SDA SRS-1.2 - my official take

Aaron

At last I can say that I've heard Polk's cult classic SDA speaker, the SRS-1.2. Up to this point my only other experience with SDA has been with the SRT system.

Setup
The speakers were in a pretty large room, probably 17' x 24' with part of the back wall missing to open into another room. The speakers were positioned 3' off the back wall (not ideal, I know), 7' apart, and 3' from the right side wall and 5' from the left side wall. The speakers were facing straight ahead (no toe-in). The room had a sloped ceiling and lots of "stuff" which should be good for acoustics.

The system was driven by a pair of Carver M-1.5T amps in a horizontal bi-amp configuration with a Carver C-1 preamp (Sonic Holography disabled). The source was a Sony CA80ES changer. The CD player interconnect was an MIT MI-330, the one Carver amp had an MIT Terminator 3 interconnect, and the other amp had a generic patch cable. The speaker wire was MIT Terminator 3 and Monster Cable XP. Again, not ideal, but it was the best that I could rig up in a short time.

Sound
When I first started listening to them I immediately noticed that they sounded different. Different how? Well, I wasn't sure. I wasn't very impressed with the SDA, but I suspect this was largely due to the placement. There was one section on one of my demo CD's where I was really impressed by the separation and placement of the sound. The speakers did convey some depth of soundstage, but I've heard better.

Even though the speakers weren't very close to the wall they still produced very nice bass. It was very tight, powerful, and deep. I can only imagine what it would be like with the speakers placed close to the wall. I really have no complaints in this area. The midrange was OK, but this is where I was hearing that "different" sound. The tweeter was perhaps the biggest weakness. It was fairly bright and definitely harsh. I found these speakers lacking in their resolving ability; they weren't very detailed. They did do the "big speaker thing" pretty well; they could convey a large sound effortlessly. However, the SRT's outshine these speakers in that regard probably due to their subwoofers. The SRT's are a significantly better speaker in all areas, but they should be for what they cost.

I left my demo fairly unimpressed. The speakers performed about as I expected. Still, that "different" sound was bugging me. After thinking about it for a bit I realized what it was. It was the same kind of sound that I observed with the RTA-11T's, the "hollowness" in the midrange as I called it before. The SDA's were certainly a better speaker in every regard, but they still had that similar flavor of sound, a flavor that I do not care for. So, it looks like my long-held driver theory holds true after all.

The SRS-1.2 is a fun speaker, no doubt. It just can't compare to today's speakers in the same price range in terms of detail and clarity. Sure, you trade off presence and power, but what good is that if it doesn't sound good?

Aaron

nascarmann

Sure, you trade off presence and power, but what good is that if it doesn't sound good?

Aaron.....you are some kind of funny. Bet if they were new and had a price tag at a smob shop of $10,000.00.....you would be singing there praise.....:rolleyes:

F1nut

Aaron,

I'm glad you finally got to demo the SDA's and I respect your review, however I don't think the room placement was the biggest problem, it was the hook up. First, how do you expect to make a fair evaluation using a generic patch cable on one amp and a MIT on the other? Second, ditto for the speaker wire. Third, it's a mute point considering the above, but were the MIT's impedance matched to the power source?
I have no doubt, under your set up, that I wouldn't like the way they sound either!
Everybody hears differently, but bright/harsh tweeters and hollow mid-range is not characteristic of SDA speakers. Refresh my memory, what is your driver theory?
I find the detail and clarity to be just about right on my 2.3TL's, having heard other newer speakers (and some older ones) that I thought had too much of that and didn't blend well overall. A friend recently remarked to me "how clear" he thought the sound was. Granted most of what I listen to are audiophile grade CD's and that too makes a difference. I have found alot of redbook CD's to be harsh at the top.
I hope you have another chance to demo them properly set up.

madmax

Aaron,
How far away were they from you. Just wondering.
madmax

mantis

Inconsistant wiring will kill any demo.

To give a better honest demo of any type of speakers or equipment,the wiring need to be consistant.

Aaron,
good post,if you get the chance to demo again,hopefully the wiring could be the same all the way threw.

Patch cables are the worsed thing you can introduce to any system.

hoosier21

Aaron

Cables could have messed this up, but I think SDA speakers (or older Polk's) just ain't for you. The mellow laidback midrange that I dig, does not do it for you.

The voicing of the speakers you like must have a stronger more forward mid section, and you dig it.

pensacola

7' apart is rather narrow, unless you were sitting only 7' in front of them--doubtful in that size room. That would make them sound a little "thin."

Something must be askew; I've never heard SDAs described as lacking midrange. To the contrary, they are normally described as lush-sounding BECAUSE of their midrange.

I would say to move the speakers a little further apart (if possible), check all connections (for polarity and contact), and make sure all the drivers are functioning--including the Dimensional Array speakers.

rskarvan

Aaron,

SDA's aren't the answer for all people.
I like the CRS+ best. It's imaging is absolutely incredible.
The 1.2's are just way too big. Lots of mid-price drivers
in an overspec'd spl package. The TL series is better - I think.

You gotta admit that a speaker the size of a coffin is pretty cool though.

- Ron

Aaron

Bet if they were new and had a price tag at a smob shop of $10,000.00.....you would be singing there praise.....:rolleyes:

I don't think so. I'm not saying they suck or anything, but I've heard better.

Aaron

Aaron

First, how do you expect to make a fair evaluation using a generic patch cable on one amp and a MIT on the other? Second, ditto for the speaker wire....I have no doubt, under your set up, that I wouldn't like the way they sound either!

Hey, it was either that or use patch cord and Monster Cable XP throughout. Since the speakers were horizontally bi-amped, I did match the cables to the same amps. I believe the mids/highs were getting the MIT interconnect and wire while the lows were getting the patch cord and Monster Cable. I did this because I was more interested in their mid/high performance. I'll agree that this isn't ideal, but I don't think it's grounds to dismiss an entire demo. Lastly, since you guys have given me so much crap in the past because I hadn't listened to SDA's, how can you know that you wouldn't like the way the setup sounds without hearing it?

Third, it's a mute point considering the above, but were the MIT's impedance matched to the power source?

Oh sure; they were Carver certified! :rolleyes:

Everybody hears differently, but bright/harsh tweeters and hollow mid-range is not characteristic of SDA speakers. Refresh my memory, what is your driver theory?

The tweeters aren't ridiculously harsh or bright, but they certainly don't compare to the refinement of a tweeter found is any of the speakers I've heard in the $1.5-2k price range. As for the midrange, it just sounds really different to me. Generally when I listen to a speaker I'm not struck by how different it sounds, but in this case I was. The only other speaker I can think of that really sounded different in the midrange (though different than the SDA's) was the Klipsch Reference line. "Hollow" is the best word I can use to describe what I was hearing with the SDA's. It's almost like the sound took on a different perspective or something.

I find the detail and clarity to be just about right on my 2.3TL's, having heard other newer speakers (and some older ones) that I thought had too much of that and didn't blend well overall.

I've listened to a lot of speakers in the past few months, most of which are in the $1.5-3k price range, and I don't think the SDA's could touch any of them in terms of resolution.

A friend recently remarked to me "how clear" he thought the sound was.

Aha, so that's what I was missing at my demo! I needed your friend to tell me what I was hearing! Just kidding, man. I couldn't resist.

Aaron

Aaron

How far away were they from you. Just wondering.
madmax

I'd say I was about 8-10'. Yes, that is a little too far back given a 7' separation between the speakers.

Aaron

Aaron

Inconsistant wiring will kill any demo.

See my response to F1Nut above.

Aaron

Aaron

I think SDA speakers (or older Polk's) just ain't for you. The mellow laidback midrange that I dig, does not do it for you. The voicing of the speakers you like must have a stronger more forward mid section, and you dig it.

I think you might be right. Still, regardless of whether I like a speaker's sound or not, I can still tell if they're detailed. These speakers aren't. I hate the sound of Klipsch Reference speakers, but there's no denying that they're a pretty detailed speaker.

Aaron

Aaron

Lots of mid-price drivers in an overspec'd spl package.

Exactly.

You gotta admit that a speaker the size of a coffin is pretty cool though.

Indeed! These speakers are damn impressive to look at. Freakin' huge! They're actually a little taller than the SRT's. The thing that bugs me about them is how shallow they are. I feel that if I sneezed too hard they'd fall over, especially on thicker carpet. Man, if my cats knocked over one of these speakers they'd be dead, literally!

Aaron

jrausch

I totally get what Aaron is saying in his description. SDA's are not the end all beat all. They have their points. Where they really shine is on well made recordings. I'm sure every SDA owner has one track that just blows their freek’n mind at how well these things can produce such a killer sound stage. Now, there’s allot of music that sounds uneventful. I for one run into the same issues as Aaron. I don't like to listen to U2 on the SDA's, they sound very washed out. I play the same tracks on the LSi's and the speakers produce a fuller reproduction of their music. U2 CD's don't have that instrumental separation like a good Jazz recording. The music sounds washed out because it is. SDA’s will try to pull apart the music to get the spatial enhancement. If I play any CD from Seal on them, I get a dead center vocal stage and crashing special effects the outside. I must say, I like the trade offs I get from having the different lines. I will probably keep my SDA's as long as there are cool multi-track special effects. I use mine to watch movies with and they certainly shine in this department too (no sub needed here). Though not perfect, True SDA fans know where Matthew was headed with this technology. I'm sure everyone who has a pair these wished Matthew could have done more with this line. There’s allot of room for more improvement on this system. The fact is, Is Polk willing to put forth the Engineering costs and take a chance for something that was once hailed as a gimmick speaker. If he should come up with a new 2/ch rig, I’d be first on the list.

madmax

Aaron,
I just spent an evening with the sda's and tried my hardest to hear a hollowness or harsh treble but it just didn't happen. I'm not sure what you heard but it isn't what I just heard. You might just want to try again for the hell of it.
madmax

RuSsMaN

In my VERY limited experience with SDA, I do believe that 'proper' setup is key. No, I don't have guidelines to follow, but on my demo with the 2b's, on a very high-class, but affordable rig, simply switching from an optical cable to a dig cable took these speakers from sounding hollow, thin, and something I wasn't interested in the LEAST in, to a BIG, open soundstage, that made my teeth feel dry from smiling so much.

I'm not saying this was your issue, but by switching the TYPE of cable from the source to the DAC, in my demo, made all the difference in the world. Night and day.

Maybe they do just sound hollow to you, I do find that a little suprising, as we (me and you) have generally the same tastes in music, and tonal qualities of speakers....pretty damn close at least. I am glad to see you making the effort to demo, keep it going, whether they blow your skirt up or not.

Cheers,
Russ

mantis

Different strokes different types of listening.
I think that most older speakers have a warm sound but lack detail and clarity.They sound pleasing when mated with the right electronics.

My uncle has my old SDA-2B'S I have him as I felt my rt1000p's smoked in clarity and detail.This was a long time ago.
When hooked up to older amps, they really sound good.Warm slightly bright...refined was a good term I read above,is what they lacked.
He also holds on to his monitor 10b's,they will go to the grave with him I think ,he loves them and thats that.
He doesn't perfer todays sound as he calls it.it's to clean for him.
I personally think his system bring's back memories of years past..and he likes to go there from time to time.

Aaron is looking for a sound I don't think he completely found yeat.This can be fustrating and fun all in one breath.

I'm also glad to see people getting out there and tring this stuff instead of just talking about it.Experiencing the beauty is what it's all about.........that reminds me of Troy's post ,I think I'll finish up there...I'm going way off topic here.

F1nut

Aaron,

I'm not ragging on you, to the contrary, I was offering my opinion/help on what may have caused the results you posted.
I know from my own experience that generic patch cables will make these speakers (and any good speaker) sound like **** and mixing cables is just as bad.
It is a fact that MIT cables are impedance specific (low is 10k-47k ohms, med is 47k-100k ohms and high is 100k-200k ohms) to the power source, very important! I'm surprised you blew that one off.
As for the rest....sure these are not the best speakers in the world, (they cost much, much more) but SDA owners have really, really big smiles on their faces and that's the facts...jack!
I think you and I look to hear different things from a speaker, I call it well blended and you want something you haven't heard yet. Keep looking brother, it's out there somewhere.

rskarvan

SDA's sound a little muddy (lacking detail) in the midrange.
The top end can be a bit shrill at times.
The bass actually very good.

My biggest complaint about SDA's is the mid-range mud.
On some material, the mud doesn't do anything except warm the sound to a tube-like bliss. On other material, the mud covers up the detail of the artist.

They aren't the end all and beat all of speakers - anymore. But, they do quite a lot for the $$$ and the open sound stage on good stereo seperation material is absolutely unmatched - SDA's set the standard in many ways (and still do).

Aaron

It is a fact that MIT cables are impedance specific (low is 10k-47k ohms, med is 47k-100k ohms and high is 100k-200k ohms) to the power source, very important! I'm surprised you blew that one off.

Only the MI-330 Series 2 and higher cables are impedence matched. My Terminator and MI-330 Series 1 cables are not.

Aaron

DarqueKnight

Originally posted by Aaron

The system was driven by a pair of Carver M-1.5T amps in a horizontal bi-amp configuration with a Carver C-1 preamp (Sonic Holography disabled).

Aaron

The SDA's are designed to be used with "common ground" amplifiers. They sound their best with high power (>200 watts/channel) high current amps. I am not familiar with the Carver M-1.5T, but I did own a Carver M-1.0t amp a long time ago. If I recall correctly, these early Carvers were voltage source rather than current source amps.

The M-1.0t was not a common ground amp and I suspect the M-1.5t used in your demo is not a common ground amp either.

The M-1.0t inverted the phase of one channel (the positive lead of one channel was tied to ground instead of the negative.) If it is not too inconvenient for you, you might want to check the back of the M-1.5t amp you used. There should be a diagram showing the phase relationship between the two channels.

I recall that Polk used to advise SDA owners to stay away from some Carver
amp designs because of the inverted phase arrangement.

Perhaps the mid-range "suck-out" might have been due to the speakers being out of phase.

TroyD

raife makes a good point. I'll check my m1.5t when I get home but I am fairly sure that it isn't a common ground amp. When I got the amp from George he warned me against using it with SDA's (which I have none of anyway). I never really gave it any more thought than that as I didn't plan to use it with SDA's anyway....

BDT

DarqueKnight

Troy, thanks for offering to take a look see. You know, this reminds me of one of my great moments in SDA history. Like to read it? Here it go:

I bought one of my pairs of SDA 1C's from a rather disgruntled fellow who said "they don't sound any better than my brother's JBL bookshelf speakers. He sold them to me for a rediculously low price. He was having a hard time selling them because people were balking at the shipping costs. Shipping wasn't a concern of mine because he lived 25 minutes from me.

When I get to his house I see a pristine pair of SDA 1C's connected with "zip cord" to a 50 watt Sony receiver. I immediately took out my check book and wrote him a check on the spot. "Don't you want to listen to them first?" the seller asked. "Oh, uh, yeah, sure. I brought some of my CD's along", I replied. I listened to about 30 seconds of music as I put my ear next to each driver to make sure they were working.
Hell, even if all the drivers were busted, I still would have bough 'em just for the cabinets. I paid less than what the cabinets were worth.

The seller had borrowed his brother's JBL's and also had them right there in the living room. As soon as I had placed my check in his hand and his (former) SDA's in my vehicle (in their original boxes I might add), I asked him to connect up the JBL's so I could "see" what they sounded like. After a few minutes of listening, I had to agree, they (they being them no-good SDA's) didn't sound any better than the JBL's, with that funky little 50 watt receiver and zip cord "speaker cable" he was using.

I quicky bid the seller goodbye as I was getting nervous the way that a thief in the middle of a heist gets nervous.

It is a shame that Matt Polk used to (unintentionally) mislead people my making such statements as "The SDA's are efficient enough to be driven by a low powered receiver." Sure, Matt, sure. Just like you can put regular gas from 7-11 in a Formula 1 race car......but you won't win any races.;)

P.S.

I did email the seller a week later and told him that, although my initial audition in his living room was somewhat disappointing, the 1C's sounded a "little" better when I hooked them up to my trusty little 300 watt per channel Adcom 5802.

Paul Connor

I don't have experience with other models of SDA's other than my 1.2's, but I have found that these speakers really love power, so I can relate to Raif1's comment about the Adcom amp. They sounded great with the Carver TFM25 at 225, but when I added the second Carver TFM-45 they REALLY came alive. If I change my current system, it will be to replace the 25 with another 45 and boost the upper end. Another thing I have found is that with certain albums, the Sonic Hologram feature of my Carver preamp really opens up the SDA sound.

TroyD

Crap, I didn't check last night.....but I'm 99.99% sure the m1.5t is not a common ground amp.

BDT

nascarmann

Damit BDT......

TroyD

I'm such a loser. Ask the lovely Wendi, Russ or George. They can all confirm it.

BDT

SDA SRS 1.2

Originally posted by Paul Connor
. They sounded great with the Carver TFM25 at 225, but when I added the second Carver TFM-45 they REALLY came alive. [/B]

I agree, Paul! The TFM-45 really makes 'em happy! Haven't tried the Sonic Hologram feature but do use the Absolute Phase feature to enhance some recordings - just have to experiment with each one!

Paul Connor

Hi SDA SRS 1.2,

I would be interested to know what your Marantz table sounds like with your system. What cartridge are you using? Back in the mid 70's I had a Marantz 6300 table with a Pioneer reciever and Marantz speakers. I have considered buying another on e-bay just for old times sake, but I'm not sure it would be worth the time, and my Rega is truly awsome. The 6350Q is one of Marantz' classiest turntables and they rarely appear on e-bay or audiogon.

Paul

SDA SRS 1.2

Paul, the turntable and the Shure V-15 Type III cartridge were purchased in 1978, and both still sound great! Still used to transfer albums to CD. Saw a 6370Q (the top of the line model) on eBay a while back that went for around $300 - close to its original price back in the 70's! Good luck with your system!