SDA1s verses SDA1bs

geppy1

Ok I have a pair of of very early SDA1s (1983). In extensive listening I and others liked the sound of the RTA12bs more then the SDA1s. It was felt the RTA 12Bs had more depth out in front of the speaker and a somewhat more dynamic sound verses the SDA1s slightly soft and laid back. HOWEVER I am not willing to give up the ship yet. There is a pair of SDA1Bs in my area. The desgin is changed enough to wonder if it is worth a try. It is a risk. Opinions on what differences i might hear between the SDA1s and the SDA1Bs. HELP!!

avguytx

I have a pair of SDA 1C's and love them. They are very similar speakers but with the oak veneered (is that right?) tops and bottoms. Even in their stock form, they sounded great. I changed out their crossovers (in another thread) and have put the RD0-194 tweeters in them. They are definitely keepers. I can't comment on the sonic differences versus the SDA 1's but the newer generations did get better with cabinet structure and in how the SDA technology had advanced. I haven't heard the RTA12's in probably 20 years so that's an unfair judgment, too. They did sound good when I heard them, though. I still enjoy listening to my Monitor 10B's, too.

You do have to remember that you are comparing SDA's from the 1st and 3rd generations.

Hope that helps but I know others will chime in soon...

analog97

I am very familiar with only two Polk speakers, the 1B and 1.2TL. IMHO, the 1B is an awesome speaker. I am curious to hear the experience of others who can compare the 1's vs 1B. The 1B, to my way of thinking, is unbeatable in price/perfomance...simply a great speaker. The 1B was the speaker that forced me to find my 1.2TL's.

ben62670

I had the first SDA2's, and they sucked. Way to spacey. I do not like the dimensional tweeters. All the other SDA arrangements I have owned I have enjoyed.

read-alot

ben62670 wrote: »

I had the first SDA2's, and they sucked. Way to spacey. I do not like the dimensional tweeters. All the other SDA arrangements I have owned I have enjoyed.

That's interesting I've owned a pair for 22 years and not once have they sucked, some of the equipment I tried to drive them with in the early years made them sound worse at times but never did they suck.

Dennis Gardner

The Bs have a much cohesive dimensional stage. If I was looking for a SDA upgrade I would wait for a 1C to surface since I prefer the look of the 1C and higher models with cloth sides over the studio design of the lower models, but that is strictly my opinion on cosmetics.

ben62670

read-alot wrote: »

That's interesting I've owned a pair for 22 years and not once have they sucked, some of the equipment I tried to drive them with in the early years made them sound worse at times but never did they suck.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to pick on your speakers, but I really don't like the bad imaging that the first generation SDA's put out.
Ben

Dennis Gardner

read-alot wrote: »

That's interesting I've owned a pair for 22 years and not once have they sucked, some of the equipment I tried to drive them with in the early years made them sound worse at times but never did they suck.

The weakest of the SDA line in my opinion are those that have side by side dimensional tweeters of the earliest SDA 1A and early CRS.

There is "something not quite right" with their approach to the dimensional presentation. On some material, it just sounds out of whack and too much in your face with added spaciousness that comes acrossed as unnatural to me.

I have never felt that way about the SDA 2 models though, just those mentioned above.

read-alot

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

The weakest of the SDA line in my opinion are those that have side by side dimensional tweeters of the earliest SDA 1A and early CRS.

There is "something not quite right" with their approach to the dimensional presentation. On some material, it just sounds out of whack and too much in your face with added spaciousness that comes acrossed as unnatural to me.

I have never felt that way about the SDA 2 models though, just those mentioned above.

I'll have to try the CRS as mains this weekend, they have always been the lowly rear surrounds. I did put the 2's in as mains while I was removing the polyswitches in the SRS and deoxing the connectors and I will say they really like the Halos.

Dennis Gardner

My CRS+ are my favorite SDA "pound for pound" model. Way more flexible in placement choices than the tower models and I feel the SDA imaging is better.

read-alot

ben62670 wrote: »

Sorry. I wasn't trying to pick on your speakers, but I really don't like the bad imaging that the first generation SDA's put out.
Ben

Hell don't be sorry I thought you were off your rocker trying to build FRANKENPOLKS. :rolleyes:

Oh I'm sure if Matt thought the imaging was too bad he would have never put them out there with his name on them.

avguytx

Maybe he learned in the first round what to change on later models. It does happen, you know.

ben62670

read-alot wrote: »

Hell don't be sorry I thought you were off your rocker trying to build FRANKENPOLKS. :rolleyes:

Oh I'm sure if Matt thought the imaging was too bad he would have never put them out there with his name on them.

I am sure the next 4 generations were improvements to the first. I am also sure that 95% of people that have heard the first gens compared to any of the newer ones would say that the dimensional tweeters while widening the sound stage incredible did detract from accurate sound stage of the newer ones.

read-alot

I've heard some B&Ws along with most Bose that I thought sucked and since I've been a SDA fan for the 22 years it goes without saying that I have heard almost all of the offerings.

At one time when the 2s were in a small room the imaging on some material did have a different effect but when given a wide berth to show off they sound pretty damn good especially when the back wall was brick and the floor was carpeted.

heiney9

The biggest difference between the original 1's and 1B's is the dimensional tweet on the earlier model. I never cared for those real early SDA's because they sounded a little phasey and really unnatural on a lot of material.

Polk did away with the dimensional tweeter in the 1B's so I'd choose those over the original 1's.

I have a pair of modded 1C's and in my mind they are the gems of the line especially if you have a smalish to medium sized listening space. They have slightly better midrange, a deeper more cohesive SDA stage and better bass than the 2B's. And the 2B's are no slouch.

I think you will prefer the 1B's to the original 1's. But only you can decide.

H9

heiney9

read-alot wrote: »

Oh I'm sure if Matt thought the imaging was too bad he would have never put them out there with his name on them.

The thing is when SDA's first came out they were in the infancy stages and Polk were really the only one's doing the research and as the line evolved they got much better. They learned a lot as time went on and the later gen's had lot's of improvements to x-overs, driver's and cabinets.

It's not that the 1st gen's were so bad, because they weren't esepcially for the time. It's just that the last couple of gen's before they were discontinued were excellent. It shows the full evolution of the concept.

H9

Joe08867

I have original SDA2's. They do sound very different from the 2B's. Like others have said the side by side dimensional tweeters don't react very well to each other. I did find that my original 2's work better in a real wide room. the 2B's didn't spread quite as wide.

So I guess my recommendation is if you have a wide room or a unlively or dead room the original 1's might work out a bit better for you.

I would definately change the tweeters though. The 1000's are pretty harsh. Not as harsh IMHO as the 2000's but they get grainy at higher volume levels.