Has Anyone Ever Run TWO Identical Pairs of Speakers ?

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 😎

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.

Stereo is defined as a sound directed from two or more speakers that seems to surround the listener and to come from more than one source; stereophonic sound. 

However, if you are a baby-boomer -  and I would say with fair certainty that many audiophile products are aimed at this demographic - then two speakers hooked up to one amplifier is, and has been, the status quo. 

Surround sound, believe it or not, was incorporated into the movie soundtrack "Tommy" in 1976. That was the beginning of what we all now know as five channel surround sound. However, as we all know, 5.1 did not make it to living rooms until mid-1990's at best. Personally, I did not have a 5.1 system until 2005.

My two amp; four speaker setup has nothing to do with 5.1 as I have a separate setup for TV watching. But many self described audiophiles use the two fronts for stereo if the amp allows for it. Quite plausible nowadays to not have two systems as the costs can be exorbitant. 

Speaker manufactures have generally stuck to the selling of two speakers due to the history of stereo, but by doing this, they do a disservice to those that have large listening rooms or simply have a want to fill a room with more sound than two speakers can provide. There is scant articles written about this for a reason, no manufacturer wants to sell you four speakers - they want to sell you two. Yes, there is an argument that relates to the loss of symmetry and the room acoustics become much more intertwined with the success of keeping the sound "as if it is coming from one source". But that is all part of the fun, IMHO. 

Every speaker manufacturer stair steps their product line. You generally have between 3-6 offerings, each stepped up in price. If a speaker manufacturer offers a specific technology (say ribbon tweeters) in their base product, and their top of the line speaker offers the same technology (most do), then it goes without saying that you may very well be better off buying four base speakers instead of two top of the line speakers from that manufacturer. In every case, you will spend less money to fill out sound in a large room. 

As it is, my two amplifiers each allow for 4 speaker hookup (4 speaker binder posts). Meaning, I could add four more speakers without adding anymore amplifiers. 8 speaker stereo - now that is unheard of!! - but one that the amplifier manufactures seem to have no issue with.

Thank you for this thread, vinyl_rules. Apparently, there are not many of us. I would never go back to two speakers and everyone who has listened along with me can attest to the sound of four vs. two in my system setup. If it sounds like a concert, and I am sitting front row, then my efforts are rewarded on a daily basis because I took a chance that no one else seems to understand. But you do! Good luck!

I have done this with (2) Sets of Infinity IRS Betas. I was meticulous in matching components. I ran them from a McIntosh C70 and a pair of Mc275 VI's powering the 4 mid/high panels, and (4) Bryston 7B ST mono blocks powering the Bass towers. Everything consistent.
This enabled me to A/B each set vs both with the dual outputs of the C70.

Here's my thoughts:
I too was looking to reproduce live music sound and impact levels. I think I achieved it.The sound was complementary and matched, but much fuller. It was an awesome wall of music. The imaging wasn't quite as sharp, but still VERY good. Both sets seemed to be performing as one.

Then, I got greedy and added a C1100, Mc 2301's, Legacy Wavelet, (3) Legacy I-V2 amps and an additional set of Beta Bass towers. I could not pull all this together consistently. Something was always off. Was endlessly tweaking instead of listening.

Ended up selling the extra bass towers and one set of Betas to fund the best front end and amplification I could gain from the funds for the single set.

Now, I'm down to a single set of speakers. Powered to the extreme and dialed in. Very happy and satisfied, but wouldn't trade the "journey" and won't ever knock someone for giving it a shot.

I've also owned the RT2000p's. (4) of them. I never ran them together in stereo, instead they were front/rear towers with their big center that I ran 5 channel stereo through a Denon 5700. Very nice and underrated speakers. I sold them to a gentleman in Raleigh, NC. So, if yours are from Raleigh, they may be mine. I've also run a double center channel with a Definitive set up I had that added so much more than the single.

I'm endlessly confused by those that have never had first hand experience with something that can offer such an absolute opinion on it. I would ask these people, have you had first hand experience to support your conclusion. If they don't, then they don't matter.

Hope this helps.