10B Vs SDA2

YES, apples and oranges. The 2's will do everything better.

In my experience this is not a slam dunk. It depends on what you like. I bought a pair of SDA2s in the early 90s and a group of us who worked in the biz sat in my wife and my apartment in the dark and compared my 1980 Monitor 10s to the SDA2s. Everyone prefered the 10s. They were more intimate ,had more depth and defintion and were more eciting to listen to. The stage on the SDAs was wider.
For the last 3 months I have been comparing thiose same 10s (they have been upgraded) 2 pairs of RTA 12Bs (one early and one late) and a pair of early SDA1s . I am about at my limit. I coach several youth sports teams and one of the parents who is into audio took a listen last night. He has B&W. He thought the 10s were very good. Punchy and very clear with nice depth,vertical and width. The early 12bs he said were not as clear or punchy and he liked them less. The first words out of his mouth about the SDA s was its nice and wide but there is very little front to back depth and instruments are not as intense or sharply defined. This is pretty much what i have heard all along. I just do not know which I like best. The pro reviews of the SDA1s mention that the sound stops at the grills. I think the depth they do have is behind them verses being forward. The point of all this is the only way you will know for sure is to get them both in the same room and listen to them then decide what you like

I agree!!! If look on line at reviews by people including this site people love the 10s. I am almost to the point of selling the 12s and SDAs as the 10s are just more fun to listen to. I will say mine are early (1980) came with the peerless but I have the SL1000 in them and Ken redid the crossovers and they do not look like any 10 crossover I have seen in person or in pictures. They just have two large yellow caps (Mylar???) on them. All i know is they have a huge stage with a ton of depth and wide open mids with great extention and detail in the highs and a lot of punch with real deep bass. I do not understand it and i have tried ( and would like )to move on after 26 years with them but they hold their own with about everything i throw at them. Very annoying.

Agreed Heiney,

10's have nowhere near the same soundstage as SDA's. Just nice for what they were.

Good point DK. Sorry h9 did not mean to get carried away. I said it was personal preference. Remember mine have been modified. I worked in the consumer electronics biz and had access to many many different speakers and was involved in many tests. The 10s much to my surprise outdid most. The 10s have there problems but they all do. The SDA1s (I cannot speak to the SRS units) do not have the defintion and instrument intensity the 10s and RTA12s do. The reviews of the time mention this. they also mention that you probably cannot get both sharp defintion and the SDA effect in the same speaker design. As far as the imaging of the 10s i think others can speak better then I. Much of this would apply to the 7 also.

Audiogram, Other comparably priced speakers simply do not come close to the standards set by the model 10. In fact the Polks compare very favorably with Magnapan and Dahlquist DQ10s. Base response for model 10s surpasses that of the DQ10. Definition is almost on par with the Magnapan. Stereo imaging is better, driver blending is excellent, midrange is open, and exceptionally clear, and there is much less hint of boxiness than is found in most box speakers.
Stereo Review We compared the sound of the model 10 to that of several other fine speakers both larger and smaller. We were rather surprised at the magnitude of the difference we heard. The total effect is of an exceptionally pleasing sonic balance with plenty of spaciousness or depth. Our overall reaction is that the Polk model 10 sounds good. Very good !!

Musician mag the 10s produce the kind of uncolored open perfectly imaged sound we thought began at twice the price.

Washington Post The companys best seller the model 10 sells for $325 and the company says it is comparable to any speaker in the world.
I have an entire book of old reviews from the early 80s and an orignal 1981 8 page sales info. i should find away to upload it . People would find it very interesting.

All that matters is that you enjoy them. A side by side driver that emits the same frequency has some very real imaging issues. 10's have always had diminished clarity and are somewhat ill defined across the midrange. Muddy/blurry/less defined are all words I would use compared to a true D'appolito array or a single driver config.

What it does give you is a midrange presence that is pleasant and forward and the dual drivers give you real solid bass when used in a PR type enclosure.

I'm sure the mods helped as did the mods in my 5b's and 1C's, but the initial design is slightly flawed compared to other tried and true configurations. Still a highly enjoyable speaker.

H9

dkg999 wrote: »

Why choose? For under $300 you can add a pair of SDA-2A's. The SDA's benefit from having the Monitor 10's set on top of them and dampen the cabinet resonance. Just use speaker cables with banana's on them and switch whenever you feel like it.

Problem solved

geppy1 wrote: »

You guys are always thinkin. I think we should go to stacked Advents for fun. I had large Advents before my 10s. What a speaker. I recently picked up a pair of Advent 1 just to have a pair of old Advents. I just wanted to hear them so i put them on some wood chairs in the livng room for a listen. I almost fell out of my chair. Man they were good speakers.
H9 How much did your 1cs change after your mods?? As an example. If I take a steel string g and strum it and listen to one thru the speakers the 10s have the same basic attack and tonal balance were you would look up and say i know what that is. . The SDA1s are close but it sounds somewhat muted and blurred. The attack is softer. Did yours mods change any of this??

I used to sell Polks back when 1C's and SRS were new so I am familair with them. I bought my 1C's off a local on the forum and they had already been modified with Sonic Caps, Mills and the RD0's so I can't really speak to that.

I will say if you are using the sl1000 or sl2000 for a tweeter it certainly is less than ideal for some music. Of course if you are using the same tweeters in both your 1's and 10b's I don't know. But older equipment can be finicky and maybe the 10's x-over parts and tweets are holding up better than the SDA 1's. After about 12-15+ years anything is possible or impossible.

H9

EDIT: just realized you said your 10's were modified. How about the 1's stock or modified.

MillerLiteScott wrote: »

How do the RTA 11t's sound vs. Monitor 10B?

11T's, no contest. The D'appolito array is a tried and true design and really makes for an open and wide soundstage. Which is very clear and defined. Having the tweeter equidistant in the center of the two drivers (which are crossed over the same) really helps dispersion and reflection characteristics and increases focus. The narrow front baffle is superior to the wider 10b front baffle also.

I really wish before I sold my 11's that I had gotten the RD0's because I would probably still have those today

H9

The 11tl's were (and still are) a fantastic set of speakers but I have never heard the 10b's so can't compare the two. As H9 said, very clear and detailed. They did benefit from the RDO's and crossover rebuild. It almost seems like a shame to use them as rears but since I got the 2A's, that's what they've been relegated to. They sound awful good back there though also.