Does anyone actually dislike SDA?

DSkip wrote: »

I don't think the brightness issue is as much an issue with the speakers as it is the synergy of the system. I think many go for that hi-fi sound and toss musicality out the window. I've never understood that philosophy.

Agreed Skip, some tend to put the blame solely on the speakers themselves when things don't sound so good.

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I think I share your bemusement in this arena -- since the dawn of the hifi hobby, there's been an undercurrent of preoccupation with "hifi" effects -- boom and sizzle, loud/big/ear-catching (and/or eye-catching). Thats' why, I'd opine, there were - and, in a somewhat more subtle way, still are - hifi recordings of steam engines, thunderstorms, pipe organs, and bongos in "ping-pong" stereo ;- )

Same thing applies in HT. It amazes me how many people think a good HT system demo is to make explosions.

I got no problem with SDA's. They are a great speaker. I was told I'd regret it after selling them, but that hasn't happened.

I quote a statement from ESP.

"Our belief is that a properly designed and configured system can be both highly accurate and musical at the same time, assuming well-recorded source material. Accuracy and musicality converge when a system sounds transparent without being hyped; when detail emerges clearly but in a relaxed, rather than spotlighted, fashion. This requires the right combination of electronics and speakers."

This is what I go for, details without exaggeration. I've heard plenty of live music. I want to hear instruments in experienced hands convey the emotion they are capable of. YMMV. Your definition of how to get there might be different than mine.

I'm actually a little surprised at myself for how much I took to the SDA thing. I've gone through several brands of speakers... Polk is my favorite family of speakers overall, and the small SDAs (2BTLs) are my favorite of those overall, though I haven't spent significant time listening to the recent flagships like the LSi(m) very much.

That said, they have their strengths and weaknesses like anything else. I totally agree with what westmassguy and others have said about the wide and enveloping soundstage when in the sweetspot. It's pretty amazing, and that, plus the musicality F1 mentioned, are the two factors that keep me hooked. But, I totally also hear what others are saying about certain recordings sounding wrong on SDAs.

I've heard that "piano all around you" effect, which probably has everything to do with how the piano was mic'd and the recording mastered, but whatever the reason it doesn't sound right and SDA makes it worse. Also, on some really dense orchestral music with a lot going on my SDA rig starts to sound muddy and congested. I don't mean just trying to separate out strings in a big classical orchestra, I get it on things like Nine Inch Nails where there are 15 layers of drums and loops shifting around the stereo field. This could be a power thing, but I've swapped out the SDAs for other power thirsty conventional speakers (like Vandersteens), and that always cleans it up. Still, they get enough right, enough of the time that they are pretty much always in my 2-channel rig, even if another pair gets set next to them temporarily.

Regarding the new vs. rebuilt XO's and etc. I actually think Polk did/does a pretty good job of putting in components that make their stock speakers sound exceptional for the money when new. I've been very pleasantly surprised by a pair of RTA-8TLs that were close to new-old-stock condition. Replacing XO components and tweeters and adding damping material improved them, but it was subtle and they were very decent to begin with for their size and design. And when I bi-wired a pair of Monitor 70's that I got new on sale for $320 to a good amp I was blown away. Completely unmodified, those sound way better than any speaker in that price range has any right to. So, I don't doubt that when new the SDAs were very impressive.

It's interesting that I don't think anyone has mentioned the "dimensional tweeter" thing. I guess cause Polk fixed that pretty early on. I owned a pair of the original SDA 2's with the dimensional tweeter briefly, and for sure if the SDA design hadn't advanced beyond that I'd be squarely in the SDA sounds bad camp. Definitely more recordings sounded bad than good with the side-by-side tweeters.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Actually, it is a matter of the original parts limiting the potential of the original design.

Understood, but the same can be said about a lot of speakers. Actually, most speakers. I've been following your modification threads for years and you've invested thousands into your SDA's to unlock that potential you speak of which is great. In your eyes, I'm sure it was/is worth every penny. I'm sure there is a great deal of pride in the work you've done which makes them even more valuable to you. If you're content and happy, more power to ya. Having owned three pairs of SDA's myself, I can totally relate.

If one were to quantify the time, effort, and money, that goes into unlocking the potential of SDA speakers, one could make the argument that with that same amount of effort you could find better speakers from the start without needing to modify them. But saying something like that is tricky, mostly because better sound is so subjective and how could you possibly quantify the time that went into modding a pair of SDA's unless you were some weirdo who timed it all.

audiocr381ve wrote: »

If one were to quantify the time, effort, and money, that goes into unlocking the potential of SDA speakers, one could make the argument that with that same amount of effort you could find better speakers from the start without needing to modify them.

If you are an "imaging" and "sound staging" junkie like me, then there are no other speakers with the spatial performance of SDAs. The interaural crosstalk (comb filtering effects) inherent in the design of conventional speakers limit their imaging and sound stage performance. That is why SDA loudspeakers are truthfully "true stereo" loudspeakers. I have heard some $25,000 and $35,000 loudspeakers with excellent (but not SDA-level) sound stage proportions, but the sound stage collapsed if I moved my head 1 micro-millimeter out of the razor-thin sweet spot. The sound stage of my SDA SRS 1.2TL's does not collapse if I move my head 18 inches to either side of dead center. It also does not collapse if I turn my head 90 degrees to the left or right. The sound stage is diminished, but does not collapse, even if I stand up at the listening position.

Reference what was said in Stereophile about a $120,000 pair of Sonus faber Aidas:

"But as I had found in New York, the true magic of the Aida was only to be found if you sat exactly in the sweet spot, when the speakers disappeared and the end of the room dissolved into the recorded acoustic."

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-aida#mx6VIxvSaFxIzcxQ.99

audiocr381ve wrote: »

But saying something like that is tricky, mostly because better sound is so subjective and how could you possibly quantify the time that went into modding a pair of SDA's unless you were some weirdo who timed it all.

That weirdo would be me...

...but I see nothing weird about documenting the time required for a modification. In my mod reviews, I usually mention the time investment required. I always record the time I start working and the time I stop during a mod session. The total mod time for my 1.2TL's was 156.5 hours. At a reasonable electronics repair bench rate of $25/hour, the retail value of that mod labor is $3,912.50. I have spent $7,884.42 in parts. Therefore, my total modification investment is $11,796.92. When the cost of the speakers is added, my total investment exceeds $15,000.

So why not just buy a pair of $15,000 loudspeakers? The simple answer is that my modded SDA's have outperformed all of the $15,000, $20,000, $25,000, and $35,000 loudspeakers I have auditioned. Those speakers usually did one or two things better than the SDAs, but they all were deficient in sound stage properties and most were deficient in bass performance.

My SDA's give me eargasms. Let It Bleed 2002 remaster sounded fabulous last night on the SDA's.

drumminman wrote: »

Marcia Ball, Irma Thomas and Tracy Nelson were center stage in my living room last night. As was Bobby "Blue" Bland.

So were Al DiMeiola, John McLaughlin and Paco DeLucia in mine.

H9

I used a digital SPL meter in the listening position. Not so sure if it was done accurately or what... but that was the number displayed. It was pretty loud & what scared me, they were begging for more juice!
Just curious, have you guys out there measured your rigs in that manner, or have gone to higher levels??
I apologize for the hijack.
Frank

I recently purchased a pair of sda2a's and I am very impressed I paid 200 and they are in very good condition. ..I am running them as mains in a 7.1 system consisting of mainly emotiva amps....could anyone tell me how the rta12'scompare to the sds2a's...????

DarqueKnight wrote: »

audiocr381ve wrote: »

If one were to quantify the time, effort, and money, that goes into unlocking the potential of SDA speakers, one could make the argument that with that same amount of effort you could find better speakers from the start without needing to modify them.

If you are an "imaging" and "sound staging" junkie like me, then there are no other speakers with the spatial performance of SDAs. The interaural crosstalk (comb filtering effects) inherent in the design of conventional speakers limit their imaging and sound stage performance. That is why SDA loudspeakers are truthfully "true stereo" loudspeakers. I have heard some $25,000 and $35,000 loudspeakers with excellent (but not SDA-level) sound stage proportions, but the sound stage collapsed if I moved my head 1 micro-millimeter out of the razor-thin sweet spot. The sound stage of my SDA SRS 1.2TL's does not collapse if I move my head 18 inches to either side of dead center. It also does not collapse if I turn my head 90 degrees to the left or right. The sound stage is diminished, but does not collapse, even if I stand up at the listening position.

Reference what was said in Stereophile about a $120,000 pair of Sonus faber Aidas:

"But as I had found in New York, the true magic of the Aida was only to be found if you sat exactly in the sweet spot, when the speakers disappeared and the end of the room dissolved into the recorded acoustic."

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-aida#mx6VIxvSaFxIzcxQ.99

audiocr381ve wrote: »

But saying something like that is tricky, mostly because better sound is so subjective and how could you possibly quantify the time that went into modding a pair of SDA's unless you were some weirdo who timed it all.

That weirdo would be me...

...but I see nothing weird about documenting the time required for a modification. In my mod reviews, I usually mention the time investment required. I always record the time I start working and the time I stop during a mod session. The total mod time for my 1.2TL's was 156.5 hours. At a reasonable electronics repair bench rate of $25/hour, the retail value of that mod labor is $3,912.50. I have spent $7,884.42 in parts. Therefore, my total modification investment is $11,796.92. When the cost of the speakers is added, my total investment exceeds $15,000.

So why not just buy a pair of $15,000 loudspeakers? The simple answer is that my modded SDA's have outperformed all of the $15,000, $20,000, $25,000, and $35,000 loudspeakers I have auditioned. Those speakers usually did one or two things better than the SDAs, but they all were deficient in sound stage properties and most were deficient in bass performance.

Didn't mean to call any names! I seriously had no clue you logged time. It's actually unbelievably impressive and not weird at all. Good on you for finding a pair of speakers you love that "do it" for you. Hard to argue with that.

audiocr381ve wrote: »

Didn't mean to call any names!

No offense taken.

It never would have occurred to me that someone would view documenting modding time as weird. People who do mod work for a living have to document their time so that they will know how much time the same, or a similar job, will take and how much labor time to quote for price estimates.

Objectively, I'd say the SDA secret society would have to be considered a fringe element in the brotherhood of audio extremists. I've auditioned my SDAs for others who consider themselves audio enthusiasts. If they see the connections they ask what the extra wires are for. If I then open the cabinet containing the dreadnaught and try to explain it and SDA, it has never failed that the next words out of their mouth are, "Cool... is it worth it?" And I always have to shrug and say, "Well, define 'worth it'."

I love my SDAs when I'm sitting in the sweet spot, but I'm sure it's not an exaggeration to say I listen to them that way maybe 15% of the time. If I had to do my own accounting...
TL upgrade to 2B's = absolutely worth it
1000VA dreadnaught for a pair of 2BTLs and a common ground amp = definitely not worth it
Larry's rings (hurricane nuts a close second, which I used for tweeters before brackets) = worth it
Letting Sonic caps burn in before judging = worth it
Custom ordered inductors = worth it
Tony's boards - beautiful, so easy to work with, not needed for 2B's but glad they're now part of the package
Crazy expensive binding posts and decent quality speaker wire = worth it
Spikes = worth it
Dynamat = actually don't hear the difference but don't begrudge it
Blackhole 5 = bit of a mixed bag, but it's there now

All things considered, having a list of that length, effort, and obsessiveness or greater (which pales in comparison to many) = unequivocally weird

I think for most of us, SDAs would have to disappoint us something fierce for us to not love them after all that.