Kans and bass(???)

David

Kans are over hyped period.

Get yourself an IBL.

Regards

Mick

Hi David

1. Ignore Mick.

2. Kans can produce bass but they start to roll off at 70Hz and will never produce lots of flabby farty bass that some people think is nice. Most likely you don't have them set up optimally yet. They have demanding requirements to get them working properly and to be honest, if you don't have a solid wall to put them against, you are going to struggle to get any worthwhile results.

The basics are:

Kan II stands (or wall brackets) are mandatory and must have top and bottom spikes in place.

Position 5-10 cm from a solid (masonry or concrete) wall. Actual position is critical and can take days of experimentation to achieve.

Make sure they're absolutely level and rigid.

Small rooms are best (very small by US standards) and open plan rooms are not usually a good idea.

A first class source is required and they work best with TT's.

They will highlight any setup issues with the rest of your kit and need a day or two to settle on their stands every time you move them.

A nait will drive them happily but a 250 is where they really start to sing.

They're not ideal for classical music or hardcore dance but are capable of stunning results with most other stuff if you know what you're doing. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't and then slag them off.

Regards
Steve

I had to get kans too, because of all the fuss. Admittedly they do have a lovely mid-range, when i posted saying the same as you (no bass) i was told to get a cds2 and dedicated kan stands, I bought some sbl's instead, i hav'nt tryed them yet but i will be surprised if they dont sound shit, as they are supposed to be extremly fussy over placement and electronics and probably loads of other things aswell. Do a search under kans and see if that helps.

quote:

---

Kans are over hyped period.

Get yourself an IBL.

---

Mick's obviously never used IBL's - they are likely to sound even more bass light than Kans (I know, I own both)!

Follow Steve's advice to find the bass in them.

Andy.

many years ago I had a pair of the original Kans placed on their original stands these were the first speakers that were able to bring that much involvement to the music that they could bring tears to the eye's of the listeners and not just myself ,surly you cannot expect church organ bass from such a small speaker , they were designed to enable you to experience the music not shake the wall's .Enjoy the music if you need to move the walls get a JCB IN .

P.S. ONE THING THAT I should have mentioned but forgot ,that is I foolishly sold those wonderful kan's to help finance at the time a pair of SBL'S good as they are, I still wish that I had kept those kans no speaker that I have heard so far had such a impact on me
KEEP LISTENING, ENJOY THE MUSIC,remember if you need to move wall's use a JCB.

What's a JCB??

What's a JCB?

A Tonka Toy for big boys!


Steve

Well, I think part of the lack of bass is the fact that I had to turn my amp off the get the Kans hooked up and it has only been like 8 hours after turn on.

Also, there is the wall material-- flimsy.

Also, I'll bet they DO need a 250 to swing and sound out with depth. The bass is improving though, with amp warm up.

In any case the comparison to the NEATs is instructive.

Also, I have noticed the Kans sound better the more you turn things up-- which I cant do in my apt. They dont seem to be a good low-level speaker like the NEATs.

I wonder how the Katan stacks up against them.

David

You know-- I've been listening a bit to the Kans and they really are quite involving. You definitely have to turn them up a bit though.

As for me, I will stick with my NEAT Mystiques (which I bought from Whetstone Audio in Austin, Texas-- THERE Brian; like the plug? for now (which I wish were a touch more mid-forward sounding) but which simply have more depth and body to the sound.

They are also wonderfully involving. I'll keep the Kans for when I move to a house though-- perhaps there'll be a more solid wall to put them up against there.

Then though, I'll probably want SBLs. Too bad they'll all be gone by then.

David

David,

Kans definitely benefit from a 250 or a pair of 135's. They are pretty power hungry speakers.

They do have a wonderful "je ne sais quio" that is quite addictive. Even though I don't use my Kans as my main speaker, there are aspects of its performance that are hard to better.

It makes it hard to part with them. Enjoy them for what they can do.

Edwin

I found significant increases in quality/depth of bass by doing the following:

1. going from a Nait1 to a 72/180
2. replacing NACA4+banana plugs with NACA5+Naim connectors, which meant I could get closer to the rear wall
3. putting coins under the spikes (I have a wooden floor)
4. being obsessive about getting the stands completely level, without a trace of wobble

I've never believed that Kans do bass. Ive owned many pairs of both Mk1 and Mk2. They may not do bass but are still an excellent speaker. I currently use SBLs. Again these don't do very deep bass, but are such a fantastic speaker in so many other ways. DBLs, yes these do deep bass well. Deep, not flabby. I played a piece of music on a pair to some friends and they couldn't understand why those 'big speakers' had no bass. Then some music with deep bass was played and they appreciated the difference between the depth of bass and the quantity. Enjoy the Kans, when they're properly set up they're really musical.

Noel.

Has anyone ever tried Kan's or Ninka's with the Linn Sizmik subwoofer.

I've read on this forum that Subs are often considered "not fast" so detract from the music, but I note that Linn claim their Sizmick's are fast and have to fir in with Linn's philosophy of music reproduction.

Cheers,

Andrew, I must say I personally can’t agree with your findings. I too own both IBL’s & Kans. My IBL’s definitely have more bass than the kans.

I have tried them both with a single 250. Having chosen to use the IBL’s I now run them active with a pair of 250’s…. even more bass….!

Kans only require three things:

• Close wall proximity - their bass reproduction (which they do have) absolutely relies on it. When I first got my Kan Mk I's, I had to post them out near the middle of the room, and they sounded awful. I knew what I was getting into, as I had future plans for them. They are now against the wall, less than 2" away. How close are your speakers to the wall?
• Stands - they require light rigid stands. If you have the Sound Org stands that I think you do. then you're good.
• Outstanding Source: from the scuttlebutt that I've been hearing for the last 5 years, your system's on the margin, but still quite good. I run a 250 and am glad that I do.

With all that, what bass are you normally expecting? There are times when I play some thinly-produced recordings (mid-70s rock, for instance) when I wish that I had more mid-bass, but still, I can vibrate the walls with the Kans - it just takes some volume. How loud do you play yours?

BTW, CDS2 ---> 140 - now that's source-first.

Cheers

Keith.

Keith, I really dont play that loud.

I probably should with the Kans.

Also, I have really come to believe the wall is just too flimsy to support much Kan bass.

I am sure if I had a 250 and a good concrete wall and a pair of Kan 2 stands I could really get some more solidity out of them.

It will just have to wait till I move into a house soon. Then they will have their wall and maybe even their 250 and they'll be happy lil' Kans.

Incidentally-- did I read right?? Did you just say my sistem is "on the margin" as far source goes with a CDS2 (or did you mean 72/Hi/140 is marginal)???

If it's the CDS2 you mean-- this is some tough crowd!
D

quote:

---

Originally posted by onlythat:
Keith, I really dont play that loud.

I probably should with the Kans.

---

Mine are far more expressive at good volumes, and are wonderful loud. If I had to play music at low volumes only, I'd pull out my old Spicas.

quote:

---

Also, I have really come to believe the wall is just too flimsy to support much Kan bass.

I am sure if I had a 250 and a good concrete wall and a pair of Kan 2 stands I could really get some more solidity out of them.

---

I hear that they require masonry behind them, or at least chipboard. Mine are backed up by sheetrock with some chipboard another 4" behind. They work just fine. Just never have them in open space!

Not implying that you have...

quote:

---

It will just have to wait till I move into a house soon. Then they will have their wall and maybe even their 250 and they'll be happy lil' Kans.

---

They will!

quote:

---

Incidentally-- did I read right?? Did you just say my sistem is "on the margin" as far source goes with a CDS2 (or did you mean 72/Hi/140 is marginal)???

If it's the CDS2 you mean-- this is some tough crowd!
D

---

I said that toally wrong! Your CDS2 is plenty for them (though a popular thought is that the Kans are voiced for an LP12's mid-bass hump; I can't speak to this). I meant to indicate that, for many, a 140 (as excellent an amp that it is) is barely enough to get the full measure from those speakers. Other than that, your system is about as source-first as one can get!

Wanna get a measure or your Kan's bass? Play Michael Brook's Ultramarine at full volume on them, and I think you'll appreciate them.

Cheers

Keith.

quote:

---

What's a JCB?

---

Staffordshire's finest.



Regards,

Steve.

HI Menilmonant1948,
Many thanks for your experience with the Kans/Ninkas/ with Sizmik subwoofer. Very interested in your remark about the amount of "slam" they have and your preference for active Ninkas.

Can you tell me what extra componenets are required to go "active"?

Cheers

Kans and Neats:

Last year I went through a bit of speaker experimentation, trying to upgrade my longstanding Spica TC-50's. At that time, I had a pair of perfect Kan II's (with Kustone) on kan II stands in my living room for about 6 months. For 30 days of that period, I also had a pair of Neat Petite III's (thanks to Hawthorne for the dem). At that time, I really wanted to prefer the Petites. (I also had basically new SBL's in the room as well).

Everything was run from a 102/hicap/250. Source was lp12.

In the context of my system, the Kan II's were the best of all the speaker systems on hand. I'll mention at the outset that the SBL's were dismissed almost forthright because they don't get the midrange right. The Neats and the Kans are much better at this. And in my listening room, this is an absolute requirement for admission.

In any event, I chose the kan II's over the Petite threes principally because of the bass. In my system, there was no question that the petite III's had "more" bass. For a given passage, "low bass" had greater amplitude and MUCH more impact on the neats as compared to the Kan II's. BUT, below a certain frequency, the Neats failed to render different pitches. Which is to say, below a certain frequency, the Neats became hopelessly one-noted. NO MATTER where I place them in the room (long wall v/ short wall; close to wall v/ away from wall; etc.) the Neats, while being more powerful in the bass, played only one note of deep bass.

On the other hand, despite that low bass notes on the Kan II's were down substantially in amplitude, each note was rendered with the correct pitch. The Kan II's did NOT suffer from one-noted bass.

This may sound nitpicky to some, but it's important for my enjoyment. For instance, I was better able to follow bass lines with the Kan II's than I was with the Neats, despite the Neats being more forcefull in that respect. This was because certain progressions of bass notes on the Neats kinda melted into a string of notes all of the same low pitch, whereas the Kan II's rendered each note seperately and of correct pitch.

It is interesting to me that Neat has been able to avoid one of the two pitfalls in using a port. That is to say, even with the presence of a rear port, the bass made by Neat speakers is tight and powerful as hell. It times well and never lags. IN my experience, Ports ussually lead to mushy, soggy, bloated and slow bass. Not so with the Petites. BUT, in my opinion, they have not avoided the other pitfall of ports, which is a tendency to excite certain resonances (from the cabinet, port, who knows) which renders them unable to follow the pitch progression of bass lines. The sealed box of the kan II exceeds in both of these regards.

In my system, the Kan's were level and teh stands were spiked to a wood oak floor. The house is from 1930, and so the walls behind the kans is a very hard plaster (or some sort of very hard sheetrock--It ussually takes me three tries to get a nail into it without the nail bending). This favors the Kan II's. I notices that even having the kan II's 2 inches from the wall was enough to dissipate the bass to a percievable level. Best bass was had by positioning the back of cabinet to within .5 inches from the wall (just enough from cable to fit). In this configuration, all bass (except the lowest bass) was hugely powerfull, clean, tight and did not at all seem to be down in level compared to the rest of the program. As I said, low bass was down in level, but still tunefull.

Even having said this, very low bass was beyond the kan II's, whereas the Neat's could still make it (albeit, all at the same pitch). For instance, the upright bass notes at the beginning of the first track on Ricky Lee Jones' "Pop pop" were simply "absent" with the kan II's. The neats made them (but you would have though the bass player only knew one string and one hand position).

I think the Kan II's are faster than the Neats, have a smoother top end (equally extended) and a lot more "air". In my opinion, the tweeter on the petites, while interesting, doesn't sound so good. I think the midrange on the Neats is more satisfying because it is fuller. The Kans are "thin"--there's no sense in denying this. But not so thin that once you get aclimated to it, it sounds fundamentally correct. My Kans had the Hiquophone tweeter.

For what its worth, I thought the SBL's had the best bass out of any of them (by a wide margin), but not as good in any other respect.

I had Tukans in a few weeks ago. As I had feared, the bass on these was too soft and mushy. It was also one-noted.

Judd

Me too, me too..!
I got my mark one kans with mk 2 stands and am amazed - my cdx, xps, 82, supercap and 250 had sounded so bloaty with my B+W 804's but the kans are just in another league (in my small room). Concrete walls, floor and ceiling with acoustic foam in some places may help, but my bass is wonderful, and it is as big a leap, if I can quantify it, as the supercap. Anyone want a pair of mint 804's ?
Amazing also, as the 804's cost £2500, the kans less than a tenth.........
Worth a try in any system, and always saleable if not liked !

Steve

Great review Justin. IIRC, Tony L from PFM appreciates them for similar reasons.

(this is long)

Ramon,

I'm glad to see that there is somebody else on this forum that appreciates the virtues of the Spica TC-50's. It's amazing to me that your system has, at various times, mirrored my own. It was about 10 years ago when I heard my first peice of Naim gear, a gently used Naim Nait 1. At $270 it was a steal, and bettered my Adcom seperates compliment by a good wide margin. At that time, I had the TC-50's. There was no going back.

I imagine that you are much like me--that despite having spent TONS of money of speaker systems, you have no found one that offers the blend of virtues that make it a better proposition than the Spicas, on balance. I've been through the speaker merry-go-round twice, and each time, I end up with the TC-50's.

I've tried the following:

Proac 1SC (used $900)
Proac Tablette 2000 Signatures ($1800)
Neat Petite III's ($1750)
Naim SBL's ($3500)
magnepan SMGc's (used $300)
Magnepan MMG (used $300)
Spendor 3/5 ($800)
kan I's (used $200)
Kan II's (used $400)
Tukans (used $400)
Rega Alyas ($700)
Epos M15 (used $700)

Expensive mistakes have included the SBL's and the Tab 2000 sigs. These I bought new and lost a bundle on during the resale. (Also, I have not liked Quads much because in my mind they have a kind of "hollow" sound to the midrange if you are not positioned exactly perfectly in front of them--just my opinion).

In my estimation, only the Rega Alyas, Kan II's and the magenpan SMG'c offer "viable" alternatives to the Spicas (though, none ultimately as satisfying).

The problem with most of the speakers was that they would often better the Spicas in some ways (maybe even most ways), but they were never able to better them in all ways. Much more often than not, the midrange was not nearly as good (and sometimes down right incompetent), or bass was flabby. Either of these would ruin them for me, and so they had to go.

For those who are not familiar with the TC-50's, they are stand-mounted sealed monitors with the baffle sloped back at about 35 degrees. The cross-over is a fairly complicated first order basal design intended to time align (TC= "time coherent") the drivers. Let me tell you--it works!

Positioned properly within the room, in my estimation the TC-50's do three things remarkably well. First, they have some of the best midrange I have ever heard. It's incredibly open (more so than Quads), super natural (like Spendor) and is able to place images in space as if they were really there (like nothing else available I have heard). The second is the bass. The cabinet is small, and so bass is down substantially. But what is present is tight and well rendered. It's never flabby or ponderous (the box is sealed afterall--though that does not explain why the bass on teh sealed Spendor S3/5 is boomy). The spicas do not have a midbass hump. The third is the integration of the tweeter with the mid.bass unit. It's as seemless as I have ever heard. I think this contributes more than anything else to the sense of "presence" the speaker is able to project.

The three speakers I have had that I feel offer a "legitimate" alternative to the Spica TC-50's are the kan II's, the Rega Alyas and the Magenpan SMGc's--though these sound VERY different, they are still good.

The Kan II's get the midrange right (though they are kinda thin compared to the Spicas). The integration of the tweeter and the mid/bass unit is pretty good (though not quite as good as the Spica), and bass is fairly good (see my post above). They are faster than Spicas (which are not slow in and of themselves), and generally pretty fun to listen to. Ultimately, they let you down because they are not full enough. For instance, Stan Getz sax sounds more like a toy on the Kans than it does on the Spicas. On the TC-50's, the saxaphone is full bodies and very "breathy", if you know what I mean. Late at night, when I'm listening to the TC-50's, its almost spooky sometimes because it seems like the instruments are right in front of me. You will not get this impression with the Kan II's.

The Alyas (basically the floor-standing version of the Kytes), is really great. But, they did not work correctly in my system until I cut holes in my carpet and spiked them firmly to the concrete floor. When positioned correctly, these have good clean tight bass, a pretty natural and open midrange (fast as hell, by the way) and an "acceptable" treble performance. The Alyas let you down in two ways. First, midrange instruments are too thin. Like the Kan II's, saxaphones and whatnot sound too small and "toy-like". The second problem with the Alyas is that the tweeter is just kinda "there"--as if it's only job is to just make high frequency sound when called upon, without much regard for integrating it with the rest of the music. It won't let you forget that the speaker is not expensive.

Still, I happen to be playing with teh Alyas now, and they are tons of fun. Bass is clean and tight and springy, and the midrange is open and natural enough that I can genuinly enjoy the music. Once you acclimate yourself to the thinness of the overall presentation (careful source matching is important to tame the treble), I rank the Alyas very highly in terms of long term satisfaction.

I won't mention the magnepans, since they are off in left field a bit.

I don't have the Kan II's because I was forced into the basement by my wife. I can't get them close enough to the wall or spiked well enough to the floor to get them to work properly (and besides, on balance, I like the Spicas better).

For what it's worth, the Nait 1 (any really in my opinion, anything less than a 250) won't really drive the Kans sufficiently. They are bass light. No doubt about that. They really need the bigger amplifier to help in that regard. Also, they can be ruthless if not driven smoothly. I did NOT like the Kan II's on the end of a 180 nearly as much as I did on the end of a 250. The Spica's, on the other hand, are very happy with both (very happy with a Nait 2, even).

Let me know when you find something you like better than the Spicas.

Judd

I could not agree more with what you have said. Every word of it.

BTW, one of the best speakers I have ever heard was a small pair of snell bookshelf speakers. year was late 80's-early 90's--something like that. They weer sweet, punchy and just total fun. But, I have NO idea what they were called, and as I understand it, everything Snell makes now is total SHITE!!!

I've looked for those snells before (I wanna say that are "Type somethings", but I can't remember what. I often wonder if I would like the Audio Note brand of loudspeakers. These are supposed to be the "true" extension of the snell philosophy, as opposed to the Snell company than exists today. I think the original designer designed the Audio Note speakers.

Judd