RDO 198s in SDA 1Cs

geppy1

This may have been talked about before but IF I wanted to try RDO198s in a pair of SDA1Cs what would I have to do to the croosover? It is an experiment so could I just do it in the lines that go to the tweeters? I tried 194s and found them to be to smooth for my taste and preffered the SL2000 but after a night of rocking out something was not right with the SDA 1cs with the SL2000. Not to bright or harsh I cannot explain it just was not right. Not musical?? I pulled out my RTA 12s and muscality was retored.

nooshinjohn

You may have something more happening there besides the tweeter issue if that is the case. My understanding is that the 198's cannot work with the 1c's as there is no TL mod for them.

ben62670

It's an easy mod. All you have to do is parallel a 5.8uf cap with a 2.7 ohm resister where the poly switch is located.

geppy1

Have you done this Ben?? if so what did you motice?? keith

Face

ben62670 wrote: »

It's an easy mod. All you have to do is parallel a 5.8uf cap with a 2.7 ohm resister where the poly switch is located.

Has there been any testing other than guess work?

heiney9

Face wrote: »

Has there been any testing other than guess work?

I sure it's all guess work. Personally, I wouldn't do it. If you want to use Rdo198-1's then get a TL model SDA. The 198's are probably even more a tad more laid back and a tad smoother than 194's.

Are your x-overs redone? I love the 194's vs. the sl2000.

But to each their own.

H9

ben62670

Face wrote: »

Has there been any testing other than guess work?

They have been done by a Polkie that way. With the resistor, and the cap in parallel the phase doesn't change and the highs get the little boost they need to run the 198's.

Face

I really wish I would have experimented with Kelley's SRS2's while they were still here.

JohnLocke88

ben62670 wrote: »

They have been done by a Polkie that way. With the resistor, and the cap in parallel the phase doesn't change and the highs get the little boost they need to run the 198's.

I don't get how this is "guess" work. the 4.1 TL mod consists of this for the CRS+ and the 2B. Both of those run SL2000 tweeters as well. Unless having two tweeters in the HF circuit would wonk this up.

I'd trust Ben on this one though.

heiney9

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

I don't get how this is "guess" work. the 4.1 TL mod consists of this for the CRS+ and the 2B. Both of those run SL2000 tweeters as well. Unless having two tweeters in the HF circuit would wonk this up.

I'd trust Ben on this one though.

4.1TL mod was designed by Polk and never quite made it to market that's why it's not guess work. The two models you mention (and then only a certain production run) can be TL'd...................no other model has that capability w/o it being guess work.

Modding other speakers by approximating what values go where to simulate another model to me is what I call "guess work". Not saying experimenting/guess work nec. a bad thing. Personally I wouldn;t do it for a couple reasons 1 being even if the OP decides he want's to use 198's it won't help with his listening preference.



H9

Face

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

I don't get how this is "guess" work. the 4.1 TL mod consists of this for the CRS+ and the 2B. Both of those run SL2000 tweeters as well. Unless having two tweeters in the HF circuit would wonk this up.

I'd trust Ben on this one though.

If you compare the HF circuit of the 4.1TL CRS/2B and the SRS2, you'll see they're different. The creator of the SRS2 version used guess work and his ear to make the mod. For all we know, he may be close or dead on, but it's still guess work.

F1nut

4.1TL mod was designed by Polk and never quite made it to market that's why it's not guess work. The two models you mention (and then only a certain production run) can be TL'd...................no other model has that capability w/o it being guess work.

I have to agree. For example, to upgrade the 1.2 to TL status is pretty involved and those circuits are a lot closer than those of the CRS+/2B's and the 1C's.

thsmith

I never thought of the RD0-194s as smooth, I found them to be very forward until I upgraded my XO which made the highs back where they should be, YMMV

ben62670

The 1.2 to 1.2TL conversion is very involved, and I have done with help from Stewart, and an inductance meter. I was going to post a thread on how to do it, but without the proper equiptment it is a shot at the moon.
Ben

comfortablycurt

thsmith wrote: »

I never thought of the RD0-194s as smooth,

+1

I wouldn't really call the 194's smooth. They're rather forward sounding and even a little harsh at times IMO.

heiney9

comfortablycurt wrote: »

+1

I wouldn't really call the 194's smooth. They're rather forward sounding and even a little harsh at times IMO.

Of course everyone's mileage varies.............but I don;t find that all. Curt too bad yesterday at the RAS meet we couldn't have compared your stock peerless 7's too my modded 5B's with RD0's. I think it should be on the calendar for next time. I'm very curious.

I will say the 194's in my 5B's are a bit more "in your face" than on the 1C's. The 1C's are smooth as silk and very detailed and much more laid back. The 194's in the 5B's are better since putting the Clarity cap in place of the Solen on the high pass.

FWIW

H9

F1nut

My experience with the RD0194-1's in the 2B's, CRS+ and 1C's is that they are a very smooth, laid back tweeter.

comfortablycurt

Well, FWIW it could be my personal tastes. I do generally prefer a very laid back tweeter. IMO, the Peerless tweets in my 7A's are much nicer sounding than the RD0's in my 2A's.

+1 on the 7A/5B comparo. Aside from the tweeter differences, I'm curious to see how the bass performance of a modded 5 compares to the bass performance of a stock 7.

I was really digging the laid back smooth sounding LSi tweets last night! I'm still on the fence...but I think I may have preferred the LSi9's to the 1C's with RD0's.

leroyjr1

comfortablycurt wrote: »

+1

I wouldn't really call the 194's smooth. They're rather forward sounding and even a little harsh at times IMO.

It also depends on the gear being used.

heiney9

comfortablycurt wrote: »

but I think I may have preferred the LSi9's to the 1C's with RD0's.

Just remember Dave has stock x-overs and adding Sonicaps really make a HUGE difference. It was nice to revisit the 9's on a 2ch rig again. They really are a very likable speaker................just a tad colored ( moreso than the typical Polk sound).

The Vifa tweet is still to die for. I'd love for Matt to design me his LSi SDA set-up he has in his home. :D

H9

P.s. His 1C's were not optimally placed either

JohnLocke88

F1nut wrote: »

I have to agree. For example, to upgrade the 1.2 to TL status is pretty involved and those circuits are a lot closer than those of the CRS+/2B's and the 1C's.

Gotcha. Perhaps, "educated guesswork"

ben62670

Did you at least let them get 80hrs or so before reaching this conclusion?

george daniel

comfortablycurt wrote: »

+1

I wouldn't really call the 194's smooth. They're rather forward sounding and even a little harsh at times IMO.

Gotta disagree,, they are very smooth and laid back in my system.

comfortablycurt

heiney9 wrote: »

Just remember Dave has stock x-overs and adding Sonicaps really make a HUGE difference. It was nice to revisit the 9's on a 2ch rig again. They really are a very likable speaker................just a tad colored ( moreso than the typical Polk sound).

The Vifa tweet is still to die for. I'd love for Matt to design me his LSi SDA set-up he has in his home. :D

H9

P.s. His 1C's were not optimally placed either

Those are all factors I definitely kept in mind. I was really diggin the LSi sound overall though...they just seemed a lot more detailed and accurate, where the 1C's seemed to have a slightly "looser" bass response. The LSi's aren't quite as warm in the mid-range though from what I heard...which is one thing I preferred about the 1C's.

Also, the LSi's don't have the SDA effect obviously, which is a big plus on the 1C's.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence. I've gotta get my ears on your modded 1C's sometime. I also want to check out the LSi7's and the LSi15's. Either way, there are several gear upgrades that I'm going to do before my next speaker upgrade. For the time being, I'm very happy with my 2A's and my 7A's.

ben62670 wrote: »

Did you at least let them get 80hrs or so before reaching this conclusion?

Me? Yeah, they're plenty broken in. The RD0's were installed two owners ago, so they're probably as broken in as they're ever going to be...lol

kcoc321

heiney9 wrote: »

... I'd love for Matt to design me his LSi SDA set-up he has in his home. :D

H9

Pray tell????

(sorry for the thread jack, but.....hmmmm??)

heiney9

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Those are all factors I definitely kept in mind. I was really diggin the LSi sound overall though...they just seemed a lot more detailed and accurate, where the 1C's seemed to have a slightly "looser" bass response. The LSi's aren't quite as warm in the mid-range though from what I heard...which is one thing I preferred about the 1C's.

Also, the LSi's don't have the SDA effect obviously, which is a big plus on the 1C's.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence. I've gotta get my ears on your modded 1C's sometime. I also want to check out the LSi7's and the LSi15's. Either way, there are several gear upgrades that I'm going to do before my next speaker upgrade. For the time being, I'm very happy with my 2A's and my 7A's.



Me? Yeah, they're plenty broken in. The RD0's were installed two owners ago, so they're probably as broken in as they're ever going to be...lol

Curt next time your in town stop by and hear my 1C's. One big advantage I have is they are set-up more as intended. Dave had to make due in the front room. Really no other way or place to set up the 1C's at his place until he finishes the "man cave". The LSi 9's have a very prominent mid bass hump and yes they did sound pretty damn good in Dave's HUGE room. IMO, the huge room and 20 foot ceilings really absorbed the midbass hump and seemed to make it less prominent.

I also heard very little "SDA magic" with Dave's SDA's. When he refreshes his x-overs I'm going to suggest we check all the wiring to maker sure everything is wired properly. Again, set-up with SDA's is pretty important in order to get 100% of what the SDA's can offer.

Not at all saying one is better than the other just that I was even a little undewhelmed with his 1C's. I will say the bass was much tighter and more organic than the 9's. I had 9's for almost a year and I really disliked the prominent mid-bass hump on most material and every time I hear them I seem to fixate on it right away.

YMMV

H9

Toolfan66

This is all good to know as I was hoping to use the 198's in my 1C's, I will just order the 194's.

Face

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Those are all factors I definitely kept in mind. I was really diggin the LSi sound overall though...they just seemed a lot more detailed and accurate, where the 1C's seemed to have a slightly "looser" bass response. The LSi's aren't quite as warm in the mid-range though from what I heard...which is one thing I preferred about the 1C's.

Also, the LSi's don't have the SDA effect obviously, which is a big plus on the 1C's.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence. I've gotta get my ears on your modded 1C's sometime. I also want to check out the LSi7's and the LSi15's. Either way, there are several gear upgrades that I'm going to do before my next speaker upgrade. For the time being, I'm very happy with my 2A's and my 7A's.

LSi's having tighter bass response than a pair of LSi15's? Sounds like someone has a less than optimal setup or there is a problem there.

IMO, SDA's excel in bass response and soundstage width. Bass should dig deeper and sound tighter. Sounstage, we all know the reason why.

IMO, LSi's are more coherent and detailed. Modded LSi's really excel. But the LSi's can use a little help in the bottom end. I can't wait to install a pair of Polk DB woofers in a friend's LSi15's to see how much of a difference it makes.

inspiredsports

ben62670 wrote: »

It's an easy mod. All you have to do is parallel a 5.8uf cap with a 2.7 ohm resister where the poly switch is located.

Ben, a bunch of us had detailed discussions about this (spanning several weeks of thought and good debate) when I TL'd my SDA SRS 2's and I think we concluded adding a 5.8 there was the wrong location in the circuit. (NOTE: I think It would be OK in your location in a single tweeter circuit, but not in a progressive point source array of more than 1 tweeter)

If I remember correctly, the 5.8 had to come at a point in the + line to ONLY THE TOP TWEETER at a point AFTER the circuit branches over to the bottom tweeter.

Can you share who did this and what the modded 1C done in this way sounded like?

The 1C circuit is entirely different than the 1B, 2B, CRS and SRS 2 circuits that can take the mod in that there is no 4.4 already in play in the right location to be replaced. The 5.8 in the 4.4 spot to allow for the substitution of the RDO198-1 was suggested by Matthew Polk. Placing it anywhere else would be speculative.

inspiredsports

continued from my post 29 above . . .

I was further reviewing some of the comments about RDO194-1's vs RDO198-1's above.

I auditioned both replacement tweeters in both my SDA-2B's and SDA SRS 2's while modding and fine tuning what I wanted last year. The 2B's were "TL'd" first, and I love the way they sound when comparing them now versus with RDO194-1's. The 194's were more laid back , the 198's a bit more forward (definitely in a good way) and absolutely "clearer" and "cleaner" sounding.

Then when I had the SDA SRS 2 crossovers modded with stock value caps and upgraded the tweeters to RDO194-1 from SL2000's, I had high hopes. . . But . . . the sound of the 194's left me wanting when compared to the sound of the TL'd 2B's with RDO198-1's. That's when I began searching in earnest for a way to TL the SDA SRS 2's because it is my opinion the RDO198-1 is an overall better sounding tweeter.

The mod above worked perfectly and I tested using calibrated frequency source signals and a calibrated Extech Sound Level Meter and the frequency response curve proved to be nicely flat. And remember, the mod was also Matt suggested and peer reviewed. I did not pull it out of my a$$.

I feel the TL mod and introduction of the 198's into the (1986 blade/blade) SDA SRS 2's make them a contender as one of the best sounding modded SDA's available, but no one knows this as no one else has them. They were essentially "lifeless" with the 194-1's, and they came alive after I added the 5.8uf cap and RDO198-1's.

Wrapping it up, I can't imagine a case where RDO198-1's sound more laid back than 194-1's, and I truly have put months and months into testing this.

geppy1

OK so is this true?? The 5.8 cap and 2.7 resister have to go inline after the crossover and only to the top tweeter??? keith