Has Anyone Ever Run TWO Identical Pairs of Speakers ?

I plan to double Polk RT-2000p’s. They’re  listed in my profile at www.tinyurl/mcintoshrules if you’re that interested.

The only speakers I’ve heard recently that REALLY IMPRESSED me were:

Revel F328Be’s for $16,000/pair, and
Tannoy Canterburys for $15,000/pair.

I could buy either of these right now, but I really like sound of my Polk’s. 
Anthony Cordesman gave them an exceptionally rave review in Audio magazine in 1999 and he specifically  commented on their remarkable imaging and sound staging as well as their exceptionally good midrange and highs (his words, not mine). He was lukewarm on their low bass but that’s not an issue for me. 
I use a Sunfire Tru Sub MKII AND a very large great sounding Cambridge Newton P300D sub that uses six 6.5” speakers for subs in a push/pull configuration and they are remarkably fast in an 90lb. hefty metal cabinet. Unlike the Sunfire, there is virtually no cabinet vibration when it’s running because of the push/pull configuration of its six bass drivers.

My center channel sub is an 18” Hartley custom made for Jon Dahlquist when he was developing and voicing his DQ-1 sub he made to go with his DQ-10 speaker. I happen to know Jon personally and the dealership I worked for in back in the 70’s was one of his first dealer.

I also have two passive M&K Goliath II subs I cross over at about 80Hz with 4 Polk LS/FX two way dipole/bipole speakers I use for Dolby side surround and Dolby rear surround speakers.

And I  use four Realistic Minimus 7 speakers for Dolby Atmos speaker that will be crossed over at about 100Hz  with some small Definitive Technology active subs with 8”woofers.

I really can’t restrain myself for saying this, but I do believe I have my bass’s covered.😂

 I’ve listened over the years to many products Anthony’s reviewed  and I generally agree with him.

I found a second pair of mint RT-2000p’s for an exceptionally low piece so this will be an interesting low-cost experiment for me to hear what doubling them does . If two pair really suck, it’s been a vert low cost experiment for me.

But then there’s the possibility I could be incredibly surprised for significantly less money than a new pair of Revel’s or Tannoy’s.

I’ll know in about 6 to 8 weeks as I’m moving to a newer home with a much larger listening room. I’m on the wait list for my very busy electrician as I’m going to install a whole-house surge protection system and two 30 amp/120 volt circuits for my electronics.

as always, in all things audio , YMMV😎

Kingsley, russ69, and millercarbon, If your questions are directed at me, I would politely counsel you to actually seek out and listen to a pair of Polk RT-2000p’s or RT-2000i’s before you so causally dismiss Polk’s RT-2000p’s as “mediocre.”

For example, it would be ludicrous for me to offer an opinion on how millercarbon’s new Teckton Moabs sound: I’ve never heard any so how could I possibly offer an opinion on how they sound? Doing so would make a poser and an audio store cowboy.

I would wager none of you never have actually listened to Polk RT-2000p speakers and are simply trashing them like many people who pile on and trash Bose speakers without having ever actually listened to any.

I managed a very high-end store back in the 70’s and early 80’s. Our store actually took in a pair of the early 901’s Series 1 (A rather inefficient acoustic suspension version supposedly better than their latter bass reflex models) in mint condition with undamaged surrounds to the small individual drivers as a favour to a customers spending a very large sum with us. He was moving from a Sansui receiver powering his 901’s to Mark Levinson electronics, a Sequerra tuner, a Linn LP-12, and full size Magnaplanar speakers. We waived the hefty sales tax as his 901’s trade in value. It was a sweet deal for all as he was amazed at the magical sound of his new speakers driven by his new electronics.

We only had one problem: I can truthfully say these 901’s were the worst sounding $1,000+ speakers any of us in the store had ever heard. But as my brother-in-law who owns some car dealership says in the car business they say there’s an ass for every seat.🤪 And sure enough, we sold them for a slight profit a week after we finally opened in our new location to a student who always wanted a pair but could not afford new ones. He (and we) were ecstatic when he took them off our hands.

Now, a bit of backstory explaining why we thought they sounded terrible. Our store was built from scratch inside a former A&P grocery store our owner purchased. We completely gutted the store even down to removing SIX layers of tile that had been put down over the 50 year+ life of the store. 
And the owner spared no expense making it a incredibility good sounding store. He hired acoustical engineers to design three fantastic listening rooms we had surge protection at the three breaker boxes necessary to power the store, and we ran multiple individual 30 amp/120V circuits to each of our showrooms, even including the service shop. The electrical contractor told us it his first ever job where he never installed any 15 amp or 20 amp 120V circuits.

We even put up a big-ass multi-element yagi FM antenna on a ten foot tower with a rotator running multiple powered FM feeds to each show room as we sold a shitload of FM tuners because we were in a central physical location from the student FM stations at Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, NC State University, and Shaw University in Raleigh. And I remember we had at least 3 complete commercial album rock FM stations , two classical music FM stations, and we even had an album-oriented Modern Jazz station in our area. It was the absolute best FM environment I’ve ever lived in.

l’m going into all this detail because we actually listened to the 901’s under the best possible conditions and we tried numerous placements in our new location after we finally opened in October. We played them on high powered SS and tube electronics and nothing we did could make these things sound good. You just cannot puts lipstick on a pig. 🐷

So when people trash brands like Bose or Polk or JBL or Klipsch or Sony, etc. the first thing I want to know is did they actually listen to what they’re trashing or are they just an audio store cowboy who’s just another poser.

If you’ve actually listened to what you’re trashing then I can at least respect your opinion even I may have a different one. But if you’re a poser trying to fit in and/or be accepted by other audiophiles, you’re just spewing verbal diarrhea, your opinions are vapid and meaningless.

As always, YMMV 😎

boomerbillone,

Please read my 5/19/21 post made at 5:38 am.

It will answer your questions.

Back in mid May I asked a question “Has Anyone Ever Run TWO Identical Pairs of Speakers ?” I was considering buying an extra pair of tower speakers identical to the ones I currently own.

Now, I can hear the sneers, derision and laughter from those who think I am batshit crazy to run DOUBLE Polk’s for my Left, Centre, and Right channels. All I can say is your inability to imagine something that is unconventional might be better instantly identifies you as someone with limited intellectual ability akin to the naysayers who were convinced Columbus was going to fall off the earth.

Some history: I was almost ready to drop $20,500 plus tax on a pair of Revel F328Be’s and their matching C426Be centre channel, but an opportunity arose for me to acquire an additional pair of mint Polk RT-2000p’s for only $450. So my wonderful wife says to me, “I don’t care if you buy the Revel’s, but since you (and I) like the Polk’s so much, would FOUR of them sound better than the Revel’s you are itching to buy? You’ve found a second pair for only $450, so you could experiment with adding a second pair before you buy the Revel’s. The cost of finding this out is only $450, and you might end up liking them better than the Revel’s.

Now, IMHO the Polk RT-2000p speakers are phenomenally good sounding speakers that never got reviewed by the "Audiophile Press." A single pair can create an unbelievably realistic sound stage (assuming a good recording) with imaging that stretches from wall-to-wall and depth that goes wayyyy back behind the speakers. Their only weakness is a tendency towards a somewhat loose and flabby bass, but this can easily be rectified with appropriate use of multiple subwoofers. I run five subwoofers, so realistic bass is a non-issue for me.

So, I heeded my wife’s advice, and my Revel dealer grew a long, sad face and he almost burst into tears when I related my findings to him.

What I experienced is that while a single pair of the F328Be’s handily outperform and ARE better than a single pair of the RT-2000p’s, a DOUBLE pair of the RT-2000p’s are astoundingly better than a single pair of F328Be’s. All genres of music, in my room went from what I thought was really good sound to astoundingly good sound at virtually any volume level. I was astounded at this remarkable increase in sound quality just by adding another pair of RT-2000p’s to my system.

And when I run the math, $20,500 vs. $450 plus another $100 for an extra Polk CS-400 centre channel, I am left with an extra $20 Grand to put back into my investments.

So, this is my experience. Yours could be different if you choose to try it. As for any comments anyone chooses to make, I am NOT INTERESTED in your comments on Polk speakers UNLESS you have ACTUALLY LISTENED to a pair of Polk RT-2000’s. Commenting on the sound of a speaker you have NEVER heard makes you the worst kind of audio drug store cowboy.

And I am not claiming my double Polk’s are the absolute best speaker system available, I’m simply saying that IMHO they outperformed some very expensive, well-regarded speakers I was almost ready to purchase. As always, YMMV 😎

It has been interesting to read the discussion my OP engendered.

Now, I’ve read the sneers, derision, alleged technical deficiencies why my plan would not work, and laughter from those who think I was bat-shit crazy to run DOUBLE Polk’s for my Left, Centre, and Right channels. 

But don’t forget that I was almost ready to drop $20,500 plus tax on a pair of Revel F328Be’s and their matching centre channel, but then fate intervened. An eBay opportunity arose for me to acquire an second pair of Polk RT-2000p’s (in mint condition) for only $450. 

IMHO Polk RT-2000’s are phenomenally good sounding speakers that never got reviewed by the "Audiophile Press," although Tony Cordesman gave them a rave review in the May 1998 issue of Audio magazine. Probably like most of you, I think some audio reviewers are more skilled at communicating what they hear than other reviewers. Whenever I’ve had a chance to actually listen to something Tony’s reviewed, I’ve generally found myself hearing everything he described in his written review. And I heard the same things he did when he reviewed the Polk RT-2000p speakers. Following are some of his comments from his review:

(1) The RT-2000p is able to sustain unusually good imaging and a sound stage that is not localized around the speakers.

(2) I found the RT-2000p to have a relatively “flat” overall timbre that was very smooth. Its treble was accurate rather than forgiving and seemed unusually free of minor irregularities. The tweeter exhibited none of the ringing or slight edge I’ve heard from some metal-dome tweeters. Upper octave dispersion was excellent and transparency and detail were excellent. In the high-end of the spectrum performance was consistent from low to super-loud levels.

(3) This dynamic consistency was also a strength of the RT-2000p’s midrange which was very neutral and uncolored . . . Far too many speakers, even those at higher prices, change character with signal level, altering their timbre and apparent speed; they begin to sound colored at signal levels of 90 dB SPL or higher. The RT-2000p’s midrange didn’t. What it did do is handle transients and rapid musical changes very well. Its speed was well-matched to the tweeter’s, allowing each driver to reinforce the other’s strength’s. I was surprised to discover how well this 6 1/2 inch driver performed at the lower limit of its range, where it was a lot smoother than many speakers that have 8- and 10-inch drivers. This lower-midrange performance gave the RT-2000p an unusually good ability [emphasis mine] to reproduce piano, lower strings and woodwinds, and male voice.

(4) The dispersion of the treble and the mid-range drivers was wide, without beaming, yet the sound was unusually free of room interaction effects. As with all speakers having really good transparency and dispersion, I had to experiment a bit with angling to get the best to get the best possible focus. 

(5) The RT-2000p’s soundstage and imaging did not blur at high sound levels; I could really crank up sonic warhorses like the Saint-Saëns “Organ” Symphony without losing soundstage size or detail. . . . the RT-2000p was excellent at reproducing large choral and full orchestral passages at high volume; this is one affordable speaker that lets you enjoy Beethoven’s Ninth and Mahler’s Eighth.

(6) . . . Loud is scarcely the goal in music, but natural is. And a speaker like the 2000p that can handle the most demanding passages in orchestral music, jazz, and rock is simply more fun and exciting than one that can’t.

(7) The 2000p’s performance made home theater a hell of a lot of fun. The Polk was one of the few affordable speakers that enabled me to hear the mist dramatic effects in Dolby Digital and DTS sound, particularly the most extreme passages in Jurassic Park.

(8) The Polk RT-2000p may not be a near-perfect speaker but for $1,900 a pair it does offer darn good value for the money. Its greatest strengths are its sound stage and deep bass and the exceptional dynamics and transparency of its treble and midrange. (I suspect many audiophiles will be surprised by just how good this speaker’s midrange and treble really are.)

Tony Cordesman summarized his review of the Polk RT-2000p’s by stating The Polk’s Greatest Strengths Are Its Soundstage, Deep Bass And Exceptional Dynamics. I couldn’t agree more.

And if you disagree with Tony’s review here’s another review where the reviewer heard ALMOST EVERYTHING Tony heard, and was even MORE ENTHUSIASTIC about the Polk’s than Tony was: https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/polk-rt2000i_e.html

And I’m NOT claiming these are the end all/be all in audio speakers. IMO a single pair of the Revel’s bests them. And I would suspect DOUBLED Revel’s to sound even better!

So, after picking up my this second pair of RT-2000p’s two weeks ago, I installed them in my listening room, picked out some music, and sat down to see if I’d wasted $450 and a two-day drive, or did I now have a better sounding system?

I was not expecting the dramatic improvements I was now hearing, particularly after reading some the negative comments posted in this thread. The biggest improvement I was hearing was a significant increase in what I would deem the “fullness” and “richness” of the midrange. My soundstage was even better than before, I heard even more front-to-back image depth, and there was an increase in dynamics. From my perspective it was a great increase for only a $450 investment.

Now the challenge was to go back to the Revel dealer and re-listen to the Revel’s without being unduly influenced by what my double Polk’s sounded like.

All I can definitely say is to my ears, a single pair of the F328Be’s are better than a single pair of the RT-2000p’s, but a DOUBLE pair of the RT-2000p’s are significantly better than a single pair of F328Be’s. When I run the math, $20,500 vs. $450 plus another $100 for an extra Polk CS-400 centre channel, it’s a no brained even a cave-man could figure out.

And in response to all the technical reasons this should not work and that I have destroyed the imaging and sound staging, my wife and I ONLY HEARD IMPROVEMENTS.

And I’ll let her make the final comment: We both cook. TWO of the smelliest ingredients we use when cooking Chinese or Korean or Japanese food are Fish Sauce and Shrimp Paste. By themselves, alone, the both smell AND taste terrible!. Combine them in a dish we’re cooking and absolute magic happens. It’s a case where the TWO are significantly better than ONE.

Unless you have ACTUALLY LISTENED to doubled RT-2000p’s, you’re just another Drug Store Audio Cowboy Clown and your thoughts carry less weight than the electrons you wasted posting your thoughts.

And as always, in this crazy hobby of ours, YMMV 😎

goodlistening64,

Thank you for the feedback The decision to try this only came about after the Polk’s popped up on eBay in early June. I have these particular Polk’s in my eBay watch list and usually the one’s that pop up are in poor condition and/or the BIN price or starting bid is more than I was willing to pay. This purchase was both an experiment to acquire a second set to run in a double front speaker combination, and if that didn’t work sonically, I would simply have an extra pair as parts and/or backup.

Now I have a problem: They sound so good that I guess I now need yet another pair for parts/backup! 😳😳😳

fiesta75 wrote
”To be honest, I've not heard ANY Polk's that sound good... 2¢ Good one mijostyn.”

Son, you are an adolescent troll in this discussion amongst the big boys,  AND you personify the definition of a Drug Store Audio Cowboy: One who criticizes and/or offers opinions on products they HAVE NEVER LISTENED to, and is perpetually standing outside the grown ups listening room enviously staring in.

As I previously stated, unless you have actually LISTENED to Polk RT-2000p’s, any thoughts you have regarding them carry less weight than the electrons you wasted posing your drivel here. Be gone, troll😩😩😩


 Report this

I had previously written Now I have a problem: They sound so good that I guess I now need yet another pair for parts/backup! 😳😳😳

As fate would have it, yet another pair of Polk RT-2000p’s fell into my lap for only $250, so now I really do have spares for parts, etc.

And doubled speakers are not a new concept. Advent, in particular, comes to mind. Double Advents were a popular and very good sounding system back in the 70’s and 80’s: You had to spend quite a bit more to get something that sounded substantially better than double Advents. And even the ultra-high-end dabbled in doubled speakers with the introduction of Mark Levinson’s massive HQD system.

More recently, Wharfedale is suggesting double Linton speakers (https://www.audioemporium.com/wharfedale-linton-iterations/) and one of the UK’s top reviewers I occasionally correspond with listens to doubled BBC LS5/3A’s at home. IMHO, doubling LS5/3A’s makes perfect sense as you get +3dB more volume, a big plus in generally smaller rooms in UK homes. And I can only imagine how much better a doubled pair of LS5/3A’s sound compared to a single pair of the already great LS5/3A’s. As always, YMMV 😎