SDA SRS2's more bass than SDA SRS 2.3's???

avguytx

I have been listening to these SRS 2.3's that I got for my buddy and am delivering them to him this coming weekend. I have done the Solen caps/Mills resistor upgrades and redid the grills and all 4 side panels. I never had time to make new tops and bottoms. Oh well...that will be another trip home. But here's the thing. I swear that these 2.3's have LESS bass than my SRS2's. Not by a little margin...but VERY noticeable. Everything is wired correct, too. I confirmed that before putting the mid/woofers back in the cabinet and traced them all the way from the crossovers to the speakers. Plus, I just spent the last 15 minutes pulling the drivers out of the right channel again for the hell of it just to see if I had fudged something. Nope. And, it doesn't have that typical out of phase sound to them either. The right channel was the side that had the 4 vertical drivers that had the claw marks in them. (fixed that with silicone...works like a champ)

When I am playing stuff (read: anything) on the SRS2's, you can physically see the mid/woofers move. They barely even move on the 2.3's it seems like. It doesn't matter if I'm sitting between them at my desk or sitting 8 feet back on the couch. They are just lacking in bass. I think the 1C's have more bass than these! There are even times I thought the SRS2's had TOO much bass if there was such a thing. You'd never think that these even had a 15" passive in them!

I guess I'll pull the left channel woofers and see what's up. Man, this is discouraging. And the thing about it is...I thought the same thing when I first heard them BEFORE I had done anything to them! So, I had that as sort of a bench mark of what I started with. I went back thru some of the same tunes so it would be familiar. I think the Monitor 10B's honestly have more bass than these do.

Any ideas????

ka7niq

avguytx wrote: »

I have been listening to these SRS 2.3's that I got for my buddy and am delivering them to him this coming weekend. I have done the Solen caps/Mills resistor upgrades and redid the grills and all 4 side panels. I never had time to make new tops and bottoms. Oh well...that will be another trip home. But here's the thing. I swear that these 2.3's have LESS bass than my SRS2's. Not by a little margin...but VERY noticeable. Everything is wired correct, too. I confirmed that before putting the mid/woofers back in the cabinet and traced them all the way from the crossovers to the speakers. Plus, I just spent the last 15 minutes pulling the drivers out of the right channel again for the hell of it just to see if I had fudged something. Nope. And, it doesn't have that typical out of phase sound to them either. The right channel was the side that had the 4 vertical drivers that had the claw marks in them. (fixed that with silicone...works like a champ)

When I am playing stuff (read: anything) on the SRS2's, you can physically see the mid/woofers move. They barely even move on the 2.3's it seems like. It doesn't matter if I'm sitting between them at my desk or sitting 8 feet back on the couch. They are just lacking in bass. I think the 1C's have more bass than these! There are even times I thought the SRS2's had TOO much bass if there was such a thing. You'd never think that these even had a 15" passive in them!

I guess I'll pull the left channel woofers and see what's up. Man, this is discouraging. And the thing about it is...I thought the same thing when I first heard them BEFORE I had done anything to them! So, I had that as sort of a bench mark of what I started with. I went back thru some of the same tunes so it would be familiar. I think the Monitor 10B's honestly have more bass than these do.

Any ideas????

The SRS 2's do have good bass, not like my new corner horns as far as sheer impact goes, but deep, tight, musical bass.

One would think that with more woofers, the 2.3 TL would hit better ?

Maybe the drivers parameters have changed over the years ?

Have you tried adding some putty to the passive radiator ?

This is how you tune my VMPS speakers, maybe it might work on the 2.3's ?

Can't hurt, it comes right off easy enough.

Hey, I re read what you posted.

You used Silicon, so you added mass to the cones that was not there before.
Plus, you effected the compliance of the surround with the silicon.

This probably isn't enough to matter, but who knows ?

A garbanzo bean sized lump of putty is added to the passive, and then you take off a little at a time until bass is right.

Might work ?

avguytx

As far as the silicone goes...it was next to nothing...literally. I put it on with a modeling paint brush and the elasticity is excellent. Plus, it was only on one channel (4 drivers) so even if that DID affect it, the opposite channel would sound louder on the low end. I'm listening to some stuff I'm familiar with and I have to say that I do NOT like these at all for the low end. They have absolutely NO impact at all at low volume or higher volume. Very sad. My 1C's sound better than these. Oh, and to confirm, they are wired right.

I also pulled off the poly switches because at a reasonably loud volume, they were turning off the tweeters on both sides just a couple seconds of each other. I put the SRS2's back in place at the same volume and they never shut off. Bad poly switches I guess...old. Bypassed, they definitely opened up more. Like, "oh my God" more. I will say now that I LOVE the RD0-194's in comparison to the SL200's. At least in these speakers. I almost want to call Polk in the morning and order 6 to put in here before I take them to him. Man, they are bright.

They aren't the TL's...they are the original 2.3's...btw.

RuSsMaN

I always preferred the SRS 2 over the 2.3 for that very reason. Cleaner, deeper, more articulate bass. I'm not sure it would actually spec out on paper - perhaps the additional tweeter and multiple midbass drivers of the 2.3 make everthing slightly 'hot' compared to the bass, and it just doesn't sound as balanced.

You start getting into the 'line array' design with the 2.3, and line arrays react differently at increasing distances compared to 'conventional' designs as far as efficiency.

In my opinion, the SRS 2 is 'the' SDA to have, with the CRS+, 2.3TL, and 2B following. There are days I kinda' wish I still had mine.

avguytx

It literally sounds like it's 3 to 5dB less output on bass when comparing the two. I am listening to the 2.3's with the tone controls on (ugh!), bass turned up to about the 2 o'clock position and the loudness on with my Carver C1 preamp. That's about the only way I can get them to where I "like" them.

You aren't kidding. The bass on the SRS 2's are definitely cleaner, deeper, articulate, AND louder! I hope I can find the right combination of stuff for him down the road to make these work better for him. Any recommendations? What made for the big difference with even having 2 extra "donut" drivers and a larger cabinet?

ka7niq

avguytx wrote: »

As far as the silicone goes...it was next to nothing...literally. I put it on with a modeling paint brush and the elasticity is excellent. Plus, it was only on one channel (4 drivers) so even if that DID affect it, the opposite channel would sound louder on the low end. I'm listening to some stuff I'm familiar with and I have to say that I do NOT like these at all for the low end. They have absolutely NO impact at all at low volume or higher volume. Very sad. My 1C's sound better than these. Oh, and to confirm, they are wired right.

I also pulled off the poly switches because at a reasonably loud volume, they were turning off the tweeters on both sides just a couple seconds of each other. I put the SRS2's back in place at the same volume and they never shut off. Bad poly switches I guess...old. Bypassed, they definitely opened up more. Like, "oh my God" more. I will say now that I LOVE the RD0-194's in comparison to the SL200's. At least in these speakers. I almost want to call Polk in the morning and order 6 to put in here before I take them to him. Man, they are bright.

They aren't the TL's...they are the original 2.3's...btw.

what does the TL mean, tri laminate ?

ka7niq

RuSsMaN wrote: »

I always preferred the SRS 2 over the 2.3 for that very reason. Cleaner, deeper, more articulate bass. I'm not sure it would actually spec out on paper - perhaps the additional tweeter and multiple midbass drivers of the 2.3 make everthing slightly 'hot' compared to the bass, and it just doesn't sound as balanced.

You start getting into the 'line array' design with the 2.3, and line arrays react differently at increasing distances compared to 'conventional' designs as far as efficiency.

In my opinion, the SRS 2 is 'the' SDA to have, with the CRS+, 2.3TL, and 2B following. There are days I kinda' wish I still had mine.

You hit the nail on the head I think.
The line array gives a forewardness that overwhelms the bass.

D;Appolito designs do this too.
If you design em flat, they take on an "A/V Sound", in yer face.

I do remember reading a Stereo Review article of some SRS SDA type speaker.
They found it to have a kind of built in loudness contour, or saddle hump response.
Maybe this reviewed speaker was the SRS 2's ?
No, that wasn't it, because the speaker they reviewed had THE lowest bass distortion ever measured by them .

Do you recall the review I speak of ?

ka7niq

avguytx wrote: »

It literally sounds like it's 3 to 5dB less output on bass when comparing the two. I am listening to the 2.3's with the tone controls on (ugh!), bass turned up to about the 2 o'clock position and the loudness on with my Carver C1 preamp. That's about the only way I can get them to where I "like" them.

You aren't kidding. The bass on the SRS 2's are definitely cleaner, deeper, articulate, AND louder! I hope I can find the right combination of stuff for him down the road to make these work better for him. Any recommendations? What made for the big difference with even having 2 extra "donut" drivers and a larger cabinet?

What do the donut drivers do ?

danger boy

with my limted experience with three pairs of SDA's over the past couple of years.. I too thought my original SRS's were shy on bass a lot of the time. They were capable of tremendous bass, but when needed or I should say, when I expected them to hit the bass at a decent level. i was often times disappointed that they didn't deliver.

I liked everything about the SRS's after I upgraded all 8 tweeters... but bass of course was still missing. I'm not poo poo-ing them at all. they do other things quite well.

Where I am today is I have just this weekend fallen in love with my current SDA 2B's with RD0's finally burned in. Burn in took a good 5 to 6 weeks. Finally this weekend they smoothed out and brought the detail to the table in full force. Just the right amount of highs, not to brite, not to laid back.

I've been listening to the Best of Bonnie Raitt. WOW! not only is this CD a excellent recording IMHO. The 2B's really brought Bonnie home. Some of the best sounding tunes I've heard from these before. This along with my recent amp I got, this all comes together to make for a emotional and beautiful listening experience. The other SDA i'm still clamming for would be a nice pair of 1C's. In time, in time

avguytx, check for air leaks around the drivers and make sure they are sealed well. Push on the passive and see how long the drivers hold air in the out position. IF they deflate quickly, you may have a air seal problem.

avguytx

No air leaks. When I push in on the passive, it takes a bit for them to go back in. Even with minimal leak, you'll still have some decent bass. This just borders on disappointing. The donut drivers had the weight added to them for "improved bass response" but I don't see (hear) that!

You would just think with that many drivers in a cabinet that there would be more bass response. It almost sounds like the woofers are running in a bandpass crossover thus limiting their movement and the passive.

ka7niq

avguytx wrote: »

No air leaks. When I push in on the passive, it takes a bit for them to go back in. Even with minimal leak, you'll still have some decent bass. This just borders on disappointing. The donut drivers had the weight added to them for "improved bass response" but I don't see (hear) that!

You would just think with that many drivers in a cabinet that there would be more bass response. It almost sounds like the woofers are running in a bandpass crossover thus limiting their movement and the passive.

aNY OUT OF PHASE DRIVERS WITH EACH OTHER

avguytx

To my knowledge, no. None are out of phase. But I am going to take out all of the drivers again (sigh) and write down what is where and how they are wired...series or parallel...and do a comparison. I'm darn near 100% sure that they are all original drivers and none have been changed.

I've always been good at picking out speakers when they are out of phase. I spent almost 20 years judging car audio events from back in the days of NACA, TOW, IASCA, etc and always did the sound quality side because I was "known" for that part. Even now, as a rep, I can walk into a showroom and if something is playing that's out of phase, it stands out like a **** in a punchbowl for me.

I'm going to pull these again as a final time and document it and report the findings.

ka7niq

avguytx wrote: »

To my knowledge, no. None are out of phase. But I am going to take out all of the drivers again (sigh) and write down what is where and how they are wired...series or parallel...and do a comparison. I'm darn near 100% sure that they are all original drivers and none have been changed.

I've always been good at picking out speakers when they are out of phase. I spent almost 20 years judging car audio events from back in the days of NACA, TOW, IASCA, etc and always did the sound quality side because I was "known" for that part. Even now, as a rep, I can walk into a showroom and if something is playing that's out of phase, it stands out like a **** in a punchbowl for me.

I'm going to pull these again as a final time and document it and report the findings.

I would take a battery to each driver, and pay NO attention to what the factory markings are.
I have seen firsthand drivers marked plus and minus be incorrect.
Another thing it could be is perhaps someone at factory used incorrect passive radiator ?
If there was a port instead of a passive, you can lengthen or shorten the port to re tune the enclosure.
But with a passive, you can only lower the tuning by adding mass.
You can't subtract mass to raise the tuning
There are companies in car audio who make and sell passives!
Some are adjustable by using copper rings.
They intentionally make the passive light, then you add mass to tune it where you want it!

Perhaps Polk used what is called an EBS bass shelf tuning in the speaker ?

This is where the box is intentionally "mis tuned", anticipating boundary reinforcement in the room.

The boundary reinforcement adds the missing bass, and the result is flat, low bass, and driver protection because the box/drivers are tuned so low.

As LONG as there is plenty of boundary reinforcement, it works great.
But, if not, the speaker is soon exposed as just another "mistuned" box.

IMHO, it is probably all about box tuning and boundary reinforcement.
IF your room is not providing ALL the boundary reinforcement the speaker requires, you have two options.
Get another room
Re Tune the box http://www.audiopulse.com/products/passive-radiators/vmp

ka7niq

I also did a Google and found these Passives http://www.acoustic-visions.com/~acoustic/products/passive_radiators/

If you contemplate re tuning the box, we will need the woofers thiele small parameters, and the INTERNAL box size.
Then, we need to select a passive that will tune the box higher then we want.
We then simply add mass to it and tune it by ear for the room.

avguytx

I'm not going that far with it in replacing passives, etc. I just want to find out if there's something I'm missing. I'm taking these speakers to their new home in Arkansas this coming Friday. Maybe this is just how they are supposed to sound. It will be interesting to see how they work in his living room as it is a LOT bigger than my office (obviously). Hell, they may sound fine in there once they have more room. But still...it doesn't make a ton of sense why they would have "less" bass than their smaller relatives (SRS II, 1C) that I'm comparing them to even if they aren't in the optimum environment. They should STILL have more bass than what they do I would think.

danger boy

maybe one of the crossover parts needs replacing. but that would normally only affect one speaker. to me it sounds like both your left and right ones are lacking bass. here again, my SRS's acted the same way. unless you are getting no bass. it might just be par for the course with them.

avguytx

DB...yeah, it's both sides that sound that way. They were like that with the original crossovers and after the Solen/Mills upgrades. I guess it's the nature of these speakers. Now I'm glad he's getting these instead of my SRS II's like he WAS wanting! The highs are more predominant now (SL2000's) but my buddy kind of likes the bright sound. We'll see. He's not as hard core into it...yet. I can see RD0's in his future, though. I know his wife will be critical of them since women in general have better hearing on the top end versus men. Plus, she likes listening to anything with Ann Wilson (Heart) and that will make those tweeters really get after it.

I agree with Russman in that the SRS II's do sound damn good and I can say that they won't be going anywhere.

ka7niq

avguytx wrote: »

DB...yeah, it's both sides that sound that way. They were like that with the original crossovers and after the Solen/Mills upgrades. I guess it's the nature of these speakers. Now I'm glad he's getting these instead of my SRS II's like he WAS wanting! The highs are more predominant now (SL2000's) but my buddy kind of likes the bright sound. We'll see. He's not as hard core into it...yet. I can see RD0's in his future, though. I know his wife will be critical of them since women in general have better hearing on the top end versus men. Plus, she likes listening to anything with Ann Wilson (Heart) and that will make those tweeters really get after it.

I agree with Russman in that the SRS II's do sound damn good and I can say that they won't be going anywhere.

It sounds like an EBS alignment to me.
Perhaps Polk was concerned that with all that cone area, they might get boomy near a wall and tuned them accordingly ?

Of course, the real test is going to be in the room they will be going in.

Listening to Heart, you need as much bass as possible

avguytx

ka7niq wrote: »

Listening to Heart, you need as much bass as possible

Very true....it was always dependent on which recording it was, too. Some of those 80's recordings were overly bright where a couple of others were ok. Then there was "The Road Home" which was a little boomy on some things. Nevertheless, I'll still listen to them!

heiney9

As a point of reference my 1C's have all the deep well controlled bass I could ever want. However, the source materila has to have the bass in the recording. The 1C's have extremely taught and very natural bass, very little overhang and very little coloration added in the form of bloating, etc. I find recordings that are anemic in bass don't have a lot of bass, but recordings that do are fantastic. I'd keep searching because I can sya I've ever read a review or heard anyone state they lack bass. In fact that is one things all SDA's do quite well is very accurate and distortion free bass response.

H9

heiney9

I still feel the SRS 2's and 1C's are in general the best of the group as far as SDA's go. Sure the big ones are nice in the right room, but I think it takes a bit more tweaking to get them to sound exactly right.

It could simple be a matter of room characteristics and palcement issues with the 2.3's.

H9

avguytx

That's what I'm thinking, too, H9. Maybe they'll be better in his living room. And I agree...the 1C's and SRS 2's are hard to beat.

ka7niq

heiney9 wrote: »

In fact that is one things all SDA's do quite well is very accurate and distortion free bass response.

H9

Stereo Review said thery had the lowest distortion and extension of any speaker they measured.:)

ka7niq

avguytx wrote: »

That's what I'm thinking, too, H9. Maybe they'll be better in his living room. And I agree...the 1C's and SRS 2's are hard to beat.

That is good to know, since I have SRS 2's.

avguytx

I may have figured it out. It was a case of the right channels dimensional driver being backwards...possibly. Depends on how I first looked at it. Oh well, I'm human. The bass is definitely better on whatever I've played. More like what I would hope for from these. Man, those SL2000's were KILLING me so I put in the 4 RD0-194's that I had which left (2) SL2000's but they are the top pair which doesn't see as much high end. What a MAJOR difference in listen-ability that gave them. Night and freakin' day. I'll let him hear them both ways and he can pass final judgment. Or maybe his wife will when she hears that top end peak.

But, better. Hard to believe the dimensional driver could have made all that difference. To MY ears, these RD0-194's for replacing the SL2000's are the cats meow in these speakers. We all have personal opinions and that is mine.

Mike Reeter

I've had SRS 2's,1C's and now have 2.3TL's....The SRS 2's are without question,along with the 1C's VERY easy to drive.

When I first hooked up the 2.3's I soon noticed that I was having to put a little more juice to them to make em sing.

I've bi-amped the 2.3's plus moved them back a little closer to the rear wall to achieve the same bass responce the I was getting from the SRS 2's

If I had it to do over again I would have never parted with the SRS 2's or the 1C's

MAD

I know it is an old post... but does anyone know if the amount of bass improved from the sda 2.3 to the sda 2.3tl?

I love a bass rich speaker, and am currently running my 2.3 with a sub. Am I missing out....I am battling with which model do I want to upgrade if I could only choose one. From the readings, getting a sda srs 2 with rdo 198 (I know it is not easilly possible aside from running a second amp just powering the tweeters with a homemade crossover) sounds like my ideal speaker.

Yet, the 2.3 throw such a convincing soundstage I'm worried that I'll lose a bit of the height sacrificing a tweeter.

My speaker collection is out of control... I'm having trouble selling and know I need to settle on something for good. These sound magical, but words are powerful and I do want the best... good bass with RDO 198.

F1nut

There are many factors to getting great bass other than the speaker. Placement, the room, crossover/speaker modifications, pre amp, power amp, source, cables, dedicated lines, spikes, etc.

I can tell you this, the bass from my 2.3TL's is down right scary, but they are far from stock and all the bases (above) and then some have been covered.

zingo

You should not need a subwoofer with any of the 15" passive radiator SDA models. My SRS 2s provide all the deep and punchy bass that I need for movies and music, and the bass is much better integrated and musical than a separate subwoofer would provide.

chandler9a

What F1 said pretty much sums it up. The mods, along with proper placement and gear, really makes a big difference in what kind of bass you are getting. I have had a hard time getting the bass I want from my 1C's at the listening position I have but thats a room issue. They put out plenty of accurate bass realistically. You really shouldn't need a sub with those speakers, as Zingo has stated.

Try messing with the placement first and then maybe try some simple mods like spikes and rings, maybe seal the cabinets better.

MAD

Thanks for the advice...
I never thought I'd get a reply for this old of a thread.
I'll try out a new room. The imaging is great, but I'm sure the bass is affected as there is a back half wall (one speaker faces a wall and the other faces an opening). I just need to invite my brother over to help with the lifting.
They seem pretty sealed but I'll check again.
I do love how they seem to bring classic rock alive in a way I've never experienced before.

Thanks again