I never thought they were overly warm. I enjoyed them very much, especially when you feed them good power.
7 responses Add your response
The monitor 10's I had and monitor 11's I have now are not what I would describe as flabby in the bass. The Monitor 11 is a floor standing version of the Monitor 10 with slightly lower extension because of the larger tower design. For me the determining factor was,
1) the amp choices.
2) resealing the air leaks caused by dried out gaskets behind drivers.
After some plumbers putty applied to driver baskets, the air leaks are gone and this got the bass back in order and tightened up. You may need to do the same on the ones you are looking at unless the previous owner was a " Polkie" and did it recently.
The only times I heard the Polks get loose or flabby was when I tried a 15wpc tube amp and an old Harmon Kardon receiver on them. The tube amp sounded great with the minor exception of the bottom end control, not intolerable but not what the Polk could do....kinda to be expected. The HK just had no control but was attributed to a poor dampening factor design. Just a really crappy piece from HK's dark days but it was free.
I moved the Polk into the main system which is powered by a Jungson JA-88D......80wpc class A integrated and was mighty impressed with the old boys. Not as articulate as my Maggies in the bass department but more then acceptable for a second system. I have heard many other speakers sound much more flabby on the bottom end than the Polk 10 and 11.
I moved them back to office and put the 15 wpc tube amp back on them and have come to terms with the slightly loose bass as a trade off for the more glorious mids and highs. I also do not listen to my music loud any more so it is well within the acceptable performance levels.
"Air tight" and "decent dampening factors" seem to be the way to go for a respectable bass performance. They are not lightning fast but also not slow in my book.
terrific cheap speaker--the 10b are one of the few i own which i wouldn't consider replacing. ugly, lumpy things, but very well balanced and big sounding, with very rich midrange. "warmish" high end--they're not overly transparent; like bryhifi i don't hear flabby bass--what the bass lacks in tightness it makes up for in fullness and quality. i've gotten best results pairing 'em with 70s/80s ss receivers like kyocera and pioneer. i actually prefer these to many of the pricier polk rta and sda i've heard and they're much better, more modern sounding than 70s icons like hpm100 or the jbl l100.
30 some years ago, I had a pair of Polk Monitor 10 driven by a Harmon Kardon 60 watt integrated. They needed more power to rock out, but 60 watts was good for moderate listening levels. I'm sure they'd sing with 200 watts. They were nice sounding speakers, but not remarkable in my opinion. The bass was a little shy, and imaging seemed somewhat boxy and two dimensional. A much more impressive speaker IMO from the same era was the Dahlquist DQ-10. Mate them with a good amp and I promise you'll have a grin on your face. They sound incredible. I see lots of them selling for $150-500.
I worked for Polk in the late 70's and helped to design the RTA12. I prefered the sound of the Model 7 to the model 10. It would not play as loud, but offered a more clear voice and balanced tone. The 10 could get boomy and the mid-bass a bit defocused. The RTA12 was a better choice over the 10 as a lot more went into the crossover design and a lot more testing to get it right.