Polk Audio - Opinions?

[Todd Newman]

A few years back, I was selling mid-range audio gear (Yamaha
receivers, Infinity speakers, Bose (yuck!) ; our best system was a
Yamaha DSPA-3090 with Kappa 8's which ran for about $4500)

The place I was working for (no longer in business) picked up Polk
Audio and I remember the training for it. You'd think they were the
best speakers ever built based on what I heard. There was no question
that they were better than what we carried, and I really was impressed
with their sound quality. I did some independent "research" (read a
few A/V mags) and got some reviews. The general consensus of what I
could find was that the RT-16 was the best tower speaker you could buy
for less than $1000 a pair (Retailed for $999 a pair). Several years
later, I was able to buy a pair of them for about half that, and I
have since built an entire home theater around Polk's trilaminate
tweeter.

I'm pleased with the system (I power it with a Yamaha RX-V992), but I
am left with the nagging question... Are Polk's "high-end" or are they
just good for the money? I know that if I enjoy it, that's all that
counts, but part of enjoying the system is the pride you get out of
knowing that your system is soo much better than those crappy Bose
systems everyone thinks is so great.

I know Polk isn't PDS or Definitive Technologies, but where do they
really fall?

I would love a spirited debate with some input from both sides, but
will gladly settle for any opinions at all.

Thanks

Todd

[John&Amy]

A long time ago, Polk was the stuff. Now they are circuit City. I had a
pair of their RTA-12C's until one of them was stolen during a break-in last
March. Up until that time every stereo store I went into as I traveled
around the country (US Navy) tried to buy them. I was also told by every
one of them that if they ever go bad, do not have Polk re-cone them; find
some one else to do it.
I know the man behind the designs has moved on but, Mathew Polk still runs
it.

"Todd Newman" <tfne...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:sup67hm...@corp.supernews.com...

[laserm...@my-deja.com]

In article <sup67hm...@corp.supernews.com>,

Polk was pretty good in the 70's and into
the 80's, but they're an also-ran now,
kind of like Harmon Kardon. Stereophile
magazine actually purchased a pair many
years ago because they felt Polk was
taking advantage of their readership by
advertising in the magazine and not
letting them review their speakers. The
subsequent review turned out to be
negative, and Polk pulled their ads. As
far as I can tell today, they're neither
a good audiophile speaker, nor a good
music lover's speaker. However what you
think of them is really what matters; I
used to get a lot of enjoyment out of my
Cerwin-Vega! headbanger speakers. If all
the audio stores I went into hadn't told
me they sucked, I'd likely still have
them.

Todd Spangler

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Michael R. Clements]

I bought a pair of Polks (SDA 1) back in the early 80s and back
then they were the best sounding speaker I could find for under
$2k (which was more cash back then than it is today). I modified
the crossovers to defeat the SDA effect and run the drivers in
phase like a normal speaker, which improved the sound even
further. I still listen to these speakers, they sound great. I've
A/B compared them against some more "respected" audiophile
speakers like Vandersteens and raised some eyebrows as people who
thought the Polks would be trounced, instead preferred their
sound. They are linear, detailed, and have very lifelike "voice"
to acoustic instruments.

I have no idea whether the speakers they make today are as good
as these older ones. I would expect not, since they have lowered
their prices, changed their marketing and moved more toward the
home theater market. This is not a slight against home theater,
but just an observation that it has different requirements.

If I were buying speakers again today, I would still seek the
_sound_ I get with my old Polks, but I probably would not buy
Polks because I don't think they still make speakers that sound
like this. Instead, I'd probably be listening to Dunlavys or
Martin Logans.

Cheers,

--
Michael R. Clements
mr...@flash.net
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-- Barry Goldwater

[David erow]

I'm using a pair of POLK RT7s as my surround speakers in my home
theater set up, with 3 Thiels across the front channels. The Polks
are excellent. No, they're not Thiels, but for the money I find them
very satisfying - and not just as surrounds, but also in a good
quality music system as well. They sound great driven by my Krell
integrated amp. I also have their little brothers, the RT5s, in a
decent 2nd system upstairs. Again, it's not my Krell/Thiel system,
but sounds very good nonetheless. Polk's biggest problem is they
change their speakers just about every year. The RT7s and 5s are no
longer around (they didnt' last very long and were among their best
ever). However, I would highly recommend Polk speakers to anyone not
willing to commit to "high end" prices, as long as they were
carefully chosen and auditioned.
David.

[Ron Kligman]

I own their big boy speakers from the late 80's. The SRS-SDA which I
loved for years but couldn't afford because of their $3,000 plus
price tag. One time I walked into a store and they had their demo
speakers on sale for 70% off list. I bought them on the spot and have
never regretted it...They have been my mains for more than 10 years
now.
Recently upgraded all my electronics to some real high end stuff,
and it brought even new life to what I had considered great speakers.
I am a happy camper.

Todd Newman wrote:

--
"A picture is worth a 1000 words"

Ron Kligman in Thousand Oaks, Calif.

[mcn...@my-deja.com]

In article <sup67hm...@corp.supernews.com>,
tfne...@wt.net wrote:

> I'm pleased with the system (I power it with a Yamaha RX-V992), but I
> am left with the nagging question... Are Polk's "high-end" or are they
> just good for the money? I know that if I enjoy it, that's all that
> counts, but part of enjoying the system is the pride you get out of
> knowing that your system is soo much better than those crappy Bose
> systems everyone thinks is so great.

Well, high end is as high end does. Polk's current reputation probably
has more to do with its marketing strategy than with the sound of its
speakers. Relying on mass-market big-box distribution outlets is not the
way to impress audiophiles. Its relatively early embrace of multi-channel
home theater probably didn't help, either. The general opinion seems to
be, if you're marketing to the hoi polloi, you might as well be selling a
squawk box, so you probably are.

The only way to judge a speaker is to listen to it. (And just because a
company makes one good speaker doesn't mean its entire product line is
equally good, so company reputation is probably overrated.) It's
unfortunate that you have to listen to Polks in places like Circuit City,
but that alone doesn't make them bad speakers. They used to know how to
make a very good speaker at a very reasonable price, and there's no
inherent reason to believe they've forgotten how.

Rest assured, your speakers can probably hold their own in the "budget
high-end" category, and I suspect most of us here would gladly grant you
full license to lord it over your friends' Bose systems.

bob

[Bob Carroll]

Todd,

I owned a pair of 10B's years ago and have since moved on to more
"high-end" designs. It's hard to say what i'd think if I were to hear the
`10's again now, but I always though they were better than the company is
often given credit for (with the notable exception of the el cheapo vinly
lamination on the cabinets.)

I remember they got some very good reviews by respected reviewers in Audio
(I think) a few years back.

-- Bob

Todd Newman wrote:

> A few years back, I was selling mid-range audio gear (Yamaha
> receivers, Infinity speakers, Bose (yuck!) ; our best system was a
> Yamaha DSPA-3090 with Kappa 8's which ran for about $4500)
>
> The place I was working for (no longer in business) picked up Polk
> Audio and I remember the training for it. You'd think they were the
> best speakers ever built based on what I heard. There was no question
> that they were better than what we carried, and I really was impressed
> with their sound quality. I did some independent "research" (read a
> few A/V mags) and got some reviews. The general consensus of what I
> could find was that the RT-16 was the best tower speaker you could buy
> for less than $1000 a pair (Retailed for $999 a pair). Several years
> later, I was able to buy a pair of them for about half that, and I
> have since built an entire home theater around Polk's trilaminate
> tweeter.
>

> I'm pleased with the system (I power it with a Yamaha RX-V992), but I
> am left with the nagging question... Are Polk's "high-end" or are they
> just good for the money? I know that if I enjoy it, that's all that
> counts, but part of enjoying the system is the pride you get out of
> knowing that your system is soo much better than those crappy Bose
> systems everyone thinks is so great.
>

> I know Polk isn't PDS or Definitive Technologies, but where do they
> really fall?
>
> I would love a spirited debate with some input from both sides, but
> will gladly settle for any opinions at all.
>
> Thanks
>
> Todd

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[mattcol...@gmail.com]

Don't ever buy Polk, the wireless and bluetooth connectivity is terrible. Look online in the forums and many other users have had similar problems. Really regretting buying mine...

[emrofs...@gmail.com]

my last impressions of them were in an audio store in 1980, the SDA flagship model, they imaged hemispherically [IOW a big bubble of sound that i was at the rear of] as one would expect from the IA cancellation, but when I shifted my head a few inches to either side, the effect disappeared, they had a forward upper midrange that was somewhat hot to my taste, but they also had a commanding bottom octave of bass. fast forward a few years, and I auditioned a pair of RTA11T towers, advertised as having 18 cycle bass but when I put on the swept frequency sweep from 20 cycles, I heard NOTHING until about 30 cycles, then they came on like gangbusters. for comparison's sake, next to them was a humongous dorm fridge-sized Cerwin Vega 15" woofer "rock" speaker, it played strongly from 20 cycles, but wasn't anywhere near as smooth as those Polk towers, the Polks were a very mellow speaker, the mellowest I'd heard up to that point and since.

[~misfit~]

As you are replying to a post sent in October 2000 I very much doubt that
the items in question were ever fitted with wireless or bluetooth tech.

Yet another googlegropes necropost.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

[Peter Wieck]

Even going back to 2000, Polk Audio was one very, very shallow step above Bose. What they are or are not doing today - I have no clue.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[~misfit~]

I've only heard a few Polk speakers and they haven't impressed me aurally.
Some of them looked pretty though...

[emrofs...@gmail.com]

stereophile didn't have much good to say about their RTA12 speaker, saying it was not "musically involving." but they said it had grating highs, which is opposite my experience with them in the showroom, if anything their treble range was subdued. this was when my hearing was better than it is now in my old age [my how time flies]. a mystery. wish i'd stayed around long enough to judge their imaging.

[Peter Wieck]

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 5:58:27 AM UTC-4, emrofs...@gmail.com wrote:
> stereophile didn't have much good to say about their RTA12 speaker, saying it was not "musically involving." but they said it had grating highs, which is opposite my experience with them in the showroom, if anything their treble range was subdued. this was when my hearing was better than it is now in my old age [my how time flies]. a mystery. wish i'd stayed around long enough to judge their imaging.

"Grating" and "Subdued" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

My memory of Polk Speakers was that the sound they produced resembled plain, cold oatmeal no matter what was fed into them and at any level. As if the speaker erased all color from the music. Which is funny, because my favorite speakers-by-brand are from AR, which is often accused of the same failure.

[loveold...@gmail.com]

Stereophile reviewed Polk’s RT-25i in November, 2001 https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/417/index.html

They noted, : “Here, in a nutshell, is what the Polk RT25i did well: linear and organic low-level dynamic resolution, as in live music; superlative resolution of inner detail; on good recordings, a highly accurate depiction of room ambience; extremely flat but natural reproduction of transient articulation; and extraordinarily uncolored tonal balance from the midbass to infinity and beyond.”

“The RT25i's reproduction of vocals was to die for, due to the speaker's superlative timbral and dynamic performance and its resolution of detail in the all-critical midrange. I'd never heard Janis Ian (Breaking Silence, Analogue Productions CAPP 027) or Mighty Sam McClain sound more natural, and the angelic integration of Crosby, Stills & Nash's voices on "Guinnevere" (Crosby, Stills & Nash, Atlantic/Classic SD 8229) floated in three-dimensional space, each vocal line easy to follow individually. The dynamic and delicate articulation of well-recorded percussion instruments, from mallets to snares on both classical and jazz recordings (Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, Columbia/Classic CS 8163, 45rpm, and the Kohjiba and Crumb recordings), made the Polks seem to disappear entirely. Kind of Blue and Ian's "Some People's Lives" showcased the warm, rich, articulate reproduction of piano timbres as convincingly as I've heard from any speaker under $2000.”

As always, YMMV.

[Peter Wieck]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-4, loveold...@gmail.com wrote:
> Stereophile reviewed Polk’s RT-25i in November, 2001 https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/417/index.html

This review reminds me of the Turbo-Encabulator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w

[dpierce.ca...@gmail.com]

I recall vividly attending the 1986 CES show in Las Vegas, and I
had an appointment with Matt Polk regarding some custom driver work
he was looking at: I was to meet them at their suite. Approaching
the suite down the hall, I saw TWO Matt Polks standing out front
of the entrance, both wearing his, at the time, signature lab coat.
It wasn't until I was perhaps 25 feet away when it became apparent that
standing there was a life-size, cardboard cutout of a photograph of
Matt Polk in his signature labcoat, propped next to a real life-size
Matt Polk in his real signature lab coat, striking exactly the same
pose.

So as not to offend him, I went up to the cutout and asked it if
he knew where I could find Matt Polk.

Dick Pierce