Fixing an original SDA-1! Yay me!

Bobsama

So my new-to-me pair of speakers were dropped off today! I bought a pair of original SDA-1's with the SL1000 tweeters. I was relatively happy about it--I was expecting 1A's with the SL2000 tweeeters, but original 1's are fine too.:p All looks good except for two problems... the first is that the left-channel primary tweeter is blown and the left side of the right cabinet has sun-bleached wood. Other than that, all is good. Losing one of four tweeters is "good enough". They were relatively local and not too expensive ($325), and came delivered by the original owner (she bought them nearly three decades ago). Numbers on these babies is S/N 2047 R and S/N 2047 L.

Even so, I need to fix the little tweeter problem. I have access to an octet of basically unused SL2000 tweeters pulled from a pair of Polk SDA-SRS's when they underwent the 1.3TL upgrade years ago. So here are my options while my uncle tries to repair the blown SL1000 tweeter (it looks like the wire burn right on the dome)...

1) Find a working SL1000 tweeter, pulled from an original pair of Polk speakers.

2) Find a quartet of SL1000-replacement tweeters.

3) Upgrade the crossover boards to work properly with SL2000 tweeters.

To be honest, Option 3 would probably be the best overall. The differences between SDA-1's and SDA-1A's seems limited to the tweeters. I'll take a second look through the in-depth SDA-1A specs. I actually have the original SDA cable and two SDA-1 instruction manual booklets, in addition to the original boxes.:eek::eek::eek:

Original Instruction Manual wrote:

Dimensions: 12"d x 16"w x 43 1/2"h

Shipping Weight per cabinet: 85 lbs.

Driver Compliment: 2 x MW7600 Mid L.F.
2 x MW7500 Mid L.F.
2 x SL1000 H.F. with litz wire voice coil
1 x D-1200-A Passive

D.C. Resistance: 5Ω

Fuses: 1 amp, 3AG Fast-Blo
Stereo & Dimensional, H.F. only.

Enclosure Type
Low frequencies-- Passive Radiator
Stereo Mid-L.F.-- 4th order vented
Dimensional Mid-L.F.-- 4th order vented
Left-Right Mirror
Imaged Cabinets

Crossover Type (each cabinet)
High Pass-- #1 (Two each) 1st order Gaussian; 125 Hz
High Pass-- #2a (One each) 2nd order Gaussian; Resonance and Inductance Compensated; 2.5 KHz
High Pass-- #2b (One Each) 2nd order Gaussian; Resonance Compensated; 2.5 KHz
Low Pass-- #1 (One each) 2nd order, Impedance Compensated; 125 Hz
Low Pass-- #2 (Two each) 2nd order Butterworth; 2.5 KHz
Dimensional Matrix-- One per system

Bobsama

Some other pictures...


I really like the finish on these speakers. Looks like real wood too. Very sturdy cabinets. Very little damage. Top of one has some stains, the right channel is faded from the sun, and the bottom front corner of one has been scraped off (probably from moving on carpet). Overall very, very good though.

Bobsama

Oh yeah here's a bit of additional information. According to the Speaker Wiring Schematics's transitional list, I have the earliest version of the SDA-1's. They're SDA-1's with a female SDA cable and with the male portion of the plug on the speaker. It's a "3-prong RTA 12 type SDA interconnect cable"; which came before the SDA-1's with the more standard "blade/blade SDA interconnect cable".

smglbrth

Looking good for such "aged" speakers! Isn't it something when you actually still find persons who kept the boxes all these years? You KNOW that they knew what they purchased back then and what the speakers still are, special.

Have fun! (Those silver tweets may not be the best but really keeps them in the "vintage" catagory, looks-wise)

gdb

Nice score on a great looking pair of vintage SDAs !! I have some 1As that I really like the looks of. (better than SRS2s) The sun faded veneer should be fairly easy to darken up a little if you can get some tinted tung oil or even some Formby's wipe on finish. One other tweeter option might be to verify if your crossovers need any modifications to be able to use the new RDO 194 or 198 units, instead of the 2000 series. Good luck w/em !!:)

Bobsama

Found a pair of SL1000's from a fellow member here. You know who you are. So the tweeter issue should be laid to rest.

Bought 100' of 16-gauge speaker cable with four sets of pins (eight total) off of NewEgg. Just your generic stuff; I don't believe that $1000 speaker cable will do any better than $50 speaker cable, much in the same way with power cords. Too small and you've got a point, poorly terminated you've got a point, but copper cable is copper cable. For the maybe 1% gained going between good cheap stuff and great expensive stuff, I'd much prefer to spend my money on a McIntosh amp.

Bought a set of equipment relatively on the cheap. Kenwood KM-991 amp (150wpc RMS), KC-991 preamp, KT-591 tuner, and a 5-CD changer. Not bad price either. I'm waiting on delivery from Illinois. Before I hook it up to anything, I need to check out the poweramp and preamp.

Can't wait to get this setup running. I figure I'll wait on aesthetics for a bit, maybe turn it into a day project with my stepdad. I'll upload some more pictures as things come in.

F1nut

I don't believe that $1000 speaker cable will do any better than $50 speaker cable, much in the same way with power cords. Too small and you've got a point, poorly terminated you've got a point, but copper cable is copper cable. For the maybe 1% gained going between good cheap stuff and great expensive stuff

Wrong.

lakedmb

F1nut wrote: »

Wrong.

Please, explain with proof to back up your claim.

Bobsama

F1nut wrote: »

Wrong.

Steady. Explain how. And as the above poster stated, with evidence. I'd prefer to see non-marketing but scientific numbers. All well and fine to see that you get 3Ω less resistance over a kilometer run, but how much will that change the sound? Even 5% is tough to hear for the majority of the population. You'd be hard-pressed to even do an honest side-by-side comparison. I'm sure there IS a difference somewhere, but is it perceivable? Is that difference worth even $200 on a single 1m power cable? I think not.

I'll explain my own viewpoint.

I've heard, in stores, comparisons between various brands and price-points for cables. None of them impressed me any more than your standard 14/16-gauge cables. Cables are the last part I'd spend major money on. Yeah, buy decent 14-gauge (maybe even 12-gauge if you really want to) if you're running a big amp to big speakers. Don't buy the $1-special cables. Overall, I'd rather spend money on a better amp, a cleaner preamp, a clearer DAC, a better CD player, a clearer tuner, better speakers; basically anything but high-end cables. Now if I spent $120,000 on a top-of-the-line setup with the best custom speakers, the highest quality power and source gear, then yes, I'd spend a boatload on cables. But for a system that has run me much less than $1000, there's no logical need to double the price by spending on cables. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

For the amount of power I can run through them, they'd already be too loud to bear. The current amp I have will deliver a solid 75WPC, but I have no use for even 50WPC. Even 16-gauge is overkill; 14-gauge (which I also have) won't even fit properly.

snow

Bobsama wrote: »

Steady. Explain how. And as the above poster stated, with evidence. I'd prefer to see non-marketing but scientific numbers. All well and fine to see that you get 3Ω less resistance over a kilometer run, but how much will that change the sound? Even 5% is tough to hear for the majority of the population. You'd be hard-pressed to even do an honest side-by-side comparison. I'm sure there IS a difference somewhere, but is it perceivable? Is that difference worth even $200 on a single 1m power cable? I think not.

I'll explain my own viewpoint.

I've heard, in stores, comparisons between various brands and price-points for cables. None of them impressed me any more than your standard 14/16-gauge cables. Cables are the last part I'd spend major money on. Yeah, buy decent 14-gauge (maybe even 12-gauge if you really want to) if you're running a big amp to big speakers. Don't buy the $1-special cables. Overall, I'd rather spend money on a better amp, a cleaner preamp, a clearer DAC, a better CD player, a clearer tuner, better speakers; basically anything but high-end cables. Now if I spent $120,000 on a top-of-the-line setup with the best custom speakers, the highest quality power and source gear, then yes, I'd spend a boatload on cables. But for a system that has run me much less than $1000, there's no logical need to double the price by spending on cables. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

For the amount of power I can run through them, they'd already be too loud to bear. The current amp I have will deliver a solid 75WPC, but I have no use for even 50WPC. Even 16-gauge is overkill; 14-gauge (which I also have) won't even fit properly.

Considering the fact that you have been wrong about virtually everything you have commented on so far it comes as no surprise that yet once again you are wrong. Just because you cant hear a difference between speaker cables IC's or power cords does not mean there isnt a difference or that other people cant. BTW even though you may only be using 5wpc on average you will very quickly need more than 75wpc for transients if you want to hear the music as it was intended. I do agree though that for you spending 1k on a set of speaker cables may be better spent elsewhere like on a quality amp.



REGARDS SNOW

Bobsama

snow wrote: »

Considering the fact that you have been wrong about virtually everything you have commented on so far it comes as no surprise that yet once again you are wrong. Just because you cant hear a difference between speaker cables IC's or power cords does not mean there isnt a difference or that other people cant. BTW even though you may only be using 5wpc on average you will very quickly need more than 75wpc for transients if you want to hear the music as it was intended. I do agree though that for you spending 1k on a set of speaker cables may be better spent elsewhere like on a quality amp.



REGARDS SNOW

Then point out where I've been wrong and correct me. Saying something to the effect of "because you're always wrong" is not a logical argument, unless you're trying to prove yourself wrong. I'll be honest--for all the years I've listening to music on good-quality speakers, I've only "gotten into" the hobby recently. Even so, the same gimmicks exist in countless other markets. As a student of business, part of my responsibility is separating quality from marketing. Just like "gaming" parts are, in large part, a gimmick, I think your ultra-expensive, high-end, $50-plugs-on-a-$100-length-of-copper-wire-selling-for-$1000 is a bunch of snake-oil by in large.

And what I'm talking about is, "where's the bigger improvement?" I've been a computer enthusiast for years now. Spending $5000 on a new PC may be fun and good, but knowing that I could literally get 80% of the performance when gaming by spending 20% the final sum... that's a big consideration. Spend $5000 now and wait five years or spend $1000 a year for the next five years? I'd personally do the latter; my new system will only depreciate in value. While the actual performance will remain the same, perceived performance gets a definite shift. Building your own teaches quite a bit about what's worthwhile and what's not, in addition to referencing actual task. To me, it's like spending an additional $1000 on the "high-end", "enthusiast", "extreme" processor instead of $100 on doubling (or more) the amount of RAM the computer has--and having the same (or better) performance with the cheaper option.

As for my music--50wpc was more than enough for a pair of CRS+'s. As for the SRS-1.2TL's, a solid 100W is still excessive. The nice thing, however, is that vintage Polk doesn't rely upon a driver for low frequencies. I'm not a bass-head---sending 300+W to a subwoofer is pointless to me. I don't need my seating to be moving across the floor, I don't need my neighbors thinking my house is about to collapse as it resonates. I'm happy with the smaller amount of power; having more is nice, but isn't always necessary. Go crazy if you have the money for the system dreams are made out of, if you have money for the house in the middle of nowhere, if you have money that you can get away from the sound ordinances, and if you have money to buy that hearing aide you'll desperately need after years of listening to a system too loud, just because you spend a fortune on it. Thanks, but until I make $250,000 a year and have a few million for retirement, I don't think I will join you in that lifelong daydream. This isn't about "keeping up with the Joneses". Having the most expensive meter-long power cable isn't a sign of superiority, especially if you can do just about everything while spending a twentieth as much. Pink Floyd sounding 1% better or 1% clearer while doubling (or more) the cost of my system? Hardly worth my time or even my money. Call me when I can get perceivable gains by changing from my rather generic 120VAC-10A power cable and 14- or 16-gauge speaker wire connecting a sub-200wpc amp to speakers. Unless something costs the same, having even 5% better performance everywhere hardly matters. Heck, if I wanted the most accurate sound, I wouldn't be using Polk SDA speakers in the first place.

Fongolio

The speaker cable/IC debate never ends nice. If Bobsama is happy with his cables so be it. If F1nut and snow can hear a difference then cool. It's where people start calling other people wrong for believing what they believe that this debate always gets out of hand. Bobsama started his statement with I believe.....I nor anyone else will change his mind by calling him wrong. This has happened over and over and the end result is a gang mentallity beating on the nay sayer. Leave it alone. Please.
Flame on.

snow

Fongolio wrote: »

The speaker cable/IC debate never ends nice. If Bobsama is happy with his cables so be it. If F1nut and snow can hear a difference then cool. It's where people start calling other people wrong for believing what they believe that this debate always gets out of hand. Bobsama started his statement with I believe.....I nor anyone else will change his mind by calling him wrong. This has happened over and over and the end result is a gang mentallity beating on the nay sayer. Leave it alone. Please.
Flame on.

I wasnt calling him wrong because of what he believes. I was calling him wrong because if you were to glance through the past posts by him he has been wrong about many things factually.

REGARDS SNOW

snow

Bobsama wrote: »

Then point out where I've been wrong and correct me. Saying something to the effect of "because you're always wrong" is not a logical argument, unless you're trying to prove yourself wrong. I'll be honest--for all the years I've listening to music on good-quality speakers, I've only "gotten into" the hobby recently. Even so, the same gimmicks exist in countless other markets. As a student of business, part of my responsibility is separating quality from marketing. Just like "gaming" parts are, in large part, a gimmick, I think your ultra-expensive, high-end, $50-plugs-on-a-$100-length-of-copper-wire-selling-for-$1000 is a bunch of snake-oil by in large.

And what I'm talking about is, "where's the bigger improvement?" I've been a computer enthusiast for years now. Spending $5000 on a new PC may be fun and good, but knowing that I could literally get 80% of the performance when gaming by spending 20% the final sum... that's a big consideration. Spend $5000 now and wait five years or spend $1000 a year for the next five years? I'd personally do the latter; my new system will only depreciate in value. While the actual performance will remain the same, perceived performance gets a definite shift. Building your own teaches quite a bit about what's worthwhile and what's not, in addition to referencing actual task. To me, it's like spending an additional $1000 on the "high-end", "enthusiast", "extreme" processor instead of $100 on doubling (or more) the amount of RAM the computer has--and having the same (or better) performance with the cheaper option.

As for my music--50wpc was more than enough for a pair of CRS+'s. As for the SRS-1.2TL's, a solid 100W is still excessive. The nice thing, however, is that vintage Polk doesn't rely upon a driver for low frequencies. I'm not a bass-head---sending 300+W to a subwoofer is pointless to me. I don't need my seating to be moving across the floor, I don't need my neighbors thinking my house is about to collapse as it resonates. I'm happy with the smaller amount of power; having more is nice, but isn't always necessary. Go crazy if you have the money for the system dreams are made out of, if you have money for the house in the middle of nowhere, if you have money that you can get away from the sound ordinances, and if you have money to buy that hearing aide you'll desperately need after years of listening to a system too loud, just because you spend a fortune on it. Thanks, but until I make $250,000 a year and have a few million for retirement, I don't think I will join you in that lifelong daydream. This isn't about "keeping up with the Joneses". Having the most expensive meter-long power cable isn't a sign of superiority, especially if you can do just about everything while spending a twentieth as much. Pink Floyd sounding 1% better or 1% clearer while doubling (or more) the cost of my system? Hardly worth my time or even my money. Call me when I can get perceivable gains by changing from my rather generic 120VAC-10A power cable and 14- or 16-gauge speaker wire connecting a sub-200wpc amp to speakers. Unless something costs the same, having even 5% better performance everywhere hardly matters. Heck, if I wanted the most accurate sound, I wouldn't be using Polk SDA speakers in the first place.

I didnt say you were always wrong just most of the time from what I have read so far for example if you think that having 100 wpc for SDA SRS 1.2tl's is excessive you are wrong.



REGARDS SNOW

Fongolio

snow wrote: »

I didnt say you were always wrong just most of the time from what I have read so far for example if you think that having 100 wpc for SDA SRS 1.2tl's is excessive you are wrong.



REGARDS SNOW

I have to agree that saying 100 wpc for 1.2tl's is excessive is wrong. I'm running 225 wpc from my Carver amp through my 1A's and they love it. By far the majority of my listening is at low volumes as I live in an apartment and don't need eviction. Large wattage helps articulate bass (and I don't like chair shaking bass much either) at very low volumes. In fact, my speakers are on a switch that changes them between my HT system and 2 channel so I can A/B the difference wattage makes from my Yamaha receiver to my Carver amp and the speakers truly come alive with more wattage especially at low listening levels. The 1.2tl's would only benefit from higher wattage IMHO.

F1nut

lakedmb wrote: »

Please, explain with proof to back up your claim.

Why?

F1nut

Bobsama wrote: »

Steady. Explain how. And as the above poster stated, with evidence. I'd prefer to see non-marketing but scientific numbers. All well and fine to see that you get 3Ω less resistance over a kilometer run, but how much will that change the sound? Even 5% is tough to hear for the majority of the population. You'd be hard-pressed to even do an honest side-by-side comparison. I'm sure there IS a difference somewhere, but is it perceivable? Is that difference worth even $200 on a single 1m power cable? I think not.

I'll explain my own viewpoint.

I've heard, in stores, comparisons between various brands and price-points for cables. None of them impressed me any more than your standard 14/16-gauge cables. Cables are the last part I'd spend major money on. Yeah, buy decent 14-gauge (maybe even 12-gauge if you really want to) if you're running a big amp to big speakers. Don't buy the $1-special cables. Overall, I'd rather spend money on a better amp, a cleaner preamp, a clearer DAC, a better CD player, a clearer tuner, better speakers; basically anything but high-end cables. Now if I spent $120,000 on a top-of-the-line setup with the best custom speakers, the highest quality power and source gear, then yes, I'd spend a boatload on cables. But for a system that has run me much less than $1000, there's no logical need to double the price by spending on cables. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

For the amount of power I can run through them, they'd already be too loud to bear. The current amp I have will deliver a solid 75WPC, but I have no use for even 50WPC. Even 16-gauge is overkill; 14-gauge (which I also have) won't even fit properly.

We all start somewhere. I can't count the number of folks here over the years who thought just like you and then one day they discovered they were wrong. Perhaps, if you open your mind, you will too.

Here's your first lesson, forget looking at scientific numbers.....total waste of time in this hobby.

Heck, if I wanted the most accurate sound, I wouldn't be using Polk SDA speakers in the first place.

I think you'd be surprised how good they really are, IF you feed them well.

JohnLocke88

Bobsama wrote: »

Then point out where I've been wrong and correct me. Saying something to the effect of "because you're always wrong" is not a logical argument, unless you're trying to prove yourself wrong. I'll be honest--for all the years I've listening to music on good-quality speakers, I've only "gotten into" the hobby recently. Even so, the same gimmicks exist in countless other markets. As a student of business, part of my responsibility is separating quality from marketing. Just like "gaming" parts are, in large part, a gimmick, I think your ultra-expensive, high-end, $50-plugs-on-a-$100-length-of-copper-wire-selling-for-$1000 is a bunch of snake-oil by in large.

And what I'm talking about is, "where's the bigger improvement?" I've been a computer enthusiast for years now. Spending $5000 on a new PC may be fun and good, but knowing that I could literally get 80% of the performance when gaming by spending 20% the final sum... that's a big consideration. Spend $5000 now and wait five years or spend $1000 a year for the next five years? I'd personally do the latter; my new system will only depreciate in value. While the actual performance will remain the same, perceived performance gets a definite shift. Building your own teaches quite a bit about what's worthwhile and what's not, in addition to referencing actual task. To me, it's like spending an additional $1000 on the "high-end", "enthusiast", "extreme" processor instead of $100 on doubling (or more) the amount of RAM the computer has--and having the same (or better) performance with the cheaper option.

As for my music--50wpc was more than enough for a pair of CRS+'s. As for the SRS-1.2TL's, a solid 100W is still excessive. The nice thing, however, is that vintage Polk doesn't rely upon a driver for low frequencies. I'm not a bass-head---sending 300+W to a subwoofer is pointless to me. I don't need my seating to be moving across the floor, I don't need my neighbors thinking my house is about to collapse as it resonates. I'm happy with the smaller amount of power; having more is nice, but isn't always necessary. Go crazy if you have the money for the system dreams are made out of, if you have money for the house in the middle of nowhere, if you have money that you can get away from the sound ordinances, and if you have money to buy that hearing aide you'll desperately need after years of listening to a system too loud, just because you spend a fortune on it. Thanks, but until I make $250,000 a year and have a few million for retirement, I don't think I will join you in that lifelong daydream. This isn't about "keeping up with the Joneses". Having the most expensive meter-long power cable isn't a sign of superiority, especially if you can do just about everything while spending a twentieth as much. Pink Floyd sounding 1% better or 1% clearer while doubling (or more) the cost of my system? Hardly worth my time or even my money. Call me when I can get perceivable gains by changing from my rather generic 120VAC-10A power cable and 14- or 16-gauge speaker wire connecting a sub-200wpc amp to speakers. Unless something costs the same, having even 5% better performance everywhere hardly matters. Heck, if I wanted the most accurate sound, I wouldn't be using Polk SDA speakers in the first place.

Very well articulated. Very factual.

Fongolio wrote: »

The speaker cable/IC debate never ends nice. If Bobsama is happy with his cables so be it. If F1nut and snow can hear a difference then cool. It's where people start calling other people wrong for believing what they believe that this debate always gets out of hand. Bobsama started his statement with I believe.....I nor anyone else will change his mind by calling him wrong. This has happened over and over and the end result is a gang mentallity beating on the nay sayer. Leave it alone. Please.
Flame on.

Agreed 100%. They're arguing apples to oranges. They're price sensitivities are completely different. I have to side with Bobsama (in the sense that I simply don't have the money to spend on $200 cables. Like him, I am going for the 'bang for the buck.' But by all means, if I could afford going totally bananas on this hobby, you bet your **** I'd have a set of these:

http://www.transparentcable.com/products/show_product.php?recID=24&perfID=1&catID=1&modCAT=1

snow wrote: »

I didnt say you were always wrong just most of the time from what I have read so far for example if you think that having 100 wpc for SDA SRS 1.2tl's is excessive you are wrong.

While I agree that there is a significant possibility that 100 watts may be completely reasonable, and in some cases, inadequate, making blanket, I'm not listening to you because you've been wrong before is not the best 'debate' strategy either.

F1nut wrote: »

Why?

Because he is obviously a very 'facts' oriented person. For him, it's maximizing 'bang for the buck' and subtle differences/improvements may be very difficult for him to actually 'hear.' As such, he may rely (as often I do) on facts, statistics and specifications in the absence of actually being able to do a side by side comparison... for whatever reason.

snow

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

.

Very well articulated. Very factual.

Not even close.

While I agree that there is a significant possibility that 100 watts may be completely reasonable, and in some cases, inadequate, making blanket, I'm not listening to you because you've been wrong before is not the best 'debate' strategy either.

Its a good place to begin with one though.



Because he is obviously a very 'facts' oriented person.

You can be as factual as you want but when 90% of your facts are wrong then your wrong 90% of the time



REGARDS SNOW

JohnLocke88

snow wrote: »

You can be as factual as you want but when 90% of your facts are wrong then your wrong 90% of the time



REGARDS SNOW

Define 'wrong.'

comfortablycurt

I really get a kick out of it...

Every time someone brings up the cable debate, they say "I'm not wasting my money spending $1000 on cables!". If you were to look around, you'd realize that there are literally hundreds of options out there for quality cables that cost under $200.

Don't exaggerate.

You don't have to spend multiple thousands of dollars on cables to get good cables. You have to be able to justify it.

The total value of my 2 channel rig is in the neighborhood of $1000...obviously I'm not going to go and spend $1000 on cables. That wouldn't make sense.

I have spent around $200 total on cables though, and they've made a very big difference in the way my rig sounds. I don't need scientific evidence to back up what I hear through MY ears on MY rig.

Someday when I have more expensive gear...I'll buy more expensive cables. Until then, I'll be happy with the cables that I got at very affordable prices. It would seem foolish IMO to hook up my $1000 rig with 8 dollars worth of cabling. To each their own though.

F1nut

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Very well articulated. Very factual.

I'm with Snow on this one, not even close.

Agreed 100%. They're arguing apples to oranges. They're price sensitivities are completely different. I have to side with Bobsama (in the sense that I simply don't have the money to spend on $200 cables. Like him, I am going for the 'bang for the buck.'

That all fine and certainly understandable. However, that's a far cry from his original comment......

I don't believe that $1000 speaker cable will do any better than $50 speaker cable, much in the same way with power cords. Too small and you've got a point, poorly terminated you've got a point, but copper cable is copper cable. For the maybe 1% gained going between good cheap stuff and great expensive stuff

or this one......

I think your ultra-expensive, high-end, $50-plugs-on-a-$100-length-of-copper-wire-selling-for-$1000 is a bunch of snake-oil by in large.

hearingimpared

Bobsama wrote: »

I'll be honest--for all the years I've listening to music on good-quality speakers, I've only "gotten into" the hobby recently.

If true then how can you make blanket authoritarion statements about cables and 1.2 TL amp power with no experience the way you do. Experience is the best teacher in this hobby. You can debate theory all you want.

george daniel

man,, this one went to hell quick :rolleyes:

nooshinjohn

Bobsama wrote: »

As for my music--50wpc was more than enough for a pair of CRS+'s. As for the SRS-1.2TL's, a solid 100W is still excessive. The nice thing, however, is that vintage Polk doesn't rely upon a driver for low frequencies.

Here is a great example of where you are wrong. My Yamaha reciever runs at 105wpc. It is hopelessly inadequate for driving the 1.2TL's, as it rapidly looses the ability to control the drivers due to lack of power. The sound from them is muffled, lacking clarity and definition, and bass response is muddy and lacking the kind of authority I expect from them. Introduce the Sunfire Cinema Grand Signature 7x400 to the mix and the speakers come ALIVE. They are crisp, clear and precise. Imaging and depth of soundstage are truly remarkable, to the point of the speakers being able to paint images in your mind of the performers being in the room with you. You can almost smell what kind of perfume Linda Ronstadt was wearing when she recorded What's New with Nelson Riddle, or smell the cigarettes(and other substances) smoked when the Beatles laid down Abbey Road. Detail, warmth, passion, it's all there to be heard and felt... That is the difference power makes to these speakers, and why they are so beloved to those that own them.

Your second point is also factually wrong. Vintage Polks DO RELY on the mid-drivers for producing deep bass, as they are the only means by which a passive radiator moves, and the type and quality of power hitting the drivers will have a dramatic effect upon the passive radiator being able to produce coherent bass. Poor quality power equates to muddy and undefined bass response.

The more quality power you hit the SDA's with, the better your experience with them shall be. Those that have told me they don't like them have never hit them with anything better that a 75wpc reciever.

Bobsama

snow wrote: »

I didnt say you were always wrong just most of the time from what I have read so far for example if you think that having 100 wpc for SDA SRS 1.2tl's is excessive you are wrong.REGARDS SNOW

100W from a solid-state McIntosh is plenty. If they say you get 100W, you get it the full range. For the style of house I live in (a small ranch), very few of our rooms are really "optimal" for big speakers like this. So putting 100-quality-watts through to a pair of SRS 1.2TL's (which I've seen and heard in said ranch-style house) will still make the windows rattle, will still disturb the neighbors, and will still leave your ears ringing if you turn it up too much. Everything's there. Similarly, on a good 2x300W amp, the SRS1.2TL's can get louder and do everything I said before, with maybe the added benefit of making things walk off tables. You don't need insane amounts of power. Now 100wpc for the 1.2TL's would be anemic in larger rooms, but it's plenty for small rooms.

Fongolio wrote: »

I have to agree that saying 100 wpc for 1.2tl's is excessive is wrong. I'm running 225 wpc from my Carver amp through my 1A's and they love it. By far the majority of my listening is at low volumes as I live in an apartment and don't need eviction. Large wattage helps articulate bass (and I don't like chair shaking bass much either) at very low volumes. In fact, my speakers are on a switch that changes them between my HT system and 2 channel so I can A/B the difference wattage makes from my Yamaha receiver to my Carver amp and the speakers truly come alive with more wattage especially at low listening levels. The 1.2tl's would only benefit from higher wattage IMHO.

Agreed, though my point is you don't need a 300+Wpc amp in a small room. A general rule of thumb is to go twice as fast/loud, you need four times the power.

F1nut wrote: »

We all start somewhere. I can't count the number of folks here over the years who thought just like you and then one day they discovered they were wrong. Perhaps, if you open your mind, you will too.

Here's your first lesson, forget looking at scientific numbers.....total waste of time in this hobby.



I think you'd be surprised how good they really are, IF you feed them well.

They are good speakers. My point is they need quality power before they need extreme OMFGWTFBBQMYELECTRICITYBILL power. For anything more than a 5 minute, per-purchase test, I wouldn't bother with a truly low-wattage or low-quality power source for these.

hearingimpared wrote: »

If true then how can you make blanket authoritarion statements about cables and 1.2 TL amp power with no experience the way you do. Experience is the best teacher in this hobby. You can debate theory all you want.

I've got a bit of experience with them. But I'll stop repeating myself over and over, short of saying "McIntosh 2x100W solid-state power amplifier".

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Your second point is also factually wrong. Vintage Polks DO RELY on the mid-drivers for producing deep bass, as they are the only means by which a passive radiator moves, and the type and quality of power hitting the drivers will have a dramatic effect upon the passive radiator being able to produce coherent bass. Poor quality power equates to muddy and undefined bass response.

The more quality power you hit the SDA's with, the better your experience with them shall be. Those that have told me they don't like them have never hit them with anything better that a 75wpc reciever.

Where did I say that about midwoofers? I don't remember. Anyways--I know how passive-radiators work.

hearingimpared

I was referring more to your statements about cables.

snow

Bobsama wrote: »

100W from a solid-state McIntosh is plenty. If they say you get 100W, you get it the full range. For the style of house I live in (a small ranch), very few of our rooms are really "optimal" for big speakers like this. So putting 100-quality-watts through to a pair of SRS 1.2TL's (which I've seen and heard in said ranch-style house) will still make the windows rattle, will still disturb the neighbors, and will still leave your ears ringing if you turn it up too much. Everything's there. Similarly, on a good 2x300W amp, the SRS1.2TL's can get louder and do everything I said before, with maybe the added benefit of making things walk off tables. You don't need insane amounts of power. Now 100wpc for the 1.2TL's would be anemic in larger rooms, but it's plenty for small rooms.


Agreed, though my point is you don't need a 300+Wpc amp in a small room. A general rule of thumb is to go twice as fast/loud, you need four times the power.


They are good speakers. My point is they need quality power before they need extreme OMFGWTFBBQMYELECTRICITYBILL power. For anything more than a 5 minute, per-purchase test, I wouldn't bother with a truly low-wattage or low-quality power source for these.


I've got a bit of experience with them. But I'll stop repeating myself over and over, short of saying "McIntosh 2x100W solid-state power amplifier".


Where did I say that about midwoofers? I don't remember. Anyways--I know how passive-radiators work.

Stop now while your still behind. You attempting to tell us what is and isnt excessive and what does or doesnt work best only makes you appear well.... foolish, most of us that actually own and listen to SDA SRS 1.2TL's on a daily basis have tried any combination of low powered receivers, amps, high powered amps, tube amps etc,and no it isnt all about wpc some tube amps that have far less than 100wpc sound wonderful with 1.2TL's so do some class A amps.

But trust me on this no matter the size of the room and even at low volumes a high current SS amp that is in excess of 100wpc is not overkill and as a general rule will sound better. I will give you an example of what in "my experience" sounded better. I had hooked up a McIntosh 2125 and it sounded okay but not great or spectactular at lower volumes perhaps it was because the damping factor was only 20 at 8 ohms, fast forward to a Sunfire 300 x 2 the music came alive at lower volumes much more dynamic bass notes were far more realistic tighter, highs were more defined at both lower and higher volumes. Blanket type statements that 100wpc is all you will ever need for great sound reproduction in small rooms with 1.2TL's is in my my experience misleading and doesnt hold true.

I am not running down the McIntosh name because they make some very nice equipment and im certain that some of there products would be spectacular with 1.2TL's. For me I dont listen at ear bleeding volumes so it isnt about how loud will it go it is about how good it sounds at lower volumes in a smaller room and most 100wpc amps simply dont have the current to replicate the music at lower volumes as well as more powerful ones do.



REGARDS SNOW

F1nut

Stop now while your still behind. You attempting to tell us what is and isnt excessive and what does or doesnt work best only makes you appear well.... foolish

Bob, I've got to agree with Snow. You've been making all kinds of misinformed comments since you arrived. Hit the pause button and get your learn on. We're here to help.

nooshinjohn

Bobsama wrote: »

As for my music--50wpc was more than enough for a pair of CRS+'s. As for the SRS-1.2TL's, a solid 100W is still excessive. The nice thing, however, is that vintage Polk doesn't rely upon a driver for low frequencies.

Look familiar? Here you said vintage Polk does not rely upon a driver for low frequencies... As others have said, it is tome for you to step back and learn something before trying to pretent you have all the answers, as clearly you do not.

nooshinjohn

Bobsama wrote: »

As for my music--50wpc was more than enough for a pair of CRS+'s. As for the SRS-1.2TL's, a solid 100W is still excessive. The nice thing, however, is that vintage Polk doesn't rely upon a driver for low frequencies.

And my response...

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Your second point is also factually wrong. Vintage Polks DO RELY on the mid-drivers for producing deep bass, as they are the only means by which a passive radiator moves, and the type and quality of power hitting the drivers will have a dramatic effect upon the passive radiator being able to produce coherent bass. Poor quality power equates to muddy and undefined bass response.

Look familiar? Here you said vintage Polk does not rely upon a driver for low frequencies, and I explain to you that in fact they do... As others have said, it is time for you to step back and learn something before trying to pretent you have all the answers, as clearly you do not. Talking out your a$$ only proves that you are full of $hit.