SRT Series: Who ownes these monsters? What are they like?

Raife,

What are you a lawyer?

Ok... lemme explain.

I fell in love with Polk SDA's back in 1990 or so.
I've owned about 4 pairs. I still own two pairs - the CRS+ and the 3.1TL. I like em.

Until, I heard Thiel powered by Krell.
I'm sorry... shoot me... but, Polk's and Carvers (1990 circa) are not in the same league as Thiel and Krell.
The clarity difference is absolutely amazing.

Yes, back in 1990, Polk advertised their flat response curve. That is one of the reasons that I bought them. They sounded exceptionally accurate all the way across the frequency spectrum.
They are accurate - absolutely. But, they aren't clean anymore by todays audiophile standards (which I am not - nor do I claim to be).

I have come to believe that Polk makes a very nice mid-fi speaker. It does a lot of things very well. But, it does not and can not reveal ALL the music - at least not in the SDA line.

Maybe the SRT's are different - doubt it though. Anyway, the reason to buy krell is to get the ability to support VERY CLEAN music to VERY DETAILED speakers that are VERY DIFFICULT to drive. Polk's don't have any of these characteristics. Polk's aren't exceptionally clean/detailed and they aren't particularly difficult to drive (most being 6 to 8 ohms).

There are some very good speakers that drop into the 2ohm
range in their impedance. That is why you buy krell. The krell's pictured in rlw's photo will double their output watts from 8 to 4, double again from 4 to 2, and double again from 2 to 1. Not too many amplifiers on the market can support those types of impedance swings (found on many high end spkr's) and supply all the power needed without clipping and with adequate headroom regardless.

I have no doubt that rlw understands the importance of a good amp. He's chosen some VERY GOOD amps. I just questioned whether or not he's chosen the right speakers for the amp - rather than the right amp for the speakers. A different speaker very well may give him exceptionally better sound.

Remember, if the SRT's ARE audiophile speakers, why didn't audiophiles latch onto them? These speakers were only available for a year or two and then dumped by Polk. Seems to me that the audio market has the last word on things.

- Ron

PS I like the monitor line too... especially the M10's. And, no, I don't think the RT line is as good as the Monitor/SDA line. Ported speakers don't hold a candle to the PR designs of old.

Conrad Johnoson and Levinson make very fine amps - I agree.

Carver is different. Lots of power though an unusual power configuration. If Carver is as good as the others.... why don't the others duplicate Carver's power configuration? Certainly, the mfg. cost of carver design has to be less than the cost of a conventional torriodal designed power supply.

If you put the CJ and the ML with the Krells, you have three very fine amps that will have subtle differences in sound on the very best audiophile speakers. Any differences would strictly be preference or prejudice - in my opinion.

You are probably correct in saying that you would be very hard pressed to hear a difference in amps between carver and krell - especially if you are listening thru Polk speakers. This is precisely my point.

I once talked to Klaus at odyssey audio. We discussed adcom, rotel, odyssey and krell. He would put the stratus amp against adcom & rotel any day - stating that the odyssey amp is clearly superior. He did mention that Krell was different - insinuating that its a better amp.

All satire aside, what I mean by clean is the ability to accurately reproduce EVERYTHING on the CD.

You are kidding yourself if you think Polk 1.2TL's can do that well.
The reason these things come up for sale, occasionally, is that while they were good speakers in their time, there are better ones available now. Not bigger... just better.

In the late 80's, Polk's competition was Cerwin Vega and JBL.
These companies were pushing 3-way designs with very cheap midrange components. At the time, Polk's 2-way PR design was clearly superior. Polk made their own drivers because none were available at the time that were good enough.

Times have changed.
Now, Vifa, Model, and others produce better drivers.
The coated paper woofer in your SDA's just doesn't cut it anymore.

Accuracy refers to the flatness of the frequency response curve.
At the time, Polk's were unmatched. Even today, they are quite good. But, they aren't incredibly responsive.

If you would use your ears and listen to some other equipment you might hear what I'm talking about. Polk has a muddied midrange sound. No amount of quality electronics can correct for this. When one upgrades from mid-fi to hi-fi (in your head), you will understand that the old polk's have limitations.

Even Polk Paul says that the new RTi series blue woofers are cleaner than the old coated paper ones of the SDA years. The LSi series polk speaker has yet another level of "revealing" to the sound.

Of course, I am certain that you are arguing just to be arguing.
So, I am humoring you. Enjoy.

As a PHD electronic guru, you certainly should be able to setup some sort of test where the response of the speaker is compared to the input and and the relative deviation is studied.

I am a jazz musician also - Trumpet. To their credit, Polk's do wonderfully reproducing female vocals, piano's and most big band instruments - including the non-orchestral-approved saxaphone.