RTIA3 vs RTI4 death match coming soon!

Kex

Erik Tracy wrote: »

... Well, was this really a ‘death match’ in the sense that the bigger A3 scored an instant ‘kill’ against its smaller cousin?

Surprisingly no!

...But, I have to be honest – the A3s are a step up in sound in detail, imaging, presence, and punch. I’m not sure I’d recommend this step for everyone as it is admittedly, not a HUGE step up – more incremental. ...

Excellent work IMHO! Both in methodology and in the way you reported back what you heard!

It's nice to see that Polk Audio has not been getting it all wrong with their older designs. This has also been my experience with the older RT series (without the "i"), and yes: great bargains can be had used, perhaps more than with almost any other brand.

It's also nice to see that, even though changes between subsequent ranges are slight, and may not merit changing up immediately, the changes over time do make a difference, and they seem to be going in the right direction. I would add that, for people on a budget, the older Polk lines (such as the RT) are truly excellent for a completely convincing home theater experience (excluding subwoofers). They may not be quite adequate for the most discerning listeners when it comes to certain types and/or tracks of music.

All hail Erik Tracy, and all hail Polk Audio! You deserved those cold ones.

Norm Apter

Great review Erik! As others have said I really appreciate both your thoroughness and your complete honesty. Posts like this really make Club Polk and excellent place to come and learn.

I think you've done a great job in picking out precisely how they differ in term of music listening experiences.

May I ask about home theater. Have you watched any movies witht the RTia3s in place of the RTi4s as your front speakers? Just wondering if there would be any discernable difference in that department, as well.

In addition, what is the size of your TV/living room?

The reason I ask is because I'm also considering either the Rti or RtiA series down the line for home theater. Initially, I had been thinking about floorstanding speakers as fronts (either RtiA 5s or Rti As) and a mounted bookshelf for rears (either RTi4s, RTi6s or RTiA3s). But since you have mounted speakers for your fronts this has me thinking that maybe floorstanders might not be necessary, especially if you feel that this combo fills up your space aplenty.

Let me pose one other hypothetical to you, in terms of the two models you compared: in the case of rear speakers/surrounds for a home theater set-up, would you see any need to go with the Rtia3s over the Rti4s?

leroyjr1

Nice review. Those RTI A3's are huge.

croutons

I'll second (or third, or fourth) all the previous comments. That was a job well done, and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for your time and effort!

Erik Tracy

Norm Apter wrote: »

Great review Erik! As others have said I really appreciate both your thoroughness and your complete honesty. Posts like this really make Club Polk and excellent place to come and learn.

I think you've done a great job in picking out precisely how they differ in term of music listening experiences.

May I ask about home theater. Have you watched any movies witht the RTia3s in place of the RTi4s as your front speakers? Just wondering if there would be any discernable difference in that department, as well.

In addition, what is the size of your TV/living room?

The reason I ask is because I'm also considering either the Rti or RtiA series down the line for home theater. Initially, I had been thinking about floorstanding speakers as fronts (either RtiA 5s or Rti As) and a mounted bookshelf for rears (either RTi4s, RTi6s or RTiA3s). But since you have mounted speakers for your fronts this has me thinking that maybe floorstanders might not be necessary, especially if you feel that this combo fills up your space aplenty.

Let me pose one other hypothetical to you, in terms of the two models you compared: in the case of rear speakers/surrounds for a home theater set-up, would you see any need to go with the Rtia3s over the Rti4s?

I watched PotC:Curse of the Black Pearl for the HT portion of the 'shootout' - giving both the RTi4s and the A3s the listening test for a good portion of the movie.

My family room is about 12x12 (the front wall actually measures 9ft - but add about 3 feet for the hallway down the 'side') and it also adjoins to the kitchen on the left.

The 4s and the A3s can fill my family room with quite loud sound as driven by the Carver power amp.

Either one did an admirably job with the movie for HT effects (like the attack of Port Royal from the Black Pearl with lots of canon shot, or Sparrow vs Will Turner sword fight in the smithy).

I thought the A3s as fronts and the RTi4s as rears were a good match - I really didn't notice anything jarringly disparate about the sound: both are in the RTI family.

When listening to Pink Floyd I went up to about -4db on my avr when playing "Have a Cigar" - the house was rockin'!

I guess the decision between towers and bookshelves really depends on just how loud you generally listen to and the power source driving them.

Admittedly, I'm now letting the A3s break in and will need to dial them in to further tune them to get just the sound I want for my setup. Like I said, they do need to be reigned in a bit for the top end - especially for any bright sources/mixes - its just a bit much when going to moderate/loud levels.

If budget is a major constraint, then A3s as fronts with 4s as rears, would be a good match in my opinion. Plus, depending on your set up, if you do have to wall or ceiling mount your rears, the A3s are bigger and heavier. For a 5.1 setup with room constraints, I don't think you're giving up much of anything using the 4s as rears.

One other area I need to spend more time dialing in is the sub and front integration. Because the A3s dig deeper than the 4s, and because I have them wall mounted and because of this they 'couple' to my front wall for bass reinforcement, and because the A3s power ports are closer to my front wall, I'm having a more of a challenge to get the bass management set correctly.

To keep them from being overly 'boomy', I'm playing with the crossover frequency and the sub volume. This was something I was warned about and one consideration Ron expressed a recommendation to get them off the wall and on stands.

For now, that isn't going to work for me - so I'm working within the constraints I have to deal with and do the best I can to dial in the settings.

I really like the A3s and still respect the 4s.

Erik

leroyjr1

Have you thought about HT 7.1

Ron Temple

Erik, did you note a difference in the tweeter response. I think it's the same part, but either the cabinet design or a crossover tweak really smoothed the response on the 3s vs the 8s I had here (at different times). The 8s always had a touch of sibilance on some content, the 3s it was hardly noticeable on any content.

Erik Tracy

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Have you thought about HT 7.1

My couch is right up against the back wall, so 7.1 really would not work for my setup.

I've read and heard others say its better to opt for 5.1 that works, than force together a 7.1 that doesn't.

Erik

Erik Tracy

Ron Temple wrote: »

Erik, did you note a difference in the tweeter response. I think it's the same part, but either the cabinet design or a crossover tweak really smoothed the response on the 3s vs the 8s I had here (at different times). The 8s always had a touch of sibilance on some content, the 3s it was hardly noticeable on any content.

Ron,
To be honest, I think the A3 and the RTi4 have a tweeter response that are really close to each other: detailed and crisp and 'ethereal' at low volumes, tending to be just a tad 'strident' when pushed loud especially with bright/busy mixes up top that compound the effect.

The more spacious the source and mix - meaning that if there are 'spaces' in the music, the more pleasing the effect. But if the source/mix is busy or edgy by design - then both the A3s and the 4s can be a bit too much up top.

I think that both benefit by pulling back a bit on the high end if pushed loud.

The most notable difference is the mid-range, and lower-treble with the A3s having more presence here than the 4s, hence my comment that I thought the 4s seemed 'recessed' (or 'relaxed' or whatever metaphor you'd choose).

But - that's just me....

Norm Apter

Thanks for letting me know about the home theater dynamics, Erik. Your words definately inspire confidence in the consistent quality delivered by the Rti series (old and now) at that price point.

Though this question diverges a bit from the spirit of the original post, I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about the decision process involved in matching the Rti speakers (previously you had 4 Rti4 speakers, right?) with your AVR and amp.

The only negative thing that I hear from time to time about the RTi series is that they tend to be a little on the bright side for music. Were you conscious of this at all when you decided on your AVR and amp?

The second question has to do with power: I see that the upper limit under the official specs by Polk puts each (Rti4 and RtiA3) at 125 wpc. I searched for your AVR on Amazon just to see what you were using and found this:

http://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-RX-V1800BL-7-1-Channel-Theater-Receiver/dp/B000V53V82/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1223226258&sr=8-1

If this indeed is the one that you have, I noticed that it can pump out 130 wpc. I do realize that one can exceed the listed upper limit of wpc, but am wondering if that is primarily the reason you went with the Carver amp (In other words, was it an addition of raw power or a different (i.e. better) sound offered by the Carver amp that pushed you toward the decision to run these with external amplification?).

Erik Tracy

Norm Apter wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know about the home theater dynamics, Erik. Your words definately inspire confidence in the consistent quality delivered by the Rti series (old and now) at that price point.

Though this question diverges a bit from the spirit of the original post, I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about the decision process involved in matching the Rti speakers (previously you had 4 Rti4 speakers, right?) with your AVR and amp.

The only negative thing that I hear from time to time about the RTi series is that they tend to be a little on the bright side for music. Were you conscious of this at all when you decided on your AVR and amp?

The second question has to do with power: I see that the upper limit under the official specs by Polk puts each (Rti4 and RtiA3) at 125 wpc. I searched for your AVR on Amazon just to see what you were using and found this:

http://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-RX-V1800BL-7-1-Channel-Theater-Receiver/dp/B000V53V82/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1223226258&sr=8-1

If this indeed is the one that you have, I noticed that it can pump out 130 wpc. I do realize that one can exceed the listed upper limit of wpc, but am wondering if that is primarily the reason you went with the Carver amp (In other words, was it an addition of raw power or a different (i.e. better) sound offered by the Carver amp that pushed you toward the decision to run these with external amplification?).

To be honest, I did not do any extensive research when pairing the avr and the speakers. It was more independent of what HT setups and avrs were getting good reviews.

I have read some opinions that the RTI coupled with the Yamaha makes for a 'bright' pairing. Then again, some of the V1800 reviews say that it has a 'warm' sound. Go figure....

My decision to use the Carver was that I had it from my 2-channel setup and decided to keep it and integrate into my HT setup.

I think there is an actual measurement of the yamaha V1800 on one of the on line reviews with all 7 channels driven and it is lower than the 130 watt/channel rating.

It was my thinking that the avr would be not be pushed too hard if I used the Carver to drive the fronts and so I'd have more headroom for both the mains and for the other speakers as well when the "11" mood strikes me every once and awhile

I get a kick out of seeing the leds dance up and down on the Carver when the volume goes up. It's even more of a kick to see that the leds don't even get close to maxing out when the room is LOUD - so there's plenty of headroom left.

For typical moderate listening, in my room, the avr by itself was quite adequate in driving all 5 channels.

fwiw,
Erik

Ron Temple

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Ron,
To be honest, I think the A3 and the RTi4 have a tweeter response that are really close to each other: detailed and crisp and 'ethereal' at low volumes, tending to be just a tad 'strident' when pushed loud especially with bright/busy mixes up top that compound the effect.

The more spacious the source and mix - meaning that if there are 'spaces' in the music, the more pleasing the effect. But if the source/mix is busy or edgy by design - then both the A3s and the 4s can be a bit too much up top.

I think that both benefit by pulling back a bit on the high end if pushed loud.

The most notable difference is the mid-range, and lower-treble with the A3s having more presence here than the 4s, hence my comment that I thought the 4s seemed 'recessed' (or 'relaxed' or whatever metaphor you'd choose).

But - that's just me....

Agree...pushing the RTis on busy content can get a bit strident, though as I said the A3s were much better than the 8s over here. However, the A3s were getting pushed by my Luxman with almost no indications of stress. I didn't have this amp when I had the 8s (or my Carver either). I don't know if your Carver is T modded, if so, I'd think it's rolled off enough to take most of that out. My TFM is more laid back than my Luxman.

olds97_lss

I've been on a similar fence. I went from a big 60" rear projection to a 55" flatscreen. I had been using the hitachi RP internal speakers as my center which gave me good depth along with my JBL EC25 for a bit of brightness, but when the TV died and I got a flatscreen, I realized how weak my JBL center was.

I picked up the polk CSi A4 and the sound that comes out of it is just night and day better. Which now has me on a fence about replacing my entire JBL setup with polks. I'm inches away from pulling the pin on the Rti A3's, but they are relatively big and heavy. I either have to do wall mounts, or buy a new tv stand for my hardware to go under the TV instead of beside it. I don't have studs near my current wall mounts... and I have my current speakers about 5 feet up. With the weight and size of the A3's... I have a feeling it won't look so great and may possibly end up on the floor in a pile of junk one morning.

Every time I read something though about the Rti A3's, I get all excited and search the net for a good price.

Anyway, just glad there are people out there that are enjoying these speakers. They do have a great sound compared to many out there.

Erik Tracy

You dug deep to revive this thread! :biggrin:

With the proper mounts, you can safely mount the RTiA3s to the wall.

Here's a shot when I had my RTiA3s and CSi3 mounted on the wall - all snug and safe.

olds97_lss

Geez... I didn't even notice that. Sorry for stirring up the dust!

Just saw an add for rti4's and did a search for rti4 vs rti a3 and ended up here! lol

byfthalone

very sweet set up though Erik

Lietuvis91

Hey it's kind of nice to get an update a few years later, good stuff

27dnast

You can totally mount those rtia3's with the aim mounts without stud access. Go to your hardware store and buy some screws and dry wall anchors that can support up to 75 lbs. Each mount will have 3 or 4 if them... If done properly, it won't go anywhere. I mounted some rti4's using that configuration --- works great.

olds97_lss

Thanks for the info. A3's back on the radar... lol

pstrev

Just get some A5's and don't worry about hanging anything...

Pat

matchan

Erik, any more upgrades since 08 ?

Erik Tracy

matchan wrote: »

Erik, any more upgrades since 08 ?

Can't seem to stop!:redface:

Upgraded:
Upgraded the RTiA3s to B&W CDM1NTs and the CSi3 to a B&W CDM1SE. To me, this got me what I would call a nice blending of the RTiA series 'sparkle', with the midrange warmth and presence of the LSi.

The CA 640c V2 CDP got upgraded to a Marantz SA-KI Pearl SACD player. Wonderous smooth accurate sound

The Carver got upgraded to a Musical Fidelity A5 Integrated amp. It has HT Bypass so I have all my source components connected directly to the A5 which has plenty of "oomph" and amazing bass control.

And the Sony TT w/ Grado cartridge got upgraded to the Technices 1200MkII w/ Denon DL-160 cart. This took my vinyl experience to a whole new level.

Along with various ICs and Speaker cables.

I'm in a happy place for now....

matchan

Wow Erik. Can you care to contrast the higher end CDM1 NT with the A3 ? Was the difference like "night and day" or a small step up ? Thanks

Pics please...

Erik Tracy

In my rig, what I noticed was that the CDM1NTs and RTiA3s had similar high ends for 'sparkle' (detail, if you want to call it that) and treble spaciousness with the nod going to CDM1NTs.

The CDM1NTs have better midrange presentation.

Like I said - if the RTiA3 and LSi7 had a 'child' - it would sound like the CDM1NT.

It was a nice step up for me because I got a great local deal on the B&Ws (used from a local seller). Night and day? No - but noticable.

Some don't like 'sparkle' - so it depends on your tastes in music and system synergy. With the right ICs & speaker cables, the A5 int amp, and the Pearl -SACD, I'm finding that sweet spot for component synergy.

matchan

awesome. thanks a lot. feel more confident in my upgrade plans towards the RTi series.