Which crossovers are better SRS or 1.2TL

ben62670
ben62670 Posts: 15,969
edited January 2007 in Vintage Speakers
I am building my crossovers from the Polk original diagrams. I have the option to build the SDA-SRS, or the SDA-1.2TL. I will be upgrading to the silk tweets. The main difference is the IC cable between the two. If anyone has listened to both speakers in the same type of setup the thing I am most interested in is the sound stage.

Thanks
Ben
Please. Please contact me a ben62670 @ yahoo.com. Make sure to include who you are, and you are from Polk so I don't delete your email. Also I am now physically unable to work on any projects. If you need help let these guys know. There are many people who will help if you let them know where you are.
Thanks
Ben
Post edited by ben62670 on

Comments

  • heiney9
    heiney9 Posts: 25,203
    edited January 2007
    ben62670 wrote:
    I am building my crossovers from the Polk original diagrams. I have the option to build the SDA-SRS, or the SDA-1.2TL. I will be upgrading to the silk tweets. The main difference is the IC cable between the two. If anyone has listened to both speakers in the same type of setup the thing I am most interested in is the sound stage.

    Thanks
    Ben

    Just one small note: If you decide to upgrade to the TL x-over be sure to order the proper silk replacements. The non "TL" version originally used an sl2000 and the RD0194 is the correct silk replacement. The "TL" series originally used an sl3000 and the RD0198 is the correct replacement. It's my understanding that there are differences (audible) if the incorrect tweeters are used with the incorrect x-over. Might as well get it right the first time around. There is lots of good info on x-over rebuilding/upgrades for SDA's on the forum if you haven't look in the archives already.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul!
  • ben62670
    ben62670 Posts: 15,969
    edited January 2007
    Thanks Heiney
    I do have the SDA book, and thanks for the heads up on the tweets. What I am really interested in is the the staging difference because of the way the the ICs are wired.

    Thanks
    Ben
    Please. Please contact me a ben62670 @ yahoo.com. Make sure to include who you are, and you are from Polk so I don't delete your email. Also I am now physically unable to work on any projects. If you need help let these guys know. There are many people who will help if you let them know where you are.
    Thanks
    Ben
  • heiney9
    heiney9 Posts: 25,203
    edited January 2007
    Also the main difference is in the "sturdiness" of the connection. The SDA cable in both instances has the signal running thru only one lead the others are there to "support" the connection in the slot. If F1 or another very seasoned SDA guru sees this thread they should be able to add a few more specific details. But from what I remember the differences are purely functional and both carry the same info in the same way.
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul!
  • ben62670
    ben62670 Posts: 15,969
    edited January 2007
    Looking at the SRS diagram the hot and the ground are shared between the 2, and on the 1.2's the ground only is shared. It kinda makes me wonder how that works with ground only carrying the signal.

    Thanks again
    Ben
    Please. Please contact me a ben62670 @ yahoo.com. Make sure to include who you are, and you are from Polk so I don't delete your email. Also I am now physically unable to work on any projects. If you need help let these guys know. There are many people who will help if you let them know where you are.
    Thanks
    Ben
  • F1nut
    F1nut Posts: 50,731
    edited January 2007
    It boils down to personal preference, some like the SRS better, some prefer the 1.2TL. The 1.2TL is more versatile in that with an AI-1 interconnect, one can use non-common ground, dual mono and mono block amps.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • ben62670
    ben62670 Posts: 15,969
    edited January 2007
    Thanks F1

    Ben
    Please. Please contact me a ben62670 @ yahoo.com. Make sure to include who you are, and you are from Polk so I don't delete your email. Also I am now physically unable to work on any projects. If you need help let these guys know. There are many people who will help if you let them know where you are.
    Thanks
    Ben
  • DarqueKnight
    DarqueKnight Posts: 6,765
    edited January 2007
    ben62670 wrote:
    I am building my crossovers from the Polk original diagrams. I have the option to build the SDA-SRS, or the SDA-1.2TL. I will be upgrading to the silk tweets.

    You did not explicitly state this, but I assume you are attempting to modify a pair of SDA SRS's? If this is the case, the 1.2TL crossover will not give satisfactory sonic results if it is installed in a SDA SRS cabinet and may even pose a fire/safety hazard for the following reasons:

    1. Crossovers are designed to interact with the electrical characteristics of specific drivers and tweeters. The SRS and the SRS 1.2TL use different drivers and tweeters, which constitutes a completely different impedance load on the respective crossovers. The SRS uses eight MW6503 drivers (6.8 ohms each) and four SL2000/RD0194 tweeters (7.5 ohms each). The SRS 1.2TL uses four MW6503 drivers (6.8 ohms each), four MW6511 drivers (3.2 ohms each) and four SL3000/RD0198 tweeters (5.6 ohms each). [Note: These ohm measurements are not the actual AC impedances of each driver, but rather, the DC resistances measured by an ohm meter.]

    A forum member installed RD0198 tweeters in his SRS's and it caused his amp to shut down.

    2. The cabinets of the SRS and SRS 1.2TL are completely different and have completely different acoustic signatures.
    ben62670 wrote:
    The main difference is the IC cable between the two.

    No. The only thing the SRS and SRS 1.2TL have in common is that they both use four MW6503 drivers. Everything else is different. [See page 49 of the Compendium.]
    ben62670 wrote:
    If anyone has listened to both speakers in the same type of setup the thing I am most interested in is the sound stage.

    I currently own both the SRS and the SRS 1.2TL and have evaluated both in the same system/listening environment. [See pages 58 and 59 of the Compendium.]

    ben62670 wrote:
    I do have the SDA book...

    Lots of good info in that book.;)
    Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
  • DarqueKnight
    DarqueKnight Posts: 6,765
    edited January 2007
    heiney9 wrote:
    Also the main difference is in the "sturdiness" of the connection. The SDA cable in both instances has the signal running thru only one lead the others are there to "support" the connection in the slot... But from what I remember the differences are purely functional and both carry the same info in the same way.

    No.

    In the blade/blade cable, each blade is connected to a separate wire and carry different signals.

    In the pin/blade cable, both cable wires are connected to the pin. The blade just serves for additional mechanical support.
    Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
  • SDA SRS 1.2
    SDA SRS 1.2 Posts: 255
    edited January 2007
    Lots of good info in that book.;)

    AMEN to that! As the owner of a pair of 1.2's (non-TL) I feel like I have a "hybrid". Still sounds great, 'tho! :)
    Main System: Polk SDA SRS 1.2 Speakers, Sunfire Signature 600~two Amp, Carver C-16 Preamp, Carver TX-11b Tuner, Marantz 6350Q TT, Philips CDR-775 Recorder, Teac V-707RX Cassette Deck, Signal Cable Double Run Speaker Cable

    Upstairs Den: Marantz 2325 Receiver, Marantz 5220 Cassette Deck, Marantz HD-880 Speakers, Marantz 6370Q TT

    Exercise (Kabuki speaker) Room: Kenwood KR-9600 Receiver, Pioneer CS-99a Speakers, Sansui SP-X9000 Speakers (not pretty, but LOUD! :) )
  • heiney9
    heiney9 Posts: 25,203
    edited January 2007
    No.

    In the blade/blade cable, each blade is connected to a separate wire and carry different signals.

    In the pin/blade cable, both cable wires are connected to the pin. The blade just serves for additional mechanical support.

    Thanks for clearing that up DK.
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul!