RD 0194-1 Tweeter!

Roy Munson · February 2005

Well the replacement tweeters for the SL2000's arrived today so I installed them and was very happy with the results. The highs are now smoother with the RD 0194-1 replacements, actually much smoother! This is a great substitute for anyone that isn't pleased with their SL2000's!

Thanks to the people that recommended these as they have made my SDA 2A's even more enjoyable to listen to!

ckpiv · February 2005

I just ordered a pair today for my SDA2B's. I am looking forward to hearing the change after reading the other post about these upgraded tweeters.

dorokusai · February 2005

The SL2000 is a garbage tweeter.

Silk is King!

Roy Munson · February 2005

ckpiv, you are going to be surprised with the difference these tweeters make. The highs will still be there but they will be much smoother. Depending on the source the SL2000 tends to be a little harsh to my ear and the "silk" replacement sounds much much better. I wish I had known about them years ago!! Have fun! I'm really glad I found this forum, now if I could just find some SDA 1c's here in SoCal!

ckpiv · February 2005

Roy,
I will agree on some recordings (especially some newer cd's) the harshness starts wearing on me too. After finding this forum and reading the post on this new tweeter I am looking forward to the new experience. Polk said I should have them by the middle of this coming week. I am also in the process of trying to get a hold of some the big SDA-SRS speakers. I have a friend that will be moving to a smaller place and might be willing to part with them. They were not sure which model they were but if I can recall they were the original SDA-SRS. My friends girl friend got them in her divorce about ten years ago. Good luck on the 1c's, seems like I just saw a pair on ebay in the past few weeks.

danger boy · February 2005

Roy,

just curious. what is it about the 1C's you like? I'm trying to learn as much as I can about SDA speakers. I don't own any of them.

Roy Munson · February 2005

Danger, I think 1c's have better defined mids than the 2a's I have and they would be a good fit compared to the larger SDA's.

BobMcG · February 2005

...to each his own, but "I' don't find my 2000s to be the least bit harsh, fatiguing, bright or lacking. Nor does anyone else who does extentended listening to them. I don't feel terribly short changed. Are better tweeters available today, sure. Is it good to tweak and upgrade sure. But garbage? That's an opinion I don't happen to agree with. IMO that's a bit of an exaggeration. And in the end, you know what is said about opinions, .... ......... everyone has one.

dorokusai · February 2005

It's a garbage tweeter to me, and obviously it's my opinion. I don't bother with the SL2000 anymore, because I do not like it, period. It's the very first thing to get changed when I come upon a gem in my travels....and like yourself, many Polks have been through these dirty hands.

I know Madmax, Russman, F1Nut, Emlyn and BlueMDpicker all had an affinity for the older SL series as well, but they have also moved on to the replacement for their own reasons. I would consider these guys my "extended listening crowd" as well as friends.

We can't all hear the same things, and that's good, otherwise this hobby wouldn't be any fun.

RuSsMaN · February 2005

With the spike in response on the 2000's being something along the order of +5 db centered right around 12-13Khz, it can sound harsh, or have an edge on the top end. I noticed it on some recordings more than others.

Bob, order up a set, and do a side by side - I think you'll be pleased with the outcome.

Cheers,
Russ

Roy Munson · February 2005

Bob, as you say everyone has an opinion and in mine the SL2000 has on some sources a definite rough edge or harshness. As Russ suggested try a pair for your 2b's and imho you will be in for a pleasant surprise!

madmax · February 2005

Originally posted by BobMcG
...to each his own, but "I' don't find my 2000s to be the least bit harsh, fatiguing, bright or lacking. Nor does anyone else who does extentended listening to them. I don't feel terribly short changed. Are better tweeters available today, sure. Is it good to tweak and upgrade sure. But garbage? That's an opinion I don't happen to agree with. IMO that's a bit of an exaggeration. And in the end, you know what is said about opinions, .... ......... everyone has one.

Hi Bob!

I felt the same way when I first heard Doro say that. A few days later I heard them. I knew within a few minutes of listening that they were far superior. That night when I got home I couldn't get the 2000's out of my boxes fast enough. Ordered the replacement tweets the next day. I even ordered enough to do an extra pair of 1.2's I've had in the closet for 10 years.

There is annoying harshness to the 2000's which I had never put my finger on until I heard them without it. It is truely night and day. I could never go back, that is for sure. This is one upgrade you would truely enjoy. Oh yea, the character of the speaker doesn't change, just lack of the harshness. Polk really picked a winner here.

madmax

BobMcG · February 2005

I have no doubt in my mind at all that people upgrading to the newer tweets are happy with the result. Didn't even begin to insinuate otherwise. I do remember recognizing the points that there are better tweets available today and that upgrading is a good thing. I'm not being closed or narrow minded at all, just offering the other side of the coin by adding my opinion to the mix. And to reiterate my opinion, referring the 2000s as comparable to garbage is just a bit "too strong" an analogy. Wouldn't think of making the claim that they didn't dissatisfy some people or that everyone should be happy with them.

I agree with you RuSsMan and Max, there will come the time when I do follow suit and make the change. After all I've known some of you guys in the Polk Forums for ten years now and can depend on your word. I don't have to wonder whether you know what you're talking about or not. However, life has it's priorities and it's just not in the works at the moment. Too much work ($$$) to do on the house and property right now. Some day though.

BobMcG · February 2005

Like you, I also felt my 2Bs sounded a bit on the harsh or bright side of things making extended listening a drag on the mind. However I don't experience this problem with my 2.3's at all. The systems operating the speakers however are as different as day and night. While I'm likely to update the 2.3's anyways at some point in time, I'll probably leave the 2Bs alone as they were sent into the HT room years ago to pull duty as the rears on that system. Depending on a few things, I'd probably be more inclined to update my CRS+s that are on my secondary HS as a follow up project.

madmax · February 2005

OK, we will not beat you into submission. Not yet, anyway.

10 years huh. I'm feeling old. Seems like yesterday I found this site full of crazy people. I can't imagine if I hadn't.

madmax

BobMcG · February 2005

Time does have a way of flying by doesn't it?

I don't suppose the guys at Polk have the Polk Forums in it's original form stored on a drive anyplace...
What a trip that would be if we could go down that memory lane! Those sure were some fun (and trying) years huh?

I know, I know, I kinda fell off the face of the earth around here but around the time of the change over I was also going through a bad case of audio burn out. Not that I stopped loving audio itself, but I did get rather burned out on the discussion aspect of it. We had our really good days and we had times in the toilet too but we always managed to get through it. It was however one of the contributing factors that lent me to burn out. Another little factor for me, and this just reflects (and rather badly at that) on me, but I did get tired of the same old questions being asked over and over AND over again. There are too many people far better at handling this than me so I gratefully let them. All in all I had to take a break and found some other interesting adventures that captured me in the mean time. You'll see me stick my head in time to time though and I'll try not to get it shot off.

ckpiv · February 2005

I got my RD 0194-1 tweeters today and installed them into my 2b's. WOW - what a difference! The highs have been smoothed out and their is more diffenition on the highend clarity. Well worth the price to upgrade. If it was not for the forums here I would have never known about this upgrade.

Keep the communications going.

BigJim · February 2005

Originally posted by dorokusai
The SL2000 is a garbage tweeter.

Silk is King!

A garbage tweeter? I bought my first set of Polks, monitor 7's in 1983, along with a Yamaha r9 reciever and a Yamaha CD-100 CD player. I was the first of my friends to have a CD player and vinyl was king at the time. The pure sound of the Polk monitor series at that time was something that a choice few of us got to experience. The original Polk sound is why this forum is here today, and why it will be here for years to come. I've heard that the replacement "silk" tweeter is so smooooooth..... compaired to the original SL-2000, ****..... If you want smoother highs, maybe you neeed to look to other speaker manufacters and listen to their hype.. To think that members are replaceing their perfectly good SL-2000 tweeters in beautiful vintage speakers because of BS like this is a shame.......... The SL- 2000 is why we are here today..... BigJim

F1nut · February 2005

While Doro's comment may seem a bit harsh, it isn't without merit. Perhaps you should try a pair of the new tweeters before commenting on them. There is a very good reason why Polk can not keep them in stock.

dorokusai · February 2005

Whatever. It's funny how some ppl don't seem to realize that the statement is my opinion. I call it a "garbage" tweeter, because it's the very first thing to go when it reaches my door.

Why would I listen to something that I do not like?

I don't care whether you buy the new one, or love the old one.

When I purchased my first set of Polk's, Monitor 10B, in 1985, I was in love for many years. I was one of those "few" but who really cares? This is 2005, and the golden years are gone for some of us and that's just the way it goes. I like to move forward and not cling to old habits and/or old standards.

SDA's exploded again because of THIS forum.....the original Monitor series exploded in popularity again because of THIS forum. The forum of 8+ years ago is long gone.

RuSsMaN · February 2005

The SL2000 is why we are here today? Talk about a load. Dry that one out and fertilize the lawn the with it.

We are 'here' because of the Peerless 810665. The new replacement tweeters have the smooth response, and similar construction / dome materials of the Peerless.

The SL2000 was a poor attempt at a re-tool of the 810665, using a plastic dome, and had a nasty freq spike in the top end of it's response. Is it listenable, sure. Do some people prefer the 'hot' top end, sure. With the replacement tweeter, you WILL have a smoother response, period. No need to look elsewhere.

To think that members would not want to improve their sound (or at least try it), due to thick-headed, good old days syndrome, is the real shame Jim.

Cheers,
Russ

madmax · February 2005

Originally posted by BigJim
I've heard that the replacement "silk" tweeter is so smooooooth..... compaired to the original SL-2000, ****..... If you want smoother highs, maybe you neeed to look to other speaker manufacters and listen to their hype.. To think that members are replaceing their perfectly good SL-2000 tweeters in beautiful vintage speakers because of BS like this is a shame.......... BigJim

Polk is all about moving on to better things. Maybe you should give a listen to the replacements before making such a statement.
madmax

Emlyn · February 2005

Originally posted by madmax
Polk is all about moving on to better things.

Which is part of the reason Polk moved on to the SL3000 trilaminate dome tweeter for the top speakers in their product lines and stuck with various trilaminate tweeters for the next several years for most of their products. Their marketing at the time touted the more even and more accurate frequency response of the metallic dome SL3000 tweeter as a reason to upgrade to new speakers.

I have replaced every SL2000 tweeter in four pairs of SDA speakers. For a little outlay, it is like getting new speakers at a fraction of the cost that reference level speakers cost today. The Silver Coil Dome tweeter wasn't offensive sounding to me for a while, but once I heard the replacement silk dome tweeters in a pair of SDA 2Bs I could clearly hear the overemphasis, or inaccurate frequency spike, in the old tweeters that is audible particularly in female vocals as ssssibilance and makes it seem as if a singer is spraying spit on a microphone. It affects the sound of piano, electric guitar, and cymbals in the same frequency range as well. I would not have recently bought a pair of the original SDA-SRS speakers if the new silk dome tweeters weren't available. I listened to the SRS with the old tweeters and immediately called Helen at Polk to order the replacements. I even prefer the SL2000 replacements to the original SL3000 tweeters which I had in a pair of 2.3TLs.

I read somewhere that speaker manufacturers are constantly evaluating and changing the voicing of their speakers to match the playback equipment, recording methods, and prevalent recordings of the time. I speculate that Polk adapted to the development and spread of CD equipment in the 1980s by developing and using a tweeter that accentuated the generally "brighter" or hotter sound capabilities of CD compared to what people were used to hearing from tape or vinyl. I happen to think they went too far now, but they were working in a particular market that appreciated the sound they developed back then. Markets change though, and companies have to change with the market. I personally can't tolerate the silk dome tweeter in the new RTi line of speakers for the music I listen to, but to me they are the best Polk tweeter available for exclusive home theater use.

I would encourage anyone to try the replacement tweeters in place of the Silver Coil Dome tweeters even if the vintage tweeters are still in perfect working order.

DarqueKnight · February 2005

Originally posted by BigJim
To think that members are replaceing their perfectly good SL-2000 tweeters in beautiful vintage speakers because of BS like this is a shame

The real shame is that people are willing to demean, disparage, and trash an audio item without listening to it.

Originally posted by madmax
Polk is all about moving on to better things. Maybe you should give a listen to the replacements before making such a statement.

I have observed that some people (skeptics) seem to get irritated whenever a large group of people uniformly and consistently praise a particular audio item. It is the old "I just don't see how it could possibly be as good as they say it is" mentality. Of course they don't "see" how it is as good as "they" say it is. They haven't heard "it".

faster100 · February 2005

Not to mention, how many sl2000 failures have their been just from the tweeter being so old, Not a reason in itself to upgrade however thats one of the key reasons i sold mine.. I wanted longevity... let some of the hardcore people who "love " original equipment have em.. sell em while they work and sound ok, broken they are worthless

I exchanged all my MW's and tweeters in my Sda 2b's for peace of mind, and i plan to keep these forever... polk however sold me the last 6509's and wont be making more.. so glad i got them..

BobMcG · February 2005

SDA's exploded again because of THIS forum.....the original Monitor series exploded in popularity again because of THIS forum. The forum of 8+ years ago is long gone.

With all respect, the quest by forum members to have Polk reintroduce the SDA line has been going on in earnest for the last eight years plus. The issue is far from new, not limited to and hardly brought to light or to life just since the forums had a face lift in mid 2001. I wouldn't doubt that most of the members who were around before the site work are still here today. I know a lot of them are. It's not as though a time gap and a membership change occured when the site got it's new look so there is no "THIS" forum. It's the only forum. It was given a new look with added features. Some of them very good too.
With the new look came a new post counter, for good or for bad as it seems to encourage senseless posting just to see the numbers and titles go up. No posts made in the years previous were added to the new counter which is just as well as it wasn't important and no one kept track anyways. Also everyone already a member of the forums was generically labeled as having joined the forums in July of 2001 (the revised site date) and not the actual date they joined. So be it.

Generally speaking, I used to be very active in the Polk forums and have felt I do so with an open mind without being prejudiced against new ideas and products. I have also looked into the forums from time to time over the last few years without getting into posting mode just to see what's going on within the Polk family. I've seen the Hall of Shame come and go and the membership numbers go up. The bickering grows right along with the population but I guess that's to be expected. You may have noticed too that the "new look" has gone through different looks since 2001. Perhaps you could call it site evolution.

Just because some of us have been around the audio scene for decades doesn't make all of us out of date or out of touch. It also doesn't make us ignorant. A bit of knowledge and experience has come my way with building and upgrading various systems for myself and others over the last 35+ years that I've been involved and you know what? I'm still learning and evolving.

Loud & Clear · February 2005

I believe Polk replaces both the SL1000's and SL2000's with the RD 0194-1's. I just ordered a pair yesterday to replace the SL1000's in my RTA-12C's. Looking for an improvement there, otherwise I LOVE this speaker.

dorokusai · February 2005

You're gonna have a problem with that LC....the tweeters aren't the same size. I had the same idea for one pair of my 12C's...hope you're handy with a router. This issue has been touched upon in a couple other threads.

Loud & Clear · February 2005

Originally posted by dorokusai
You're gonna have a problem with that LC....the tweeters aren't the same size. I had the same idea for one pair of my 12C's...hope you're handy with a router. This issue has been touched upon in a couple other threads.

****. Why would Polk sell me a tweeter that doesn't fit my speaker? Or suggest that the SL1000 be replaced with them? I've searched a few times for information but didn't find anything. Looks like I'll be sending them back. Thanks for the heads-up.

dorokusai · February 2005

I would go ahead and make sure, but the mounting plates on mine were not drop in ready.

Loud & Clear · February 2005

Yeah, I'm sure I'll give it a go, but suddenly I'm not looking forward to it.

I should have known this wasn't going to be easy after my buying experience. I talked to sales and was told, firstly, that the SL1000 was replaced with the SL2000. Then I was told that the SL1000 couldn't be replaced anymore, period, that Peerless no longer made them. Then I was put on hold for technical support, and finally told that that the SL1000 was replaced with the RD 0194-1. Oh, and that it would be a simple procedure.

It will be a real shame if I can't find a suitable replacement, because the SL1000's are the only aspect of this speaker that I'm not enamored with.

RD 0194-1 Tweeter!

Comments