Polk Monitor 7C Help

[DoctorBotany]

I know there are a ton of threads about these speakers but I picked up a pair the other day and I've got a question about the tweeters.

These, as pictured, have silver tweeters that I haven't seen online. They look like peerless tweeters but all the ones I've seen are black, and didn't come on the 7Cs as far as I can tell. The guy said it was all original but I don't really believe him; I don't really care because they sound amazing. I am just wondering if it's possibly true that it's the original tweeter or if I'm missing something. Any additional information is welcome and appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Yodathedog]

They look a lot like my Monitor 5s except with a larger passive radiator. Excellent sounding speakers, but I always assumed the tweeters were made by Polk.

 

[DoctorBotany]

Here's an image, I'm not sure if the first one worked

 

[darkblue94]

Those are the dreaded SL2000 tweeters and yes, they are original to your Monitor 7C's.

 

[EarlsPearls]

Those are the dreaded SL2000 tweeters and yes, they are original to your Monitor 7C's.

Ha, when you say dreaded... is there a replacement I should look into?

 

[F1nut]

Those are SL1000 tweeters. The speakers are not the "C" version as they came with SL2000 tweeters, the front edges were beveled and the logo badge was on the grill.

 

[darkblue94]

Those are SL1000 tweeters. The speakers are not the "C" version as they came with SL2000 tweeters, the front edges were beveled and the logo badge was on the grill.

F1nut, thanks for catching my error. Obviously I'm not any kind of Polk expert or historian. I've had some experience owning and modifying Monitor 5's and 7's and that's about it. I heard the SDA's in hifi shops back in the 80's as well as other models over the years. I believe that I should bow out of any further Polk speaker discussions as it appears I'm more likely to offer bogus info than not.

 

[DoctorBotany]

Those are SL1000 tweeters. The speakers are not the "C" version as they came with SL2000 tweeters, the front edges were beveled and the logo badge was on the grill.

Thank you for the correction. My question now is, is it worth replacing the SL1000 with the rd0194? I'm seeing a mixed response online on which is better.

 

[F1nut]

F1nut, thanks for catching my error. Obviously I'm not any kind of Polk expert or historian. I've had some experience owning and modifying Monitor 5's and 7's and that's about it. I heard the SDA's in hifi shops back in the 80's as well as other models over the years. I believe that I should bow out of any further Polk speaker discussions as it appears I'm more likely to offer bogus info than not.

Nonsense my friend, post away. As many changes as Polk made mid-stream your guess is as good as mine.

 

[F1nut]

Thank you for the correction. My question now is, is it worth replacing the SL1000 with the rd0194? I'm seeing a mixed response online on which is better.

Well, the SL1000 was Polk's effort at making their version of the Peerless, which was less than successful and IMO was about as bad as the SL2000. The RD0194 was designed to replace the SL2000, but I've seen people using them to replace the SL1000. However, I do not believe it is a proper replacement.

The best thing to do is remove the binding post plate to access the crossover. Write down the various cap and resistor values, then post that info here and I'll compare that to the different schematics to see if the RD0194 will work or if the original Peerless or repo Peerless from Mid-West is the better choice.

 

[DoctorBotany]

Well, the SL1000 was Polk's effort at making their version of the Peerless, which was less than successful and IMO was about as bad as the SL2000. The RD0194 was designed to replace the SL2000, but I've seen people using them to replace the SL1000. However, I do not believe it is a proper replacement.

The best thing to do is remove the binding post plate to access the crossover. Write down the various cap and resistor values, then post that info here and I'll compare that to the different schematics to see if the RD0194 will work or if the original Peerless or repo Peerless from Mid-West is the better choice.

Here are pictures of the crossover and the binding posts. The sticker is why I called them 7C's. The information in the picture says:

2.7 Ohms 10% 5W
8 USA P50TF OVAC
May 19 '84

Thank you for taking a look!

 

[F1nut]

Ok, looks like you have a bit of an odd ball Monitor 7, but I'm not surprised as Polk made changes on the fly back then. Your crossover is for the 7C, but prior to them switching from using a fuse to a polyswitch. The 2.7 ohm resistor was changed to a 2 ohm when they went to the poly. The cabinet is an older version, not the full blown 7C with the beveled front edges.

The large yellow cap in the middle should be a 12uF.

Since the crossover is basically for a 7C you can use the RD0194 tweeter. Do not use the Peerless.

 

[EarlsPearls]

Ok, looks like you have a bit of an odd ball Monitor 7, but I'm not surprised as Polk made changes on the fly back then. Your crossover is for the 7C, but prior to them switching from using a fuse to a polyswitch. The 2.7 ohm resistor was changed to a 2 ohm when they went to the poly. The cabinet is an older version, not the full blown 7C with the beveled front edges.

The large yellow cap in the middle should be a 12uF.

Since the crossover is basically for a 7C you can use the RD0194 tweeter. Do not use the Peerless.

Thanks for the information, I'll give it a shot and share the results

 

[EarlsPearls]

Well I got the replacement tweeters, rd0194s, just went to hook them up and they're a good size bigger than the opening for the old tweeters, and the screws don't line up. Right now I'm listening to music with them just sitting in place. Sounds pretty dope but I'll have to put the old ones back in and resell these... I don't really wanna modify anything further to make them fit. Thanks for the help everyone.

 

[DoctorBotany]

IDK why my name is different between posts, I guess I'm EarlsPearls and DoctorBotany for anyone that's confused. OP here.