I was fortunate enough to have made a wise decision way back in 1985 and that was to buy a pair of black Linn Kan I's. They survived many upgrades of amplifiers (from Naim and Linn), turntables, CD players (Arcam, Marantz and Meridian Transport/DAC), cabling and interconnects. I was completely (100%) happy with them and thought I'd keep them forever!
Until, one day about 18 months ago, I encountered a pair of black Kan II's (biwirable) up for sale at a local newsagents via a window ad; - at £400 ($600) including the stands they seemed reasonably priced. I went to look (they were pristine and owned by one guy from new), listen and I was hooked! - I parted with the cash and re-plugged my speaker cable to cater for the bi-wiring and started to listen.
What a revelation! - detail and clarity in the midrange that I'd never heard before, more depth of bass, punchiness and slam of the drums... staggering, absolutely staggering. As quoted by a previous reviewer, the Kans are "a remarkable product" and considering that these speakers are 21 years old they are a testimony to great build quality. In the right set-up, on Kan stands with top quality amplification (ideally as in my Linn pre-power combo or something similar) they are unsurpassable and I've not heard anything better - that includes the similarly sized, modern Linn Katans.
One word of caution to any prospective purchaser of secondhand Kan's though and that is to realise that the later Kan's (mk III onwards) are not a patch on the mk I's and mk II's and in my opinion are not worth paying serious money for. The Mk III. IV and V are decent products but not in the same league.
ps To really make my day, I later sold my immaculate 26 year old mk I's for £300 on e-bay. Though I've noticed recently that they regularly fetch £350-400 and perhaps I should I have kept my mk I's as a long term investment!
Strengths: sound and build quality; tremendous value on the used market
Weaknesses: The reliability of 20 something year old drivers is dependent upon who owned these speakers before you got a hold of them. For example, how hard were they were driven, and how good were the amplifiers being used to drive them.
In a positive situation these Kan's are ready for many more years of faithful service. However, if in fact these speakers were abused, then they may require an expensive overhaul -- that is provided that you can find replacement drivers for them.
Bottom Line:
I recently (as a matter of fact I wrote the post below this one) posted in regard to my Linn Kan V's and how much I enjoyed them; as well as how there was much hype made over the earlier Linn Kan speakers, which many Kan owners recommended over -- as they put it -- the lowly Linn Kan V.
Having recently taken possession of a pair of black Linn Kan I's, I believe that the comments I made in my earlier post regarding the later Kan V, are even more prevalent now.
Upon reflection, the Kan I is a very articulate speaker, however, lacking the bass of the later Kan V. The sonic signature of both speakers, even though they have completely different drivers, is very similar, throwing a wide side stage which belies their diminutive size.
The Kan I's are also less efficient, meaning that your amplifier must work harder to achieve the same sound levels with the I, as it would with the V's.
However, the build quailty of the I is clearly superior, being made out of plywood with a quality veneer finish, instead of the chipboard and veneer covering of the later Kan V.
All in all, these are both superb litte monitors, and musical as all get out when matched with good a quaility source and amplification.
As to which is better, the truth is that they balance one another, given the latter's greater efficiency, and the earlier Kan's superior build quality.
I must also say that as a former owner of two very nice pairs of Rogers LS 3/5A's, that I am surprised that mint pairs of the earlier Kans are selling for a fraction of what excellent examples of the LS 3/5's -- circa the 1980's -- have been selling for on Ebay. Especially since the two were nearly identical in price when sold from new during that period.
In this respect the earlier Kans represent a fantastic value for the savvy audio enthusiast, who for his dollar gets a speaker that plays much louder than an LS3/5A, throws a much larger sound stage, produces better bass, and nearly equals the Rogers arfticulate and transparent midrange.
The Linn Kans, in all of their iterations, continue to be a wonderful sounding near field monitor, and a fantastic value for the penurious audio enthusiast.
Strengths: Excellent midrange and bass. Sounds equally as good with classical, jazz and rock. And as long as it's paired with an excellent source and amplification, the Kan V will bring years of musical enjoyment to both casual and serious listeners alike.
Weaknesses: At $500 for the pair, none
Bottom Line:
Since its inception some 20 plus years ago, the Linn Kan has been manufactuered in at least five different versions, not the least of which is the Kan V.
The Kan V is a terrific little speaker with most if not all of the virtues of the earlier
Kan 1 and II, except that it incorporates Linn's later and more efficient drivers, and is built more to a price point.
Obviously, it would be impossible to sell the Linn Kan for $500 in 2002 (when I purchased mine), when they cose that much in 1986, without making some compromises.
The Kan V is built from chipboard, instead of the plywood that earlier Kan's were made from, and then covered with real wood veneers like cherry, oak, walnut and teak.
However, it easily competes soundwise with the earlier and much less efficient speakers, so that low powered quality amplifiers can drive them quite nicely, and to a surprisingly loud volume
My Kan V's work extremely well with my low power tube amplifiers, which include
Quicksilver Mini Mite 25 wpc monoblocks, and Antique Sound Lab Wave AV 25 mono's. The warmth and articulate nature of these amplifiers absolutely makes the Kan V's sing. And there is little doubt that these amplifiers would not work nearly as well with the less efficient Kan 1 and Kan II's, which would probably clip these amplifiers when attempting to gain any appreciable volume levels.
The difference between the earlier Kan's 83db@1wpc volume level and the Kan V's 88db@1wpc volume level is demonstrable.
Don't be fooled by the cult hyperbole of the earlier Kans' since the Kan V is just as a good, much less expensive, and far more efficent to run.
Strengths: smooth highs,
good bass descrimination,
a very musical speaker
Weaknesses: bass could be more refinded
a little bit coloration
Bottom Line:
Yes, there better (Linn) -speakers, I thing Linn Katan is more refinded in the bass area, but it's cost twice as much. However this is very good value for the money, (550 €).
I used B&W CDM 1NT, and the B&W has more detail and clarity in the mid but the high wasn't as smooth.
This speaker sounds a little husky but that's not a weakness for me.
The soundstage is also larger than my
Dynaudio Audience 40, and with good electronics ( I use an LFD Mistral amp and Rotel CD-player) the Linn wins.
You don't need a sub with this one,
bass is more heavy than my Dynaudio's and
much more than the B&W's.
Submitted by
Lindsay
a Audio Enthusiast
from Manchester
Date Reviewed: December 23, 2001
Strengths: Clarity, punchiness of bass when coupled to Linn amplification.
Weaknesses: None. Component partnering is however, crucial. As is good cabling.
Bottom Line:
Well, I've owned my Linn Kans (I) for 16 years and thought that things must have moved on in that timeline - decided to go "brass in pocket" to audition some speakers. Firstly though, decided that my 7 year old 2-box Meridian CD/DAC was probably still pukka and capable and my Linn pre/power combo (7 years old)was probably still up to the job too. Cutting the story short after several fruitless attempts by a couple of HiFi dealers to take some money off me (including a Linn dealer)I've kept my brass in my pocket. In short I've not heard ANYTHING under £1000 which has the clarity, punch and presence of these speakers, I've re-learned something that I'd almost forgotten ie why I'd bought them in the first place! They do require caution when it comes to partnering with other equipment though, use substandard Naim NAIT amplification and you have the clarity of the Linn pre/power but you lose the slam and punchiness of the bass (see earlier report in this series)- let's get this clear though bass should be "tight" in nature not remotely boomy and the Kans certainly deliver in this respect. The Linn Kans are still a remarkable product 12 years on.
