Speakers again !?

Went to edit a post and it disappeared! (must have hit delete by mistake)

Quite a few suggestions here, especially some secondhand, but if holding out for occasional s/h appearances of specific models and then needing to arrange audition doesn't appeal, then I suggest contact several dealers within readonable travelling distance (your reasonable! Mine was. 2-day tour covering 1000 miles and a ferry trip, due to where I live) - find out what they have in your price bracket secondhand, and new if you want, do some research (this forum might be useful as part of it), then take your Kans and go and listen, comparing with yours. Very possibly multiple dealers as their stocks may differ. Take your amp as well unless the dealers have same. Then if you find a candidate arrange a home audition if possible, and if you don't find something either keep the Kans or keep checking s/h availability as it can change often.

Not many speakers mentioned here so far that better Kans IMO. SL2 yes, but as you know, not easy to find. SBL is for my money a side step at best, and i've heard well set up Kans sound better. PMC's mentioned are a backwards step for me, and won't match the punch of a good Kan. 

I don't know about the mk 2 version, but I thought the original Kan was essentially a BBC LS3/5a clone, and as such rolled off at about 15dB/octave from 70Hz or so. Maybe that is what's missing from the sound.

I haven't heard N-Sats (nor Kans for that matter so no idea how their character compares) though from some accounts the N-Sats go slightly lower so might sound a tad 'fuller', though still not low bass  - however of course with the N-sub that could fill in what's missing. No idea if these might be an option to consider, albeit another discontinued and maybe rarely availabe.

And whereas the LS3/5a was generally recognised for its accuracy and neutrality the Kan wasn't, and much berated for its colouration though what it did do well was speed, so the Kan appealed to those who valued speed over accuracy, LS3/5a the other way round. I haven't heard the KAns, but their lack of bass would rule them out of contention for me, while if they are significantly coloured I wonder anyone likes them - but clearly some people did and still do, which just goes to show how different we all are (and how much you can't go on someone else's judgement unless wholly convinced they like everything to sound exactly as you do!

My guess is most people haven't heard Kans in an optimum environment. Solid walls and floors, proper stands and a 250 up em!  I think people would not describe them as having no bass. I've heard SBLs with much less bass on occasions, and if truth be told, i think IBLs are better than SBLs, which are as fast as Kans, and a tiny bit more bass, but not quite such a good midrange.

I owned a pair of Mk 1 Kans for 10 years, driven by a 250 and various preamps, and fronted by the then ubiquitous LP12. Absolutely wonderful speakers that can link you to the music like few others. When properly driven with a 250 or 135s they certainly don't sound 12" tall, nor is the lack of bass extension really an issue. After the Kans I got Mk1 SBLs and in my view they are a genuine improvement. After the SBL came SL2s, then when I downsized I went through a few speakers that never entirely did it for me, and I ended up back with SL2s. The trouble is, there are very few close to the wall speakers made these days. 

gary yeowell posted:

My guess is most people haven't heard Kans in an optimum environment. Solid walls and floors, proper stands and a 250 up em!  I think people would not describe them as having no bass. I've heard SBLs with much less bass on occasions, and if truth be told, i think IBLs are better than SBLs, which are as fast as Kans, and a tiny bit more bass, but not quite such a good midrange.

Rolling off steeply from 70Hz if that's what they do means no low bass regardless of amp - and I have heard IBLs, and they also don't do real bass. The OP is a little unclear in first saying he wanted a bit more bass but later saying he's not after 'cavernous bass' but a bigger, punchier sound - he may well be happy without the bottom octave or two if the upper bass is sufficiently fast. Clearly he likes the character of the Kans, so if the SBLs or SL2s have some of that character they may be ideal upgrades as some have suggested, except for the age question. Not that there is any reason why maybe 10 or 15 year old speaker today shouldn't last another 30 or 25 years or more - barring manual damage or catastrophic amp failure the drivers should last, while the crossovers can always be recapped, maybe every 20 years. 

Anyone want to hear Kans do bass that would shock you and leave you shaking your head in disbelief should pop round to hear my office system. Don't bother with spec sheets, and assumptions.... I also have IBL's which will do a similar party trick. I used to have SL2 in the same room, so have a very good idea of the relative bass.

If I have an opportunity some time to hear the Kans I will out of curiousity. But whilst I am well aware that measurements don't reveal all, some statements here, as sometimes crop up on other threads, do make me wonder if the proponents have really heard deep bass - and I don't mean that in any condescending way, nor do I mean it to be insulting or even critical, just expressing the impression I get from some things said. That is not saying that such soeakers can't give the listener an illusion of deep bass, especially positioned so as to excite room resonances for instance, nor that they aren't enjoyable, which clearly they are for some.

I once passed a pair of IMF TLS 50s on to someone when I upgraded, supplanting their IBLs - and astounding  the new owner with what they revealed that the IBLs had hidden. I suspect the same reaction may have occurred had he had Kans.

I've been to plenty of reggae gigs in my time, so I think I know what deep bass is. When choosing hifi stuff I don't think about accuracy, bass and treble extension, imaging and the like, I look for something that makes the music enjoyable and immersive, something that makes me tap my feet and nod my head. Kans do that, as do SBLs, IBLs, SL2s. The PMCs did it a bit, but far less. It depends what you are looking for I guess. 

Owned a couple of pairs of Shahinian Obelisks in my time which I'm informed did deep bass. Can't say I miss anything from Kan's in a small room, and certainly wouldn't want any more low frequency than they give. On the other hand, in terms of playing tuneful bass, the Kan will teach the Obelisk a thing or two.

Hungryhalibut posted:

I've been to plenty of reggae gigs in my time, so I think I know what deep bass is. When choosing hifi stuff I don't think about accuracy, bass and treble extension, imaging and the like, I look for something that makes the music enjoyable and immersive, something that makes me tap my feet and nod my head. Kans do that, as do SBLs, IBLs, SL2s. The PMCs did it a bit, but far less. It depends what you are looking for I guess. 

Yes, it is very true, it does depend what you're looking for/expect - and nothing at all wrong with that, being part of the variety of life. (Thought: perhaps everyone's profile should clarify where they're coming from so others can interpret posts as they might apply to their own case.....(

For me, whilst auditioning (and certainly when listening) I don't think about bass extension or treble quality or accuracy or anything else, just listen to the music - what I want out of the system is naturalness of the sound, closeness to what I either know it sounds like live (of course as a memory) or otherwise what I think it should sound like. (Of course, the latter is a total fabrication in my head, though based on experience I suppose.) As far as bass is concerned I want to feel the bass notes and not lose anything however low they are, again just like at a live gig, and to me that is an important part of the music and I miss it if not there, enjoying the music less, except of course where the music itself diesn't have low bass, when if course there's nothing to miss. What turns me on is being able to get lost in the music - and that I have done with everybsystem I've owned, though maybe with greater appreciation over time

Of course live gigs/concerts aren't all the same, and on occasion I've seen the same band play the same music sounding much better at one gig than another, with one mushing everything up and losing the bass, another as clear as a bell and with what to me is nice bass... which of those was 'right' Is only my perception... (though also the perception of my companions).!

If you want to get better sound than you are currently getting out of the Kans now, one option is to keep the Kans and replace the 82/2xHicap with a 52/SC. 

I had a friend who used to run Tukans (yes, I know they are not exactly Kans, but the comparisons should translate) with an 82/180. Sounded hard as glass and seriously lacking on oomph. So at various times I brought along a Hicap, a 52/SC, a pair of 135 and a pair of Exposure XVI monoblocks to try to see what it would take to make the Tukans into keepers. 

82/Hicap/180. Much better than naked 82, but still a little disjointed and edgy. 

82/SC/180. Finally a system where the Tukans lost their aggressive edge and became communicative. 

82/SC/135. Better than the 180 with more authority, grip and poise,  and a lack of 'buzzy' highs that the 180 seemed to give. 

52/SC/135. Enormous transformation. Dynamics, pitch, heft. The Tukans sounded 2x as big as they did with the 82/SC. Transients would literally make you blink your eyes. 

52/SC/Exposure XVI....well that isn't really relevant to this thread...but it was VERY nice. 

Moral....a good part of the 135 is simply squandered without at least a 52 upstream. 

If you have lived and enjoyed the Kans for this long, it is quite unlikely that you will find another speaker that will better the Kans where the Kans are the strongest. For instance, some LS3/5a would probably induce a near instantaneous coma. So before replacing them, you should at least try a SC on the 82, and if this is a step in the right direction, adding the 52 would put you another ten paces closer to your Nirvana.

This feedback is most interesting. I do not think about "Hi-Fi" when listening to my music - I really just wish for a good foot tapping / goose bump experience, which does occur from time to time.

Wording what one thinks one is looking for is not easy - I do think the Kans II punch above their weight, but would like a bigger fuller sound with e.g. Stanley Clarke's bass guitar having real depth and more "twang" ( maybe not achievable without considering 500 series + super luminas............ - sadly not going there) - the overall sound I have could perhaps be described as slightly "tinny" - needs more fullness.

Having said that - on some recordings the sound from the Kans II is quite remarkable !?

Perhaps as is certainly the case sometimes - it is the recording quality variation which is the problem !

I am beginning to think the journey of "speaker search" is perhaps not worth the effort, but will keep investigating for another few weeks

Saras? Not new though.

C.

Hungryhalibut posted:

The 20.21 (I've not heard the 25.21) is very nice but I wouldn't say it was bigger and punchier than the Kan - in fact certainly not punchier. The 22 is bigger but looks really odd as it's very deep. The 20.23 is really the one to try - I used them with the top 8" from the wall, which places the front of the the base about two feet out. I don't know where you live, but if you are within reach of Portsmouth you are welcome to have a shufti at my SL2s, which while bigger take up far less room space than the 20.23s did. 

HH - Thanks for taking the time - your insight is most useful. I live about 5 miles east of Christchurch (New Forest area) so not far from you really , and your offer is extremely kind (always have loved listening to other peoples' systems) !

I have checked measurements of SL2s - not quite fitting sadly

They would (will) be going in the (our) living room - so my other half has to be considered.

The dimensions of e.g. Neat SX1 / SX2 - Kudos X3 / C20 - PMC Twenty5 21 / 22 would all more or less fit in

Never thought it would be so tough 

Whatever you decide, you'd be very welcome, and I'm always around at the moment. If you want, put your mail temporarily in your profile. 

Not sure what the fixation is with foot tapping (common right across the forums): if the music's got a distinct beat, my foot tends to keep,time, if not it doesn't. Nothing to do with the system, and more to the point nothing I've ever particularly had a longing for my foot to do!

I'm not an expert on Kans but I fear the OP is not really going to achieve an improvement for his budget. 

Regards,

Lindsay

From your list of possible Kan replacements including Kudos and Neat, I'd suggest you may fall short of expectation. Having had every one of them at home here, i'd not swap out your Kans. The money spent on a new pair of speakers may well be better spent upstream as Ron Toolsie suggested. Your ears of course may tell you otherwise, but Kans are a hard act to follow.

gary yeowell posted:

Owned a couple of pairs of Shahinian Obelisks in my time which I'm informed did deep bass. Can't say I miss anything from Kan's in a small room, and certainly wouldn't want any more low frequency than they give. On the other hand, in terms of playing tuneful bass, the Kan will teach the Obelisk a thing or two.

I'm intrigued Gary that you had to be informed about the Obelisks' deep bass. Did they not live up ( down) to expectation?

Loki, my reply was slightly tongue in cheek. I didn't need to be informed, just people make such a fuss about how low Ob's go, and quite frankly low means nothing without control. That is where Kans show them a clean set of heels along with many others where too much is lost in an effort to play the lowest note on a church organ, which would account for exactly 0% of my listening. Don't get me wrong, i'm a fan of Shahinian in general, although they trade articulacy for extension, at least they are tuneful.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Not sure what the fixation is with foot tapping (common right across the forums): if the music's got a distinct beat, my foot tends to keep,time, if not it doesn't. Nothing to do with the system, and more to the point nothing I've ever particularly had a longing for my foot to do!

Foot tapping is the ultimate accolade for all good hifi: the sine qua non which signals an emotional reaction to the music  so intense that it is physically manifest, made possible only by the finest components; a mark of electronic wizardry creating a verisimilitudinous performance to rival the live experience. If you haven't experienced the involuntary tactile reaction to well-reproduced music, then you have simply listened to hifi rather than had an emotive reaction born of intense and powerfully overflowing feelings. It is the difference between an organic and mechanical reaction. It is the difference between a Naim system and pretty much any other. It is at the heart of PRAT, the DNA of music.

If its only your foot that's tapping you need to turn it up.  You don't show your emotion tapping your feet!