Polk Subwoofers - Where are made?

[aba4430]

Hello,
Prior to purchasing our 505 for the family room, I called Crutchfield to find some details on the Polk subs. Crutchfield CS rep. indicated that the 202 was manufactured overseas, but the 303 and up were manufactured/assembled at the Baja facility. Sure enough, the 505 I purchased from CC was from Baja. A few weeks ago, I had picked up 2 brand new pairs of RT55i's from CC and have one sitting in my living room. Even my 11 year old says that I should not have sold a pair of the 55i's, but instead should have replaced the RTi100's in the family room with a pair of the 55i's - they sound so good. What is done is done etc. Last week-end, I went to CC (I am in two minds about my present fronts (RTi100's) in the family room HT set-up) to see other options. I picked up CSi40's this and also purchased a PSW404 sub (for my living room) as an upgrade to the free sub. offer. I am thinking of replacing the RTi100's in the family room with a pair of CSi40's to match the center. Does anyone have this type of front set-up? Any comments? The local CC also has a pair of RT55i display units, not at the greatest price, but decent enough to tempt you. So I am dilly dallying around with some options at this point. However, to the crux of my post now. When I loaded the PSW404 into the back seat of my car, noted that it was made overseas - it also felt a bit lighter than I had expected, funny but the thought registered in my head. Since the local CC showed 2 of them still in stock, I had the manager to inspect the other boxes. He came out with one that was made/assembled at the Baja facility. Surprisingly, this one felt a bit heavier (perhaps not factual, but it did to me). So what is the deal, is Polk going overseas for their subs now? Nothing against this, but I have read some reviews on CC (for what they are worth) and many folks have had their 404's fail during the initial days of use! I have no knowledge whatsoever, as to where the failed ones were assembled.
Regards,
aba4430
PS. The simple Yamaha RX-V870 was a breeze to set-up. The Elite is giving me some fits. I still have not realized the sound that I enjoyed with my old Infinity's. Next step is to change the fronts to small and listen. Also, I will upgrade my sub. cable to better ones.

[Dr. Spec]

A lot to look at here:

At first blush, I doubt the subs are different weight; probably use same materials of construction, same driver, etc.

Second, if you can ditch the 100's in exchange for some 55's with a sub, I'd do it. The 100's can be tough to integrate and the 55's with a sub will sound better anyway.

I would not use CSi40's as mains; the XO network does not have the same FR topology as the 55 or the 800 or the 70, etc., depsite using similar drivers.

The 404 failures have been fixed - it was linked to some bad VC former glue (IIRC), and Polk took care of it.

[RuSsMaN]

Originally posted by Dr. Spec
I would not use CSi40's as mains; the XO network does not have the same FR topology as the 55 or the 800 or the 70, etc., depsite using similar drivers.


Say again? Enlighten me on the 'Xo network does not have the same FR topology', will ya? I think 40's all the way around would make a fine HT rig.

Cheers,
Russ

[Dr. Spec]

It did sound like a bunch of hastily typed gobbledegook, didn't it?

Take the RT800i and the CS400i. They have an identical driver compliment, but the crossover points and the filter slopes in the 400 are different than they are in the RT800 (at least that's what I recall reading from Ken one day). I think the center channel is a cascaded "2.5" way, and the other towers in question are a true two way with the mids connected in series.

Two CS400i as mains will sound different than two RT800i even setting aside the fact that the 800 has deeper bass extension (probably due to a larger internal volume and longer vent/power port.

For strictly a HT application, I won't argue that five or seven CSi40's would be the ultimate expression of "timbre matching". And with an 80 Hz XO, it would have plenty of bass extension.

I just think using 40's as L/R mains in a HT/music application wouldn't sound as good as using RT55i or RT800i or RTi70, even with the same xo point. I think Polk custom tailored the filter network in the CSi40 for center channel use.

If you'd like, I'll be glad to run an on-axis and off-axis FR sweep on the 400i and the RT800i in the same location to illustrate the differences in the midrange and high frequency response.

[Dr. Spec]

CS400i Crossover Topology:
2nd Order Low Pass Filter cascaded @1.5kHz and 800Hz
2nd Order High Pass Filter @1.5kHz

RT800i Crossover Topology:
2nd Order Low Pass Filter cascaded @2.5kHz
2nd Order High Pass Filter @2.5kHz

The filter slopes are the same (all second order), but the filter points are different and the CS400i is indeed a cascaded "2.5" way. I would expect these two guys to display somewhat different frequency response characteristics in the midrange and highs.

I'll still run a sweep on both if anyone really cares. My test rig is currently in Minnesota being professionally calibrated, so it might be a while (like a week or so).

[aba4430]

Dr. Spec,
Appreciate the information. Thus I have abandoned the idea of replacing the RTi100's with the CSi40's.
Regards,
aba4430

[Dr. Spec]

Substitute the CSi40 for an RTi100 in the same location and play some music and let your ears decide which sounds better. In the end, your opinion is all that matters.