quote:
I have the opportunity to buy a pair of Kan 2's. What are these like compared to the Kan 1's? I used to have a pair of Kan 1's, which I unfortunately sold. Are the Kan 2's better or worse? I remember the Kan 1's being critical of setup. Are the 2's similar in this respect?
There seems to be pretty much equal respect for both major revisions of the Kan, though comparisons of a generic Mk I against a generic Mk II are to vague to be meaningful. Both Mk Is and Mk IIs had several major revisions during their life span, the Mk II had the cabinet damping improved, and the Mk I had the cabinet construction, crossover, and both drivers changed. Makes comparing difficult to say the least. The current Mk III is not a Kan in any way, shape, or form, so shall be ignored here.
The only Kans I have compared are a final spec Mk I (now owned by Rico) against a final spec Mk II (my current speakers). My impression is that they really are very similar indeed - you are in no doubt either are Kans. The Mk I is more efficient and possibly has more punch, the Mk II is tonally much flatter, and is lacking a noticeable treble peak.
If your diet is purely rock music, then there is not much between them, and the added efficiency and slight dynamic edge of the Kan Mk I may win out. On wider material, the Mk IIs ability to reproduce piano, strings, and brass more realistically will almost certainly sway your choice, as it did mine.
The Mk I seems to have two quite noticeable peaks, one in the tweeter range, and one quite low in the bass, it is very obvious that these have both been dramatically reduced in the Mk II by reducing their amplitude (hence the trade off in efficiency). The tweeter in the Mk II is mounted on the very front of the baffle in the II giving far better dispersion and avoiding grill diffraction effects. Mk Is actually sound quite a lot better with the grills off (far more like IIs), but are pug ugly to look at in that guise. My suspicion is that when using less than a 250 to drive them the Mk Is would probably be a better bet, otherwise the Mk II would probably win. I did all my comparisons with my 135s.
There is no difference in where to place them - as close to a solid back wall as the stands will go is the right location. They are both as fussy about source and amplification, and they pretty much demand to be used outside of their price class in this respect.
Tony.
