Free Shipping on All Orders 1-866-764-1801

Vist our Online Store
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27
  1. #1

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4

    Default Questions about stock 2.3TL Crossover

    I have a pair of 2.3TLs that I have had for many years. They rarely get any use because they are in the downstairs family room. I decided to fire them up the other day and thought they sounded like crap. Specifically there was very little high end. I pulled to the front covers and realized that the #1 tweeters in both speakers were fried. The overall sound was somewhat muddy, with very little clarity. So, I began an internet search for replacement tweeters and stumbled upon this site. I ordered a pair of 198s from Polk (I realize it might not be ideal to mix 198s with the 3000s). I then started reading this forum to educate myself on these speakers. Now I am thinking about the crossover upgrade, so today I pulled my crossovers and discovered some interesting things

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG0191.jpg
Views:	89
Size:	514.1 KB
ID:	85026Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG0192.jpg
Views:	92
Size:	502.2 KB
ID:	85027

    First, it seems like Polk deviated quite a bit from the schematic with the cap values. The 16uF cap in the schematic is replaced by a 4.4uF and 4.2uF run in parallel on both of my crossovers. Same situation with the 16uF and 18uF caps. both have dual caps run in parallel that do not add up to the stated values in the schematics. does anyone have any insight on this?

    Also there are two 750pF caps run in parallel with both the 8uF and 16uF caps. on one of my boards, one of these 750pF caps is missing. If you look closely, you can see that one lead of the 8uF cap is connected to the far side of the R2 location on the board. If you flip over the board and look at the tracings, it appears that this configuration is incorrect. In order for the 750pF cap to be in parallel with the 8uF cap, the 8uF cap should be connected to the near side of the R2 position on the board. Does this make sense or am I missing something?

    I noticed that the Gimpod upgrade does not include the 750pF caps.
    At any rate, I am looking forward to making the upgrade, and would not have even been aware of it if not for stumbling on this great forum.

  2. #2

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Pocatello, Idaho
    Posts
    1,448

    Default

    There's tons of mods that you can do to those, welcome to the club, you can pick up a ton of information here
    Home Theater
    Onkyo PR-SC5508 Sharp LC-70LE847U
    Emotiva XPA-5 Emotiva XPA-2 Emotiva UPA-2
    Front RTi-A9 Wide RTi-A7 Center CSi-A6 Surround FXi-A6 Rear RTi-A3 Sub 2x PSW505
    Sony BDP-S790 Dishnetwork Hopper/Joey Logitech Harmony One Apple TV
    Two Channel
    Oppo 105D BAT VK-500 w/BatPack SDA SRS 2.3 Dreadnought Squeezebox Touch Apple TV

  3. #3

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    The lack of high end is likely due to the polyswitches failing and therefore blocking any signal to all of the tweeters. The tweeters work as a progressive point source with the top tweeter being full range, the other two are frequency limited and will not sound like they put much out even when working properly.

    What's really interesting is the crossover label. It should read 2.3TL/BR2200-C and I've never seen a label with "new" printed on it. Perhaps the "B" stood for buzzed.

    First, it seems like Polk deviated quite a bit from the schematic with the cap values. The 16uF cap in the schematic is replaced by a 4.4uF and 4.2uF run in parallel on both of my crossovers. Same situation with the 16uF and 18uF caps. both have dual caps run in parallel that do not add up to the stated values in the schematics. does anyone have any insight on this?
    Did you mean the 8uF was replaced by a 4.4uF and 4.2uF? That would be 8.6uF and within 10% tolerance.

    Also there are two 750pF caps run in parallel with both the 8uF and 16uF caps. on one of my boards, one of these 750pF caps is missing.
    Yep, someone had too much magic smoke in them building your crossovers.

    If you look closely, you can see that one lead of the 8uF cap is connected to the far side of the R2 location on the board. If you flip over the board and look at the tracings, it appears that this configuration is incorrect. In order for the 750pF cap to be in parallel with the 8uF cap, the 8uF cap should be connected to the near side of the R2 position on the board. Does this make sense or am I missing something?
    I noted the same thing on mine and another that I did for a member. That 750pF was doing nothing.

    I noticed that the Gimpod upgrade does not include the 750pF caps.
    That's correct. They are not needed when upgrading to superior film/foil caps.
    Last edited by F1nut; 05-11-2013 at 08:11 PM.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  4. #4

    Member Sales Rating: (17)

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    11,299

    Default

    For my pair of 1.2tl's I didn't have the time to rebuild so I used www.VR3Audio.com to build mine:

    Name:  WP_20130507_004.jpg
Views: 191
Size:  290.5 KB

    They do 2.3TL's as well.
    Polk Audio SDA SRS 1.2TL's
    With new Exotic wood, Sonicaps, Mills & RDO198's - Born on 4-24-1989 and Signed by Matthew Polk!!!!


    My Polk SDA SRS 1.2TL's http://www.LASAREATH.com/


    It All Started here: http://tinyurl.com/lasareath2

    Part Deux: http://tinyurl.com/lasareath3

    Car Stereo---->http://www.salsleaf.com/leaf_stereo/index.htm<---- NEW for 2013

  5. #5

    Member Sales Rating: (1)

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Hey guys,
    I don't check in much, but happened across this thread. When I redid my crossovers they had the same 2200-B New labels on them (I'm the original owner):

    Left x-over:



    Right x-over:



    Somewhere I also have the measured R, L, and C values from both crossovers before I rebuilt them.

  6. #6

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    The lack of high end is likely due to the polyswitches failing and therefore blocking any signal to all of the tweeters. The tweeters work as a progressive point source with the top tweeter being full range, the other two are frequency limited and will not sound like they put much out even when working properly.

    What's really interesting is the crossover label. It should read 2.3TL/BR2200-C and I've never seen a label with "new" printed on it. Perhaps the "B" stood for buzzed.



    Did you mean the 8uF was replaced by a 4.4uF and 4.2uF? That would be 8.6uF and within 10% tolerance.

    Yep, I meant to say 8uF.

    Yep, someone had too much magic smoke in them building your crossovers.



    I noted the same thing on mine and another that I did for a member. That 750pF was doing nothing.



    That's correct. They are not needed when upgrading to superior film/foil caps.
    Thanks for the information. Helps a lot.

  7. #7

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    I have to think both of you have very early 2.3TL's. Hence the "B" with 2.3 and "new" to distinguish them from the original 2.3's because Polk had not assigned the TL to them yet.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  8. #8

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    I have to think both of you have very early 2.3TL's. Hence the "B" with 2.3 and "new" to distinguish them from the original 2.3's because Polk had not assigned the TL to them yet.
    I noticed that a number of the other components (the tweeters for one) have dates stamped on them that fall between July and August of 1989. I'm wondering if that would make them part of the 1990 model year.

  9. #9

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    They came out in 1989 and the later date stamp would be the one closest to when yours were built.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  10. #10

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central NC
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Re: the tweeters, I would not mix RD-0198's with SL 3000's. The former are superior and completely worth the expense to replace all 6 IMO. They're smoother and yet more detailed with better imaging.

    Oh, and welcome to the forum!
    "Science is suppose to explain observations not dismiss them as impossible" - Norm on AA; 2.3TL's w/sonicaps/mills, polyswitches removed, Lg Solen inductors, RD-0198's, MW's dynamatted, Armaflex speaker gaskets, H-nuts, brass spikes, Cardas CCGR binding posts, upgraded IC Cable, Black Hole Damping Sheets (3" strips) installed on back wall behind MW's & Tweeters, interior of cabinets sealed, AI-1 interface with 1000VA transformer

  11. #11

    Member Sales Rating: (1)

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    I have to think both of you have very early 2.3TL's. Hence the "B" with 2.3 and "new" to distinguish them from the original 2.3's because Polk had not assigned the TL to them yet.
    Very interesting! My S/N's are in the 4800 range. I used to have a second pair which were in the S/N 5300 range and they also had the "B" and "New" on the crossover sticker. So the change must have been after S/N 5300. Of course, we're assuming that "C" came after "B" but who knows. Numbering schemes are not always logical and the B and C could designate something else.

    I know my measured values were a bit different than the 2.3TL schematic available here on the forum, and in particlar one inductor on mine measured about 40% less than the schematic value and that was the case for all 4 of the 2.3TL's I had at the time so I don't think it was a fluke.

    What S/N range are yours in?

  12. #12

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubinga99 View Post
    Very interesting! My S/N's are in the 4800 range. I used to have a second pair which were in the S/N 5300 range and they also had the "B" and "New" on the crossover sticker. So the change must have been after S/N 5300. Of course, we're assuming that "C" came after "B" but who knows. Numbering schemes are not always logical and the B and C could designate something else.

    I know my measured values were a bit different than the 2.3TL schematic available here on the forum, and in particlar one inductor on mine measured about 40% less than the schematic value and that was the case for all 4 of the 2.3TL's I had at the time so I don't think it was a fluke.

    What S/N range are yours in?
    Mine are R4335 and L4345

  13. #13

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    Very interesting! My S/N's are in the 4800 range. I used to have a second pair which were in the S/N 5300 range and they also had the "B" and "New" on the crossover sticker. So the change must have been after S/N 5300. Of course, we're assuming that "C" came after "B" but who knows. Numbering schemes are not always logical and the B and C could designate something else.
    Interesting indeed. The crossover ID provided by Polk does not list a BR2200-B for the 2.3TL's. It goes from BE2200-A for the 2.3's to BR2200-C for the TL's.

    I know my measured values were a bit different than the 2.3TL schematic available here on the forum, and in particlar one inductor on mine measured about 40% less than the schematic value and that was the case for all 4 of the 2.3TL's I had at the time so I don't think it was a fluke.
    Do you remember which inductor that was?

    What S/N range are yours in?
    In the 5480's, dated May 1992.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  14. #14

    Member Sales Rating: (1)

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    283

    Default

    The inductor that was different was the one listed in the schematic as 0.30mH (in the tweeter crossover network). My measured value was 0.18mH.

    Here are some plots of the response, done with LSPcad. The first one is the response of the tweeter crossover network with the standard schematic values: (green is total response; orange is the top tweeter, red is middle, and blue is the lower tweeter)



    and this next one is the response using the measured .18mH value instead of .3mH:



    You can see from the graph that the .18mH inductor gives the upper tweeter (orange curve) a slightly flatter response and slightly higher output. It also slightly shifts the knee frequency up from about 2kHz to about 2.5KHz.

    When I rebuilt my crossovers, I did some experimenting and changed some R's and C's very slightly, with the resulting response curve as shown below:




    With these changes, (and keeping that inductor at .18mH) the total response curve for the tweeter crossover network (in green) and the upper tweeter (in orange) are flat to within 1dB. It's a fairly subtle difference from the schematic values, but I ended up liking it with my setup, so I left it and the experiment ended with that.

    There is also a subtle change/improvement in the impedance plot. The first plot below is the tweeter crossover network using the schematic values except for changing the .3mH inductor to .18mH since that's what my speakers had to work with, and the second plot is using the values I changed when I rebuilt the crossover.








    Comparing the two, you can see that with my changes the crossover network presents a more uniform/smooth load compared to the schematic values, and also has a slightly higher minimum impedance. I don't think most decent amps would have much trouble driving either of them though.
    Last edited by Bubinga99; 05-12-2013 at 05:31 PM.

  15. #15

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pearland Texas 77584
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    I guess you pulled all of the MW drivers and made sure that they are 6510.
    You know of the SDA Handbook, lots of info. In there it says the the 198 do not
    differ that much from the 3000 tweeters so what I did was replace them two at a time
    over the course of 3 months for all 6.

    vr3mods.com/uploads/SDA_Handbook_2011_Rev2.pdf‎

  16. #16

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    I need to correct a few things in my last post. My crossovers are marked BE2200-C and are dated 6/20/92. Judging from all the other crossovers listed by Polk the BR for the 2.3TL's was a typo and should be BE.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  17. #17

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pearland Texas 77584
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    my old 1990 2.3tls x-overs

    Click image for larger version

Name:	100_0183.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	414.9 KB
ID:	85101 c
    Click image for larger version

Name:	100_0182.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	395.5 KB
ID:	85100
    Last edited by PolkieMan; 05-12-2013 at 06:06 PM.

  18. #18

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PolkieMan View Post
    In there it says the the 198 do not
    differ that much from the 3000 tweeters so what I did was replace them two at a time
    over the course of 3 months for all 6.
    They differ enough that after I installed one new RD0198-1 per cabinet in the top position the next day I ordered the rest. It was obvious that the RD0198-1 was a much better tweeter.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  19. #19

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    Thanks Bubinga99, I'll have to check mine the next time I pull the crossovers. The irony is the next time I pull them will be to change the stock inductors for the Jantzen's I bought.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  20. #20

    Member Sales Rating: (1)

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    ...the next time I pull them will be to change the stock inductors for the Jantzen's I bought.
    Oh, cool. A few years back when I was a more frequent forum reader, most people stayed away from inductor swaps. Has that changed in the interim, and I guess folks have tried it and liked it?

    Are you going to change them all with the same values (including DCR)? Or just some of them?

  21. #21

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    Yes times have changed, people ran out of things to tweak in their SDA's, so inductors have become the latest victims.

    All inductors with the same mH values, but lower DCR.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  22. #22

    Member Sales Rating: (27)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    20,951

    Default

    Hey Jesse,
    The DCR on the inductors are identical to stock, FWIW
    www.Vr3Mods.com ///// www.Version3Audio.com

    "No, that's silly talk. Dude, you can't possibly be this audio dumb so quit the act." - Doro

  23. #23

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    30,432

    Default

    Ok thanks, obviously I thought they were less.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  24. #24

    Member Sales Rating: (4)

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Salem, Oregon (Polk county!)
    Posts
    4,111

    Default

    The Jantzen inductors sound great. The best place I found for the big 16mH inductor so far is on the lowest corssbeam all the way against the back wall of the speaker. I still need to move it around up there to make sure. But Trey, IMO this position is better than directly behind the PR. Sorry for the thread derail, but I hope this helps the OP too.
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:

    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."

    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee

  25. #25

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pearland Texas 77584
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    I did it over 3 months two at a time so it was not noticed by the boss

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    They differ enough that after I installed one new RD0198-1 per cabinet in the top position the next day I ordered the rest. It was obvious that the RD0198-1 was a much better tweeter.

  26. #26

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pearland Texas 77584
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    Did you notice a change in the bass? How much did it lower your ohms?

    Quote Originally Posted by headrott View Post
    The Jantzen inductors sound great. The best place I found for the big 16mH inductor so far is on the lowest corssbeam all the way against the back wall of the speaker. I still need to move it around up there to make sure. But Trey, IMO this position is better than directly behind the PR. Sorry for the thread derail, but I hope this helps the OP too.

  27. #27

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VR3 View Post
    Hey Jesse,
    The DCR on the inductors are identical to stock, FWIW
    I think the DCR on the HF and LF are all the same as stock, except for the large 16mH inductor. Ray stated that the 14AWG NorthCreek had a lower DCR, and that the larger 10 AWG Solen was even lower if I remember correctly. I liked the improvement going to the NorthCreeks on my SRS's so much that I'm now thinking about going to the larger Solens.
    SDA SRS modded: X’ovrd, de-polyed, inductorized, interconnectorized, re-posted, dynamited, RDO’d, spiked, gasketed, ringed (Larry's), and grill cloth blinged! Done this on my own? Not a chance. Thanks to Raife and all who forged easy to follow upgrades. At least a 100% improvement in sound and my personal listening pleasure! Pass XP-10 preamp, Parasound A21 amp, Pioneer Elite DV-58AV (Ric Shultz modded), Audioquest Sky IC's, No longer need my Sunfire sub after mods...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Karma: SDA 2B/CRS+ stock crossover boards, spare parts
    By nspindel in forum Vintage Speakers
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 06:50 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-07-2012, 11:32 PM
  3. Questions about NOS 6550 tubes vs New stock
    By Ern Dog in forum 2 Channel Audio
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 12:43 PM
  4. Need Help SDA-2B Crossover Questions
    By electricvalve in forum Vintage Speakers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 09:05 AM
  5. crossover questions
    By neomagus00 in forum Car Audio & Electronics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-29-2004, 05:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts