Why did Polk abandon the SDA approach?

[William Henry]

If they were so good, why did they stop making the SDA line?

[hoosier21]

there is no good answer to that.

[Zero]

This is how I have come to understand their decision;

Matt, the founder of Polk Audio, always retained the goal of providing great sounding speakers to those who appreciate / seek better sound, but could not always afford it. Competent engineering and a natural gift to know what good sound is definitely has helped Polk Audio become what it is today.

I believe Polk had an opportunity to do what so many companies dream of – to sign a contract with a massive retailer (ala, Circuit City). This gave Matt the opportunity to provide the casual consumer with a speaker that sounded just as good as the expensive competitors in those increasing hard to find brick and mortar stores. I also believe that Polk Audio saw that surviving in the market place would depend on such exposure and subsequent increase in sales. Take a look around, there are not too many small shops available these days in most cities or communities.

Yes, the SDA line was very well done, albeit controversial. But the age of sitting in front of your stereo to spend your time has changed. There once was a time when people would invite others to come and listen to music. Now the role of home audio has changed with the general public, to being mostly back-round noise while other tasks and chores are completed. The time when your average consumer wants to show off an audio system, is when their friends/family are over watching a movie. Stores like Circuit City are the gateway to allowing Polk to help those customers along to achieve that better sound.

Sure, the SDA’s are great, but a speakers greatness doesn’t help pay the bills and keep those doors open. Times change, and this is where we are at. I think most of us would like to see Polk create a reference product beyond the Lsi series, but with such a saturation in the market of high end speakers, and so little relative demand, you have to ask whether it would really be worth it. They sure do, and rightfully so.

[DarqueKnight]

Great answer.:)

[nadams]

Well thought-out reply, Zero. I think it explains things very well. :)

[BigJim]

Very well said...

[Emlyn]

I don't agree that there was a link between Polk's halting of production of SDA two-channel speakers and the move to Circuit City, because the move away from independent dealers to Circuit City happened several years after Polk stopped making the SDA speaker line in Baltimore.

I do agree that the home entertainment market changed and Polk Audio had to change to keep afloat. Some audio companies were not forward thinking enough and went bankrupt, or merged into larger companies, during and right after the recession of the early 1990s. Considering the price Polk sold its most expensive speaker line at, and the amount it must have cost to produce them in Baltimore, it's not surprising that production stopped for simple business reasons. Polk's production costs became too high relative to the customer's willingness to spend money on SDA speakers. Many companies have had to face the harsh realities of the global economy by moving production to Mexico, then to Asia to remain competitive, while adjusting products to be able to hold a place in their market. Polk now makes speakers in the middle to upper-middle of the market. SDA speakers really were competing at the upper end of the market when they were last produced, and the company decided to get out of that market segment and head in a different direction. There is no question of "if they were so good"; SDA true stereo speakers were and remain excellent speakers more than a decade after production stopped.

Polk embraced the move to home theater surround speaker systems (for which SDA technology is not necessary) comparatively early, and the big move around 1998 to Circuit City enabled Polk to thrive by selling many more speakers than they ever had before. The upper-middle market LS speaker line did not survive this transition, but the LSi line is a successful attempt to get back into the upper-middle section of the market. Polk doesn't produce SDAs now because the company doesn't compete for the audiophile two-channel market along with high-end product lines from companies like B&W, Martin Logan, Spendor, Dynaudio, Magnepan, or a whole slew of smaller companies. However, Polk speakers now offer a good budget-conscious, honest performance alternative to the expensive offerings from these companies.

Fortunately, Polk built their SDA speakers to last a long time. Mine will celebrate their 20th birthday this November.

[AsSiMiLaTeD]

All good discussion...

and let's not forget the fact that many people simply don't want huge speakers intruding in their living space, as crazy as that may sound...though I'm sure an SDA could be made to fit in a smaller enclosure...

[DarqueKnight]

Originally posted by William Henry
If they were so good, why did they stop making the SDA line?
This is a frequent question about the SDA series. It seems that people often assume that something had to be "wrong" with the SDA series, hence, their discontinuance. SDA's were manufactured over a period of nine years (1982-1991). This is an exceptionally long time for an audio product. All products, no matter how "good" they are, are eventually discontinued. Times change, consumer's tastes change, markets change. Companies that can not or will not adapt to those changes usually go out of business.

Truly bad products are usually quickly put out of production and quickly forgotten (abandoned) by consumers. Truly good and/or exceptional products frequently become "classics" after their formal manufacturing run is over.

A strong testament to the quality and desirability (or "goodness") of the SDA series is the fact that a brisk trade in these speakers still exists 23 years after their market introduction and 14 years after they ceased production. Polk Audio has not "abandoned" the SDA series. They still provide parts and customer support for this line. Even more than that, they continue to provide improved replacement parts for this series (e.g. improved polyswitch, improved tweeters, etc.).

While I can not reasonably expect Polk to reintroduce the SDA line, I would like to see them expand their replacement parts program to include improved drivers and crossovers.

[William Henry]

Thanks for all the responses on the Polk SDA.

I did not know about tweeter update/replacements. What is the tweeter and how is it better?

Anyway to get new grills? A Xmas candle overflowed and sent streaks down the front of one grill. I was going to replace the grill cloth until I saw it was fastened with 3 zillion staples.

Thanks, SDA lovers!

[DarqueKnight]

You are going to have to remove the 3 million staples and stretch new grille cloth on the frame.

The replacement for the SL2000 is the RD-0194-1. The replacement for the SL3000 is the RD-0198-1. You can find a lot of information about these tweeters by doing a forum search on the part numbers.

[Strong Bad]

Originally posted by Polkmaniac
All good discussion...

and let's not forget the fact that many people simply don't want huge speakers intruding in their living space, as crazy as that may sound...though I'm sure an SDA could be made to fit in a smaller enclosure...

Also, in order for the SDA Effect to work properly and to it's fullest, a certain amount of space has to be made available for them. You can't just stick them anywhere convenient.

Why is bose so successful at selling their junk? Great marketing of small cubes that can be put almost anywhere, then hide the bass box behind a couch.

I think the SDA's physical size and space requirements were the biggest one-two punch of their downfall.


John

[William Henry]

I have a large a-frame room with west side all glass windows.

Many a day I have thought of a subwoofer...

Any suggetions.

SDA2 machines.

[F1nut]

I disagree with the size issue. There are plenty of LARGE high end speakers still made today and people still buy them. Polk Audio decided to go a different direction and is making a killing by doing so. It is a shame they gave up the high end market though.

[Strong Bad]

How dare you disagree with me!!! ;)



John

[William Henry]

I have often felt my
SDAs were absorbed in bass ....I think it may be the room.

Suggestions about subwolfs?

[F1nut]

I had to write a big check to Uncle Sam today, so I'm in a general disagreeable mood. :D

[F1nut]

If you have enough bass from your SDA's why do you want a sub?

[William Henry]

I think the issue is the size of the room vs SDA output.

[Strong Bad]

Originally posted by F1nut
I had to write a big check to Uncle Sam today, so I'm in a general disagreeable mood. :D

Uncle Sam got some from me too, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I didn't get raped nearly as bad as you.

Be walking funny for a while, ehh Jesse! :D


John

[Larry Chanin]

Originally posted by john d. strong
Also, in order for the SDA Effect to work properly and to it's fullest, a certain amount of space has to be made available for them. You can't just stick them anywhere convenient.

Why is bose so successful at selling their junk? Great marketing of small cubes that can be put almost anywhere, then hide the bass box behind a couch.

I think the SDA's physical size and space requirements were the biggest one-two punch of their downfall.


John

Hi John,

Yes, I agree that the SDA effect requires a cabinet no narrower than about a foot.

I also agree that nowadays there is a large market segment, especially in the mass market versus high-end market, that favors a small foot print.

And finally I also agree that this, coupled with the added costs of multple SDA drivers, helped to phase out the SDA's in the past.

However, there is a new development in Polk Audio's marketing strategy. Polk Audio has begun to enter into the Custom Installation market with their new line of In-Wall speakers and subwoofers. Therefore, in theory it is possible to design a new line of In-Wall SDA's in which size is not a factor.

I know that, as the name suggests, Stereo Dimensional Arrays were originally designed for two channel stereo sound. Nevertheless, as was demonstrated by the Signature Reference Theater version of the SDA's, the improved imaging of the SDA effect is not unwelcome in a home theater environment.

So whereas it might not be easy, it is possible in theory at least, to introduce a line of In-Wall SDA's with unparalleled imaging, which would appeal to the mid to high-end custom installation market, while circumventing the current aversion to large speakers.

Larry

[PolkFreak]

I would like to elaborate to the good points that have been made.
The following statements within this list will not be in any order.


1. The mainstream doesn't like huge bulky speakers and would rather have a skinny Popsicles tower for a home theater speaker. They think it looks better :cool:


The above reason is a big reason to follow this "trend" and start making skinny skeleton speakers that look like they are in need of some beef. To survive in the market and make money you have to change along with peoples needs and wants. The mainstream wants smaller speakers and Polk needs to make what the majority wants. A small number of us love our dinosaur sized speakers, but the big money is with appealing to larger groups. The bigger the group the larger the Pyle of money gets. More customers more money. If Polk still made big speakers they would have a small fan base and wouldn't have enough money to
stay in business. OK on to the next point because I've made the same point over and over, but just said it different :D


2. 5.1 surround is the "in" thing these days. The SDA is designed for 2 channel stereo. The mainstream could care less about having to sit in the SDA sweet spot. For some reason 5.1 surround has been crowned king of realism. People seem to think it is possible for a more realistic sound environment, but does a concert surround the listener like it does on 5.1 channel music cd? Add in the verity of ways the producer or whoever can put together the sound and it sounds even farther from realistic. Yes, this is my opinion, but a lot 2 channel listeners can agree. The performers are in front of the people they are playing for. Ya, you could have the rears do the screaming fans behind you, but those are the same people I want to choke or stuff a pair of gym socks in their mouth at a live event:mad: I do know that if 5.1 is used correctly it could sound O.K., but not as good as the SDA effect IMO.


Getting back to the fact that the SDAs were designed for 2 channel. I have heard people ask if they should have the SDA cable on or off for movies. Yes the SDA effect cancels crosstalk and
the sound is more separated between the two speakers, but the SDA sound stage wasn't designed to have rears speakers factored in the equation. The SDA sound wraps around the listener and when running in 2 channel with a music cd in a 5.1 setup you might be finding yourself putting your ear next to the rear speaker to see if it is running. The SDA sound stage is deep and having the rears running only interferes with the SDA sound stage and makes it sound like crap. To see what I mean put in a standard PCM cd that really shows off the SDA effect. Listen to it in two channel with the SDA cable in place. Now put your AVR to all channel stereo with the SDA cable still on. Now the rears are putting out the same music the mains are and it sounds like crap and you can see how bad it messes with the SDA sound stage. Realistically you wouldn't have that sound at a live event. It sounds really bad not to mention that all channel stereo was meant for background noise. The center channel makes music sound like crap as well and interferes with sound stage really bad as well. It smears the sound of the main left and right speakers. It destroys the separation between the main speakers. The sound tends to blur together. It also messes with the imaging of the 2 speakers. These are all my opinions and people are entitled to disagree if they want. So these are the reasons I take my SDA cable off for 5.1 channel home theater. That lets me use my SDAs as a regular, "stereo" speaker that would work in the same way todays NON-SDA speakers work for home theater. 5.1 channel sound may be crap for music to me, but on the other hand it works very well for movies. To me 5.1 is realistic for movies and has no problem putting me in the middle of the action. I only use my center channel for movies the way I think it should be. I should also mention that the SDA cable washes out the bass because the inner 6.5 inch mid/bass driver
on both SDA speakers is used for bass only and the outer drivers
on each speaker is used for midrange when the SDA cable is in place. Without the SDA cable all of the 6.5 inch mid/bass drivers do midrange and bass. My speakers also seem to be tougher without the SDA cable. I can turn them up louder on say rap music. Even though I'm not much of a fan of that type of music.


So 5.1 surround and smaller, "better" looking speakers as well as people that don't give two shits about good sound and want background noise at their dull lifeless parties. These people also make up the majority that we call the mainstream out number the
small number of people that like Hi-REZ sound formats and good sounding speakers that are the size of a commercial refrigerator.
Polk also directs their speaker design/cost ratio much of the same way. More people are willing to buy a mass produced speaker that has the same or better sound quality than one that is custom
built and super expensive. When the price point is out of reach to the majority less people will buy it in turn the company makes less money. I would also like to note that the last SDA Polk speaker I saw was in their year 2000 catalog which had 5.25 inch
drivers instead of the classic 6.5 inch drivers on the 80's Polks. These SDAs were in SRT home theater package aka The Signature Reference Theater system. These SDAs also had powered subs with the power port design. I think these are pretty rare because it was an expensive speaker package. I still own the 2000 catalog. I have been seeing people state that 1991 was the last year they made the SDA. It was the last year for the classic SDA. I just noticed how huge this post is.
:o

If you made it to this point this post didn't make you fall asleep and your lucky you didn't:D I also felt I had to explain how
the SDA technology works for those who didn't know or didn't get a clear answer. I bounced around a lot, but thats ok I guess.

I also forgot to mention that I too like others on the forum think
that live concerts sound like crap. Every instrument in a live concert seems to break the sound barrier. Well, this is true for the Perfect Circle concert I went to anyway. Everything was distorted and the output of the sound system was too much for that little building. None of the instruments were balanced. I'll also have to add that a live concert can't compare to the smooth
balanced rich sound of a pair of Polk SDAs IMO. I think the SDAs sound better than those big speakers they have at concerts, but things aren't always the same. Some bands might have a really good set of concert speakers that have quality sound worth hearing, but I'd still rather listen to my SDAs. Their sound quality is unique and is something that I've only heard on them.

[danger boy]

Originally posted by Polkmaniac
All good discussion...

and let's not forget the fact that many people simply don't want huge speakers intruding in their living space, as crazy as that may sound...though I'm sure an SDA could be made to fit in a smaller enclosure...

that's just crazy talk.... :p

think of it this way.... during the production years of all models of the SDA line of speakers.. does anyone really know how many pairs of SDA's were even sold?
hundreds? thousands?

So as i see it.. they were quite popular in their day.. but like everyone else has said.. times change. Some people I'm sure would not want two 155 lbs large speakers in their living room. Plus the cost of the time was probably quite expensive.

The used prices we all are buying them at now.. is way below what people were paying for them back then. Most of us are getting SDA's in the range of $200 - $800. that were orig cost $800 to $3000.

HOw many of us could plunk down close to $3000 for a pair of SDA's back 20 yrs ago? Now that same pair is going for $800. See the difference? New vs used prices.

that's my story and i'm sticking with it.

[jcmccorm]

Polkfreak, interesting.

I leave the IC cable (SDA cable) installed all of the time; movies, multi-channel music, and 2 channel music. Of course for movies, not everyone is in the sweet spot, but I haven't noticed any problems with that.

For multichannel music, it's almost always just me listening and I am in the sweet spot. Keeping the SDA cable installed hasn't been a problem. I am curious as to why you think the SDA effect is a bad thing for multichannel music.

I'm also curious about your statement regarding the SDA cable washing out the bass. Are you saying it changes the frequency/SPL curve in the lower frequencies? (reduces volume of the bass at some point)

I haven't experienced or heard of anyone having issues with SDA in a 5.1 environment so I'm really curious.

I will try running 2 ch music in 5 channel stereo with and without the SDA cable as you suggested.

Cary

[Larry Chanin]

Hi PolkFreak,

I'd like to take exception to some of your remarks.

Getting back to the fact that the SDAs were designed for 2 channel. I have heard people ask if they should have the SDA cable on or off for movies. Yes the SDA effect cancels crosstalk and the sound is more separated between the two speakers, but the SDA sound stage wasn't designed to have rears speakers factored in the equation. The SDA sound wraps around the listener and when running in 2 channel with a music cd in a 5.1 setup you might be finding yourself putting your ear next to the rear speaker to see if it is running. The SDA sound stage is deep and having the rears running only interferes with the SDA sound stage and makes it sound like crap. To see what I mean put in a standard PCM cd that really shows off the SDA effect. Listen to it in two channel with the SDA cable in place. Now put your AVR to all channel stereo with the SDA cable still on. Now the rears are putting out the same music the mains are and it sounds like crap and you can see how bad it messes with the SDA sound stage.

First, is there any harm in leaving the the SDA crosstalk cancellation on during a multichannel movie, say a Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation? It is true that SDA was originally designed for stereo and it produces out of phase cancelling signals in the SDA drivers to create crosstalk cancellation. So why should that be any different in a multichannel presentation? The main speakers are still receiving a stereo signal so the SDA drivers work as before, cancelling crosstalk in the main channels. Now if we were to play the EXACT same signals through the center and all the other surround channels, then I think perhaps a case could be made that this would interfere with the SDA presentation. However, 5.1 DISCRETE soundtracks by definition DO NOT produce the same signals in all channels.

It is true if you take two channel source material and apply a crappy surround process to it and deliberately reproduce the same signal in all channels it won't sound good. So don't do it. However, there are some excellent surround processors, i.e., Dolby ProLogic IIx and Lexicon's LOGIC7, etc., that can do an excellent job of extracting distinctly different signals from a two channel source, and still leave a good stereo signal in the mains to be used without damaging the SDA effect.


Realistically you wouldn't have that sound at a live event. It sounds really bad not to mention that all channel stereo was meant for background noise. The center channel makes music sound like crap as well and interferes with sound stage really bad as well. It smears the sound of the main left and right speakers. It destroys the separation between the main speakers. The sound tends to blur together. It also messes with the imaging of the 2 speakers. These are all my opinions and people are entitled to disagree if they want..

I agree with your previous remarks that there are a lot of multichannel music presentations in which the sound mixers have applied in appropriate sounds to the surround channels and this detracts from a realistic performance. However, that doesn't mean that ALL multichannel music presentations are poortly mixed and unrealistic. All live music venues have ambient noises surrounding the audience, some coming from the audience, but more importantly there are the unique sounds of the "Hall". These room reflections are necessary for the human ear to determine the spaciousness of the room. The art in mixing multichannel music is to apply these ambience effects realistically without detracting from the musical performance. I am not an audiophile, but some would argue that a correctly mixed multichannel soundtrack may come closer to the real thing because it is possible to precisely place the right amount of ambience effect in discrete surround channels placed behind the listeners. This permits recreating the sonic environment of the performance that tells us the size of the room.

In multichannel soundtracks the center channel is a separate discrete channel recorded apart from the main channels. It is used to help anchor the sound in the center of the soundstage by having a physical speaker located in the center. This can be done more accurately than a phantom stereo image, specially for listeners seated off-axis were the sounds erroneously shift to the nearest speaker. Another problem is comb filtering associated with stereo. Here inorder to center a phantom image we have two identical sounds (i.e, mono) coming from each main speaker. Listeners sitting off-axis will experience a delay between the two mono sounds coming from each main speaker which results in constructive and destructive reenforcement of the sound, otherwise know as comb filtering. With a center channel the mono signal is applied to a single center speaker, just as in real life. There is no second sound to interfere.


I should also mention that the SDA cable washes out the bass because the inner 6.5 inch mid/bass driver on both SDA speakers is used for bass only and the outer drivers on each speaker is used for midrange when the SDA cable is in place. Without the SDA cable all of the 6.5 inch mid/bass drivers do midrange and bass.

Perhaps some of the veteran SDS'ers can jump in here, but I though with the interconnect removed there is no means for the SDA drivers to receive a signal, consequently they are inactive.

Larry

[jcmccorm]

I think even I can answer the last one. I don't have my SDA Compendium here with me to check through schematics of all of the SDA's, but at least with the SRS's and 1C's (the speakers I have), if the SDA cable is left unconnected, the outside drivers are not fed any signal at all and only the inner drivers are working, so I think PolkFreak might be incorrect on that point.

Cary

[DarqueKnight]

If you disconnect the SDA cable and put your ear close to an SDA driver, you will hear a little output.

With the SDA cable disconnected, a very small, almost inaudible, amount of output does come from the SDA drivers, but most of this is due to the acoustic coupling between the SDA drivers and the stereo drivers. Most of the electronic signal going to the SDA array is blocked by a 16 mH inductor in series with the array. When the SDA cable is plugged in, this 16 mH inductor is bypassed and the phase reversed signal from the other speaker is sent through.

If you really want to hear what comes through the SDA drivers without the SDA cable, you would have to disconnect the tweeters and stereo drivers. Let us know what you find out.:)

[jcmccorm]

Thanks for correcting me Raife! I'm looking at the SRS schematics now in your compendium. I see the 16mH inductor in the return path for the SDA drivers. I knew that the SDA drivers moved without the interconnect cable but I assumed it was all due to acoustical coupling. I guess not (well, they will driven at some frequency, but it will be low due to the large inductor).

Cary

[Tour2ma]

Originally posted by DarqueKnight
If you really want to hear what comes through the SDA drivers without the SDA cable, you would have to disconnect the tweeters and stereo drivers. Let us know what you find out.:) Or use the balance control, if you have one...

There's no question in my mind that the move away from the SDA and the associated attempts to compete towards the high-end of the home audio market was a strategic decision dictated by profit potential.

Polk built itself on the modest, but impressive back of the mid-line monitors. They kept reaching for higher highs (and bigger bigs) in that line adding Mon 12's and the like which morphed into the original SDA's. The TOTL kept growing in size, and cost, until the release of the SDA SRS.

With the SRS series added to the mix, Polk found itself straddling a line up with a price range from $100 a pair to a near $3500. Hard to survive operating in a niche that approximates the width of the Grand Canyon. This is the bigger issue in my mind than the size or the other issues.

Did Polk make money on the SDA’s? Sure. As much as they did on the lines that followed? Not on a percentage basis. Dropping the PR’s for ported designs alone was a significant profit margin boost.

Esthetically the bigger SDA's do dominate a room by their sheer size, but they are not so demanding placement-wise that you have to build a room around them. There are successful companies producing more demanding speakers in that regard... Magnepan comes immediately to mind. And size alone does not explain the demise of the smaller SDA's, i.e., the 3.1tl and CRS's.

My speakers also seem to be tougher without the SDA cable. I can turn them up louder on say rap music. Even though I'm not much of a fan of that type of music. No one took this one, so I'll give it a whack... With fewer drivers in play SDA-less, you'd have to crank the volume up to match SPL levels. Not sure what dropping the SDA does to speaker impedance (if I could find my damn VOM, I’d know), but if I had to guess, I'd guess increases it which would reduce the current demands on the amp. This would give the appearance of the amp being beefier and let you crank it more. (Care to comment, Raife?)

As for SDA in HT being bad... that's not my experience. First, a qualifier... my SRS's are roughly centered and separated by 9' (center to center) on the long wall of my 21' x 15' den. In my room in 2 ch duty the SDA extends the width of the soundstage, often to the full 21'. Very seldom does it "wrap around" me. It happens, but it's rare. So I find that SDA reaches out to meet the side surrounds and creates a seamless sound field.

Years ago with my babies on the short wall of a smaller room, I experienced more “wrap-around” sound, with the occasional, “that came from behind me” experience. Maybe in that room the HT results would have been undesirable.

[DarqueKnight]

All good points Bruce.

I hesitated to suggest using the balance control to test the output of the SDA drivers because some preamps don't have them (as you alluded to) and some of the preamps that do have them will not fully attenuate the other channel when the balance control is turned all the way to one channel. My Adcom GFP-750 is one such preamp.

The dc resistance of my SDA 1.2TL's speakers remains the same whether the SDA cable is connected or not. Of course, dc resistance is not the same as ac impedance. I'll leave it to the interested reader to calculate the actual, frequency dependant impedance with and without the SDA cable.:p

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My speakers also seem to be tougher without the SDA cable. I can turn them up louder on say rap music. Even though I'm not much of a fan of that type of music.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm....well, I seldom "crank" my speakers and I seldom listen to rap "music". My sound lever meter measures an average 2 dB decrease in volume with the SDA cable of my 1.2TL's disconnected. Therefore, I had to turn up the volume a bit to get the same level without the SDA cable.

[BlueMDPicker]

Originally posted by DarqueKnight
While I can not reasonably expect Polk to reintroduce the SDA line, I would like to see them expand their replacement parts program to include improved drivers and crossovers.
And put those two guys in the back shop to work building enclosure kits! :D

Madisound (among many) make it financially through internet direct sales. And, most DIY customers seem quite pleased with the result of their labors. Polk discontinued its big box speakers long before the day of internet direct sales. I truly believe the larger SDA lines would be viable in kit form, if priced between $1500-2000. By eliminating the big slice of the pie (below), there's margin available for profits AND better components.

[Tour2ma]

Originally posted by DarqueKnight
All good points Bruce. Thanks, but upon further review...

If there was some business lesson learned at the end of the SDA era, it did not stick. Otherwise how do you explain the development of the SRT? Maybe a bit of reinforcement was needed... and the SRT delivered that in spades.

[jcmccorm]

I agree with what's been said previously regarding Polk wanting to penetrate the speaker market in the sweet spot, which precludes the big SDA's. However, nobody has commented on the SDA effect itself. I suspect that it is no longer necessary with the popularity of multichannel recordings (movies and music). It may even be undesirable. If it were, manufacturers would be doing the "SDA thing" in the amplifier or source, where it's much less expensive to implement.

Cary

[DarqueKnight]

Originally posted by Tour2ma
If there was some business lesson learned at the end of the SDA era, it did not stick. Otherwise how do you explain the development of the SRT?

The development of the Signature Reference Theater (SRT) system was in keeping with Polk's desire to move into the growing home theater market. Perhaps they assumed (incorrectly) that the same people who bought large SDA's would ditch them in favor of a large home theater system. When that didn't work, they moved to home theater systems with smaller speakers.

[Larry Chanin]

Originally posted by jcmccorm
I agree with what's been said previously regarding Polk wanting to penetrate the speaker market in the sweet spot, which precludes the big SDA's. However, nobody has commented on the SDA effect itself. I suspect that it is no longer necessary with the popularity of multichannel recordings (movies and music). It may even be undesirable. If it were, manufacturers would be doing the "SDA thing" in the amplifier or source, where it's much less expensive to implement.

Cary

Hi Cary,

For the reasons I stated earlier, I don't think that Interaural crosstalk cancellation and multichannel recordings are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, the effect can be subtle and it does require sitting in the sweetspot for maximum effectiveness, and perhaps we are dealing with the law of deminishing returns. Obviously, in a home theater with an audience versus a solitary listener, it is not possible for everyone to be in the "sweet spot".

As far as electronic approaches to Interaural Crosstalk Cancellation, such as Sonic Holography, etc., it's my understanding that the sweet spot is even smaller than with SDA's. Therefore, even less of the audience would be able to hear the benefits, hense even more diminishing returns.

Whether or not the SRT series was a commercial success, it's obvious from a pure technical standpoint that Matt Polk didn't think that multichannel recordings were undesireable for the SDA effect. As you know the SRT series was an SDA series specifically designed for 5.1 listening.

Larry

[xsmi]

Originally posted by Emlyn
I don't agree that there was a link between Polk's halting of production of SDA two-channel speakers and the move to Circuit City, because the move away from independent dealers to Circuit City happened several years after Polk stopped making the SDA speaker line in Baltimore.


Although Polk was not in CC until many years later, they were in Crutchfield around 1993 with the LS series. A good friend of mune who was selling Polk equipment told me that Polk was looking mass market much earlier than that so don't discount this theory as part of the entire picture too fast.

[BobMcG]

And BTW, Hi Larry, nice new setup!


... I also enjoy running my HT in SDA mode but not exclusively. I do like to experiment by running it without for streches but I end up going back to the SDA way. I just prefer it.

I'm using 2Bs in the rear and can connect/disconnect the IC when I wish. The RT3000p fronts powered by a Counterpoint Solid 2 Amp have a Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator between the amp and the P/SP 1500 which can be engaged/disengaged with the push of a button. (This was Carver's active approach to SDA as opposed to Polk's passive approach.) The SDA sweet spot can be changed depending on what setting you choose. I find that setting the Listening Apperature to "Wide" rather than the "Narrow" setting in conjunction with the Injection Ratio set at "Theoretical" rather than "Normal" gives me the most enjoyable SDA sound stage in this paticular room environment. (Similar to my 2.3s stereo system.)

Although I don't listen to music that much on this system my other half does. (Doesn't mess with the main 2ch rig but uses the other two systems.) When it is used for music it is run in SDA stereo mode only and sounds quite nice indeed.

BTW2 Thanks again to George Grand and his closet of audio goodies where I got the C-9 some years ago.

[Larry Chanin]

Originally posted by BobMcG
And BTW, Hi Larry, nice new setup!


... I also enjoy running my HT in SDA mode but not exclusively. I do like to experiment by running it without for streches but I end up going back to the SDA way. I just prefer it.

I'm using 2Bs in the rear and can connect/disconnect the IC when I wish. The RT3000p fronts powered by a Counterpoint Solid 2 Amp have a Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator between the amp and the P/SP 1500 which can be engaged/disengaged with the push of a button. (This was Carver's active approach to SDA as opposed to Polk's passive approach.) The SDA sweet spot can be changed depending on what setting you choose. I find that setting the Listening Apperature to "Wide" rather than the "Narrow" setting in conjunction with the Injection Ratio set at "Theoretical" rather than "Normal" gives me the most enjoyable SDA sound stage in this paticular room environment. (Similar to my 2.3s stereo system.)

Although I don't listen to music that much on this system my other half does. (Doesn't mess with the main 2ch rig but uses the other two systems.) When it is used for music it is run in SDA stereo mode only and sounds quite nice indeed.

BTW2 Thanks again to George Grand and his closet of audio goodies where I got the C-9 some years ago.

Hi Bob,

Thanks.

It's good to see you've found the time to make it back to Club Polk.

Also thanks for elaborating on the Carver Approach to Interaural Crosstalk Cancellation.

Does your surround processor provide true stereo surrounds so you can benefit from using the interlink on the rear SDA-2B's? Even with stereo rears I would think that it would be very difficult to hear the SDA effect from the rear since our hearing is not as acute when listening from behind.

Regards,

Larry

[BobMcG]

The rear amp for the 2Bs is only on when playing a movie (as is the center amp) so it's not involved with stereo operations, which is the only way music CDs are used on the HT. I have the 3000's subs run with the front amp using Vampire Wire "Y" connectors. (Only the Velodyne is connected to the sub out.) This way when the DSP is set to stereo mode it's the Counter Point Solid 2 driving the 3000s Sats and the subs are operating too. I keep these subs set to music all the time. This allows me full range 2ch stereo and SDA RT3000Ps at that. Not bad all things considered. IE: Being a HT after all and the problems accociated with it rather than being a dedicated 2ch rig. Plus the HT rig is in the living room I abandoned years ago for serious stereo use due to accustics. Not that it's horrible or anything but I found much better elsewhere in the house.

For movies, I've used the 2Bs with and without the IC connected and have found that it really depends on what is being sent to them when as to how much the IC has an audible effect. With that in mind I end up just leaving the cable connected. I don't find it having a detracting or negative effect either so....

[Larry Chanin]

Originally posted by BobMcG
The rear amp for the 2Bs is only on when playing a movie (as is the center amp) so it's not involved with stereo operations, which is the only way music CDs are used on the HT.



For movies, I've used the 2Bs with and without the IC connected and have found that it really depends on what is being sent to them when as to how much the IC has an audible effect. With that in mind I end up just leaving the cable connected. I don't find it having a detracting or negative effect either so....

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the response.

When you referred to "the rears" in your prior posting I assumed you were talking about surround back speakers, as in a 7.1 home theater configuration, but I may have misunderstood. Many surround processors, even when set to 7.1 don't provide true stereo to the surround back speakers (rears) because they send mono to both back speakers. My point in asking my question was that in order to get the SDA effect, even with the interlink connected, you must have a true stereo signal sent to the rear speakers.

I agree that leaving the interlink connected shouldn't have a negative effect on sound, but without a stereo signal to the rears it won't have the SDA effect.

Larry

[madmax]

Originally posted by danger boy
that's just crazy talk.... :p


HOw many of us could plunk down close to $3000 for a pair of SDA's back 20 yrs ago?


After getting my first real job I walked in to a frequented audio store eager to buy a pair at the full $3400 price. I had no money, an old car and rented. I did have the credit. It would have taken me years to pay it off but I was willing after hearing them. What a testiment to their sound! (I was very tight with my finances).

I didn't get them only because I heard a salesman offer a customer 10% off and since he didn't buy them I told the same salesman I would take them for 10% off. He said "sorry, I will only sell them for full price". After a good FU to the store manager I left without them and the next day returned a $400 CD player I purchased from the same salesman a few days earlier.

madmax

[BobMcG]

Ok now I gotcha. Right on about not getting a stereo signal, duh.

As to the 7.1 systems.... nothing against 'em but I'm not sure if they're up my alley. More investment for what value returned? Maybe if I were more interested in movies??? Not that I don't use it but I don't really use the HT all that much as it is. Maybe one thing would feed another I dunno. Like upgrading the 36" Panasonic TV to something much better would be nice and might stir me to do more but I can't stand the thought of diverting funds to do it. I'd be more inclined to use the $$ to upgrade something on my main HS instead. I guess I'd just rather be close enough to someone like you or Ralph or Russ and just stop by for viewing on occasion. Hey, who knows, maybe that would get my interest up. :)

[Polk65]

...during the production years of all models of the SDA line of speakers.. does anyone really know how many pairs of SDA's were even sold?

In my experience of auditioning Polk's locally for several months in 1989 (on the west coast) I saw no one else buying or checking out the Polk's. I had a 50/50 chance of having to wait for the salesman to finish with a customer selling a stereo or vcr before I could start listening to some Polk's.

...So as i see it.. they were quite popular in their day.. but like everyone else has said.. times change. Some people I'm sure would not want two 155 lbs large speakers in their living room.

I liked that they gave more than the sound of popular satellite systems of the time and their size :D
There was just something about being in the presence of these monoliths that was pleasurable. My first woody? No but close. I'm lucky that I had the chance to listen to some great sounding systems at that young age to know Polk's were speakers worth saving for.

...HOw many of us could plunk down close to $3000 for a pair of SDA's back 20 yrs ago? Now that same pair is going for $800.

I was single and saved for a couple of months fresh out of high school and paid $2300 something for my 2.3's. It wasn't entirely out of reach if I could do it with my meager means, others could have.

[Larry Chanin]

Originally posted by BobMcG
Ok now I gotcha. Right on about not getting a stereo signal, duh.

As to the 7.1 systems.... nothing against 'em but I'm not sure if they're up my alley. More investment for what value returned? Maybe if I were more interested in movies??? Not that I don't use it but I don't really use the HT all that much as it is. Maybe one thing would feed another I dunno. Like upgrading the 36" Panasonic TV to something much better would be nice and might stir me to do more but I can't stand the thought of diverting funds to do it. I'd be more inclined to use the $$ to upgrade something on my main HS instead.

Hi Bob,

Yes, I understand your priorites, especially if you're fundamentally a music guy. If I was in your position I too would upgrade my display first before upgrading my surround processor. Having said that, from a home theater perspective, the greatest improvement in my home theater sound came when I upgraded to a 7.1 Lexicon processor.

I took the gradual route to home theater upgrades. First I had a Prologic processor, one of the old ones that came out before Dolby Digital was even invented. Then I added a very cool add-on gadget from Vantas (which has since gone out of buisness) that added amplification and additional surround processing to permit playing 5.1 Dolby Digital using my old receiver. Then I added an other surround processor from SMART DEVICES that permitted the decoding of the EX channel for 6.1 processing. In each step I was very satisfied with the incremental improvement in surround processing. Then as I mentioned, I replace all those ADD-ONs to ADD-ONs with a Lexicon MC-1 processor which could handle 7.1 with stereo surround back channels. Even though I was accustomed to 6.1 processing, the Lexicon's processing was so sophisticated that it almost sounded like magic how sound could be precisely steered across the room. Finally I upgraded the Lexicon MC-1 to the MC-8. (There was an improvement from the prior Lexicon, but not as big an improvement as the prior upgrade.)


I guess I'd just rather be close enough to someone like you or Ralph or Russ and just stop by for viewing on occasion. Hey, who knows, maybe that would get my interest up. :)

Well, if you're ever in the Sarasota, Florida neck of the woods, look me up. I'd enjoy your company. While I doubt I'd be able to supplant your true love, music, I'm sure I'd be able to change your attitude toward movies by showing you how good a collection of old and new Polks can sound in a home theater.

Regards,

Larry

[BobMcG]

Thanks for a look into your HT evolution. I too went the Dolby Surround to Dolby Pro-Logic to Dolby 5.1 Digital route but never took it any futher.

And thanks, I do have three cousins and their families living in the Winter Haven, Orlando area. Not that I visit much but if I'm down that way I'll let you know so we get together.

[jfeinman]

I'm a supervisor for the TV/Home Audio Department at a Circuit City. Our store is unique to the other 600 or so stores around the country in that we have lots of customers who would buy much higher end audio products than Circuit City Corporate chooses to buy (we could sell LSis, and RTis, but all we offer are the Monitor Series and the RMs). My take on why SDAs aren't around is because of Bose, the Flat Panel TV craze and trendy interior design choices. You go through all the trouble of getting a flat panel, so you can wall mount it to save space. Last time I took a look at my SDAs, they weren't exactly space saving speakers.

Bose's marketing scheme has also all but killed tower speakers in the consumer line market (which unfortunately, is where you are going to get the most money). I personally hate Bose, I think they are some of the worst speakers on the market. I'm good at tactfully trashing them when I'm selling home audio products to my customers, and knowing the ins and outs of why Bose sucks (20 dollar drivers, localized bass in the subs, frequency response gaps between 202hz and 280hz, no response after 13khz, efficiency around 83dbs), I can demo them next to polks, bostons, and hell, even panasonic and onkyo HTIBs and show how awful they really are. The thing tho, is that if I ask 10 customers what brands of speakers they've heard of, 7 of them will only mention Bose.

Bose has convinced the general public that we don't need big speakers, and that the sound isn't any better. Bose may suck a golf ball through a garden hose, but I get married men all the time who are like "look, if I bring those towers home, my wife is going to kill me". Its often Bose, or no external audio at all.

Or to better put it, customers prioritize appearance far above sound quality. Think big box stores like CC or Best Buy will take a chance and contract with companies like Martin Logan, B&W, or purchase higher-end Polk? Think again. We're both in a fight for our lives against Walmart, the king of quantity over quality.

[RuSsMaN]

Thanks for the input on a 2 year old thread.

Polk still uses SDA tech, btw.

Cheers,
Russ

PS - It's not rocket surgery. It's 1. Listening to music. 2. On the Hifi. All the rest doesn't matter.

[GV#27]

I'm a supervisor for the TV/Home Audio Department at a Circuit City.... I personally hate Bose, I think they are some of the worst speakers on the market. I'm good at tactfully trashing them when I'm selling home audio products to my customers.It is good to see that atleast some who work at the big chain stores try to steer customers toward better products than simply going for the easy slam dunk Bose sale.:)

[dorokusai]

The Surround Bar 50 (http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/flatscreens/surroundbar50/) uses L&R channel SDA.

[Polk65]

Thanks for your post and taking the time to use the search function. Welcome to the forum. It's refreshing to hear of someone offering choices. There are several other bring back the SDA threads but here are two you might enjoy reading.


2006-1027 - Why were SDA's discontinued? by Matthew Polk
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45468


2004-0527 - Matthew Polk on SDA
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19132

[ABX]

Perhaps the SDA's were discontinued due to market acceptance ?
IOW, they did not sell well enough, and perhaps Polk wanted to go in another direction.
Or, perhaps they did sell well, but Polk found them not as profitable to make as it's smaller stuff ?

[Gary Batson]

After getting my first real job I walked in to a frequented audio store eager to buy a pair at the full $3400 price. I had no money, an old car and rented. I did have the credit. It would have taken me years to pay it off but I was willing after hearing them. What a testiment to their sound! (I was very tight with my finances).

I didn't get them only because I heard a salesman offer a customer 10% off and since he didn't buy them I told the same salesman I would take them for 10% off. He said "sorry, I will only sell them for full price". After a good FU to the store manager I left without them and the next day returned a $400 CD player I purchased from the same salesman a few days earlier.

madmax

In '83 after reading an artical in High Fidelity magazine, I went into the Hi Fi Buys on Nolensville road in Nashville to hear the Polk SDA 1's. They were in the " ELETE " room and the door was locked. I was told I had to have an apointment to hear them. No one was in there. The sales person ignored me and wouldn't let me in. In another room where the regular run of the mill speakers lined the walls were a pair of Polk model 10's. I listened to all the speakers in the room and the model 10's were the most natural sweetest sounding speakers in the whole room. I left there and ordered a pair of SDA 1's unheard from a shop in Atlanta and they were sent by freight right to my door. ( MORAL OF THE STORY IS IT DOESN'T PAY TO BE A SNOB ).

[steveinaz]

SDA had a love/hate relationship with listeners. I never cared for it. A little too contrived, and a sometimes way over-emphasized midrange turned me off. I had always wished that Polk would build those huge monsters as a contemporary stereo pair---I would have been all over them.

[spasticpitbull]

SDA = Fun

[ABX]

SDA had a love/hate relationship with listeners. I never cared for it. A little too contrived, and a sometimes way over-emphasized midrange turned me off. I had always wished that Polk would build those huge monsters as a contemporary stereo pair---I would have been all over them.
What ones had an overemphasized midrange ?
I did hear some phasey stuff in early ones, is this what you mean ?

[ABX]

SDA = Fun

S tereo
D one
A mazing

S o
R ussMan
S ings

1
D ay

[rskarvan]

After a good FU to the store manager I left without them and the next day returned a $400 CD player I purchased from the same salesman a few days earlier.

madmax

Exactly what I would have done!

[heiney9]

SDA had a love/hate relationship with listeners. I never cared for it. A little too contrived, and a sometimes way over-emphasized midrange turned me off. I had always wished that Polk would build those huge monsters as a contemporary stereo pair---I would have been all over them.

For me personally, it's all about the recording. One done right sounds fantastic on the SDA's (just like a stereo pair). A recording with unrealistic and overemphazied processing and fake intstruments and lots of reverb, echo, etc. sounds a little contrived (just as it would on a stereo pair).

I was listening to a recording the other day just a female solo, no other instruments. Sounded like she was in a large cachphonous music hall and I could actually hear the echo, which would come off the back wall of the music hall right behind me in perfect time. I was literally blown away that the SDA could capture that so realistically, as that's the way it was recorded. This wasn't fake reverb or added effects.

$hit like that is what makes a properly set-up pair of SDA's so enjoyable. Sucky recordings still sound sucky on the SDA's as with a stereo pair of speakers.

H9

[heiney9]

What ones had an overemphasized midrange ?
I did hear some phasey stuff in early ones, is this what you mean ?

Special K, you do get phasey stuff occasionally with the early SDA's that have a dimensional tweeter. I don't really notice any overemphasized mids. They aren't lean that's for sure, but overemphasized is, IMO, to strong a word. There is a pleasant midrange bloom that many Polk speakers lean towards that I do notice on certain material.

As always recorded material can be the culprit for some less than realistic issues sometimes with SDA's, but I don't find that too often and it's hardly distracting unless it's extreme. I also find that those are the same kind of recordings I dislike on conventional stereo speakers as well.

H9

[spasticpitbull]

For me personally, it's all about the recording. One done right sounds fantastic on the SDA's (just like a stereo pair). A recording with unrealistic and overemphazied processing and fake intstruments and lots of reverb, echo, etc. sounds a little contrived (just as it would on a stereo pair).

I was listening to a recording the other day just a female solo, no other instruments. Sounded like she was in a large cachphonous music hall and I could actually hear the echo, which would come off the back wall of the music hall right behind me in perfect time. I was literally blown away that the SDA could capture that so realistically, as that's the way it was recorded. This wasn't fake reverb or added effects.

$hit like that is what makes a properly set-up pair of SDA's so enjoyable. Sucky recordings still sound sucky on the SDA's as with a stereo pair of speakers.

H9

That is balls on. I never notice the big SDA "craze" till i popped in one of my "Instant Live" Allman Brothers recroded right from the Board... Then i knew what SDA was all about. I agree with H9. All on the recording.

P

[steveinaz]

What ones had an overemphasized midrange ?
I did hear some phasey stuff in early ones, is this what you mean ?

No, more like a "hooty" midrange where voices would jump out at you in a less than normal fashion. It wasn't a midrange driver issue, it was the "sda" effect over-doing in an effort to sound more 3-dimensional.

Listen to Incubus "Are you in?" on ANY SDA, you'll see what I mean. The vocal chorus is overdone, contrived---pushed 3 feet in front of the speaker, IMO. The emphasis there on "In my opinion." That's just one of many examples. The sound is unnatural to me.

I had both SDA speakers (SDA-CRS+) and Carver sonic holography thru the years, and I thought Carver did a better job (albeit also too contrived for my taste) at 3 dimensional soundstage. In Polk's defense, SDA was far more forgiving of where the listener(s) was seated.

[ABX]

Special K, you do get phasey stuff occasionally with the early SDA's that have a dimensional tweeter. I don't really notice any overemphasized mids. They aren't lean that's for sure, but overemphasized is, IMO, to strong a word. There is a pleasant midrange bloom that many Polk speakers lean towards that I do notice on certain material.

As always recorded material can be the culprit for some less than realistic issues sometimes with SDA's, but I don't find that too often and it's hardly distracting unless it's extreme. I also find that those are the same kind of recordings I dislike on conventional stereo speakers as well.

H9
I find Polk SDA's pleasant sounding speakers, very musical

[ABX]

No, more like a "hooty" midrange where voices would jump out at you in a less than normal fashion. It wasn't a midrange driver issue, it was the "sda" effect over-doing in an effort to sound more 3-dimensional.

Listen to Incubus "Are you in?" on ANY SDA, you'll see what I mean. The vocal chorus is overdone, contrived---pushed 3 feet in front of the speaker, IMO. The emphasis there on "In my opinion." That's just one of many examples. The sound is unnatural to me.

I had both SDA speakers (SDA-CRS+) and Carver sonic holography thru the years, and I thought Carver did a better job (albeit also too contrived for my taste) at 3 dimensional soundstage. In Polk's defense, SDA was far more forgiving of where the listener(s) was seated.
I agree, the Carver Holography is more wild sounding.

[Vr3MxStyler2k3]

Heard SDA in many setups, different rooms, different gear, some good - some bad...

One thing remains, I've yet to be truly impressed. Staging is good, I find they contain little depth and not a great amount of clarity.

But I'm still trying to hear them setup good.

[ABX]

No, more like a "hooty" midrange where voices would jump out at you in a less than normal fashion. It wasn't a midrange driver issue, it was the "sda" effect over-doing in an effort to sound more 3-dimensional.

Listen to Incubus "Are you in?" on ANY SDA, you'll see what I mean. The vocal chorus is overdone, contrived---pushed 3 feet in front of the speaker, IMO. The emphasis there on "In my opinion." That's just one of many examples. The sound is unnatural to me.

I had both SDA speakers (SDA-CRS+) and Carver sonic holography thru the years, and I thought Carver did a better job (albeit also too contrived for my taste) at 3 dimensional soundstage. In Polk's defense, SDA was far more forgiving of where the listener(s) was seated.
Sorry, I have never listened to Incubus that I know of.

[jimclass]

20 years ago I dreamed of getting SDAs and never realized that dream...until recently. Got a pristine pair of SDA 2As. In a week of listening, my conclusion is that the recording production is THE key factor in good SDA sound. For instance, I'm a big Beatles fan and found the Beatles music on the SDAs unimpressive. Then I put on the FRESHLY REMIXED Beatles LOVE cd. Wow. A huge leap in the soundscape and general audio quality. This cd really shows off what the SDAs can do. Just huge.

I am not in any way as versed in technology as some of you in these forums, but I am a musician and fully understand musical quality. I have lots of home recordings and recordings of my various bands that I am intimately familiar with. I was shocked when I listened to these on my SDA 2As. They really emphasized just how poorly some of the material was produced. Some of the soundstaging was heavily weighted on one side. Most of it was just poorly placed in the soundscape. This made me realize that the SDA effect is not very forgiving of poor recordings. But it does wonders with well-conceived and well-produced recordings.

Now I am on a quest to find the best stuff in my collection for the SDA effect. So far, Peter Gabriel's Security (incidentally my test CD 20 years ago) and his latest UP are big winners, and the aformentioned Beatles LOVE.

Without buying the whole bible (Compendium) does anyone out there have info on the development and succession of the SDA line? Where does the SDA 2A stand as far as "best" of the bunch? They sound pretty good to me (my other speakers are vintage Energy Pro22, very good.) The sound of the SDA 2A is similar, but the Energys have deeper and much tighter bass.

Why is there a 2B? Was it just the real wood cabinets? Is the 2A considered to be a better speaker than the 2 or the 1A? I will probably never rebuild any of the components like some of you, so I don't need the big book. I am considering a subwoofer to get a better bass sound that is deeper, tighter and not boomy.

I welcome your thoughts.

[F1nut]

How close to the back wall do you have your speakers?

[jimclass]

I have them about 8 feet apart and 3 inches from the wall. The distance from each speaker to the sweet spot is also 8 feet, as advised. I tried them farther out from the wall, but it seemed the SDA effect was not as defined. I find that when my NAD amp is past about 9 o'clock on the dial the sound gets "noisier" and less musical, but I suspect that is the room's fault. The couch is right up against the wall, unfortunately.

[heiney9]

The couch is right up against the wall, unfortunately.


Same in my room and this does limit the SDA effect because of reflections off the wall immediatley behind you. I find just leaning forward on the edge of the couch makes a big difference. Unfortunately there is no other set-up I can use for my listening room.

H9

[jimclass]

I actually rearranged the entire room for the SDAs. I used to have open space behind the couch, but the walls were too close together for these speakers. Fine for my Energy Pro22s and also DCM TimeWindows, but the SDAs needed 3 ft minimum on the sides. So the room went 90 degrees, and the couch goes up against the wall. Damn, I need a bigger house for my stereo!

[HeadphoneAddict]

For me personally, it's all about the recording. One done right sounds fantastic on the SDA's (just like a stereo pair). A recording with unrealistic and overemphazied processing and fake intstruments and lots of reverb, echo, etc. sounds a little contrived (just as it would on a stereo pair).

I was listening to a recording the other day just a female solo, no other instruments. Sounded like she was in a large cachphonous music hall and I could actually hear the echo, which would come off the back wall of the music hall right behind me in perfect time. I was literally blown away that the SDA could capture that so realistically, as that's the way it was recorded. This wasn't fake reverb or added effects.

$hit like that is what makes a properly set-up pair of SDA's so enjoyable. Sucky recordings still sound sucky on the SDA's as with a stereo pair of speakers.

H9

That's similar to the experience I had with the particular Handel's Messiah recording that I recommended in the Playlist thread - pinpointed soloist positions in the ambience of a huge cathedral.