MMC5250 comps ... thinking about buying

kenstewart

I'm having a difficult time deciding between the Polks, MB Quarts, Boston Acoustics, and Image Dynamics components. I know this is a Polk site, however, I'm hoping for some objectivity from different comps you've listened to. I've heard Polk and MBs in person, but haven't heard the BAs or ID comps yet. I've got two nice Image Dynamics 8" subs already installed in the back of my Explorer Sport Trac, running off an MTX amp. For my speakers, I have a 4-channel MTX Thunder 684 amp already installed. Currently, my speakers are Polk DB570s.

As the title suggests, Polk-wise I'm looking at the 5250s ... do you think they sound better than the other comparable models of the companies I listed? Also, when I went to several different custom audio shops that carried Polks, quite a few of them said the Polk tweets have a high tendency to blow out ... any one have any insight on this?

1996blackmax

I think the MMC5250 is a good component set, what models #'s are the other ones that you are looking at? I actually prefer the fabric dome tweeters (silk) over the metal ones.

By the way, Crutchfield has them for $270.
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-emQ6JBBKCGY/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?search=MMC5250&i=107MMC5250

kenstewart

For the MBs, I'm looking at the RCE268 since it's a drop in for my Sport Trac (5x7, 6x8 mids). For the IDs, the CXS52s and the SL80s for the Boston Acoustics.

Along with the question of the Polk tweets blowing, how are the mids on the Polk 5250s? Most of what I've heard on the MBs are the mids are lacking, I thought they sounded good when I heard them but then I haven't heard them next to the Polk MMC5250s.

Forgot to add, I'm also looking at CDTs ... different models, but I've heard good general praises about the CDT line. And the Arc Audio line (made by Rainbow).

PoweredByDodge

The Image Dynamics Chamaleon Component Set (CSX52) is competition for component sets that are a big above the level of the Polk Momo line, and definately above the DB line... I've never liked MB Quart at all, and had 'so so' experiences with their gear...

No experience with Boston...

But either way - if it were my vehicle, and I already had two ID subs, and a slew of MTX amps, and I was looking for the best set of components to run off my amp for that setup, I"d grab the ID's.

The ID's are also available in 2 ohm configuration, which the CXS52 is... the 4 ohm would be (i guess ) CXS54... so you'll be able to squeak 170 watts per speaker through those components instead of only 85 watts (the mtx 684 is 85 x 4 @ 4 ohms, 170 x 4 @ 2 ohms.)

kenstewart

Yep, that's what I was looking at were the 2 ohm models. The Polks don't match the power ratings as well as the IDs do, but after owning some Polks before I know they make good stuff so wanted to get opinions. Thanks for the info.

MacLeod

My first pick will always be Polk, I just dig the way they sound.

My second choice will usually always be Quart. Theyre a very natural sounding speaker but their tweeters can be a little harsh if not tuned properly.

Ive not heard the ID's so I cant comment.

Boston blows. Except for the Pro series I dont like any of their speakers. Way to thin sounding for me.

I actually just heard my first set of CDT's today and they do sound very good. They were quite smooth but I felt they werent as good as my SR's.

audiobliss

I would say it's a toss-up between Polk and MB Quart. However, I've nevr heard the ID components, so they may very well be worth a look. I think I'd probably get them just to see.

kenstewart

Thanks guys for the help, but no one has addressed what I've heard about the Polk tweets blowing. Anyone heard of this? I mean, this is coming from a few different (not CC or Best Buy) audio shops.

Mac, you're saying what I consistently hear about the MBs, the tweets can be harsh. How difficult is it to tune them properly? I liked the sound of them in the shop but didn't listen long enough or notice the "harsh" tweet sound. I'm guessing tuning is a bit hard since so many people talk about their harsh tweets.

I'm still confused Leaning towards the ID Chameleons, but the Polks and Quarts are still in the running. Thanks for the opinions on the other brands

1996blackmax

Reason why I like to stick to silk tweeters.

audiobliss

Sorry about ignoring your question. There are a few people on here running a LOT of power to their Polk tweeters, and I've never heard anything about them blowing.

neomagus00

keep in mind where you hear your rumors, and the type of person who originates the stories... these are probably the people who want 130 dBs from a couple profile amps, a pair of db components, and an xplod sub... of course, that's an unfair generalisation, but...

i personally run my mm6 tweets slightly above their rated power, with no ill effects, and will be upgrading that to 'far above' their rated power, with no fear... as bliss mentioned, there are others here who do the same... as long as it's squeaky clean power, and you use common sense, you'll be fine...

MacLeod

Ive never heard anything about Polk tweeters blowing either and Im on my 3rd set of Polk speakers and have never had a problem.

PoweredByDodge

i dont think i ever had a polk tweeter blow, and i religiously put double and triple the power on them that they're sposed to take...

best buy and circuit guys are fulla it dude.

kenstewart

Thanks guys. It was custom audio shops that were telling me that about the tweets, not CC or Best Buy ... didn't even look there for speakers. I still like the Polks, those SRs look really nice but pricey The MMCs @ 100watt RMS @ 4ohms are a little over my amp's 4 ohms rating so I'm wondering if I'll do them justice. However, I can bridge my 4-channel down to 2-channel/4ohm and give them 240watts X 2 (340x2 dynamic) ... will that be too much for them to handle?

Mac ... you have any tips on tuning the tweets on the Quarts in case my amp doesn't match well with the Polks?

audiobliss

I'm not totally sure I'm following you here. But your MTX should be capable of delivering 85x4@4, and if you're willing to give up all four channels for the components, as you would have to do to bridge it, I would just biamp the components. Meaning, front left channel to left tweeter, front right channel to right tweeter, rear left channel to left mid, rear right channel to right mid.

That way, each driver would be getting 85watts, which would be a gracious plenty. The only thing is, that setup would require setting up a crossover on your amp or at your HU, if the MMC's crossover isn't bi-ampable.

However, if you do decide to bridge your amp to power you speakers (which I wouldn't advise if the bi-amping option will work), just set your gains right and you should be fine.

kenstewart

This will be my first component set so I need to ask more questions. So, if I go w/the option you're mentioning audiobliss then that means I won't use the Polk crossovers???

MacLeod

kenstewart wrote:

Mac ... you have any tips on tuning the tweets on the Quarts in case my amp doesn't match well with the Polks?

It depends on the car due to relections and such. If you bi-amp it will be a lot easier, but mainly just use the tweeter attenuators on the crossovers and dont feel the need to crank up the treble.

There not really that hard to tune. I had a set once upon a time and was only running a head unit with bass and treble controls and had no trouble getting them dialed in and Im sure you wont either, youll just have to tinker with them some.

kenstewart

Thanks Mac. I just installed my new Eclipse head unit and, wow, lots of options with this unit. Yeah, I usually keep treble down since I like a warmer sound which the Quarts did display when I heard them on soundboards. I've also read several reviews and "opinions" on the Polk momos and majority give rave reviews. Will have to keep researching and decide soon.

MacLeod

The best advice I can offer is to stop researching and start listening. Go to shops and listen to as many different types of speakers a you can til you find the ones that sound best TO YOU! Thats how I discovered Polk Audio, on the soundboard of Circuit City. I listened to several models and like their sound the best and Ive been with them ever since.

kenstewart

You're right Mac and I have listened to both the Polks and Quarts which is why it's so difficult since I like them both. Heard Polks in CC and the Quarts in the custom shops, unfortunately not side by side. I've heard the reference series Quarts, not the Q series yet but am very interested to hear them. Forgot to ask, are the Polks bi-ampable?

I'm heading back to the shops to do some more listening. I appreciate all the help guys

audiobliss

Based on what Polk says on their website, I'd have to conclude that the MMC5250's crossovers are not bi-ampable. However, the built-in crossover in your Eclipse should prove to be more than adequate. Which one do you have?

kenstewart

The Eclipse CD8445

audiobliss

Oh yeah. You have tweaking options out the yazoo, lol. I'm not as familiar with Eclipse's offerings as 1996blackmax is, but do you have a 'Pro' mode on yours that allows you to setup a 3-way (components and sub) system? If so, that's the easiest way. If not, then you'll just set the front speakers for you tweeters and your rear speakers as your mids. Shouldn't be difficult at all. Just make sure you do it, or you'll blow those tweets quickly if you end up sending them a full-range signal.

1996blackmax

Unfortunately the CD8445 does not support the 3-way active setup. That is still a very nice head unit that you have there.

MacLeod

The Momo components ARE biampable.

kenstewart

Ok, as much as I would like the IDs, they're on back order and even ID can't tell me when they'll be able to produce and get to Car Domain. I can't tell you how many times I've gone back and looked (online) at the MMC5250s though I've called every audio shop I could find listed in the phone book and none carry the Momos here in San Antonio.

I'm ready to just cancel my ID order and order the momos online ... any additional thoughts on the power ratings of my amp and whether or not I should just feed them the regular 4ohm power (85x4) or bridged 4 ohm power (240x2) and just keep the gains down low?

Btw, the birth sheet shows instead of 480watts max RMS total it produced 579 RMS total. Not sure how to factor that out to actual RMS per channel since the basic division doesn't equate to how I understand the specs (i.e., 480 total/4 channels = 120, yet spec sheet says 60x4/85x4 in 4 ohms and 240x4/340x4 in 2 ohms).

audiobliss

Don't bridge the amp. Especially since Mac says the MOMO's corssovers are biampable, that's definitely what you should do. Meaning, both of your left channels from your amp should connect to the crossover's left input, and the same with the amp's right side output.

That will be much better than bridging the amp. It'll aslo give the components an ample amount of power.

98thumpin

dont bridge when u can biamp biamping is the way to go

kenstewart

Thanks, biamp it is. I just hope my amp output will be more than enough for clean sound. Still drooling over those SRs but think I'll get the MMC5250s for now and save for the SRs later.

Any help on explaining what I referred to in post #26 (birth sheet power ratings) is most appreciated. Soon as I understand that, it will put me in that "comfort zone" of just forgetting everything else and getting the Polks. I'm right on the cusp

98thumpin

birth sheet power ratings ok: polk audio includes a sheet, called the birth sheet. it states what the actual rms power is, not the rated power, for instance the polk c.500-1 rated at 500 watts of power, makes about 720 watts of power cleanley

kenstewart

thump, do you know how to calculate the tested power output? meaning, the new power is 579, how many per channel cuz again according to the original spec sheet the amp supposedly puts out 480 but did not match the per-channel specs as I listed in previous post.