• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Polk R200, Investigation Re: I am very Disappointed with Dull non HiFi sound.

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,355
Likes
2,348
Location
Minneapolis
I want to preface this by noting it is possible these speakers have some issue, some defect. What follows is based on how they sound to me (and my GF)and measure in my space. If anyone with measurement skills can measure their set in a similar fashion in your room please do & report.
Hi, when Polk announced the R200 and the rest of the line I had a curiosity about them. I have a lot of speakers I am testing plus my personal stuff to enjoy so I held off. When all the positive reviews had piled up I allowed Cyber Monday to indulge me and a pair landed at my house. I opened them up to make sure they worked, I noticed a very chesty and dull sound quality but didn't really think much of it, 20 minutes of quick testing, I put them aside for later.
Well later is this week. I finally got them up and running and now I have a problem. I am well past the Polk return period and these suckers don't sound good to me at all. Why?
One thing that pops up in the reviews consistently is a forward signature and strong midrange.
Another thing is excellent bass.
My set doesn't have either above quality but it does have a surprising lack of vibrancy, spaciousness, realism, "air". In a test comparison my GF asked what I did to the sound when I switched the R200's in. Something was obviously missing. (VS a pair of Revel M16's)
So subjectively these sound dull, lifeless, decidedly not hifi.

Hmmm,
I am going to post a significant amount of in room measurements, some gated and some MMM @ the listening position.
Before I do lemme cut to the chase. If these speakers are representative of the normal design, I think I can explain why they get accolades for the bass and for the appealing midrange presence.
Folks are turning them up to get the highs/sense of vitality/air they need and thus the mids become quite forward, almost bright in the upper mids (3-5k)due to the imbalance and the bass sounds huge as again the speakers are playing that region at higher than normal SPL.
I don't think very many folks actually SPL match their listening session-even reviewers. I have a set way I match the SPL so when testing or comparing the volume is equal energy in the midrange between speakers (500hrz-2500hrz)and I keep a set volume for most testing. (about 85/86db with peaks into the mid to high 90's)
If I listen lower or higher I still pay attention to equalizing the SPL.

First I wish I would have really looked at this data piece from @napilopez , also I am sure I would have underestimated this though so oh well.
Look at how these baby's beam @5k-20K after a slight rise around 3500k. Yikes.
(I actually think the Olive prediction may fail to fully appreciate the lessened energy in the treble. In my subjective listening it is profound, especially if I sit side by side with my GF)

1645770726606.png



I took some measurements today of a variety of speakers.
Sadly I can't use the outdoors, it is snowing and cold and some months to go before Spring.
I will start with the gated indoor measurements. Compare them with each other but NOT to other data sets.
Resolution is only about 280hrz, that is plenty though for this purpose.
1 meter @ tweeter
SPL matched via REW pink noise 500-2500hrz
(All speakers are playing at equal midrange energy)

Here is are some on Axis, gated data points
Included are the following R200,KEF R3,Revel M16,POLK XT15,ELAC B5.2,Sony SSCS5,Klipsch RP160m,Focal 605, JBL 4309
R200 is highlighted to some how it fits the group, you can see it is lower than @napilopez and the lowest on axis treble energy of the group.
Screenshot (31).png

60 degree of Axis, gated data points
R200 is again yellow highlighted. Very low energy in the treble at 60d off.
Screenshot (33).png

Here are the 0,30,60 for the R200 and Revel M16
Look at the difference here, pretty significant.
0d-30d-60d R200 M16.jpg

Here is the JBL 4309 at 0 then 60 degrees off axis (no 30 here)
Screenshot (35).png


I placed some speakers along with the R200 at two locations and took MMM energy captures. 1/24octave smoothed.

Here we have At location 1, R200 in yellow highlight, KEF R3, Polk XT15, JBL 530, JC 1159 DIY Kit, Infinity R152

Screenshot (29).png

Zoomed in with just the R200 and Revel M16
Screenshot (30).png


Location 2,
Here I show the bass range as well and you see the R200 is typical for the class in terms of response. Of course dynamics and HD/IMD distortion and output capability among other factors are not shown here. (speakers are measured in the exact same spot)
R200 in Yellow, M16, JBL l82, RP160m, KEF R3, J.C. 1159 DIY Kit
Screenshot (22).png

R200 in Yellow with the Revel M16

Screenshot (26).png

Zoomed in on the group, Again R200 in yellow (and the line hidden behind the R200 is a second R200)
Much lower energy in the room in the treble region for the R200.
Screenshot (23).png


This room curve drop 1db per octave from 200hrz
Screenshot (24).png

This one drops 0.8db per octave from 200hrz

Screenshot (25).png


In both line to response instances the R200 is pretty low in treble energy compared with some sort of idealized line. I am aware the idealized line is NOT a goal however it is interesting to see this variation.

Can anyone measure their sets?
I am very curious what is up, hype or defects or listener errors - my error's yours, anyone's :)
I reality they sound okay, just not like $750 worth of hifi and engineering. I have not tried to adjust the treble with any DSP boost.
Prolly not worth my time, fun times on one hand and on the other I have much work to do on other stuff.
Basically these are for sale now, or maybe Polk wants them back?
 
Last edited:

Walter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
796
Likes
1,064
Do you by any chance have a particularly live room, where the reflected sound plays a larger than normal role, especially the rear and/or side wall reflections?
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
1,805
Likes
1,236
Location
Sweden
Probably a property of the ring tweeter.
 

beaRA

Active Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
211
I'm inclined to think something is wrong with your sample or method. @napilopez 's measurement of the R200, @hardisj 's measurement of the R100, and James Larson's measurement of the R700 all show an on-axis rise above 5kHz. Your gated on-axis measurement shows the tweeter falling off in this range.
 

Transmaniacon

Active Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
154
Likes
122
Something weird is going on with your room to see such massive treble roll off, can you share a picture of your setup and room?
 
OP
R

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,355
Likes
2,348
Location
Minneapolis
I'm inclined to think something is wrong with your sample or method. @napilopez 's measurement of the R200, @hardisj 's measurement of the R100, and James Larson's measurement of the R700 all show an on-axis rise above 5kHz. Your gated on-axis measurement shows the tweeter falling off in this range.
Howdy.
1st, One huge issue is that if mine are defective in some way, very likely other sets are. Both units match extremely well, it isn't hard to suppose there might be a larger issue at Polk. It could just be a few pairs, could be dozens, hundreds or even thousands of speakers as Polk is huge and a bad batch could be a large stock. (mine we purchased directly from Polk on Cyber Monday for stock context)

I posted this due to the variation from the currently published content in both my subjective experience and my resulting measurements. I am aware of the variation from the reviewers and that is the reason I posted in the 1st place. I thought that was clear?

This being ASR, I figured a few folks bought these based off the reviews and again since this is ASR also have the ability to measure their sets. It will take a bit of time so I understand some are short of time. I find it surprising no one is posting any measurements or mentioning they will when they get time. Don't folks want to make sure they have what they think they have? Not everyone has lots of speakers to compare to or experience so I am hoping that they are not at home with a pair of these suffering to enjoy them because of good reviews - when in fact there is an issue.
Please if anyone over the next few days can measure in a similar fashion to what I did that would be great.

As far as my measurement technique, all of those measurements were taken yesterday. Every single one. Multiple speaker pairs in multiple ways using the same technique for measurement. I did also take some similar sets a few days ago but decided to ensure they were all from the same day to throw out any discussion of error or measurement variation. I have taken multiple measurements of the R200 beyond what I posted and they are always exactly the same.
The rest of the speakers match well with what others have posted.
The R200 is an outlier as they do not match on axis. NOTE, they do match previously published data well off axis.
The calculated in room prediction of energy at the listening position (room curve) does not match as well. My actually measurements show significantly less treble energy than the prediction. I have yet to see anyone else publish an actual in room measurement. Again it would be great if someone would and include a few other known speakers for measurement context.

Do you by any chance have a particularly live room, where the reflected sound plays a larger than normal role, especially the rear and/or side wall reflections?
Something weird is going on with your room to see such massive treble roll off, can you share a picture of your setup and room?

Howdy.
No, not a particularly live room. Actually less sidewall reflection than "typical" and minimal rear wall reflections.
No other speakers out of many have any notable problem. The treble roll of is the R200's only, I can't say it enough how many others speakers are here.

No photos of my space for now. I live in a big city.
The room is 12x23.
The mains are 3 feet from the front wall and just under 2 from the sides so about 8 feet apart.
The side walls have large(5.5ft) openings just in front of the speakers leading into neighboring rooms.
Listening position is 15 feet from front(11-12 feet from speakers) wall and that leaves 8 feet behind me and a staircase breaks up half that rear wall as well.
Hardwood floors with a large rug and big L couch are here.

Again anyone with the Polk R200 or even other Rseries units, please take some time to measure what you getting and post. Especially worth doing if you purchased around the time I did.
 

Transmaniacon

Active Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
154
Likes
122
Howdy.
1st, One huge issue is that if mine are defective in some way, very likely other sets are. Both units match extremely well, it isn't hard to suppose there might be a larger issue at Polk. It could just be a few pairs, could be dozens, hundreds or even thousands of speakers as Polk is huge and a bad batch could be a large stock. (mine we purchased directly from Polk on Cyber Monday for stock context)

I posted this due to the variation from the currently published content in both my subjective experience and my resulting measurements. I am aware of the variation from the reviewers and that is the reason I posted in the 1st place. I thought that was clear?

This being ASR, I figured a few folks bought these based off the reviews and again since this is ASR also have the ability to measure their sets. It will take a bit of time so I understand some are short of time. I find it surprising no one is posting any measurements or mentioning they will when they get time. Don't folks want to make sure they have what they think they have? Not everyone has lots of speakers to compare to or experience so I am hoping that they are not at home with a pair of these suffering to enjoy them because of good reviews - when in fact there is an issue.
Please if anyone over the next few days can measure in a similar fashion to what I did that would be great.

As far as my measurement technique, all of those measurements were taken yesterday. Every single one. Multiple speaker pairs in multiple ways using the same technique for measurement. I did also take some similar sets a few days ago but decided to ensure they were all from the same day to throw out any discussion of error or measurement variation. I have taken multiple measurements of the R200 beyond what I posted and they are always exactly the same.
The rest of the speakers match well with what others have posted.
The R200 is an outlier as they do not match on axis. NOTE, they do match previously published data well off axis.
The calculated in room prediction of energy at the listening position (room curve) does not match as well. My actually measurements show significantly less treble energy than the prediction. I have yet to see anyone else publish an actual in room measurement. Again it would be great if someone would and include a few other known speakers for measurement context.




Howdy.
No, not a particularly live room. Actually less sidewall reflection than "typical" and minimal rear wall reflections.
No other speakers out of many have any notable problem. The treble roll of is the R200's only, I can't say it enough how many others speakers are here.

No photos of my space for now. I live in a big city.
The room is 12x23.
The mains are 3 feet from the front wall and just under 2 from the sides so about 8 feet apart.
The side walls have large(5.5ft) openings just in front of the speakers leading into neighboring rooms.
Listening position is 15 feet from front(11-12 feet from speakers) wall and that leaves 8 feet behind me and a staircase breaks up half that rear wall as well.
Hardwood floors with a large rug and big L couch are here.

Again anyone with the Polk R200 or even other Rseries units, please take some time to measure what you getting and post. Especially worth doing if you purchased around the time I did.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve from a 60 degree off-axis measurement? In your first graph, on-axis response is nearly the flattest of the group. These speakers are certainly sensitive to placement, aim them at your or slightly less toe-in and they are about as flat as anything you will find in this price and even beyond a bit.
 

beaRA

Active Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
211
I posted this due to the variation from the currently published content in both my subjective experience and my resulting measurements. I am aware of the variation from the reviewers and that is the reason I posted in the 1st place. I thought that was clear?
It's clear you recognized the difference between your measurement and @napilopez 's measurement. I just wanted to make it clear that the on-axis response of this tweeter has been consistent across several reviewers.
Please if anyone over the next few days can measure in a similar fashion to what I did that would be great.
I'm in the middle of a move, but I might be able to give it a shot soon. I've not done gated measurements in the past, so I'll have to finally dive into napilopez's tutorial. I've got 2 sets of R100's, one of which is the DUT in Erin's measurement. I've also got Arendal 1961 Monitors to compare.
 
OP
R

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,355
Likes
2,348
Location
Minneapolis
What exactly are you hoping to achieve from a 60 degree off-axis measurement? In your first graph, on-axis response is nearly the flattest of the group. These speakers are certainly sensitive to placement, aim them at your or slightly less toe-in and they are about as flat as anything you will find in this price and even beyond a bit.
60 degrees speaks to how it is contributing to the overall in room sound.
It has a lot to do with reflection power and the reflection sound signature.
You see how different the sound is between the 60degree and on axis? This will be what you hear reflected off the walls. (and floor and ceiling)
The on axis is associated with tonality however this off axis sound will combine with the on axis to produce what one perceives as "the sound".
Additionally off axis is associated spaciousness and many other things. In the Harman score it is huge, and called the 1st reflections.
It is a smooth fall off so they generally sound smooth but in this case the drop is so severe that they sound dull - resulting in a red flag.

See how much the 60 degree off axis of both the Revel m16 and JBL 4309 track the on axis and how the Polk is drastically different from 4-5k onward? These 3 all sound exactly in my room like what the data I present suggests.

The in room curve of the speaker, which was taken while they were fully toed into the listening position is about what they sound like.
They are already aimed at me.
Fully on axis this pair sounds dull, not just easy listening, dark or reserved but rather fairly dull.

The on axis is fairly smooth and note these measurements are taken at 1meter but they speaker should have been measured at 2-3meters so air attenuation would have dropped all of these in the treble by 1-2db relative to what I have . I can't use such a large distance indoors so 1meter is a good compromise.
In essence the treble on axis is smooth and slightly a bit on the low side and then very low off axis very quickly here.
I can say that the midrange does also appear very smooth.

Look I appreciate all the replies and realize my posts are long and involved. I can't seem to say enough how there are a serious number of speakers here, I am not listing in a vacuum and have many speaker of many price ranges here now. I am not looking for the advise to toe them in. This is requires a bit of help investigating the situation and perhaps contacting Polk if I get a some more data.

*I would say the main point now is to figure out if a batch came out with weak tweeters, incorrect crossover values or something similar.* Otherwise others and perhaps many folks may be buying a less than stellar speaker for $750.
Or if these are spec & this is just the sound sig of this product I would like to let people know that I would personally skip them or try them with a few other options in house to make a sound choice.
 

Larry B. Larabee

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
347
Likes
184
The objective performance from all previously published graphs on the forum is very poor. Your comprehensive showing of that fact backed up by listening tests proves that people are not interpretting the graphs properly, don't know accurate production when they hear it and the preference score has serious flaws that most are putting up with for no good reason. Nice job.
 

Walter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
796
Likes
1,064
60 degrees speaks to how it is contributing to the overall in room sound.
It has a lot to do with reflection power and the reflection sound signature.
You see how different the sound is between the 60degree and on axis? This will be what you hear reflected off the walls. (and floor and ceiling)
The on axis is associated with tonality however this off axis sound will combine with the on axis to produce what one perceives as "the sound".
Additionally off axis is associated spaciousness and many other things. In the Harman score it is huge, and called the 1st reflections.
It is a smooth fall off so they generally sound smooth but in this case the drop is so severe that they sound dull - resulting in a red flag.

See how much the 60 degree off axis of both the Revel m16 and JBL 4309 track the on axis and how the Polk is drastically different from 4-5k onward? These 3 all sound exactly in my room like what the data I present suggests.

The in room curve of the speaker, which was taken while they were fully toed into the listening position is about what they sound like.
They are already aimed at me.
Fully on axis this pair sounds dull, not just easy listening, dark or reserved but rather fairly dull.

The on axis is fairly smooth and note these measurements are taken at 1meter but they speaker should have been measured at 2-3meters so air attenuation would have dropped all of these in the treble by 1-2db relative to what I have . I can't use such a large distance indoors so 1meter is a good compromise.
In essence the treble on axis is smooth and slightly a bit on the low side and then very low off axis very quickly here.
I can say that the midrange does also appear very smooth.

Look I appreciate all the replies and realize my posts are long and involved. I can't seem to say enough how there are a serious number of speakers here, I am not listing in a vacuum and have many speaker of many price ranges here now. I am not looking for the advise to toe them in. This is requires a bit of help investigating the situation and perhaps contacting Polk if I get a some more data.

*I would say the main point now is to figure out if a batch came out with weak tweeters, incorrect crossover values or something similar.* Otherwise others and perhaps many folks may be buying a less than stellar speaker for $750.
Or if these are spec & this is just the sound sig of this product I would like to let people know that I would personally skip them or try them with a few other options in house to make a sound choice.
I don't understand why so many people seem to just immediately attack your findings. You've provided the measurements and described your technique. The chances of two defective speakers with the same performance is miniscule. Does nobody remember the difference between Amir's measurements of the JBL Stage A130 and Erin's, which indicated that JBL had either made a change or that different production runs for some other reason were were using different components? This is really good info to have. I hope other owners are able to test and report back.
 

Larry B. Larabee

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
347
Likes
184
I don't understand why so many people seem to just immediately attack your findings. You've provided the measurements and described your technique. The chances of two defective speakers with the same performance is miniscule. Does nobody remember the difference between Amir's measurements of the JBL Stage A130 and Erin's, which indicated that JBL had either made a change or that different production runs for some other reason were were using different components? This is really good info to have. I hope other owners are able to test and report back.
You get measurements when they want it and there is still controversy about the method. Can the R200 owners chiming in be taken seriously? I'm sure it's hard to take being informed about a personal opinion especially when it appears that you've done your due diligence to get value for your money based on a source of information that's now become questionable to you based on misguided interpretation of the facts. Just to be clear, the reviews here make very few actual claims and let the measurements speak for themselves. What you get out of them is your problem or advantage.
 
OP
R

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,355
Likes
2,348
Location
Minneapolis
Do they still sound dull listening near field?
Hi, I have not used them that way.
I can do it sometime later this weekend. Nearfield is a very different beastie so I will take a few measurements as well.
I think I will set them up with a whole different set-up in a smaller room and see what happens.

I don't understand why so many people seem to just immediately attack your findings. You've provided the measurements and described your technique. The chances of two defective speakers with the same performance is miniscule. Does nobody remember the difference between Amir's measurements of the JBL Stage A130 and Erin's, which indicated that JBL had either made a change or that different production runs for some other reason were were using different components? This is really good info to have. I hope other owners are able to test and report back.
Howdy, if mine are representative of a new batch that has reduced on axis tweeter output and thus even more reduced off axis output that the original batches then folks might want to know.
Though some folks are just going to be disappointed and others skeptical of my findings here. I understand that, it can be hard parse out who to trust and who to turn down.
The more I think about all the supply issues companies have been dealing with, it wouldn't be hard to imagine trying new suppliers or getting a batch off of spec but using it anyway as who knows how long it will take to replace.

Whether batch issues or not in looking at the data from the original Klippel tests and that nice guy from Next Web's posts here it is definitely a speaker with certain characteristics off axis that may preclude it from fully receiving some of it's accolades in my judgement.
To each their own though and nobody needs to not like how they sound. I just didn't and thus investigated and found a potential issue worth discussing IMHO.

Thank for the kind words and I do think eventually we may see some more data when people have time.

Actually this may be a good pair to send in for testing here though if I suspect issues Amir may be somewhat hesitant to test this pair - or maybe even more excited than usual. Who knows. 1st I need to test more and determine if I should have Polk replace mine or help me in some way. I'd have a hard time selling these when I am done if I think they are not legitimately to spec.
 

beaRA

Active Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
211
You get measurements when they want it and there is still controversy about the method. Can the R200 owners chiming in be taken seriously? I'm sure it's hard to take being informed about a personal opinion especially when it appears that you've done your due diligence to get value for your money based on a source of information that's now become questionable to you based on misguided interpretation of the facts. Just to be clear, the reviews here make very few actual claims and let the measurements speak for themselves. What you get out of them is your problem or advantage.
You are making logical leaps here that are not supported by the data in the original post. Assuming the method is sound, the sample in question clearly measures differently than 3 other review samples. We can work together to figure out the discrepancy without making it about egos.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,993
Likes
7,758
Location
NYC
Thank you for sharing your measurements! Always good to have more data, and it helps make these discussions more objective and friendly =]

First I want to make one important point:

The main thing that confuses me a bit is why there is a mindset that everyone must like a speaker if it seems to measure decently. The way I see it, I look at the data, make an educated guess on if I'll like it, try it at home. Usually the data fits with what I'd expect, sometimes it doesn't. That's fine. I try to see if there's something in the data I missed to explain it, sometimes I don't find it, then I move on. I'm sure we could find a reason if we had access to an anechoic chamber and a blind testing facility, but we do the best with what we have.

Although keep in mind for most of my speaker reviews, including the R200, I listen first -- usually for a month or longer. My listening impressions are mostly written before my data assessment is.

Point is, it is totally fine to recognize a speaker measures decently and note that at the same time you just don't like it. There's no such thing as a speaker everybody likes. I don't personally love every great measuring speaker -- as I've said many times, I will pick a decent directivity wide directivity speaker over a perfect but narrow directivity speaker any day of the week -- but I do generally like them more than poor measuring one. That's all the data is about.

So it's totally fine for ROOSKIE to not like this speaker. Likewise it's fine for other people to like theirs. ROOSKIE's data and impressions is an interesting counterpoint, and I will take that into mind when recommending this speaker, but I don't see why the outlier impressions of one user should dissuade other people for trying it out for themselves.

Believe or not, there are people out there who hate revels and genelecs =] The other day I was in another forum and someone asked about speakers. I recommended Genelecs and someone doubted it and said "I don’t recall anybody raving about Genelec on any audiophile forums" and I had a little chuckle.

Anyway, onto the data.

To me the fact that your tweeter output is so much lower basically settles it. It's essentially a different/EQ'd speaker. It measured duller than every other speaker you tested both on axis and off axis, and it 100% makes sense that it would sound duller too. End of story.

For reference, here are your measurements vs mine. Problem is, we don't know if our microphones are of similar accuracy. What are you using for your measurements @ROOSKIE ? I have the CSL calibrated umik-1, which I've tested to generally match soundstage network almost perfectly, as well as Amir's more recent measurements.

R200 Rooksie.png


Changed to a proper aspect ratio and smoothed to 1/6th for clarity.

Likewise, if you think the R200 is bad and believe the measurements mean anything, then there's evenless reason that you would've liked the L200, which you mentioned you liked in the other thread. It has nearly identical measurements, except it has at least two very pronounced resonances due to noisy port.

Here is how the R200 compares to the L200. On axis and PIR:

R200 vs L200.png


Throughout the full data set, the L200 has far more pronounced port resonances, and the CSD is worse too, highlighting those resonances. L200:

L200 csd.png



R200:
R200 CSD.png


So again, I find it puzzling that you liked the L200 and not the R200, and to me suggests something else might be at play. I realize you only had the L200 for a few days, but just something to keep in mind. Given the same drivers and similar crossover, it's hard to imagine distortion being a factor either.

On a speaker with a beaming tweeter like this, it's important that the last couple of octaves is elevated to some degree to maintain a neutral balance in most rooms. So the fact that yours has less treble energy than most speakers already spells a bad story and I would certainly expect such a speaker to sound at least somewhat dull.

But I also want to point out that a don't think a beaming tweeter isinherently a bad thing. I imagine it might make a speaker a bit more picky about a room and placement. But in my experience the main effect is on the spatial presentation.

You mentioned that in your room the sidewalls are open. That could somehow factor into it -- it would mean the angle for your sidewall reflections is steeper than most, potentially making the effect of the beaming even more pronounced, especially if your room happens to already be otherwise absorptive.

Edit: Anyway, these are all just interesting thoughts. But at the end of the day, your tweeter seems to be running low on energy, so to speak, so that explains the differences in impressions more than anything else.

I am very curious whether this an issue with your units (both would indeed be weird, though, unless Polk is somehow pair matching speakers that are off spec), if its a bad batch, or if polk changed the tuning slightly at some point. The majority of impressions I've read, where they not a bright vs dull character, have suggested these leaned toward being bright speakers, and that was my impression on axis, so who knows if polk decided to turn that data down. I highly doubt it though.

The objective performance from all previously published graphs on the forum is very poor. Your comprehensive showing of that fact backed up by listening tests proves that people are not interpretting the graphs properly, don't know accurate production when they hear it and the preference score has serious flaws that most are putting up with for no good reason. Nice job.
I know it's fun to hate on a popular product and all, but lets take a step back. What exactly makes every measurement "very poor?" If you think these measurements are poor, you also have to acknowledge that a significant number of other speakers that are popular here also measure "poorly."

To be clear, I don't care at all if individual people like this speaker or not lol. But I do think there is a difference between liking a speaker (an individual opinion based on a variety of individual specific conditions) vs something being a good speaker (whether it's likely to be enjoyed by the majority of listeners).
 
Last edited:

Ninjastar

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2021
Messages
23
Likes
34
This is purely anecdotal, but I have purchased two sets of Polk R200's, one of which was an earlier production model from Crutchfield and the second from around the same time Rooskie purchased his (also direct from Polk/Sound United).

Both of them sounded the same to me, which subjectively sounds good to me. No shelved down or dull treble response for me. These are about as bright as I personally want a speaker to be.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,324
Likes
5,883
Location
Canada
The difference looks like a lot on the graph, but IMO it is within the range that is possible for unit to unit variation for cheap tweeters. It's a bit of an excessive case(if the measurements are comparable, umiks can be weird in the upper treble) but certainly possible.

Unfortunately we don't really know how good unit variation is between mfgs except for some of the studio monitor companies.
 
Top Bottom