advertisement


Are Linn Kans and LS3/5As similar?

Tony L nails it. The simple answer to your question is yes, the Kan is exactly a flat-earth version of the LS3/5A: same drivers, basically the same box, but a simple crossover that doesn't compensate for baffle step, unlike the LS3/5A which had a complex crossover aiming at flat response.
 
LS3/5A (and JR149) both use the original variant of the Kef B110 bass-mid unit and the Kef T27 tweeter. The Kan uses the later B110B and either a Scanspeak or Hiquphon tweeter depending on vintage. This, along with the simplest crossover that as stated above has no baffle-step and makes no attempt to tame the B110’s tendency to ‘quack’ makes for a fairly ‘characterful’ presentation. Great fun though!
 
I owned some lovely walnut veneered (Rogers) LS3/5As which I bought in 1979, but I sold them in 1981, and replaced them with some modified Videoton D100s which had much more life, and worked much better with the amplifiers I had at the time. I suspect that other amplifiers would have encouraged me to stick with the LS3/5as. I graduated onto ARC050s but tried to love the Kan, as I really loved SARAs and Isobariks, but try as I might, the Kans never really did it for me. Same / similar boxes, same or similar bass drivers, but everything else is different. The Tangent TM1 and the Royd Eden were both way better than either, but we weren't allowed to say that at the time!
 
That surprises me as I went from Kans to Isbariks and thought they were very similar. For me the Sara is the ‘different’ one in that picture. By saying that I think Kans, like SBLs, only work in certain rooms and require a lot of attention to get right. I had them long enough to learn what worked and what didn’t with them when it came to placement etc. A half inch or so can make or break them, they rely on wall reinforcement so much!
 
I think my issue with Kans was the lack of low bass and I felt my ARC050s did everything that the Kan did (along with back to the wall positioning) and rather better! The Sara was more 'organic'. I was also involved with developing a small speaker at the time, so we listened to all sorts of speakers and maybe never really worked with Kans for as long as they deserved as I was probably never going to buy a pair. My friend/dealer did spend ages setting them up for me on the end of my LP12/Naim system, and felt they were 'optimised'. When I finally got the Isobariks I got the midrange clarity with bass, and my journey was at an end (or so I thought...)
 
I think my issue with Kans was the lack of low bass...

In a bizarre way that is actually their strength IMO. They work so well in the kind of tiny room that there is no alternate but put the speakers hard against one wall and the chair hard against the other, i.e. you end up getting bass reinforcement from both boundaries and at exactly the area the Kans roll down. These are the rooms I’ve had at points in the past and loved Kans in. Kans also win in being infinite baffle so their bass rolls very smoothly and cleanly with no horrible port artifice, again a huge bonus for a little bedsit or whatever.

PS I now live somewhere with no place they’d work even if I wanted a pair!
 
LS3/5A (and JR149) both use the original variant of the Kef B110 bass-mid unit and the Kef T27 tweeter. The Kan uses the later B110B and either a Scanspeak or Hiquphon tweeter depending on vintage. This, along with the simplest crossover that as stated above has no baffle-step and makes no attempt to tame the B110’s tendency to ‘quack’ makes for a fairly ‘characterful’ presentation. Great fun though!

According to Linn history, the B110 was used until 1985, the B110B after this date. Crossover modifications to Kan 2 were introduced to tame the mid band ‘quack’ and improve tonal accuracy, although many people still prefer the spirited performance and tonal anomalies of the very earliest Kans. Kan 2s were developed on digital sources as well as analogue.

I have a late 70s pair of Kan 1s, thought to be plywood cabinets, and a 1990 Kan 2. I much prefer the Kan 2. They sound great all types of music, whether on either of my Garrards or Chord DAC, but are very room and system dependent as are most worthwhile speakers.

FWIW I think Kan 1s are as different to Kan 2s as they are to LS3/5as.
 
Mine were Kan IIs. I tried 1s at one point but definitely preferred the IIs, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a pair of the very early ones in proper LS3/5A cabs (i.e. plywood, not MDF) and with Scanspeak tweeters.
 
In a bizarre way that is actually their strength IMO. They work so well in the kind of tiny room that there is no alternate but put the speakers hard against one wall and the chair hard against the other, i.e. you end up getting bass reinforcement from both boundaries and at exactly the area the Kans roll down. These are the rooms I’ve had at points in the past and loved Kans in. Kans also win in being infinite baffle so their bass rolls very smoothly and cleanly with no horrible port artifice, again a huge bonus for a little bedsit or whatever.

PS I now live somewhere with no place they’d work even if I wanted a pair!
If I had a room that was like Scalford when I showed my KANs I may not have SARAs.
You helped the setup Tony, many thought them best in show!
 
Were they early 1, later 1, or 2 at Scalford?

If all I ever listened to was singer songwriters, male and female, the early 1s may win out, they can command your attention like few other speakers do. But with a widely varied programme I can’t live with their tonal anomalies, especially evident with string quartets etc. Having said that I recently rejected Focal LS3/5as. Tonally accurate apart from their ever present bass hump.
 
There's nothing wrong with Kans i had mine for years, I previously had Akroyd Conistons, but I also ran Royd RR2s since 2002 until last year when I bought my sbls, but I also have Coniston R, Epos Es11 and a couple of pairs of Edens which my dad is using.
I remember hearing a pair my mate bought brand new in 1988 the same year I bought my Kans and I thought then how amazing they were, brand new £235 the exact same price I paid for my sh pair of Kans.
Edens are really cheap and amazing worth every penny and then some, Kans are neither.
My dad has his still he's had them I think since 1984.
Thing is you can buy a pair and if you love them all good, if you don't you can sell them on again and probably not lose a penny as they fetch ridiculous money, the stands alone are fetching £150! to put it in perspective I bought my Sbls for £185 and at the time you couldn't buy a pair of Kans for less than £500!
Try a pair you might love them, but if you try Edens you will definitely prefer them it's hard not to hear the difference it's not subtle.
Good luck
 
I have a very early pair bought originally about 1980 from sound advice I've never seen another pair like them anywhere for sale they are almost identical to ls3/5a being plywood and with a grill that sticks out not flush like the later ones.
 
The LS3/5A does what the BBC wanted. Gives someone in a small room, close to the speakers, a good representation of things like well recorded acoustic music. Thus is good for classical, jazz, etc in the right situations.

I only had the misfortune to hear the Kans once, at a show. I must admit I thought they were taking the piss out of the punters. To me they sounded like they'd used disposable plastic coffee-cups as the speakers. Nasty 'holding the nose whilst talking' colourations. Maybe the ones I heard were faulty. Hope so! :)
 
I quite like my Kan V's. :)

Pretty decent mids and highs if a little bright sometimes. I have them 10" off the back wall and the bass is sufficient - however I don't think anyone can expect them to do full scale Opera - they are what they are.

I've never really been blown away by the the Harbeth P3ESR's but they have rave followings.

The mk1 and 2 versions still seem to command quite a price! Not sure I'd pay £500 for a set!! :eek:
 
Even different vintage mark 1 Kans sound very different depending on their serial numbers and as such their construction. Linn was constantly tinkering the speakers. The best Kans (I've had many many different mk 1 pairs) are the ones before the change from chipboard to mdf (from 1979-1980 or so). These have the best construction inside, the best quality original B110A (even the later mk1 Kans that still have the B110A have a different looking rubber surround, weird but true) and the best sounding black Elcap crossovers. These speakers are capable of achieving very nice solid bass, great clarity and huge sound. They shine with complex and compressed recordings (e.g. heavy metal) where most modern speakers of similar price/size sound bad. Kans need to be positioned just right. Poor positioning/stands and interfaces/room easily destroys the amazing weight of sound these speakers can offer at their best.

I also have Royd Sapphires to compare and Royds are great, but do not outshine good Kans. They do have more scale though and scale is the biggest shortcoming of the Kans. Kans in the right room are good on almost everything but orchestral music. I would never choose slow and boring Harbeths (I had P3ESRs for many years) over Kans or Royds and I assume the Harbeths share sound signatures of the LS3/5A. Kans do not limit your music choices nearly as much as Harbeths.
 
The best Kans (I've had many many different mk 1 pairs) are the ones before the change from chipboard to mdf (from 1979-1980 or so).

Are you sure you don’t mean plywood? Chipboard as no place in any LS3/5A cab and I thought the ealiest Kans were made using Chartwell’s stock of cabs after they went out of business. I’d expect these to sound better as MDF is nasty stuff IMHO.
 
Are you sure you don’t mean plywood? Chipboard as no place in any LS3/5A cab and I thought the ealiest Kans were made using Chartwell’s stock of cabs after they went out of business. I’d expect these to sound better as MDF is nasty stuff IMHO.

I guess the very first 100 or so pairs used plywood cabs, but I've not heard these. I also think their serial numbers were different from the standard line that started with chipboard cabs from 10xxx or so. The Kans after this were definitely chipboard and from serial 13xxx-14xxx or so they changed to mdf/medite. The chipboard seems like a worse option than mdf, but somehow sounds better. My Royds also use chipboard. Maybe that explains their weighty open and lively sound (trait shared by chipboard Kans).
 


advertisement


Back
Top