Dayton Audio Best Budget Speakers Out There???

Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
I'd probably be in the market for these since my current desktop JBL speakers have such a high cutoff in FR. They only go down to 150hz in the specs. They do sound nice, but are so tiny that they don't have any hope of reproducing bass.

I wonder if my Kanto amp would work with the low sensitivity of the 402?
I evaluated them with a small class D pocket amp. While rates for something like 30 watts per channel it’s real RMS output is something like 8 watts into 8 ohms. These are a solid 4 ohms so I would guess I was getting about 12 watts per channel RMS but with a good bit more dynamic capability. These are very insensitive, so it worked but had it’s limitation. If you do apply digital boosting of the bass, you will be very limited in what you can do.

As for bass, I just took a measurement today as part of an experiment with Dummy head ITD measurements and notes the bass was solid down to 45Hz-50Hz. That was using the pocket amp. Recording level was around 85Db without any measurable distortion issues.

Do you know what the Kanto puts out and how it deals with 4ohm loads. What is the wattage rating of the power supply?
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
Well, I went back to my original redo and tried tilting down the top end to get a better balance with the bass, and that did the trick. I didn't have to lower the sensitivity in the midrange, and the overall sound is very neutral and clean. I was impressed enough to reconsider offering it in my lineup. It's obviously not going to be a candidate for 5-watt SET amps or large rooms, but it's certainly accurate within its SPL and bass limitations.
Yeah the drivers are impressive for the price right? Even the cabinet is pretty nice. It has a brace! I was impressed with what Dayton could produce for that much money.

You should check out the MK442 If you get a chance. I think the bass quality and quantity would impress you. The port is larger and number of woofers double so it offers a major increase in bass without the same issues in port chuffing. It’s also voiced completely different and thus has a better factory balance. It has other problems. It’s a vertically oriented MTM (if used as a Pair) with the small drivers spaced too far apart. However in a small room for a single person I find it easy to keep your head in the right spot.

They do sound good with a sub. My reservation is just that the port tuning is so low and sensitivity low in order to get that low fs on the woofer, what’s the point.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
I evaluated them with a small class D pocket amp. While rates for something like 30 watts per channel it’s real RMS output is something like 8 watts into 8 ohms. These are a solid 4 ohms so I would guess I was getting about 12 watts per channel RMS but with a good bit more dynamic capability. These are very insensitive, so it worked but had it’s limitation. If you do apply digital boosting of the bass, you will be very limited in what you can do.

As for bass, I just took a measurement today as part of an experiment with Dummy head ITD measurements and notes the bass was solid down to 45Hz-50Hz. That was using the pocket amp. Recording level was around 85Db without any measurable distortion issues.

Do you know what the Kanto puts out and how it deals with 4ohm loads. What is the wattage rating of the power supply?
AUDIO
Amplifier Type:
Class D
Nominal Impedance:
4 Ohm (35w RMSx2)
Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 20 kHz
Total Harmonic Distortion: < 0.1%

INPUTS AND OUTPUTS
Inputs:
1 x 3.5mm mini-jack AUX | 1 x USB DAC | 1 x Optical (TOSLINK)
Outputs: 1 x Subwoofer | 1 x 3.5mm stereo mini-jack
Speaker Terminals: Left and Right Binding Posts
Input Voltage / Frequency: AC 100V – 240V, 50/60 Hz (Auto Switching)
Input Sensitivity: 450 mV

POWER
Power Output:
140W Peak Power (70W Total RMS)
Standby Power Consumption: < 0.5 W
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
AUDIO
Amplifier Type:
Class D
Nominal Impedance: 4 Ohm (35w RMSx2)
Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 20 kHz
Total Harmonic Distortion: < 0.1%

INPUTS AND OUTPUTS
Inputs:
1 x 3.5mm mini-jack AUX | 1 x USB DAC | 1 x Optical (TOSLINK)
Outputs: 1 x Subwoofer | 1 x 3.5mm stereo mini-jack
Speaker Terminals: Left and Right Binding Posts
Input Voltage / Frequency: AC 100V – 240V, 50/60 Hz (Auto Switching)
Input Sensitivity: 450 mV

POWER
Power Output:
140W Peak Power (70W Total RMS)
Standby Power Consumption: < 0.5 W
I think it will drive them fine. Those specs suggest it should work fine. I tried the MK402 with the pocket amp, the Nad C368 I had for review, and a pioneer receiver. The receiver and NAD had notably better defined bass and played louder, but the pocket amp sounded good and played loud. Yours should do better.

I would guess you would get to about 95dB per speaker on a desk. Maybe a bit better in practice.
 
B

bradymartin

Full Audioholic
if dennis could get these to work to his satisfaction i would definitely buy a pair for my desktop.

curious why you guys are talking about using amps with these if its powered?

*edit* didnt know they offered a passive pair
 
Last edited:
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
if dennis could get these to work to his satisfaction i would definitely buy a pair for my desktop.

curious why you guys are talking about using amps with these if its powered?

*edit* didnt know they offered a passive pair
It’s a series of products under a new umbrella for Dayton Audio. mk402 is passive. That is what James and I reviewed for our respective media outlets. It is also what Dennis measured and played with. The powered Bluetooth model has not been tested by any of us, so I can’t speak to it’s sound. I assume it’s still the same passive crossover.

Remember that Dennis got good sound after modifying them. The powered version may be tricker to modify. Thought James and I felt that eq could make a notable improvement.
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
if dennis could get these to work to his satisfaction i would definitely buy a pair for my desktop.

curious why you guys are talking about using amps with these if its powered?

*edit* didnt know they offered a passive pair
Well, I definitely like the modified version. But the trouble with passive crossovers is that they have big klunky parts. There's no way to fit a proper crossover in there if you use poly caps, and the cost would get out of hand. I flunked all of the spatial relations tests they threw at me when I was in Junior High, but I think I've found a way to fit everything on a board that I can just wedge between the ribs inside the Dayton Cabinet. What I haven't decided is whether it's worth the bother given the microscopic markup I could charge. Projects like this really need factories, not dining rooms.
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
Well, I definitely like the modified version. But the trouble with passive crossovers is that they have big klunky parts. There's no way to fit a proper crossover in there if you use poly caps, and the cost would get out of hand. I flunked all of the spatial relations tests they threw at me when I was in Junior High, but I think I've found a way to fit everything on a board that I can just wedge between the ribs inside the Dayton Cabinet. What I haven't decided is whether it's worth the bother given the microscopic markup I could charge. Projects like this really need factories, not dining rooms.
Dennis would this still be true even if you used lesser priced and more compact film caps such as Mylar film of the “orange dip” style with lower voltage ratings. These speakers don’t need the higher voltage rated caps that are most available through places like PE or Madisound. A wrapped Mylar at 100v should be sufficient and sound decent.

When I explored the possibility of a crossover project for this I was looking around a lot of surplus parts stores for the caps specifically to find more compact parts.

Another thought is to split the crossover into two separate boards. The low pass board could remain where it is but the high pass could be separated to another board in the shelf.

I also thought about mounting the crossover externally into a small plastic project box. I wasn’t planning to sell mine, but maybe people wouldn’t mind. The cost would go up. I don’t know how you feel but i think these speakers are worth about $100 after the crossover is upgraded sufficiently. After that point I think other options offer better sound or less compromises for about the same money.

I’m also curious what you settled on for crossover slopes. Especially for the tweeter high pass. I couldn’t seem to make it work right without at least a 3rd order B-W, but really preferred a 4th order L-R. It seemed like too many parts for this speaker. I think my final crossover had 11 elements.
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
11 Components? Absurd. Mine only has 10. I agree that $100 is about it for these speakers. The wholesale price is only a few dollars less than the retail, so once you figure in the cost of 20 crossover components, and the time required to wire them up and install everything, it's basically slave labor even if you use NP Electrolytics everywhere.
Anything the slightest bigger or more expensive will make it impractical financially and logistically. I can get everything onto one board wedged in between the rear wall and center ridge, which also keeps the coils away from the woofer magnet. But I guess this is the sort of thing that has to be designed from the ground up.
 
J

jh112

Enthusiast
A bit off topic but which other desktop speakers would you prefer upto 150ish if these are not worth more than 100 even after you upgrade the crossovers? Apart from bass what are the significant compromises you think these speakers make?
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
A bit off topic but which other desktop speakers would you prefer upto 150ish if these are not worth more than 100 even after you upgrade the crossovers? Apart from bass what are the significant compromises you think these speakers make?
The main compromise is sensitivity. Given that you're starting to get into the powered monitor market as you go above $100, and also given the low price for a Sony Core when it's on sale, I just don't think there would be much demand.
 
S

sammyb

Audiophyte
Anyone compare the MK442 in stereo to mode to the RSL CG23? I realize the RSLs are a step above, but they're four times the cost. I'm interested in these two because I have a space constraint of six inches for wall mounting between a door entrance and a wall.
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
Anyone compare the MK442 in stereo to mode to the RSL CG23? I realize the RSLs are a step above, but they're four times the cost. I'm interested in these two because I have a space constraint of six inches for wall mounting between a door entrance and a wall.
I would be surprised if there were too many other people outside of James and I who have hears the 442 as a stereo speaker. It’s sold as a center channel. James just thought it looked like a promising stereo speaker.

I haven’t heard the RSL you speak of but have heard others. I would think the RSL sounds better (as it should for that price differential. It’s also much more efficient but with the compromise of less bass. With a sub this may not matter. The MK442 is probably unique among 4” speakers with bass extension down to 50hz in room (and below).
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Anyone compare the MK442 in stereo to mode to the RSL CG23? I realize the RSLs are a step above, but they're four times the cost. I'm interested in these two because I have a space constraint of six inches for wall mounting between a door entrance and a wall.
You do not want to mount the Daytons right up against the wall, that will block their port output. If you have to mount the speakers right up against the wall, get the RSL speakers, since they are front ported.
 
S

sammyb

Audiophyte
Thanks for the responses. No wiggle room with the six inch width limitation. The speakers will have a few inches between the back and the wall, though I sill prefer a front ported or sealed enclosure. That's why I'm also considering the NHT Superzero. Some of the Q acoustics such as the 3010 also fit, and include a port plug for near wall placement. I wonder if the MK442 could benefit from a port plug for HT use when paired with a sub? I'm using a Yamaha AVR with DSP correction, so I have options to smooth things out.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Thanks for the responses. No wiggle room with the six inch width limitation. The speakers will have a few inches between the back and the wall, though I sill prefer a front ported or sealed enclosure. That's why I'm also considering the NHT Superzero. Some of the Q acoustics such as the 3010 also fit, and include a port plug for near wall placement. I wonder if the MK442 could benefit from a port plug for HT use when paired with a sub? I'm using a Yamaha AVR with DSP correction, so I have options to smooth things out.
Since there is a few inches of clearance, front porting vs rear porting won't really matter. You will get boundary gain with a ported enclosure no matter what when it is close to a surface. You can seal the ports, and that will reduce their lower bass output. The truth is you can do that to any speaker, and it will simply reduce their lower bass, and that can be done to any speaker, so don't think it can only be done to speakers that officially accommodate that. If a speaker has to be placed near a wall, and the bass becomes too much, you can seal it. My preference would be to see what EQ'ing can do first, though, since sealing the ports reduces headroom.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top