Originally Posted by rydenfan
Hey Charles, any more thoughts on the MKII's not that they have broken in more?
They are great!! I don't miss the 400's in the least. The differences between the 300 MKII and original 400 is the full physical size of the floor stander, a different crossover and of course the extra 6 1/2 " driver. The new binding posts are great because they allow you to get a really firm grip on the banana plugs I am using. Cosmetics are a moot point.
This is from the review on the UK web site and what they have to say about the bass driver on the 300 MKII. I assume all the new Helicon's have the same construction. The supposed bloom of course has always been debated.
"The bass driver remains a small-ish unit, with a stiff, lightweight paper pulp cone with a coated surface treatment. A second magnet has been added, which provides a degree of - but not complete - magnetic shielding.
Other changes include a new softer rubber surround, and a new impregnated linen spider, in both cases optimised for longer excursions and therefore higher maximum SPLs. The changes result in a somewhat better, more precisely controlled bass, though still with a touch of the bloom that characterized the original model."
In my situation, The JL Fathom compensates readily for the lack of the extra driver that was in the 400 for 2.1 and 5.1. I am actually using one of the leftover 300 originals for a center channel and it sounds fine. I was thinking of selling the extra pair of original 300's that I have and tried here in the Marketplace, but they did not sell. I may just keep them when all is said and done. I sure as hell will not give them away.
Honestly, I cannot tell the difference between the MKII and the original Helicon as the highs, mids and dispersion seem to be the identical. I've never professed to have "Golden Ears" but if there is a difference in that area, I cannot discern it. It's difficult to tell about the lower frequencies because I went from the original Helicon 400 (two 6 1/2 inch drivers) to the 300 MKII (one 6 1/2 inch driver) and I don't think it's a fair comparison in the lower end because I am not comparing apples to apples.
Again, my room is small and the size itself is a bugger because of the dimensions, which is not an ideal audio room after some research. (10.5 X 13.5 X 9) However, I've done everything that I can using GIK stuff and attempting to be smart about placement. It is a dedicated room so I can do what I want with the exception of listen at reference level any time that I desire.
One of the things I've learned is if you have a small to mid sized room,
place the 300's on quality stands and supplement the low end with a quality sub woofer, IMHO, the 400's whatever version can be overkill. However, I do understand why people buy them, but these monitors are very, very good. Actually, in straight 2 channel minus the sub, the 300's are more then adequate here as I've experimented with the sub in and out of the chain. However, the Fathom takes the load of the speakers when needed in 2.1. Heck, that's what I bought the sub for anyway, so I may as well use it.
I do like having 4 identical speakers as the presentation is different then before where I had 400's as fronts and the 300's for rears. Multi channel music is much more enjoyable. I can't explain the sonics of it, but it kinda sounds more balanced???? That statement could be psychosomatic on my part though, but it seems to sound better. All speakers have always been calibrated the same so that is the reason for my comment.