Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Review of the new MK602X

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LOUT
    commented on 's reply
    I think those crossover parts altogether should total around $26 for both speakers (assuming there isn't anything already useable in the speaker)...though I suppose that jumps to ~$35 after shipping if you don't already have a collection of other things you want to buy to push the total up to the free shipping amount (I miss it being $50 for a while instead of $100).

    That said, it's hard to argue with the price of $0 if you're already getting likeable results using what you have on-hand to pad the tweeters down.

  • fpitas
    commented on 's reply
    Peaks in the response can cause fatigue; maybe if you measure them, you could find and tame any peaks. That's usually just an LCR circuit, not too tough or expensive.

  • jtheisen521
    replied
    Finally got back to looking at these since it was (finally) warm enough to work in the garage again. I liked @Lout's idea of a new crossover, but honestly didn't want to end up turning a $150 pair of speakers into a $250 pair. Decided to try playing around with the tweeters padding resistors to see if I could tame it a bit, but the existing ones are an odd format that I couldn't find anywhere. So I ending up just splicing in some additional resistance between the XO & tweeter using some spare resistors I had on hand. Nothing scientific, just trial & error, started with 1 R (no difference) & worked up from there. The largest I had on hand were 12.5 R and I ended up leaving them in. Below is a before/after snapshot, blue is original, red=after. While the contrast doesn't look all that dramatic, sonically it made a huge difference. It was enough (for me) to put some padding between the fingernails and chaulkboard and I can actually listen to them for an extended period now. I'm going to try this arrangement for a while and may end up upping the resistance to like 15 if fatigue starts setting in again.

    Leave a comment:


  • LOUT
    commented on 's reply
    If/when you take it apart, can you try to see what XO parts are already in there and share what they are (what uF and mH values are printed on them)?

  • jtheisen521
    replied
    Thanks LOUT, I may give that a try. I’ll see what parts I already have on hand this evening as I’m trying to keep it low budget. Will let you know results. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • LOUT
    replied
    Originally posted by jtheisen521 View Post
    Has anyone done any tweaking on these yet? Santa brought me a pair and I have to concur withErin’s assessment that they are just too bright. Was considering sending them back but thought maybe I could use this as a learning experience and try to improve them. I’m thinking maybe adding another coil and cap to the LP to steepen the slope a bit and possibly tweaking the padding resistors and it could sound pretty good. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm not sure what parts are already in the existing XO, but I think this complete substitute looks somewhat promising..at least in a SIM.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	MB602x maybe.png Views:	0 Size:	4.8 KB ID:	1480638
    It might also be worth seeing how much difference you notice (positive or negative) with the port temporarily plugged, assuming you aren't planning to use a different box.

    Leave a comment:


  • jtheisen521
    replied
    Has anyone done any tweaking on these yet? Santa brought me a pair and I have to concur withErin’s assessment that they are just too bright. Was considering sending them back but thought maybe I could use this as a learning experience and try to improve them. I’m thinking maybe adding another coil and cap to the LP to steepen the slope a bit and possibly tweaking the padding resistors and it could sound pretty good. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • marvin
    replied
    As I recall, the MK402 was produced in an early and later an improved version. Maybe PE will design an improved MK602 in the near future?

    Leave a comment:


  • Whitneyville1
    replied
    Chris, the Peerless SBS-160F35 is a "budget" mid-woofer I'd sing the praises of if easily available! A BC25TG15 and it and a decent XO could eat the MK602 as it stands (in a larger enclosure) or up-scale the tweeter and end the game before it starts. Sadly, so many Peerless/Tympany products are so hard to get now in the US, it seems so many of the DIY "friendly" products like the SBS-160 especially.

    PWR RYD, the GF180-4 doesn't "cook" in 9L does it? Even in 14L (.5 cu. ft.) it doesn't ported. My 'puter-thingey says .65 cu, ft. just starts to cut things, and that's a darn big box!

    Leave a comment:


  • PWR RYD
    replied
    Originally posted by Steve Lee View Post
    Gosh!

    The power supplies required to make those speakers dance will need a room of their own to hold themselves and the amps required, won't they?

    :D
    Not sure what you mean. With my intended enclosure design 20 watts produces over 101 dB at one meter per speaker without exceeding xmax. At a seated distance of about 12 feet this is quite reasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • PWR RYD
    replied
    Based on the online manual for the MK602X, the external dimensions seem to indicated that the net enclosure volume for the woofer is roughly 9 liters and the manual says it's tuned to 45 Hz. Using PE's published T/S specs for the GF180-4 that enclosure alignment doesn't model so good at all, just barely better than if the box was just sealed. And the port resonance is very problematic.

    Most freeware enclosure programs suggest a net volume of 18 to 22 liters. I don't personally like that QB3 alignment that they suggest. Yeah, it yealds the lowest possible "F3" but that is not a true in room response. Some PETT experts will disagree

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Lee
    replied
    Gosh!

    The power supplies required to make those speakers dance will need a room of their own to hold themselves and the amps required, won't they?

    :D

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Roemer
    replied
    Compared to the (similarly priced) 6-1/2" "Classic", the 5k breakup can be made to roll off nicer, but it looks like they need a bit bigger box to go not quite as low.

    The (cheaper) Peerless SBS-160F35 will go 3/4 octave lower in the same sized box, and has GOBS of Xmax ... - too bad they're a 500 piece min. order !

    Leave a comment:


  • PWR RYD
    replied
    Originally posted by a4eaudio View Post
    I'm pretty indifferent to the stock speakers. I look forward to seeing some DIY builds with the raw woofers
    I am just getting started on a project with the GF180-4. The woofers should be here tomorrow.

    Leave a comment:


  • AcidWash
    replied
    Great review, I was about to pull the trigger on a set but I think I'll wait and look around a little more. Thanks!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X