MM6501 vs. MMC6501

heXtant

sorry, this might be a dumb question.. but
what are the differences between the new MM6501 components and the older MMC6500 components (and the MM5251 vs MMC5205 components)?

do the new MM series sound better than the MMC's? i have MMC6500s and MMC5250 in my jeep..

i love the look of the MM ones.. the black is sick..

ebumdude

you might also want to check out the new Polk MM6 for a different look. I know you said you like black, but there are new options available.

the difference between the 6501's and the 5251's:

the 5251's are 5 and a quarter inches while the 6501's are oversized 6 and a half inches. (6 3/4 in)

I would imagine more rms would be expected from the 65's since the woofer is slightly larger.

Polk's MMC series is discontinued. They unleashed the MM series basically giving the old MMC sets a face lift and a little extra power handling.

I had a pair of MMC6501's as well, but blew them within 6 mo. I wouldnt say the MMC is a bad set of speakers by any means....I just was a novice at wiring at the time.

The new MM6 series can be found online for as low as $140 while they retail for just over $300.

dakatone

To add to what ebumdude has stated the newer MM6501 is slighter larger diameter (6.75") in the woofer than the MMC6500 (6.5") while both will fit a standard 6.5" location.

Woofers:

New: The new woofers have a woven glass composite cone that is supposedly stiffer yet lighter. Same butyl rubber surrounds and magnets. VC I believe is a bit larger (30mm versus 25.4mm for old set).

Old: The cone was lacquered carbon-fiber. Also had the Momo insignia...

Tweeters:

New: Tweeter Mounting Dimensions: (SM = Surface mount, FM = Flush mount)
Mounting Height 1.015" SM 0.405" FM
Depth 0.75" (screw depth) SM 0.875" FM
Frame Diameter 2.0" SM 2.295" FM
Cutout Diameter N/A SM 1.945" FM

Old: Tweeter Mounting Dimensions: (SM = Surface mount, FM = Flush mount)
Mounting Height 1.156" SM 0.246" FM
Depth 0.645" (screw depth) SM 1.107" FM
Frame Diameter 2.059" SM 2.505" FM
Cutout Diameter N/A SM 2.157" FM

Crossovers:

New: You only get 0dB and -3dB attenuation for the tweeter. Looks like you also loose the bi-amp input availability on the old set.
L=4.265", W=3.635", H=1.175"

Old: You get a 0dB, -3dB and -6dB attenuation for the tweeter.
L=6.031", W=3.614", H=1.466"

Hope that helps. Looks like unless you are wanting to power the woofers and tweeters on separate channels or amps you are good to go with the new set. Looks like the bass will be bit better on the woofers.

BTW if you are going the bi-amp or bi-channel route, you would most likely do best to use your own crossover then too. Just set it's high pass to ~2600Hz for the tweets, and a low pass for 2600Hz to the max of your sub woofer's range (~120-200Hz) for best performance. I did this with a set of SR6500 and I turned the gain down on a 100W RMS load for each woofer and each tweeter. I do notice a difference over running it off a single amp or channel. Just something to think about if sound quality is your path.

arun1963

I have the mmc 6500's bi amped to the polk pa500.4. IMO:

1. If you are looking to upgrade the speakers, look at the sr's. Mmc to mm may be a slight upgrade but may not deliver on your expectation of, upgrade bang for the bucks spent.

2. Ask yourself if your current setup is getting the best out of the momo's? The mmc's are excellent speakers, they are not in the sr league, but will put 95% of speakers in the $300-500 to shame. So if you feel there is something missing or something that should be better, chances are your setup, HU / Amp's / sub / install / tuning etc needs tweaking. I think you should upgrade speakers last, once everything else is in place.

2. Bi-amping your momo's will give you the flexibility of tuning each driver and will result in better overall sq. You may want to look at this option.

Can you give details on your current setup?

cadenceclipse

nice comparison tone thanx