Refresh my Memory - SDA History

abmarsh · January 2003

Refresh my memory on the SDA line.

SDA-CRS and CRS+
SDA-2, 2A, 2B
SDA-1, 1A, 1B, 1C

Then come the Signature Reference Series models. I don't remember their designations.:D

rskarvan · January 2003

Flagship SRS-SDA-1.2TL
Middle SRS-SDA-2.3TL
Small SRS-SDA-3.1TL

I have the 3.1's that I purchased new.
They sound an awful lot like their bigger brothers.
They aren't everything that the big brothers are... but, they have the same sonic signature - just not quite as full sounding at high volumes.

Any of the SRS's will sound incredible.

abmarsh · January 2003

Thanks.

mhw58 · January 2003

If you look at the Polk website and click on vintage product line,
they have pictures and writeups on the 1.2's and 2.3's.
Mike

Tour2ma · January 2003

The original flagships were plain "SDA SRS", right?

The SDA-SRS 1.2 TL's were second generation flagships, weren't they? If yes, what were the differences?

hoosier21 · January 2003

SDA SRS original
SDA 1.2 upgraded crossovers, cabinet
SDA 1.2tl new SL3000 tweeters

DarqueKnight · January 2003

There were three generations of the SRS series. I like to refer to each generation (or class) by the year in which they were put into production.

Class of 1985:

Here are shown the original SDA SRS (behind Matt Polk) and the SDA SRS 2, which looks like an SDA 1C on steroids. The SRS 2 very rarely (i.e. almost never) appears on the used market.

Class of 1987:

The class of 1987 deleted the SDA SRS 2 and added the larger SDA SRS 2.3. The SDA SRS was upgraded with a new crossover and cabinet modifications.

Class of 1989:

Left to right: SRS 2.3TL, SRS 3.1TL, and SRS 1.2TL. The SRS 1.2 and SRS 2.3 receive crossover modifications and a new, more accurate tweeter (SL3000). The "TL" designation is added to their names to signify the SL3000 tri-laminate tweeter. A new SRS speaker similar in size to the SDA 1C is added: the SRS 3.1TL. The 1.2TL and 2.3TL show up a few times a year on the used market (Ebay, Audiogon, Polk Forum). The 3.1TL very rarely (fairly close to never) appears on the used market. The SRS series ceased production in 1991.

SRS "TL" series speakers without grilles.

Tour2ma · January 2003

Many Thanks Raife...
Beautiful... will download.
You scan these out of old issues of Stereo Review?

awolf · January 2003

Hi, I'm new to the forum but have loved my Polks for about 10 years. I have the SRS 4.1TL (SDA compact), a bookshelf speaker, which doesn't appear in the advertisements. I've never seen or heard those large speakers but they must be amazing.
If you don't mind, I have a question for you learned folks...
Do you all use the interconnect cable between the 2 speakers?
I just switched from a 2-ch to a 5.1-ch receiver and was wondering if you have any recommendations for surround speakers (center/rear/sub) to complement the SRS when used as the main left and right...timbre/power/etc. compatible.
Thanks for the help

SDA SRS 1.2 · January 2003

Those scans are from the sacred "Polk Brochure Library" which all us SDA die hards keep in a safe place.

DarqueKnight · January 2003

Originally posted by awolf
I have the SRS 4.1TL (SDA compact), a bookshelf speaker, which doesn't appear in the advertisements.

I was not aware that Polk actually produced a 4.1TL. Are they really 4.1TL's or are they CRS+'s that have had the tweeters "upgraded" to the SL3000 versions? Tell me more about your 4.1TL's.

Originally posted by awolf
Do you all use the interconnect cable between the 2 speakers?

Those of us who want to get the full benefit of SDA imaging use the cable.

Originally posted by awolf
I just switched from a 2-ch to a 5.1-ch receiver and was wondering if you have any recommendations for surround speakers (center/rear/sub) to complement the SRS when used as the main left and right...timbre/power/etc. compatible.

I have found the LSi series to be an excellent timbre match for the SDA series. I recently replaced the two CRS+ speakers I was using as center channels with a pair of LSiC's. I did it strictly for aesthetic reasons. The CRS+'s were a little bit too bulky looking above my television.

hoosier21 · January 2003

SRS 4.1tl!! man do you have pictures? I have never heard of these, more info please.

DarqueKnight · January 2003

I sent an email to Ken Swauger in Polk Customer Service asking if a 4.1TL was ever put into production. I'll post his reply once I have it.

Maybe there are a few prototypes floating around out there.

RuSsMaN · January 2003

Man, I'm sportin' wood just thinking about this.

DarqueKnight · January 2003

I don't doubt that a few CRS+'s were "upgraded to "TL" status just as some of the SRS 1.2's and SRS 2.3's were "upgraded" with a simple replacement of the SL2000 tweeter with the SL3000 tweeter.

I sent another email to Polk asking what modifications would have to be made to the CRS+ crossovers (I only asked about the 1989 model) in order to accommodate the SL3000-TL tweeter.

I know some of you modification-oriented SDA enthusiasts will be interested in this info. Maybe Polk should consider producing a CRS+ "TL" Upgrade Kit.;)

har_navalta · January 2003

I have these question from ken before...
here is my letter to him about pin/blade and blade/blade and
also SL3000's upgrade...CRS+

Hello Ken,

Once again I have something to ask about the CRS+ but before I will proceed
I would like to thank for all the past informations from you including
this one.

Ok here's my 3 questions:
1). What is the difference between the CRS+ Pin/Blade and the Twin Blade
connections?
2). Who is the better overall rating between these two? I mean sounds and
Imaging.
3). Can I upgrade the tweeters to SL3000's and what necessarily parts to
modify the croosovers in conjunction with SL3000's? or will Polk
willing to modify it?

I'm hoping for your reply for these questions. I really appreciate it and
regards to Polk.

Thanks,
Har

Here's the answer...

Hello Har,
I'm glad the information is helpful.
1). the difference is in the speakers that use the pin/blade it was a way to
avoid potential damage to non-common ground amplifiers. With the previous
twin/blade design both of the blades were continuous through the length of
the cable. With this design, if an unsuspecting owner connected his
non-common ground amplifier it is possible he would damage the amplifier by
shorting it out. With the pin/blade design, only the pin connection is
continuous throughout the cable, the blade is not connected. If an
unsuspecting owner connected his non-common ground amplifier all that would
happen would be he wouldn't hear any SDA sounds. But, he wouldn't short out
the amplifier, just wouldn't hear any SDA output. If it were a common ground
amplifier, the amplifier would provide the common left and right ground and
everything would be fine. So, the pin/blade was a way to prevent damage to
non-common ground amplifiers, it doesn't sound any better or worse than a
twin/blade.
2). there's no difference between the two connecting wire designs. Sonic
differences happen with tweeters and drivers, but not the cable.
3). replacing anything, tweeters included, involve making changes in the
crossover. Speakers are tuned systems, one part interdependent upon the
others. If you change one part, the others are effected. Most of the time,
this kind of activity is done by fairly experienced audio enthusiasts, who
identify what parts, on the crossover, are different and substitute them,
themselves. I can provide copies of crossover schematics, at no charge, but
we don't have replacement parts or perform modifications, sorry.
Regards,
Ken, Polk

DarqueKnight · January 2003

Originally posted by har_navalta
Most of the time,
this kind of activity is done by fairly experienced audio enthusiasts, who
identify what parts, on the crossover, are different and substitute them,
themselves. I can provide copies of crossover schematics, at no charge, but
we don't have replacement parts or perform modifications, sorry.
Regards,
Ken, Polk

Well, that wasn't particularly illuminating was it?

mfalesch · January 2003

Hey, at least Ken offered some "free stuff" that you probably can't get in a Sam's Photofact!!!!!

awolf · January 2003

Hello again,
Im afraid I was wrong about the 4.1TL bookshelf speakers. I did not receive any documentation when I bought them from a dealer/friend. But, I did have a 1991 StereoReview buyers guide, which displayed the ads like the ones posted above and listed all the Polk speakers: SRS1.2TL, 2.3TL, 3.1TL and 4.1TL. The latter is listed as a bookshelf speaker with two 6 1/2in trilaminate-polymer mid-bass drivers; one 10in planar sub-bass radiator; one SL-3000 1in trilaminate-polymer/metal dome tweeter. I just assumed that was it and never gave it another thought. Some 10 years pass and I finally start to look at 5.1 speakers, hence my first post. After causing a bit of a stir, I checked the speakers againhey, you know those grills come offhee heeand my speakers have a different driver complement. Two mid-bass and two tweeter drivers in front and a large metal grill in back, presumably hiding the bass. The label painted on back says SDA compact and the serial number R-SDA-CRS1834 was on a paper label. Id appreciate knowing how this model fits on the family tree of these beloved speakers. Are the LSi speakers still good fits for rounding out a 5.1 surround system with my little speakers? Does the LSi series use SDA technology or has that gone? Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the information.

DarqueKnight · January 2003

awolf,

You have the very earliest edition of the CRS (two tweeter design). I have found the LSiC center channel speaker to be an excellent match for the SDA SRS speakers I am using as mains.

I also found that my LSi9 speakers sounded very similar to my CRS+ speakers from the midrange up through the treble.

Polk stopped making SDA speakers in 1991.

Tour2ma · February 2004

Could somebody make a post here so I can save the e-mail notice from this and never have to search for it again?

Thanks in advance...

F1nut · February 2004

Damn, this is getting to be a habit.

Tour2ma · February 2004

Thanks.... We experts do need to stick together. Congrats on your recent promotion.

Did occur to me later that I could have e-mailed the link to myself... :rolleyes:

F1nut · February 2004

I noticed that "expert" title, little do they know.

Thanks and congrats yourself!!!

VR3 · February 2004

I should be upgraded to Sid the Polk Expert Kid

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Anyone want to *give* me a pair of CRS?

disneyjoe7 · March 2004

>>> I should be upgraded to Sid the Polk Expert Kid <<<

But you will be a KID

Rock out

(I hope that doesn't show my age too much)

VOT · June 2010

I just picked up a pair of R SDA-II. Where do they fit in the timeline? They have the silver dome tweeters, not the same as the SDA 2. I have not hooked them up yet. Thanks.

McLoki · June 2010

Hopefully you got an R SDA-II and an L SDA-II.

Did you get the interconnect cable as well? Is it blade-blade or pin-blade (on the end of the interconnect cable)? Upload a pic and that will help.

Anyway - congrats on the speaker grab, I am sure you will be happy with them.

mdaudioguy · June 2010

I love these old threads.

Refresh my Memory - SDA History

Comments