While I have been busy with some other things I did test the R200 in a smaller room and I took a look at the crossover.
Before I begin again here, I find this bears saying. I find it worth reporting my findings here as I believe my subjective experience is fully supported by objective data. I also believe that I am touching on an aspect of these speakers, that while well demonstrated in the data presented by myself and especially previous reporting by reviewers, has not been adequately discussed.
You may love the sound and that is great, my investigation was due to the fact that I do not and wanted to know why. I have nothing against Polk and anticipated liking these speakers. In fact that is why they sat so long here before being used, I actually assumed they would be great and was in no hurry to meet the return deadline. I tested several other speakers first and left these for last.
In other words ,while it is difficult to assess one's own bias, I do not believe that my subjective impressions have been overly tainted by unconscious, unintended or unexamined bias.
I therefore think that some others, people who would like a sound similar to my preferences would like to know what I found. If your tastes are similar to mine you might appreciate some objective data to support why staying away might be a great idea despite the near universal praise of the speaker line.
My conclusion is very simple and straightforward and I am writing it in the hopes of reaching a broad spectrum of buyers so I am going to end up explaining some stuff loads of folks at ASR are very familiar with - however, others are not.
I am not a writer so I have to hack this out as best as I can.
I don't like these speakers because I do not like the dispersion pattern of the speaker and this pattern is a common trait of many ring radiator designs. It is possible that I won't like many other designs using this tweeter at this point in my journey.
This tweeter falls of rapidly from 5k onward off axis, this decline is special in that is unusually severe. It is much more than most contemporary designs and vastly more than many.
This is so prominent, one could fairly say that the design has very uneven off axis response(more on that later).
Again, I know this is old news to many, yet I suspect for many more it is not.
Why does it matter?
Because dispersion is a huge factor in the sound you will hear in your space.
Dispersion is also essentially a fixed trait of the loudspeaker.
I have been testing dozens of designs, why is for another day, reality is more often that not the speaker is designed in some way to address widening the dispersion of the tweeter. The Polk R200 is NOT one of those designs, in fact of all the speakers I have tested it actually appears to have been designed to accentuate the narrowing of it's dispersion from 5k up.
The 1st day I really listened to my pair of the R200's, I happened to be switching it in and out alongside the Revel M16. The difference between the two was pronounced to say the least, prompting my girlfriend to ask what the heck did I do to the sound.
The M16 has a fairly even dispersion pattern over a broad range, which can be seen in the original post in this thread where I show the 0,30,60 degree measurement I took alongside the R200(on the left).
Polar Plots show the horizontal dispersion from a birds eye, top down viewpoint and that may make it easier to see what the above infers.
Here is the M16 taken from here at ASR, clipped to show about 200 degrees and alongside it is the Polk R700(on the left, taken from Audioholics) which is similar to the R200 using a 6.5" with the same tweeter.
The width scale is different but the idea is present and both cover about 200degrees. The black circles are the 5k-20k region and the scrunching of the R700 actually makes it look better than it is, however the fall off is presented well.
Here I present the R100 next to the KEF R3 and below that next to the JBL 708p all of this is data from Erin's Audio Corner and for those new, taken with a Klippel just like here at ASR.
In all of these notice how for the R line the response falls off rapidly of axis above 5k and because of this how different the radiated sound becomes in relation to the direct sound as one measures off axis.
These diagrams are a very good representation of the speakers dispersion.
This is an idealized Polar Plot courtesy of Audioholics. (Speaker dispersion very likely involves loads of personal preference so to truly know what is ideal is a hard one, lets just look at this anyway.)
I've drawn in the same square around the region in question from my R200 testing.
Here is the Philharmonic BMR speaker's polar courtesy of Audioholics, wow is it a close match to the Audioholics "ideal".
Here is the same information from Stereophile magazine in their review of the Polk L100 using a very similar design to the R200, (they call it lateral response and show it a bit differently. Same info though.)
Note the quote in yellow. I take issue with this quote below.
"As I have found with other ring-radiator tweeters, the L100's dispersion dramatically narrows in the top octaves, which will work against the audibility of the excess of on-axis energy in the same region. This behavior also suggests that the Polk's treble balance can be fine-tuned by experimenting with toe-in." John Atkinson,
https://www.stereophile.com/content/polk-legend-l100-loudspeaker-measurements
John Atkinson has more experience then I do. However based on following the information disseminated by Olive and Toole and reading Tool's book I think it is fair to question if this is just a matter of toe in.
Maybe outside with no walls, inside with walls a HUGE amount of what we hear is reflected sound and the 1st reflections are a massive component of the Harman score. We hear more reflections in typical room than direct sound by a large factor, especially in a typical farfield set-up.
Floyd Toole states in many ways throughout his book that reflected sounds contribute best to the perceived sound quality of the speaker when they are similar to the direct sound and additionally the sense we have of spaciousness is very dependent on the quality of them.
Now what is perceived as the fundamental sound becomes less dependent on reflections as one moves up toward the higher octaves, but how much less and when?
I am not qualified to answer that.
Anecdotally I subjectively noticed the sound of the R200 in my main room was missing a sense of spaciousness, vibrancy, air and energy in the music. It was not subtle. It was immediately obvious and did not sound good to me at all.
Over the past couple years, I am sure my audiophile preferences have evolved and I know more about what I like and can hear it faster than I could pre-dozens of models. I did not enjoy the R200 right away and knew I did not need to. Just as I have no reason to attack this speaker I have no reason to defend it. I have plenty of other speakers I do like and after this testing is done I am going to have a few pairs of speakers I love. Most folks are going to try 1, 2, maybe 3 or 4 pairs and not likely all at once. Whatever the case, if you love the R200, no worry. Please.
Usually when I test I can see why a speaker is liked and loved, even if it wouldn't be my final choice. The KEF R3 is one such speaker, I can easily see why it is popular and while I wouldn't choose it over my favorites, I could live with without to much longing for another.
In fact most speakers I have tested fall into the I could live with it category and maybe they need a sub or they need some PEQ or maybe an SPL limitation, but having those available I am good.
I could not live with the R200. No chance, it became painful to test, it is one a few speakers I really do not like. Since the dispersion is practically a fixed trait, there is no way to adjust for my current (hopefully fairly fully formed now)taste.
TEST in 2nd ROOM...........................................................................
I did take the speaker and set-up a 2nd system in another room to test.
The room is smaller and not set-up for top acoustics but it was a 2nd space to try.
9.5ftx23x8ft ceilings.
There is a protrusion on the right wall of about 9" that seemed to really affect the bass of the R speaker.
A metal old school radiator on the left that affected the L speaker.
The speaker were 5ft from the front wall with a couch BEHIND them. (did not want to move it)
Speakers were 6.5 feet apart and I sat about 7.5-8 feet away, so notably smaller than my normal space.
My girlfriend tested it all out as well.
I played with the R200 and the Revel M16. I did not have time for more speakers here.
It took 3-4 songs on each before my ears adjusted to the new space, that was pretty cool.
At 1st everything sounded like total crap and then fairly quickly it came in focus. I believe Tool when he says folks can hear through the room as I really experienced a drastic shift.
The M16 sounded closer in here to what it sounds like in the main room, the R200 changed a bit.
Okay here the R200 tweeter had more energy. It was brighter.
Still no sense of spaciousness, minimal enjoyment on some tracks and decent on others. At times the speaker still seemed dull and on other tracks it was quite frankly bright and even a bit harsh sounding.
When my girlfriend and I sat side by side in the small area, the R200 soundstage fell apart and she especially noticed how the sound appeared to come from the speaker. She found that distracting.
The M16 lost really nothing for two, other than a shift off center so the stage was horizontally moved over. Great sense of spaciousness, really enjoyable for both of us. I was impressed with this speaker as 2 listener option, even in a small set-up it works extremely well.
We both preferred the M16 on every track.
Here are some MMM's from the small room which needs some work, not sure what 1100hrz junk is. Pretty wild bass response difference between the L & R considering the room is symmetric except for that radiator on the L and the 9" protrusion on the R. Luckily the bass is usually mono and so the L & R sum pretty well. (not shown though)
Interesting while R200 (yellow with M16 in fade behind)has only gained just a little treble energy in MMM's it sounded much brighter here and maybe as stated on a few tracks hard to take and subjectively much hotter then the M16.
These MMM's only tell so much.
Obviously we like the Revel M16. That does not mean you will nor does it mean the R200 is crap for you. We are not influencers working for Revel or anyone, we are nobody's. We happened to just start testing the M16 and the R200 the same week. What I want to point out is that they sound fantastically different over the course of even just a few tracks.
Try a few different speaker designs in your own space before you finalize a choice.
I just don't think that reviewers are pointing out the nature of the R200's arrow shaped dispersion strongly enough. Nor do I think that this all comes down to simply proper "toe". This is a large band of energy, you are in a room and the off axis sounds are bouncing all around.
The R200's high frequency characteristic could easily be considered really positive in that is does reduce itself smoothly viewed with one type of lens or quite negative in that it could also be equally viewed as very non-flat off-axis in response.(very not constant directivity)
Imagine if the midrange had a narrowing response like these highs, what would you think then? Yikes right?
Anyway you make up your mind and hopefully you will do that while trying out a variety of cool gear.
PS There is still more I have left to try but I likely won't report any more. I think this is enough from me for most folks but in case anyone is waiting for more from previous posts I followed through as best I could for now.