advertisement


A review of the Linn Kan II speakers

Just bought a lovely one owner very late Mk1 pair (with binding posts) in a lovely finish (Rosewood / Walnut?). Have had teak and black ash before but these are so much nicer.

Set them up in my main system with my Tact Millennium amp and they sound great.



 
Charlie_1 said:
..

Anyone know what amps the Kans were originally developed with? I assume a Naim pairing of some kind.
Click to expand...

Yes, it must have been in the Chrome period

My memory fade but didn't LK1/2 launch around 1985/86 ? and the "divorce" was a fact

There was a Kan history website, somewhere back then
 
Kan
Change Log Date Serial >=

Cabinet: Sep 1991 - Damped with KuStone and drive units are mounted with discrete gaskets instead of mastic. This was the final incarnation of the Kan. upto s/n: 48489

MajorRevision: Jan 1989 - Kan II introduced: this involved a change to a biwirable crossover (with 4 sockets) and a move in the tweeter positioning (mounted 7mm more forward than before on an substantially improved front baffle).

Bass Unit: May 1985 - Change to new long throw low frequency driver Kef B110B.

Connections: Feb 1985 - Changed from binding posts to the new style 4mm sockets.

Tweeters: May 1984 - Change to Hiquphone tweeters, which gave a flatter response. Having the Linn logo printed on the front plate, along with "LINN PRODUCTS" identifies these. The plate also has 2 concentric circles printed on it. May 1984 upto s/n: 24077

Cabinets: 1982 - Changed to Medite cabinet and began doping the B110 with some sticky black mastic for damping purposes.

Introduction: Pre 1982 - Scanspeak tweeter. Original unmodified KEF B110 bass drivers. Cabinet essentially made of chipboard. The speaker used 4mm binding posts.
 
Hi I am after the circuit diagram and component values for a Kan MkII - I have the Mk1 X over. Please contact me if any one can help.
 
Charlie_1 said:
I ran black Kan 2s on Exposure XV for about 15 years and that was great with Valhalla LP12 - much less so via CD.

Prefer Kan 1s now though and own 2 pairs but always with vinyl. They sound quite differnet to one another but both are more exciting and alive than Kan 2s - I had kustone and non-kustone 2s until recently. In fact, if the OP purchased a kustone pair on ebay then he probably bought mine as they were superb condition.

Lastly, prefer K20 to K200/K400/NAC-A5 but I'm in the minority there :)
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on why you prefer the k20 is it because it’s easier to manage?
 
This is fascinating stuff.
Many moons ago I heard a pair of Kans ( not sure if Mk.1s or Mk.2s ) on an all-Naim system.
If I recall correctly, an LP12 with an MC cartridge ( make forgotten ) was also used.
Using a well-known LP ( mine ) the sound was harsh, thin, lacking in bass and didn’t image
to any extent.
Admittedly it was decades ago and sound reproduction has improved.
Well, in some areas it has...
 
xtinct1 said:
Could you elaborate on why you prefer the k20 is it because it’s easier to manage?
Click to expand...
I recently compared A4 and K20 again but using old Kan 1s and still prefer K20. I just find K20 lets you enjoy the music more easily - it makes more sense and is more engaging. A4 sounds cleaner and tighter though.
 
Martyn Miles said:
This is fascinating stuff.
Many moons ago I heard a pair of Kans ( not sure if Mk.1s or Mk.2s ) on an all-Naim system.
If I recall correctly, an LP12 with an MC cartridge ( make forgotten ) was also used.
Using a well-known LP ( mine ) the sound was harsh, thin, lacking in bass and didn’t image
to any extent.
Admittedly it was decades ago and sound reproduction has improved.
Well, in some areas it has...
Click to expand...
I've now had about 15-20 pairs in the past few years and there's much variability. I was told by someone in the industry during the 80s that the KEF units used to vary in quality a lot and this was one of the reasons KEF produced the SP1057 version used in later Kan 1s and the Kan 2. However, the revised model isn't a true mid/bass unit and whilst they do the Hi-Fi stuff better, they definitely have a thinner / bass-light sound. It's actually hard to get a very balanced sound from them even with MC cart, pre-Cirkus bearing and a NAP250. I wonder if you heard this later version, launched in '85 IIRC. Unfortunately, the caps have drifted a lot now, esp the early ones, and they can sound quite shut in and a bit congested.

Not sure any Kans image all that well. The harshness was probably a system matching thing - they do like a pre-Cirkus LP12 and sweeter bolt down and CB amps - although I know someone that always thinks they sound 'hard' - not sure he's heard any early pairs.
 
Last edited:
Martyn Miles said:
This is fascinating stuff.
Many moons ago I heard a pair of Kans ( not sure if Mk.1s or Mk.2s ) on an all-Naim system.
If I recall correctly, an LP12 with an MC cartridge ( make forgotten ) was also used.
Using a well-known LP ( mine ) the sound was harsh, thin, lacking in bass and didn’t image
to any extent.
Admittedly it was decades ago and sound reproduction has improved.
Well, in some areas it has...
Click to expand...

They can sound the total opposite of that in a well sorted system Martyn. ( At least the system l heard them in did.) :)
 
Charlie_1 said:
Not sure any Kans image all that well.
Click to expand...
Well today, I happen to be listening to a pair of Kan I and I'm struck by the extraordinary imaging of a classical symphony on them. It's the first time I've succeeded in arriving at a good result well away from the walls, and for the first time I'm using an SVS subwoofer. They are hooked up to my Quad IIs. Lovely stuff.
 
I had a pair of Kan Mk 2 with KuStone a long time ago.

I tempted to try a pair again.

Does anyone have experience of the KuStone vs Non KuStone Mk2s ?
 
90125 said:
Does anyone have experience of the KuStone vs Non KuStone Mk2s ?
Click to expand...

I’ve had both, but not at the same time! My favourite pair of Kans were my last which were a beautiful teak pair of Ku Stone IIs. They were a great pair of speakers and certainly sounded more natural over the midband than I had before, but I can’t speak in absolutes as I used Kans at so many different times over such a long period and in very different rooms and systems. They were always my default speaker for a small flat.

To be honest I’d buy Kan IIs on condition rather than spec. I don’t think there is that much if any subjective difference. They all sound like Kan IIs!
 
Tony L said:
I’ve had both, but not at the same time! My favourite pair of Kans were my last which were a beautiful teak pair of Ku Stone IIs. They were a great pair of speakers and certainly sounded more natural over the midband than I had before, but I can’t speak in absolutes as I used Kans at so many different times over such a long period and in very different rooms and systems. They were always my default speaker for a small flat.

To be honest I’d buy Kan IIs on condition rather than spec. I don’t think there is that much if any subjective difference. They all sound like Kan IIs!
Click to expand...
That sounds like good advice TBH
 
BTW while Kan are always seen with Linn / Naim .. I heard them once with an Exposure integrated XV or XX or something.

The slightly fuller / more laid back nature of the Exposure seemed to suit them - IMO
 
I’d love to hear a pair driven by a nice valve amp, I bet it would be really good! I’ve heard SBLs driven with valves and they sound great. Arguably the best I’ve heard them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top