Are these worth it? Polk Audio Monitor10s

c001m4n

I am interested in getting a used pair of Polk Audio Monitor10's (http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/monitor10/). I can get them for about $155. They look like they are in good condition (from pictures) and I will be able to listen them before buying them.

I don't have a home setup yet so I'll need to get a receiver (these will be used for music and movies). Any recommendations for budget receivers will also be appreciated (>$200?).

I was wondering if getting a vintage floorstanding speaker with passive subwoofer is worth the money. If they are not broken when I get it will they last me? Should I spend (a lot) more on a brand new set of floor standing speakers? Or are there new speakers that are as good as these and cost around the same?

I have this concept that newer stuff are better because of improvement in technology, but I am not 100% certain if this concept applies to speakers.

Some said foam surrounds will not last, how do I tell if these use foam surrounds?

ohskigod

if they are functional, 155 is a pretty good price. there are many versions of the monitor 10, with different tweeters and whatnot, but at that price, it doesnt matter. a great vintage speaker that your not going to beat used for many times the dough.

I say get em

Zen Dragon

Polk Monitor 10B's were the second pair of Polks I ever bought. I bought them around 1988 and I still own them and they still sound great, so I wouldn't worry too much about the drivers degrading. The 10B is a classic. The sound has good depth and imaging. If you are listening to say modern jazz with a hard hitting bass string, the bass can be just a tad muddy without face hitting impact. That being said, the bass goes plenty low, and I would not call it bad by any means.
I presently use these speakers in my family room as music and 2 channel theater speakers. If you want that thundering bass for movies you will need to add a sub. I would recommend them at the price.

heiney9

Welcome to CP

The 10's are nice vintage Polks. The earliest 10's have foam surrounds which could deteriorate. Later versions (most of them) have rubber surrounds and those seem to last forever (typically). There were 3 different types of tweeters used. A silver bezeled sl1000, a black dome w/a pin hole in the center (normal) Peerless, and finally a black bezeled opaque domed (sl2000). The Peerless versions are considered the smoothest sounding by many. If the cabinets and grills are in good shape and they sound fine, I'd say $155 is a fair price especially since it's local pick-up. You won't be able to touch the performance of the vintage 10's unless you spend 3-4 times the price. They are designed to be set on short stands.

Good luck

H9

george daniel

go get those babies:)

scottnbnj

there are plans/dimensions for the stands around here somewhere if you don't get them with the speaks and you're interested in building a pair.

)

Polkersince85

Local pickup at that price........I'd be all over it like a cheap prom dress...

c001m4n

heiney9 wrote:

Welcome to CP

The 10's are nice vintage Polks. The earliest 10's have foam surrounds which could deteriorate. Later versions (most of them) have rubber surrounds and those seem to last forever (typically)...

Good luck

H9

How do I tell if it has foam surrounds or rubber surrounds?

RuSsMaN

The only Polks with foam surrounds were the model 9, mini monitor, and mini monitor II.

Buy em, flip em, and hold out for a pair of 7's - they won't play as loud, or as deep - but are a better speaker by leaps and bounds. Not that the 10 is 'bad', it isn't, but the design was an appeal to the masses approach, and not one for any sort of critical listening.

A side by side listening session readily shows what's wrong with the 10's.

Cheers,
Russ

Flash21

Well FWIW I disagree...back in the day I compared the Monitor 10Bs to Monitor 7s and also Monitor 12s...the 10B won every time. More dynamic than the 12s and better range than the 7s. But this isn't a black-and-white thing, you have to listen for yourself.

Also, I'm not sure you would need a sub for HT use, my 10Bs are quite capable of thunderous bass. Depends on the size of the room you are trying to fill, I guess.

Loud & Clear

Flash21 wrote:

Well FWIW I disagree...back in the day I compared the Monitor 10Bs to Monitor 7s and also Monitor 12s...the 10B won every time. More dynamic than the 12s and better range than the 7s.

That was my experience as well.

heiney9

I have to side with RuSs. A side-by-side mid woofer is not the best design when it comes to unmuddled mids and excellent soundstaging cues. It was a popular speaker but Polk got away with it. The 7's are a better design and have much more coherent natural midrange and a better soundstage. If you know anything about speaker design the side-by-side treatment wasn't the absolute best. All designs are about compromise and I'm sure Polk felt whatever gains they made in one area (bass) were better than the losses in another (muddled mids and soundstage). It's still one helluva speaker and you could easily do much worse and spend 2-3 times the money.

H9

Flash21

Kinda sounds to me like you guys have a preconceived notion that the "better design" must sound better, regardless of reality. You'll deny it, of course...

The vast majority of imaging is produced by the tweeter, anyway.

heiney9

Flash21 wrote:

Kinda sounds to me like you guys have a preconceived notion that the "better design" must sound better, regardless of reality. You'll deny it, of course...

The vast majority of imaging is produced by the tweeter, anyway.

Oh, of course :rolleyes: Lets' not worry about phase compensation or time alignment or canceling wave's or any of those other specifics that are attributed to good sounding speaker design. Oh wait maybe I percieved all those factors.

I've sold all the vintage Polks so I think my opinion, which it is, carries some weight. I've also studied different speaker designs and have a pretty good grasp of what's good and not so good. So I speak from some experience. In the end it's all opinion. But the fact is the 7's are a more coherently designed speaker than the 10's. That may or may not translate to you as better and you may perceive the 10's to be better. Fine that's your opinion and apparently your reality.

I have no preconceived notions about it one way or the other. Like I said the 10's are one helluva a speaker.

H9

Flash21

Hook, line, and sinker

But I can't resist pointing out that you keep talking about what is supposed to sound better, as opposed to what actually may sound better. Nothing you have said about speaker design is incorrect, but there is a lot more to it than whether the drivers are side-by-side or not. If it sounds good, it is working, whatever the design.

'Nuff said. [/thread hijack]

heiney9

Flash21 wrote:

Hook, line, and sinker

But I can't resist pointing out that you keep talking about what is supposed to sound better, as opposed to what actually may sound better. Nothing you have said about speaker design is incorrect, but there is a lot more to it than whether the drivers are side-by-side or not. If it sounds good, it is working, whatever the design.

'Nuff said. [/thread hijack]

Atleast I liked the flavor of the bait you were using .

H9

TroyD

I agree with Russ, who, like me, has owned both. The 10's don't image NEARLY as well as the 7's. 10's are louder and lower but that's about it. Not that the 10 is 'bad' speaker.....it's just not designed as well as the 7.

Even the mucky-mucks from HQ Polk said the same thing, in my living room listening to my 7A's.

BDT

Modvlar

Add me in agreement with Russ and TroyD.

The monitor 10's are deep and rich and are an incredible all-purpose listening speaker, but the best imaging does lie with the 7's.

Using monitor 10s horizontally (as a HUGE desktop monitor) seems to improve the soundstage a bit, but other factors come into play.

Still, I overpaid for my 10's (because rarely do people want to ship up here; Canada), cosmetically they weren't in the best shape, but after listening, they were definitely still worth every penny.

dan152

c001m4n wrote:

I am interested in getting a used pair of Polk Audio Monitor10's (http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/monitor10/). I can get them for about $155. They look like they are in good condition (from pictures) and I will be able to listen them before buying them.

I don't have a home setup yet so I'll need to get a receiver (these will be used for music and movies). Any recommendations for budget receivers will also be appreciated (>$200?).

I was wondering if getting a vintage floorstanding speaker with passive subwoofer is worth the money. If they are not broken when I get it will they last me? Should I spend (a lot) more on a brand new set of floor standing speakers? Or are there new speakers that are as good as these and cost around the same?

I have this concept that newer stuff are better because of improvement in technology, but I am not 100% certain if this concept applies to speakers.

Some said foam surrounds will not last, how do I tell if these use foam surrounds?

$155 is a great price. They are rubber surround. Bought my M10 ser 2 back in April of '91 and still use them as fronts today. They are teamed up with my Adcom GFA-7700 and Sony TA-E9000ES. I have a Velodyne SPL-1200 for the deep lows I blew a tweeter a couple of months ago and ordered another from Polk. Other than that, they are doin it to it.

dcmeigs

Check out ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/POLK-AUDIO-FLOOR-SPEAKERS-11-X-16-X-28_W0QQitemZ9723011899QQcategoryZ71571QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

ND13

TroyD wrote:

I agree with Russ, who, like me, has owned both. The 10's don't image NEARLY as well as the 7's. 10's are louder and lower but that's about it. Not that the 10 is 'bad' speaker.....it's just not designed as well as the 7.

Even the mucky-mucks from HQ Polk said the same thing, in my living room listening to my 7A's.

BDT

+4 with Russ and I DO STILL own both(7As & 10As). Guess which ones are in the closet.;)

cubdog

Owning 7's, 10's and 12's I'd give up the 7's first. The 12's are hardest to come by and I have other speakers that do what the 7's do and just as well. However, I like all three and don't see parting with any of them soon.

cubdog

ND13

it's the 7A's Peerless tweeters that set them apart from the other Mon 7s, imho. I've heard the 7Bs and 7Cs and they are great, but the 7As just have that something special.

B3Nut

My 7B's have the Holey Peerless tweets <vbg>...I wonder if they made the switch during "B" production. "Then shalt thou take the Holey Peerless Tweet, and lob it at thy black-plastic shelf system, and blow it to bits, in thy mercy..."

Good loudspeaker. Not perfect (what is?) but eminently enjoyable...an enduring classic.

Todd in Beerbratistan