rdo-194 vs rdo-198

[Deadof_knight]

Whats the difference ,,, I have too admit i havent a clue can someone verse me on this ....

[kcoc321]

Weell... IDK all the technical bits, but the RDO-194 is designed as a direct replacement for the SL2000 & SL1000 (the SL1000's require a slight modification of the inset)
The RDO-198 is the direct replacement for the SL2500 & SL3000 tweeters.

[Deadof_knight]

Good enough I assumed that they all fit in the same holes being that they looked at a distance so close in size.

Sonically does anyone know the difference?

Weell... IDK all the technical bits, but the RDO-194 is designed as a direct replacement for the SL2000 & SL1000 (the SL1000's require a slight modification of the inset)
The RDO-198 is the direct replacement for the SL2500 & SL3000 tweeters.

[cnh]

Well, for one thing the 198s are the better of the two because they were used in the HIGHER model Polks and the tweeters they replace were the better/newer designs. So expect a bit better resolution, imaging and detail.

cnh

[joelll]

In that case, CNH, why would Polk have brought out two different modern replacements rather than just one? Only having one design instead of two is an advantage for requiring simpler manufacturing and lower warehousing costs.

The SL-1000 (made by Peerless) was used in my RTA-12's, which were the top of Polk's line back when they were made in 1979.

I believe there may be a technical reason...

[dorokusai]

The xover design dictated the difference.

[cnh]

In that case, CNH, why would Polk have brought out two different modern replacements rather than just one? Only having one design instead of two is an advantage for requiring simpler manufacturing and lower warehousing costs.

The SL-1000 (made by Peerless) was used in my RTA-12's, which were the top of Polk's line back when they were made in 1979.

I believe there may be a technical reason...

What Doro said...but also if you read the literature on the SL3000--Polk itself...says that was their BEST tweeter at that TIME! So I assumed it's replacement would have to meet higher standards...my wrong if this is not so....

But please do read about the SL3000. The Peerless tweeter is 'another' story entirely. And some feel that it is even better than its RDO replacement so what you're talking about is the Exception.

Also do a search on this site and read what people have to say about their 194s and 198s...yes the crossovers are different...but?

Sounds like you like specs....A LOT! I'm pulling your leg, of course.....

cnh

[joelll]

I actually don't pay too much attention to specs... but the vintage Polk *sound* on the other hand, is something special.

I love the Peerless tweeters in my RTA-12s, they really put out a sound I like. Before I had to put them into storage (as I save to buy a house), they were used for 2-channel and as mains in my 5.0 HT system, along with a CS400i center and a pair of EPI A70's for surround. The L-C-R speaker matching sounded really quite good with the Dynamic Balance tri-laminate tweeter in the center.

If I had a loan of pairs of RDO-194 and 198, I might consider testing them with the RTA-12's... no cabinet modifications needed as the tweeters are just sitting on top of the crossovers atop the cabinets.

[F1nut]

SL1000's......ugh. You definitely need to get the RD0194-1's. Forget the RD0198-1 as they are not designed for your speaker.

[BAD ASP]

When I called Polk to purchase the replacements for my 1.2's I was informed that the correct choice was the 194's. Since I was replacing them all and they were the same price I asked the same question, why not buy the 198's if they were sonically better. I was informed that wasn't necessarily the case, the 194's were the correct choice for my speaker because of the crossover. I could have purchased either but followed Polk techs recommendation. FWIW

[kcoc321]

......I love the Peerless tweeters in my RTA-12s

The SL-1000 (made by Peerless) was used in my RTA-12's, ..

Joel, do you have silver or black tweeters? Because as far as I know, there is/ was no "Peerless" SL1000. The Peerless tweeters are black, with the angled traces, the SL1000 face plates are silver, and made by Polk. But I always like to find out new stuff about Vintage Polks...

SL1000 by Polk


Peerless tweeter

[Deadof_knight]

hmmmmm..... decision decisions !!!

[nduitch]

Has anyone tried the replacement peerless tweeters on ebay?

[dane_peterson]

At $45/piece, why would you bother? You can get RD0s for nearly the same.

[nduitch]

Well, they are both made in China. Probably in the same factory.

[dorokusai]

In that case, CNH, why would Polk have brought out two different modern replacements rather than just one? Only having one design instead of two is an advantage for requiring simpler manufacturing and lower warehousing costs.

The SL-1000 (made by Peerless) was used in my RTA-12's, which were the top of Polk's line back when they were made in 1979.

I believe there may be a technical reason...

It's far easier to provide a high quality replacement tweeter than an entire xover assembly to the customer. Sure, it's not rocket science, PER SE but 99.9% of people are plug and play...who wouldn't be, it's cool. The technical reason is not just xover based either.

The SL series is an evolution of the tweeter technology that was present at Polk at that time. Some of the same designers are still doing what they do although the cauldrons and animal sacrifices have ceased to be in the lobby area. While I'm sure they appreciate the manufacturing advice, the engineering deptartment has more than enough years under their belt to handle daily sacrif....I mean activities.

Mark

[xoaphexox]

When I called Polk to purchase the replacements for my 1.2's I was informed that the correct choice was the 194's. Since I was replacing them all and they were the same price I asked the same question, why not buy the 198's if they were sonically better. I was informed that wasn't necessarily the case, the 194's were the correct choice for my speaker because of the crossover. I could have purchased either but followed Polk techs recommendation. FWIW

Would the same go for a 1.2TL or would the RDO-198 be the correct choice?

Is switching out SL3000 tweeters for RDO-198's even an 'upgrade'? Has anyone tried it?

Thanks

[F1nut]

The RD0198-1 is the correct replacement for the SL3000 and the SL2500.

Is switching out SL3000 tweeters for RDO-198's even an 'upgrade'? Has anyone tried it?

The forum is full of that info.

[xoaphexox]

Thanks, I tried using Google to cull the information out but it wasnt so good, I also only see 4 pages of threads in the vintage speakers forum. I guess I'll keep digging. Thanks.

[F1nut]

For future reference, use the advanced search feature.

The short answer is yes, a great many have tried them and they are a vast improvement.

[heiney9]

Well, for one thing the 198s are the better of the two because they were used in the HIGHER model Polks and the tweeters they replace were the better/newer designs. So expect a bit better resolution, imaging and detail.

cnh

Hmmm......so a Monitor 5 series II is a higher end speaker than an SDA 1C?

H9

[cnh]

Hmmm......so a Monitor 5 series II is a higher end speaker than an SDA 1C?

H9

Not really Brock...perhaps I should have taken greater care with my wording. What I was going by when I wrote the 'old' post was Polk's own literature on the SL3000....which as you know, was an experiment in vapor metal deposits (JBL also had something similar going on at that time after they developed the O35TI pure titanium dome...they introduced titanium laminates?). My reference was meant ONLY with regards to tweeter tech...not overall speaker design? In Polk's press release--and I was merely extrapolating from that...they touted the SL3000 as their best (at that time?)--so my assumption (then) was that Polk's replacement for that tweeter (RD0-198) would be better (tweeter only technology)? You can think of it as the way people look at Peerless vs. the SL1000 and SL2000--most people prefer the Peerless to those in the Monitor series? In this case--a previous design is seen as more desirable. One certainly would not say that SDA-As with SL2000s are a worse speaker than my Monitor 5As (I own both). But I would say that the Peerless tweeter in my M-5As is the 'better' tweeter? And if that is not the case...if a tweeter can't be better or worse than another...why are so many trying to TL SDA 2Bs among other speakers?

If I am wrong in my reading of that...I certainly defer to your more nuanced and deeper understanding and experience of Polk Speakers.....

Thanks for calling attention to my, perhaps, lax, wording.

cnh

[xoaphexox]

For future reference, use the advanced search feature.

The short answer is yes, a great many have tried them and they are a vast improvement.

Thanks, I contacted Polk about getting some. Waiting to hear back.

[F1nut]

Call, never email.

[heiney9]

Not really Brock...perhaps I should have taken greater care with my wording. What I was going by when I wrote the 'old' post was Polk's own literature on the SL3000....which as you know, was an experiment in vapor metal deposits (JBL also had something similar going on at that time after they developed the O35TI pure titanium dome...they introduced titanium laminates?). My reference was meant ONLY with regards to tweeter tech...not overall speaker design? In Polk's press release--and I was merely extrapolating from that...they touted the SL3000 as their best (at that time?)--so my assumption (then) was that Polk's replacement for that tweeter (RD0-198) would be better (tweeter only technology)? You can think of it as the way people look at Peerless vs. the SL1000 and SL2000--most people prefer the Peerless to those in the Monitor series? In this case--a previous design is seen as more desirable. One certainly would not say that SDA-As with SL2000s are a worse speaker than my Monitor 5As (I own both). But I would say that the Peerless tweeter in my M-5As is the 'better' tweeter? And if that is not the case...if a tweeter can't be better or worse than another...why are so many trying to TL SDA 2Bs among other speakers?

If I am wrong in my reading of that...I certainly defer to your more nuanced and deeper understanding and experience of Polk Speakers.....

Thanks for calling attention to my, perhaps, lax, wording.

cnh

Thanks for eloquent post, but I was mostly just busting your balls :tongue:

H9

[cnh]

You got me--it's like my sense of humor leaves me at times. It was good seeing you at PolkFest but I am sorry I was not able to stay through the entire period so we could talk a bit and I could thank you for the articles on Pass amp designs and all the info on Adcoms that you have posted on this site. I've found a ton of great advice in your posts. Helped me and my evolving system. At this point...a set of SDA-2Bs, Adcom GFA-555 [original design], (Onkyo/Integra P-304--as a pre till I save the money for the GFP-750 and pop some RDOs in the 2Bs.). As well as the Office system....Monitor 5As and a NAD integrated for now.

cnh

[Aural Euphoria]

If these SL 2000s go out in my Monitor 10s, what should I replace them with? moreover, is there an accessible replacement for the wonderful mid/woofer cones that are in them now. One of them makes an unpleasant sound when driven too hard. Sounds as if it's bottoming out. Also, if I knocked out one of the tweeters with too much volume once, but then it quickly came back after a short rest, do you think I've damaged it permanently? (Lotas questions there....) Love these damned speakers! $200 for the pair? Are ya kiddin' me?

[deronb1]

If these SL 2000s go out in my Monitor 10s, what should I replace them with? moreover, is there an accessible replacement for the wonderful mid/woofer cones that are in them now. One of them makes an unpleasant sound when driven too hard. Sounds as if it's bottoming out. Also, if I knocked out one of the tweeters with too much volume once, but then it quickly came back after a short rest, do you think I've damaged it permanently? (Lotas questions there....) Love these damned speakers! $200 for the pair? Are ya kiddin' me?

RD0-194s are the direct, drop-in replacement for the SL2000 tweeter. Much smoother, especially at higher volumes. I think you can use either MW6503 or MW6510 for the mid/woofer drivers. Are they Monitor 10Bs?

[Aural Euphoria]

I would presume so from what I've read. They have the SL2000 (horizontal, not angled wiring on the outside fascia; clear dome with pinhole) and the passive radiator is black coating with grey surround, nothing with an earth tone or brown tinge. I actually can't tell...

[Aural Euphoria]

What I don't get is if these are so special--and they do sound very good--why can they be built with a ton of spare parts? Is it just the box that's hard to acquire, or is there that much difference in these replacement parts. And if what i read about the replacement parts being superior is true, why don't people just buy all the parts and make their own?