Well that didn't take to long!
All the stories are true. The MK1 really does sound better. It shows higher overall transparency compared to the mk2 version. For some reasons the mid area always seemed hidden on the mk2's making them more forgiving and making it hard to judge the true quality of vocals and instruments. The mk1's are making this 'judging' much easier.
The bass isn't ideal on both monitors imo. You can hear the rear ports boosting on both monitors (in a different way). The MK1 really has a bump in the lows but the mk2's sound sloppier in the entire bass region for some reason.
I didn't take to much attention for the sub bass because I use my monitors in combination with the BM14S sub and have done most of the comparing with the subwoofer integrated. That said the mk1's also have my first choice in the bass region when integrated with the subwoofer (monitors only plaing >80hz).
The highs sounds equally good on both monitors and are (imo) overpresented on the mk1 just as they are on the mk2. The MK2 only allows to cut -1db and the mk1 allows to cut to -4db. I think this is a good feature because they definately need more than a -1db cut imo.
For what it's worth. The mk2's are disconnected and stored and the mk1's are playing it loud!
edit: Now listening for a few days to the mk1's and I do have te add the mk1's seem to have a dip in the midrange. Everything the monitor shows sounds good but the frequencies around the crossover are cut back. The frequence range of the dip is not very wide but it's definately there. The mk2's midrange is quite flat and is also phase aligned but everything the mk1's show sounds cleaner. Looks like they tried to solve the crossoverproblem on the mk1 by using a 1st order problem in vain.
Hope this helps to some.