Welcome to Club Polk dawaldo! Great stuff!! Stick around, I think you will find this to be the best audio club/forum on the internet.
Printable View
Welcome to Club Polk dawaldo! Great stuff!! Stick around, I think you will find this to be the best audio club/forum on the internet.
If you remember back to when you first heard of SDA, you thought it was some marketing BS. Then you heard it. I had this exact experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight
Where can you hear SDA today? I wish it were different. How many specialists are left? Just thinking out loud...would you be interesting in some sort of In-Home demo program supported by us? Say someone expresses interest and we give them your contact info to set up a demo with you?
Yes I would...
Wow.....new here, just went from the Polk site to see some "new" stuff and found this forum......thought I was the "Last of the SDA-SRS" owners....bought mine new in 87 an have never look'd back, they still perform flawlessly to this day...was a choice between the Polk's, or Klipcshhorns(yeah, the big corner units)...and was'nt satisfied till I had the Polk's....as some have stated, hard to drive, had a Yamaha amp/preamp set-up at the time, and would'n cut the mustard with these....tried settle'n for a Nakamichi PA7 w/Carver preamp, and shut the Nak down,easily.....then tried a Bedini amp.....clipped it out....settled for a Perreaux 3150, and this amp can deliver.....have gotten away from the Carver unit, currently run'n the Perreaux w/ a Harmon Kardon AVR 325 w/pre-outs.....have been thru lots of other cd players and various components, but the HK, Perreaux, and , of course the SDA-SRS's have stood the test of time....friend's of mine talk about their power'd subs go'n down in the low 20's...think I'm full o' s**t when I tell'm that don't need a sub, these things'll go down to 11!.......Are the driver's/tweeters still available for these??Quote:
Originally Posted by dawaldo
:cool:
I would be more than happy to demo new SDA technology for others from my home, provided it is a new two channel setup and I get to keep it!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by kab
sure -- why not???Quote:
Originally Posted by kab
but I doubt many people on their way to Ocean City are gonna make a pit stop to listen to SDA technology in Easton. But I'm in.....
-- wayne --
I had some 12's and 4's in the SDA family and they were superb. I loved the boxless and trasparent musicality. I remember lusting after the SDA-SRS. To this day, SDA's are a great sounding speaker line. Starting in the 80's with the inane "Digital ready" to many vapid market trends have ruined a good thing. SDA, RTA, Monitors...they all work perfectly for music or HT. No need for the latest trend, specialized drivers or hype.
kab,Quote:
Originally Posted by kab
I would be willing to allow potential buyers to come over to my home and listen to my 1.2TLs. Count me in:D
An idea for Polk to consider is a "CUSTOM ORDER" option. Polk could crunch numbers and let Polk members know what it would cost to have one pair of speakers custom made, ten pairs made , etc. They can be called "xxx Anniversary Edition":D
Obviously, there is a certain price point that would make this endeavor worth the effort for Polk, based on a certain number of speakers made at one time. Additionally, there is a certain price point that will trigger serious interest (especially in this current economy) from consumers.
So the question to Polk is: How many pairs of one particular speaker model (1.2TL, etc) must be ordered (and paid for in advance), in order for Polk to manufacture and make a profit as well as satisfy the growing number of loyal Polkies?
If it results in 50 pairs of the 1.2TLs being made at one time and the price being $5,000/pair, count me in. If the price exceeds $5,000 but is less than $10,000, count me in and I will pay an additional $100.00 for you not to tell my wife that I bought another pair of Polk speakers.
It becomes a "put your money where your mouth is" situation.
Thanks for considering.
Couldn't one just build their own SDA's with higher end drivers and tweeters with a custom built crossover for less then $5000? not necessarily using polks drivers and tweeters?
Just thinking out loud, some of you guys that understand the ends and outs of this better then I might be able to chime in on this thought. I would think that some one has tried it. I know Ben built his but he still used polks drivers if I'm not mistaken.
The bigger question would be what drivers and tweeters should be used in a dream that I don't see happening. if I recall some speaker manufactures have done anniversary editions.Quote:
Originally Posted by toucanet
I think that IF they were to built an "Aniversary Edition", it would be more of a tribute type design than a copy of the original. The cabinet would be massive, but probably tapered like the new RTi-A line or it may be such a complete break with the past that it would not be recognized as such. Any new SDA would have to be of such a high standard in all regards that it would become the benchmark for all Polk designs that follow for decades to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by TOOLFORLIFEFAN
I guess it'd depend on where the Patents stand at this point whether or not you could legally "make" your own SDA type speakers. There is another route to getting something very similar to the SDA effect and it can be done with todays smaller speaker enclosures. Vintage Carver preamps plus several stand alone units produce "Sonic Holography". I prefer SDA myself and almost every piece of gear I own is Carver ! There are still people who debate until they're blue in the face who came up with the effect first, and who had to pay who off in a settlement..........I don't know, I DON"T CARE ! I tried SH on my Monitor 10s using a Carver C-11 pre & TFM-35 amp, after a LOT of fussing with placement of the 10s............damned if it didn't sound like Stereo Dimensional Array !!:eek:;):D PS: Sunfires have SH too.
To me Carvers SH was never convincing and I would never mistake it for SDA's. Polk has the active technology to pull off a more modern version of the SDA's (as in smaller less intrusive cabinets). If you went strictly passive then the cabinets pretty much have to stay the same in order to utilize the dimensional drivers properly.
The Surround Bar's that Polk produces have an active circuit that "tricks" the mind using DSP algorithms which took Matt and a few others over 7 years to perfect. It was discussed by Matt Polk that *IF* he were to do a modern day SDA he'd most likely use a combination of active and passive methods. Much like his own personal LSi 9's configured in a modern day SDA arrangement using both active and passive methods.
All I can say is don't hold your breath
H9
gdb: the earliest Polk patents refer to the Carver patents as "prior art" and explain what's different. The patents were granted so the patent examiners accepted the differences. Polk also refers to patents by Hafler, Cohen, and several others that experimented with methods for more realistic acoustic image. Pretty interesting stuff to read through.
I imagine most of these early Polk patents (from mid/late 80's) are expired.
Are you saying there was some settlement between Polk and Carver? I wasn't aware of that. It would seem like a pretty concrete outcome though, so I'm not sure why there would be debates. Got any more info on that?
No one can say for sure what transpired between Bob Carver & Matthew Polk except the two of them...
I can tell you what happened as a result of their great minds and creativity:Quote:
Originally Posted by TNRabbit
Damn good preamps/amps/speakers and other things that still hold value very well.
I asked Matt about this issue at Polkfest in Baltimore. He dismissed it as very trivial. I think we should all let it go at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TNRabbit
I'm looking forward to the official SRT --> LSI upgrade kit being released by Polk. Can't wait to hear how that ring radiator tweeter sounds in mine. :D :pQuote:
Originally Posted by dorokusai
Agreed, and I think it fair to say that both men are blown away by the continued popularity of their creations and by the devotion of those that own and restore them.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by toucanet
As for patents, so long as Polk doesn't use any new patents, they can freely use any expired. McIntosh Labs still produces the same products from decades back; the reason they're the only ones producing some of the amps is because the techniques McIntosh patented are difficult (but not illegal) to reproduce.
To be honest, I could see Polk reviving the SDA's. Producing three models would probably be their best bet; a lower-end for small rooms, a middle-end, and a high-end. Perhaps to release a factory version of the 4.1TL's (CRS+'s), 1C's, and 1.2TL's. The backbone for distributing high-end products that weigh hundreds of pounds exists; McIntosh equipment being available only in B&M's and weighing >100lbs a box proves it. Surely, new SDA's wouldn't be available in a Walmart, Best Buy, or FYE. Directly ordering the smaller loudspeakers or having a "white glove" delivery & setup service may be the best idea (like what Newegg does for some of their largest products; server racks, some televisions, and large appliances).
My 2 cents.
A smaller, stand mounted SDA speakers that are the size of a LSi9 sitting horizontal. They could stand alone or be paired with a subwoofer or pair of sub woofers that could also be the stand mount if the owner wanted 2 subwoofers. A matching center channel and package/market it as a HT system that is also a respectable 2 channel set up. I would think that a ported SDA series would be smaller and have a better WAF and fit into today's decor.
I personally like what SDA does with my 5.1 system while watching TV or movies.
Scott
I'm new to this post and just acquired a pair of SDA 2B's and a pair of Monitor 10's from the same gentleman. I was running two pair of Pioneer CS 99A's. I know you guys aren't impressed with those in terms of sound. I love the build quality of the cabinets.
Having said that, the Polks are really great sounding. I researched room placement and played around with that for a solid week, winding up more than pleased. The guy who sold them to me made his own interconnect cable, but it turned out he didn't do it right. One wire & not a second to the spade sockets. Once I built a set according to a post on another site, the SDA effect just came alive! I'm blown away. I then realized the limits of my Marantz 140/3600 setup. The amp just didn't have the balls at higher listening levels and immediately started clipping.
I then fired up the Pioneer SX 1010 and was more pleased. I could drive the SDA's and/or the 10's with no problems. Apparently, the SDA's like higher current & more watts. I was pleased, but curious so I got out the Kenwood KR 9600. Same result, improved clean sound at even higher levels. however I've gone back to the 1010 because of an obviously better bass response. At least that's what my ears tell me.
Incidentally, the guy who sold the Polks to me has the SRS 1.2's Bi-amped with Pioneer Spec 2 amps/Spec 1 Pre. He doesn't have the best listening area, very long & narrow room in the basement. I've spoken with him about critical placement & correct interconnect cabling, so he's in for a surprise. Thanks for all the knowledge passed around here guys.
Welcome to the forum... it's fun when a new Polkie is christened by not one, but two pairs of speakers! :D
SDA's are an outdated technology. If you want to understand how the SDA system works take a look at this whitepaper.
http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/w...WhitePaper.pdf
The premise is that the recording point is somewhere out in the stage, where both L and R audio signals from the source speakers converge. Today's recordings are tapped at source, meaning the recording audio signals are captured at the same point they make their way to the source speakers (either on stage or in movie recordings). This eliminates any of the intra-aural crosstalk that these speakers are trying to get rid of in the first place. The result is that some of the frequencies that both channels were supposed to output are cancelled out or diminished in this speaker system. This is true typically of low frequency signals, resulting is less bass than what the actual soundstage had.
Its not a good technology for today. May have worked for live recordings in concerts but not anything else.
ES.
Right..... They suck for studio recordings.... :rolleyes:
Sorry newbie, you could not be more WRONG!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by eswaroop
Clueless...Quote:
Originally Posted by eswaroop
Hello ES,
You're probably going to get as much flack from your posting as an unescorted B17 flying over Berlin in the daylight in 1942.
The crosstalk the SDA speakers were designed to reduce is not so much the result of the recording technique used, but rather what happens when two speakers are placed in a room. Sound from the left channel reaches the left ear, but some of it is heard by the right ear. The same thing happens with the sound produced by the right audio channel. The result is a diluting of the stereo image potential. Next time you're listening to a sound system try this experiment. Place one of your hands vertically between your eyes, resting the edge of your hand close to your head. Then take the other hand and place it in front of the first one, creating a barrier between the left half and right half of your face. See how this changes the stereo image you hear, strengthening the sound-stage.
I'm sure many other SDA owners will chime in and give you their experience.
You might want to put on that flack jacket, now.
Cheers, Ken
While the technology IS dated, it works wonderfully.
Especially on "outdated" recordings, older stuff with lots
of separation in the recording. And for the money how do you
beat SDA's ?
Some people grow into long pants too.Quote:
Originally Posted by eswaroop