Kan II active?
Posted by: Justin on 17 January 2002
Finally, what improvements (or detriments) result?
Thanks
Judd
The correct crossover is a NAXO (or SNAXO) Sara/Kan--this uses the same high-pass values for the HF driver as the SBL variant (these predate the SBLs), but has a slightly different (more LF low-pass overlap) crossover point, of sorts. An SBL crossover will suck out a small bit of openness in the midrange (overlap region), but will still be fine if your room is overly live to begin with.
I used these prior to an SBL upgrade a few years ago--interesting sound, though I doubt I could go back to them now...
Dave Dever
Is the Snaxo Sara/Kan a differant product than the Snaxo sbl, or is it just a matter of adjustment? If a differant beast, can it be made right at your facility?
Also, anybody know how do get the grill off of a kan. Says right on the back "do not remove grill". Will the grill be destroyed?
Yea, I'm not getting along with my sbl's.
Judd
BTW, the post-service nap 250 is a revelation. I'm inclined to say the pre-service sample was "malfunctioning".
As always, wonderful work on your part.
Judd
Erik
Dave Dever, NANA
P.S. Though we could, in theory, convert an SBL-type XO to Sara/Kan, the price ends up being the same for a board swap after figuring in labor for the appropriate parts matching. To avoid this hassle, you should, IMHO, first decide that the Kans passive do the trick, rather than going through the process of removing the internal crossover, etc.
quote:
What is the difference between a Kan I, Kan II, and a Tukan?
The differences between the Kan I and II are explicitly detailed @ the aforementioned Tony Lonorgan site.
The Tukan is something entirely different, a larger ported affair not unlike the modern Katan.
My early IBLs were filthy when I first brought them home. The previous owner had obviously done a number of home renovations with them just lying about. They were literally caked with drywall compound dust! Post cleaning the true merit of the Scanspeaks came shining through.
Unless your Kan IIs have been well thrashed by a volume freak with an underpowered amp, then I believe that your Hiquphons will freshen up nicely.
Give it a try but be careful about it as you may easily do more damage than good if your vacuum is a bit on the black hole vortex side (and/or you get too close with the nozzle).
Craig
quote:
Give it a try but be careful about it as you may easily do more damage than good if your vacuum is a bit on the black hole vortex side (and/or you get too close with the nozzle).
Can't agree more! Just be careful - get used to how the hoover handles first. Kan II tweeters are close enough to the grills that they can be hoovered through them. I have a Dyson and just use the tube without an attachment - I stick a finger on the tweeter front plate between it and the nozzle so it can't possibly hit the dome. The improvement in sound is really obvious.
This is not the only job for your hoover, they are just the thing for getting at the inevitable dust and crud that lurks in the working parts of a phono cartridge. This is a well scary procedure to do, but I have yet to damage a cartridge by doing it - again just don't get the nozzle too close. Be especially careful if your deck has a subchassis, as obviously that can move towards the suction. When I had a LP12 I stuck cardboard into the gaps around the arm board to stop it moving prior to hoovering. Aro users are probably better forgetting it! The result is a radically clearer and cleaner sound, this is especially noticeable in the top end. The older the cart the more the improvement. I do it to my cart every six months or so.
Tony.
quote:
Aro users are probably better forgetting it!
I would urge some caution here. Tony's advice, as usual, is spot on: hoovering does work. However, Aro users simply have to remove arm from the deck and place cartridge and do the deed. Very easy.
Another trick if you have steady hands and a microscope is to blu tack (really small piece) the crud off the cantilever, especially at the point of it's exit from the body.
I am not a fan of demagnetising, green paper or anything remotely abrasive. 
regards
Dev
quote:
Another trick if you have steady hands and a microscope is to blu tack (really small piece) the crud off the cantilever, especially at the point of it's exit from the body.
Wow. Dev, you are our leader now!
Tony.
regards
Dev
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Toolsie:
I understand that Tukans were never a replacement for the Kans as they cost maybe 50% or less of what Kans *would* sell for were they still made, and are/were more widely applicable in their use.But when driven active, the Tukans- like many other speakers become an entirely different beast becoming more of a lion than a lamb. I have written at length before about my experiences driving them with 4x135, and the detrimental effects of the internal crossover, even when actively configured. But those who long for the Kan-like presentation will not go far wrong with active Tukans; moreso when stripped down sans internal x/o.Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
I can't do better than say "amen". I had Tukans for about 3 years before going active using stock Linn amps and crossover boards.
Although the Tukans are good speakers when run passive, running them active radically improves the quality of music. Anyone with a pair of Tukans around should seriously consider this.
Cheers
Keith.
I have original Kan1s modified for active use.
I originally went active as a fluke! I had a 32/hicap/140 that was forever blowing tweeters(both Hiquofin and Scanspeak). I like to play loud very often! After replacing the tweeter so many times, I had to replace the connecting wires because they had become too short. This was shortly after the SBL and IBL so it gave me the idea to outboard the crossover instead of just lengthening the wires. This was a sound improvement, though a small one. The best hi-fis I'd ever heard to date were active Kan set-ups and I thought this would be a good upgrade path. Shortly thereafter I landed a 42XO/Snaps/110 used and couldn't believe the improvement to sound. If you like Kans, active Kans give you the same sound but more of it. A LOT more.
After Linn came out with their newer tweeters, it was the icing on the cake. I am very happy with what I have.
For the record I have also used a NAXO/Snaps, Linn modules, and a homemade circuit; all sound immensely better than passive.
I also shaved the front off my Kans so the baffle is flush with no diffractions. This was a huge improvement, though not for everyone as it permanently disfigures the speakers.
As for removing the grill; it is an art. Make sure you have trim fingernails and grab the grill-frame at the bottom(there is a little lip between it and the woofer) and pull firmly but gently. If it hasn't been done before, both drivers will need attention from an allen and philips. Be careful tightening the tweeter as it is just screwed into MDF. I'd advise removing each wood screw and putting a few drops of "super glue" in the holes. This will make the wood stronger so the screws won't strip.
Ron The Mon
quote:
As for removing the grill; it is an art. Make sure you have trim fingernails and grab the grill-frame at the bottom(there is a little lip between it and the woofer) and pull firmly but gently.
If like me you don't have much in the way of fingernails a wallpaper scraper with a nice wide flat blade does the job great, just be gentle so as not to ding the veneer. Mine came off without any damage at all.
Tony.
Phil
Judd
quote:
Originally posted by borje:
I use active KanII with CDI/LP12 /Prefix/HC/32.5/SC/Snaxo(Kan)/Snaps/180´s.
And it´s absolutely magic!.The tweeters in the Kans are old so they are harsh,I´m thinking of changin these to the new Linn tweeters or maybe Naim tweeters,has anybody tried this?.
I also wonder how the Special Snaics(250 type) made for the smaller amps with Snaxo,will better the sound?.
Regards Börje
Borje,
the Naim SBLs are 88db/W/m, the Kan is about 82db/W/m.
There would be a serious imbalance if used in a passive system.
You have a SNAXO, which will give you the ability to adjust the treble levels downwards (quite a lot). This should be OK (I guess), but would mean you could never use them passive again.
If the tweeter is the limiting factor, it might give you more volume potential, though?
cheers, Martin
The new tweeters("neodymiums") should cost you about $125. a pair, give or take. Remember, if you do it yourself it will be less because the variable is the labor charge.
Are you a DIYer? If so, I can send you four of the original Linn hard-domes(the ones with the white dome and circular screen grille) if you pay postage. I have lots of spares I got from my dealer as he keeps the old tweeters when doing updates. I found a bigger difference going to the "white-dome" than from there to the "neodymium". But both are a huge improvement over the original units.
BTW, older 'bariks are notorious for the tweeter wires being too short, so be careful not to snip too short! Also, if you or anyone has the outboard Isobarik crossover, it is possible to audition tweeters without even removing the old ones. It is a less than ideal demo, but also minimizes cosmetic damage when comparing.
Ron The Mon
quote:
The only problem I can see is that the new Linn tweeters has to be adjusted about 1db upwards and I don´t have so much more to give on the the treble pot.
So turn down the bass pot!
Tony.
Mark Russell,
I forgot to mention the outboard Isobarik crossovers have facility for adjusting (attenuating individual drivers) if you weren't aware. Changing and adjusting tweeters is a cinch.
Ron The Mon