SL2000, 2500, 3000 tweeters?

cnh

Could some of the long timers here provide an overview of the differences between these 3 Polk tweeter series.

From what I gather the SL3000 was the only metal deposit/poly combo. Was that the best tweeter in this series. If so, can we say that the 2500 is a notch up from the SL2000. The reason I'm asking is that I see a lot of Vintage Polks around so if you were going to purchase a model. Which of these tweeters would you rank at the top?

Thanks,

cnh

ND13

Never had an issue with the 2500s, but have only heard the 3000s on limited basis, but they were just fine. Some take issue with the 2000s, but I never had fatigue when using tube gear with them...I think the right tubes mellowed them out, ymmv. Most will tell you the 2000s suck. Almost all will tell you the RDO replacements are the shiznit, which I'm sure they are. I just wish Polk would have used the Peerless more often. They are my faves. I've owned more than a dozen sets of Polks, vintage and new and the Peerless was hard to top for my ears.

cnh

Thanks,

Anyone else. And what are the RDO replacement, was it used in any Polk series speaker or is this something else? Pardon my 'vintage' ignorance.

cnh

nooshinjohn

n/p... I too was ignorant on the matter and may in fact still be.
I just replaced my sl2000 with the RDO-194s. I have not fully broken in the new tweets and at first had some doubts about them, but after 15 hrs of playing at higher volumes they are starting to open up considerably. I can say that the Sl2k's are much brighter and less defined to my ear than the RDO's are, and the RDO's are cleaner overall. I am unaware that it was used in any production speaker issued by Polk and even question whether Polk makes the RDO's. I may be wrong in my assumption that they are made for them by a third party vendor to keep us SDA types from having to scavenge for parts...

heiney9

Come on guys.........the search feature is your friend. I've recounted the story about the RD0's atleast a 1/2 dozen times in various threads; as well as all the documentation about the different tweets.

H9

cnh

The search engine is our friend! I have read most of the posts you recommend or have authored on this and you're right there is a lot of info there.

I, therefore, conclude, rightly or wrongly...the following

1. SL2000 are considered too bright by some.
2. SL2500 and SL3000 addressed these problems.
3. According to the ACTUAL flyer put out by Polk Audio...the SL3000 was their BEST tweeter in this series. Was it the only Metal deposit/poly tri-lam???
4. RDO tweeters are not made by POLK but were developed with Polk input as replacement. Why did POLK cease to manufacture these wundar-tweeters--since someone still does it for them???
5. the RDO 194-1 replaces the SL1000/SL2000s which aren't so great? And the RDO a soft dome is better?
6. The RDO 198-1 replaces the SL2500/SL3000...maybe better, perhaps not that much better than the 3000 itself.
7. I can only conclude that if you want the best get a Vintage series speaker with the SL3000....the SL2500 also are very good. Replacement with RDOs might advantage the 2500 more than the SL3000s???
8. Has someone compiled a list of all Polk speakers that use 2500s/3000s (a COMPLETE list???) or is that also something that needs to be 'searched'.

Gurus feel free to correct any errors above. That's what we're HERE for!!

Many thanks,

cnh


I can't blame you for going crazy since your speaks aren't working. .

At some point Polk addressed the issue with the sl2000 tweeter having a +5dB peak at about 13kHz or 15 kHz (depending on whose quoting). That always made the sl2000 seem to be very forward and sometimes could cause it to be harsh sounding.

Starting with certain generation SDA's and RTA's models Polk engineered a new tweeter made out of a "tri-laminate" material. All those models are designated with a "TL" after the model number. and the tweeter was called the sl3000. You could not replace older sl2000 tweeter's in older Polk models with the new "TL" tweeter as the x-over's and electrical characteristics were different.

Later on the Monitor line received a variation of the same tri-laminate tweeter called the sl2500. The Monitor line was designated with the model number followed by "series II". Ex. Monitor 5 series II

The company and process that allowed Polk to offer the Tri-laminate tweeters (sl2500 and sl3000) went out of production plus it used a process that has many caustic and nasty environmental by products like cyanide, arsenic, etc. So Polk sent engineering specs and parameters to several outside vendors to have them build a suitable replacement for the sl1000/sl2000/sl2500 and sl3000 tweeters.

That's where we are today. Polk chose a single vendor after many listening tests, etc.

The RD0194-1 replaces the sl1000/sl2000
The RD0198-1 replaces the sl2500/sl3000.

They are both silk dome tweeters and are very smooth, open and detailed without a hint of harshness compared to the sl1000 and sl2000. The sl2500 and especially the sl3000 weren't as bad a tweeter, but many feel the silk dome replacement (RD0198-1) is still better.

The "are dee oh 19x-1" refers to the stock number of the part. It's the same as the sl2000T as it was originally called a few years ago. It's just universally known as the RD0.......

H9

Conradicles

Not a long timer here, but I did notice that some SL2000 tweeters sound better than other SL2000 tweeters. Maybe has to do with age or usage, I am not sure.

But the RD0-194 did sound much better in my SDA's. Smoother and not as harsh. Enjoy!

F1nut

The RDO 198-1 replaces the SL2500/SL3000...maybe better, perhaps not that much better than the 3000 itself.

The RD0198-1 is far superior to both the SL3000 and SL2500.