Tundra 2.2 vs Linn C4200/D and KCT/D
Posted: 2017-10-03 19:26
I was recently in a position to upgrade my Chakra 4200/D and considering the Tundra 2.2, having read so many positive forum posts the past year or so, particularly the claimed ability to make music more engaging. I was also considering a second hand KCT/D.
Tony Lockwood (‘anthony’ on this forum) organised the dem. I’ve known Tony for some years. It’s always a pleasure to visit and spend time with him and I greatly value his opinion. He has remained consistent throughout this period and I’ve often realised the truth of his advice several years later.
The system comprised a Klimax Katalyst DSM and Akurate pair of 242 mark 2’s fitted with upgraded stands. We utilised the KDSMs digital volume control. Volume levels were pretty high (~60) and offset applied when switching between Tundra and Linn amps.
We began listening with my 4200. It sounded good. My first thought was, “Why am I bothering to upgrade? I should use the money to buy 242s right away.” We listened some more and I had a slight feeling that the 4200 was sometimes struggling, like a car towing a caravan that’s starting to disrupt the car’s handling. It was still pretty good overall though.
Tony switched over to the Tundra. I could immediately sense that the presentation had significantly changed. It was a lot more lifelike and less like a HiFi system. The main melody kicked in and I realised the music was more tuneful too. We switched back to the 4200 and the tunes were clearly harder to follow.
Next, we played a new track on the Tundra before switching to the KCT/D. Resolution levels were broadly similar to the Tundra, i.e. less rough and distorted than the 4200. But it had the same Linn house sound. In a way, the added resolution and clarity made it easier to distinguish the signature sound imprinted on the music. Whereas, I couldn’t guess how the Tundra was distorting the signal. The KCT sounded somewhat mechanical by comparison, like a powerful machine that synthesised the music into an appealing facsimile. The Tundra just sounded like real people playing real instruments. The KCT was a bit less tuneful too, so harder to follow the music. But I sensed the KCT was better able to man handle the demanding 242s, although the Tundra was close enough for me.
However, the Tundra’s real strength was its ability to make music more engaging. The Tundra quickly drew me into each unfamiliar track that Tony played. Whereas, the KCT couldn’t compete in this regard. By comparison, the KCT kind of sat back and created a pleasant reproduction that I could happily listen to or happily ignore. This ability might be preferable for background music, but was not what I was hoping and searching for. Ultimately, this is what made my decision relatively easy.
I took delivery of a new Tundra 2.2 yesterday. It immediately sounded fab straight out the box, even though it was cold and not run-in. I’m delighted with it already, especially as it is doing the same trick, namely, more easily and thoroughly drawing me into the music.
The improvement in tunefulness is even more pronounced at home. I emailed Fredrik and said it was ‘tuneful+’. I keep finding album tracks (and B-sides) that sound like I’ve heard them for the first time. A lot of plain Jane album filler has blossomed into music worth listening to. This is a very welcome development as my system hasn’t been as engaging as I felt it should be, despite improvements brought about from the clips we’ve all shared the past couple of years.
In terms of HiFi, the sound is much clearer and lifelike. Bass is tighter with much more punch. Vocals are much clearer and more meaningful. Top end is better too, with less distortion and sibilance and more lifelike cymbals. The Tundra can’t quite offer the same scale of shift from a quiet to a loud passage but the added bass weight and punch does offset much of that.
So, I’m really pleased and just want to mention one last thing. Fredrik’s attention to detail is another key factor in choosing the Tundra. His making sure each component matches his reference does take away the worry that maybe you ended up with one of the poorer ones. Great stuff Fredrik!
Tony Lockwood (‘anthony’ on this forum) organised the dem. I’ve known Tony for some years. It’s always a pleasure to visit and spend time with him and I greatly value his opinion. He has remained consistent throughout this period and I’ve often realised the truth of his advice several years later.
The system comprised a Klimax Katalyst DSM and Akurate pair of 242 mark 2’s fitted with upgraded stands. We utilised the KDSMs digital volume control. Volume levels were pretty high (~60) and offset applied when switching between Tundra and Linn amps.
We began listening with my 4200. It sounded good. My first thought was, “Why am I bothering to upgrade? I should use the money to buy 242s right away.” We listened some more and I had a slight feeling that the 4200 was sometimes struggling, like a car towing a caravan that’s starting to disrupt the car’s handling. It was still pretty good overall though.
Tony switched over to the Tundra. I could immediately sense that the presentation had significantly changed. It was a lot more lifelike and less like a HiFi system. The main melody kicked in and I realised the music was more tuneful too. We switched back to the 4200 and the tunes were clearly harder to follow.
Next, we played a new track on the Tundra before switching to the KCT/D. Resolution levels were broadly similar to the Tundra, i.e. less rough and distorted than the 4200. But it had the same Linn house sound. In a way, the added resolution and clarity made it easier to distinguish the signature sound imprinted on the music. Whereas, I couldn’t guess how the Tundra was distorting the signal. The KCT sounded somewhat mechanical by comparison, like a powerful machine that synthesised the music into an appealing facsimile. The Tundra just sounded like real people playing real instruments. The KCT was a bit less tuneful too, so harder to follow the music. But I sensed the KCT was better able to man handle the demanding 242s, although the Tundra was close enough for me.
However, the Tundra’s real strength was its ability to make music more engaging. The Tundra quickly drew me into each unfamiliar track that Tony played. Whereas, the KCT couldn’t compete in this regard. By comparison, the KCT kind of sat back and created a pleasant reproduction that I could happily listen to or happily ignore. This ability might be preferable for background music, but was not what I was hoping and searching for. Ultimately, this is what made my decision relatively easy.
I took delivery of a new Tundra 2.2 yesterday. It immediately sounded fab straight out the box, even though it was cold and not run-in. I’m delighted with it already, especially as it is doing the same trick, namely, more easily and thoroughly drawing me into the music.
The improvement in tunefulness is even more pronounced at home. I emailed Fredrik and said it was ‘tuneful+’. I keep finding album tracks (and B-sides) that sound like I’ve heard them for the first time. A lot of plain Jane album filler has blossomed into music worth listening to. This is a very welcome development as my system hasn’t been as engaging as I felt it should be, despite improvements brought about from the clips we’ve all shared the past couple of years.
In terms of HiFi, the sound is much clearer and lifelike. Bass is tighter with much more punch. Vocals are much clearer and more meaningful. Top end is better too, with less distortion and sibilance and more lifelike cymbals. The Tundra can’t quite offer the same scale of shift from a quiet to a loud passage but the added bass weight and punch does offset much of that.
So, I’m really pleased and just want to mention one last thing. Fredrik’s attention to detail is another key factor in choosing the Tundra. His making sure each component matches his reference does take away the worry that maybe you ended up with one of the poorer ones. Great stuff Fredrik!