Aktiv Majik 109 options

Nature · Post by **Nature** » 2013-04-09 18:14

I'm considering to activate Majik 109. Want to hear your opinions.

1)
Akurate 4200 : super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

2)
Akurate 2200 : super-tweeter
Akurate 2200 : tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

3)
Akurate 3200 : left channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 3200 : right channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2013-04-09 18:31

Nature wrote:I'm considering to activate Majik 109. Want to hear your opinions.

1)
Akurate 4200 : super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

2)
Akurate 2200 : super-tweeter
Akurate 2200 : tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

3)
Akurate 3200 : left channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 3200 : right channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter

option 1 or klimax twin passive

Nature · Post by **Nature** » 2013-04-09 18:58

anthony, why option 1 and why passive Twin. Just a few words so I know, please?
Have you done a comparison between Aktiv Akurate and passive Twin on Majik 109 or are your suggestion based on other speakers? If other speakers, which one?
Thanks.

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2013-04-09 19:08

Nature wrote:anthony, why option 1 and why passive Twin. Just a few words so I know, please?
Have you done a comparison between Aktiv Akurate and passive Twin on Majik 109 or are your suggestion based on other speakers? If other speakers, which one?
Thanks.

Option 1 is neater and cheaper, and sonically no different to 3 2200s.

If it was a difficult speaker to drive ie keltik option 2 is better.

Every time I prefer a passive twin to the above options, this is true, for me, using 212 242 as well. Also the Lejonklou Tundra, Fredrik used 109s during developement of Tundra, I have tried and enjoyed this combination as well.

http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=22568

also worth a look.

Rufus McDufus · Post by **Rufus McDufus** » 2013-04-09 19:18

Seeing as we're on this forum, would it be rude to suggest passive Tundras? A couple of Monos would cost roughly the same as a KCT/D and (in my opinion anyway) sound better. A Tundra Stereo is a worth a try and considerably cheaper than any of these options!

[edit] brain fade, I didn't notice anthony's reference to Tundras.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-04-09 21:24

anthony wrote:Option 1 is neater and cheaper, and sonically no different to 3 2200s.

Ok, but 1 and 3 are quite different! Although each amplifier channel is the same, there are other differences:

In terms of ground loops, option 1 is far worse off. There will be loops between left and right interconnects and between mains and signal grounds. These will affect the result musically. Option 3 is much cleaner.

Although both options have two power supplies, they will have different loads: In option 1 the upper frequency ranges in 4200 will be unaffected by bass currents, but left and right channels will be mixed. In option 3 channels will be separated but frequency ranges will modulate one another.

I have not made this exact comparison, but would very much like to do it. I am pretty sure 1 will be impressive, 2 a bit more so (but probably not worth the additional expense) and 3 will be... Let me get back to that! I have 109's and some stuff in the lab that I can make a similar experiment with, that will enable me to make an educated guess. And I'm really curious to find out.

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2013-04-09 21:53

lejonklou wrote:
anthony wrote:Option 1 is neater and cheaper, and sonically no different to 3 2200s.
Ok, but 1 and 3 are quite different! Although each amplifier channel is the same, there are other differences:

In terms of ground loops, option 1 is far worse off. There will be loops between left and right interconnects and between mains and signal grounds. These will affect the result musically. Option 3 is much cleaner.

Although both options have two power supplies, they will have different loads: In option 1 the upper frequency ranges in 4200 will be unaffected by bass currents, but left and right channels will be mixed. In option 3 channels will be separated but frequency ranges will modulate one another.

I have not made this exact comparison, but would very much like to do it. I am pretty sure 1 will be impressive, 2 a bit more so (but probably not worth the additional expense) and 3 will be... Let me get back to that! I have 109's and some stuff in the lab that I can make a similar experiment with, that will enable me to make an educated guess. And I'm really curious to find out.

Perhaps then 2 4200 would be better? The only reason I dismissed 3200 is the resale value is very poor. The left and right circuit boards are separated in a 4200, does this still lead to mixing of left and right channels?
I would still go passive with Twin/ Tundra anyway.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-04-09 22:31

anthony wrote:Every time I prefer a passive twin to the above options, this is true, for me, using 212 242 as well.

This is interesting. And apologies for going off topic slightly! In Sweden, there are many Aktiv fans. Some with claims like 242 are better Aktiv with LK140's than passive with Solo's. I heard this from a retailer some weeks ago! In the UK and many other countries, Aktiv does not have the same extreme reputation.

Personally, I think Aktiv is great. But as usual, the Hierarchy rules. And if one looks at how the signal travels, one will find that the first processing stage, after the exit from the preamplifier, is more important to the final quality of reproduction than any (later) active or passive filtering of the frequency ranges.

So, if the signal goes to, say, a Klimax Solo, the input stage of that amp is far better than the one in an Akurate amp. The Aktiv filters come later in the chain. Passive filters even later than that. And I think this can be heard: Aktiv is very impressive. It's fast, controlled, direct and often with bass shelving, that makes the speakers go deeper in the bass. But with a fundamentally better input stage receiving the signal, the musical aspects are more intact. Even if it occasionally sounds smaller, more laid back and less impressive.

In practice, the active filtering benefits varies a lot between filters and speaker models. Last time I compared passive 242's with a KCT to Aktiv 242's with various Chakra amps, I felt confused. I really enjoyed the songs we listened to when we heard them with KCT. They really moved me in an effortless way. When the system had been activated and carefully retuned (speaker positions were different and the rack had to accomodate many more amps, etc, this took one day), it sounded much more impressive. It was Wow, this is great! But were the songs from before any better? Musically, I felt they had slightly less meaning. They were more upfront and physical, but also lost some finesse.

Nature · Post by **Nature** » 2013-04-09 23:36

lejonklou wrote:There will be loops between left and right interconnects and between mains and signal grounds.

In option 1 the upper frequency ranges in 4200 will be unaffected by bass currents, but left and right channels will be mixed.

In option 3 channels will be separated but frequency ranges will modulate one another.

Ok, I can see where we are going.... but option 4) is no option for me!

4)
Akurate 2200 : left channel, super-tweeter
Akurate 2200 : left channel, tweeter
Akurate 2200 : left channel, bass/mid
Akurate 2200 : right channel, super-tweeter
Akurate 2200 : right channel, tweeter
Akurate 2200 : right channel, bass/mid

Just kidding with you. Though it would be uncompromisingly.

Very interesting about input stage, loops and modulation.

rowlandhills · Post by **rowlandhills** » 2013-04-10 01:49

I find it slightly annoying that Linn don't make klimax filters for Majik speakers. Their argument is that anyone who wans to invest enough to justify klimax filters is going to want a speaker with the 3k array, so they wouldn't be able to make enough sales to justify the R&D.

Rather a shame, in my view, as it stops people from following true source first. One you have a KDS/1, KK/1 and aktiv 109s on x200 amps, you have to replace the speakers before the amps, as there's no way to run 109s aktiv with Klimax amps (or Tundras etc.)

I seem to remember hearing that Linn did make klimax filters for the Katan, because if their popularity in Japan. Would be interesting to know if that's true...

Perhaps we should all hope for the rumoured digital crossover which could replace any existing aktiv cards with a quick firmware update.

Nature · Post by **Nature** » 2013-04-10 07:19

rowlandhills wrote:"...Linn did make klimax filters for the Katan..."

Yes they did.

rowlandhills wrote:Perhaps we should all hope for the rumoured digital crossover which could replace any existing aktiv cards with a quick firmware update.

Yes but the input stage is still better in Klimax power amplifier than in Akurate power amplifier.

rowlandhills · Post by **rowlandhills** » 2013-04-10 08:46

Nature wrote:
rowlandhills wrote:Perhaps we should all hope for the rumoured digital crossover which could replace any existing aktiv cards with a quick firmware update.
Yes but the input stage is still better in Klimax power amplifier than in Akurate power amplifier.

As I understand it, the rumour is that the digital crossover would replace be at Klimax level, and would be a standalone box to which you could connect any amps, and which could be setup in firmware to handle any speakers.

Given that the development costs would be lower, this might then allow Linn to release firmware to allow aktiv 109s, which could be driven through three KCTs if desired (or even six Solos or Tundra Monos!).

Broccoli · Post by **Broccoli** » 2013-04-10 10:50

rowlandhills wrote: Given that the development costs would be lower, this might then allow Linn to release firmware to allow aktiv 109s,

Or, a random Linn owner with good programming skills could programme her or his own firmware for any old Linn speaker :)

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2013-04-10 11:09

rowlandhills wrote: As I understand it, the rumour is that the digital crossover would replace be at Klimax level

Yes
The R/D investment, the complex design (input --> multiple A/D --> filter --> D/A --> output) and a small market, going to lead to a high retail price. At least initially.
And to sell it to a high price, it must be Klimax product.

But not sure it's the right way, would have been more logical to have this feature in a DS where the signal already is in the digital domain.
Or better still, eliminate the need of a complex filter by designing speakers without myriads of drivers!!

imho, messing around with the signal can only be negative. Specially early in the signal path.
Instead, preserve the signal as long as possible by keeping the system simple even if you have to have compromises in the speaker. (simple passive filter and 2-3 drivers)

matthias · Post by **matthias** » 2013-04-10 22:00

Music Lover wrote: imho, messing around with the signal can only be negative. Specially early in the signal path.
Instead, preserve the signal as long as possible by keeping the system simple even if you have to have compromises in the speaker. (simple passive filter and 2-3 drivers)

+1

I like to have an external passive crossover like the Klangedang project.
A digital crossover is the deathblow of a complete analogue pathway with the LP12.

matthias

Nature · Post by **Nature** » 2013-04-10 22:43

lejonklou wrote:But as usual, the Hierarchy rules. And if one looks at how the signal travels, one will find that the first processing stage, after the exit from the preamplifier, is more important to the final quality of reproduction than any (later) active or passive filtering of the frequency ranges.

So, if the signal goes to, say, a Klimax Solo, the input stage of that amp is far better than the one in an Akurate amp. The Aktiv filters come later in the chain.

If hierarchy always rules than option A should be better than option B. Is it?

A)
Klimax Kontrol - Silver Interconnect - Akurate 2200

B)
Klimax Kontrol - Black Interconnect - Klimax Solo

Or do you not think interconnect cable is a "processing stage"?
I'm just trying to find out if the input stage really matters that much.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-04-10 23:34

Nature wrote:If hierarchy always rules than option A should be better than option B. Is it?

A)
Klimax Kontrol - Silver Interconnect - Akurate 2200

B)
Klimax Kontrol - Black Interconnect - Klimax Solo

I doubt that those two interconnects are different enough to really be a part of the hierarchy, the way you describe above. But as I haven't done this comparison , I don't really know. If you change the black interconnects to something really bad, I'm sure that A will win.

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2013-04-11 08:02

Nature wrote:I'm considering to activate Majik 109. Want to hear your opinions.

Before deciding going active, did you define your long term goal?
If not, do this first. Then work towards that goal but start upgrading the source. Then address the pre before you finally consider your amp/speaker options.

And avoid small steps - example:
If the goal is active 212, getting 2*4200 or 2*4100 (with 109) is a better choice as you then can keep the amps when you change speakers.
On the other hand if the goal is active 212, I wouldn't bother activating 109.

mrco99 · Post by **mrco99** » 2013-04-11 09:49

lejonklou wrote:
anthony wrote:Option 1 is neater and cheaper, and sonically no different to 3 2200s.
Ok, but 1 and 3 are quite different! Although each amplifier channel is the same, there are other differences:

In terms of ground loops, option 1 is far worse off. There will be loops between left and right interconnects and between mains and signal grounds. These will affect the result musically. Option 3 is much cleaner.

Although both options have two power supplies, they will have different loads: In option 1 the upper frequency ranges in 4200 will be unaffected by bass currents, but left and right channels will be mixed. In option 3 channels will be separated but frequency ranges will modulate one another.

I have not made this exact comparison, but would very much like to do it. I am pretty sure 1 will be impressive, 2 a bit more so (but probably not worth the additional expense) and 3 will be... Let me get back to that! I have 109's and some stuff in the lab that I can make a similar experiment with, that will enable me to make an educated guess. And I'm really curious to find out.

I am very curious about Fredrik´s outcome.
Though I have an off-topic system the test results may help me too.

I have Keltiks with KXOs powered by 6100 and 2200, all dynamiked.
Though the KXOs provide an explicit split of the L/R channel, signals are again ´mixed´ when reaching the power amps.
6100/d is used for mid and 2xbass, 2200/d is for L/R treble channels.
I removed the bridging L/R cable inside the 6100, so apart from the power supply, it is a real dual ´3100´ amp, where the left 3100 side drives the left mid/bass channels, and the right side the right mid/bass channels.

Upgrade options would include 2x3200 or 1x2200+1x4200 to replace the 6100. With a true balanced system being the best, optimal setup (also regarding price) would point towards 2x4200 ultimately then.

PS. Too bad a passive Keltik setup with a single KCT or a pair of Tundra Mono´s isn´t possible in my case.

;-)

PPS. To the OP: I would also consider a passive option with a KCT or Tundra amp as an alternative to activating your 109s.
Simply because it should be much easier to get an optimal setup as you have less factors to take into account. No multiple speaker and interconnect wires are needed. Just single wiring with an optimal soldered (Fredrik) speaker cable. And much easier to upgrade to another speaker when required.

I know the Majik 109 was designed as an active speaker by Linn and it´s very tempting to get into that direction. But just don´t do so before you listened to the passive option as well, driven by a possibly better amp.
Fredrik has developed his Tundra amps with the (passive) 109s as well, so that should give you some reference as well.
Only when you have heard both options you can decide which direction you want to go and then optimalize it.

Cheers and good luck,

Marco

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-04-11 10:00

mrco99 wrote:I am very curious about Fredrik´s outcome.

Great to hear that. I just need to finalise one Mono and upgrade two stereo Tundra's. As soon as those are shipped, I'll run my little test.

And tomorrow I am probably getting my Klångedang T1 speakers! Very exciting! But that will be a new thread.

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2013-04-11 11:26

mrco99 wrote: I know the Majik 109 was designed as an active speaker by Linn and it´s very tempting to get into that direction.

Yes, same procedure as with all other speakers according to the constructor.
He then design the passive filter.
But the performance is entirely dependent of filter, cable, amp performance -and setup.

Personally I'm more and more into passive systems. Less complex and hence easier to tune.
This coming from a die hard active evangelist... but today the performance of each component is SO high that tuning have a major impact on overall performance. So a slightly out of tune active system can be a nightmare to address.

mrco99 · Post by **mrco99** » 2013-04-11 12:15

Exactly my point ML and thanks for your clear write-up.

My setup includes at least 6 pairs of interconnects between source and power ams, 4xK400 speaker cable, 1 source, 1 preamp, 2 KXOs and 2 poweramps. It will even take a highly-skilled expert like Fredrik a couple of days to fine-tune this to perfection - I wonder if I would ever get close to that level.

Likewise, the OP´s suggested options with multiple power amps also add extra variables to the mix - either extra interconnects or possibly internal wiring solutions. Plus off course the additional runs of speaker cable, each with their dedicaded termination.

So don´t underestimate the benefits of a ´simple´ passive setup
Source - preamp - poweramp - (single wired) passive speakers.

sandgrown · Post by **sandgrown** » 2013-04-11 13:12

I'm currently driving 109s passively with 3x Tundra Stereos (v1.2).

The tundras are linked with Chord Signature interconnects, and they are each single wired to the 109s bass/mid, tweeter & super-tweeter individually using Chord Rumour speaker cable.

I must say it sounds quite incredible, and I can't imagine how i could make 109s sing any sweeter.

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2013-04-11 14:46

sandgrown wrote:I'm currently driving 109s passively with 3x Tundra Stereos (v1.2).

The tundras are linked with Chord Signature interconnects, and they are each single wired to the 109s bass/mid, tweeter & super-tweeter individually using Chord Rumour speaker cable.

I must say it sounds quite incredible, and I can't imagine how i could make 109s sing any sweeter.

6 monos!

matthias · Post by **matthias** » 2013-04-11 15:43

anthony wrote:
sandgrown wrote:I'm currently driving 109s passively with 3x Tundra Stereos (v1.2).

The tundras are linked with Chord Signature interconnects, and they are each single wired to the 109s bass/mid, tweeter & super-tweeter individually using Chord Rumour speaker cable.

I must say it sounds quite incredible, and I can't imagine how i could make 109s sing any sweeter.
6 monos!

2 Monos!

matthias

Aktiv Majik 109 options

Aktiv Majik 109 options

Re: Aktiv Majik 109 options

Re: Aktiv Majik 109 options