135's on kans?

Posted by: Justin on 14 February 2002

Well,

I had an opportunity this week to play around with a couple of 250's on my Kan II's (bi-amp, not active) and I can say that it was not a win-win situation. What the Kans gained in bass extension they gave up in midrange fullness. It was a bit of a suprise to me. In the plus column I could follow bass lines better which is a real asset for speaker that struggles at 65 cycles. But, the midband seemed to thin out a bit just where the Kans are already a bit thinner than I like. I liked what two amps did to the bass (suggesting that the Kan II's really could "use" more power down there), but the midrange tradeoff is unacceptable). i suspect it is an impedence issue.

The question is, what about 135's on kans? Has anybody done this? What do you get in going from a 250 to 135's?

here's everything I'm looking for, any one of which would be acceptable, two of which would be gravy:

1. more bass (Ha!!!)
2. A fuller midband
3. a smoother top-end.

I do NOT need more detail or a more analytical bent.

I know active is still an option, but I can't bring my Kans active without a LOT of work. The binding posts (as I just learned) are soldered to the cross-over board. So, I'm looking for an interim solution.

Anyway, here's hoping somebody has some experience.

Judd

Posted on: 14 February 2002 by David Dever

What "fuller" midband? Isn't that the whole point of owning Kans in the first place?

What speaker (and system!) stands?
Placement in the room (diagram)?

What's the rest of your system? Are you trying to squeeze "smoothness" out of a sub-$1000 mini-monitor without going active???

Dave Dever

[This message was edited by David Dever on FRIDAY 15 February 2002 at 05:36.]

Posted on: 15 February 2002 by Frank Abela

I think you'd find the 135s would contribute to 1 and 3. In fact, the 135s would give better bass definition and control, which may be perceived as more bass. They're much wuieter in the treble. I'm not sure about the midrange, but generally speaking, 135's have a fuller sound than the 250 anyway. I think you'd be surprised at the result...

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

Posted on: 15 February 2002 by John Luckins

Justin,

I use 135's with my Kans. Previously I have used a Nait2 only which was much more ragged at the top end and more limpy in the bass. I have never heard them with a 250.

What I suspect that I am getting is a much smoother result in both bass and treble. I do find the mid a little restrained but perhaps in the way that you describe, but as I have improved the source and the power supply (mains spur and separate earth), the detail compensates for the very slight recession in the mid.

The sense of scale is very convincing, the speed is there but a little more subtle and the detail shines through. Very sensitive to the sources ability to deliver fine low level detail though, something typical of the Kans.

The effect is that I listen to music for longer as there seems to be more space in the middle for me to find the detail and interplay between performers. The impact is still there in the bass when it is needed. So much so in fact that I have detected a couple of rattly floorboards which need nailing down.

By the way, I think 135's really do need a very low impedance mains supply (spur) to do their best, particularly with low impedance speakers like the kans. I'm about to treat them to teir very own. I'll use a the same earth as the sources though.

Rest of my kit is CDSII and 52.

John

Posted on: 15 February 2002 by Ron Toolsie

As my brief ownership of original Kans came to an abrupt end in 1982, I will confine my comments to what I have tried on the Tukans.

1. NAP180.... strained, hard, painful. Like scalpels droppining on a tiled floor.

2. NAP250.... Much better; the subliminal sense of an overdriven amp with rough and breathless edges was largely ablated.

3. 2xNAP250 passively biamped...very very similar to the above, with a fraction more headroom. Poor value for money. Don't bother.

4. 2x135.... much better than any of the above. Bass far more tuneful. No subjective sense of being overdriven, even when the mid/bass units hit their endstops with a disconcerting 'thunk'. Infinitely better value for money than option #3 above.

5. 2x250 with IXO, active.... a complete transformation. The jagged upper end becomes delicately resolved into detail. A real sense vitality and complete togetherness, resembling nothing that passive amps (so far, see below) can do.

6. 2x250, Snaxo/Hicap....everything as above but maybe 10-20% better.

7. 2x250, Snaxo/Supercap.... add another 20%... the supercap however offers rather poor value when juicing up a Tukan based active system, at least with 'only' 250s.

8. 4x135, Snaxo/Supercap....guaranteed to get looks of incredulous disbelief from casual onlisteners as they look around the room to see where the subwoofer is hidden. Tremendous sense of pace and clarity, although the vast amount of upper end detail (not a million miles away from DBLs... trust me) leaves you wishing for more heft at the bottom end.

9. NAP500, passive.....heard in the same system as #7, but in a different system/room and 2-3 years after #8....... Better and more coherent than 2x250/Snaxo, but seriously pressing the limitations of the Tukans, and unable to offer the same value for money.

Moral- the Kans/Tukans will always sound better with improvements to the hardware (or software)... but due to their intrinsic limitations start to compress (but not remove)the differences between the very high performance components. I feel it offers the best value for money when used with 2x250/IXO. Additional funds are best put towards other speakers with higher prices and pretensions. Its biggest limitations are

a)its size (and hence inability to produce prodigious levels and limited LF extension.. no matter what is upstream)

b) Poor internal crossover which starts to become the limiting factor in allowing value for money when attempting to move above passive 135s.

c) Cabinet/driver colourations... no matter what you drive them with.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

Posted on: 15 February 2002 by David Dever

Have you tried running the Kan IIs vertically bi-amped--that is, one amp per speaker? (This requires modifying each of the input interconnects to carry only one channel.)

Phone me in Chicago if your are uncertain as to how to do this--it makes a pretty big difference when passively bi-amping.

Dave Dever, NANA