# Anyone hear the new Hertz Mille line?



## trabadoor22 (Jul 11, 2009)

I was wondering if anyone has heard the new Hertz Mille line, but the MLK 2TW's in particular and if so how do they compare to the previous Mille's. Thanks.


----------



## LittleJoe (Feb 16, 2011)

I have these on the way. i have not heard any Mille's so I could not give you an opinion but I have been told the MLK2 TW's are basically the same as the MLK 165's except the cross overs on he TW's are better.


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

LittleJoe said:


> I have these on the way. i have not heard any Mille's so I could not give you an opinion but I have been told the MLK2 TW's are basically the same as the MLK 165's except the cross overs on he TW's are better.


well thats dissappointing


----------



## scooter99 (Dec 21, 2008)

I have dual ML1600's, ML700 mid ranges, and ML280s Signature tweeters going in mine. I haven't heard any of them yet, but I had the ML 165's and high energy mid range and tweets and they all rocked. The ML165's were killer mid bass. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised! One tip though, they LOVE power!


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

Thats cool. but which set of ml1600 do you have. the new or the old.


----------



## adhumston (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm curious as well... I just bought (blindly, but got a hell of a deal!) a set of the MLK2 TW and a pair of ML700 to try out. Be nice to hear some opinions before I install them, although honestly I will anyway, regardless of other's opinions!


----------



## scooter99 (Dec 21, 2008)

matdotcom2000 said:


> Thats cool. but which set of ml1600 do you have. the new or the old.


The brand spanking new ones. Sorry just saw this! I can't wait to get them in! 



adhumston said:


> I'm curious as well... I just bought (blindly, but got a hell of a deal!) a set of the MLK2 TW and a pair of ML700 to try out. Be nice to hear some opinions before I install them, although honestly I will anyway, regardless of other's opinions!


I bet you're gonna love em!


----------



## Accordman (Jan 15, 2008)

ive heard both...honestly not much difference at all between them to my ear.

they are more like the old mlk2 then the 165
the 165 are ferrite the 1600 are neo


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

So scooter what are difference between the ml165 and the ml1600.... from my understanding of the old ones (ml1600) they smoked the ml165 sooo how do the new ml1600 compare to the ml165 (did they smoke them as well) Having twoo willl jade your decision.. Turn one off for me and let me know..


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

bump


----------



## Heath (May 3, 2009)

ML1600 kills the MLK165 in output, control and frequency depth. I can cross my 1600 down to 60khz with no problem. Only found few rap songs that bottom them out at that range.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

the real question is how does the new ml1600 compare to the old ml1600


----------



## mrpeabody (May 26, 2010)

SouthSyde said:


> the real question is how does the new ml1600 compare to the old ml1600


4 posts above yours.


----------



## scooter99 (Dec 21, 2008)

matdotcom2000 said:


> So scooter what are difference between the ml165 and the ml1600.... from my understanding of the old ones (ml1600) they smoked the ml165 sooo how do the new ml1600 compare to the ml165 (did they smoke them as well) Having twoo willl jade your decision.. Turn one off for me and let me know..


Sorry, I just saw this. I don't know yet, I've not installed them. I've got a while before they get installed but I'll let you guys know as soon as I do.


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

mrpeabody said:


> 4 posts above yours.


Thats only one point of view and really not that much elaboration..


----------



## Accordman (Jan 15, 2008)

Complete horsecrap. My mlk165 could get just as low as any ml1600. I now own the new ml1600s and they also drop nolower.

Having owned all three Mille sets I honestly could not justify otherthen 2 reason the price different

1 the Neo motors depth is not as aggressive mounting wise.
2. You like a black driver.

Not enough going on to justify the price different. And all the tweeters are still dirivitives of the same thing


Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk


----------



## shutmdown (Aug 24, 2008)

Accordman said:


> Complete horsecrap. My mlk165 could get just as low as any ml1600. I now own the new ml1600s and they also drop nolower.
> 
> Having owned all three Mille sets I honestly could not justify otherthen 2 reason the price different
> 
> ...


i completely agree. i've also owned both and i actually recall the mlk165 mids getting lower than the 1600. i just looked up manufacturer specs and the ml165 woofers get down to 35hz while the ml1600 gets down to 40hz...


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

I have the mlk165 and ml1600 (newer) and I must say they dont sound the same.. The ml1600 has a more refind sound while the mlk165 is a bitt warmer in sound. the midbass is better on the ml1600 in detail and punch and over all quality. So just a lower crossover point point really mean dittly squat.. If I can cross a speaker lower but it does not sound as good as another speaker thats not a fair comparison. A lower crossover point does not mean that it produces a superior sound. I am more interested in how the new and the old ml1600 differ.....


----------



## sjg5359 (Mar 29, 2011)

bump any MLK2 review yet


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

shutmdown said:


> i completely agree. i've also owned both and i actually recall the mlk165 mids getting lower than the 1600. i just looked up manufacturer specs and the ml165 woofers get down to 35hz while the ml1600 gets down to 40hz...


FYI, a spec sheet doesn't always tell the truth  It won't play with full authority down there. 
It's actually true that the MLK165 will play lower than the ML1600 - having a lower FS of 59Hz compared to 71Hz for the ML1600. 

Comparing the graph and specs, it seems like they only added a NEO magnet to the ML1600, changing a few values there and there but overall, they are the same driver. 

Just for fun, try to input specs for the 165XL and the midbass from the K3P set in WinISD, the graphs are identical. Specs are actually really close too. 
I feel that Hertz actually copied Focal... but that's another story  Back on topic 
Seeing how many people raved that the 165XL has a monster midbass slam, I feel like I won't be selling my K3P midbass anytime soon 

Kelvin


----------



## Accordman (Jan 15, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Seeing how many people raved that the 165XL has a monster midbass slam, I feel like I won't be selling my K3P midbass anytime soon
> 
> Kelvin


comparing a 1100.00 set to a 600.00 set isnt really fair, BUT... ok

the 165xl KILLS the kp driver.
tonality and output.
I have done a/b tests a few times with these sets.

Being honest.. I love the kp driver, but... the XL just gives more and..... it costs less. "woot" 
Nothing wrong with the K3P's, but the XL does like the power a hair more.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Accordman said:


> comparing a 1100.00 set to a 600.00 set isnt really fair, BUT... ok
> 
> the 165xl KILLS the kp driver.
> tonality and output.
> ...


I'm not comparing a 1100 set to a 600 one. I'm comparing 2 midbasses from 2 different sets. 

Just look at the K3P midbass specs and the 165XL mid specs, they are pretty much the same... 
Plug those numbers in WinISD and look at the graph: EXACTLY THE SAME. 
The K3P drivers was engineered in 2002 while the XL was engineered in 2008. 

I'm not saying that Hertz did copy Focal but I don't understand how people can say that Hertz is the sh!t when they actually didn't put new tech in their drivers... 

The XL kills the KP in output and tonality, probably so... 
The XL kills the K3P in output and tonality, *highly unlikely*... The K3P can handle the power just fine just look at the rating: 200rms. <-- which isn't a power requirement 

Kelvin


----------



## Commissionmip (Jan 27, 2011)

Wow I really like this conversation. I was Very, Very close to purchasing a demo MLK 2 set (Old Version) from a seller for $900.00.

The stereo shop I go to her in Philly said that they would let me trade in my HSK 163.3 (3-way set-old version) and $500.00 for a brand new set of MLK 165's installed.

Which would you guys say is a better deal?

MLK 2 or Trade up 

Also, I will be using my current amp FP 2.150 @ 13.8 on either set (MLK 165 or MLK 2) would this be enough power?


----------



## _Dejan_ (Mar 12, 2009)

Heath said:


> ML1600 kills the MLK165 in output, control and frequency depth. I can cross my 1600 down to 60khz with no problem. Only found few rap songs that bottom them out at that range.


I have my ML165(not whole kit) on VRX2.400 and low pass set to 63Hz


----------



## 93accordlxwhite (Apr 29, 2011)

Man all these reviews I read that are boasting the MLK 165's as still current in competition make me happy I'm looking forward to installing my set. The only thing I don't get are the seemingly black and white reviews b/t 'OMG the bass is so awesome' vs. 'OMG there is no bass". I guess it really is all in the install


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

93accordlxwhite said:


> The only thing I don't get are the seemingly black and white reviews b/t 'OMG the bass is so awesome' vs. 'OMG there is no bass". I guess it really is all in the install


 x 1 000 000


----------



## scooter99 (Dec 21, 2008)

Yea it's all about the install. I had a set of 165's, bought from a pretty decent guy on here :lol: and I had them in before deadening and sealing the doors and then after deadening and sealing the doors and it's very seriously a night and day difference. I'm very excited to get the dual 1600's going now. Only reason I switched was for the newer versions of them. I may regret it but I won't know till I get them in and playing. But again, it is ALLL about the install.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

scooter99 said:


> Yea it's all about the install. I had a set of 165's, bought from a pretty decent guy on here :lol: and I had them in before deadening and sealing the doors and then after deadening and sealing the doors and it's very seriously a night and day difference. I'm very excited to get the dual 1600's going now. Only reason I switched was for the newer versions of them. I may regret it but I won't know till I get them in and playing. But again, it is ALLL about the install.


Even if the new 1600 were not as good as the old version you wouldn't know since your going towards a dual midbass setup... 
Just pointing that out 

What I don't understand is why Hertz went back to the normal kind of surround. Really feel they "cheaped" out on that one... Just my opinion... 

Kelvin


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> What I don't understand is why Hertz went back to the normal kind of surround. Really feel they "cheaped" out on that one... Just my opinion...
> 
> Kelvin


We can only speculate, but, I suspect that in the end, the word "PROFITS" was a major contributor 
It can also be that Elettromedia decided to streamline their product line and re-establish specific product boundaries, by eliminating redundant products, in both of their brands.


----------



## scooter99 (Dec 21, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Even if the new 1600 were not as good as the old version you wouldn't know since your going towards a dual midbass setup...
> Just pointing that out
> 
> What I don't understand is why Hertz went back to the normal kind of surround. Really feel they "cheaped" out on that one... Just my opinion...
> ...


Well that's a good point, but I am planning to run them solo for a little bit to be able to tell a difference. But ultimately I wanted more mid bass up front. Overkill, maybe, but in short I want more more more bass! :laugh: <~~~closet bass head


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

scooter99 said:


> Well that's a good point, but I am planning to run them solo for a little bit to be able to tell a difference. But ultimately I wanted more mid bass up front. Overkill, maybe, but in short I want more more more bass! :laugh: <~~~closet bass head


Fair enough  

Kelvin


----------



## Redcloud (Feb 5, 2009)

I just had my mille 3 way installed and they sound amazing. I couldn't believe the night and day difference from the hsk 3 way they replaced. The music is much more detailed and dynamic. What I like most about this set is the farther you crank them up the better they sound. I can play these at full volume and they don't break a sweat.

I got to thank all the guys at Mobile Sound Systems in Arlington Texas. They did an excellent job that exceeded my expectations!


----------



## scooter99 (Dec 21, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Fair enough
> 
> Kelvin


Ok now things will change. Selling the second set on here. I'm gonna just stick with one set of these bad boys. Now we'll get a true comparison, when I ever get them in :laugh:


----------



## Accordman (Jan 15, 2008)

scooter99 said:


> Ok now things will change. Selling the second set on here. I'm gonna just stick with one set of these bad boys. Now we'll get a true comparison, when I ever get them in :laugh:


i know old thread. but ive owned all three sets and currently still run the newer MLK2 lineup.

price to performance ratio the old mlk165s are probably the best deal overall. The new MLK2 sounds quite a bit like the 165xl set, that being said, youd probably be happy buying a 165xl set.


----------



## RByers (Feb 26, 2011)

Accordman said:


> i know old thread. but ive owned all three sets and currently still run the newer MLK2 lineup.
> 
> price to performance ratio the old mlk165s are probably the best deal overall. The new MLK2 sounds quite a bit like the 165xl set, that being said, youd probably be happy buying a 165xl set.


I disagree with this. I know it's just my opinion. Didn't run the XLs. But had the hsk 3 ways. The tweeter is a huge keep forward in sound. And compared to the regular hsk mid the 1600 sounds amazing compared to it.


----------



## Lenie (Feb 19, 2012)

I haven't heard any of these but after reading all the reviews, I'm now interested in purchasing a set of Mille components. Either the ml165's or the ml1600. If anyone has a set for sell or knows of anyone my email is [email protected]
Thanks
Lenie


----------



## trabadoor22 (Jul 11, 2009)

Not sure if this is true or not, but I read a thread that stated that the new Mlk crossovers are not bi-ampable. If this is the case that is a shame. I remember when I got a set of the Focal KRX2's and I looked at their non bi-ampable crossovers and I could not believe it. They might as well send the set without the crossovers. How can you have such a nice speaker set without this capability. I know people will say well you can run active, sure, but what is the point of the crossovers then.


----------



## Khaotic (Jan 5, 2012)

trabadoor22 said:


> Not sure if this is true or not, but I read a thread that stated that the new Mlk crossovers are not bi-ampable. If this is the case that is a shame. I remember when I got a set of the Focal KRX2's and I looked at their non bi-ampable crossovers and I could not believe it. They might as well send the set without the crossovers. How can you have such a nice speaker set without this capability. I know people will say well you can run active, sure, but what is the point of the crossovers then.


Its true, I bought the set a few weeks ago.. I guess its one of the things they dont include anymore hence the pricedrop compared to the older MLK-set.


----------



## Accordman (Jan 15, 2008)

RByers said:


> I disagree with this. I know it's just my opinion. Didn't run the XLs. But had the hsk 3 ways. The tweeter is a huge keep forward in sound. And compared to the regular hsk mid the 1600 sounds amazing compared to it.


Xl mids are nothing like hsk165 no comparison whatsoever. 

Ht 28 and ml 28. Are pretty much the same tweeter with a different casing

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


----------

