RD 0194-1 Tweeter!

[Roy Munson]

Well the replacement tweeters for the SL2000's arrived today so I installed them and was very happy with the results. The highs are now smoother with the RD 0194-1 replacements, actually much smoother! This is a great substitute for anyone that isn't pleased with their SL2000's!

Thanks to the people that recommended these as they have made my SDA 2A's even more enjoyable to listen to!

[ckpiv]

I just ordered a pair today for my SDA2B's. I am looking forward to hearing the change after reading the other post about these upgraded tweeters.

[dorokusai]

The SL2000 is a garbage tweeter.

Silk is King!

[Roy Munson]

ckpiv, you are going to be surprised with the difference these tweeters make. The highs will still be there but they will be much smoother. Depending on the source the SL2000 tends to be a little harsh to my ear and the "silk" replacement sounds much much better. I wish I had known about them years ago!! Have fun! I'm really glad I found this forum, now if I could just find some SDA 1c's here in SoCal!

[ckpiv]

Roy,
I will agree on some recordings (especially some newer cd's) the harshness starts wearing on me too. After finding this forum and reading the post on this new tweeter I am looking forward to the new experience. Polk said I should have them by the middle of this coming week. I am also in the process of trying to get a hold of some the big SDA-SRS speakers. I have a friend that will be moving to a smaller place and might be willing to part with them. They were not sure which model they were but if I can recall they were the original SDA-SRS. My friends girl friend got them in her divorce about ten years ago. Good luck on the 1c's, seems like I just saw a pair on ebay in the past few weeks.

[danger boy]

Roy,

just curious. what is it about the 1C's you like? I'm trying to learn as much as I can about SDA speakers. I don't own any of them.

[Roy Munson]

Danger, I think 1c's have better defined mids than the 2a's I have and they would be a good fit compared to the larger SDA's.

[BobMcG]

...to each his own, but "I' don't find my 2000s to be the least bit harsh, fatiguing, bright or lacking. Nor does anyone else who does extentended listening to them. I don't feel terribly short changed. Are better tweeters available today, sure. Is it good to tweak and upgrade sure. But garbage? That's an opinion I don't happen to agree with. IMO that's a bit of an exaggeration. And in the end, you know what is said about opinions, .... ......... everyone has one.

[dorokusai]

It's a garbage tweeter to me, and obviously it's my opinion. I don't bother with the SL2000 anymore, because I do not like it, period. It's the very first thing to get changed when I come upon a gem in my travels....and like yourself, many Polks have been through these dirty hands.

I know Madmax, Russman, F1Nut, Emlyn and BlueMDpicker all had an affinity for the older SL series as well, but they have also moved on to the replacement for their own reasons. I would consider these guys my "extended listening crowd" as well as friends.

We can't all hear the same things, and that's good, otherwise this hobby wouldn't be any fun.

[RuSsMaN]

With the spike in response on the 2000's being something along the order of +5 db centered right around 12-13Khz, it can sound harsh, or have an edge on the top end. I noticed it on some recordings more than others.

Bob, order up a set, and do a side by side - I think you'll be pleased with the outcome.

Cheers,
Russ

[Roy Munson]

Bob, as you say everyone has an opinion and in mine the SL2000 has on some sources a definite rough edge or harshness. As Russ suggested try a pair for your 2b's and imho you will be in for a pleasant surprise!

[madmax]

Originally posted by BobMcG
...to each his own, but "I' don't find my 2000s to be the least bit harsh, fatiguing, bright or lacking. Nor does anyone else who does extentended listening to them. I don't feel terribly short changed. Are better tweeters available today, sure. Is it good to tweak and upgrade sure. But garbage? That's an opinion I don't happen to agree with. IMO that's a bit of an exaggeration. And in the end, you know what is said about opinions, .... ......... everyone has one.

Hi Bob!

I felt the same way when I first heard Doro say that. A few days later I heard them. I knew within a few minutes of listening that they were far superior. That night when I got home I couldn't get the 2000's out of my boxes fast enough. Ordered the replacement tweets the next day. I even ordered enough to do an extra pair of 1.2's I've had in the closet for 10 years.

There is annoying harshness to the 2000's which I had never put my finger on until I heard them without it. It is truely night and day. I could never go back, that is for sure. This is one upgrade you would truely enjoy. Oh yea, the character of the speaker doesn't change, just lack of the harshness. Polk really picked a winner here.

madmax

[BobMcG]

I have no doubt in my mind at all that people upgrading to the newer tweets are happy with the result. Didn't even begin to insinuate otherwise. I do remember recognizing the points that there are better tweets available today and that upgrading is a good thing. I'm not being closed or narrow minded at all, just offering the other side of the coin by adding my opinion to the mix. And to reiterate my opinion, referring the 2000s as comparable to garbage is just a bit "too strong" an analogy. Wouldn't think of making the claim that they didn't dissatisfy some people or that everyone should be happy with them.

I agree with you RuSsMan and Max, there will come the time when I do follow suit and make the change. After all I've known some of you guys in the Polk Forums for ten years now and can depend on your word. I don't have to wonder whether you know what you're talking about or not. However, life has it's priorities and it's just not in the works at the moment. Too much work ($$$) to do on the house and property right now. Some day though.

[BobMcG]

Like you, I also felt my 2Bs sounded a bit on the harsh or bright side of things making extended listening a drag on the mind. However I don't experience this problem with my 2.3's at all. The systems operating the speakers however are as different as day and night. While I'm likely to update the 2.3's anyways at some point in time, I'll probably leave the 2Bs alone as they were sent into the HT room years ago to pull duty as the rears on that system. Depending on a few things, I'd probably be more inclined to update my CRS+s that are on my secondary HS as a follow up project.

[madmax]

OK, we will not beat you into submission. Not yet, anyway. :D

10 years huh. I'm feeling old. Seems like yesterday I found this site full of crazy people. I can't imagine if I hadn't. :)

madmax

[BobMcG]

Time does have a way of flying by doesn't it?

I don't suppose the guys at Polk have the Polk Forums in it's original form stored on a drive anyplace...
What a trip that would be if we could go down that memory lane! Those sure were some fun (and trying) years huh?

I know, I know, I kinda fell off the face of the earth around here but around the time of the change over I was also going through a bad case of audio burn out. Not that I stopped loving audio itself, but I did get rather burned out on the discussion aspect of it. We had our really good days and we had times in the toilet too but we always managed to get through it. It was however one of the contributing factors that lent me to burn out. Another little factor for me, and this just reflects (and rather badly at that) on me, but I did get tired of the same old questions being asked over and over AND over again. There are too many people far better at handling this than me so I gratefully let them. All in all I had to take a break and found some other interesting adventures that captured me in the mean time. You'll see me stick my head in time to time though and I'll try not to get it shot off. :)

[ckpiv]

I got my RD 0194-1 tweeters today and installed them into my 2b's. WOW - what a difference! The highs have been smoothed out and their is more diffenition on the highend clarity. Well worth the price to upgrade. If it was not for the forums here I would have never known about this upgrade.

Keep the communications going.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by dorokusai
The SL2000 is a garbage tweeter.

Silk is King!

A garbage tweeter? I bought my first set of Polks, monitor 7's in 1983, along with a Yamaha r9 reciever and a Yamaha CD-100 CD player. I was the first of my friends to have a CD player and vinyl was king at the time. The pure sound of the Polk monitor series at that time was something that a choice few of us got to experience. The original Polk sound is why this forum is here today, and why it will be here for years to come. I've heard that the replacement "silk" tweeter is so smooooooth..... compaired to the original SL-2000, BULL****..... If you want smoother highs, maybe you neeed to look to other speaker manufacters and listen to their hype.. To think that members are replaceing their perfectly good SL-2000 tweeters in beautiful vintage speakers because of BS like this is a shame.......... The SL- 2000 is why we are here today..... BigJim

[F1nut]

While Doro's comment may seem a bit harsh, it isn't without merit. Perhaps you should try a pair of the new tweeters before commenting on them. There is a very good reason why Polk can not keep them in stock.

[dorokusai]

Whatever. It's funny how some ppl don't seem to realize that the statement is my opinion. I call it a "garbage" tweeter, because it's the very first thing to go when it reaches my door.

Why would I listen to something that I do not like?

I don't care whether you buy the new one, or love the old one.

When I purchased my first set of Polk's, Monitor 10B, in 1985, I was in love for many years. I was one of those "few" but who really cares? This is 2005, and the golden years are gone for some of us and that's just the way it goes. I like to move forward and not cling to old habits and/or old standards.

SDA's exploded again because of THIS forum.....the original Monitor series exploded in popularity again because of THIS forum. The forum of 8+ years ago is long gone.

[RuSsMaN]

The SL2000 is why we are here today? Talk about a load. Dry that one out and fertilize the lawn the with it.

We are 'here' because of the Peerless 810665. The new replacement tweeters have the smooth response, and similar construction / dome materials of the Peerless.

The SL2000 was a poor attempt at a re-tool of the 810665, using a plastic dome, and had a nasty freq spike in the top end of it's response. Is it listenable, sure. Do some people prefer the 'hot' top end, sure. With the replacement tweeter, you WILL have a smoother response, period. No need to look elsewhere.

To think that members would not want to improve their sound (or at least try it), due to thick-headed, good old days syndrome, is the real shame Jim.

Cheers,
Russ

[madmax]

Originally posted by BigJim
I've heard that the replacement "silk" tweeter is so smooooooth..... compaired to the original SL-2000, BULL****..... If you want smoother highs, maybe you neeed to look to other speaker manufacters and listen to their hype.. To think that members are replaceing their perfectly good SL-2000 tweeters in beautiful vintage speakers because of BS like this is a shame.......... BigJim

Polk is all about moving on to better things. Maybe you should give a listen to the replacements before making such a statement.
madmax

[Emlyn]

Originally posted by madmax
Polk is all about moving on to better things.

Which is part of the reason Polk moved on to the SL3000 trilaminate dome tweeter for the top speakers in their product lines and stuck with various trilaminate tweeters for the next several years for most of their products. Their marketing at the time touted the more even and more accurate frequency response of the metallic dome SL3000 tweeter as a reason to upgrade to new speakers.

I have replaced every SL2000 tweeter in four pairs of SDA speakers. For a little outlay, it is like getting new speakers at a fraction of the cost that reference level speakers cost today. The Silver Coil Dome tweeter wasn't offensive sounding to me for a while, but once I heard the replacement silk dome tweeters in a pair of SDA 2Bs I could clearly hear the overemphasis, or inaccurate frequency spike, in the old tweeters that is audible particularly in female vocals as ssssibilance and makes it seem as if a singer is spraying spit on a microphone. It affects the sound of piano, electric guitar, and cymbals in the same frequency range as well. I would not have recently bought a pair of the original SDA-SRS speakers if the new silk dome tweeters weren't available. I listened to the SRS with the old tweeters and immediately called Helen at Polk to order the replacements. I even prefer the SL2000 replacements to the original SL3000 tweeters which I had in a pair of 2.3TLs.

I read somewhere that speaker manufacturers are constantly evaluating and changing the voicing of their speakers to match the playback equipment, recording methods, and prevalent recordings of the time. I speculate that Polk adapted to the development and spread of CD equipment in the 1980s by developing and using a tweeter that accentuated the generally "brighter" or hotter sound capabilities of CD compared to what people were used to hearing from tape or vinyl. I happen to think they went too far now, but they were working in a particular market that appreciated the sound they developed back then. Markets change though, and companies have to change with the market. I personally can't tolerate the silk dome tweeter in the new RTi line of speakers for the music I listen to, but to me they are the best Polk tweeter available for exclusive home theater use.

I would encourage anyone to try the replacement tweeters in place of the Silver Coil Dome tweeters even if the vintage tweeters are still in perfect working order.

[DarqueKnight]

Originally posted by BigJim
To think that members are replaceing their perfectly good SL-2000 tweeters in beautiful vintage speakers because of BS like this is a shame
The real shame is that people are willing to demean, disparage, and trash an audio item without listening to it.


Originally posted by madmax
Polk is all about moving on to better things. Maybe you should give a listen to the replacements before making such a statement.
I have observed that some people (skeptics) seem to get irritated whenever a large group of people uniformly and consistently praise a particular audio item. It is the old "I just don't see how it could possibly be as good as they say it is" mentality. Of course they don't "see" how it is as good as "they" say it is. They haven't heard "it".

[faster100]

Not to mention, how many sl2000 failures have their been just from the tweeter being so old, Not a reason in itself to upgrade however thats one of the key reasons i sold mine.. I wanted longevity... let some of the hardcore people who "love " original equipment have em.. sell em while they work and sound ok, broken they are worthless :D

I exchanged all my MW's and tweeters in my Sda 2b's for peace of mind, and i plan to keep these forever... polk however sold me the last 6509's and wont be making more.. so glad i got them..

[BobMcG]

SDA's exploded again because of THIS forum.....the original Monitor series exploded in popularity again because of THIS forum. The forum of 8+ years ago is long gone.


With all respect, the quest by forum members to have Polk reintroduce the SDA line has been going on in earnest for the last eight years plus. The issue is far from new, not limited to and hardly brought to light or to life just since the forums had a face lift in mid 2001. I wouldn't doubt that most of the members who were around before the site work are still here today. I know a lot of them are. It's not as though a time gap and a membership change occured when the site got it's new look so there is no "THIS" forum. It's the only forum. It was given a new look with added features. Some of them very good too.
With the new look came a new post counter, for good or for bad as it seems to encourage senseless posting just to see the numbers and titles go up. No posts made in the years previous were added to the new counter which is just as well as it wasn't important and no one kept track anyways. Also everyone already a member of the forums was generically labeled as having joined the forums in July of 2001 (the revised site date) and not the actual date they joined. So be it.

Generally speaking, I used to be very active in the Polk forums and have felt I do so with an open mind without being prejudiced against new ideas and products. I have also looked into the forums from time to time over the last few years without getting into posting mode just to see what's going on within the Polk family. I've seen the Hall of Shame come and go and the membership numbers go up. The bickering grows right along with the population but I guess that's to be expected. You may have noticed too that the "new look" has gone through different looks since 2001. Perhaps you could call it site evolution.

Just because some of us have been around the audio scene for decades doesn't make all of us out of date or out of touch. It also doesn't make us ignorant. A bit of knowledge and experience has come my way with building and upgrading various systems for myself and others over the last 35+ years that I've been involved and you know what? I'm still learning and evolving.

[Loud & Clear]

I believe Polk replaces both the SL1000's and SL2000's with the RD 0194-1's. I just ordered a pair yesterday to replace the SL1000's in my RTA-12C's. Looking for an improvement there, otherwise I LOVE this speaker.

[dorokusai]

You're gonna have a problem with that LC....the tweeters aren't the same size. I had the same idea for one pair of my 12C's...hope you're handy with a router. This issue has been touched upon in a couple other threads.

[Loud & Clear]

Originally posted by dorokusai
You're gonna have a problem with that LC....the tweeters aren't the same size. I had the same idea for one pair of my 12C's...hope you're handy with a router. This issue has been touched upon in a couple other threads.

****. Why would Polk sell me a tweeter that doesn't fit my speaker? Or suggest that the SL1000 be replaced with them? I've searched a few times for information but didn't find anything. Looks like I'll be sending them back. Thanks for the heads-up.

[dorokusai]

I would go ahead and make sure, but the mounting plates on mine were not drop in ready.

[Loud & Clear]

Yeah, I'm sure I'll give it a go, but suddenly I'm not looking forward to it.

I should have known this wasn't going to be easy after my buying experience. I talked to sales and was told, firstly, that the SL1000 was replaced with the SL2000. Then I was told that the SL1000 couldn't be replaced anymore, period, that Peerless no longer made them. Then I was put on hold for technical support, and finally told that that the SL1000 was replaced with the RD 0194-1. Oh, and that it would be a simple procedure.

It will be a real shame if I can't find a suitable replacement, because the SL1000's are the only aspect of this speaker that I'm not enamored with.

[dorokusai]

Originally posted by BobMcG
With all respect, the quest by forum members to have Polk reintroduce the SDA line has been going on in earnest for the last eight years plus. The issue is far from new, not limited to and hardly brought to light or to life just since the forums had a face lift in mid 2001. I wouldn't doubt that most of the members who were around before the site work are still here today. I know a lot of them are. It's not as though a time gap and a membership change occured when the site got it's new look so there is no "THIS" forum. It's the only forum. It was given a new look with added features. Some of them very good too.
With the new look came a new post counter, for good or for bad as it seems to encourage senseless posting just to see the numbers and titles go up. No posts made in the years previous were added to the new counter which is just as well as it wasn't important and no one kept track anyways. Also everyone already a member of the forums was generically labeled as having joined the forums in July of 2001 (the revised site date) and not the actual date they joined. So be it.

Generally speaking, I used to be very active in the Polk forums and have felt I do so with an open mind without being prejudiced against new ideas and products. I have also looked into the forums from time to time over the last few years without getting into posting mode just to see what's going on within the Polk family. I've seen the Hall of Shame come and go and the membership numbers go up. The bickering grows right along with the population but I guess that's to be expected. You may have noticed too that the "new look" has gone through different looks since 2001. Perhaps you could call it site evolution.

Just because some of us have been around the audio scene for decades doesn't make all of us out of date or out of touch. It also doesn't make us ignorant. A bit of knowledge and experience has come my way with building and upgrading various systems for myself and others over the last 35+ years that I've been involved and you know what? I'm still learning and evolving.

Respectfully, I never said SDA was a new issue. As far as events, efforts and "struggle" that happened in the Polk forum prior to 2003, I have no idea and have almost zero interest. I comment only on what I have seen in my time here. If you were blowing the SDA trumpets in the old days, it looks as though it did as much good then....as it does now.

My specific SDA comment was in reference to alot of the current, regular forum members finally taking the plunge on SDA's....and the Monitor series.

It was current membership that organized a Polk HQ Tour...Texas Polk Gathering I & II, SC Polkfest and this years Polk HQ Tour/Polkfest(TBD :( ) All of these events created quite a stir, and alot of interest in ALL things Polk.

Another member who's also been around for some time, spent extraordinary time and effort to create an SDA Compendium, to catalog all this SDA craziness. It certainly made searching all those "vintage" threads unnecessary.

I really like being a part of the current crew, and consider this forum to be almost like a safe haven and home. I also get tired of the same questions, but that comes with the territory. This isn't the only place I roam around, but it is the place of which I am most active. Eventually I will fade away, just like you, and this place will move along just fine. These guys are Polk soldiers, and the army is always getting bigger :)

I've had dinosaurs and newbies teach me something at some point or another, and I'm sure that cycle will continue.

[BobMcG]

Perhaps I should have said that the popularity of and interest in the old SDAs is nothing new. They've always been a heavily sought after item. The number of forum members and thus the number people being exposed to the fact SDAs exsist has grown wildly. That's good. It's only you're loss that you have near zero interest in the forum history before your arrival a couple of years ago.

The organized Polk events and get togethers are excellent ideas and took years to come to fruition. Like most things they were ideas long before they were reality. The folks that made and make them happen are to be commended. Turning talk into action isn't a small or easy task. For me, I travel all the time both for a living and for a couple of different hobbies and have to pick and choose. It's my loss for not fitting Polk events into my schedule when I plan my year.

I applaud the time and effort you put into making your SDA Compendium. I know why you would take it on too. Over the years I've created or co-created three web sites devoted to SDAs. Places where people could go to get hard to find SDA facts, and articles; learn the SDA story; show case their systems (long before Polk provided the feature) and disscuss SDAs in paticular. These sites were very active during their days, a lot of fun and enjoyed by a lot of Polk members. Only the last one is around now and although it was left to collect dust by it's makers and is outdated by todays standards there is still information there. I used to spend hours in libraries pouring over microfiche and searching the web for anything Polk SDA and to a lesser degree Polk Monitor to get information to put on the sites. It came from a love of the speakers and the want to share with others. Sound familiar?

I'm not the familar person today around here that I once was for sure and doubt I will be. It's not that important but fade away, hummm... not anymore. OK, maybe just fade in and out. You're not stuck with me though, all too soon I'll be straight out seven days a week with life a blur until fall.

You say tomato, I say tomahto. Whether it's a Polk Army or a Polk Family, it is indeed always growing and we're all a part of it.

[dorokusai]

It was Raife who created the SDA Compendium, not me, just to clear that up.

Bob - We simply don't see the forum in the same way, and that's just how it goes...nothing at all wrong with that. I'm sure we could wax on about all kinds of things both great and small.

We still love our Polk's and that's all this is about in the end. Thanks for taking the time to respond and convey your thoughts, as it has been a very nice experience.

There was only one thing missing from our discussion...a new member asking us WTH we are talking about :)

[BobMcG]

And I should have known better that it was Raife who was the author and not you. I've done considerable reading in the forum on and off over the last few years just to keep up on things in general but had a brain slip. My hat is off to him.

Yup, for the love of Polks is why the forum exsits and hopefully it is appreciated by all.

Thank you for the intelligent crossfire. It's always a pleasure to discuss differences in opinion with someone who knows how to.

Hummm, you're right. It was quiet in the stands.

[madmax]

Every now and then we get a new group of posters. The older ones fade off somewhat for awhile and the newer ones take over until they learn what the hell they are doing. Luckily the older ones tend to still stay in contact and continue the polk tradition! I'm sure from Bob's perspective I was part of the newer generation back in the late 80's just as Doro is part of the newer generation to me. Now to Doro probably there is a newer generation starting to take over for awhile. We are all Polk lovers and that is what counts.
madmax

[BobMcG]

Max, maybe you're not so mad after all.....

[madmax]

Originally posted by BobMcG
Max, maybe you're not so mad after all.....


Uh, maybe not...


I was gone for fourteen days
I coulda been gone for more
Held up in the intensive care ward
lyin on the floor

I was gone for all those days
but I, was not all alone
I made friends with a lot of people
in the danger zone

See my lonely life unfold
I see it every day
See my only mind explode
Since I've gone away

I think I lost some weight there
and I---I'm sure I need some rest
Sleepin don't come very easy
in a straight white vest

Should like to see that little children
She's only four years old---old
I'd give her back all of her play things
even, even the ones I stole

See my lonely life unfold
I see it everyday
See my lonely mind explode
when I've gone insane

I wanna get out of here
I wanna, I wanna get out of here
I gotta get out of here
I gotta get out of here
IgottagetoutahereIgottagetoutahereIgottagetoutaher e
Ya gotta let me out of here
Let me outta here
I gotta get outta here
Let me outta here
I gotta get outta here
Let me outta here
I gotta get outta here

See my lonely life unfold
I see it everyday
See my only mind explode
Blow up in my face

I grabbed my hat and I got my coat
and I, I ran into the street
I saw a man that was choking there
I guess he couldn't breathe
Said to myself this is very strange
I'm glad it wasn't me
But now I hear those sirens callin'
and so I am not free

I DIDN'T WANNA BE
I DIDN'T WANNA BE
I DIDN'T WANNA BE
(See my lonely life unfold)
I DIDN'T WANNA BE
(I see it every day)
LEAVE ME ALONE I DIDN'T WANNA BE
DON'T TOUCH ME!!!!
See my lonely mind explode
when I've gone INSAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNE!

AC

[BobMcG]

It looks like I just got welcomed to your nightmere......

[gammajo]

I am ready to replace my SL2000's in my 2.3's Tech @Polk recommends the SL2500 but my audio friend recommend the RD0194-1 as the replacement. Anyone know why the discrepency?

[dorokusai]

Do you have SDA 2.3 or 2.3TL? I read your post, just wanted to make sure before we answer definitively.

[F1nut]

The replacement for the SL1000 and SL2000 would be the RD0194-1. The replacement for the SL2500 and SL3000 would be the RD0198-1.

[gammajo]

I have the 2.3's not the TL's
Joe

[dorokusai]

Then your buddy is right, and obviously confirmed by ole F1Nut above. RD-0194...period.

[gammajo]

Thanks to all for the help- I ordered the 194's this morning
Joe

[ohskigod]

i orderred 2 as well, with so many people endorsing it, i figure i cant go wrong. orderred it today, was told i should get it by the end of next week.

[ohskigod]

got the new tweets today, and installed them in my SDA 2B's
WOW!

i figured on a difference, but right out of the box they sounded much better than the SL2000's no harsh bright shrill sound anymore. smooth, more laid back, what i would expect from a silk tweeter. thanx for pointing me in this direction guys!

[dorokusai]

Lou - See, we might actually know what we are talking about sometimes huh? :)

[gammajo]

Just replaced my old 2.3 tweeters with the RD's and like the new ones alot. Voices seem at little less forward and in your face, and I can understand some singers words that were previously hard to understand. This is likely to be true becuase many words only differ by the high frequency aspirants such as the difference between cat hat fat and sat is "ka" "fa" ha" "sa" sounds. I expect that the new ones will be a good deal less fatiguing. They seem more civilized, natural and accurate. Thanks for the tip
Joe

[dkg999]

I just rec'd my RD 0194-1 replacement tweeters today. It will be interesting to see if this smooths out the top end of my SDA 2A's! When I switched to the Parasound pre/amp combination the high end got a lot more forward and a little harsher.

[gammajo]

Let us know what you think when you do the replacement

[canadianicon25]

I couldn't find prices for the RD 0194-1. Can you tell me where I can get that info and any other related performance information?

[gammajo]

They are regularly $60 per, $48 per for Polk club members from Polk, I think. I did not look at specs, rather relied on the reports here of thier musicality

[dkg999]

Wow, these new tweeters are a huge improvement! My old SL2000's worked well with my Yamaha integrated amp, but didn't sound as great when I switched to the Parasound pre/amp set up. Now the high end is very smooth, and I haven't even had them running an hour, so not broke in yet. I'll be ordering a pair for my Monitor 10b's!

[dorokusai]

I would imagine all of those that recommend them, be called heretics, since there is still some strange fascination with that horrible SL2000(IMO) tweeter from many owners.

We all hear different things, and that's just the way it goes.

I'm glad that you found an improvement in your system.

[ohskigod]

then call me a heretic :cool:

these things only get better with break in time

[Roy Munson]

I replaced my SL2000's back in Feb. with the silks and I couldn't be happier! This is easily one of the best upgrades I have ever made!

[boltaction]

Hmm.. If they sound that good per recommendation maybe I should buy them for my 5jr+s...?

[anonymouse]

Yeah, I'm sure I'll give it a go, but suddenly I'm not looking forward to it.

I should have known this wasn't going to be easy after my buying experience. I talked to sales and was told, firstly, that the SL1000 was replaced with the SL2000. Then I was told that the SL1000 couldn't be replaced anymore, period, that Peerless no longer made them. Then I was put on hold for technical support, and finally told that that the SL1000 was replaced with the RD 0194-1. Oh, and that it would be a simple procedure.

It will be a real shame if I can't find a suitable replacement, because the SL1000's are the only aspect of this speaker that I'm not enamored with.

I snagged a pair of mint 12c's recently. They have the SL1000 circa August 84. I presume the RD1094-1 is the same size as the SL2000. I have a set of Monitor 5's and removed the SL2000's from those to see if they would drop into the 12c's. They do NOT. :(
However, without bolting them in, I find the SL2000's sound more pleasant to me than the SL1000's. I'm sure the RD1094-1 would be even better. However if they are larger than the SL1000's as I am sure they are, then I need to find the old peerless replacements for the SL1000. I really would not like to touch these 12c's and modify them permanently with router work because they are mint in every way.

Did you ever manage to get your SL1000's swapped out?

[SCompRacer]

After two months I got tired of listening to my SRS 2's with the SL2000's. The replacement tweeters arrived Friday afternooon and I swapped out the two in the left speaker to compare them. Didn't take long before I swapped out the ones in the right speaker and took the night off to listen to them. I prefer the silks.

[candyliquor35m]

Just replaced my old 2.3 tweeters with the RD's and like the new ones alot. Voices seem at little less forward and in your face, and I can understand some singers words that were previously hard to understand. This is likely to be true becuase many words only differ by the high frequency aspirants such as the difference between cat hat fat and sat is "ka" "fa" ha" "sa" sounds. I expect that the new ones will be a good deal less fatiguing. They seem more civilized, natural and accurate. Thanks for the tip
Joe
Did you mean to say "fat cat sat on a hat"? :p OK I've watched to much sesame street with my godson.

[burdette]

Hmm.. If they sound that good per recommendation maybe I should buy them for my 5jr+s...?

I have a pair of 5jr+, using them for surrounds. They came with the SL2500, which isn't the same as the SL2000 being discussed.

I don't know if the same silk dome is recommended to replace the SL2500 or not... but I *do* think the SL2500 is the same SIZE as the SL2000.

I think I'm remembering having heard something about the SL2500 not being that GREAT of a tweeter... but I don't know. I think the 5jr+ are very listenable as they are.

QUESTION: has the RD1094-1 *always* been the replacement for the SL2000? Is it black? I have a couple of tweeters at home that I bought a few years ago. At that time they were "THE" replacement for the SL2000 (and of course I can check when I get home)... but I was just curious if what I already have is the tweeter everyone is raving about.

[F1nut]

The replacement for the SL2500/SL3000 is the RD0198-1. The replacement for the SL1000/SL2000 is the RD0194-1.

A number of years ago the replacement for the SL2000 was the SL2000T, which is not the same as the RD0194-1.

[dbnh]

Thanks to all for the posts in this thread describing their SDA tweeter preferences. That being said, I pulled the trigger today on the RD0194-1 tweeters for upgrading my SDA 1-Cs, and look forward to receiving, installing, and enjoying them. My understanding is that this tweeter is a drop-in replacement for the SDA 1-Cs original tweeter, and that installation is very easy. Any installation-related cautions/advice are appreciated.

Regards,

Dave B.

[SCompRacer]

You'll notice the replacements are not as heavily constructed as the SL2000's you are replacing, but they sure sound good.

You'll have to salvage the gaskets. They are not glued on but may stick to the tweeter so work carefully to remove them.

Don't let the tweeter wires fall inside the box. My SRS 2's had baffles/bracing up there and if the wires fell inside, I probably would have had to remove the passive radiator to retrieve them.

The red terminal is positive on the new tweeter.

Change them one at a time or at least note what color wires are connected to the upper and lower tweeters when you remove them.

Don't over tighten the screws.

Save the old boxes to store the old tweeters in. Or put them up for sale in the Flea Market.

Pull out a stack of your favorite music and break them in. Njoy.

[dbnh]

SCompRacer,

Much obliged for that compendium of advice. :D

[dbnh]

Received the new tweeters today and installed (talk about fast Polk shipping). SCompRacer's directions are excellent and made installation a breeze (doing one tweeter at a time seems to make it pretty easy), thanks very much!

I'd also add a couple things to consider when doing the install:

1) After removing the old tweeter, spray the female connecter on each tweeter wire with some Caig Deoxit or other contact cleaner, and either air- or wipe-dry. Make sure you're spraying away from the speaker.

2) Treat each male connector of the new tweeter with a very, very light coat of Walker SST on each side of the connector; go about 1/2 way down the prong (starting from the top).

Question: are all the drivers on the SDA 1-C connected via a male prong/female wire termination? If so, it looks like it would be easy to treat each driver/wire combo as outlined in steps 1 & 2 above.

Thanks again to all for their insights into this easy SDA upgrade. Happy listening!

[dbnh]

Answered my own question about the driver/wire connections after removing one driver, and decided to go the Deoxit / Walker SST route on all eight of my SDA 1-C drivers/wire connections. (I note I use SST extensively in my system.)

Early results are as follows (SST should continue to improve the audio for the next 8+ hours, then start to level off and stay at that level of improvment):

1) Higher volume at same volume setting.

2) SDA mids are much more detailed than before. For that matter, there seems to be more detail, period. I also note I installed the new tweeters today, so some (but no way all) of the increased detail should be due to the tweeter upgrade.

3) Soundstage is wider and deeper; SDA effect is astonishingly nice with something like The Chemical Brothers cd "Come With Us" - try cuts 2-3. I have not noted the soundstage getting closer to me, but rather deepening.

4) More precisely positioned instruments and voices, with seemingly more air around both.

Anyway, those are my first impressions. Gotta run, enjoy the improvements, and see where they'll finally culminate. :D

YYMV.

[F1nut]

I'd be curious to hear what you'd think with the old tweeters re-installed. My bet is that all the new found detail goes away.

[dbnh]

I respect your opinion, but politely disagree. I've been using SST on various connections/plugs for about 2 years (RCA posts and plugs, PC prongs, IEC prongs, speaker terminations, amp speaker posts, tube pins, phono cartridge pins, etc) and the the product delivers. The cartridge pin application is especially nice.

[F1nut]

I believe in tweaks, but the claims you're attributing to the SST seem over the top to me. Had you applied the SST at a different time than the new tweeter install your findings would have more weight, IMO and that's why I asked about re-installing the original tweeters. I know for a fact that the new tweeters have a profound effect, but I've used DeOxit and ProGold without any noticeable effect other than piece of mind. Having said that, I'll try the SST myself and report back.

[McLoki]

I currently have a pair of SDA 1b's The speakers are in ok shape, but the cabinets are not very good.

I remember reading that the replacement tweeter is supposed to timber match close (maybe not exact, but close) with the LSiC. Is this correct? The 1b's even with a rough cabinet would make a great upgrade from my LSi7's. If the upgrade only cost $200 for new tweeters all the better.... :)

I have compared them with the original SL2000 tweeter and prefer the sound of the LSi7's more than the SDA. As I compare the SL2000 to the vifa tweeter in the LSi line, SL2000 does not hold a candle to it. How does the new tweeter compare to the one found in the LSi line?

Michael

[madmax]

The RDO tweeter mates so well with the SDA's you can't "hear" the midwoofers stop and the tweeters take over. The LSi series, although excellent, is not quite as smooth of a cross between the mids and highs. Both tweeters have the same character though. The SL-2000's were crap compared to the vifa tweeter. The RDO replacement is right along side the vifa.
madmax

[dorokusai]

I believe in tweaks, but the claims you're attributing to the SST seem over the top to me. Had you applied the SST at a different time than the new tweeter install your findings would have more weight, IMO and that's why I asked about re-installing the original tweeters. I know for a fact that the new tweeters have a profound effect, but I've used DeOxit and ProGold without any noticeable effect other than piece of mind. Having said that, I'll try the SST myself and report back.

I agree. I use CAIG everywhere but mainly for piece of mind not increased performance.

[dbnh]

I believe in tweaks, but the claims you're attributing to the SST seem over the top to me. Had you applied the SST at a different time than the new tweeter install your findings would have more weight, IMO and that's why I asked about re-installing the original tweeters. I know for a fact that the new tweeters have a profound effect, but I've used DeOxit and ProGold without any noticeable effect other than piece of mind. Having said that, I'll try the SST myself and report back.

F1nut,

I have no problems with differences of opinion, and my post was to inform on (not to necessarily convince others) what I heard in my system with my gear. I agree that adding the new tweeters at the same time could muddy the waters of discernment, an excellent point! Nor do I have any issue with healthy skepticism (I had tons of it prior to purchasing my own SST, it initally seemed like a large price for a smallish amount of goo and it took quite a bit of convincing to make me take the plunge. FYI - Mr. Walker is very amenable to correspondence, and he and his products seem to have his fans on 6moons, AudioCircles, AGon, and elsewhere.).

I note that after I installed the tweeters and subsequently resinstalled them (reinstall due to initially attaching the white wires to the + terminals, instead of the colored wires to the + terminals), I sat back and gave a listen for a while. Definite improvement with the new tweeters, even though I realized the tweeters were not burned in. I next did the right speaker drivers and gave a critical listen, which propelled me to do the left speaker drivers. I frankly admit to being floored with the results. I did try some discs / tunes that I knew well that would have a pretty full menu of lower frequencies (Morphine - song = Top Floor, Bottom Buzzer; most of the titles on Peter Gabriel's "Up" and Tony Levin's "Pieces of the Sun"), yet I understand the point that it may be a challenge to quantify exactly how much of what I heard was due to tweeter replacement, Deoxit terminal cleaning, SST application.

I also note that Deoxit undoubtedly helped things a bit just by itself, as my SDAs were purchased, I believe, in 1988 and there's had to be some oxidation with the wire terminations over time. (Re: Caig ProGold - I don't know how it would serve in place of Deoxit on the wire connectors/tweeter-driver terminals due to no gold plating/Caig information about ProGold that states, "Recommended for critical applications where only slight cleaning action is necessary...ProGold ® is designed to dissolve small amounts of oxidation. Apply ProGold ® after DeoxIT ® on plated metal surfaces...For reference, ProGold ® has approximately 0.5% cleaning action." IMHO, I feel a SilClear/SST comparison would be interesting, as SilClear is about 1/2 the price of the original SST formulation. I'm not sure that ProGold is formulated or intended to work in the same league as SST.)

Anyway, I'd like to consider similarly treating the wire terminations into the crossover network. However, I've never pulled out the crossovers, and am uninformed about how the wires are physically terminated to the crossover network in the SDA 1-Cs; thus, I have no idea if this is even feasible. Any information one would like to offer is appreciated, either via pm or this thread. While I visit this forum, I note I don't do much posting in it. That does not keep me from appreciating the compendium of knowledge present within the numerous informed posters at Club Polk. I look forward to reading about F1nut's findings in his system (be they dissimilar or the same), as well as that of others.

[thehaens@cox.net]

I replaced the Sl-2000's this weekend in the 1.2's, and I have to admit that they are a smoother sounding tweeter. Although I will admit, that I do like the 2k's as well, it is simply a different sound. We replaced the right channel first and did a comparison on some Elton John track. I could here some harshness coming from the 2k's side that wasn't coming out of the replacements during some upper octave piano passages. I replayed this passage over and over with my ear to the tweeters and the harshness wasn't in the RD's. I replaced the 2K's out of the left channel and listened to the same passage and all the harshness was gone.

Another note, I played the passage with my SDA-1A's w/ the 2k's in them and their was a slight harshness to them, but not as apparent as the 1.2's.

At the end of the day, I was convinced that the RD replacement did sound better, more natural. So I'll end up replacing the 2k's out of the 1A at a later time....

scott

[PolkFreak]

Burdette, I just thought I'd mention that I put both the SL2500 and SL2000 up to the same hole in a Monitor 10 cabinet and the SL2500 is bigger than the SL2000. PolkFreak

[dbnh]

I believe in tweaks, but the claims you're attributing to the SST seem over the top to me. Had you applied the SST at a different time than the new tweeter install your findings would have more weight, IMO and that's why I asked about re-installing the original tweeters. I know for a fact that the new tweeters have a profound effect, but I've used DeOxit and ProGold without any noticeable effect other than piece of mind. Having said that, I'll try the SST myself and report back.
F1nut,

Was wondering if you had yet worked with the SST product (http://www.walkeraudio.com/sst1.htm) and had different or similar results? Anyway, the link in this post will take you to some opinions of some other users as well as reviewers. FYI - SST was also given a Blue Moon by 6moons.

[F1nut]

dbnh,

No, I haven't had much free audio play time lately. Have you tried putting the old tweeters back in?

F1

[dbnh]

A good question, the answer to which is "no". The last couple weeks I've been working on assembling and tweeking a vintage bedroom system: moved my Fisher 800-B receiver (circa 1960) which I had been using as my tuner, paired it with a set of KLH Series 20 speakers (circa1970) given to me by a work colleague. Got a few sources to work with it including a dated Sony PST-33 turntable and Ortofon cartridge. Love those tubed mids, albeit the speakers certainly could be more revealing (also, no way that Fisher could supply the power the current-hungry SDAs seem to crave). Plus, a trip to Sicily in the offing a little over a week from today has drawn my time constaints a bit more constrictively. Furthermore, tonight I applied SST to the tube pins of the 22 tubes of the 800-B; the burning-in is currently ongoing - man, I needed the pair of eyes of a 22 year old when working with all those pins!

Now that you mention the old tweeters, I probably should put those up for sale here, seeing the new ones are so eminently satisfactory.

[F1nut]

Those round tuits are getting harder and harder to come by, aren't they!?! ;)


man, I needed the pair of eyes of a 22 year old when working with all those pins!

I heard that! It least my ears are still working well.

[BobMcG]

I agree. I use CAIG everywhere but mainly for piece of mind not increased performance.

This reminds me.... I use a product called TPC (The Perfect Connection) but I haven't seen it around. It was available in liquid and wipes. Does anyone know if it is still available? (My stash is depleted.)

Like Mark, I've used it more for piece of mind. It makes sense that contact treatments are a good idea for older connections... and not a bad idea for all connections.