Curiosity piqued by all the recent Kan-talk I decided I'd just have to get hold of a pair and see what they sounded like. A friend of mine has a pair of Mk I's that he uses as rears in his home-cinema setup, so a little begging soon had them round to my place for a listen.
Unfortunately I'm using them on innapropriate Target stands that I have to turn sideways to get the speaker anywhere near the wall (and they're still 2 inches away) and the top-plates don't have any spikes in so I'm having to use little blobs of blu-tak. Despite all that, these speakers are outrageous fun.
They don't have anything like the refinement, weight or scale of SBLs, nor do they sound quite so open, but they do have damn near 100% of that grin factor.
Where they fall-down is with classical music and in particular opera where the stripped-down nature and lack of body does seem to shift the tonal perspective too far. But on a fair bit of rock material, I think I may actually prefer the tonal balance I'm getting with the Kans. I need to just explain and say that I'm listening in a room 11ft x 14ft which seems to be death to most speakers and I'm actually amazed that I can get SBLs to work in there at all without booming like crazy. If SBLs weren't so difficult to shift around I'd have SBLs AND Kans and swap them round whenever I fancied.
Anyway, if I'm getting results like this from Kans that aren't setup right, I wonder what more is to come if I can get the right stands (and top spikes!). I think I'll look out for a pair of Mk 1 Kans with proper Kan stands for myself, just to see how far I can get them to go.
BTW, anyone know where the unofficial Linn forum (hosted by Delphi) went ?
Allan
CDS2/52/500/Kans
[This message was edited by Allan Probin on SUNDAY 26 August 2001 at 23:48.]
Posted on: 26 August 2001 by Tony L
quote:
Where they fall-down is with classical music and in particular opera where the stripped-down nature and lack of body does seem to shift the tonal perspective too far.
I would suggest hunting down a final spec pair of Mk IIs. At the time I had both final spec Mk Is and my current Ku-Stone Mk IIs I concluded that for me the Mk II is the better speaker. There are some who prefer the early Scanspeak Mk Is, but I have never directly compared these so can’t comment.
Point number one is that they are all obviously Kans, they both do that magical boogie thing, and can really rock out. Driven within their performance envelope they can sound way bigger and more powerful than they have any right to. The differences are actually quite subtle. On Rock the slightly ragged nature of the Mk I (I suspect this is a combination of grill diffraction problems and lower quality crossover components) gives it a edge that can be attractive on certain material. Give it a piano on a jazz album and it will stuff it up tonally just a bit to much for comfort, this is why I went for Mk IIs, they do “real” instruments far better to my ears than the Is, pianos and brass instruments sound more realistic, simple as that. Listening carefully to a synth or other instrument that is consistent over a wide range of notes (I have a couple, and they are useful for this kind of thing) through the Mk I reveals a few more obvious hot spots on the Mk I than the Mk II, there is nothing serious, and the MK I is a hell of a speaker, but the II is definitely flatter tonally. It certainly ain’t flat mind you! Like we care.
The thing with the IIs to watch out for is that crappy bi-wire link, they just don’t integrate properly with it in place, and I think a lot of people who state preference for the Mk I are hearing the bi-wire links of the IIs stuffing up the sound. Its no problem that a little careful plug soldering can’t fix, just run the A5 up through two sets of plugs – result is truly excellent driver integration and as a result better music.
The above represents my view of two particular Kans, and the trouble with Kans is they are virtually all different! Their revision list proves this www.pfmedia.demon.co.uk/flatearth/kan.htm Don’t think any are actually bad though, just a matter of working out which you like most.
Tony.
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Andrew L. Weekes
Allan,
I'd echo Tony's comments, Kan 2's are more refined, although there is a school of thought that some of the fun factor was engineered out. It's not something I agree with though, my Kan 2's are some of the most fun you can have with your clothes on (actually does listening in the nude sound different?).
They will benefit from correct setup though, and proximity to the wall will help enormously with the tonal balance, bringing up some surprising bass for a tiny box. Kan stands seem obligatory also, and there is following for wall mounting too, but it's not as easy to get correct positioning, so IMHO stand mounting is easier.
I personally fill the front and rear member of the base of the stand with lead shot for extra stability, and it works well for me, without adding excessive mass to the speaker and buggering up the sound (did you ever try this Tony?).
If you do a search you will find loads of other info / advice about Kans, including information on wiring two sets of Naim 4mm plugs onto NAC A5 to eliminate the bi-wire link Tony mentions. I find Kans sound better bi-wired than when using the horrible link, but using the 'F' plug method is the best.
To save ypou searching here's the link Kan NACA5 'F' plug method
Andy.
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Andrew L. Weekes
Re: Your question in another thread about the Ku-stone in Kans, I had a look at one of the over-exposed photo's that I took, and it would appear that in addition to the blocks in the every corner of the enclosure, there's a large panel behind the crossover.
I'm not sure if it covers the entire rear panel or not, I'll take a closer look soon.
Andy.
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Alco
Hi Allen,
Glad you like the Kan's.
There's nothing more I can ad to Tony response actually.
But,...As I only found out,just a few weeks ago. The Kans (I or II) only give their best on the dedicated Kan stands with top-spikes.
About a week ago I sold my previous Target HR60 stands.
At first,to me the Kan's sounded fine on my Targets with some Blu-tack between 'em.
But,...out of curiosity and because the Kan-II stands match better visually,I ordered some new Kan-II stands.
Well, now I know why most people on this forum
told me to ditch the Targets and get the Kan-stands. Man, they SURE do make the Kan's sing!
With the Kan-stands the mids are more open,voices have more sence of depth and bass is also getting faster/tighter.
Good luck and have fun!
(should be easy with your awesome setup)
Greetings from Holland,
Alco.
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Tim
Mine stand on four-column affairs called "Trophy by Partington". They are really very good, and better than the Sara stands I used to use. I've never heard them on "proper" Kan stands though, ever since a dealer advised against a very long time ago.
Tim
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Allan Probin
Alco,
You said you bought new Kan stands. Are Kan stands still available new ? From any Linn dealer I presume.
Tony,
I've been listening to the Kans again this morning. I've decided that they would be hopelessly revealing of the limitations of your Nait. You should bolster your HiFi fund by selling me your Kans and looking out for a pair of Wharfedale Diamonds at the next car boot sale.
Allan
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Alco
Hi Allan,
Yup,the Kan stands are stiil available!
(weird though,since the Kans are out of production for allmost 10 years now)
I ordered my Kan stands from my nearest Linn dealer,and got 'em delivered within a week.
(price was 580,- Dutch guilders, = 165,- UKP)
Greetings,
Alco
[This message was edited by Alco on MONDAY 27 August 2001 at 18:17.]
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Keith Mattox
quote:
Yup,the Kan stands are stiil available!
(weird though,since the Kans are out of production for allmost 10 years now)
Yup - that's the case. Linn probably released them as they also fit the Tukans, a speaker which Linn sold a lot of. I plan to keep my stands if I ever go back to them - they were a mighty fun speaker.
Linn's part number is STAND 017 and they're $250 in the US.
Cheers
Keith.
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Keith Mattox
quote:
Originally posted by Allan Probin:
The Kans are mine !!! just need a pair of stands now. I really love these speakers.
My, that was quick!
Get those stands now - don't fuss around waiting for used stands as they will never materialize 
You won't think anything of the Kans until they're perched on the stands that were made for them.
Cheers
Keith (who tried a few other stands that were lying around before shelling out the bucks for Kan II stands)
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Rico
quote:
My variation on the F method.
Rob.
Swe-eeeeeet!
Allan - pleased to hear you found a suitable set of Kans. So are they I's or II's?
Rico - ok, the Kans are sorted, now whatabout the rainforests?
Posted on: 27 August 2001 by Allan Probin
Hi Rico,
I've kept the Mk I's that I borrowed. They were being used as rear speakers in my mates AV setup. He's going all 5.1 digital at the moment and I think he wanted something more appropriate anyway so its beneficial both ways.
I'll order-up some stands tomorrow. The Kans I've got are finished in black. I would imagine that when they are on Kan II stands they are going to look rather cool (and at the same time very functional) against the almost-white walls of my listening room. Black - its the new cherry you know.
Allan
