Kan-alike poll

John

You could argue that SBLs are sealed standmounters too since the bass box is really just a stand for the rest of the speaker, but of course, that's a lot more expensive than Kans.

Small, wall proximity speakers are bound to become more important as the whole surround sound thing becomes more prevalent. The problem then is that the speaker manufacturer has to make guesses as to what type of reinforcement they'll get from the wall. This was the whole reason for going to free-standing speakers in the first place.

Regards,
Frank.

My Rosewood Kans at the end of the NAP500 makes your mullett Neats sound like a walkman.

Dev

quote:

---

...a superior speaker in every way (although admittedly not infinite baffle).

---

I agree, the Neat Petite, along with certain Royds is the closest the market has to offer at the moment, but they ain't infinite baffle, and need some gap from the wall.

Whilst I really like the Petite, I do not agree that it is superior, a well set up Kan will still teach it some things in some key areas - both speakers are barking up a very similar tree, though they actually achieve slightly different things.

I have yet to hear a ported speaker I like with absolutely no reservations, this is why I worded the question in the way I did.

Tony.

I've wondered for a while what my Kans would sound like bi-amped to 2x500s!!!

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

[This message was edited by Andrew Randle on WEDNESDAY 11 April 2001 at 11:31.]

quote:

---

Cura make something called an 05. It's around 11 inches tall and 5 inches deep so it's pretty small. It's a sealed unit and it sounds a little like the Kan did - tight and fast. Remarkably good speaker for the money (£400 a pair) and well made too, although if Kans were made today they would retail for a lot more (around £750?).

---

Is it a wall proximity speaker? Do Cura have a URL?

The Kan II went out of production at 540ukp (the 400ukp ported Tukan replaced it), and Kan II stands are apparently still available at 185ukp. The Kan, like the Isobarik and Sara apparently cost Linn too much to manufacture. I would probably expect to pay up to 1000ukp for an equivalent quality Kan-alike.

Tony.

quote:

---

I've wondered for a while what my Kans would sund like bi-amped to 2x500s!!!

---

500/Kan makes 135/SBL sound a bit timid.

Any reservations anyone may have with the Kan is now removed (they even go loud now, maybe not as loud as SBL's but loud enough).

Next step is to take them active with 4x135.

Dev

If a Kan would be about £750 then a Shahinian Super Elf would seem to be a worthy successor. Shahinians seem to be over looked by most people, I guess some people want their speakers to look like speakers, even if that's the worst shape for one.

pete

What Petites offer is Kan-like PRaT without the nasal and scratchy sound that many are prepared to overlook in the pursuit of flatness. Petites don't always sound as if they're on the edge like every pair of Kans I've ever heard (I will concede that the best amps I've heard driving Kans to date were 72/HC/250, and I was less than taken with the sound, though many things about it were good).

I believe that a lot of people like Kans because they represent a cultish sound, one that once accustomed to, is hard to change from. Having said all of that, I'm building a second system around a Nait 2 which could do with some cheap speakers, so if a pair come up then I'd consider it.

I will have to come hear your 500/Kans setup, though, ridiculous though it sounds - I'm happy to be convinced - I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, as Kans seem fairly easy to come by and I could do with a second pair of speakers anyway.

However, if you haven't heard Neats driven by powerful monoblocks (with their grip and dynamism), you are in no better position to judge than I your 500/Kans proposition.

Slainte!

John

quote:

---

My Rosewood Kans at the end of the NAP500 makes your mullett Neats sound like a walkman

---

Hang on, £10000ish poweramp - sounds kinda mulletish to me...

John

Cura's URL is http://www.cura-loudspeakers.com and there is a full description of their products (which are beautifully made incidentally), although it hasn't been updated recently and some of their to-do bits have been done.

Dev, did you ever come down South?

Regards,
Frank.

Many many years later I bought a pair of Tukans as a stopgap between Sonus Fabers and DBLs I ran them full monteyed with CDS1/52/Super/Snaxo/Super/4x135s. The few people that heard them in this setup were incredulous that such dynamics and bass could be coming out of such small enclosures. So configured these probably outperformed the Kans found in 99.9% of systems. It would be easy to be nostalgic about how great these sounded, but compared to the DBLs they sounded very very compressed, severely lacking in detail and quite abrasive. Later on I heard them being driven passively by a single 500 which was very very good indeed, but still eons away from either the DBLs or the Sonus Fabers.
I suspect that the Kans too would in isolation sould fantastic, but like the Decca London Gold offer a little bit of heaven and a little bit of hell. Having said that, if I ever came across a pair of active Kan1, I'd buy them in a heartbeat.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

http://homepages.go.com/~rontoolsie/index1.html

quote:

---

Until that point I had always assumed that reviewers were full time audio writers and gentlemen to a fault. This guy turned out to be a chain-smoking police officer from Bolton.

---

Ron, go on name him!

The only reviewer I've ever bumped into was Ken Kessler who seemed OK, if more interested in showing his watch off than the Wilson Benesch speakers in front of him. Nice watch by the looks of it though...

quote:

---

Later on I heard them being driven passively by a single 500 which was very very good indeed, but still eons away from either the DBLs or the Sonus Fabers.

---

From my perspective this is missing the point. The Kan, or the wondrous new small high quality infinite baffle stand mounted wall proximity loudspeaker that will no doubt be made by Naim as a result of this poll is IMHO addressing a different requirement.

One of the best things about the Kan are that they work really well in the tiny rooms that many city dwellers have available without booming. They work hard up against the wall, and can even be wall mounted, so occupy very little real estate. As they obviously don’t generate DBL bass levels they are far more friendly to the other occupants of the building. Both the DBL and the Sonus Fabers, wonderful as they are simply can not compete here.

quote:

---

I suspect that the Kans too would in isolation sound fantastic, but like the Decca London Gold offer a little bit of heaven and a little bit of hell.

---

Its all about choosing the best compromise. For me the Kan compromise is one of the best in audio, they are fast, remarkably free from the normal box honks and booms, very detailed, and above all astoundingly musical. IMHO the only thing they really sacrifice is size, weight, and scale compared to a big floorstander. The Kan has the ability to make the vast majority of speakers sound boxy, bloated, slow, stodgy and uninvolving. You can argue that a SBL does not take up any more space than a stand mounted Kan, though this again misses the point as the SBL is a far more full range loud speaker, and I have heard them boom badly in tiny rooms.

If someone could produce a modern equivalent preferably a little more efficient, and with a slightly flatter frequency response I reckon they would have a real cult speaker on their hands, and one that would end up in many location constrained high end systems.

Tony.

quote:

---

How about the newish Spendor S3/5. Its sealed and its sort of based on the LS3/5A, a speaker that had exactly the same dimentions as the Kans.

---

Bet its free space not wall prox. A LS3/5A booms like mad if stuck near a wall.

Tony.

quote:

---

The Kan, or the wondrous new small high quality infinite baffle stand mounted wall proximity loudspeaker that will no doubt be made by Naim as a result of this poll

---

Remember on the old forum when I raised the issue? PS said that producing such a loudspeaker would be expensive, saying that the shipping charge of a box and a stand would be too much... I still don't see his logic behind that as:

1) The speakers are lighter
2) The dimensions would be smaller
3) You can pack a bookshelf and stand in the same box!!!

Before then, I remember JV saying that he liked the Kans and was intrigued by the idea of designing something along those lines (at this point we get all misty eyed ).

Even so, Naim do hold their separate box principle dear to their heart, and even heard arguments that they will not consider designing a box speaker without this mass loading technique. All I can say to that is: there are no absolutes in this world and Naim shouldn't chain themselves by their principles. So often it is not the technology, but the implementation that counts (where have we heard that one before ).

A sealed bookshelf, using Sound Org Kan stands, top-notch drivers and an outboard crossover (encouraging more sales of NAC-A5 ) could be just the ticket. Plus, to be a total loonie - how about a side mounted bass/mid unit and front mounted tweeter?

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

quote:

---

One of the best things about the Kan are that they work really well in the tiny rooms that many city dwellers have available without booming. They work hard up against the wall, and can even be wall mounted, so occupy very little real estate. As they obviously don’t generate DBL bass levels they are far more friendly to the other occupants of the building.

---

Absolutely the point, Tony.

I tried my brothers Royd Doublets recently, the extra octave or so of bass made me realise just how much is missing from my Kans, but if I were to use these at the levels I play Kans at I'm certain the neghbours would complain. I'd love that extra extension, but not at the cost of what the Kan does so well (which ultimately is to communicate music).

With Kans, I have not had a single complaint, despite our respective living rooms having a single, quite trasmissive wall between them.

With the relatively small room I have, I could not even consider a speaker that didn't work up against a room boundary. Even the larger width / depth of SBL's would make accomodation of them inconvenient. Setup with a Kan is also so easy - close to a wall, rigid, enjoy .

My ideal Kan replacement would be a floorstander of similar width / depth to the Kan, allowing the extra bass extension a larger cabinet (+ more drivers?) would bring.

If you stick to the same cabinet dimensions all you are likely to end up with is a more polished Kan, through the use of better drivers.

The really clever bit of engineering (if you're listening Naim) would be to allow the user to adjust LF extension (two levels, Kan and SBL?) according to circumstances, without degradation of other sonic attributes. Full bandwidth for daytime use at high levels, reduced extension for late at night or when the neighbours are in.

Now that is a speaker I'd buy.

Andy.

P.S. These of course are exactly the attributes and active setup can bring, since frequency response can be tailored to suit circumstances by altering the crossover characteristics, just one of the reasons I'm putting together a cheap active system.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on WEDNESDAY 11 April 2001 at 16:04.]

quote:

---

My ideal Kan replacement would be a floorstander of similar width / depth to the Kan, allowing the extra bass extension a larger cabinet (+ more drivers?) would bring.

---

Remember the Rogers LS3/5a with ABX? How about something like that?

Or... maybe something similar could be done with Naim's separate box mass loading principle...

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

quote:

---

My ideal Kan replacement would be a floorstander of similar width / depth to the Kan, allowing the extra bass extension a larger cabinet (+ more drivers?) would bring.

---

I believe thats the IBL! (though I have never heard a pair). I specified a small wall prox stand mount as wall mounting is possible to save even more space.

quote:

---

The really clever bit of engineering (if you're listening Naim) would be to allow the user to adjust LF extension (two levels, Kan and SBL?) according to circumstances, without degradation of other sonic attributes.

---

This is for me the main attraction of adding a sub to a good little speaker, you can just turn the sub off if needed.

Tony.

[This message was edited by Tony Lonorgan on WEDNESDAY 11 April 2001 at 16:24.]

quote:

---

Remember the Rogers LS3/5a with ABX? How about something like that?

Or... maybe something similar could be done with Naim's separate box mass loading principle...

---

I don't remember the ABX bit, LS3/5a's never inspired me though.

Second idea has a lot more potential though, the tailoring of response is the tricky bit, since cabinet volume is so critical to other parameters.

A sort of scaled down SBL / Credo style speaker would fit the picture. As with everything there are compromises to be made, and one can get deep bass (with equalization) from a small box, but at the expense of power handling / distortion.

The Kan is very inefficient and won't handle masses of power. Naim would want to design a speaker that is robust, since failures through using the speaker outside of it's design parameters would reflect badly on the brand as a whole.

It's interesting that companies such as Royd specifically mention these issues - their speakers will not handle disco levels owing to the simplicity of the crossover used.

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

quote:

---

This is for me the main attraction of adding a sub to a good little speaker, you can just turn the sub off if needed.

---

Agreed - but I don't even have room for one of those at present

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

I once read somewhere that loudspeakers put out a nicer bass when mounted higher. Hmm.

John

quote:

---

I once read somewhere that loudspeakers put out a nicer bass when mounted higher. Hmm.

---

I think it's more like you get less bass when you move them away from the floor (which is a boundary) but in some cases less equals better.

Dev

quote:

---

I think it's more like you get less bass when you move them away from the floor (which is a boundary) but in some cases less equals better

---

If the woofer is close to the floor level, the reflection off the floor will be pretty much 180 degrees out of phase with the incident wave(s) and cause destructive interference (cancellation). Theoretically resulting in less bass. Of course actually placing the cabinet on the floor can seemingly increase bass by using the floor as a nodal source resulting in 'doubling'.

Oh, the 'mystery reviewer'.... to protect the innocent I will encode his name much in the same fashion that 2001s HAL was actually IBM...Use the alphabet as a nose-to-tail circle and you'll see who he is.

Fqzgzl Lzxdq

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

http://homepages.go.com/~rontoolsie/index1.html