Well, I've listened to these speakers six times over the past month, most recently on Saturday and yesterday (Monday). The owner of the company (Daniel) visited Jeff's on Sunday to tweak positioning and add some foam into the port. I visited Jeff's yesterday (at his request). Daniel's efforts definitely helped, but the center imaging is still off. At the end of the day, we all concluded, this must be due to the room. What exactly in the room, we don't know. Possibly the roof. Possibly the short wall on the left side. We just don't know exactly. We have all made yeoman efforts to work with the speakers in Jeff's room. As I've stated before, the tweeter/mid range sound very smooth. Exceptionally smooth. Some of the best top end I've heard. Someone who was listening with me on Saturday commented that he felt the diamond tweeter lacks the last bit of high frequency detail and sparkle. I'm not sure I agree. The Polymer tweeter and upper mids were very appealing to me. There is no harshness and if sibilance bothers you, you won't find any here. There is no brightness, etch or edginess. However, at the end of the day, the speaker just isn't my cup of tea. I can think of a lot of other speakers under it's $60,000 MSRP price I would buy. I'm afraid the Polymers excellent top end and midrange isn't matched by its bottom end. A few knowledgeable speaker designers who heard the Polymers commented that there are just too many drivers too close together in such a small cabinet. I can't comment on that one way or the other. Although center imaging was a problem in Jeff's room with the Polymers, I found that the depth of soundstage of the Polymers to be excellent - especially after the speaker setup was adjusted.
However, for me, a $60,000 speaker should just be bigger (physically) and sound bigger. Bigger as in taller, certainly not heavier as the Polymer MKS-X's weigh in at almost 400 pounds. I know it's silly to equate size with quality and price, but I do. Some of us just have this vision of what a $60,000 speaker should look like and sound like. To me, the Polymers are not it. If someone tells you about a car that costs $120,000....you definitely have a vision for what it must look like and drive like. That being said, some people may actually prefer the smaller size of the Polymers instead of some gargantuan sized speaker. However, the number of small speakers that I've heard play much bigger than their size, I can count on one hand. The Raidho D1's would be one.
That being said, I'm sure its sound will appeal to some. I don't want to be too harsh on a startup in this industry, because, as I like to say, "we are all in this together." So I'll just say I wish them the best of luck.
However, for me, a $60,000 speaker should just be bigger (physically) and sound bigger. Bigger as in taller, certainly not heavier as the Polymer MKS-X's weigh in at almost 400 pounds. I know it's silly to equate size with quality and price, but I do. Some of us just have this vision of what a $60,000 speaker should look like and sound like. To me, the Polymers are not it. If someone tells you about a car that costs $120,000....you definitely have a vision for what it must look like and drive like. That being said, some people may actually prefer the smaller size of the Polymers instead of some gargantuan sized speaker. However, the number of small speakers that I've heard play much bigger than their size, I can count on one hand. The Raidho D1's would be one.
That being said, I'm sure its sound will appeal to some. I don't want to be too harsh on a startup in this industry, because, as I like to say, "we are all in this together." So I'll just say I wish them the best of luck.
