rdo-194 vs rdo-198

[deronb1]

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?

Buying all new drivers for the Monitor 10s (not including the PRs) would cost over 300.00. I have seen used pairs in VGC for 100.00 - 150.00. Then you have the cost of xovers and internal wiring. If you started with a blank cabinet, you would still spend close 400.00 to build one yourself with quality new Polk parts.

[trav0810]

For one thing, the cost to build a pair using replacement parts and building the crossovers would be exponentially higher.

[ken brydson]

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?

Dude, your posts make no sense. maybe it's the rum, I dunno....

[Aural Euphoria]

Dude, your posts make no sense. maybe it's the rum, I dunno....

I was applying a sort of brevity. What I am saying, and asking, is that these prized, rare speakers can be constructed from readily available parts. These parts do not bear the same name as the original components. The differences would have to be significant in some capacity considering building high quality speakers requires delicate precision and balancing of the parts and the numerical quantities associated with them. Tacitly, the use of these new parts would result in a different speaker. I am curious as to how similar a Monitor 10 B made with newer drivers and crossovers is to the original, and if it is better or worse than the original. I hope that is a more intelligible description of what I intended to convey initially.

P.S.- I know very little about crossover design. I am a mechanical engineering major not an electrical engineering major.

[Aural Euphoria]

Basically, I don't want one out of 4 total drivers between the two speakers to be different than the other 3. The blend between the tweets and woofers is epic on these things. No highly resonant low-mid (4-500 Hz) hum and no excessive drop in the upper-mid (2-4 kHz) region due to the woofers inability to produce higher frequencies.

[falconcry72]

I was applying a sort of brevity. What I am saying, and asking, is that these prized, rare speakers can be constructed from readily available parts. These parts do not bear the same name as the original components. The differences would have to be significant in some capacity considering building high quality speakers requires delicate precision and balancing of the parts and the numerical quantities associated with them. Tacitly, the use of these new parts would result in a different speaker. I am curious as to how similar a Monitor 10 B made with newer drivers and crossovers is to the original, and if it is better or worse than the original. I hope that is a more intelligible description of what I intended to convey initially.

P.S.- I know very little about crossover design. I am a mechanical engineering major not an electrical engineering major.

It's not like the RD0's are just some random tweeter that happens to fit. The RD0-194 was specifically designed and built to be a replacement for the SL-2000 and ONLY the SL-2000. Likewise, the RD0-198 was specifically designed and built to be a replacement for the SL-3000 and ONLY the SL-3000.

These aren't random parts that will work in a pinch; they are a labor of love on Polk's behalf to supply its customers with a superior performing replacement.


As a side note, these newer replacement tweeters ARE better than the originals. The newer replacement drivers, on the other hand, are generally less desirable than the original drivers, but I've never heard them. Some people can't hear a difference.

[Aural Euphoria]

They really are good cones. And the one that maxes out takes a lot of low end punch to get it to do so. I just recently got a 7.1 amp with a crossover, so I just cut it below 100Hz. I'm sure they'll be fine. Thanks for the response.

[falconcry72]

They really are good cones. And the one that maxes out takes a lot of low end punch to get it to do so. I just recently got a 7.1 amp with a crossover, so I just cut it below 100Hz. I'm sure they'll be fine. Thanks for the response.

Look for an original replacement on ebay, or buy new one from Polk. Either option is good, and will be an improvement.

[westmassguy]

It's not like the RD0's are just some random tweeter that happens to fit. The RD0-194 was specifically designed and built to be a replacement for the SL-2000 and ONLY the SL-2000. Likewise, the RD0-198 was specifically designed and built to be a replacement for the SL-3000 and ONLY the SL-3000.

These aren't random parts that will work in a pinch; they are a labor of love on Polk's behalf to supply its customers with a superior performing replacement.


As a side note, these newer replacement tweeters ARE better than the originals. The newer replacement drivers, on the other hand, are generally less desirable than the original drivers, but I've never heard them. Some people can't hear a difference.

Minor correction, the RDO-194 is the direct replacement for the SL1000 and SL2000.
The RDO-198 is the direct replacement for the SL2500 and the SL3000.
There is no Polk manufactured replacement for the HF1000 Peerless Tweeter however. You would have to source a used replacement from eBay, and be sure to match the number on the back. Polk used two versions, one made in Denmark, and the other made in the US. Your only other option for the Peerless, is the replacement/copy sold by Midwest Speaker. They claim it's an exact copy of the original Denmark design.

[Aural Euphoria]

Minor correction, the RDO-194 is the direct replacement for the SL1000 and SL2000.
The RDO-198 is the direct replacement for the SL2500 and the SL3000.

There is no Polk manufactured replacement for the HF1000 Peerless Tweeter however. You would have to source a used replacement from eBay, and be sure to match the number on the back. Polk used two versions, one made in Denmark, and the other made in the US. Your only other option for the Peerless, is the replacement/copy sold by Midwest Speaker. They claim it's an exact copy of the original Denmark design.

Some people go ape**** over the peerless. I'm curious if it is so much the bee's knees that people proclaim...

[westmassguy]

Some people go ape**** over the peerless. I'm curious if it is so much the bee's knees that people proclaim...

I don't know that apesh*t describes the desire of some for the Peerless. It is a fine tweeter, and one of the better ones from that era to be sure. It's certainly better than the SL1000 Polk developed after Peerless stopped making them. I personally find it better sounding than the SL2000, which has a rather nasty resonance spike at 12-13 KHz.

[F1nut]

I don't know that apesh*t describes the desire of some for the Peerless. It is a fine tweeter, and one of the better ones from that era to be sure. It's certainly better than the SL1000 Polk developed after Peerless stopped making them. I personally find it better sounding than the SL2000, which has a rather nasty resonance spike at 12-13 KHz.

Perfectly described. I'll add that IMO, the RD0's are even better than the Peerless.

[Toolfan66]

Perfectly described. I'll add that IMO, the RD0's are even better than the Peerless.

I have to agree...

[Aural Euphoria]

Ope, I forgot to edit my language. If anything goes wrong with these, I will get the RDO 194s. I hope they stay availabe for quite some time. And yeah there is an odd hissyness about these tweeters. I believe the material used to make them may be a tad to soft. Not a fan of straight up metal tweeters, but this stuff is like rubber. I tried EQ'ing down the 12-13 KHz spike, but didn't hear much improvement. It cost me quite a bit of treble. I'd love to see a graph of the frequency response of the Monitor 10 Bs, but have yet to find one.

[Aural Euphoria]

Guys, I know I'm being highly inquisitive, but words are free. Would the 198s blend with the monitor 10 woofers? Hell, I wouldn't mind putting some of those SDA woofers in the cabinet with the 198s, however they appear to be the same woofers. Forgive my ignorance, if they aren't. Honestly, as someone who has only mid-level, at best, knowledge about it, I assert that the Polk Audio 6" woofers of this era are what really make the magic. they are the unilateral, unchanging component in this group of fine speakers with so many swappable tweeter options. The the tweeters seem to be a matter of preference, to some degree, but with the human voice, as mostly produced by the woofer, accuracy is paramount. Such a beautiful sound with properly recorded music. Thanks for all the responses guys, this is the first time I have eve posted anything to any online forum. ...iunless you count facebook as a "forum".

[westmassguy]

Guys, I know I'm being highly inquisitive, but words are free. Would the 198s blend with the monitor 10 woofers? Hell, I wouldn't mind putting some of those SDA woofers in the cabinet with the 198s, however they appear to be the same woofers. Forgive my ignorance, if they aren't. Honestly, as someone who has only mid-level, at best, knowledge about it, I assert that the Polk Audio 6" woofers of this era are what really make the magic. they are the unilateral, unchanging component in this group of fine speakers with so many swappable tweeter options. The the tweeters seem to be a matter of preference, to some degree, but with the human voice, as mostly produced by the woofer, accuracy is paramount. Such a beautiful sound with properly recorded music. Thanks for all the responses guys, this is the first time I have eve posted anything to any online forum. ...iunless you count facebook as a "forum".

If your Monitor 10s have the SL2000s, they can accept the RDO-198s, but the Crossovers would need to be upgraded and modified. The RDO-194 requires no modifications to your crossover, but you should consider upgrading the caps and resistors.
Regarding the 6.5" woofers, they may all look the same from that era, but there are several different models.

[Aural Euphoria]

Ah, crossovers. I am not sure why they would age (negative connotation) more than the moving parts of the drivers. However, given that there seems to be an ever so subtle crackling int the upper mid region I am thinking tracking down a couple of crossovers would be a wise idea (seems like something I wouldn't want to get used, as it would defeat the purpose). It is indeed subtle and may be a result of using a HDD and a ASUS 660ti HDMI to push the signal of downloaded rips to my amp (which isn't that special either). Anyhow, if these components do wear I should inquire about them. Are they, also, as easily accessible as the drivers? And is there any truth to the significance or magnitude in which ferro-fluid crystallizes over time, or is that just more people trying to make assertions that they are unsure about?

PS- I have been burning in my new CS 20, and listening to 3- channel stereo. The Monitor 10s are pretty damned different. Much warmer, and flatter. The old Monitors have less response in the midbass, but definitely more pleasant to the ear. I just don't think a small ported cabinet ever sounds good with the higher bass notes. The silk/polymer tweeters of the CS really to present something that the monitors do not, but the overall sound is just less desirable to me. The transients, seem to be better on newer speakers, which I attribute to material rigidity, and should add to believabilty for HT application. I did not have the money for the A6 or a good 3-way. ...just a lil' review from a guy.

[Aural Euphoria]

@Toolfan66: (Irrelevant comment) I am in the throws of a tool phase right now. It makes decent test music, I guess. I just know that I love them. Lateralus for the win. Was great live.

[westmassguy]

Ah, crossovers. I am not sure why they would age (negative connotation) more than the moving parts of the drivers. However, given that there seems to be an ever so subtle crackling int the upper mid region I am thinking tracking down a couple of crossovers would be a wise idea (seems like something I wouldn't want to get used, as it would defeat the purpose). It is indeed subtle and may be a result of using a HDD and a ASUS 660ti HDMI to push the signal of downloaded rips to my amp (which isn't that special either). Anyhow, if these components do wear I should inquire about them. Are they, also, as easily accessible as the drivers? And is there any truth to the significance or magnitude in which ferro-fluid crystallizes over time, or is that just more people trying to make assertions that they are unsure about?

PS- I have been burning in my new CS 20, and listening to 3- channel stereo. The Monitor 10s are pretty damned different. Much warmer, and flatter. The old Monitors have less response in the midbass, but definitely more pleasant to the ear. I just don't think a small ported cabinet ever sounds good with the higher bass notes. The silk/polymer tweeters of the CS really to present something that the monitors do not, but the overall sound is just less desirable to me. The transients, seem to be better on newer speakers, which I attribute to material rigidity, and should add to believabilty for HT application. I did not have the money for the A6 or a good 3-way. ...just a lil' review from a guy.

No offense, but if you're really going to pursue this hobby, you need to educate yourself. What a crossover is, the components that are used, and their purpose. Polk, like most mass-production speaker manufacturers has to design for specific price points. Corners sometimes had to be cut in order to meet these price points. Most Vintage Polks had Mylar Caps bypassed with Silver Mica caps in the Hi-Pass, and NP Electrolytics in the Low-Pass. Mylars with mica were very good back in the day, which is why the were used for the Tweeter section. Electrolytics were, and still are cheap, and do the job. They're used in the Woofer section because an equivalent film cap would be very expensive, and since it's located in the bypass or shunt, you can get away with it. Electrolytics contain a liquid or paste, which dries out over time. This causes the capacitance value to drift, and eventually the cap will fail. Mylars don't age, but have been surpassed by other types of capacitors, specifically Metalized Polypropylene. MP caps are far superior to the old Mylar caps, and don't need to be bypassed with other caps to improve their sound.
Ferrofluid does age. It's made from organic solvents, microscopic particles of, usually, iron based alloys, and a surfactant. All of these can oxidize over time, rendering the fluid useless for it's intended purpose.

[Aural Euphoria]

I love it when comments start with "No offense, but...". These are not $100k speakers, I don't need to really become obsessed with this. It's not a hobby, I like good sounding music. I was being inquisitive, which was rather evident. If you take away the education element to these forums you just end up with a bunch of opinions and people bragging. Neither of which are important to most. If I were on a forum discussing how nuerotransmitters affect brain activity, I would not judge you for asking questions nor would I tell you you should not pursue the hobby of having a brain because you were less educated in the matter than I am. If I ever have the money to be an "audiophile" (an obnoxious term considering no one likes a crappy stereo), I may very well become one. For now, my time is best spent allocated among other things. Thank you for the information though. I did not know there were any amorphous components within a crossover.

[heiney9]

Why are you asking the questions if you don't like or want the answers? Replacing worn and out of date parts is not being an audiophile, it's being smart, becoming educated and upgrading what is still a very good speaker. I think westmassguy explained it quite well and wasn't being the least bit derogatory. You are starting to come across a little pompous and dismissive and you're the one asking the questions.

H9

[FTGV]

Why are you asking the questions if you don't like or want the answers? Replacing worn and out of date parts is not being an audiophile, it's being smart, becoming educated and upgrading what is still a very good speaker. I think westmassguy explained it quite well and wasn't being the least bit derogatory. You are starting to come across a little pompous and dismissive and you're the one asking the questions.

H9

Why always so uptight and combative?It's just an audio forum.

[westmassguy]

heiney9 it's not worth the effort. If some don't want to educate themselves, that's their prerogative. I certainly won't waste anymore of my time.

[Aural Euphoria]

Why are you asking the questions if you don't like or want the answers? Replacing worn and out of date parts is not being an audiophile, it's being smart, becoming educated and upgrading what is still a very good speaker. I think westmassguy explained it quite well and wasn't being the least bit derogatory. You are starting to come across a little pompous and dismissive and you're the one asking the questions.

H9

You kind of reiterated my point. I just wanted to replace the parts and gather rudimentary knowledge about said parts. I did not claim to be or wish to be any sort of audiophile or to have or want any other prestigious sounding moniker. And I did gain some knowledge about said parts. A lot of which was from westmassguy. I just thought the opening read condescending so I left a retort. Westmassguy seems pretty bright, I don't think he will be too upset over it. Just a little banter. Sorry if I crossed a line. No hard feelings, anybody. Basically, I agree with FTGV over there. Why the emotional component?
Anyhow, knowing that there is a gel-like substance in the caps certainly helps me understand that they could age much faster than a coil of copper or something of the like.

[Aural Euphoria]

heiney9 it's not worth the effort. If some don't want to educate themselves, that's their prerogative. I certainly won't waste anymore of my time.

Ah, didn't see this. Anyways, I summed it up in the prior response. Seriously, no hard feelings. Just a little misread. The internet shows no inflection.

[deaweber]

It takes time for (senior) members to reply to questions with (often hard earned) experiance/information . Im new to this forum and would like to thank any and all for the time they take to share with others . Sometimes this sharing might come as tough to hear advice . Thats the senior members priviledge IMHO . These forums are fantastic and especially helpfull for us less in the know ! I bought my first polks (monitor 10b) at a garage sale for a 50$ bill ,and wow , what a revelation ! I dream... of monitor 12s . I love this hobby !

[F1nut]

Welcome to Club Polk.

[deaweber]

Without a feasable way to listen to both rdo tweeter versions in a a/b comparison I have to ask . If one was going through a crossover upgrade anyway , is a xover frequency change whats required to acommodate the rdo-198 in a monitor 10 . Could this be a worthy hot rod . this speaker seems to be a good choice for upgrades . just curious , thanks .

[satguy08]

My two cents. I had SL-2000's in everything I owned. While I liked the edge they had, coming from Infinity ribbon tweeters, like the infinity's they we're fatiguing. replacing them with the RDO-194's, gave me a much more laid back natural sounding tweeter that I can listen to all day long.

[F1nut]

Without a feasable way to listen to both rdo tweeter versions in a a/b comparison I have to ask . If one was going through a crossover upgrade anyway , is a xover frequency change whats required to acommodate the rdo-198 in a monitor 10 . Could this be a worthy hot rod . this speaker seems to be a good choice for upgrades . just curious , thanks .

I believe some have done that mod, but I don't recall who. Good luck with the lousy search function.