Why did Polk abandon the SDA approach?

jcmccorm

I agree with what's been said previously regarding Polk wanting to penetrate the speaker market in the sweet spot, which precludes the big SDA's. However, nobody has commented on the SDA effect itself. I suspect that it is no longer necessary with the popularity of multichannel recordings (movies and music). It may even be undesirable. If it were, manufacturers would be doing the "SDA thing" in the amplifier or source, where it's much less expensive to implement.

Cary

DarqueKnight

Originally posted by Tour2ma
If there was some business lesson learned at the end of the SDA era, it did not stick. Otherwise how do you explain the development of the SRT?

The development of the Signature Reference Theater (SRT) system was in keeping with Polk's desire to move into the growing home theater market. Perhaps they assumed (incorrectly) that the same people who bought large SDA's would ditch them in favor of a large home theater system. When that didn't work, they moved to home theater systems with smaller speakers.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by jcmccorm
I agree with what's been said previously regarding Polk wanting to penetrate the speaker market in the sweet spot, which precludes the big SDA's. However, nobody has commented on the SDA effect itself. I suspect that it is no longer necessary with the popularity of multichannel recordings (movies and music). It may even be undesirable. If it were, manufacturers would be doing the "SDA thing" in the amplifier or source, where it's much less expensive to implement.

Cary

Hi Cary,

For the reasons I stated earlier, I don't think that Interaural crosstalk cancellation and multichannel recordings are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, the effect can be subtle and it does require sitting in the sweetspot for maximum effectiveness, and perhaps we are dealing with the law of deminishing returns. Obviously, in a home theater with an audience versus a solitary listener, it is not possible for everyone to be in the "sweet spot".

As far as electronic approaches to Interaural Crosstalk Cancellation, such as Sonic Holography, etc., it's my understanding that the sweet spot is even smaller than with SDA's. Therefore, even less of the audience would be able to hear the benefits, hense even more diminishing returns.

Whether or not the SRT series was a commercial success, it's obvious from a pure technical standpoint that Matt Polk didn't think that multichannel recordings were undesireable for the SDA effect. As you know the SRT series was an SDA series specifically designed for 5.1 listening.

Larry

xsmi

Originally posted by Emlyn
I don't agree that there was a link between Polk's halting of production of SDA two-channel speakers and the move to Circuit City, because the move away from independent dealers to Circuit City happened several years after Polk stopped making the SDA speaker line in Baltimore.

Although Polk was not in CC until many years later, they were in Crutchfield around 1993 with the LS series. A good friend of mune who was selling Polk equipment told me that Polk was looking mass market much earlier than that so don't discount this theory as part of the entire picture too fast.

BobMcG

And BTW, Hi Larry, nice new setup!


... I also enjoy running my HT in SDA mode but not exclusively. I do like to experiment by running it without for streches but I end up going back to the SDA way. I just prefer it.

I'm using 2Bs in the rear and can connect/disconnect the IC when I wish. The RT3000p fronts powered by a Counterpoint Solid 2 Amp have a Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator between the amp and the P/SP 1500 which can be engaged/disengaged with the push of a button. (This was Carver's active approach to SDA as opposed to Polk's passive approach.) The SDA sweet spot can be changed depending on what setting you choose. I find that setting the Listening Apperature to "Wide" rather than the "Narrow" setting in conjunction with the Injection Ratio set at "Theoretical" rather than "Normal" gives me the most enjoyable SDA sound stage in this paticular room environment. (Similar to my 2.3s stereo system.)

Although I don't listen to music that much on this system my other half does. (Doesn't mess with the main 2ch rig but uses the other two systems.) When it is used for music it is run in SDA stereo mode only and sounds quite nice indeed.

BTW2 Thanks again to George Grand and his closet of audio goodies where I got the C-9 some years ago.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by BobMcG
And BTW, Hi Larry, nice new setup!


... I also enjoy running my HT in SDA mode but not exclusively. I do like to experiment by running it without for streches but I end up going back to the SDA way. I just prefer it.

I'm using 2Bs in the rear and can connect/disconnect the IC when I wish. The RT3000p fronts powered by a Counterpoint Solid 2 Amp have a Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator between the amp and the P/SP 1500 which can be engaged/disengaged with the push of a button. (This was Carver's active approach to SDA as opposed to Polk's passive approach.) The SDA sweet spot can be changed depending on what setting you choose. I find that setting the Listening Apperature to "Wide" rather than the "Narrow" setting in conjunction with the Injection Ratio set at "Theoretical" rather than "Normal" gives me the most enjoyable SDA sound stage in this paticular room environment. (Similar to my 2.3s stereo system.)

Although I don't listen to music that much on this system my other half does. (Doesn't mess with the main 2ch rig but uses the other two systems.) When it is used for music it is run in SDA stereo mode only and sounds quite nice indeed.

BTW2 Thanks again to George Grand and his closet of audio goodies where I got the C-9 some years ago.

Hi Bob,

Thanks.

It's good to see you've found the time to make it back to Club Polk.

Also thanks for elaborating on the Carver Approach to Interaural Crosstalk Cancellation.

Does your surround processor provide true stereo surrounds so you can benefit from using the interlink on the rear SDA-2B's? Even with stereo rears I would think that it would be very difficult to hear the SDA effect from the rear since our hearing is not as acute when listening from behind.

Regards,

Larry

BobMcG

The rear amp for the 2Bs is only on when playing a movie (as is the center amp) so it's not involved with stereo operations, which is the only way music CDs are used on the HT. I have the 3000's subs run with the front amp using Vampire Wire "Y" connectors. (Only the Velodyne is connected to the sub out.) This way when the DSP is set to stereo mode it's the Counter Point Solid 2 driving the 3000s Sats and the subs are operating too. I keep these subs set to music all the time. This allows me full range 2ch stereo and SDA RT3000Ps at that. Not bad all things considered. IE: Being a HT after all and the problems accociated with it rather than being a dedicated 2ch rig. Plus the HT rig is in the living room I abandoned years ago for serious stereo use due to accustics. Not that it's horrible or anything but I found much better elsewhere in the house.

For movies, I've used the 2Bs with and without the IC connected and have found that it really depends on what is being sent to them when as to how much the IC has an audible effect. With that in mind I end up just leaving the cable connected. I don't find it having a detracting or negative effect either so....

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by BobMcG
The rear amp for the 2Bs is only on when playing a movie (as is the center amp) so it's not involved with stereo operations, which is the only way music CDs are used on the HT.

For movies, I've used the 2Bs with and without the IC connected and have found that it really depends on what is being sent to them when as to how much the IC has an audible effect. With that in mind I end up just leaving the cable connected. I don't find it having a detracting or negative effect either so....

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the response.

When you referred to "the rears" in your prior posting I assumed you were talking about surround back speakers, as in a 7.1 home theater configuration, but I may have misunderstood. Many surround processors, even when set to 7.1 don't provide true stereo to the surround back speakers (rears) because they send mono to both back speakers. My point in asking my question was that in order to get the SDA effect, even with the interlink connected, you must have a true stereo signal sent to the rear speakers.

I agree that leaving the interlink connected shouldn't have a negative effect on sound, but without a stereo signal to the rears it won't have the SDA effect.

Larry

madmax

Originally posted by danger boy
that's just crazy talk....


HOw many of us could plunk down close to $3000 for a pair of SDA's back 20 yrs ago?

After getting my first real job I walked in to a frequented audio store eager to buy a pair at the full $3400 price. I had no money, an old car and rented. I did have the credit. It would have taken me years to pay it off but I was willing after hearing them. What a testiment to their sound! (I was very tight with my finances).

I didn't get them only because I heard a salesman offer a customer 10% off and since he didn't buy them I told the same salesman I would take them for 10% off. He said "sorry, I will only sell them for full price". After a good FU to the store manager I left without them and the next day returned a $400 CD player I purchased from the same salesman a few days earlier.

madmax

BobMcG

Ok now I gotcha. Right on about not getting a stereo signal, duh.

As to the 7.1 systems.... nothing against 'em but I'm not sure if they're up my alley. More investment for what value returned? Maybe if I were more interested in movies??? Not that I don't use it but I don't really use the HT all that much as it is. Maybe one thing would feed another I dunno. Like upgrading the 36" Panasonic TV to something much better would be nice and might stir me to do more but I can't stand the thought of diverting funds to do it. I'd be more inclined to use the $$ to upgrade something on my main HS instead. I guess I'd just rather be close enough to someone like you or Ralph or Russ and just stop by for viewing on occasion. Hey, who knows, maybe that would get my interest up.

Polk65

...during the production years of all models of the SDA line of speakers.. does anyone really know how many pairs of SDA's were even sold?

In my experience of auditioning Polk's locally for several months in 1989 (on the west coast) I saw no one else buying or checking out the Polk's. I had a 50/50 chance of having to wait for the salesman to finish with a customer selling a stereo or vcr before I could start listening to some Polk's.

...So as i see it.. they were quite popular in their day.. but like everyone else has said.. times change. Some people I'm sure would not want two 155 lbs large speakers in their living room.

I liked that they gave more than the sound of popular satellite systems of the time and their size
There was just something about being in the presence of these monoliths that was pleasurable. My first woody? No but close. I'm lucky that I had the chance to listen to some great sounding systems at that young age to know Polk's were speakers worth saving for.

...HOw many of us could plunk down close to $3000 for a pair of SDA's back 20 yrs ago? Now that same pair is going for $800.

I was single and saved for a couple of months fresh out of high school and paid $2300 something for my 2.3's. It wasn't entirely out of reach if I could do it with my meager means, others could have.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by BobMcG
Ok now I gotcha. Right on about not getting a stereo signal, duh.

As to the 7.1 systems.... nothing against 'em but I'm not sure if they're up my alley. More investment for what value returned? Maybe if I were more interested in movies??? Not that I don't use it but I don't really use the HT all that much as it is. Maybe one thing would feed another I dunno. Like upgrading the 36" Panasonic TV to something much better would be nice and might stir me to do more but I can't stand the thought of diverting funds to do it. I'd be more inclined to use the $$ to upgrade something on my main HS instead.

Hi Bob,

Yes, I understand your priorites, especially if you're fundamentally a music guy. If I was in your position I too would upgrade my display first before upgrading my surround processor. Having said that, from a home theater perspective, the greatest improvement in my home theater sound came when I upgraded to a 7.1 Lexicon processor.

I took the gradual route to home theater upgrades. First I had a Prologic processor, one of the old ones that came out before Dolby Digital was even invented. Then I added a very cool add-on gadget from Vantas (which has since gone out of buisness) that added amplification and additional surround processing to permit playing 5.1 Dolby Digital using my old receiver. Then I added an other surround processor from SMART DEVICES that permitted the decoding of the EX channel for 6.1 processing. In each step I was very satisfied with the incremental improvement in surround processing. Then as I mentioned, I replace all those ADD-ONs to ADD-ONs with a Lexicon MC-1 processor which could handle 7.1 with stereo surround back channels. Even though I was accustomed to 6.1 processing, the Lexicon's processing was so sophisticated that it almost sounded like magic how sound could be precisely steered across the room. Finally I upgraded the Lexicon MC-1 to the MC-8. (There was an improvement from the prior Lexicon, but not as big an improvement as the prior upgrade.)

I guess I'd just rather be close enough to someone like you or Ralph or Russ and just stop by for viewing on occasion. Hey, who knows, maybe that would get my interest up.

Well, if you're ever in the Sarasota, Florida neck of the woods, look me up. I'd enjoy your company. While I doubt I'd be able to supplant your true love, music, I'm sure I'd be able to change your attitude toward movies by showing you how good a collection of old and new Polks can sound in a home theater.

Regards,

Larry

BobMcG

Thanks for a look into your HT evolution. I too went the Dolby Surround to Dolby Pro-Logic to Dolby 5.1 Digital route but never took it any futher.

And thanks, I do have three cousins and their families living in the Winter Haven, Orlando area. Not that I visit much but if I'm down that way I'll let you know so we get together.

jfeinman

I'm a supervisor for the TV/Home Audio Department at a Circuit City. Our store is unique to the other 600 or so stores around the country in that we have lots of customers who would buy much higher end audio products than Circuit City Corporate chooses to buy (we could sell LSis, and RTis, but all we offer are the Monitor Series and the RMs). My take on why SDAs aren't around is because of Bose, the Flat Panel TV craze and trendy interior design choices. You go through all the trouble of getting a flat panel, so you can wall mount it to save space. Last time I took a look at my SDAs, they weren't exactly space saving speakers.

Bose's marketing scheme has also all but killed tower speakers in the consumer line market (which unfortunately, is where you are going to get the most money). I personally hate Bose, I think they are some of the worst speakers on the market. I'm good at tactfully trashing them when I'm selling home audio products to my customers, and knowing the ins and outs of why Bose sucks (20 dollar drivers, localized bass in the subs, frequency response gaps between 202hz and 280hz, no response after 13khz, efficiency around 83dbs), I can demo them next to polks, bostons, and hell, even panasonic and onkyo HTIBs and show how awful they really are. The thing tho, is that if I ask 10 customers what brands of speakers they've heard of, 7 of them will only mention Bose.

Bose has convinced the general public that we don't need big speakers, and that the sound isn't any better. Bose may suck a golf ball through a garden hose, but I get married men all the time who are like "look, if I bring those towers home, my wife is going to kill me". Its often Bose, or no external audio at all.

Or to better put it, customers prioritize appearance far above sound quality. Think big box stores like CC or Best Buy will take a chance and contract with companies like Martin Logan, B&W, or purchase higher-end Polk? Think again. We're both in a fight for our lives against Walmart, the king of quantity over quality.

RuSsMaN

Thanks for the input on a 2 year old thread.

Polk still uses SDA tech, btw.

Cheers,
Russ

PS - It's not rocket surgery. It's 1. Listening to music. 2. On the Hifi. All the rest doesn't matter.

Systems

jfeinman wrote: »

I'm a supervisor for the TV/Home Audio Department at a Circuit City.... I personally hate Bose, I think they are some of the worst speakers on the market. I'm good at tactfully trashing them when I'm selling home audio products to my customers.

It is good to see that atleast some who work at the big chain stores try to steer customers toward better products than simply going for the easy slam dunk Bose sale.:)

dorokusai

The Surround Bar 50 uses L&R channel SDA.

Polk65

Thanks for your post and taking the time to use the search function. Welcome to the forum. It's refreshing to hear of someone offering choices. There are several other bring back the SDA threads but here are two you might enjoy reading.


2006-1027 - Why were SDA's discontinued? by Matthew Polk
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45468


2004-0527 - Matthew Polk on SDA
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19132

ABX

Perhaps the SDA's were discontinued due to market acceptance ?
IOW, they did not sell well enough, and perhaps Polk wanted to go in another direction.
Or, perhaps they did sell well, but Polk found them not as profitable to make as it's smaller stuff ?

Gary Batson

madmax wrote: »

After getting my first real job I walked in to a frequented audio store eager to buy a pair at the full $3400 price. I had no money, an old car and rented. I did have the credit. It would have taken me years to pay it off but I was willing after hearing them. What a testiment to their sound! (I was very tight with my finances).

I didn't get them only because I heard a salesman offer a customer 10% off and since he didn't buy them I told the same salesman I would take them for 10% off. He said "sorry, I will only sell them for full price". After a good FU to the store manager I left without them and the next day returned a $400 CD player I purchased from the same salesman a few days earlier.

madmax

In '83 after reading an artical in High Fidelity magazine, I went into the Hi Fi Buys on Nolensville road in Nashville to hear the Polk SDA 1's. They were in the " ELETE " room and the door was locked. I was told I had to have an apointment to hear them. No one was in there. The sales person ignored me and wouldn't let me in. In another room where the regular run of the mill speakers lined the walls were a pair of Polk model 10's. I listened to all the speakers in the room and the model 10's were the most natural sweetest sounding speakers in the whole room. I left there and ordered a pair of SDA 1's unheard from a shop in Atlanta and they were sent by freight right to my door. ( MORAL OF THE STORY IS IT DOESN'T PAY TO BE A SNOB ).

steveinaz

SDA had a love/hate relationship with listeners. I never cared for it. A little too contrived, and a sometimes way over-emphasized midrange turned me off. I had always wished that Polk would build those huge monsters as a contemporary stereo pair---I would have been all over them.

Pauly

SDA = Fun

ABX

steveinaz wrote: »

SDA had a love/hate relationship with listeners. I never cared for it. A little too contrived, and a sometimes way over-emphasized midrange turned me off. I had always wished that Polk would build those huge monsters as a contemporary stereo pair---I would have been all over them.

What ones had an overemphasized midrange ?
I did hear some phasey stuff in early ones, is this what you mean ?

ABX

spasticpitbull wrote: »

SDA = Fun

S tereo
D one
A mazing

S o
R ussMan
S ings

1
D ay

rskarvan

madmax wrote: »

After a good FU to the store manager I left without them and the next day returned a $400 CD player I purchased from the same salesman a few days earlier.

madmax

Exactly what I would have done!

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

SDA had a love/hate relationship with listeners. I never cared for it. A little too contrived, and a sometimes way over-emphasized midrange turned me off. I had always wished that Polk would build those huge monsters as a contemporary stereo pair---I would have been all over them.

For me personally, it's all about the recording. One done right sounds fantastic on the SDA's (just like a stereo pair). A recording with unrealistic and overemphazied processing and fake intstruments and lots of reverb, echo, etc. sounds a little contrived (just as it would on a stereo pair).

I was listening to a recording the other day just a female solo, no other instruments. Sounded like she was in a large cachphonous music hall and I could actually hear the echo, which would come off the back wall of the music hall right behind me in perfect time. I was literally blown away that the SDA could capture that so realistically, as that's the way it was recorded. This wasn't fake reverb or added effects.

$hit like that is what makes a properly set-up pair of SDA's so enjoyable. Sucky recordings still sound sucky on the SDA's as with a stereo pair of speakers.

H9

heiney9

ABX wrote: »

What ones had an overemphasized midrange ?
I did hear some phasey stuff in early ones, is this what you mean ?

Special K, you do get phasey stuff occasionally with the early SDA's that have a dimensional tweeter. I don't really notice any overemphasized mids. They aren't lean that's for sure, but overemphasized is, IMO, to strong a word. There is a pleasant midrange bloom that many Polk speakers lean towards that I do notice on certain material.

As always recorded material can be the culprit for some less than realistic issues sometimes with SDA's, but I don't find that too often and it's hardly distracting unless it's extreme. I also find that those are the same kind of recordings I dislike on conventional stereo speakers as well.

H9

Pauly

heiney9 wrote: »

For me personally, it's all about the recording. One done right sounds fantastic on the SDA's (just like a stereo pair). A recording with unrealistic and overemphazied processing and fake intstruments and lots of reverb, echo, etc. sounds a little contrived (just as it would on a stereo pair).

I was listening to a recording the other day just a female solo, no other instruments. Sounded like she was in a large cachphonous music hall and I could actually hear the echo, which would come off the back wall of the music hall right behind me in perfect time. I was literally blown away that the SDA could capture that so realistically, as that's the way it was recorded. This wasn't fake reverb or added effects.

$hit like that is what makes a properly set-up pair of SDA's so enjoyable. Sucky recordings still sound sucky on the SDA's as with a stereo pair of speakers.

H9

That is balls on. I never notice the big SDA "craze" till i popped in one of my "Instant Live" Allman Brothers recroded right from the Board... Then i knew what SDA was all about. I agree with H9. All on the recording.

P

steveinaz

ABX wrote: »

What ones had an overemphasized midrange ?
I did hear some phasey stuff in early ones, is this what you mean ?

No, more like a "hooty" midrange where voices would jump out at you in a less than normal fashion. It wasn't a midrange driver issue, it was the "sda" effect over-doing in an effort to sound more 3-dimensional.

Listen to Incubus "Are you in?" on ANY SDA, you'll see what I mean. The vocal chorus is overdone, contrived---pushed 3 feet in front of the speaker, IMO. The emphasis there on "In my opinion." That's just one of many examples. The sound is unnatural to me.

I had both SDA speakers (SDA-CRS+) and Carver sonic holography thru the years, and I thought Carver did a better job (albeit also too contrived for my taste) at 3 dimensional soundstage. In Polk's defense, SDA was far more forgiving of where the listener(s) was seated.

ABX

heiney9 wrote: »

Special K, you do get phasey stuff occasionally with the early SDA's that have a dimensional tweeter. I don't really notice any overemphasized mids. They aren't lean that's for sure, but overemphasized is, IMO, to strong a word. There is a pleasant midrange bloom that many Polk speakers lean towards that I do notice on certain material.

As always recorded material can be the culprit for some less than realistic issues sometimes with SDA's, but I don't find that too often and it's hardly distracting unless it's extreme. I also find that those are the same kind of recordings I dislike on conventional stereo speakers as well.

H9

I find Polk SDA's pleasant sounding speakers, very musical