Hi everyone!
Today I received my Kan IIs couriered to me from my mother's house. I've had these lovelies for about 10 years and they formed the basis of my primary Naim system up North.
To cut a long story short, I built a 2nd system in London, Linn based and consisting of a Genki/Kolektor/LK140/LP12/Lingo/Akito/K9/Katans - which has now become my primary system.
What I wanted to do was to compare and contrast the performance between the Katans and Kans. Also, there was the memory of hearing Kan IIs for the first time in an all-Linn system some 10 years ago - consisting of an LP12/Valhalla/Ittok/K18/LK1/LK280 and Kan IIs. My memory was that it was very different sounding system than when I initially had my Kans in a Naim-based system... Something that is consistent with this test.
So, I boxed the Katans up and move them (and their stands) out of the listening room - giving the benefits of a single speaker demonstration. As usual, the Kans needed about an hour of warming up before their treble-ringing-effect is significantly reduced. Also I had move the stands about an inch-and-a-half closer in order to add more solidity and presence to the musicians.
The room is rather good for small loudspeakers, the main room of the flat being essentially a converted garage. The Kans are firing across the width, with the sofa being against the back wall (which helps to enhance the perception of bass). The 'speakers have plenty of room to the side of them, they're two inches from the back wall and the stands are level, stable and assembled to vein buldging tightness.
In terms of general impressions, in the context of a Linn system the Kans have an "earthy character" and a secure-integrated-confidence. Very dark sounding too. It is a fantastic sounding loudspeaker, not one that flies off the handle, and is very capable sounding providing you don't push it too far.
On the other hand, the Katans are far more tuneful, they are far more expressive. Katans soar like a bird and sing with the tune. No, the Katans are not a lightweight, in fact they produce far more heft in the bass than the Kans, FAR FAR MORE HEFT (this one's for you Tony 
). However, whereas the Katans run around with glee singing along, the Kans are more sober in their earthiness.
Treble in the Katans are finer too, and they reveal more inner-detail within each musical note. They project more scale too, although the Kans offer a level of comfort in their smaller (maybe tidier) scale.
Here's another suprise. In the foot-tap-test the Katans seem to time better (although the Kan's timing is improving as they warm up more).
Now here's what clinched it. A couple of tracks did freak-out the Kans causing their bass units to hit their end-stops, producing a cardboardy vibration and rattle. You won't be surprised to know the culprits were a couple a dance/trip-hop tracks; from Tosca's 'Chocolate Elvis' and Leggo Beast's 'From Here to G'. The track from Leggo Beast was 'Dream Topping', which also freaked out a pair of Dynaudio Contour 1.1 when previously auditioning them against Katans at a dealer. Dream Topping is a real test for mini-monitors, one that the Katans pass but the Dynaudios and sadly the Kans fail.
Overall, the Katans out-kan the Kan. However, I'll be changing over from the Kan IIs to the Katans tonight... who knows what will happen?
Andrew
Andrew Randle
Currently in the "Linn Binn"
[This message was edited by Andrew Randle on WEDNESDAY 13 March 2002 at 16:31.]
Posted on: 19 March 2002 by bdnyc
I'm more than a little surprised that no one has pointed out two of the biggest differences between Kans and Katans and Linn's more recent small speakers. While all of these small speakers are wonderful devices, and many people assemble their first true high fidelity systems around one or the other, it should not be left unsaid that the Kans or Kan II's (but not the cheap knock offs of the Tukans Linn named the Kan III) can drastically outperform the later speakers in the sorts of systems the older models were designed for.
The Kans and Kan II's were built around the tonal balance of the then current LP 12, which did have a pleasant mid bass bulge that helped make those speakers far more musical than they appear in CD based systems. In fact, I would say, not entirely jockingly, that the CD killed off the Kans.
Secondly, the Kans of old were clearly assuming a Naim system. Obviously, with the introduction of Linn electronics, it was not in their interest to continue building a speaker that so synergistically worked in the context of a competitors amplification. I would guess that the more important issue was the nearly universal acceptance of the CD by then.
That said, for fans of the Linn/Naim sound based on LP 12's and Naim electronics, I do not think that the ported designs are even remotely related to the sealed box Kan and Kan II sound. The earlier designs are much faster, more taut rhythmically, and capable of explosive dynamics, especially in the context of Naim systems based on their bigger amps. As noted above, the older designs are also very particular about set up.
Your mileage may vary, but for me, I can't really see that the newer designs were even attempting the same thing. A Tukan is doubtlessly a better product than the older Kans, but if you have a system that would flatter the older models, and you love their speed, dynamics and almost X ray vision interpretation of the music, I would not go in for remodels blindly...
Posted on: 19 March 2002 by Ron The Mon
You said
quote:
I am curious about the remarks regarding less of a difference between the Active Tukan and the Active Katan.
I actually said or meant that my Kans(not Tukans) sound better than the Katan when active. For the record, my Kan1s are from 1985, have the new neodymium tweeter(same as Katan and Ninka), have passive crossovers removed, and have the front baffle sanded down smooth like a grille-less Tukan. I run them active with two Naim 140s. In my home, active, even though the Katan gets slightly deeper bass, I prefer the more natural, melodic, sound of the Kan1s. When I had my Kans in the Linn dealer's(with passive crossover used outboard), the Katan was the clear winner as I mentioned above. [Actively at home, I used a loaned "Tune-Box", NAXO/Snaps, and a custom crossover all with the same results.]
Why you ask the difference between active and passive? The short answer is the Katan's internal crossover and wiring are the calibre you'd expect in a $1000.+ loudspeaker. The Tukan's crosssover sucks and the wiring really sucks. The Kan2 has a nice crossover and wiring but a poor termination(mechanical links!) and must be removed entirely to be run active. The original Kan has good termination but a very poor crossover. In fact, any forum member who looks at a Kan1 crossover will be flabbergasted that a speaker with the simplist, cheesiest passive crossover could achieve any sort of cult status!
This thread has got me thinking as to why the Katan is ignored by most forum members and I believe it has to do with its price point. It sort of parallels the Nait. In the early 80s, the Kan and Nait each cost less than $400. The people buying those weren't looking for bookshelf speakers and a small low-powered amp; they were music-lovers who couldn't afford or justify a 250/Isobarik set-up. However, the irony is that those who thought they were compromising, ended up with a hi-fi that is still better than most systems regardless of price today! That's how cult status is born! Linn upgraded the Kan to Kan2 and it was a little more money for little better sound and Naim did the same from Nait to Nait2. However, IMHO, both companies missed the boat on who was buying these products with the release of the Nait3/Tukans. When was the last time you read a forum member write about the urge to get that classic Nait3/Tukan sound? Naim clearly misjudged the cosmetics and price point as well as Linn. The Tukan was a very poor compromise; improved bass drivers and tweeters but fed by a poor crossover and wiring. A strong well-built cabinet that looked chincy. The diffraction-free baffle of the Tukan improved the soundstaging and "scale" but it had less "prat".
Now fast-forward to 2001. The Nait5 is clearly the best sounding, best built Nait made. The Katan is also the best Kan made to date. Both have left compromise behind for quality and that means money. A classic Nait/Kan combo cost $800. A Nait5/Katan costs $3000. At first thought it seems poor value only because of their ancestors. But compare them to the competion and you'll find few true challengers.
However, the above illustrates new prices. The used market is the monkey wrench in all this. Is the new Katan better than the Kan2? Yes. Is it $1200. better (selling old Kans and buying Katans new)? No. Buying the "neodymium" tweeters, a brand new Naim IXO active crossover(or used NAXO), and a used 140 cost the same as new Katans and stands! But ANY Kan version active with new tweeters outperforms the Katan passive dollar for dollar. And for you Lennart, do not make the mistake of selling your Katans. You haven't really heard them until they're active.
Ron The Mon,
Arch Kan defender and wall driller.
Posted on: 19 March 2002 by Ron The Mon
I disagree with almost all you wrote in your above post! I listened to the Katan/Tukan/Kan comparison in a big Linn system, and small Linn system, with Linn CD, NAD CD, Rega 2 and LP-12. All gave the same results! In my home, I ran the Katans and Kans both passive and active with LP-12/Naim. Same results again! I listen to music, not tonality matching. PRAT and tune are totally unrelated to bass humps, frequency response, etc. I was on a mission when auditioning the Katans and take Kans in general seriously.
The Kan(Kan3) is also a really good speaker. It totally reminds me of the original Royd bookshelf speaker, the Coniston "R". It outperforms every speaker in its price range, yet no-one takes it seriously.
You may be right about CD killing the Kan though; the Kan (every version of them) is a very revealing speaker and clearly shows that source-first is most important and nearly all CD players are crap!
And finally, the story I heard from Ivor and Charlie Brennan of Linn is that the original Kan was designed on a napkin by Martin Dalgleish after Ivor asked if he could make a good sounding mini speaker. The design was submitted to their cabinet maker and stock DMS midbass and tweeters were fitted as well as SARA passive crossovers. The only "designing" Martin did was to adjust the crossover resistor value to attenuate the tweeter level further. Not only was the Kan designed without the LP-12 and Naim in mind but it was designed and built without listening at all. If you doubt that, open up a binding post era Kan and notice the drivers are marked for DMS and the crossovers say SARA and there is an extra resistor piggy-back soldered in for the Kan. Ivor said it took them longer to invent the name Kan than the whole two days to create it!
Ron The Mon,
Arch Kan defender and wall driller.
Posted on: 20 March 2002 by Andrew Randle
bdnyc said:
quote:
The Kans of old were clearly assuming a Naim system. Obviously, with the introduction of Linn electronics, it was not in their interest to continue building a speaker that so synergistically worked in the context of a competitors amplification.
This is not so. The first time I heard Kans was with an LK1/LK280 combination. The synergy was remarkable. Regarding your point about new Linn electronics (and LP12), the characteristics of my new LP12/Lingo/Genki/Kolektor/LK140 are similar to those of the old LP12/LK1/LK280 combination.
bdnyc said
quote:
That said, for fans of the Linn/Naim sound based on LP 12's and Naim electronics, I do not think that the ported designs are even remotely related to the sealed box Kan and Kan II sound.
Have you heard the Katans yet? Or are you basing your findings on something like an old pair of ported Tannoys (or Tukans for that matter)? IMHO, the port in the Katans is one of the most carefully designed ports out there, like for instance the Living Voice OBX-R loudspeakers.
Ron the Mon said:
quote:
my Kan1s are from 1985, have the new neodymium tweeter(same as Katan and Ninka), have passive crossovers removed, and have the front baffle sanded down smooth like a grille-less Tukan
Sanding the frame off the baffle!!! Oooh you butcher!!! By the way thanks for your opinion and insight later on in your post (and subsequent post), it was a good read.
Andrew Randle
Currently in the "Linn Binn"
Posted on: 20 March 2002 by Frank Abela
FWIW, in Andrew's dem, I seem to remember preferring the Katans further from the wall. I felt that the bass reinforcement (which he so liked) was a bit overpowering for my taste.
On the brief listen in his flat, they seemed to be working well close to the wall. I believe this is because the room they're in doesn't have the more usual bass resonances one usually gets. I think this is because of the solid nature of the room (lucky so-and-so).
I also feel that the Katan stands are much too lightweight and unstable. Placing the Katan on Dynaudio Masterstands has significant benfits in firming up the bass and cleaning up the treble.
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: 20 March 2002 by bdnyc
Ron-
I would certainly not mean to suggest that you, or anyone else who has investigated these systems for your own purposes, using your chosen criteria for sonics, musicality, tune, pace, etc. are in any way wrong for your sensibilities and conclusions. What I was trying to say relates more to the fact that some users may prefer the older style of sound, which to me always was very DIFFERENT, not necessarily BETTER, than the newer Linn speakers. My main point is that readers not in a position to hear these potential alterations for themselves would be best advised to proceed with caution.
I agree with your thoughtful comments related to the popularity of the older Linn and Naim value oriented products. It is a very different thing for a customer to make a small adjustment up in their budget , which would have been the typical case with a Nait/ Kan buyer, where today, the top products from the high end are truely speaking luxury products. The luxury market is not predicated solely upon value and performance, but relates far more to other areas of the psychology of consumption, pride of ownership, etc.
I really enjoyed your analysis of the make up and compromises made in these products, and I love the story about their "design". I would imagine, for full disclosure, that the full bar tab should have been footnoted from Ivor's lunch. It goes to show that the human element in engineering is always the most important, no matter how technological the products appear.
Andrew-
As noted above, I do not mean to take anything away from anyone's enjoyment of their favorite products or system. I have extensive experience with all of these various generations of Linn products, and have my own preferences, but it is not my goal to broadcast my preferences. Yes, I have heard the Katans, passive and active, and they are fine speakers. They would have to be on the short list of products to audition if someone is looking at that price and size tier. There are other designs today that offer other alternatives, and what I like should have no bearing on another listener unless they wanted to get me a speaker as a gift!
Posted on: 20 March 2002 by Andrew L. Weekes
quote:
I would be hesitating to do surgery on kanII since tweeter replacement appears to be a bit complex.
Moreover, it has been reported a difference in gain with the new tweeter. Something like 1 or 2 dB has been mentioned as a correcting factor when people replace them in active mode (I mean in kabers or keilidhs)
I'm not concerned at removing the tweeters in a KanII, it's much easier than a KanI since there's no mastic gunge sealing it, just a foam gasket.
The grilles are already detached, in preparation for active operation, which hasn't yet come to fruition (s/h NAP150's don't crop up often, and when they have I've been skint!).
I have an audio spectrum analyser, and even without a calibrated microphone could easily produce in-room response plots before surgery, that could then be compared post surgery, tweeter level can be adjusted by altering a resistor on the crossover, so no great worries there.
quote:
You should rather listen to katans and directly swap for those if you prefer them over the kans
I can't do this, as I cannot accomodate any speaker that doesn't work hard up against a wall, due to room limitations, hence the Kan mod or SBL's - the modded Kan is cheaper, and I like the basic character of Kans.
Andy.
