advertisement


Kan Version History?

foxwelljsly

foxwelljsly

Me too, I ate one sour too.
Kan related queries from a Kan fan, purely out of curiosity.....

My last pair of Kans had flush silver banana sockets (Kan 2?), the pair I'm about to buy have the sticky-outy red and black banana sockets (Kan 1?). I've also seen them with 4 flush banana sockets (Kan 2 active?) and am also aware that there are later versions that use completely different drivers to the older versions (IV & V).

I gather 1's & 2's are pretty much identical in terms of performance, IV & V's are completely different products pitched at a far lower price point and there is no such thing as a Kan 3. Is this correct?

Oh, and can active Kans be used passive with jumpers?

cheers
 
My Kan II's have 4 speaker input sockets. They are S/N 46xxx, so prior to Kustones.

They are NOT Active Kans.

They are, however, bi-wirable by a simple process of releasing the speaker sockets with either a special spanner, or another suitable (gentle/precise) device. You then remove the links between the top and bottom sockets, and bi-wire (or bi-amp) accordingly.

Depending on your Pre-Amp and Pwer-Amp(s) this either is or is not worth it.

Linn Kan II's (Pre-Kustone) are amazing little speakers.

IF you've got REALLY good Pre- and Power- sources then you will/should hear some even further improvement in response (a bit cleaner overall, and the agility is reinforced).

I've never heard Active Kans, and as you would need to open the boxes, which is a specialised operation, I suspect only a specialist would undertake that task.

Would it be worth it? As far as I'm aware, the Crossover is not that complex, so probably imposes little penalty on the efficiency or sound spectrum of the speakers.

Others probably know much more than me - but I wonder if this activity would be worthwhile?

Skyebridge
 
I've got this history, any good?



Needless to say I've always regretted selling my 30,000 ish pair!

Possibly one of my greatest blunders ever.

A lot of pairs got the bass driver and tweeter upgrades so the serial number doesn't always indicate exactly what you're getting.

Currently the proud owner of a 19000 ish pair.
 
@colasblue They seem to be serial numbers for vintage Kans.

How do you tell the models of the more ‘modern’ versions of Kans - do they say their model number anywhere on the speaker ?
 
My understanding, flush plugs Scanspeak tweeters, later sticky out plugs Hiquphon tweeters.
Kan 2 have 4 speaker sockets for bi-wiring and the tweeter is moved forward with a block on the baffle.

There's other detailed variants I've read about including some plywood cabs in the 1st production run??
 
divedeepdog said:
My understanding, flush plugs Scanspeak tweeters, later sticky out plugs Hiquphon tweeters.
Click to expand...

Early Kans with Scanspeak tweeter had binding posts (sticky out plugs). Then Linn swapped to Hiquphon but retained binding posts for a while. Flush sockets came a little while after that.

I have two pairs with binding posts - one early-ish pair with Scanspeak tweeters and a pair with Hiquphons but from the 9 months before the the flush sockets were introduced.

Serial numbers tally with those here: http://www.sievers.sh/content/linn_2.php?group=130&ugroup=0
Note: Different page to that linked to in post #2
 
The Linn sales rep once told me Kan I were voiced for Naim amps and Kan II were voice for Linn amps.
 
90125 said:
The Linn sales rep once told me Kan I were voiced for Naim amps and Kan II were voice for Linn amps.
Click to expand...

I certainly always preferred Kan IIs with Naim amps to the Mk I, though I’ve never heard the very first Kan which was built into proper LS3/5A cabs (i.e. fundamentally different materials and construction to the glued MDF that came later). Those are very highly sought-after as I understand it. I’ve had (Hiquophon with binding posts) Mk Is and KuStone Mk IIs at the same time and much, much preferred the latter. The Mk Is were fun but very nasal and ‘quacky’, the Mk IIs no less fun but could play with pretty decent tonality. I’d not choose any Kan for classical, but on everything else they get by nicely in a good classic ‘chrome bumper’ Linn/Naim system in a small room.
 
Surely, if you liked Kans then you'd try Briks, which are Kans with deeper bass? That was my rationale.
 
nostromo said:
Surely, if you liked Kans then you'd try Briks, which are Kans with deeper bass? That was my rationale.
Click to expand...

That’s where I ended up on that path. Whilst I enjoyed a short time with Bricks (late type with crossover in the stands), only 18 months or so, being honest I suspect I preferred the Kans in many ways. There is something very good about mini-monitors to my mind, and I think it was the start of my realisation that I only really feel comfortable with point-source speakers (or very close to that). Some of my time was far too close to the Bricks in a very small room, but even when I moved them to a larger room I still thought the driver integration was pretty poor. I felt just the same listening to DBLs, NBLs etc, various Focals, Wilsons etc. I just don’t get on with speakers with a foot or more between the top and bottom drivers, and it is more than height, I’m sure it is a phase/timing thing and likely as much about rooms as the speakers themselves. Give me a point-source every time! If you look at my speaker history the ones that stay the longest are either tiny two-ways or Tannoys!
 
I fully agree with your post above Tony. Bricks definitely don't image or integrate/cohere as well as Kans. You may not get the deeper bass but the coherence and clarity with a smaller point source speaker like the Kan is magical.

Going a step further with what Kef I think call the unityQ where the tweeter is mounted in the middle of the mid unit, one might expect an even tighter point source than the Kans.... But in my opinion they don't sound as good and I wonder why not? Perhaps because I grew up with Kans and Linn stuff, my preference has been set to that colour.

Another misconception perhaps, comes to mind, the Kan 5 inch driver is at the sweetspot size wise to offer enough dynamics with copious agility, which perhaps is a fundamental law of physics related phenomenon.
 
“If Kans had bass, they’d be SBLs”

Having got Kans (Mk 1) & Briks (Aktiv with 3 x LK280)**, I’ve often contemplated trying the Kans on the HF amp instead of the Briks’ tweeters…….


**got Sibbles as well :D:D
 
Tony L said:
I certainly always preferred Kan IIs with Naim amps to the Mk I, though I’ve never heard the very first Kan which was built into proper LS3/5A cabs (i.e. fundamentally different materials and construction to the glued MDF that came later). Those are very highly sought-after as I understand it. I’ve had (Hiquophon with binding posts) Mk Is and KuStone Mk IIs at the same time and much, much preferred the latter. The Mk Is were fun but very nasal and ‘quacky’, the Mk IIs no less fun but could play with pretty decent tonality. I’d not choose any Kan for classical, but on everything else they get by nicely in a good classic ‘chrome bumper’ Linn/Naim system in a small room.
Click to expand...

I understand the first Kans used ex. Chartwell LS3/5a cabinets.
Bankrupt stock, if I remember correctly.
 
suzywong said:
“If Kans had bass, they’d be SBLs”

Having got Kans (Mk 1) & Briks (Aktiv with 3 x LK280)**, I’ve often contemplated trying the Kans on the HF amp instead of the Briks’ tweeters…….


**got Sibbles as well :D:D
Click to expand...
I think David Ellwood of this Parish has pretty much got that.... He's disabled and panelled over the top drive units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top