SRS 3.1TL Upgrades and changes

I have a pair of SRS 3.1TL's with RD0-198 tweeters and some other mods done by the PO.

I have replaced the high pass binding posts and fixed the cold solder connections I found upon inspection on the low pass binding posts. I've also added speak-on connecter for the SDA wiring.

They are full recapped with Sonic caps, but they needed a couple of solder joints redone. The caps still to be correctly relocated so the crossover can be remounted to the inducer. I'll probably need a few new caps to fix this right.

The drivers already have some dynomat on them, but I will be adding more. I have some 1" sonic barrier to help dampen the cabinets also. I'm not sure how much to use and where.

I have a full set of Toolfan speaker rings to install yet also.

My main problem is leaky cabinets. I plan on securing the braces and resealing the seams. Since the top and bottom caps will need to be redone at a later date, I was just going to use some silicone to seal those for now. I'm tempted to build real caps and insert them into the speaker ends to full enclose the box like earlier SRS models did. Then the end caps would be the simple bolt on style.


Your input on sealers, bracing, sound dampening size/location or anything else is welcome.


These have also had the passive radiators replaced with SDA2B radiators I believe so I'm sure they could use some weight added to them... How much. who knows???

I also want to try my 16.8mh 2.3 inducers in place of the 18mh ones that are stock. The DCR is very close so that shouldn't cause any issues for my use. I think they might help a bit. Swapping some 16mh SDA-2B inducers into my 2.3's helped out the bass slightly.

The biggest improvement will be once I have a 1000v AI-1 Dreadnought built for use with these. I use the one from my 2.3's at times and it makes a huge difference in stereo imaging.
"Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light
a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Comments

  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 41,414
    Not inducer, it's inductor.

    Not dynomat, it's Dynamat Extreme.
    I was just going to use some silicone to seal those for now.

    Never use silicone in or on a speaker. To seal the cabinets use Loctite Power Grab.
    I'm tempted to build real caps and insert them into the speaker ends to full enclose the box like earlier SRS models did.

    Really not following you on that one. The SDA SRS 3.1TL's already have real end caps.
    These have also had the passive radiators replaced with SDA2B radiators I believe so I'm sure they could use some weight added to them... How much. who knows???

    Did the seller tell you that? If so, why were they replaced?
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


  • TNTsTunesTNTsTunes Posts: 756
    edited November 2014
    F1nut wrote: »
    Not inducer, it's inductor.

    It was late when I typed this post. I meant inducer. facepalm.gif
    F1nut wrote: »
    Not dynomat, it's Dynamat Extreme.

    I already have the Dynamat Xtreme I'll need for this project. ;)
    F1nut wrote: »
    I was just going to use some silicone to seal those for now.

    Never use silicone in or on a speaker. To seal the cabinets use Loctite Power Grab.
    I'm tempted to build real caps and insert them into the speaker ends to full enclose the box like earlier SRS models did.

    Really not following you on that one. The SDA SRS 3.1TL's already have real end caps.

    The Loctite Power Grab looks like it should work great for sealing the cabinet.

    The 3.1TL end caps are glued directly to the ends and aren't removable like other SRS models. They are glued directly to the open cabinet ends and the veneer across the inside is pulling off. I've thought some about building MDF ends to cap the enclosure instead. Then the end caps would only be bolted on like the older SRS models. excuseme.gif

    Here is a pic of a 3.1 with the end cap pulled.

    003800x600_zpsd51b9cd0.jpg
    F1nut wrote: »
    These have also had the passive radiators replaced with SDA2B radiators I believe so I'm sure they could use some weight added to them... How much. who knows???

    Did the seller tell you that? If so, why were they replaced?

    The seller told me an original passive radiators was damaged in a move or something. He replaced them with the flat style passive like a 1C or a 2B use. They have no added mass so I'd guess 2B's...

    When the PO applied Dynamat to it (Xtreme, I'm think, I'm not sure) he eliminated or covered any part numbers on the passive radiator frames.




    "Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light
    a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 41,414
    It was late when I typed this post. I meant inducer.

    You still got it wrong. It's INDUCTOR.
    Here is a pic of a 3.1 with the end cap pulled.

    I see what you mean. A concern would be that by adding ends you are reducing the interior cabinet volume.
    The seller told me an original passive radiators was damaged in a move or something. He replaced them with the flat style passive like a 1C or a 2B use. They have no added mass so I'd guess 2B's...

    Interesting. The PR's for the 2B and 1C are already weighted. It's the outer "skin" on them. I don't know, nor do I know anyone that has weight info for the PR's. Your best bet would be keep an eye out for the proper ones on eBay.



    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


  • gimpodgimpod Posts: 1,774
    Actually the SDA 2A & 2B used the SW-121 passive radiator, The original SDA 2 & all the SDA 1's used the SW-120 (these came with & without weights, I have 3 sets 2 with & 1 without), The SDA SRS 3.1TL's used the SW-122 (looks more like a woofer, good luck trying to find a pair they are very rare and don't come up for sale much I've never seen any for sale)
    Pink Floyd, Just makes me want to turn it up too 12 and share it with the world!!. JMO
    ---
    “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” ~ Mark Twain

    Unfortunately for most of us we only get to experience the first day and then we can't even remember it.
    ---
    "Close only counts in Horseshoes, Hand Grenades and Thermonuclear Weapons."
    "50% Why... That's almost half."
    "I know, I'm sick and need help."
    ----
    Gimpod Custom 4th & 5th Gen SDA Circuit Boards
    ----
    "The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to good analogue reproduction." ~ Kenneth Swauger
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 41,414
    good luck trying to find a pair they are very rare and don't come up for sale much I've never seen any for sale

    Me either and without the proper PR's I wouldn't spend a penny fixing them up.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


  • gimpod wrote: »
    Actually the SDA 2A & 2B used the SW-121 passive radiator, The original SDA 2 & all the SDA 1's used the SW-120 (these came with & without weights, I have 3 sets 2 with & 1 without), The SDA SRS 3.1TL's used the SW-122 (looks more like a woofer, good luck trying to find a pair they are very rare and don't come up for sale much I've never seen any for sale)

    I know they are a rare. I'm not worried about it much. The big difference would be the tuned frequency. They sound fine and have very tight bass response. My wife doesn't like deep bass, says it's painful. She really enjoyed listening to them last night. Liked the movie too. Can't turn them up much because then the bass is too much for her.

    She dislikes my 2.3's since they go too deep, even at low volumes.
    "Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light
    a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

  • F1nut wrote: »
    good luck trying to find a pair they are very rare and don't come up for sale much I've never seen any for sale

    Me either and without the proper PR's I wouldn't spend a penny fixing them up.


    I haven't asked you for a penny towards them and won't, Thanks for that myopic input though...

    If you haven't heard them, how can you judge them???

    They'll put 1C's to shame easily the way they are right now. They lose to my 2.3's, but would probably give SRS 2's a good run for their money and may just win sonically.

    I've run the 3.1's with my sub, together they sound great. No need for the room they're in, the 14x11 almost seems too small(set-up on long wall). If I turn the tone controls on and add 1.5-2db of bass they sound right on. The few things I have planned should help in that area some.

    The small footprint compared to the other SRS's is nice, the wife likes that.



    "Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light
    a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 41,414
    If you haven't heard them, how can you judge them???

    Tim, I wasn't so much judging them as pointing out that a speaker is designed around certain perimeters, some much more important than others, but none the less, designed to achieve a balance. When you throw that balance off by changing one of those important perimeters, such as the PR, it will absolutely affect the sound. If Polk found that the SW121 produced the desired results, they would have saved themselves time and money by using it. Instead, they needed to develop an entirely new PR just for that one model. I think that says all that needs to be said about the matter.

    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


  • F1nut wrote: »
    If you haven't heard them, how can you judge them???

    Tim, I wasn't so much judging them as pointing out that a speaker is designed around certain perimeters, some much more important than others, but none the less, designed to achieve a balance. When you throw that balance off by changing one of those important perimeters, such as the PR, it will absolutely affect the sound. If Polk found that the SW121 produced the desired results, they would have saved themselves time and money by using it. Instead, they needed to develop an entirely new PR just for that one model. I think that says all that needs to be said about the matter.


    The 3.1 was Polk's last attempt with the stereo SRS series speakers. They were downsized for smaller rooms and have a reduced soundstage due to the single SDA driver. The cabinet is not built to the same quality levels as other SRS models either. For all you know the passive radiator was changed to one that looks like a woofer for marketing reasons alone.

    I added the factory weight from some spare passives I have to the existing passive radiators with good results last night. It made a noticeable difference in the depth the passive reach without excessive excursion at high power levels either.

    I miss ben62670, he was always helpful, losing him was a true loss.


    I so glad this wonderful forum/site is filled with such helpful members, no wonder why the forum is growing with such massive leaps and bounds...
    "Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light
    a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 41,414
    The 3.1 was Polk's last attempt with the stereo SRS series speakers.

    The 1.2TL, 2.3TL and 3.1TL all came out at the same time.
    They were downsized for smaller rooms

    They are taller and deeper than the 2B's and 1C's, while only slightly narrower, like 5/8" compared to the 2B's.
    For all you know the passive radiator was changed to one that looks like a woofer for marketing reasons alone.

    If that was the case they would have done the same with the 1.2TL and 2.3TL. Regardless, I do know and marketing was not it.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


  • xjghostxjghost Posts: 938
    edited November 2014
    Well this is entertaining...... Would love more pictures of your modifications and said speakers. I have a set of 3.1's I would like to upgrade and modify but have never done anything like this so it's going to be a while before I get the courage.
    HT/2Channel: Emotiva MMC-1, Adcom GFA-555II, Polk SDA 3.1's, Teac TN-300 TT, Polk Center and Sub.

    Bedroom system: Carver CT-24, Parasound HCA-800II, Monitor 10's

    Additional projects: RTA 12c's
  • F1nut wrote: »
    The 3.1 was Polk's last attempt with the stereo SRS series speakers.

    The 1.2TL, 2.3TL and 3.1TL all came out at the same time.

    But the only true new model was the 3.1TL, the others were upgraded existing SRS speakers.

    I believe the SDA 1C and 2B speaker production runs ended in '90 right before the SRS TL models came out. The 3.1 is basically the updated SRS replacement for the SDA's.
    F1nut wrote: »
    They were downsized for smaller rooms
    They are taller and deeper than the 2B's and 1C's, while only slightly narrower, like 5/8" compared to the 2B's.

    Exactly, you are comparing them to SDA speaker that were no longer produced, not the larger SRS sizes which was part of their marketing approach.

    F1nut wrote: »
    For all you know the passive radiator was changed to one that looks like a woofer for marketing reasons alone.

    If that was the case they would have done the same with the 1.2TL and 2.3TL. Regardless, I do know and marketing was not it.

    I agree the12" passive radiator was redesigned for the 3.1TL. Why they changed from the flat design to the woofer type design is unknown.

    3.1TL's were aimed at a larger portion of the marketplace then the other SRS models.
    The advertising is about how the 3.1's are different then the big SRS speakers

    The woofer style looking passive may have been part of the marketing strategy.
    They were trying to make the 3.1TL's stand out and appeal to more buyers.

    Why would Polk rework existing the 1.2 and 2.3 passive radiators, not very cost effective. Polk changed tons of things on the 2.3 already. They gave them 4 stereo drivers and made the SDA drivers handle the sub bass feed, besides adding the TL tweeters and crossover mods. The 1.2's got tweeters and some cross-over mods.

    Be glad neither had their cabinets redone using the 3.1 style design. It's easy to see that change was done from a pencil pushers low budget cost savings outlook.


    My question is about DIY mods and tweaks I want to do to improve my speakers sound. I thought this site had fellow music enthusiasts, I didn't make this post in vintage speakers since the passives where replaced. I guess it still caused enough wave to upset the Polk gods...

    I guess that means no help for me... Apparently they should just be considered parts speakers. Whatever....
    "Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light
    a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 41,414
    edited November 2014
    I believe the SDA 1C and 2B speaker production runs ended in '90 right before the SRS TL models came out. The 3.1 is basically the updated SRS replacement for the SDA's.

    The TL models came out in 1989, the 2B and 1C were still in production for another year after that.
    Exactly, you are comparing them to SDA speaker that were no longer produced,

    See above.
    not the larger SRS sizes which was part of their marketing approach

    I don't know where you got that from.
    Why they changed from the flat design to the woofer type design is unknown.

    It is known and it's not the first cone PR Polk used either. Some Monitor models used them.
    3.1TL's were aimed at a larger portion of the marketplace then the other SRS models.
    The advertising is about how the 3.1's are different then the big SRS speakers

    The woofer style looking passive may have been part of the marketing strategy.
    They were trying to make the 3.1TL's stand out and appeal to more buyers.

    Again, I don't know where you got that from.
    My question is about DIY mods and tweaks I want to do to improve my speakers sound.

    Great, we all do, but you have to start with the proper parts first.
    I guess that means no help for me...

    You got help, but you don't seem to want to accept it.


    As for Ben, I don't like to talk ill about someone that has passed, so I'll say it as nicely as I can. He had little idea of what he was doing.

    That said, they are your speakers to with as you please and I hope they knock your socks off, but I'm out of this one.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


  • Mike ReeterMike Reeter Posts: 3,405
    TNTsTunes wrote: »

    My main problem is leaky cabinets. I plan on securing the braces and resealing the seams. Since the top and bottom caps will need to be redone at a later date, I was just going to use some silicone to seal those for now. I'm tempted to build real caps and insert them into the speaker ends to full enclose the box like earlier SRS models did. Then the end caps would be the simple bolt on style.


    Your input on sealers, bracing, sound dampening size/location or anything else is welcome.

    TNTsTunes, This is exactly what i opted to do also. Installed new cabinet tops & bottoms and then attached the new caps to them.

    I was also concerned about cabinet volume becoming less and any effect this might have on the output and tonality of the 3.1's.

    NO worries, they sound fantastic, especially with all the other mods your are performing, basically the same mods I did also.

    Sometimes you just have to play with the hand you are dealt.

    DSCN0291_zps44b890e6.jpg
    SDA SRS 2.3TL's/SDA SRS 3.1TL's/SDA CRS+4.1TL's and some other stuff
  • TNTsTunes wrote: »

    My main problem is leaky cabinets. I plan on securing the braces and resealing the seams. Since the top and bottom caps will need to be redone at a later date, I was just going to use some silicone to seal those for now. I'm tempted to build real caps and insert them into the speaker ends to full enclose the box like earlier SRS models did. Then the end caps would be the simple bolt on style.


    Your input on sealers, bracing, sound dampening size/location or anything else is welcome.

    TNTsTunes, This is exactly what i opted to do also. Installed new cabinet tops & bottoms and then attached the new caps to them.

    I was also concerned about cabinet volume becoming less and any effect this might have on the output and tonality of the 3.1's.

    NO worries, they sound fantastic, especially with all the other mods your are performing, basically the same mods I did also.

    Sometimes you just have to play with the hand you are dealt.

    DSCN0291_zps44b890e6.jpg


    I have some 3/4" MDF I'll be making inset top and bottoms with. I would like to router them if possible so they have a nice flat glue able surface.

    Having removable caps will be nice. Did you ever pull the side trim boards off?

    I'm just fine with the hand I'm dealt with the 3.1;s. They already sound great overall. They will only get better from here. Adding weight to the passive worked well, I just want to get these completed before I get crazy with my 2.3's.

    I did switch back to the stock 18mh inductor, it allowed for a better sound imaging when using the AI-1 1k Dreadnaught from my 2.3's. I need another Dreadnaught to go with these now.

    Thanks for your input.
    "Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light
    a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

  • Mike ReeterMike Reeter Posts: 3,405
    TNTsTunes wrote: »
    TNTsTunes wrote: »

    My main problem is leaky cabinets. I plan on securing the braces and resealing the seams. Since the top and bottom caps will need to be redone at a later date, I was just going to use some silicone to seal those for now. I'm tempted to build real caps and insert them into the speaker ends to full enclose the box like earlier SRS models did. Then the end caps would be the simple bolt on style.


    Your input on sealers, bracing, sound dampening size/location or anything else is welcome.

    TNTsTunes, This is exactly what i opted to do also. Installed new cabinet tops & bottoms and then attached the new caps to them.

    I was also concerned about cabinet volume becoming less and any effect this might have on the output and tonality of the 3.1's.

    NO worries, they sound fantastic, especially with all the other mods your are performing, basically the same mods I did also.

    Sometimes you just have to play with the hand you are dealt.

    DSCN0291_zps44b890e6.jpg

    Having removable caps will be nice. Did you ever pull the side trim boards off?

    Thanks for your input.

    No, I didn't, nor did I re-cloth the side panels, luckily they were both in pretty fair shape.

    If I remember correctly, the trim boards and cloth panels were REALLY secured to the cabinet and would not have been as easy to remove as the earlier SDA models.

    I have plans for one day removing the Oak and replacing it with something different, Cherry or some other hardwood.

    SDA SRS 2.3TL's/SDA SRS 3.1TL's/SDA CRS+4.1TL's and some other stuff
  • NibsNibs Posts: 29
    Do any of you guys recognize this? I burned this up with a Hafler DH 500. What part is this that is burned and where may I find one?

    Thanks! :)

    iqzcrfxslssi.jpg
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 41,414
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


  • NibsNibs Posts: 29
    Thanks F1. I've posted this too many times just to get some insight. Sorry for taking up peoples time!
    I was trying to remove it, but I don't know how...


Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!