SDA Hierarchy

hearingimpared

I've heard tricked out CRSs, CRS+s, tricked out 1Cs, tricked out 2.3TLs and tricked out 1.2TLs and I have to say I like the 1.2TLs best but then again I'm biased. I forget to mention that I owned the original SRS in the '80s.

dbaldus

When you guys are saying that the original SRSs have more of an emphasis on bass, are you talking about the non-TL versions such as the SRS 2.3 or just the original SRS 2?

I only ask because I'm considering picking up a pair of mint SRS 2.3s and am trying to decide if I need to continue holding out for either the 2.3TL or 1.2TL.

dbaldus

dorokusai wrote: »

The 1.2 is the most overrated SDA and the 2.3 is probably the most well-rounded and would be my choice.

When you say the 2.3, do you mean the 2.3TL or the original SRS 2.3?

hearingimpared

dbaldus wrote: »

When you guys are saying that the original SRSs have more of an emphasis on bass, are you talking about the non-TL versions such as the SRS 2.3 or just the original SRS 2?

I only ask because I'm considering picking up a pair of mint SRS 2.3s and am trying to decide if I need to continue holding out for either the 2.3TL or 1.2TL.

I would hold out for the TL versions. If for no other reason than they have better tweeters.

Hamatym

The Orginal SRS's blade/blade connection and SRS-2's blade/blade connection are the Bassier speakers. Bluecomet can confirm the difference for sure, but I found anything with a Pin/Blade interconnection cable has a smoother sound, but less emphasis on the bass. I think it's a crossover difference and certainly not a Hz issue. He has every dang SDA know to man...ha ha and can comment to help you out

dbaldus

hearingimpared wrote: »

I would hold out for the TL versions. If for no other reason than they have better tweeters.

What if you consider that I would be replacing the 2.3s tweeters with RDO 194s? Is there still a huge difference between a 2.3 with RDO 194s and a 2.3TL with the "stock" tweets (SL3000s if I'm not mistaken).

Mainly looking for a major upgrade from my 2As right now...

hearingimpared

dbaldus wrote: »

What if you consider that I would be replacing the 2.3s tweeters with RDO 194s? Is there still a huge difference between a 2.3 with RDO 194s and a 2.3TL with the "stock" tweets (SL3000s if I'm not mistaken).

Mainly looking for a major upgrade from my 2As right now...

I think the RD0198s (replacement for the SL3000s) sound leaps and bounds better than the 194s.

bluecomet

You are going to notice a difference in particular at higher volume. The RDO 198's and SL3000s are more smooth in that area. The RDO 194's make a difference if you decide to get a non tl version SDA or SRS speaker and would recommend the upgrade. The original SRS and SRS 2 in particular had more emphasis on bass. Some people like the heavier bass sound. It's all in what you prefer.

dbaldus

bluecomet wrote: »

You are going to notice a difference in particular at higher volume. The RDO 198's and SL3000s are more smooth in that area. The RDO 194's make a difference if you decide to get a non tl version SDA or SRS speaker and would recommend the upgrade. The original SRS and SRS 2 in particular had more emphasis on bass. Some people like the heavier bass sound. It's all in what you prefer.

Well, for normal listening levels, would the original SRS 2.3 with RDO 194s and the 2.3TL with SL3000s be similar?

Also, would the SRS 2.3 with RDO 194s be a significant upgrade from my SDA 2As with RDO 194s (which they do have, by the way)?

I've just been looking for some 2.3TL or 1.2TLs for so damn long that I feel like I should bite on these 2.3 non-TLs to upgrade!

Toolfan66

would the SRS 2.3 with RDO 194s be a significant upgrade from my SDA 2As with RDO 194s?




YES!! and don't forget to spike them.

mmadden28

hearingimpared wrote: »

I would hold out for the TL versions. If for no other reason than they have better tweeters.

Can't one just "TL" mod the non TL versions? Or is that really only possible on a few specific models?

Just curious, because sometimes "holding out" can mean losing out on a rare local deal.

RuSsMaN

My fav is the SRS 2, followed by the 2b and CRS+.

As far as 'actual' heirarchy, Raife typed the following up for me several years back->

1st Generation (1982): SDA 1.

2nd Generation (1983): SDA 1A, SDA 2, and SDA CRS.

3rd Generation (1985): SDA 1B, SDA 2A, SDA CRS+. The 3rd Generation also marked the introduction of the "Signature Reference Series" (SRS) line: SDA SRS, and SDA SRS 2.

4th Generation (1987): SDA SRS 1.2, SDA SRS 2.3, SDA 1C, SDA 2B, and SDA CRS+. All SDA speakers received crossover and cabinet upgrades.

5th Generation (1989): SDA SRS 1.2TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, SDA SRS 3.1TL, SDA 1C, SDA 2B, SDA CRS+. The 5th Generation of SDAs saw the introduction of the SL3000 tweeter in the SRS line. The SL3000 tweeter provided a flatter, more acurate frequency response than the SL2000 tweeter. The SL2000 had a +5 dB resonance at 13,000 Hz.

SDAs ceased production in 1991.

Toolfan66

mmadden28 wrote: »

Can't one just "TL" mod the non TL versions? Or is that really only possible on a few specific models?

Just curious, because sometimes "holding out" can mean losing out on a rare local deal.

only possible on a few specific models, CORRECT!!

dbaldus

mmadden28 wrote: »

Can't one just "TL" mod the non TL versions? Or is that really only possible on a few specific models?

From what I've read, to upgrade the 2.3s to 2.3TLs would require you to upgrade the crossovers, change out the woofers (since the 2.3s use 3 different types and the 2.3TLs use all the same), AND change out the tweeters to get it to a TL. So, in short, its a LOT more money than you would expect and there really wouldn't be anything left of the original 2.3 when you were done with it, so you might as well just buy the TL.

mmadden28 wrote: »

Just curious, because sometimes "holding out" can mean losing out on a rare local deal.

Haha... if only it were local. I'm looking at driving 5 hours one way to pick up these 2.3s, which is exactly why I'm trying to figure out if I should make the trip or not.

If someone has a pair of 2.3TL or 1.2TLs that is 5 hours or closer to Minneapolis, I'd definitely make that drive instead of picking these up!

But I definitely hear you and don't want to miss out on this deal as I've been looking for a pair of the big boys for a LONG time

dbaldus

RuSsMaN wrote: »

The SL3000 tweeter provided a flatter, more acurate frequency response than the SL2000 tweeter. The SL2000 had a +5 dB resonance at 13,000 Hz.

Isn't this exactly what the RDO-194 (replacement for the SL2000) supposed to do? So what would be the difference between the RDO-194 and the SL3000?

erniejade

Supposedly the rdo just sounds smoother especially if you play high volume. For regular volume, some people preferred the original over the rdo.

Again sound is personal. What one likes might not be what someone else might like.

gdb

Another thing to remember is that not all SL2000s sound the same, there are diff. runs,diff. ages and different use/abuse histories. Some of the many that I have sound pretty good, while others sound like a Dentist's drill!:eek: I personally think that the better sounding 2000s are ideal for reproducing speaking/voice sounds in HT speaker applications.;)

mmadden28

dbaldus wrote: »

Isn't this exactly what the RDO-194 (replacement for the SL2000) supposed to do? So what would be the difference between the RDO-194 and the SL3000?

I was under the impression that the SL-3000 and the RDO-194 were one and the same. No?

inspiredsports

hearingimpared wrote: »

I think the RD0198s (replacement for the SL3000s) sound leaps and bounds better than the 194s.

My sentiments exactly!

inspiredsports

mmadden28 wrote: »

I was under the impression that the SL-3000 and the RDO-194 were one and the same. No?

SL-2000's are replaced by the RDO-194.

SL-3000's (TL's) are replaced by the RDO-198.

In my humble opinion, the RDO-198 is both more revealing AND smoother at the same time, than the RDO-194.

The components in your crossover dictate which tweeter is required, and only a few models of crossover that were originally built for SL2000/RDO-194 can be modified to use the RDO-198.

inspiredsports

gdb wrote: »

Another thing to remember is that not all SL2000s sound the same, there are diff. runs,diff. ages and different use/abuse histories. Some of the many that I have sound pretty good, while others sound like a Dentist's drill!:eek: I personally think that the better sounding 2000s are ideal for reproducing speaking/voice sounds in HT speaker applications.;)

If in fact an SL2000 still sounds good to you, I can't imagine that condition will last for long as the tweeter ages.

Tour2ma

Yeah... after 25 years or so the 2000's really start going downhill...

Actually the 2000's were very sturdy, whereas the 3000's deteriorated with time.

dorokusai wrote: »

You know all about that Mr. Monitor Collection Did you ever get that picture?

Not yet… I still have to pick up the 11’s from BMDP...

cnh

I haven't heard SL3000s but considering all the R&D that went into them and the cutting edge technology of vapor deposition at that time? I would imagine that running SL3000s would not be a bad thing?

And I also do not understand why this 3000 would disintegrate faster than an SL2000? The alloy was steel and aluminum over a polymide surface...no! All that sounds fairly indestructible? I have a set of titanium diaphragm tweeters that are about 20 years old and they show NO sign of fading?

cnh

dorokusai

Tour2ma wrote: »

Not yet… I still have to pick up the 11’s from BMDP...

Why aren't you staying at my house then?

ben62670

cnh wrote: »

I haven't heard SL3000s but considering all the R&D that went into them and the cutting edge technology of vapor deposition at that time? I would imagine that running SL3000s would not be a bad thing?

And I also do not understand why this 3000 would disintegrate faster than an SL2000? The alloy was steel and aluminum over a polymide surface...no! All that sounds fairly indestructible? I have a set of titanium diaphragm tweeters that are about 20 years old and they show NO sign of fading?

cnh

The plastic that the metal is deposited on deteriorates.

Bubinga99

ben62670 wrote: »

The plastic that the metal is deposited on deteriorates.

I hadn't heard that, but I have heard that the ferro-fluid of the day (and this isn't just Polk, but other manufacturers as well) begins to break down and become clumpy (which affects the tweeter's response in both electrical and mechanical ways).

Speculating from that, it seems reasonable to assume the ferrofluid doesn't just become clumpy all of a sudden, so there's probably a period--possibly years--where its fluid properties are degrading from when it is new, but not to the point of becoming clumpy yet.

That would probably change the tweeter response, since the ferrofluid properties are an integral part of the tweeter response. I'm just guessing about this part however, so take it with a grain of salt.

In any case, there's no simple way to measure it, and it doesn't become clumpy after say 20 years in every SL3000, so there must be other factors involved besides just age.

I've read speculation that lack of use for extended periods (i.e. years) and/or extended exposure to cold temperatures (like of the speakers were stored in unheated space) might be contributing factors. I haven't seen any official study though, so grain of salt again.

heiney9

I still feel for most listening rooms (ie; the size most people have) the 1C's are the best SDA's; with either the 2.3 or 2.3TL and then the 2B w/TL mod coming in next.

The "big boys" are awesome but they need breathing room and I would suspect there are many on here who have them set up in too small of a room.

H9

P.s. If you use excellent caps/resistors to them and add RD0's they just are simply superb!!!

hearingimpared

You are correct Brock. My room is 19.5' x 11'. I have my 1.2 TLs on the long wall and am able to take full advantage of the positioning. My sweet spot starts at 6' 6" from the center line and goes back to a little over 8'. They sound wonderful.

dbaldus

hearingimpared wrote: »

You are correct Brock. My room is 19.5' x 11'. I have my 1.2 TLs on the long wall and am able to take full advantage of the positioning. My sweet spot starts at 6' 6" from the center line and goes back to a little over 8'. They sound wonderful.

How far apart do you have them?

snow

heiney9 wrote: »

The "big boys" are awesome but they need breathing room and I would suspect there are many on here who have them set up in too small of a room

What size room is optimal?



REGARDS SNOW