Polk Reserve R200: Spinorama and measurements (a really nice surprise!)

[beagleman]

I am using the SMSL DA-9, Rotel RC-1572 MKII pre and RB1552 MKII power and the Topping PA5 with SMSL SU9, SU9N and Sanskrit 10th MKII. Whichever combo I use, it gets shouty and bright when I push the volume. Erin who recently reviewed the R100 confirmed what I was saying all along, it is detailed but it can get lean at high volumes. Its no wonder because from graphs, we can see it indeed has a rising top end. Great at low and normal volumes, not so at really high volumes. Still one of the best sounding speakers Ive owned so far, with the 12.2 taking the top place.

I have not heard ANY of the new line of Polks, but have found in general, some speakers that get irritating or lean at high volumes, tend to be just a bit strong in the 2 khz-4.5 khz range.

Often just reducing this range even 1 db or so, will take away that strident sound.

Or it may be as you surmise from listening, due more to the top end sound.

 

[thewas]

I think many find that to be of benefit honestly. I know the forum, mindset, is that wide dispersion is very important, but I have owned a few ring radiators and love how they have a very defined, focused image.

I also personally prefer rather higher directivity but not just on the last octave, also doubt that in this region it really influences the imaging which is correlated more to the mid frequencies.

 

[MarkWinston]

I have not heard ANY of the new line of Polks, but have found in general, some speakers that get irritating or lean at high volumes, tend to be just a bit strong in the 2 khz-4.5 khz range.

Often just reducing this range even 1 db or so, will take away that strident sound.

Or it may be as you surmise from listening, due more to the top end sound.

Subjectivity aside, objective data shows a rising top end. In this case, subjective listening and objective data correlates. And I am not the first one to say that it is bright at higher volume levels.

I have nothing good to say about other Polks from the lower lineup so Ill just leave it at that.

 

[Supalite SV]

NAD M10 + POLK R200 + SVS1000PRO
2.1 Universal Setup for Music & Movies

 

[sdiver68]

Thanks! Seems the R100 echoes it's big brother, but I think the extra low end of the R200 really rounds out the speaker.

The R100 has plenty of low end. Once properly balanced with a quality sub I'm not sure R200 offers advantage. R500+, perhaps different story.

 

[sdiver68]

Subjectivity aside, objective data shows a rising top end. In this case, subjective listening and objective data correlates. And I am not the first one to say that it is bright at higher volume levels.

I have nothing good to say about other Polks from the lower lineup so Ill just leave it at that.

But, very tunable via axis orientation or EQ.

Erin only had 1 speaker to listen to, so didnt have the ability to optimize.

 

[MarkWinston]

But, very tunable via axis orientation or EQ.

Erin only had 1 speaker to listen to, so didnt have the ability to optimize.

No. Unless you keep turning your speakers in and out depending on volume. Which is nonsense. And I do not use an eq.

 

[Walter]

Yes, as someone who regularly listens at three very different volume levels, I really wish more devices came with loudness controls these days.

 

[mhardy6647]

No. Unless you keep turning your speakers in and out depending on volume.

... and that's what "Leslies" are for.

 

[sdiver68]

No. Unless you keep turning your speakers in and out depending on volume. Which is nonsense. And I do not use an eq.

Nonsense is not understanding psyhoacoustics and loudness curves. Accuracy is accuracy.

 

[MarkWinston]

Nonsense is not understanding psyhoacoustics and loudness curves. Accuracy is accuracy.

I laughed out loud when I read 'accuracy'. Keep spouting nonsense.

 

[sdiver68]

I laughed out loud when I read 'accuracy'. Keep spouting nonsense.

When you are done with your condescending attitude, perhaps a reasonable and fact based response?

What I stated is exactly inline with other reviewers and the off-axis data

 

[MarkWinston]

When you are done with your condescending attitude, perhaps a reasonable and fact based response?

What I stated is exactly inline with other reviewers and the off-axis data

Erin said it became edgy and harsh at higher volumes, I said it was bright at higher volume levels, some other people that actually owns this speaker said the same thing, ON AXIS measurements on all sites show it has a rising treble amd an ON AXIS rising treble strongly indicates that it is indeed a bright speaker and can get overbearing at higher volumes. There is nothing more to say that can be more accurate than that.

 

[sdiver68]

Erin said it became edgy and harsh at higher volumes, I said it was bright at higher volume levels, some other people that actually owns this speaker said the same thing, ON AXIS measurements on all sites show it has a rising treble amd an ON AXIS rising treble strongly indicates that it is indeed a bright speaker and can get overbearing at higher volumes. There is nothing more to say that can be more accurate than that.

Off-axis measurements clearly show beaming and reduction in highs by angle. In fact, the flattest super accurate response is around 10 degrees off-axis, with sharp decline by 20 degrees.

Thus, exactly what I stated, easily tunable by position and EQ. Same as stated by many others including OP of this very thread "The biggest flaw is that it's sensitive to positioning, although this also lets you tweak the treble to your liking"

 

[hardisj]

The R100 estimated in-room response pretty much says it all wrt what I heard. 3dB delta between the midwoofer and tweeter trendlines. Can’t fix that with a tonal balance control because it is a function of the early shallow crossover on the midwoofer.

 

[hardisj]

Did you listen to a stereo pair?

Dude. You don’t have to listen to a strep pair to hear the issue. Others have, and have heard the issue. And again, the data shows a very obvious result.

Of course, you could try to argue what I did or didn’t hear. But that seems like a waste of your time. It won’t change anything on my end.

 

[sdiver68]

Dude. You don’t have to listen to a strep pair to hear the issue. Others have, and have heard the issue. And again, the data shows a very obvious result.

Of course, you could try to argue what I did or didn’t hear. But that seems like a waste of your time. It won’t change anything on my end.

I deleted my post. Going to use an EQ, RTA and my R100 speakers to present the facts.

I dont contest what you heard. I contest that you can't use tone control and off axis listening to flatten the treble.

 

[hardisj]

I deleted my post. Going to use an EQ, RTA and my R100 speakers to present the facts.

There’s nothing to prove that isn’t already available. PIR, SPIN, horizontal data. All there already.

Your RTA will show in-situ. You can EQ that. But it won’t fix the crossover issue. Drop the tweeter level to fix the in-room and that means you drop the listening window response.

You’re welcome to post all the data you want. But it’s a waste of time if you’re trying to prove you’re right just for the sake of it. Sincerely. I’ve been at this a while. I already understand the implications of designs like this and how they respond to EQ.


Edit: Looks like there are different things here. It seems you guys are talking more about the >10kHz response rise whereas I am talking about the culmination of that and the low-order crossover causing the directivity mismatch which results in the trendline jump in the in-room response.

 

[sdiver68]

There’s nothing to prove that isn’t already available. PIR, SPIN, horizontal data. All there already.

Your RTA will show in-situ. You can EQ that. But it won’t fix the crossover issue. Drop the tweeter level to fix the in-room and that means you drop the listening window response.

Ok all good then we agree.

 

[Hemi-Demon]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 6.3
With Sub: 8.3

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Very Nice
• Probably better 10deg off-axis
• no Waveguide => flare off axis in the tweeter range can be seen on the DI
• Does not need EQ really

View attachment 131056
EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 6.1
with sub: 8.1

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.5

Polk R200 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
May212021-141848

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.5 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.03
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 88.5 Hz Gain -2.13 dB Q 0.82
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 992 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 5000 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 3.87
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 12470 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2.82

Polk R200 APO EQ 96000Hz
May212021-141331

Preamp: -0 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 35 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 0.96
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 90 Hz Gain -1.82 dB Q 0.72
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1202 Hz Gain -0.88 dB Q 2.27
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 7114 Hz Gain -1.38 dB Q 1.86
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 7408 Hz Gain 0.94 dB Q 4.16
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 12901 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 2.37

View attachment 131051

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 131055

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 131054

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 131052

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 131053

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Does not need EQ
View attachment 131050

I use FabFilter EQ in my setup. I have never seen the filter you list as HPQ. Can you help me to understand what that filter is, amd what is does, especially since the gain in set to 0. Would you only use that filter WITH a subwoofer? If these are used without a sub, do you still recommend that filter to fill in the low end?

NAD M10 + POLK R200 + SVS1000PRO
2.1 Universal Setup for Music & Movies
View attachment 174253

How did you get that darn perfect flat response? Does the M10 have autoeq built in?

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 6.3
With Sub: 8.3

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Very Nice
• Probably better 10deg off-axis
• no Waveguide => flare off axis in the tweeter range can be seen on the DI
• Does not need EQ really

View attachment 131056
EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 6.1
with sub: 8.1

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.5

Polk R200 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
May212021-141848

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.5 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.03
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 88.5 Hz Gain -2.13 dB Q 0.82
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 992 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 5000 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 3.87
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 12470 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2.82

Polk R200 APO EQ 96000Hz
May212021-141331

Preamp: -0 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 35 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 0.96
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 90 Hz Gain -1.82 dB Q 0.72
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1202 Hz Gain -0.88 dB Q 2.27
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 7114 Hz Gain -1.38 dB Q 1.86
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 7408 Hz Gain 0.94 dB Q 4.16
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 12901 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 2.37

View attachment 131051

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 131055

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 131054

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 131052

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 131053

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Does not need EQ
View attachment 131050

I use FabFilter EQ in my setup. I have never seen the filter before, that you list as HPQ. Can you help me to understand what that filter is, and what is does, especially since the gain in set to 0. Would you only use that filter WITH a subwoofer? If these are used without a sub, do you still recommend that filter to fill in the low end?