Polk surround bar- SDA ??? WTF??

TroyD

When I refer to 'common man' I'm not talking about any of us on the forum.

I'm going to use my wife as a classic example. My wife loves music as much as I do, maybe even more. What she could care less about is the technology involved in reproducing it. To the average person, like TLW, the easier and simpler it is, the better and if that involves a compromise in sound quality, so be it.

So, in her cases, downloading music is much more convenient. If she can play it with one, easy to use piece of gear.....SWEET! 25 years ago, everyone had a turntable and LP's...not because they loved analog or believed in the inherent superiority of LP, it was the easiest format available. When cassettes came out, sweet! Easier, more portable, more convienient.....then CD. What got these formats over wasn't the improvement of sound quality (clearly the case with cassettes and LP's) but the convenience factor. Ease of use and portability.

As a consumer group, we, the hifi enthusiats are not even a blip on the radar.

BDT

madmax

I can see it now. So I'm telling someone about my system with SDA's. "Oh, you have SDA's? They had one hooked up to the toshiba tv over there in the corner. It was OK"....

Jeesh
madmax

faster100

Madmax, Take a survey at circuit city where polks are sold... ask the customers what SDA is and see what they say... Most people im betting don't know what SDA is, so i don't think it will tarnish the original name "SDA" and the technology


Troy, Understood... but it's not dead for us and that's all that matters... companies will keep moving away from our passion and we just have to work harder to find the good stuff

madmax

faster100 wrote:

Take a survey at circuit city where polks are sold... ask the customers what SDA is and see what they say... Most people im betting don't know what SDA is, so i don't think it will tarnish the original name "SDA" and the technology

You are correct if you are talking about today. Once polk starts advertising their sound bar with "SDA Technology" is when the original name will be tarnished.

madmax

bknauss

MacLeod wrote:

I just dont understand how you could think this! My Gawd man, with all the ultra high quality gear that is available now you mean to tell me you cant get good sound? You couldnt take a set of Focal and Adcom's finest and get unbelievable sound? I know Im new to home audio but I have a hard time believing that all the super sweet equipment Ive been listening to at Tweeter (which I know isnt the highest end) is crap and you have to go to Japan to get the "good stuff."

I dont get it.

Japan has a different culture for hifi sort of stuff, and therefore has the ability and the desire to make higher end products. They don't mind putting down some dough for great stuff. Americans want everything for ultra cheap. Its not like great stuff can't be had over here in the states, but its much more concentrated over there and they have more of a catering to even better stuff. If you check out Alpine's Japanese website, you'll notice a lot more stuff that isn't chintzy crap... has digital outputs, better parts, etc. instead of colorful screen savers and crap like that. When was the last time you saw a simple, mid-range car CD player have digital coax or optical output? For around $500 USD, you could get that over there from a handful of companies.

TroyD

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote:

I did get over it... a year or so ago - I sold them... I sold them all.

Polk probally just ruined their opprotunity to ever release the SDA into a higher end line - I mean just imagine audiophiles looking at speakers... then finding out a freakin 5.1 in 1 uses the same exact technology. Yeah, you know they would be sour faced.

EDIT: Forgot to add smiley.

Sid,

Couple things, SDA never gained true audiophile acceptance. Julian Hirsch wrote a good review for the SRS but Hirsch never wrote a bad review on anything.

Two, if Polk wanted to release a virtual surround platform, they'd be stupid NOT to incorporate SDA technology since crosstalk cancellation is what virtual surround is all about. Trickle down technology is a common, accepted and GREAT practice. B&W is a classic example of that.

Three, let's just say, for the sake of argument that Polk DID release an new version of the 1.2tl. Full blown....just who would buy it? Not me, I couldn't afford it.

BDT

faster100

TroyD wrote:

Sid,


Three, let's just say, for the sake of argument that Polk DID release an new version of the 1.2tl. Full blown....just who would buy it? Not me, I couldn't afford it.

BDT

exactly, Its like when everyone wants a cheap amp and russ throws one out for a buck and no one wants it... everyone who wants SDA and can afford the used price has them.. anyone who has them wouldnt buy the overly priced new ones IMO .. they would be what 3-5k to compete with current market prices

heiney9

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote:

See...

You folks are missing everyones point that is against it...

It is NOT the fact that Polk released a 5.1 in 1 speaker. Its the fact they used SDA!! in a 5.1 in 1 speaker. What is so hard to understand about this. Its not the speaker, its the fact they used a technology that pretty much made what you see today in some ways...

Absolutely.......why call a surround bar SDA? As far as I can tell it has none of the technology the original SDA's had. It's a way for Polk to capitalize on a formerly successful product line. It's a "buzz" that's associated with Polk Audio. It's a way of "grabbing" the attention of the consumer who may have had/heard Polk's in the past. IMO, it's marginally shady to do this. Because if it's not true SDA technology then it's misrepresenting itself. There are lot's of consumers out there who may know what SDA was back in the day, but haven't kept up with Polk and it's products like members here do. So for them it's misleading.

I'm all for Polk reaching out the HTIB crowd, but don't label it something that it's clearly not.

H9

thehaens@cox.net

I guess we'll have to see once the product comes to market. I for one am looking at buying one, not for my personnal use, but will put one in my son's room installed under or over his flat screen. I can't see parting 1k large for it, hopefully I can get one open box, or a returned buy. Either way, this is the plan. I am sure an 8 year old isnt' going to care if it is SDA or not, but whether or not it creates a better experience for his X-Box :rolleyes:

scott

What I hope doesn't happen is that my wife really doesn't think it is a valuable replacement for my HT...

jdhdiggs

Wow an 8 yr. old with a flat screen and an X-box in his room! Lucky kid!

thehaens@cox.net

jdhdiggs wrote:

Wow an 8 yr. old with a flat screen and an X-box in his room! Lucky kid!

It was a good trade, the X-Box used to be hooked up in our family room, I was sick of watching Dragon Ball Z played over and over. So I found a 26" flat screen on closeout and hooked up a spare HD Directv receiver and Xbox, it keeps the cartoon network off my TV............

shack

heiney9 wrote:

Absolutely.......why call a surround bar SDA? As far as I can tell it has none of the technology the original SDA's had. It's a way for Polk to capitalize on a formerly successful product line. It's a "buzz" that's associated with Polk Audio. It's a way of "grabbing" the attention of the consumer who may have had/heard Polk's in the past. IMO, it's marginally shady to do this. Because if it's not true SDA technology then it's misrepresenting itself. There are lot's of consumers out there who may know what SDA was back in the day, but haven't kept up with Polk and it's products like members here do. So for them it's misleading.

How can you possibly know this? As far as my limited knowledge of the actual SDA technology goes it is really just passive phase and crosstalk adustments. What indication do you have that Polk is NOT using that technology to create their surround sound? It seems to me that the SDA technology is EXACTLY what they would use to "trick" the listener into hearing surround sound from a single unit. From Polk:

Our patented SDA™ Surround technology means there’s no need to install rear speakers. ...This technology is based on fundamental research into the way our ears process sound and perceive the direction of sounds. It uses a patented combination of signal processing and acoustical geometry that complements the spacing between your ears to produce surround sound without the need for rear mounted speakers.

Sure sounds like what my SDAs produce.

heiney9

shack wrote:

How can you possibly know this? As far as my limited knowledge of the actual SDA technology goes it is really just passive phase and crosstalk adustments. What indication do you have that Polk is NOT using that technology to create their surround sound? It seems to me that the SDA technology is EXACTLY what they would use to "trick" the listener into hearing surround sound from a single unit. From Polk:



Sure sounds like what my SDAs produce.

It could be that they have made radical improvement in the SDA delivery and design. My only proof is in the late 80's early 90's they needed 2 fairly large seperate cabinets that needed mutiple drivers to be connected by a special cable and set up in a painstaking way to get the desired results. Now about a decade later all the same can be achieved in a single slim-line speaker? I guess maybe I'm too skeptical :rolleyes: . Yeah tell me today's GTO is just like the original in any way shape or form. I know... today's product for today's lifestyle. It may have some of the same design theory, but it's delivery/execution is certainly not going to be the SDA's of old. I guess I didn't make that distinction in my last post.

H9

madmax

heiney9 wrote:

It's a "buzz" that's associated with Polk Audio. H9

The only buzz associated with polk audio SDA's are the ones they had while designing and building them.

madmax

bknauss

heiney9 wrote:

It could be that they have made radical improvement in the SDA delivery and design. My only proof is in the late 80's early 90's they needed 2 fairly large seperate cabinets that needed mutiple drivers to be connected by a special cable and set up in a painstaking way to get the desired results. Now about a decade later all the same can be achieved in a single slim-line speaker?

H9

Just because the size of the products are different doesn't mean the technology is not the same. Sure, you're going to get a different experience from either one, but size isn't the only thing that matters... at least I keep telling myself that.

Anyway, if you look at the surroundbar webpage, and take a look at the little diagram of it where it says "SDA Surround Sound", you can probably compare it to the old SDA designs and find the similarities in how they work.

dorokusai

You would think that if they read close enough they could figure that out huh?

TroyD

The premise for SDA, crosstalk cancellation really has very little to do with cabinet size. Spacing between drivers, sure, but if you aren't shooting for a lot of bass, which this thing clearly isn't than it's not an issue.

BDT

heiney9

No doubt they can be called SDA's because they use that technology. My only point, if re-read my last post, is they are nothing like the original SDA's a point I didn't make clear enough in my very 1st post. When I see the letter's SDA it conjures up a certain product image and sound. I'll have to get over it because obviously the 'new' SDA's are different, and are being used/marketed for a completely different niche. Can't wait to hear them...er...I mean IT. As long as I don't expect them to sound like SDA's past, they will probably sound better than any other surround bar on the market.

H9

Polkersince85

There's a pair of REAL SDA SRS on the bay for around 1100. Somebody buy these and a Bar and write a report. Same tech but different uses. Polk has probably used SDA effect to make a killer home theatre speaker, if you want 2-ch, go with the horsepower. I can remember driving a 65 GTO, 389 trip-duces, 4-speed. It was not designed to pick the kids up at school. You buy something for the purpose intended. The bar has a place. Real SDA's have a place.

rskarvan

Thank you Polk for re-introducing SDA technology. Now, lets really step up to the plate with a home-run and introduce this technology in the LSi speaker line.

Thank you for listening. Keep up the good work.

- Ron Skarvan
(long-time owner of two sets of SDA's)

heiney9

Thank you very much Paul for taking the time to quell our concerns and give a bit of insight into the "new" product. I'm sure it will be successful not only because of the niche it fills but because it has the backing of Polk Audio. Using SDA technology for something completely different is something myself and others will have to get used to. Like I said before, when I see the letters SDA it conjures up certain delightful images from the past. Now we (including myself) all must move forward and understand that this technology can be used successfully in a different way, albeit, a way we may not all utilize.

I wish I wasn't participating in a family wedding this weekend so I could be at Polk HQ for all the festivities and to put some faces to the names on this forum. That's way it goes sometimes

Brock

TroyD

Paul,

Good to hear from you!

Make no mistake, it's a 'disappointment' to the SDA fan but not because of what it is in and of itself. As I said, it's disappointing because the market is changing and growing away from what many of us would prefer. You didn't kill, I didn't kill it and Polk didn't kill it so there is no real reason to apologize. Actually, I think that Polk shows great foresight to recognize the trends and be out if front of them. The alternative is, stick the collective head in the sand, churn out, albeit fantastic, products that fewer people will buy and eventually go the way of the dinosaur. The worst thing in business is to have an increasing share in a shrinking market.

As I've said, my only concern is that, at the surface, it LOOKS cheesy. It probably isn't, but that's how it looks.

As far as what it is? It's a neato idea. Simplicity in itself and functional. Now, as to if it can actually produce a true surround experience? Who cares? IMO, the person in the market for such an item isn't interested in absolute kick **** surround experience. He's got this nifty cool TV that Dan just hung on the wall for him and he needs a high WAF, acceptable sound system for it. In THIS case, it's perfect. I've always said that SDA makes a very nice, simple, HT speaker. Hell, that's what I use.

BDT

faster100

TroyD wrote:

He's got this nifty cool TV that Dan just hung on the wall for him and he needs a high WAF, acceptable sound system for it.
BDT

LOL classic

Larry Chanin

Polk wrote:

BTW, the SurroundBar is a pretty cool product that I suspect will wind up in the bedroom systems of many folks who have big component systems in the LR or Den. I have one at home and it is pretty cool. Does it replace a well set up hard wired 5.1 system? No. But it beats the living daylights out of the alternative of the speakers built into the TV or a small set of stereo speakers. The imaging is not quite 360 degree wrap-around but it has tremendous front to back depth and a nice immersive and cinematic feel to it.

Hi Paul,

The advertisement in which they quote Mr. Polk would give a different impression.

Multiple drive units and a patented combination of signal processing and acoustical geometry serve to produce the vivid three dimensional surround field that exists on the original recording. What you hear is essentially the same as if there actually were sounds coming form all around and behind you.

I was wondering whether you might respond to my question in posting #9?

Thanks very much.

Larry

Toxis

lol I swear... people honestly would rather whine and cry than to accept that things change. Sure SDA should come available in some high end speakers but heaven forbid they use it to fulfill the need of the mass market. I personally want to hear this thing and might even buy one for when I want a nicer setup than standard tv speakers but don't want a full HT.

Polk, I think you should come out with a combo setup for a similar unit to your I-sonic and combine this unit with it to combat the Bose 321. If you could do that and make it around $1300 retail, I know for a fact I'll sell 4 of those to every bose. What'dya say???

madmax

TroyD wrote:

While I've always thought that SDA COULD be the ultimate HT speaker, just having two speakers....this is NOT what I had in mind. BD(epressed)T

Now you've done it, the big man has come down on us. I hope he has mercy on your soul at the polk fest tomorrow...

madmax

bknauss

I highly suggest voicing any and all opinions while at Polk Fest. If you guys don't feel comfortable talking to the big man, I'll be at lunch if nothing else, so chat with me.

See you guys tomorrow!

fireshoes

Toxis wrote:

If you could do that and make it around $1300 retail, I know for a fact I'll sell 4 of those to every bose. What'dya say???

If Polk sold just one SurroundBar to each 321 at each their retailers, I bet they would be ecstatic.

It's good to hear they perform well with no walls, since American has big open showrooms. Because of the openess, the Bose 321's have no surround effect at all. If the SurroundBar pulls off a decent surround stage, I will be a happy camper!

Larry Chanin

Polk wrote:

Hi Larry,
As for how it works, only the surround channels are SDA. Front L&R are conventional. There is additional frequency shaping that helps pull the image back. Matt is working on a technical white paper that will reveal all. No wall bouncing is used at all. We've heard those kinds of systems and while they are cool in many ways they require nearby side walls and symmetrical room layout. SurroundBar does not rely on side walls and in fact works somewhat better in rooms whose walls are far away. Also the bounce sound method tends to produce very specific rear images but with poor side-fill so it sounds less like a bubble and more like sitting in the middle of 5 distinct point sources. Some may like that better some may prefer our smoother wrap around imaging. Listen for yourself and decide which, if either, you prefer.

Hi Paul,

I very much appreciate the response.

Was the decision to omit SDA drivers on the front L&R channels done more for economic and size considerations, rather than performance?

Thanks.

Larry

McLoki

Sorry to come late into this thread, but here goes.....

Edit - removed pointless comment that was already hashed over more than it should have been. Could have removed the next comment also but I happened to like it...

95% of Americans have no appreciation for sound. Just go take a listen to some mainstream recordings... (most)

I wish I could argue this, but the phenomenon is true in most hobbies.

I know alot about computers and deal with standard users every day. Over 95% of computer users have no business touching a keyboard, but they make use of computers and programs in a minimal manner and are pleased as punch.

Audio is the same way. Most think if they purchase Bose and Monster cable they are getting the best (and based on the price they should be) those who care to learn more know they are not, but the standard audio consumer still listens to their bose systems and smiles - pleased as punch.

Michael