some RT Polks. You'd probably want to go with some, say Genelecs or Atlantic Technology pairs, easily in the $5000+ range per unit.

But for me and many others here, I'll prefer to stay with some amazing sounding, low cost speakers that rock the **** out of a thousand bucks, and pound for pound, penny for penny rock the **** out of most everything I've heard.

Now these SRTs are a slightly different story, but I imagine they'd sound nothing short of heaven coming out of Marantz, B&K, Carver, or many other amps/pre-amps.

Ahhh, whatever, gimme a beer!

John

rlw

Originally posted by raife1


Seriously, RLW, have you ever done a comparison between the SRT and either the original SDA SRS, SDA SRS 1.2, or SDA 1.2TL?

Nope. Never had the opportunity to hear the SDA series...but I'd love to someday.

If there's anybody in the Cleveland area with SDA's, maybe we can set up a "shoot-out"?

gidrah

You guys are just downright silly.

"That's not mine!" Austin Powers

TroyD

....another brilliant assesment by gidrah.

Subjective subject again fellas. Couple of things I'd like to comment on. I don't think that you can really say that a certain type of amp with a certain type of speaker is a waste of time. To you, it may be. To others, it could be different. Who is to say who is correct.

Can folks make observations about things that they have little practical experience with? Sure, we ALL do it every day. For example, I probably have more experience and knowledge about military operations in Afghanistan than most on the forum on the basis of what I do. Does that mean that you all can't have opinions or be able to express your thought/observations. No, that is silly.

The Monitor series? Audiophile, high-end gear? PUH-LEEEZE. The RT line is to paraphrase Matt Polk a direct extension of the Monitor line. I have a decent amount of experience with the Monitor line. Good stuff to be sure, but the RT line is NOT a step down.

Why don't they make SDA's anymore? Simple. Not enough people bought 'em.

rlw - with those speaks, power them with whatever makes you happy brotha.

Troy

rskarvan

Raife,

What are you a lawyer?

Ok... lemme explain.

I fell in love with Polk SDA's back in 1990 or so.
I've owned about 4 pairs. I still own two pairs - the CRS+ and the 3.1TL. I like em.

Until, I heard Thiel powered by Krell.
I'm sorry... shoot me... but, Polk's and Carvers (1990 circa) are not in the same league as Thiel and Krell.
The clarity difference is absolutely amazing.

Yes, back in 1990, Polk advertised their flat response curve. That is one of the reasons that I bought them. They sounded exceptionally accurate all the way across the frequency spectrum.
They are accurate - absolutely. But, they aren't clean anymore by todays audiophile standards (which I am not - nor do I claim to be).

I have come to believe that Polk makes a very nice mid-fi speaker. It does a lot of things very well. But, it does not and can not reveal ALL the music - at least not in the SDA line.

Maybe the SRT's are different - doubt it though. Anyway, the reason to buy krell is to get the ability to support VERY CLEAN music to VERY DETAILED speakers that are VERY DIFFICULT to drive. Polk's don't have any of these characteristics. Polk's aren't exceptionally clean/detailed and they aren't particularly difficult to drive (most being 6 to 8 ohms).

There are some very good speakers that drop into the 2ohm
range in their impedance. That is why you buy krell. The krell's pictured in rlw's photo will double their output watts from 8 to 4, double again from 4 to 2, and double again from 2 to 1. Not too many amplifiers on the market can support those types of impedance swings (found on many high end spkr's) and supply all the power needed without clipping and with adequate headroom regardless.

I have no doubt that rlw understands the importance of a good amp. He's chosen some VERY GOOD amps. I just questioned whether or not he's chosen the right speakers for the amp - rather than the right amp for the speakers. A different speaker very well may give him exceptionally better sound.

Remember, if the SRT's ARE audiophile speakers, why didn't audiophiles latch onto them? These speakers were only available for a year or two and then dumped by Polk. Seems to me that the audio market has the last word on things.

- Ron

PS I like the monitor line too... especially the M10's. And, no, I don't think the RT line is as good as the Monitor/SDA line. Ported speakers don't hold a candle to the PR designs of old.

TroyD

sounds a bit like what some folks were saying about the SDA.

I do respectfully disagree to an extent about the Krell. While I have not heard them, I have heard Conrad Johnson and Mark Levinson. Again, I think if you swapped out a Carver with either one the differences are subtle at best.

Troy

rskarvan

Conrad Johnoson and Levinson make very fine amps - I agree.

Carver is different. Lots of power though an unusual power configuration. If Carver is as good as the others.... why don't the others duplicate Carver's power configuration? Certainly, the mfg. cost of carver design has to be less than the cost of a conventional torriodal designed power supply.

If you put the CJ and the ML with the Krells, you have three very fine amps that will have subtle differences in sound on the very best audiophile speakers. Any differences would strictly be preference or prejudice - in my opinion.

You are probably correct in saying that you would be very hard pressed to hear a difference in amps between carver and krell - especially if you are listening thru Polk speakers. This is precisely my point.

I once talked to Klaus at odyssey audio. We discussed adcom, rotel, odyssey and krell. He would put the stratus amp against adcom & rotel any day - stating that the odyssey amp is clearly superior. He did mention that Krell was different - insinuating that its a better amp.

DarqueKnight

Raife, What are you, a lawyer?-rskarvan

Ron,

Nope, not even close. I am the Managing Director of a telecommunications network consulting firm and an associate professor of Electrical Engineering at a university. On the side, just for kicks and chicks, I play tenor saxophone in a jazz band.

I'm glad you found some speakers and amps that you like.

I am intrigued by the concept of "clean" sound. What exactly are "today's" audiophile standards for "clean" sound? Are these standards available on some website or in an easily accessible journal? I'd be interested in upgrading if I could read some literature on what the new standards are. I have access to very good lab equipment and I would be happy to test my current gear to see how far it falls short of today's standards. Likewise, once I know what the standards are, I can take any "upgrade" gear to the lab and evaluate it for cleanliness and clarity. That way, I could quantify the improvement in cleanliness to see if the perfomance of the new gear justifies the higher price.

For example, lets say my SDA 1.2TL's test out at only 80% of what, by today's standards, is good clean bass reproduction. Let's say that the Thiel 7.2's take me to 95% of the standard. Now, it's up to me to decide if that additional 15% performance improvement is worth the $15,000 (or whatever they cost these days) investment.;)

Before I go, clear something up for me:

They [SDA's] are accurate - absolutely. But, they aren't clean anymore by todays audiophile standards-rskarvan

I don't understand how you can be accurate and unclean at the same time. I thought accuracy implied faithfullness to the original signal and freedom from dirty distortion? Maybe I'm not exactly clear on what "clean" means. I hope you're on-line reading this right now because I will be sitting right here in front of my terminal until I get this mystery solved.:D

rskarvan

All satire aside, what I mean by clean is the ability to accurately reproduce EVERYTHING on the CD.

You are kidding yourself if you think Polk 1.2TL's can do that well.
The reason these things come up for sale, occasionally, is that while they were good speakers in their time, there are better ones available now. Not bigger... just better.

In the late 80's, Polk's competition was Cerwin Vega and JBL.
These companies were pushing 3-way designs with very cheap midrange components. At the time, Polk's 2-way PR design was clearly superior. Polk made their own drivers because none were available at the time that were good enough.

Times have changed.
Now, Vifa, Model, and others produce better drivers.
The coated paper woofer in your SDA's just doesn't cut it anymore.

Accuracy refers to the flatness of the frequency response curve.
At the time, Polk's were unmatched. Even today, they are quite good. But, they aren't incredibly responsive.

If you would use your ears and listen to some other equipment you might hear what I'm talking about. Polk has a muddied midrange sound. No amount of quality electronics can correct for this. When one upgrades from mid-fi to hi-fi (in your head), you will understand that the old polk's have limitations.

Even Polk Paul says that the new RTi series blue woofers are cleaner than the old coated paper ones of the SDA years. The LSi series polk speaker has yet another level of "revealing" to the sound.

Of course, I am certain that you are arguing just to be arguing.
So, I am humoring you. Enjoy.

As a PHD electronic guru, you certainly should be able to setup some sort of test where the response of the speaker is compared to the input and and the relative deviation is studied.

I am a jazz musician also - Trumpet. To their credit, Polk's do wonderfully reproducing female vocals, piano's and most big band instruments - including the non-orchestral-approved saxaphone.

OrangeToupee

"including the non-orchestral-approved saxaphone."

Nice one.

DarqueKnight

Polk's do wonderfully reproducing female vocals, piano's and most big band instruments - including the non-orchestral-approved saxaphone.-rskarvan

Now, that hurts. Did you really have to go there? Did you really have to remind me that my beloved tenor saxophone is not orchestra approved? Was it really necessary to rub my nose in the fact that I'll never be accepted in any decent, self-respecting, classical music playing outfit?

It's bad enough that I'm embarassed by having to endure listening to unclean speakers. Now I have the additional social stigma of playing a non-orchestral approved instrument. :cool:

rskarvan

Don't worry, I'm almost certain in a few more century's that the Saxaphone will be admitted to the classical orchestral club. Just consider yourself ahead of your time in this regard. This knowledge should more than make up for your stuck-in-the-80's insistance that the multiple Polk coated 6-1/2" woofers are the sole solution to high fidelity.

lax01

Let me tell you guys, you have once again gone way over my head. Just though you guys would like to know. Your witty humor and sarcasm completely escapes me. Please continue!

OrangeToupee

Question for Chuck Mangioni .... er, rskarvan: From what I have been able to gather, Micah plays a pretty mean skin flute, would that be considered an orchestral approved instrument?

johnnyamerika

Comments from the peanut gallery are in full force....getting hard to resist urges....losing all form of intellectual thought....no....must...resist..... lewd joke.......gahhh!!!!

I have a friend that plays butt trumpet, does that count?

GAhh!!!! I've....fallen....to the...power....

presidan

no comment