What was considered better RTA'S or Monitor Series

dsleeper

just curious as to what Polk considered a better series.

heiney9

RTA's were monitors, except for the RTA12.

Better at what, how?

The RTA's were larger than most of the Monitor series, but they used the same drivers and the RTA8's had a port rather than a passive radiator.

H9

geppy1

The RTA 12, 12B and 12C were considered the part of the Monitor series in fact the flagship. It took 3 years to develope and ran from 79 to 87 The RTA 8, 11 and 15 TL are a different series and ran a few years in the arly 90s. I have never been really sure what is ""RTA "" about them. I had am RTA 15TL and RTA 12Bs right next to each other and the group preffered the RTA 12s. Your mileage may vary.

heiney9

Well, the reason I say the RTA 12's aren't Monitors is because they are Real Time Aligned unlike the Monitor line and unlike the RTA 8, 11 and 15. So technically they fit into the Monitor line as group identifiers, but they really aren't Monitors if we are sticking to the true meaning of the word.

H9

dorokusai

Great....the old,"...is the RTA12 a Monitor or an RTA issue". It's technically a Monitor in published documentation but I would suspect no long term Polkie would consider it a part of what is commonly called the Monitor line. It's the only Monitor that didn't need a stand to actually be a Real Time Array. It's also the odd man in the actual RTA lineup since it doesn't fit in with any of those models either.

Just consider it the cool speaker with the funny hat, Polk's R2D2 or the only RTA that actually works. Who cares.

The Monitor was the better series and retains the most affection historically, followed by the RTA12, then the RTA series. That's just an observation.

barakus

I currently have Monitor 7Cs and RTA 11Ts. The RTAs were certainly a lot pricier when new, and the D'Appolito array design improves imaging immensely.

However, I think the Monitors sound sweeter. I am using the 11Ts as my primaries, but still find myself wondering if I should swap in the 7s.

I haven't freshened the crossovers in either pair, and I'm honestly a little skeptical about how much of an improvement it would make. The Monitors are certainly older and sound fine.

It's certainly true in my experience that the RTA requires a much better and more powerful source than the Monitor.

nguyendot

What is considered a "monitor" vs...well what are the rest called?

Honest question.

heiney9

barakus wrote: »

I haven't freshened the crossovers in either pair, and I'm honestly a little skeptical about how much of an improvement it would make. The Monitors are certainly older and sound fine.

A very large improvement and if you couple that with the RD0 tweeter; it's night and day better.

barakus

heiney9 wrote: »

A very large improvement and if you couple that with the RD0 tweeter; it's night and day better.

Okay, this is where everybody starts to really think I'm nuts... I'm currently preferring the SL2000 in the RTA over the 194. I hate the spitty brightness of the 2000 in the Monitors, but it seems to liven up the RTAs in a worthwhile way.

I wouldn't go so far as to recommend the SL2000s over the replacements in the RTA 11s and I've only had them in for a week or so at this point. I had my listening room arranged poorly for sound during the holiday season and just set everything back up properly a few days ago.

BB3

Well....maybe just give them a little time barakus. I suspect in the end,like I have, that you will find a little more "listenable sound" over an extended period of time(2 to 3 hours).

Let me know what you think after you get everything rearranged again.

Take Care and Happy Listening In The Meantime barakus.----BILL(BB3)