requesting info on old Polk Audio speakers
Sundog
one 12", two 6" drivers, and a top mounted tweeter system that has two huge
coils & other electronics attached, all on top and concealed under a cloth
top 'box'. These are certainly an upgrade for my workshop speakers. Very
clear sound, though the bottom seems a bit weak at lower volumes. My ears
tell me they are good stuff. I'm pushing them with a Sony GX40ES receiver
right now.
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about this
speaker...such as model # for starters (no identifying #'s anywhere)
Vintage? Power handling capability? Value? Whatever?
Regards, JB
DavidKak
writes:
> Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about this
>speaker...such as model # for starters (no identifying #'s anywhere)
>Vintage? Power handling capability? Value? Whatever?
That would be an RTA 12. This model was first introduced around 1979 and went
through a number of revisions before being discontinued in the early/mid '80s.
During that period, the legendary Dahlquist DQ-10 fired up the time alignment
craze, and Polk's RTA 12 model had a top mounted tweeter with its voice coil
set back to where the drivers' voice coils were. With the tweeter also not
mounted in the cabinet it seemed as if there was an attempt to capture some of
the DQ-10 mystique.
The earliest versions used an all black Peerless cloth dome tweeter, then a
Polk-made soft plastic dome unit (SL-1000) with a brushed metal faceplate and
finally a Polk-made soft plastic dome unit (SL-2000) with a beveled plastic
faceplate. All along the speakers were 'mirror imaged' by having one of the
6.5" drivers' hp rolloff at a different frequency. It was the left driver on
one and the right on the other. Can't remember which one was labeled as the
"left channel" or "right channel" speaker, but I recall that the driver that
goes highest in frequency was positioned to the inside on a stereo pair.
The 12" unit at the bottom is a passive radiator. Polk rated this speaker for
use with 500 wpc amps, but that was highly optimistic. You're probably OK
using an amp rated up to 150-200 wpc *within its limits*.
I also recall the RTA 12 as being closer to a 4 ohm load.
Hope this helps!
Dave Kakenmaster
Timberland
seventies vintage, and power handling is not a problem. Most any amp you're
likely to have will clip long before those speakers even start to work hard.
--
Murphy was an Optimist!
"Sundog" <alw...@mybest.com> wrote in message
news:sl36ei...@corp.supernews.com...
> New to me today. These Polk Audio speakers stand about 3' tall,
contain
> one 12", two 6" drivers, and a top mounted tweeter system that has two
huge
> coils & other electronics attached, all on top and concealed under a cloth
> top 'box'. These are certainly an upgrade for my workshop speakers. Very
> clear sound, though the bottom seems a bit weak at lower volumes. My ears
> tell me they are good stuff. I'm pushing them with a Sony GX40ES receiver
> right now.
>
> Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about this
> speaker...such as model # for starters (no identifying #'s anywhere)
> Vintage? Power handling capability? Value? Whatever?
>
> Regards, JB
>
>
DavidKak
<timbe...@inorbit.com> writes:
>Those sound like Model 10's. If so, they are quite good. Middle to late
>seventies vintage, and power handling is not a problem. Most any amp you're
>likely to have will clip long before those speakers even start to work hard.
>
Nope, RTA 12. The giveaways are the top mounted tweeter, exposed crossover
parts, top grille 'hat' and 12" PR.
The 10's did have the same driver parts count, though: one tweeter, two 6.5"
bass/mids and a 10" PR. The tweeter was mounted in the box just above the two
drivers.
Dave Kakenmaster
DavidKak
>> clear sound, though the bottom seems a bit weak at lower volumes. My ears
>> tell me they are good stuff. I'm pushing them with a Sony GX40ES receiver
>> right now.
Given that the RTA 12 isn't the world's easiest load, a receiver or amp with
better 'difficult speaker' drive capability should help.
Dave Kakenmaster
Sundog
Listening more today, I am hearing the bottom more than before, also it is
better balanced playing CDs than listening off the DSS dish. The clarity is
impressive. The 12" cones are passive then eh? They have a thin gray foam
damper over the cone. There is part of a tag on one unit that says serial #
L.... and the rest is missing. This is the 'left' unit as by your
description I found that I can hear the frequency difference between the two
6 1/2" drivers, and the higher pitched speaker is on the right (inside) in
that unit.
The drivers are shiny black material.... polyurethane? The tweeter is
a very fine black fabric dome.... everything black.
By 'easiest load', are you referring to efficiency? I notice I have to
run the receiver at a little higher volume setting for equal sound-level to
my old speakers. The Sony GX40ES is rated at 100 watts per channel I recall.
I find myself turning up the bass control to feel balanced, where it would
have caused booming before. I'm thinking that perhaps a sub-woofer would be
a good idea in the future.... any suggestions? My old shop speakers had 16"
woofers... if I could use one of these as a sub-woofer, then what would be
involved in the conversion.... new cabinet, amplifier, crossover?.... is
there somewhere I can locate this info in lay terms? Is it worth the trouble
& so on, or should I shop for a tried & proven unit?
Any idea what they sold for back then?
Regards, JB
DavidKak wrote in message <20000622123530...@nso-ba.aol.com>...
DavidKak
writes:
>David ___ I really thank you for the info.... you appear to know your Polk.
Thanks. I've had a lot of experience with Polk speakers.
>Listening more today, I am hearing the bottom more than before, also it is
>better balanced playing CDs than listening off the DSS dish. The clarity is
>impressive. The 12" cones are passive then eh? They have a thin gray foam
>damper over the cone.
Yes, the 12" unit is a passive radiator which is driven by the two 6.5"
mid/bass drivers. Its function is like a port or vent. It tunes the system
and augments the low end. The thin gray foam is purely aesthetic. It couldn't
do much to damp something at those frequencies anyway.
>There is part of a tag on one unit that says serial #L.... and the rest is
missing.
>This is the 'left' unit as by your description I found that I can hear the
frequency
>difference between the two 6 1/2" drivers, and the higher pitched speaker is
on
>the right (inside) in that unit.
Sounds correct.
>The drivers are shiny black material.... polyurethane? The tweeter is a very
>fine black fabric dome.... everything black.
The drivers' cone material is a paper/fiber material that's been coated with a
soft polymer that never quite dries all the way and so stays a little sticky --
even after all these years. By the tweeter description, your pair sounds like
original RTA 12 models. I don't know if the tweeters or drivers are available
anymore, so be careful not to blow them up!
>By 'easiest load', are you referring to efficiency? I notice I have to
>run the receiver at a little higher volume setting for equal sound-level to
>my old speakers. The Sony GX40ES is rated at 100 watts per channel I recall.
No, not efficiency. The RTA 12 is pretty sensitive, but it's a fairly low
impedance load and if I remember correctly, somewhat reactive too. A good,
stable amp (ideally, a near perfect voltage source) will bring out the
speakers' best. I'm not sure the Sony's that product, but if it sounds good
and works well for you, then that's great!
>I find myself turning up the bass control to feel balanced, where it would
>have caused booming before. I'm thinking that perhaps a sub-woofer would be
>a good idea in the future.... any suggestions? My old shop speakers had 16"
>woofers... if I could use one of these as a sub-woofer, then what would be
>involved in the conversion.... new cabinet, amplifier, crossover?.... is
>there somewhere I can locate this info in lay terms? Is it worth the trouble
>& so on, or should I shop for a tried & proven unit?
My guess is that the old speakers with 16" woofers (were they Sansuis?)
probably had much punchier bass and therefore seemed to have 'more' bass. A
subwoofer can be added if you want to augment the RTA 12s, but it's probably
not worth the effort trying to coax the old pair to be it (plus the $$ for the
new amp and crossover to drive it/them) when you can go out and buy a new
powered sub that'll do the trick for anywhere between $400 and $700. You could
get a better sub that'll cost more, but for a shop, why bother?
>Any idea what they sold for back then?
If memory serves... the original RTA 12 sold for $770 per pair, without the
matching stands.
Dave Kakenmaster
Timberland
the poster was referring to 12's. Old, but nice. I drive them with a
Yamaha DSP-A1 with quite satisfactory results, BTW.
--
Murphy was an Optimist!
"DavidKak" <davi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000622123529...@nso-ba.aol.com...
Sundog
DavidKak wrote <snip>
>The drivers' cone material is a paper/fiber material that's been coated
with a
>soft polymer that never quite dries all the way and so stays a little
sticky --
>even after all these years. By the tweeter description, your pair sounds
like
>original RTA 12 models. I don't know if the tweeters or drivers are
available
>anymore, so be careful not to blow them up!
David __ heh heh.... I'll be careful. I don't usually listen very loud
anymore anyway..... half-volume (whatever that means) on this system is more
than enough to scare dogs... I usually run it at about 1/4 or less (all
things relative). I am really enjoying the clarity (accuracy?) of these
speakers, more so every day.
>No, not efficiency. The RTA 12 is pretty sensitive, but it's a fairly low
>impedance load and if I remember correctly, somewhat reactive too. A good,
>stable amp (ideally, a near perfect voltage source) will bring out the
>speakers' best. I'm not sure the Sony's that product, but if it sounds
good
>and works well for you, then that's great!
Another amp may work better, but this Sony is a good unit. I got it from
an audiophile shop where I had done business since '74. Fred knew his stuff.
I always meant to get this one set of Kliptch he had in the early 90's, but
kept wasting my money on the mortgage instead....;-).... but I did just buy
a set of Kliptch SG 2.5 for my daughter for college graduation
honors....lucky girl!
>My guess is that the old speakers with 16" woofers (were they Sansuis?)
>probably had much punchier bass and therefore seemed to have 'more' bass
Turns out they were 14" woofers...( my memory is going too)... and no
they are BSR speakers. They had a lousy high end (small plastic horn) so I
ran a second set of Marantz speakers with them to push the mid-high levels.
All together they worked fairly well, although muddy sounding compared to
the Polk. I am getting really impressed with the Polk now that I have had
more time to listen to more & more of my fav CD's, etc. I think it was $125
well spent.... <grin>..... and once I move to my next digs they may get used
for 'home theater'... we'll see.
I do have a set of Sansui SP-1200 speakers that amaze me (bedroom home
theater front L&R and music)...circa 1972?. They have a really full range
with good clarity & depth...10" woofer, excellent bass. Not as 'natural'
sounding as the Polk though. It's funny because when I mention my Sansui
speakers to anyone I just get a blank stare back..... I only know one other
person who has a pair, which he brought back from Vietnam in '71... and he
still uses them daily. I think they sound great! What do you know about the
Sansui line?
Thanks again, JB
Gulf Joe
>
> New to me today. These Polk Audio speakers stand about 3' tall, contain
> one 12", two 6" drivers, and a top mounted tweeter system that has two huge
> coils & other electronics attached, all on top and concealed under a cloth
> clear sound, though the bottom seems a bit weak at lower volumes. My ears
> tell me they are good stuff. I'm pushing them with a Sony GX40ES receiver
> right now.
>
> speaker...such as model # for starters (no identifying #'s anywhere)
> Vintage? Power handling capability? Value? Whatever?
>
> Regards, JB
Your speakers sound like Polk model RTA 12C.
Discontinued by 1988. List price 479.95 each
"Utilizes phase coherent open air driver mounting in a mirror imaged, full size
floor standing configuration for superior sonic imaging and clarity. In
addition to receiving many rave reviews, the RTA 12C has won the AudioVideo
Grand Prix Speaker of the Year Award."
Specs from Audio Magazine Annual Equipment Direction 1987
RTA 12C
Design Principle: passive radiator
Woofer: 12 inches
Midrange: 4 x 6.5 inch cones
Tweeter: 1 ince dome
Anechoic freq response: 17 - 26K (+/- db not listed)
SPL 1 watt at 1 meter: 92 db
Recommended minimum power: 10W
Crossover freq: 50, 2K
Nominal impedance: 6 ohms
Dimensions: 39 x 16 x 12
Weight: 75 lbs.
DavidKak
writes:
>Your speakers sound like Polk model RTA 12C.
>
Based on JB's comment that the tweeters are cloth dome units, that dates this
pair to being original RTA 12 units. Another way to check is whether there's a
small base attached to the bottom of each speaker. Original 12s were meant for
stands, later ones were floorstanding.
>"Utilizes phase coherent open air driver mounting in a mirror imaged, full
>size
>floor standing configuration for superior sonic imaging and clarity. In
>addition to receiving many rave reviews, the RTA 12C has won the AudioVideo
>Grand Prix Speaker of the Year Award."
>
>Specs from Audio Magazine Annual Equipment Direction 1987
>
>RTA 12C
>Design Principle: passive radiator
>Woofer: 12 inches
>Midrange: 4 x 6.5 inch cones
>Tweeter: 1 ince dome
>Anechoic freq response: 17 - 26K (+/- db not listed)
>SPL 1 watt at 1 meter: 92 db
>Recommended minimum power: 10W
>Crossover freq: 50, 2K
>Nominal impedance: 6 ohms
>Dimensions: 39 x 16 x 12
>Weight: 75 lbs.
>
For clarity, only the 2k crossover frequency is electrical. The 50Hz is
actually the estimated rolloff frequency of the PR, and the two 6.5" drivers do
not have a low pass filter. Also, only two each 6.5" drivers per speaker,
unless you get into the later Monitor 12 which was like a Monitor 10 on
steroids (that one had 4 each 6.5" drivers and was originally conceived for the
military market).
Dave Kakenmaster
DavidKak
writes:
> I do have a set of Sansui SP-1200 speakers that amaze me (bedroom home
>theater front L&R and music)...circa 1972?. They have a really full range
>with good clarity & depth...10" woofer, excellent bass. Not as 'natural'
>sounding as the Polk though. It's funny because when I mention my Sansui
>speakers to anyone I just get a blank stare back..... I only know one other
>person who has a pair, which he brought back from Vietnam in '71... and he
>still uses them daily. I think they sound great! What do you know about the
>Sansui line?
>
As I recall, Sansui was one of (maybe the only?) manufacturer to produce
speaker systems with 16" woofers. I don't know much more than that about them.
Sorry!
Dave Kakenmaster
Sundog
DavidKak wrote <snip>>>
>Based on JB's comment that the tweeters are cloth dome units, that dates
this
>pair to being original RTA 12 units. Another way to check is whether
there's a
>small base attached to the bottom of each speaker. Original 12s were meant
for
>stands, later ones were floorstanding.
_______________________________________________________________
I rechecked the tweeter, with a light & magnifier, and it definately
has a very fine texture of a cloth weave. It is black, with a small hole at
the center, and something white within/behind the dome.... indicating the
original model RTA 12?
There is a small matching wood 'riser' on the bottom of each speaker,
about 2" tall, and about 1 1/4" smaller all around than the perimeter of the
speaker enclosure. This indicates a later model then, in spite of the
tweeter?
Turning into a little mystery here. I have a keen interest in American
60's autos as well, and if it's anything like them, there were often
unauthorized variances in production that remained undocumented..... despite
the best efforts of modern day enthusiasts to say that "this is this, and
that never was built that way"....then up pops a one-of-a-kind model with
the original build-sheet & protect-o-plate..... <double-grin> Thanks
again to all who have shown an interest in this topic.And still interested
in anything anyone cares to add!
regards, JB
Sundog
Yep.... amazing. I am a total packrat. I still have all the owners manuals &
even the receipt from a Marantz 2220 system I bought in the early 70's....
ha!
Well, I think it must be the RTA 12B then... as the tweeter is mounted in a
vertical 'plate' with a sloping ramp below it, all facing forwards, all
black. I believe that was a typo about 1991, you surely meant 1981 from the
rest of your sentence.... I have fat blind fingers too.... why, I couldn't
even type at all until a couple of years ago... LOL....
What is the significance of the ohm rating, if you don't mind helping me
again? I know there are different ratings, but I don't understand them in
practice. Is there anything I should be doing about any connections,
settings, or anything regarding the ohm factor? Forgive my ignorance
please, it should be obvious by now that my knowledge of speakers is
limited.... ;-)
Thanks again, Jacques Bordeleau
_____________________________________________________________
DavidKak wrote <<snip>>
> The 12B was a significant
>redesign which went to the floorstanding configuration, created a baffle
for
>the tweeter (plus the little ramp) and generally improved the speaker. The
12B
>was spec'd as a 4 ohm speaker and had a retail price of $500 each. It was
>introduced around 1991 and was probably made that way until 1983 when
Polk's
>own SL1000 tweeter came around.
>
>Sorry for the confusion earlier due to my lack of complete information.
It's
>amazing what stuff you keep and/or remember over the years, huh?
>
>Anyway, it sure sounds like your speakers are the RTA 12B version. Hope
this
>helps!
>
>Dave Kakenmaster
>
DavidKak
writes:
>Original 12s were meant for stands, later ones were floorstanding.
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
> I rechecked the tweeter, with a light & magnifier, and it definately
>has a very fine texture of a cloth weave. It is black, with a small hole at
>the center, and something white within/behind the dome.... indicating the
>original model RTA 12?
>
OK, now I *had* to go back and dig out the information. The original RTA 12,
12A and 12B all used the Peerless cloth dome tweeter. Polk modified it by
burning that small hole in it to lower its resonant frequency. The white piece
behind the dome is hard fabric, there to prevent the dome from being crushed
and provide a minor amount of damping. The 6.5" drivers had breakup problems
starting relatively low in frequency, so Polk tried to use the tweeter as low
as possible and roll the drivers out a little lower than you'd normally want.
The Peerless tweeter can handle power fairly well, but Polk used it quite low.
The crossover was specified at a low 2k, but may really be closer to 1500Hz.
The RTA 12 and RTA 12A were both meant to be placed on stands, with the
original 12 having the tweeter mounted 'sideways.' I think the 12A did, too,
and other changes between them were fairly minor. The 12B was a significant
DavidKak
writes:
>Well, I think it must be the RTA 12B then... as the tweeter is mounted in a
>vertical 'plate' with a sloping ramp below it, all facing forwards, all
>black. I believe that was a typo about 1991, you surely meant 1981 from the
>rest of your sentence.... I have fat blind fingers too.... why, I couldn't
>even type at all until a couple of years ago... LOL....
>
Sho' nuff. 1981. Whoops!
>What is the significance of the ohm rating, if you don't mind helping me
>again? I know there are different ratings, but I don't understand them in
>practice. Is there anything I should be doing about any connections,
>settings, or anything regarding the ohm factor? Forgive my ignorance
>please, it should be obvious by now that my knowledge of speakers is
>limited.... ;-)
>
Well, lower impedance speakers put more demands on an amplifier. If an
amplifier is to try to maintain constant output voltage at any impedance, the
current requirements go up or down depending on the impedance at any given
frequency. For example, we have an amp that can produce "X" voltage at 8 ohms.
If we present the amp with 4 ohms and want to maintain the same "X" voltage,
the amplifier must produce twice the current that it did at 8 ohms. With each
halving of resistance, the current demands double. That takes a mighty robust
power supply... the heart and soul (and a major cost) of an amplifier.
Since the RTA 12B is a 'nominal' 4 ohm load (impedance varies with frequency),
it's reasonable to assume that at some frequencies it will actually be higher
than 4 ohms and lower than 4 ohms at some frequencies, too -- most likely at
low frequencies where demands on the amp are greatest (ouch!). As I remember,
the RTA 12B's lowest impedance is somewhere between 2-3 ohms.
If the Sony has an impedance switch on the back try the 4 ohm setting and see
if it sounds any better. And use a heavy gage speaker wire such as 10 gage if
possible. These suggestions may help but cannot get over the limitation that
the receiver wasn't intended to drive difficult loads. Not many receivers can
do that very well.
I'd think that to get the 12Bs to perform the best they can, an amplifier that
is comfortable driving 2 ohm loads is in order. A fairly tall order, to be
sure, but there are products out there that can do it with aplomb. For grins,
see if your dealer has an amp of this sort on demo that you might loan from him
to try.
I'd also look at used gear. The first amp that comes to my mind is a G.A.S.
Son of Ampzilla. Used Sons go for $150 - $200 these days and sound pretty good
in stock form. The Son is well suited to drive a load like the RTA 12B. And
for the performance minded, the original designer offers a rebuild that
modernizes the Son and makes it quite competitive with many of today's better
amps. While it's rated at 'only' 80 watts per channel in stock or rebuilt
form, you'll be amazed at the difference in sound quality between it and the
Sony receiver. And I'd bet the Son will be more dynamic and play the Polks
louder to boot.
Dave Kakenmaster
Sundog
<grin>.... No really, I do have a much better understanding now, and will
watch for other equipment to come along. It's kind of funny the way things
keep showing up in my life, so we'll see. Actually the Sony is sounding
really great to me as I become more accustomed to the difference in the
sound quality of the Polk speakers (compared to what I was listening to for
several years).
I did get behind the receiver and it is set for 4-6 ohm... I must have
already had it set that way because I see in the manual it says to set it
there if using multiple speaker pairs simultaneously.... which I was.
I really appreciate the info......Thanks again, Jacques
DavidKak
writes:
>It's kind of funny the way things keep showing up in my life,
>so we'll see.
I love to collect gear, too. While there are many good amps out there, some of
my reasons for specifically recommending a Son of Ampzilla were that a) they
are cheap on the used market, b) it's from a similar vintage as the RTA 12
(Sons were made from about 1976 until the company folded in the early '80s), c)
it'll drive the 12s properly and d) there's an upgrade path from its designer
that'll bring the amp's performance completely up to date. Of the amps GAS
made (Ampzilla, Son of Ampzilla and Grandson of Ampzilla, plus a few Godzillas
at the end), the Son and Grandson were both the best sounding and most
reliable.
If the Sony makes the 12Bs sound good, wait until you hear them driven by an
amp that can *really* drive them. They'll come to life. I know I'm harping on
the amp thing, but until you try it, 'you ain't heard nothin' yet.'
> Actually the Sony is sounding really great to me as I become more
> accustomed to the difference in the sound quality of the Polk
> speakers (compared to what I was listening to for several years).
I'm glad they still work so well. The previous owner must have taken good care
of them. When the 12 was redesigned as a floorstanding speaker and became the
12B, Polk really improved its performance. The earlier 12 and 12A are probably
best remembered as 'works in progress.'
BTW, what finish are your 12s? As I recall, the standard finishes were walnut
and rosewood vinyl veneers and real walnut wood veneer as available as a
special order option. I recall we added a real oak veneer option with the 12C,
but maybe it was earlier -- with the 12B.
Dave Kakenmaster
Sundog
DavidKak wrote <snip>
>If the Sony makes the 12Bs sound good, wait until you hear them driven by
an
>amp that can *really* drive them. They'll come to life. I know I'm
harping on
>the amp thing, but until you try it, 'you ain't heard nothin' yet.'
Well, ..... who knows. I'll keep an eye/ear open. I like being surprised &
amazed! .... ;-) Correction to an earlier statement, the Sony is 50 watts
per channel, not 100. Still, it doesn't sound labored at higher volumes. Do
you know of any 'used equipt. dealers' on the web by chance? I've had
excellent luck over the years with a 'used camera dealer' called KEH in
Atlanta, and wonder if there is something like that for audio gear. KEH has
a product rating system, warranty & monthly catalog....just great company &
people.
>BTW, what finish are your 12s? As I recall, the standard finishes were
walnut
>and rosewood vinyl veneers and real walnut wood veneer as available as a
>special order option. I recall we added a real oak veneer option with the
12C,
>but maybe it was earlier -- with the 12B.
These are a light oak real wood veneer. The veneer is the only problem with
these speakers.... it's in poor shape in places. I figure someday I may well
refinish them myself or something, since the speakers certainly are worth
the effort. (BTW.... *WE* added?)
regards, Jacques Bordeleau
DavidKak
writes:
>Do you know of any 'used equipt. dealers' on the web by chance?
There seem to be many, but if you post a WTB ad in rec.audio.marketplace you
will probably be able to locate a piece of gear you want. Son of Ampzillas
seem to show up there for sale about every other month or so. Just last week
there was just one posted for sale along with either a Thalia or Thoebe preamp.
You could try deja.com to search rec.audio.marketplace for one, too.
>I've had excellent luck over the years with a 'used camera dealer'
>called KEH in Atlanta, and wonder if there is something like that for
>audio gear. KEH has a product rating system, warranty & monthly
>catalog....just great company & people.
I purchased a lens from them a few years ago, and you're right. They were
great to deal with and even though it was used, the lens looked nearly new.
>These are a light oak real wood veneer. The veneer is the only problem
>with these speakers.... it's in poor shape in places. I figure someday I
>may well refinish them myself or something, since the speakers certainly
>are worth the effort. (BTW.... *WE* added?)
Ahh, the challenge of refinishing. It can be done, but be careful. The
veneer's not that deep. On the 'we' thing, oops, old habits. I worked for
Polk from 1984 to 1997 and sold it at retail for almost 5 years before that. I
bought a pair of Monitor 10s in 1977 during college and loved 'em. They were a
great 'college speaker'.
Dave Kakenmaster
Sundog
DavidKak wrote <snip>..... if you post a WTB ad in rec.audio.marketplace you
>will probably be able to locate a piece of gear you want. Son of Ampzillas
>seem to show up there for sale about every other month or so. Just last
week
>there was just one posted for sale along with either a Thalia or Thoebe
preamp.
> You could try deja.com to search rec.audio.marketplace for one, too.
Good idea. I have added it to my news grouping... I'll start lurking there
for a while.
>Ahh, the challenge of refinishing. It can be done, but be careful. The
>veneer's not that deep.
It'll be some time before I get to it. I may try to just refinish the
veneer, or I may even replace it completely. Like I said, it'll be a while.
My short term plans involve moving to another state in the coming year (I
hope). I didn't want to acquire any more large objects to have to move, but
I bought these speakers anyway...HA!
>On the 'we' thing, oops, old habits. I worked for
>Polk from 1984 to 1997 and sold it at retail for almost 5 years before
that.
Gotcha! I was thinking you seemed awfully knowledgeable about Polk
specifically. And knowing this I will certainly take your word on the 'Son'
as the amp of choice for this speaker........ as the voice of experience.
Thanks again. The 'Son' will require a separate preamp I am assuming!? Is
there a possibility of using the Sony as a preamp? I'll look... some
receivers have preamp 'outs' don't they? I'm just thinking about the
easiest, simplest way to go.... until I move and all. Once I'm moved, things
will be different. I intend to do some serious system-izing in my new digs.
regards, Jacques Bordeleau
DavidKak
writes:
>The 'Son' will require a separate preamp I am assuming!? Is
>there a possibility of using the Sony as a preamp? I'll look... some
>receivers have preamp 'outs' don't they? I'm just thinking about the
>easiest, simplest way to go.... until I move and all. Once I'm moved,
>things will be different. I intend to do some serious system-izing in
>my new digs.
Yes, the Son is simply a power amp and will need a preamp. Your Sony receiver
may have 'preamp outs' so you can use it with a real power amp. Once you move
and settle in, get the Son rebuilt by James Bongiorno and you'll have an amp
that'll sound competitive with many of the best out there today and will drive
darn near any load you connect to it -- you won't be too limited in what you
can use for speakers.
At some point you can then get a really good preamp to improve things, too.
In our bedroom system, I have a Bongiorno-rebuilt Son driving a pair of
speakers that are a 2 ohm load. It's happy as a clam driving those speakers,
and I have a friend who also has one which he uses to drive electrostatic
speakers -- which are extremely difficult to drive correctly. He and his
audiophile buddies compared his rebuilt Son to a $3500 Krell amp (owned by one
of his friends who participated) and every one of them thought the Son was more
musical. No, it wasn't a double-blind test, but biases tended to favor the
newer, cooler looking Krell.
Dave Kakenmaster
Sundog
Well David, the Sony doesn't have pre-outs, so that ends that idea. I am
checking _rec.audio.marketplace_ as suggested for a Son. I can ask around
locally as well. Too bad, there was a great Pre-amp & Tuner pair here
recently for real cheap... but I said to myself, 'I don't need that for
anything.'..... duh! Oh well. I have time on my side. I read the Sony has a
higher power output at the lower impedance settings, and will even drive 2
ohm speakers .... it says in the manual. I was just reading about the line,
and that receiver in particular, again last night, and it is an impressive
unit.... as far as receivers go.
So how/where do I get in touch with this James Bongiorno when the time
comes, and what does he charge for this rebuild?
regards, Jacques Bordeleau
DavidKak
writes:
>So how/where do I get in touch with this James Bongiorno when the time
>comes, and what does he charge for this rebuild?
>
You can call James at 805-740-9902 or email him at
jamesbo...@ampzilla2000.com
He'll be happy to chat with you regarding any questions you may have about the
rebuilds or even what to look for before the purchase. A fun guy to talk to,
he's been in the business since the early '60s. Talk about someone who really
*has* 'been there and done that'!
Last I knew, the Son rebuild was $400. There's also a $50 extra cost option to
go a step further by adding a servo card to improve the bass performance even
beyond the standard rebuild. I have it and recommend it highly. The only
caveat is that with the servo card, the amp will 'thump' when turned on. Not a
big deal, really.
Please say hello for me if you talk with James.
Dave Kakenmaster