advertisement


Linn Kan 1 v 2

gilkinted said:
Just to be clear - the damping that MK1 Kans had was applied both in the form of doping to the drivers and damping material inside the cabinet. I don't think (correct me if wrong) the later Kans had doped drivers.
Click to expand...

I bought a pair of old Kans. they had 'pushed in ' tweeters and the cabinets were almost useless, due to water damage and cracked edges.
I only bought them for the B110s.

What amazed me was how difficult it was to dismantle the things ! It took ages to split open the broken cabinets and remove the front baffles. I was being very careful not to damage the '110s. The crossover was attached with wood screws to the rear panel, and has various components stuck down with what looked like Araldite adhesive.
The B110s were held in by hexagon bolts and some sort of adhesive. I did ( eventually...) get them out. They were painted with what appeared to be car underseal.
The seller wanted the old tweeters and crossovers, so I was left with two good condition drivers and a pile of broken and cracked chipboard.

My lasting impression was a sort of 'bomb proof ' loudspeaker, where no expense has been spared on its construction.
 
Ah, a Linn Kan thread has been revived!

Martyn Miles said:
What amazed me was how difficult it was to dismantle the things !
Click to expand...

Yes, there has been a lot written on the best methods to dismantle a pair of Kans. I have MKIs as my main loudspeaker, but I have also purchased a pair of MKIIs to convert into active operation; I bought these largely because they are easier to dismantle than MKIs.

I have tried the MKIIs in my system, and they sound very different to MKIs.

In the context of a NAC102/NAP 250 system, using two different front ends, either a Lenco 88/Audiomods/Metal bodied 103 or Michell hydraulic Reference/GH228/Troika, the MKIIs sounded too laid back and polite for the Michell; they were better suited to the Lenco deck, which is a bit brighter.

I lived with the MKIIs for a couple of weeks, and then went back to the MKIs, and the improvement was immediate to my ears. The MKIs are more open and lively and more fun to listen too. I didn't try CD with the MKIIs TBH, but it may well be that they would be better suited than the MKIs.

I am quite looking forward to hearing the MKIIs in active form.
 
Since starting this thread way back in 2009, I have had six pairs of Kans, they remain a very favourite speaker of mine despite the flaws.

In answer to my own question some years ago now, MKI Kans on MKII stands are the way to go.
 
Gaius,

I'm not sure that the answer is quite that simple. Linn continuously fiddled with (and cocked-up) the performance of their speakers. Late Kan I weren't the best due to the variant of the B110 used, faffing with the crossover and a initially crude integration of the rather good Hiquophon tweeter. Luckily the Royd Eden appeared around that time, hence this varaint of Kan could be ignored..Kan II's dialed out most of these cock-ups and were consistantly good.

Anyway, the correct answer for which is the best Kan, was the Active Kan, which in Mark 1 form was one hell of a loudspeaker.

PS seeing that everyone likes MK 2 Kan stands, perhaps someone should get Derek Whittington to design more speaker stands and equipment stands(hint).! He really is rather good at that (...and setting up Lp12s, collecting LPs and being an allround good bloke).
 
Gaius said:
Since starting this thread way back in 2009, I have had six pairs of Kans, they remain a very favourite speaker of mine despite the flaws.

In answer to my own question some years ago now, MKI Kans on MKII stands are the way to go.
Click to expand...

I went through four pairs IIRC and came to the conclusion the final (KuStone) incarnation of the MkII was the best for me. I only ever had two pairs of Mk1s pass though, and not the earliest (i.e. they had the Hiquphon tweeter, not the Scanspeak). To my ears both versions are great fun on rock and pop, but if you ever want to spin jazz or chamber music etc the MkIIs were rather less odd sounding! I'd have liked to try a Scanspeak Mk 1.

PS I never had anything other than MkII stands.
 
It just wouldn't be PFM without a Kan thread. I have used, in fact A/B Kan 2 stands v Sound Organisation wall brackets (slightly modified). In my room and with my system the SO brackets won easily.

As some might know, I LOVE MY IBLs, but would probably be quite happy to live with Kans on the SO brackets if pushed.
 
I'm a convert to sealed boxes now having owned two pairs of mk1 Kan's, ATC SCM7's and my current EB Acoustics EB2's which sound fantastic. Favourite has to be the mk1 ATC SCM7's though, I think they were perfect in my room (12ftx16ft) and really regret selling them now.
 
wylton said:
I lived with the MKIIs for a couple of weeks, and then went back to the MKIs, and the improvement was immediate to my ears.
Click to expand...

IIs didn't have the internal damping inside that the Is had. Adding internal damping (eg cork tiles from DIY shop) to IIs gets the same results.
 
Linn Naim said:
I used early MK1 Kans on MK2 stands for 14years and loved them.
I now use 1989 IBLs and I love them
Click to expand...

Yes, the comparison between IBLs and Kans is an interesting one. I haven't used IBLs at home, though I have heard them many times, including in active mode. I have used SBLs and I find that in general, the older Naim speakers tend to sound a bit drier than the equivalent Linn model. My listening space seems to be ideally suited to the Kans, so in my environment, I prefer the Kans.
 
Interesting.

A friend moved from Kan2s on K2 stands to IBLs.

From his Kan2s I moved to the only speaker I liked more, had the same finesse of detail, and also more bass, Linn AV5140 floorstanders.
 
I have never had mk1 Kans. I had passive Kan 2 with Kan 2 stands. Active Kan 2 is more effortless and I feel that it is the same effect with SBLs. It is very hard to go back to passive with SBLs and I feel (I am in minority) that two "lesser" amps active is better than one amp in passive operation. I don't have stands for Kans now and they are sitting on wall brackets. I feel that they have a huge potential.
 
Olli, keep searching for those Sound Organisation Kan wall brackets. If you have a solid supporting wall to mount them on you will be astonished at how the Kans can sound, IMO better than the Kan2 stands by a good bit.
 
gary yeowell said:
Olli, keep searching for those Sound Organisation Kan wall brackets. If you have a solid supporting wall to mount them on you will be astonished at how the Kans can sound, IMO better than the Kan2 stands by a good bit.
Click to expand...

I have checked the internet regularly but I haven't found those anywhere. Wall brackets would be a good choice. And more secure with small children. Kan 2 stands are not too heavy.
 
gary yeowell said:
Olli, keep searching for those Sound Organisation Kan wall brackets. If you have a solid supporting wall to mount them on you will be astonished at how the Kans can sound, IMO better than the Kan2 stands by a good bit.
Click to expand...

I agree Gary. The very best Kans I ever heard was an active pair driven by a brace of 250s;with full blown LP12 at the front. These were on Sound Org wall brackets and ( I promise I was sober) the bass kicked you in the stomach and the control was spellbinding. These were Kan mk IIs as well, which surprised me.
 
I recall an article by Paul Messenger. He had taken his Naim amps. to the factory for some work they required.
Whilst waiting he listened to some music in Naim's demo. room, which had Isobariks, Saras and Kans. After listening to a familiar record, he commented that his Isobariks didn't sound quite as good as this pair.
He was surprised when told he was listening to a pair of Kans !
 
Gaius said:
Hi all, I know the Mk1s have the reputation as the better speaker. What are the main differences in both spec and character of sound.
Would be driven by a 42.5/180.
Look forward to your comments and advice.
Click to expand...

Robert said:
The Mk1 shreaks and squarks horribly at times whereas the Mk2 is a pretty balanced design with some real strength. Great if you like the old school flat earth sound and have a small room.

The Mk1 has a reputation for having superb PRaT.
It gives that impression by having no bass and a massive upper-mid peak.
Click to expand...

Robert, you make it sound, by your description, that the Mk1 and Mk2 are totally different speakers! I'm still giggling as I write this, great entertainment thank you. :)

For those interested in my take on Kans, read on.

I heard Tony's MKII's and thought they were excellent. I heard his second pair (I think) of MKI's and purchased them. I used them on MKII stands until I bought the SBLs I still own; the Kans were a riot, though sounded rather rushed by comparison.

I'd characterise the MK1 vs MKII differences as the MK1 being slightly less tidy at the top end, perhaps a little more open in the bottom - the MKII being just a bit more composed overall. It's more useful to compare Kans to other speakers for the frame of reference, than to train-spot between the two.

FWIW I ran the Kan I's in a small brick London maisonette with wooden floors, mounted either side of your standard chimney breast as close to the wall as I could get them with NACA5 and Naim plugs; on the end of kit as diverse as CD3/32.5/140 on Sound Org, through to CDX/XPS/82/SC/140 on Mana. They were rocking good fun, and I still miss them. They went to a very good home.

The Kans are not HiFi - not SF or even Epos, but bloody good entertainment - and small too. Needless to say there are many who will never understand them.

cheers
 
PS seeing that everyone likes MK 2 Kan stands, perhaps someone should get Derek Whittington to design more speaker stands and equipment stands(hint).! He really is rather good at that (...and setting up Lp12s, collecting LPs and being an allround good bloke).[/QUOTE]

I'll second that,about Derek ��
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top