General Forum

Re: Why BL4000 MKI better than MKII?

Peter — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:26:58 GMT

The sound difference is marginal to say the least. Mk2s are fine, but Mk1s are cheaper and just as good. 4000s in either guise are wonderful small speakers - I am sure they will make excellent rear speakers.

Re: Why BL4000 MKI better than MKII?

hotknife — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:49:31 GMT

Stan,

so soundwise you did not noticed any difference, did you?

Re: Why BL4000 MKI better than MKII?

Peter — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:34:14 GMT

Because they sound better! The amplifiers used in the 4000 Mk 2 are in my opinion not as good as the older ones. The change in all these speakers was done for a variety of reasons - some of it EU regulations regarding stand by power use and some simply rationalising the range - Class D amplifiers are very cheap to produce and now they have been developed, have a number of advantages over AB - they can be smaller and emit less heat. Doesn't mean that they are any better sounding though. The same goes for the 6002 and 8002 - I have not heard any claims that they sound better though I have not done a side by side test of these.

Re: Why BL4000 MKI better than MKII?

Stan — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:31:04 GMT

The consensus on this site is that the MkI's are better. However, I've never done a comparison myself. The easiest way to tell the difference is that the mkI's on/off led doubles as a on/off switch, while the mkII's do not have this on/off switch.

Stan

Why BL4000 MKI better than MKII?

hotknife — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:27:15 GMT

Hi guys,
after I`ve bought a pair of second hand BL4000 MKII (rear speaker working together with my BL9), I would like to know why the "older" MKI is always preferred? (In 2007 the ICE power units replaced the AB power units).

If talking about the BL6000 (BL6002) and BL8000 (BL8002), there is of course no question someone always prefers the newer with ICE power units instead of the older ones with AB power units.

Why not the same with the BL4000?