Lejonklou Tundra

Post by **lejonklou** » 2012-08-26 19:23

Thank you for the feedback, Flatcoat!

I now have heard from three separate customers wanting to try Tundra amplifiers with aktiv 350's. Therefore I think it's time to check the possibilities of adapting the bass signal level for this combination to work properly.

Technically, it's an easy thing to solve. But as it inevitably will affect the quality of the bass signal, some experimentation is required to find out which method sounds best. And whether it will be good enough.

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2012-08-27 09:12

lejonklou wrote:But as it inevitably will affect the quality of the bass signal, some experimentation is required to find out which method sounds best. And whether it will be good enough.

Good idea.
Based on the fact that the bass amp (and the input signal to the bass amp) is less important my guess is that this can work.
It's often better optimizing the mid/treble qualities.
Good Luck!

Or start selling huge bass traps ;-)

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2012-08-28 04:11

I have to wonder if you couldn't just leave the internal bass amps in the 350s connected to the midbass speaker terminals instead of using the line level connection option. Then you would have the internal circuit already used to balance out the bass when using the 350s passive. The question would be whether the midbass signal going to its amp from the crossover carries the low bass signals as well and the internal aktiv bass crossover is used or if that crossover is bypassed and the crossover for the bass is in the Klimax crossover as well? Anybody know for sure?

Otherwise it seems like an inline attenuator of 8dB going to the 350 internal bass amps would do the trick but there would be the question of potential loss of musical performance.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2012-08-29 11:47

ThomasOK wrote:I have to wonder if you couldn't just leave the internal bass amps in the 350s connected to the midbass speaker terminals instead of using the line level connection option. Then you would have the internal circuit already used to balance out the bass when using the 350s passive.

I would guess that the signal reaching the midbass driver on fully aktiv 350P's is high pass filtered (the separate aktiv filter removes the lowest bass from the signal). But I haven't seen any specifications, so I don't know. Anyone who has them?

If the midbass isn't high pass filtered, the best sounding solution is most likely what you describe above.

Otherwise it seems like an inline attenuator of 8dB going to the 350 internal bass amps would do the trick but there would be the question of potential loss of musical performance.

Yes, this is the second option. Attenuators always degrade signal quality, but they can be made in different ways and the effect can be minimised. Again, some specifications on the bass amplifiers in the 350's would be welcome. And then some experimentation will be required, to find out which solution and what exact values work best.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2012-09-03 20:52

Thanks to technical information from Anthony about the 350P, the Tundra to aktiv 350P configuration has been solved.

I will post a new topic explaining how to use Tundra with aktiv 350P's.

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2012-09-26 09:26

I’ve spent the past 10 days listening to a Tundra at home, so decided to update this thread.

The Tundra sound quality is much better than the 4200, in my opinion. The Tundra is cleaner, clearer and much much more dynamic. The only time I’ve heard sounds come and go this fast was a 300B single-ended amp with very efficient speakers. The Tundra plays as loud as I would ever wish to listen. I didn’t experience any clipping.

Musically, I find both amps have their own strengths and can outperform one another in different ways. In line with my initial listening sessions, when Fredrik visited the UK, the Tundra is more tuneful when I use the Tune Method (silent repetition) to follow a single instrument or vocal. This ties in with my normal listening, when I’ve noticed several times that a bass line or piano melody is more tuneful and engaging when played through the Tundra.

Where the 4200 is stronger is when I widen the scope of my Tune Method comparisons. When I attempt to silently repeat all of the instruments and vocals simultaneously, then I find the 4200 easier to follow. Again, my normal listening ties in with this and I find most music comes together better via the 4200, especially when there is plenty going on. Whereas, more simple music, where there is perhaps one stand out element such as a vocal or piano, can be overall more engaging via the Tundra.

The Tundra is certainly musically engaging and I enjoy listening to it, but overall I find the 4200 more to my taste, more of the time.

Flatcoat · Post by **Flatcoat** » 2012-09-27 19:53

After driving my 350ps with a Tundra, I have reconnected a KCT dynamik for the last week or so, and my conclusion is that I prefer the sound of the system driven by the Tundra. All I know is that I am not listening as much to the system, and I have a feeling that bass control with the Twin is not as good as the Tundra.

I still think the Tundra is phenomenal value for money.

rowlandhills · Post by **rowlandhills** » 2012-09-27 21:50

Charlie1 wrote:The Tundra is certainly musically engaging and I enjoy listening to it, but overall I find the 4200 more to my taste, more of the time.

Interesting stuff Charlie. Unusual to find something that seems clearly better by tune dem, but only on simple music...

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2012-09-28 09:18

rowlandhills wrote:Interesting stuff Charlie. Unusual to find something that seems clearly better by tune dem, but only on simple music...

Perhaps that wasn't the best way to put things. I don't want to give the idea anything is fixed like that. The 4200 gives a better sense of connection/harmony between all the musicians, as if they have been playing together for years. The Tundra is more exciting and makes individual musicians sound more talented and interesting to listen to. It would be nice to have the best of both in equal measure, but I fear this requires rather expensive Linn mono amps, or waiting for Fredrik's own mono amps.

At the end of the day, I think folks need to get a dem and decide themselves. *IF* I'm right, then it's indeed unusual that two products can draw different opinions based on musical criteria. As Fredrik has said many times, people usually agree when using the Tune Method. So, I think anyone interested needs to make up their own mind, based on what best engages them. Flatcoat is definitely not in the minority in loving his Tundra and even preferring it to his KCT/D. Based on overall comments, on and off the forums, I'd say I'm the one in the minority here, but I think it's important we all openly express our experience on the forum as we've always done.

Rufus McDufus · Post by **Rufus McDufus** » 2012-09-28 09:51

Life would be terribly dull if everyone agreed on everything, and hi-fi in particular is very subjective. I'm not terribly keen on most Linn speakers, particularly the more expensive ones, but dare not say so over on the other place, though I did hear some 140s the other day and thought they were rather good.

tokenbrit · Post by **tokenbrit** » 2012-09-28 19:10

Rufus McDufus wrote:Life would be terribly dull if everyone agreed on everything, and hi-fi in particular is very subjective. I'm not terribly keen on most Linn speakers, particularly the more expensive ones, but dare not say so over on the other place, though I did hear some 140s the other day and thought they were rather good.

Tempted to say 'no, it wouldn't' in dispute & emphasis of your first point ;)

I had a Tundra (1.0) for a weekend. I think I can understand what Charlie1 means - there's clearer separation of the elements of the music & musicians with the Tundra over the 4200. That can work both ways in making it easier to follow each element but, maybe, losing something of the cohesion of the overall performance, if that makes sense? If you can follow each element of the tune better, does that automatically mean you can follow the whole tune better, or do you perhaps notice yourself piecing it together again to follow it all as one? I say "maybe" & "perhaps" because I don't recall that being the case for me... For me, reverting to the 4200 sounded a little disappointing so I'm saving for a Tundra after a good re-audition, particularly against a KCT.

Similar to you Rufus, I've never been terribly keen on Linn speakers either but, oddly, have the opposite view: I prefer Linn's high-end; less so their cheaper speakers. (shame for me & my limited budget as their high end is well out of reach)

I think it really just goes to show that we can share our opinions gained & expressed via a common method in Tune Dem, but that we each need to listen and make up our own minds rather than have them dulled by just agreeing with someone else - wouldn't you agree? :)

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2012-09-29 08:41

Rufus McDufus wrote:Life would be terribly dull if everyone agreed on everything, and hi-fi in particular is very subjective.

No offence but I disagree.
1/ Using tune dem, it's very objective.
2/ agreeing is not dull. I notice a trend on the Net. Many seek confrontation just for the sake of it... THAT is dull. That said some people don't have the guts to disagree...

Having said that, I'm very happy to read the discussions on this forum!
No drama queens, just down to earth people with a common goal - improving the musical performance.

Back to Tundra.
Working with R/D, I know the most valuable input on products is honest feedback from very demanding customers.
Also, the MOST important aspect is not the current performance level, it's to constantly improve.

If Tundra can compete with the very best amps today, imagine the future...

Rufus McDufus · Post by **Rufus McDufus** » 2012-09-29 20:52

I agree with what you're saying Music Lover! Tune dem is a method to remove subjectivity, but I personally don't think that as a tool it covers all the requirements for producing a good hi-fi. It's probably the best tool there is though. I realise this forum is tune-dem central and I'm very likely to make a fool of myself!

Linn 242s are a good case in point. They are a classic case of a speaker which performs well in tune-dem, but to my ears at least I simply don't like them. The main reason beaing the lack of low frequency being produced. It just doesn't sound that realistic to me.
We all differ in what we want from hi-fi. I love breaking down a piece instrument by instrument and following each line (Tundra is good for this, and it's no surprise that tune dem played a large part in its design), but also love realism - feeling that an artist is sitting right in front of me.
The reason I'm not that keen on 350A's (I've not heard 350P's) is that it sounds like the instruments are direct injected into the sound board. It's fabulously clean and technically near perfect but I don't get the impression (say) a guitar is miked and I feel it loses out because of that - it's too sterile for my liking. But again they tune dem very well.

sandgrown · Post by **sandgrown** » 2013-01-12 11:02

I've just bought flatcoat's tundra, and I'm really looking forward to hearing it.

Is it possible to use it bi-amped with a KCT/d on my 242s?

Thanks, Neil

Rufus McDufus · Post by **Rufus McDufus** » 2013-01-12 11:27

Well done sandgrown! I'm waiting to hear the Tundra mono but it is going to have to be very good to make me want to replace my 2 Tundra stereos which I'm using with just one output of each single wired. I've tried biamped but after initially marvelling at the extra detail I found it preferable just using a single channel per speaker. Your mileage may vary of course and if you have a spare KCT lying around then it's certainly worth a try.

The folks who switch to Tundra monos will presumably result in some Tundra stereos coming on the market. This is a shame in some ways and because not many people are aware how good they are, they may be difficult to sell. Those who get a chance to listen to it will realise that even new these are fabulous value so will be bargain of the century secondhand!

Rufus McDufus · Post by **Rufus McDufus** » 2013-01-12 11:33

Oh I forgot to add more of my opinion - I find the KCT maybe the equal of the Tundra stereo, but quite coloured in its sound, which I'm not so keen on. It definitely has a character of its own, almost round and fruity in a way (!) But also laid-back. The Tundra stereo on the other hand is quite transparent in character yet very dynamic. I think they will be a very odd match together, but certainly worth trying!

sandgrown · Post by **sandgrown** » 2013-01-12 12:06

Thanks Rufus!

I used to run my 242 with just one kct/d, which I was very happy with.

I then added another twin, but it's pre-chakra and not dynamic.

I currently have these in a bi-amp configuration, with the older twin on bass and the kctd on the 3k array. I have to say, the bass has lost a bit of it's grip, which I guess makes sense, so I've never really been happy with this current set up.

So I could just go back to 1 kctd, or I could swap them around and see what that's like.

But anyway - I've added a tundra 1.1 in to the mix now...(!)

And here's the other thing: I've actually got a pair of 242 klimax tuneboxes, so i could even try going active if I get another two tundras, once the monos come on the scene, as you suggest.

I was thinking that I should stop messing about and just save up for some dynamiked solos, and get rid of all the rest, but that's going to take some time, and do like to have a little experiment and a tweak every so often!

So then I thought, well I'll just get some of these tundra monos when they come out because I bet everyone will be saying they're better than dynamiked solos. But when I saw flatcoat's stereo tundra I thought I'd get it and see where it fits in my house.

The other option would be to try it in my kitchen, which has 109s actively driven by a 6100 at the moment. Or if it's better on the 242s then use the older KCT on the 109s...

decisions, decisions!

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2013-01-12 12:20

Hi,

One Twin/D will be better than bi amping with the 2nd non dynamik Twin.

I relly enjoy the Tundra 242 combination, I also love Solos/D and 242.

If you already own tuneboxes, it would make sense to use 5 Tundras as you cannot mix Twins and Tundras.

I am about to try a 5Twin/Tunebox 242 system myself!

sandgrown · Post by **sandgrown** » 2013-01-12 12:45

look forward to your feedback anthony!

so if I understand you correctly, you're saying I can't use kct and tundra togeher - do you mean bi-amping, or with tuneboxes?

or both?

Flatcoat · Post by **Flatcoat** » 2013-01-12 13:01

First - thanks for buying the Tundra (posted this morning).

As to your question - you can not mix the Tundra with Linn amps when using them with one set of speakers. The gain on the Tundra is different from Linn amps so can not be used either bi-amping, or with tuneboxes in combination with Linn amps.

I am using a Tundra to drive my 109s to great effect.

But also you possibly could sell the KCTs and buy 4 more Tundras and go active with the 242's !!

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions.

sandgrown wrote:look forward to your feedback anthony!

so if I understand you correctly, you're saying I can't use kct and tundra togeher - do you mean bi-amping, or with tuneboxes?

or both?

sandgrown · Post by **sandgrown** » 2013-01-12 13:07

Thanks for clarifying about the gains, flatcoat.

will be interesting to hear what anthony thinks about active 242s with 5 twins and a tunebox.

if the tundra is as good as everyone is saying then i doubt I'll be investing in any more kcts.

so then it will be a decision between active 242s with klimax tunebox and 5 tundras or (gulp) maybe 10 monos????

matthias · Post by **matthias** » 2013-01-12 13:15

anthony wrote:Hi,
One Twin/D will be better than bi amping with the 2nd non dynamik Twin.

+1

Single amping with Solo/D (or Tundra Mono?) will be better than bi amping with Twin/D.

matthias

rowlandhills · Post by **rowlandhills** » 2013-01-12 23:08

sandgrown wrote: so then it will be a decision between active 242s with klimax tunebox and 5 tundras or (gulp) maybe 10 monos????

You know you want ten monos. I reckon Fredrik and Anthony would be happy to sell and install them too... :)

sandgrown · Post by **sandgrown** » 2013-01-17 19:28

Guys - I just have to tell you:

I hooked up my new Tundra half an hour ago to my 109s in the kitchen.

First impression: very detailed, but a bit 'cold' and unemotional.

Now, half an hour later; I am trying to prepare dinner, and I keep turning and staring at the speakers because I can't believe the MUSIC that is coming out of them. I'm listening to 24bit FLACS via ADS/0, and it's closer to listening to my LP12 through my 242s.

Just wonderful! I can't concentrate on preparing my dinner....!

Thanks to Fredrik and Flatcoat for allowing me in to this world!

Keep warm in the snow, stay in and listen to Tundra!

Flatcoat · Post by **Flatcoat** » 2013-01-19 04:01

I did tell you not to listen to the Tundra until it has been playing music for 30 minutes !

This does make the Tundra a difficult amp to do A B comparisons with because you have to wait about 30 minutes before it starts to 'sing'.

sandgrown wrote: First impression: very detailed, but a bit 'cold' and unemotional.

Now, half an hour later; I am trying to prepare dinner, and I keep turning and staring at the speakers because I can't believe the MUSIC that is coming out of them. I'm listening to 24bit FLACS via ADS/0, and it's closer to listening to my LP12 through my 242s.

Just wonderful! I can't concentrate on preparing my dinner!

Lejonklou Tundra

tundra

Re: tundra