Can anyone at Polk comment on the future of the LSi line???

DAlba

I have enjoyed my LSi system for a few years now but I am ready to upgrade.

Will there be new models coming?
What about a new more high-end model line?


Thanks

unbridled_id

Hey, you know I asked a polk rep the same thing. He said that there would not be major changes to the lsi line when it is updated in 2007. The vifa tweeter should stay, but one idea that is being batted around is making the midrange drivers 6.5
diameter. Perhaps they will incorporate the power port plus utilized in the more recent rti series?

aaharvel

"but one idea that is being batted around is making the midrange drivers 6.5 diameter."

oh god i hope not- if they replace the 5.25" with the 6.5" then count me out for a 2007 upgrade. I'll take this with me to the grave- a good 5.25" driver is leaner, faster and more accurate than a 6.5" driver with the frequencies 80hz-2khz. I don't understand the logic of a 6.5" driver if a sub is taking care of 80hz and below- even 60hz and below. I think todays LSI's sounds and design are great- the designers chose 5.25" drivers for ALL the speakers for a reason. When I bought my rti4's - i picked them over the rti6's because they imaged much better and the midrange was more accurate and much warmer and smoother. JMO

Mjr7531

I'm sure, however, if Polk were to implement 6-1/2" drivers, they would make sure that the drivers will work as well as the 5-1/4" drivers do.
And please recall, many people use the LSi9s sans subwoofers because they do not want the extra speaker, therefore, a bigger driver to handle more and do lower frequencies would be perfectly reasonable. And if you are dead set against them using 6-1/2" drivers, let them know. Polk unlike many other companies, does listen to its customers.

Toxis

Why mess with perfection?

aaharvel

I think we all let them know via these forums- i'm sure they scout them out.

agreed Toxis.

chenj16

Originally posted by Mjr7531
And please recall, many people use the LSi9s sans subwoofers because they do not want the extra speaker, therefore, a bigger driver to handle more and do lower frequencies would be perfectly reasonable.

arent' the drivers in LSi9s 5-1/4"?

gmorris

Originally posted by chenj16
arent' the drivers in LSi9s 5-1/4"?

Yes.

brettw22

Originally posted by chenj16
arent' the drivers in LSi9s 5-1/4"?

Maybe in Canada things are different, but 5.25" = 5 1/4" lol

I would love to see them use bigger drivers in those things. It'd be good to see them bulk those up too...I think they're too anorexic looking at the top. The LSi25's aren't nearly as popular as the 15's, and saying that a 15 has a subwoofer is a bit of a farce.

PolkFreak

I think Polks classic 6.5 driver has their best balance between midrange and bass. The 5.25 driver lacks that bass and depth.
They need to come out with some LSi speakers just like the 80's Polks with passive radiators, 6.5 inch drivers, and an SDA option. I'll just keep listening to my 80's SDAs until then:D

Keep the option to Bi-Wire or Bi-Amp too. I used a single wire run of the Z series Monster cable and Bi-wired them with the crap (IMO) $100 THX Monster cable for the highs on my LSi 9's. Yes, Monstercable is crap, but miles better than all of the rest of the cheap wire they sell at the store. With the single run Z series cables I was mad because my Lsi 9's were lacking in detail and clarity. Both the mids and highs had the quality level of a person trying to speak with a mouth full of gummy bears like rapper 50 Cent. Once I bi-wired them they were much more clear and 3d like. So I heard a very noticeable difference on a well recorded standard PCM CD that ran at the same volume of course. I then tried the Z series all-in-one Bi-wire cables expecting not to notice a difference compared to the dual set of Monster cables and for some shocking reason the all-in-one bi-wire cables blew the other sets of cables out of the water. I noticed distinct changes in sound between all sets of the cables. With the Z series bi-wire cables the clarity, depth, and bass increased. You could hear the bass break up at the bottom end with the single and double runs. The all-in-one bi-wire cables made the bass sound like more than it was. I had many other people in the room notice the same thing. People tend to think too hard about the technical aspect of bi-wiring which could make anyone wonder what the real advantage is. I think if you have a good set of ears you should be able to tell the difference. If you can hear the difference in sound when you take the grills off of your 80's Polks you should be able to hear a difference with bi-wiring with a good set of bi-wire cables. For example, I bi-wired a pair of Polks with some cheap Monster cable XP and noticed very little difference if any at all compared with a single run of XP cable. I'm shocked when I hear people saying they didn't hear one bit of difference and on top of that they rig their Bi-wire/Bi-amp speakers into a single set of posts and claim to be getting the full ablity of the speaker that way. That is a waste of time IMO. Those same people think that they need to rig the bi-wire/bi-amp speaker into a single post because to them they get better sound quality wiring their dual binding posts into a single set than just having to use the jumpers on the dual set to use a single run cable. So if they think they can hear the difference between that, why couldn't they hear the difference with bi-wiring? They don't see the point in bi-wiring from a technical aspect nor do they hear it sonically, but they hear the sonic difference and see it from a technical aspect to turn their dual binding posts into a single one??? That sounds a little crazy to me I hope those people see this post!:D

organ

Originally posted by Zero

Eradicate the mid-range hump and the sloppy bass response - and let the Tweet do its thing instead of holding it back !

I couldn't agree more! As much as I love my LSi9, I find the bass sloppy and along with quite a few LSi9 owners, hear the mid-range hump. I prefer my 9's being driven with neutral to bright sounding gear. This brings the Vifa to life and makes the bass less sloppy. Helps the mids too.

Maurice

organ

Originally posted by PolkFreak
The 5.25 driver lacks that bass and depth.

Sorry PF, I don't agree with you there. The LSi series puts out tremendous amounts of bass. Some of us feel the bass is sloppy like I mentioned above, but lacking bass is not something the LSi is known for.

Maurice

Joey_V

The bass is perfectly fine for me (LSi9). I find that it has more than enough extension and power than most other bookshelves I listened to.

Sloppy? IMO, no.

PolkFreak

Organ, thanks for pointing that out to me! I made some mistakes in the way I stated that. First just to let everyone know the bass from the LSi 9's is probably the most I've heard from any speaker that size and it has great depth, but I think they could get better bass from their classic 6.5 inch driver. I think at the time I was drifting off and making an unfair comparison with my SDA floorstanders, but overall the main focus of my thought was that little extra surface area of the 6.5 inch driver itself would be nicer to have than the 5.25. People that tend to bash Polk make unfair comparisons somewhat like the one above which bugs me. Some people say that Polks have crap bass, but IMO Polks have outstanding bass the LSi 9 has more bass than a lot of floor stander speakers. As far as regular speakers go I've never heard of any speakers that are reaching lower than the Polks. I see people claim to get better bass from speakers that don't even come close in bass response to Polks. Then they campare the Polks to a $20,000-$30,000 pair of speakers and talk about how bad the Polks are. Those have to be people that own a BOOM BOX and can't even buy at the price of the Polks. They probably read about both speakers on the net and never really listened to them. Oh man I'm tired! Cheers to you now! I am falling asleepppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

jmierzur

Yes, those people did see your first post in this thread.

I stated my cables where single run. At the used (Audiogon) price point, I would prefer to purchase a single run cable (Harmonic Technology Pro-11) than a bi-wire run of two lesser cables per channel. This is MY preference. I don’t recall discounting the technical or sonic benefits of bi-wiring, nor was a direct comparison between the two offered.

Why would I want to install four sets of binding posts with jumpers when I only require two sets of binding posts and no jumpers? This would be at a higher cost to me to achieve the same overall results. Will it affect the sound quality? I do not know at this time. But feel free to send the funds for the remaining parts so I can complete the additional modifications to evaluate this hypothesis. I am curious, but not at an additional personal expense.

Originally posted by PolkFreak That is a waste of time IMO.

There was a distinct improvement in the overall sonic qualities and was not a waste of time or resources.


If you have questions regarding any post I commit to the forum, feel free to ask. I have not ridiculed you, your opinions or your finding. Please extend the same courtesy to forum members you would expect towards yourself. There are many means toward the end with no path being the correct path.

aaharvel

the bridge between bass and midbass isn't what concerns me. If that was the case- then sure- 6.5" drivers are defintely better from a standpoint of being able to play louder.
No, I'm talking about the bridge between midrange and highs- that's much more important imo for musical reproduction because most if not all subs already produce bass up to 90-100hz- and most 5.25" drivers (that are decent quality) can already go down to 90-80hz. That's a comfortable overlap- and IMO I haven't heard a 6.5" yet that can handle the area of 600hz-1kz with any type of warmth, imaging or speed and accuracy compared to a 5.25"driver- and it used to be alot worse. Anyone remember how an 8" driver posing as a midrange sounded? Like crap. My point is that when the newer LSI's were developed- Polk had 6.5" drivers at their disposal. Instead- for their $2,500 LSI-25's (and 15's, 9's and 7's) they used the 5.25" drivers. My question is why do that with their touted "best sounding speakers ever" if they didn't think the 5's would be better than 6" drivers?

Just a thought...=)

heiney9

Originally posted by aaharvel
the bridge between bass and midbass isn't what concerns me. If that was the case- then sure- 6.5" drivers are defintely better from a standpoint of being able to play louder.
No, I'm talking about the bridge between midrange and highs- that's much more important imo for musical reproduction because most if not all subs already produce bass up to 90-100hz- and most 5.25" drivers (that are decent quality) can already go down to 90-80hz. That's a comfortable overlap- and IMO I haven't heard a 6.5" yet that can handle the area of 600hz-1kz with any type of warmth, imaging or speed and accuracy compared to a 5.25"driver- and it used to be alot worse. Anyone remember how an 8" driver posing as a midrange sounded? Like crap. My point is that when the newer LSI's were developed- Polk had 6.5" drivers at their disposal. Instead- for their $2,500 LSI-25's (and 15's, 9's and 7's) they used the 5.25" drivers. My question is why do that with their touted "best sounding speakers ever" if they didn't think the 5's would be better than 6" drivers?

Just a thought...=)

But keep in mind back when Polk was using the 6.5" drivers they were also using them with passive radiators. The floor standing Lsi's all have a dedicated woofer. IMO, the 5.25" drivers were used because of their linearity and distortion characteristics. This also had a lot to do with the characteristics of the port and it's design and the size of the cabinets (on bookshelf models). Plus it would be more costly to develope 2 different drivers sizes for the Lsi bookshelf's and floorstander's. Moving up to a 6.5" in future versions is not going to make a listenable difference. They may measure differently but in the end the sound will be pretty close to the same. Unless there are other design changes to go along with it also.

H9

F1nut

Originally posted by aaharvel
My question is why do that with their touted "best sounding speakers ever" if they didn't think the 5's would be better than 6" drivers?

Most audio companies like to say their latest product is the best ever, but the fact is that the SDA series were the best speakers Polk ever made. I've heard almost all the SDA's and all of the LSi's and the Lsi's aren't even close. Out of the LSi's I think the 9's are the better ones, the 15's and 25's have boomy bass and the 7's lack it. Moving to the 6.5" mids with a passive would be a good move, IMO.

heiney9

I agree....there is a lot to be said for a good PR design and I've never understood why Polk went away from it. I know the SDA's are a big speaker size wise that most people aren't willing to accomidate. Maybe that's why they abandoned the PR approach. I know with porting you can get bass while utilizing a smaller cabinet than maybe possible with a PR.

I also know that Polk used John Hopkins University and computer simulated design to craft most if not all of the most recent drivers (Dynamic Balance....blah,blah, blah). The 6.5"s with the PR's in the SDA's, RTA's and Original Monitor series are very hard to beat. Now they just need to come up with a PR system and that VIFA tweeter, that would be sweet

H9