Monitor vs. RT

[TroyD]

This has been referred to in different threads and I would like to delve into a little deeper.....

Monitor vs. RT lines.....

Many feel that the Monitor line was a more audiophile oriented and better speaker than the RT series.

Why? What makes (if you agree) the Monitors better than the RT series?

I personally don't think that this is neccessarily true but would like to hear, discuss and debate others opinions....

Curious Troy

[nascarmann]

Good post Troy!
And to give you a tech answer I can not! But to give you an IMO I sure can do that. I have 2 pair of 10B's and a freind of mine has a pair of the 800i's. So we comparied them with what we had to work with. We tried 2 receivers (Yamaha and Sony) both rated a 100wpc and we both thought the 10's were a "little" better on both. The we tried with a 250wpc Yamaha amp and that is when the 10's put the 800i's to shame! Hands down with the extra power the 10's stole the show! That's all I can tell you.

[mantis]

I can add to this,
The Monitor 10b's are in my opinion the most musicial rattle box looking speaker I have ever heard.Very musical.
The sound that comes out of those boxes is terrific.I love the **** out of the monitor 10b's.
Compared to the rt series, now thats a personal task.I feel my rt1000p's with the newer rt1000i tweeters and crossover's(which i modified a year ago)sound better.I did this test with my B&K st140 power amp.Running many different kinds of music,the rt1000p's shined over the monitor's.But they still sounded really good considering there age.I also did a test with when I owned the SDA -2b's.I ran them against my orignal rt1000p's(unmodified at that time)with the same amp.This was a closer test.It was hard to tell what speaker sounded better.They were different sounding but just about equal in quality sound.
My Uncle has the monitor 10b's as well as my pair of SDA-2B'S( i GAVE THEM TO HIM AS HE DROOLED ALL OVER THEM).I was going to keep them for a stereo pair when I built my new home, but that was 2 years ago.
Now sometimes I wished i never gave them to him.But when I go over to his house, he plays them and sit's there grinning from ear to ear,I don't wish them back.He loves those speakers as much as the monitor 10b's.He swap's them out from time to time to hear both.
He has this Old Yamaha stereo receiver that has killer drive for 2 channel.He still has the yamaha rxv995 for theater.
He will most likely roll into my entire home theater system when i upgrade it.
But back to the Monitor 10b's such a fun speaker to listen to.

[TroyD]

Ok, I'll give my expanded thoughts here....

My basis for comparison are the Montior 7C's, Mini Monitors MIII and M5's

Generally I think the build quality has improved over the years. I think the quality of the components are better in the RT series.....

Sound wise, I think the Monitors have an edge in overall freq response, as they should as they were primarily designed primarily for 2 ch use. I think that Montior towers have an appeal that the RT series lacks in the 2ch department. Plus, I also am not a fan of powered towers.

Bookshelves, different story.

Where I think the RT series is better is transparency and detail. This has been debated before but I think the Monitors were weaker in the midrange. I find them 7C's to be somewhat muddy where as my RT7's are more open and airy. The RT7's I find also present a more precise stereo image....

I'm not saying that the Monitors are bad, they are fun speaks to listen to. I just think that the RT series is an more of an evolution to the Monitor series rather than a step down....

C'mon, let's here it fellas....

BDT

[mantis]

They have a warmer sound then the rt line does, I think thats what I was looking for in my post above .

[gidrah]

The 10Bs win over any RT line speaker. I know this because that's what I have.

If I had RTs I'd probably feel the opposite, but that's the way it goes.

I'm happy with the current situation.:D

[TroyD]

C'mon guys......

GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!


BDT

[jeberhart]

I think this can be a matter of such personal taste that it's impossible to answer. Keep in mind that the whole approach to speaker design has changed since 1989, when I bought my Monitor 10Bs. I stayed with 2-channel for a long, long time; I just didn't want to get into a surround environment until I could be sure I could get what I wanted, which was to keep my old Adcom amp in the mix, which Denon lets me do with their 3801. Anyway, when I finally went out two years ago and started by Polk surrounds, rear surrounds, sub, center (MAN, the guys at the store loved it when I darkened their door!), I was kind of shocked that Polk had changed so radically, but the MARKET has changed, and the applications. I'll tell you this, 13 years ago I NEVER would have purchased a ported speaker; I thought they SUCKED! I'm still not entirely comfortable with them, but I have several ported Polks in my various surround apps, and they sound pretty good. One reason for that is that loudspeaker materials have gotten better. Bottom line, though: I would NEVER get rid of these old 10Bs, ever. Aside from having better crossovers, which I made Polk send me just before the five-year warranty ran out because the 10Bs were shutting themselves down too freely, they're exactly as they came from the factory in '89. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with RTs; I'm just saying there's something classic about the Monitor sound, like...I don't know...BURNISHED or something. Go too far down that nostalgia road, though, and you end up listening only to mono tube amps...yeah, I wish; as if I had the money...

[TroyD]

GREAT post....exactly the type of comments I was looking for.....

I agree the monitors were designed for 2ch in mind whereas the RT line (hence the name) were designed for HT. Obviously, Polk had to accomodate the demands of the masses. I think the LSi series again embraces the 2ch crowd (albeit a ported design)

I do agree about digging the sound of a sealed enclosure......like the Boston Acoustics A-series that I am so fond of.....

I guess the point I was trying to make is that although aimed at different crowds Polk's committment to building a quality speaker has remained, fundamentally, unchanged.

BDT

[jeberhart]

I agree, Troy; Polk really has kept the commitment level very high, which is almost a miracle in this era of corporate conglomeration and just general shoddy product development and production. And for anyone who read my previous post, I certainly wasn't dissing Polk's current design ethos. Yeah, they've changed with the times -- but that's what companies do. Their high-end stuff is about as good as ever, I think -- but man, what would it cost me to replace the 10Bs with a contemporary Polk speaker I really liked? When I bought these in '89, I paid $600 for the pair! Anyway, I've obviously stayed with Polk for a reason. For the money, I think, they're hard to beat.

[mantis]

Speakers,
So personal.There are so many to choose from.Polk has for years made great affordable speakers.For the money,they are hard too beat.
Sometimes your taste out grows your wallet.
You know I think high end speakers are most impressive, but there is a limit where you question is they are that much better than the next.