Playground for practical listening exercises

[Whatsmynaim]

Now when both files on the website are working like they should and can be streamed and compared, I instead prefer B.

It was only when listening to these files saved locally on my PC that I did prefer A. That was caused by Windows Media Player. After switching to VLC, B did win.

[markiteight]

I finally managed to get the clips to play reliably. This time I experimented a bit. Rather than listening through headphones at a reasonable volume I played the clips through my laptop's internal speakers at a relatively low volume, just above ambient noise, to see if I could detect a difference. Surprisingly I could, and it was quite clear. Under less-than-ideal conditions B was much easer to follow and understand.

[matthias]

Playing with MBP/Firefox/HP I prefer B

[Rutger]

Two songs: 1 and 2.
Two preamps: A and B.

What do you think? Will tell you more the 1st of December!

https://lejonklou.com/1A.MOV
https://lejonklou.com/1B.MOV
https://lejonklou.com/2A.MOV
https://lejonklou.com/2B.MOV

Thank you all for sharing your opinions and votes!

Preamp A is Superkikkin.
Preamp B is Sagatun stereo 1.7.

1.7 is a new version for both Sagatun stereo and Sagatun Mono. It consists of many small changes to power supplies, chassis ground, hardware parts like screws and cable clips, new internal torques, recalibration of power supplies and new feet. The upgrade costs SEK 4000, EUR 360 or USD 400 per unit.

What did I think of the clips when listening in the room? I think Superkikkin is better than Sagatun stereo 1.4 (I’m sorry, but I messed up the recording of it) and from credible sources Superkikkin also outperforms Sagatun Mono 1.0.

I think Sagatun stereo 1.7 is a little better than Superkikkin. They both have their different strengths, though, and on some tracks I hesitated and went back and forth repeatedly. Overall I prefer Sagatun stereo 1.7.

Volume was exactly the same on all recordings.

Very interesting comparison.

I thought Sagatun stereo 1.7 was better, everything is more in tune, and the musicians expressions are better.

[springwood64]

A or B?

A: https://photos.app.goo.gl/LBoqeVVbJ7v6WxBfA

B: https://photos.app.goo.gl/pWH27ffyf6cfJbnz6

What were we listening to ?

[Azazello]

A or B?

A: https://photos.app.goo.gl/LBoqeVVbJ7v6WxBfA

B: https://photos.app.goo.gl/pWH27ffyf6cfJbnz6

What were we listening to ?

Sorry!

It was a bunch of wall damping modules I bought on Temu vs. nothing on the walls. 😄

A was with damping and B was without.

I should probably try with fewer, but now I’ve put them in the office instead where they do a good job of limiting the echo of the room while I’m in online meetings.

[u252agz]

Two songs: 1 and 2.
Two preamps: A and B.

What do you think? Will tell you more the 1st of December!

https://lejonklou.com/1A.MOV
https://lejonklou.com/1B.MOV
https://lejonklou.com/2A.MOV
https://lejonklou.com/2B.MOV

Thank you all for sharing your opinions and votes!

Preamp A is Superkikkin.
Preamp B is Sagatun stereo 1.7.

1.7 is a new version for both Sagatun stereo and Sagatun Mono. It consists of many small changes to power supplies, chassis ground, hardware parts like screws and cable clips, new internal torques, recalibration of power supplies and new feet. The upgrade costs SEK 4000, EUR 360 or USD 400 per unit.

What did I think of the clips when listening in the room? I think Superkikkin is better than Sagatun stereo 1.4 (I’m sorry, but I messed up the recording of it) and from credible sources Superkikkin also outperforms Sagatun Mono 1.0.

I think Sagatun stereo 1.7 is a little better than Superkikkin. They both have their different strengths, though, and on some tracks I hesitated and went back and forth repeatedly. Overall I prefer Sagatun stereo 1.7.

Volume was exactly the same on all recordings.

I preferred Sagatun 1.7 - I had a clear preference and did not feel I needed to listen twice .

Maybe I should have, but I thought the Sagatun was just more musical on both tracks.

[Charlie1]

Expecting this one to divide opinion a little but let's see...

1.) K400/Majik 109: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r7yrm52c ... vymoz&dl=0
2.) K20/Kan (serial 16,xxx): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xybkkfp1 ... 5l04g&dl=0

The Kans are back from a light touch service by Andrew at Anapeach Restoration and had 50 hours run-in. One tweeter needed replacing with an original from same era. And the caps were replaced with Alcaps (50v as before). Resister was only a fraction off so left alone.

[springwood64]

1.) K400/Majik 109: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r7yrm52c ... vymoz&dl=0
2.) K20/Kan (serial 16,xxx): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xybkkfp1 ... 5l04g&dl=0

Well they sound a bit different, but I like them both equally and both engaged me.

[Hermann]

For me, the 2) reproduces music better. It's easier to listen to, while 1) sounds pleasing but unclear.

[beck]

I prefer 2)

[matthias]

Played with the big rig I prefer 2.

[David Neel]

I’ve had both speakers in the past, and I’m surprised by the margin of my preference for the kans.

[Whatsmynaim]

It's two different presentations where 1 is refined and 2 is more direct. Both are great though.

Edit: Isn't this the song that Paddy from the band Prefab Sprout really likes, and wished he’d written himself?

[u252agz]

2 for me - much preferred the Kans. just more musical.

If I could find a pristine example - would love to give them a try in my system.

Although I would still worry about someone knocking stand mounted speakers off their stands . This is a hangover from when my children were small and I switched to Floor standers .( first Ninkas , then 242s)

[lejonklou]

1.) K400/Majik 109: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r7yrm52c ... vymoz&dl=0
2.) K20/Kan (serial 16,xxx): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xybkkfp1 ... 5l04g&dl=0

Well they sound a bit different, but I like them both equally and both engaged me.

I feel the same. I enjoy both.

[tpetsch]

Agree, both sound very nice and tuneful, but I'd have to give the nod to the Kans with their ability to greater get the listener more involved emotionally.

[Charlie1]

Thanks for listening everyone.

Expected a few more 109 votes.

Agree with all comments really.

Need to see how I get on in the long term but they will most likely replace the 109s.

[Charlie1]

I’ve had both speakers in the past, and I’m surprised by the margin of my preference for the kans.

Reminds me of the comparison I did between a modern Majik-i (with Dynamik) vs Wakonda/LK140. The modern Linn amp was nice but a bit boring somehow. I recall you preferred the LK amps that time too.

I find the 109s easier to follow (in a way) but less interesting with it, so not what you'd expect from a tune dem developed speaker.

[Spannko]

I can hear how 109’s might appeal to some, particularly with the opening bass line, but like most here, I just find the Kans more engaging.

[markiteight]

I lean toward the Kans as well, but perhaps that's because I'm surprised at how much I liked them in these clips. I enjoyed both a lot...these clips are possibly the best showing I've heard from both speakers.

[fatjulio]

I like the Kans too. What version do you have?

[Charlie1]

I like the Kans too. What version do you have?

v1, serial 16,xxx

[Charlie1]

I lean toward the Kans as well, but perhaps that's because I'm surprised at how much I liked them in these clips. I enjoyed both a lot...these clips are possibly the best showing I've heard from both speakers.

Thanks Mi8 - that's encouraging to know

[Øyvind I]

Kan, by a great margin I must say. Takes 1-2 second to hear how much more engaging they reproduce sound. Having written that, I did'nt find the M109 engaging at all in this clip with this set up. Have heard them significantly better (read tunefull) with different set-up, both active and passive.