Why were SDA's discontinued dated October 27,2006 by Matt Polk

[Kim]

Why were SDA's discontinued? by Matthew Polk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the answer to that burning question written by Matthew Polk.

This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer mainly because there is no simple answer. We began selling the SDA products in 1982 and stopped making them around 1990 except for a brief revival with the SRT system made in 1995 and 1996. From the first SDA-1 shown at CES in June 1982 customers loved them. However, this was not necessarily true of the retailers. SDA was a radical departure from the traditional audiophile concept of how audio should be reproduced and many of the salespeople in stores at that time were audiophiles. As a result, many of them hated SDA and steered customers away from them. In addition, because of the way SDA speakers work many retailers did not get them set up properly for demonstration which didn't help either. In spite of this SDA products sold amazingly well particularly when you consider how expensive they were relative to most everything else on the market. As I recall the original SDA-1 started out at $1,600 per pair retail at a time when most stores had nothing over $1,000 per pair. But, anyone who actually got to hear them was absolutely blown away and we were able to get a few good reviews particularly from Michael Riggs at High-Fidelity who described SDA as "Mind-boggling, astounding!". By 1986 we had a full line of SDA products from the SDA CRS+ at under $1,000 to the SRS-1.2 at $3,500.

But, the industry was changing rapidly. First, the era of big speakers was coming to an end and non-hobbyist customers were starting to prefer the then new sub-sat systems and the then brand-new concept of in-wall speakers. SDA speakers were big. The classic side-by-side driver arrangement meant a wide front baffle for any SDA product just as the trend was going to narrow towers and smaller speakers in general. Second, the small independent retailers were gradually turning into large regional chains with huge open format stores and non-hobbyist salespeople. The result of this was that retailers began to lose the ability to really demonstrate the performance of audio products. It's really impossible to describe the experience of SDA to someone. It really has to be demonstrated. So, as the stores became less and less able to demonstrate high performance products customers didn't have an opportunity to experience what SDA could deliver. Third, the development of digital electronics and surround sound drove the cost of high quality audio components rapidly upward but drove the cost of low quality surround sound receivers rapidly downward with a commensurate reduction in performance. Because of the channel cross coupling in SDA it is always a difficult load for an amp to drive. Many of the new multi-channel receivers just couldn't do it. So, with fewer and more expensive high performance amps the options for good SDA electronics became very slim.

So, a combination of changes in what non-hobbyist customers wanted and what the retailers were capable of selling plus changing technology made the SDA products much more difficult to sell. Of course it had nothing to do with the performance of the SDA systems which continues astonish people even today.

-msp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Kim : 10-27-2006 at 05:14 PM.

[ka7niq]

Thank you Kim for posting this!
I still think Polk should consider bringing this technology back.

[DarqueKnight]

Kim,

Please make this a sticky.

[ka7niq]

Amen!
Matt has spoken!

[engtaz]

Thanks for the info.

engtaz

[engtaz]

1 question: With all these online companies selling speakers at or above the price of what the SDA's were selling for; why not bring back SDA's line and sell them online, letting internet and public reviews drive sells?

Just a thought and thinks again for the info,
engtaz

[cfrizz]

They still won't sell because they are simply too large.

[rskarvan]

I'm thinking that Matt gave a very politically correct response. The truth is probably something closer to.... we had plans to shift production from Baltimore to Mexico and ultimately to China to reduce costs. As a result, shipping very large speakers was going to become very expensive and cut into the business profit margins. So, Polk decided to start selling speakers with cheaper shipping costs... ahem... smaller footprints.

[Face]

They still won't sell because they are simply too large.
There's still plenty of large speakers available from McIntosh, Tannoy, JBL, etc..

[ka7niq]

1 question: With all these online companies selling speakers at or above the price of what the SDA's were selling for; why not bring back SDA's line and sell them online, letting internet and public reviews drive sells?

Just a thought and thinks again for the info,
engtaz
Yeah, excellent idea.
M<aybe offer a 30 day trial factory direct.

Polk got a LOT of mileage from TAS Review because high end audiophiles recommended Polks to their friends.
I think a new Polk SDA array, using todays better drivers and computer design, would sell enough to be worthwhile.
Polk NEEDS a Super Flagship, and what better battleship then a new SDA SRS ?

[engtaz]

I thought the 3.1TL I have are the perfect size along with the CRS.

engtaz

[ka7niq]

I'm thinking that Matt gave a very politically correct response. The truth is probably something closer to.... we had plans to shift production from Baltimore to Mexico and ultimately to China to reduce costs. As a result, shipping very large speakers was going to become very expensive and cut into the business profit margins. So, Polk decided to start selling speakers with cheaper shipping costs... ahem... smaller footprints.
You may be correct ?
Infinity is, or was Polk's rival in CC.
They shifted from Mexico to China, so Polk had to compete.
Infinity had Floyd Toole and the Canadien NRC Guys.
A good story to sell speakers.
I think a real flagship product will help Polks overall sales, like the Infinity IRS did for them.

Let's design it right here, right now ?

It;s name shall be - GMASRS
Great Mother Of ALL SRS.

It shall be a dual line array with a single ribbon tweeter of high efficiency.
One line shall be for stereo,, one for dimension.
And either a progressive line of tweeters, or a single tweeter ?

It NEEDS a story, so Matt must go back to John Hopkins to test and develop the drivers.
Matt also needs to be back in a white lab coat, staring up at you from the pages of the new ads.

Or conducting Laser Interferometry tests in the ads.

Yes, an American at an American University building an American Speaker for the world. :)

[RuSsMaN]

Did ClubPolk just jump the shark?

[Early B.]

I thought this quote from Matt was very interesting:

SDA was a radical departure from the traditional audiophile concept of how audio should be reproduced and many of the salespeople in stores at that time were audiophiles. As a result, many of them hated SDA and steered customers away from them.

A new version of the SDA technology would make great HT speakers, but would have a hard time selling to audiophiles, partly for the reason Matt mentioned. It ain't natural sounding. Besides, the HT market is substantially larger than the 2-channel audiophile guys, so it makes more sense to promote the HT aspect. If the SDA came back, it should be sold as a 5.2 system with dual powered subs supporting the front speakers, and CRS-size surrounds with SDA cable. Total system cost would likely be approx. $20,000.

[heiney9]

It ain't natural sounding.

I don't get this statement about SDA's. Stereo isn't natural sounding either. Sure we have all been accustomed to stereo recordings for a long time, but stereo isn't anymore natural sounding than SDA.

There is no recording devise or playback devise that can reproduce sound in 100% accurate way the way our ears are accustomed to hearing natural sounds. Stereo and SDA are but 2 of a few methods to try and mimmick real sound. IMO, most times SDA's come closer than strictly stereo. Its highly dependent on the recording which is the single most important aspect of reproducing sound.

H9

P.s. SDA's aren't for everyone because they don't fit into the concieved notion of how something should sound which has been based on stereo since the 40-50's.

[33535403]

I made some study to remake the SDA CRS (I already has a intage pair, LSi9, and RTA12). Buying materials from Club Polk will cost approximately $600. This price do not include building the cabinet/box. This consist of buying the replacement drivers (4-MW6503), tweeters (4-SL2000), bass radiator (2-SW102), and crossover network (4-crossover networks--2 for stereo and 2 for dimensional). The schematics are available in this forum and so are the description of parts and prices. Some parts like binding posts, etc is available in "Parts Express". If you have carpentry skills and love the SDA, this is the only way to get the new SDA with improved parts and not worry about your vintage speaker freeze up due to the magnets shifting and rubbing the voice coil (I just had my driver replaced and with curiosity, I disassembled the driver and found out a few months ago, the glue became soft, got hard again with the magnet move/shifted). With some amateur slodering, and wiring skill, this is possible. This also applies to any SDA line if you can buy replacement parts. Since Polk Audio do not make them anymore, why can't we using the replacement parts being sold in Polk store. Polk makes the profit (by us buying the parts), and saves Polk Audio to remake and build the cabinet. What do you think?

[Joe08867]

What??????:confused:

[33535403]

I made some study to remake the SDA CRS (I already has a vintage pair, LSi9, and RTA12). Buying materials from Club Polk will cost approximately $600. This price do not include building the cabinet/box. This consist of buying the replacement drivers (4-MW6503), tweeters (4-SL2000), bass radiator (2-SW102), and crossover network (4-crossover networks--2 for stereo and 2 for dimensional). The schematics are available in this forum and so are the description of parts and prices. Some parts like binding posts, etc is available in "Parts Express". If you have carpentry skills and love the SDA, this is the only way to get the new SDA with improved parts and not worry about your vintage speaker freeze up due to the magnets shifting and rubbing the voice coil (I just had my driver replaced and with curiosity, I disassembled the driver and found out a few months ago, the glue became soft, got hard again with the magnet move/shifted). With some amateur soldering, and wiring skill, this is possible. This also applies to any SDA line if you can buy replacement parts. Since Polk Audio do not make them anymore, why can't we using the replacement parts being sold in Polk store. Polk makes the profit (by us buying the parts), and saves Polk Audio to remake and build the cabinet. What do you think?

This is if you really love 2 channel/stereo sound and your SDA's, and don't mind re-building one.

[33535403]

Sorry, no offense but I don't buy cheap home theater package. I have two home theater systems at home and 2 sets of "stereo music only" listening rooms. Home system 1: Amp, Onkyo 838. Fronts-Polk Audio RTA12, Sub-12 inch Klipsch. Center, Polk CS200. Surrounds-Polk dipole/bipole. Home system 2: Amp, Onkyo 939. Fronts-Klipsch towers. Center, Polk CS200. Surround-Polk M4, Sub-Velodyne VRP 1200. Stereo Listening 1: Amp, Outlaw RR1250. Speakers, Polk SDA CRS. Sub, Velodyne VRP 1200. Stereo Listening 2: Pre-amp, Adcom GTP 550. Amp, Hafler P3000 TransNova. Speakers, Polk LSi9.

[ka7niq]

I still think Polk needs a Flagship, a statement piece that will rock the audio world.

[33535403]

What??????:confused:

Sorry, no offense but I don't buy cheap home theater package. I have two home theater systems at home and 2 sets of "stereo music only" listening rooms. Home system 1: Amp, Onkyo 838. Fronts-Polk Audio RTA12, Sub-12 inch Klipsch. Center, Polk CS200. Surrounds-Polk dipole/bipole. Home system 2: Amp, Onkyo 939. Fronts-Klipsch towers. Center, Polk CS200. Surround-Polk M4, Sub-Velodyne VRP 1200. Stereo Listening 1: Amp, Outlaw RR1250. Speakers, Polk SDA CRS. Sub, Velodyne VRP 1200. Stereo Listening 2: Pre-amp, Adcom GTP 550. Amp, Hafler P3000 TransNova. Speakers, Polk LSi9.

[DarqueKnight]

I'm thinking that Matt gave a very politically correct response. The truth is probably something closer to.... we had plans to shift production from Baltimore to Mexico and ultimately to China to reduce costs. As a result, shipping very large speakers was going to become very expensive and cut into the business profit margins. So, Polk decided to start selling speakers with cheaper shipping costs... ahem... smaller footprints.

Interesting. Matt Polk straight out says they needed to change their product line with changing market conditions, but some choose not to believe him. I love a good conspiracy, but this ain't one. Manufacturers routinely ship automobiles, furniture, refrigerators, and other large items from China and other overseas locations because there is a market for what they are selling. The shipping costs just get tacked on to the product. Matt could probably finance a new limited quantity "boutique" SDA line out of his pocket if he wanted to. However, I understand that sometimes you just need to, or want to move on. Ford isn't making vintage mustangs or thunderbirds anymore, even though both cars have large followings.

They still won't sell because they are simply too large.

I agree, with this qualification: They still won't sell because they are simply too large for Polk's current customer base. Although some audiophile brands are still making large speakers, they are niche players in today's home theater driven audio market place.

It would be difficult to find a more enthusiastic SDA enthusiast than me. Notwithstanding my rabid devotion to this speaker series, I did the following:

1. Replaced the SDA 1B's in my master bedroom system because of their size and form factor. They were replaced with a pair of Magneplanars and a subwoofer.

2. The SDA CRS+'s were taken out of my home office because one day I decided that I would like to have furniture in that particular place. A pair of slim towers (like the VM30's) would look real nice in their place.

3. I will probably replace the SRS's in my home theater system with something just as tall, or nearly as tall, but much narrower. This will be done simply for aesthetics.

The 1.2TL's are staying put in the two channel rig until I find something "better".;)

[cfrizz]

Thanks DK. That summed it up perfectly.

[e-spice]

Thanks so much for posting that. I have always wondered about that.

[dorokusai]

How you haven't found something better is beyond me but I believe the SDA Compendium is the best thing I've read in years. The only thing missing is a photo on the back cover with a short biography of your pimping days and the Spice Girls tour.

[Texas42]

I can see both sides of this I guess. I have wanted a pair of SDA's since I first auditioned them in the mid 80's at a Hi-End retailer in Ft Walton Beach, FL. Ended up with Theils at that time but loved the sound of the SDAs. I 'finally' got a pair of SDAs (1b's) a couple of months ago but then almost convinced myself they were too 'big' for the room (more physically than acoustically it turns out). I finally slapped myself around a bit and decided to keep the SDA's. True, the aren't the most attractive girl in town but she sure has the right moves...:D

[ben62670]

SDA's do not need to be "too big"
It would be so easy to create some SDA's the size of LSI9's on their sides. I am thinking of building some with a speakercon connectors so no one would screw hooking them up, would already have a HQ speaker cable, high quality caps, resistors, and inductors, and a neat appearance.

[KevinLWhitaker]

Download the white paper on the Surround Bar. Not only is it an excellent read but it goes into some depth about SDA and how that is applied to achieve surround sound in the new Surround Bar.