Monitor 11T any good?

cfrizz

Heh, heh, heh. Just show her a picture of the largest SDA's & tell her Honey, this is what I really wanted to get! She'll start being real happy you got such small footprint speakers!:D

raudi wrote: »

Although the wife was complaining that they're too big(she thinks i should have bought Bose!).

Anyway, I'll post pics of them later.

Yashu

They sure to look nice.

Polk really needs to get back into making real speakers again. LSi is great, but it would be nice if there was more than just LSi (RTi don't count).

The SL2000 may or may not be considered in the crossover. If it is a newer speaker using the SL2000, perhaps the crossover has been tuned to it's problems.

reeltrouble1

or perhaps not, Ed Zachery...........................lots of folks here enjoy their RTi speakers in many different types of rigs, of course since you think they "don't count" I am sure they don't have anywhere near your wisdom........

RT1

Yashu

Pfft...

By don't count I mean they to not exude a classic polk feel when you look at them or listen to them. That is all I was saying. RTi has been designed for HT, whereas, yes they work with music, any speaker "works" with music... but they were not designed for just music, in the same way classic polk speakers were.

reeltrouble1

Yashu wrote: »

Pfft...

speaks volumes, thanks for stopping by but I will just keep my don't count, no polk feeling RTi speakers which sound excellent to my meager ears, while I am at it I will enjoy my Lsi as well, of course I also can relax with the Lci RTS, system. you keep biting and I will keep reeling.

Nice looking speaks in the pics raudi. There are lots of pages here about the tweeter, check them out if you care to, in the mean time glad you are enjoying your find, I know I would.

RT1

heiney9

Yashu wrote: »

The SL2000 may or may not be considered in the crossover. If it is a newer speaker using the SL2000, perhaps the crossover has been tuned to it's problems.

Nope, it's inherent in the tweeter and has been noted in many reviews of the time and acknowledged by Polk, hence the R & D and use of the sl2500 and sl3000 tweeter.

One might be able to "rig" a x-over to compensate for some of the forwardness, but the resonance is there and it can be quite annoying on certain female vocals, piano, some brass instruments, etc. The RD0 replacements are *generally* considered a more realistic, smoother sounding tweeter.

I lived a long time with the sl2000 and it's very apparent to me how much better the RD0 is. IMO, of course as there are those on here who have no issue with the sl2000 (not many ), but I suspect they ahve never heard the RD0 for an extended period of time.

H9

reeltrouble1

nothing like letting the cat out of the bag for him H9:D............oh well, have to find another bright eyed all knowing one;)........crossover for the sl2000waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

RT1--owner of no polk feeling Rti speakers.

Random Thought--a crap trail does not always lead to a pony ride.

heiney9

My comment was more for Yashu rather than the new Polkie. Just sharing my experience's. By all means enjoy the RTA's as they are, I did for close to 20 years so it couldn't have been that bad :D.

When you can find a pair of 20 year old Polk's in as nice as condition as you seemed to, that is a good thing. The tweet and x-over mods are just suggestions to make an already able performer a little better and perhaps a little more modern.

Enjoy the RTA's as they anchored my rig for 18 years.

H9

reeltrouble1

it's all good.

RT1

raudi

I'll probably do a few of the mods/repairs to the speakers in a few weeks, just want to sit back and enjoy them for now.

Now I need to get a matching center and surrounds. I have a friend with a spare polk CS2 center in walnut that should match to look for the RT11s. I'll probably audition it to see if it sounds ok with the RT11s

Yashu

Reel, if you turn up your hearing aide a bit you might actually understand why I wouldn't recommend the last revision (and the new ones since they only changed looks) for music.

You have to be able to hear higher frequencies... I mean... their midrange is great, and the low end is taut with lots of power, maybe the mids are about as HF as you can still hear? In which case I would understand your love for them

H9, I understand what you are saying. The crossover cannot fix what is basically a flaw in the hardware, I can understand that.

reeltrouble1

Why don't you enlighten all of us about this crossover you suggest Polk took into consideration for the sl2000 in "their later" speakers?? Of course H9 already called **** on that one.

your post indicates you do not have a clue, laughable, thanks we appreciate the giggle........you should of really started at the beginning around here son not the middle. Yea, you are such an expert on Polk Audio things, So tell me, what was the first tweeter used in the Polk Monitor line speaker and let me tell you it was not the Peerless, afterall, you indicate you are an expert in vintage Polk sound.

For the record young man I only use MIT wire for my hearing aid. Now go play in fast lane, just remember to watch out, I already got mine, you are still trying. Did you ever consider there just may be some folks here who for a varitey of reasons enjoy their RTi speakers??? Have you ever owned a set of 55's, a very strong speaker for one genre, go look it up, google it, search it, I mean you are not likely to actually get a pair, how about the Rti 4, award winning little speaker, maybe you should think about what you post before you go around with such generalized statement as Rti "don't count".

RT1--defender of Rti speakers. Thats my line now bite my hook.

Yashu

Chill out, seriously.

I already consented to H9 about the crossover thing, so there is nothing left to defend. I do know it would be possible to build a crossover that works around the limitations of most any speaker, but that doesn't mean it should be done (think bose 901s, using extreme EQ to make up for lack if linearity in the speaker). It is better to just build a better speaker or driver than to try and fix it with crossover components. I DO consider the 90's to be "later" than the 70s and 80s (with regard to tweeters), maybe you do not?

You pretend that I am the ONLY one that thinks the modern RTi set is too bright, but if you actually read around this forum you will see that I am in good company on that one. I said they "don't count" because of A: they were built with HT in mind, and B: they do not continue the heritage of polk audio, in fact, the LSi speakers do not in my mind, but I qualify them simply because, yes they were designed for music, they perform very well, but nothing polk currently has continues the heritage of the SDA (surroundbar doesn't "count" either), or the old monitor series, all with passive radiators (done this way since it was much easier to tune a PR to an enclosure than to port tune, and before the age of PC modeling, this is understandable). THAT was what I was talking about. Using small drivers and less power to create "big" sound. Sealed enclosures and tuned passive radiators instead of ports... enclosures wrapped in lovely walnut finish. Hell, the wood on the LSi is freaking glued on the sides of the speaker, I will give the RTi the credit of at least having a true veneer.

Look... just because a speaker received a great Stereophile review does not make them "count" any more or less. RTi has very extended freq. response and are very forward, and with the high resolution addiction that the high end is wrapped in right now, I understand why they liked them. Don't go pissing on me because we don't hear the same things.

I don't like artificially forward speakers, and the RTi series are, I am not alone in thinking this. For HT, they are perfect... open, spacious, airy, all the things you want for movie atmosphere, but they give me listening fatigue with music. If you love them, I am not telling you to throw them away, I was giving my opinion on what I thought of them.

Also, why do I need to know tweeter model numbers to have an opinion on the sound and aesthetics of a speaker? I don't know the model number of any of the drivers in all of my speakers except one. Just one. The JBL C1003p. I can tell you how I think they sound, and I can tell you what all the speakers look like.

Award winning, maybe, but so are bybees, shakti stones, oh, and the Clever Little Clock and Brilliant Pebbles have received awards... perhaps that means you should go buy them? You know, Bose has won a great many awards... You should really consider an AM5 system to replace your RTis, in fact, I think bose has out-awarded just about everyone, but you don't see us lining up to buy their latest disaster. I was at an electronics store yesterday and saw awards printed all over Monster Cable products... I suppose this and the fact that the "great" Randi says they are teh awsome, we should be buying them by the boatload. You still have *some* respect from me, but trying to defend a speaker on arbitrary awards is going to lose it fast, not that you care, of course.

Defend on actual merit, tell my WHY you like your RTi, don't go around and use their "awards" as some kind of defense for your purchase.

(oh, and you DO realize I am talking about the modern RTi series, correct? I am not bashing the past RT series since I have not heard enough of them to say either way, maybe you did not catch that?)

cfrizz

Oh good grief. Yet another one who is still mourning over the demise of the SDA. Get over it already. To come on here and dismiss all other Polk speakers just because they aren't (in your mind) comparable musically to the SDA is just ridiculous.

If all they tried to sell were SDA's they would have been bankrupt years ago. They build different lines of speakers for different tastes & budgets. Just like every other company.

You don't like the other lines, most of which were established before Matt introduced the SDA's, & continue to evolve, then go sit in your cave with your SDA's & find somewhere else to post.

WTH do you know about Polk's heritage? The heritage is that Polk still exists to put out great speakers for all who want them. That heritage will only end when Polk ceases to exist!

reeltrouble1

Yashu wrote: »

You pretend

Nope, don't need to, I have afterall actually owned all of the speakers I talk about.

Keep trying though. You do have some potential there pup.

RT1

Yashu

Did I ever say that the SDA was the end all be all? No way! I said, quite simply, that Polk Audio has not carried on it's heritage, which it hasn't. Their designs have changed drastically and no longer carry with them the same kind of craftsmanship. I didn't say they sound like **** (other than anything that Reeltrouble connects to his amps, of course, then all bets are off

TroyD

Is that Lifetime (the ManHater channel?) on your TV? And you posted that?

Geeze, at that point, I'd have to kick my own ****.

Glad you dig the 11t's though. Solid speaker.

BDT(of the RTi digging, believe Polk is keeping the faith T's)

TroyD

Cathy hit the nail on the head...the mission of Polk is to put great sounding speakers in the hands of as many people as possible. Matt has been saying that in print for many, many years.

Having been to Polk and talking with thier guys, to include Matt. I can tell you that they voice thier speakers with music. While you may not like them.....if you are going to bash them, at least have a basis in fact with your accusations.

Ports? LOTS of high end speakers are ported these days for a myriad of reasons. I'm of the belief that a sealed enclosure or a PR is inherently better. If it were, companies such as B&W etc etc wouldn't use them.

As far as new vs. old....whatever. Given the choice of a new pair of RTi's.....I'd take a pair of RTi's over any pair of RTA's that I've heard. The smaller Montiors (5's...) were ok, the 7's were stellar and the 10's were a clusterf**k (sorry to you Mon 10 guys, I just never really cared for them).....

As far as the tweeter goes, it's a fact. The SL2000 has a 5db spike. Everyone knows it, to include the guy who designed it. It's why they came out with the SL3000.

The point is, again, subjectively, you can not care for a speaker and that's ok. However, when you start saying Polk did this, or this doesn't count or Polk did that because...without an basis in fact, that's when you start having serious credibility issues.

BDT

Yashu

Except for the fact that the RTi series is marketed towards home theatre and LSi towards serious music listening? That happens to be a fact as well.

The RTi is a great speaker... for the movies. Sorry, but that's where they are at for me, or for really anyone that can hear at and above 20khz.

I never doubted the flaw in the SL2000, not once. I said that electronics *could* work around the flaw... I also said it was not ideal to do this.

Why did polk knowingly keep using the SL2000 after the development of the 3000, or even the peerless?

TroyD

Of course it's 'marketed' to Home Theater...duh, where do you think the market is these days? Again, YOU may not find them musical but that doesn't mean that they were designed as such.

Why? Who knows. I don't and more to the point, I don't care. Personally, I never thought that the SL2000 was that bad. I prefer the SL3000 and the RDO replacements.

BDT

TroyD

Yashu wrote: »

The RTi is a great speaker... for the movies. Sorry, but that's where they are at for me, or for really anyone that can hear at and above 20khz.

Hearing above 20khz? What are you, part golden retriever? :rolleyes:

BDT

Yashu

The average upper class consumer (below ultra high end and above stuff like some of JBLs lower offerings, lower end infinity, or HTIAB , for instance) used to have a company called Polk Audio to turn to for speakers that were not just places where music came from, but furniture... real quality cabinetry, something that the market at the time was proud to own. When I say "remember SDA" I am not talking about the technology, but the time when a speaker was a true part of the room.

This has not been lost on the ultra high end, but it certainly has been in the market that Polk has tried to remain in. Polk went from a warmer sound and LOOK, to a brighter "trendy", yet colder sound, and the looks to go with it. Don't get me wrong, I think the LSi 9s are very nice looking, as is the real veneer on the RTi sets, but I would not consider any of them to be continuing the heritage of the company. That was my point.

Just because I don't like artificially bright sound doesn't mean you aren't going to, and with the LSi, there is very little to complain about (they do not suffer from the RTi curse), but I just feel like the age of the large speaker is over as far as the market that Polk has decided to remain in goes. That is something that I am sad to see, not because of some passive crossover wizardry, but you have to admit, older Polk speakers can be things of beauty with a commanding presence in any room. To get this now, we have to either buy used, or look to the boutique and ultra high end. The average consumer is not going to be doing this, making my desires a dying wish.

TroyD: Yes, I am sensitive to HF sound, much more than I would say normal. I suppose I am the "dog ears" that the "great" randi spoke about as a disqualifier to win his million.

TroyD

At the pricepoint, there isn't another manufacturer out there, other than Polk, that I can think of that offers much besides vinyl wrapped MDF. Which, BTW, is what the old Monitor series was. I know. I own them. So, in terms of fit and finish, your argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

As far as the SDA's go. They had wood endcaps, the rest was MDF convered by fabric. Don't get me wrong; I love my SDA's but as far as the fit and finish goes....they weren't ALL that. (sound is a different story). The fit and finish of the LSi's, IMO, is superior to that of the SDA's. Now, on to the 'high end' that you speak of, I've owned/had access to a number of 'high end' speakers. Offerings from Vandersteen, Thiel, B&W etc...I don't find that the fit and finish of thier cabs were anything to write home about either. My Quad ESL-63's are downright awful. Again, if you want to look through rose colored glasses be my guest but it just isn't the case. We get it, you want big speakers. Well, the current market in general doesn't support that. Might I add as well, Polk has NEVER been an ultra high-end company. Even when they made SDA's.

When is the last time you've had a hearing test, sport? How would you define 'normal' hearing and what sort of basis in fact are you judging this on? Or, are you just convinced in your aural superiority? Me? I get my hearing plotted twice a year so I KNOW what I can hear and what I can't hear.

BDT

heiney9

Yashu wrote: »

Why did polk knowingly keep using the SL2000 after the development of the 3000, or even the peerless?

To my knowledge they didn't. If you know please enlighten the rest of us. The peerless was an early Polk tweeter and it was manufactured by another company and bought by Polk. I'm sure they wanted to come up with and use their own proprietary design, hence the sl1000 and sl2000.

Please show me instances where they continued to use peerless and sl2000 tweeters *after* the sl2500 and sl3000. I know of no such Polk speaker.

Plain and simple when the sl2000 was first developed it was voiced a particular way and keep in mind it was developed while analog was still around and digital was in it's infancy.

I think some of the voiceing issues were more noticeable when digital became the norm and frankly after a poor review in Sterophile about the 5dB spike in the RTA 11's, is *one* of the things that prompted Polk to design a new tweeter (the sl3000).

H9

heiney9

Yashu,

I have heard some RTi's, not many of them but a few and they are a good speaker and likely the best bargain at their price point you will likely find. IMO, I perfer the "classic" sound of vintage Polk monitors especially now since a suitable replacement for the sl2000 is available.

I had a pair of LSi 9's for about 6 months and those were excellent speakers for music and fit and finish was top notch. The use of the Vifa was an excellent choice and IMO is what makes them able to compete with speakers costing alot more.

It's alright you don't care for the RTi's playing music but you are selling a great line of speakers short. They are Polk's bread and butter line and they fit perfectly into what the market is calling for right now. And they are better than most other speakers at their price point. As Cfrizz stated if Polk had continued as they were and not responded to market changes they'd be gone.

Progress, trends, technology moves forward and so the company needs to as well. I think what most here are objecting to is that you are emphatically stating the RTi's are no good and shouldn't be considered for music. You are entitled to your opinion but it's the manner in which you voice that opinion.

Keep on diggin your vintage Polks and, if you haven't yet, give the LSi's a proper demo. Today the LSi's are where it's at for serious music lovers and the great thing is they are just as good at doing HT.

Yashu

I said I thought the RTis had a nice finish. Polk used a real wood veneer, and this was something that went into my purchase of the RTi over some other brands, but I couldn't dig their sound so I had to take them back.

They looked fine as a speaker in their own right. The LSi9s and the 7s or 15s, they sound pretty damn good, and the finish is nice except for one thing. The wood is just glued onto the sides... you can pull the wood off and get a black box with piano-black finish.

I have seen vandersteens, and I think they do look quite nice. I actually really like them period, especially since they are basically sensitive and can be used with lower power amps. I almost bought a set, actually.

Or, are you just convinced in your aural superiority?

Trust me, it isn't superior, it isn't ideal, and I wish I could just hear like normal, then maybe I wouldn't be so obsessive about many things.

As far as the SL2000, well didn't they use this in many SDA lines concurrently with the SL3000? Didn't Polk have several speakers using the SL2000 concurrently with lines that used the 2500 and 3000? If the flaw was so well known as people say, then wouldn't you think Polk would have replaced these SL2000 models with the better ones, since they did have them? I understand wanting to move old stock, but I am pretty sure polk kept the SL2000 going for a while after developing the 2500 and the 3000. I am not faulting them on this. Intel kept selling netburst after releasing core2, AMD kept selling 32bit k7 after releaseing Athlon64...

heiney9

Yashu wrote: »

As far as the SL2000, well didn't they use this in many SDA lines concurrently with the SL3000? Didn't Polk have several speakers using the SL2000 concurrently with lines that used the 2500 and 3000? If the flaw was so well known as people say, then wouldn't you think Polk would have replaced these SL2000 models with the better ones, since they did have them?

No, perhaps dealers had old stock, but once they introduced the new "trilaminate" tweeter the sl2000 was no longer used because of the issues noted by reviewers and owners at the time.

If you have specific evidence to the contrary I'm sure we'd all like to be enlightened.

reeltrouble1

Polk a furniture maker...........holy crap!!!!!!! BS meter is going off again.

RT1

cfrizz

Tell me about it Ted!

I don't know what he's smoking but he needs to stop before his brain turns to mush.

In case you didn't know this real wood costs an arm and a leg! if you can most companies use veneers these days at least in their affordable lines of speakers.

So long as they look good, who cares if it's real wood or not? What's really important is that they SOUND good.

Yashu

People expect small speakers these days... but there are higher end manufacturers that do a very good job using real wood (shock!), like Sonus Faber. Ok that is two issues in one sentence. What I mean is the size, as in, rectangular prism, square edges, large footprint, but moreso, speakers that you COULD put against a wall... the PR allowed polk to release the SDA SRS... huge speaker, but you could put it right against the wall... imagine that. Ported speakers, especially rear ported ones... you can forget that. Smaller footprint, but what good is it when you need extra feet radius around the speaker to be empty?

I am not some zealot, I just like the look of a quality speaker... gluing wood onto piano black box is not quality to me... even though it sounds good. The RTi, may sound very forward, but they do look nice... real veneer, clean lines, and a box speaker that looks like a box (shock!).

I still miss the larger speakers, sealed, with tuned PRs, or just larger ones in general. Computer based engineering made the PR a thing of the past in the most part because it was no longer so hard to design a proper ported enclosure.

Yes there are many high end large speakers, but not at Frys. Polk is selling their speakers to a consumer least likely to take placement into consideration. You can't just place them against the wall, like you could with many SDAs (not in corners, but against a flat wall).