Linn 2250

[audiokaas]

Hi, I need some opinions....

I currently have 2 2250 driving Ninka's actively. They are an early (90xxx) and late (115xxx) model.
I worry they will sound different when I use them to drive 242 passively as some people claim there was a major sound change from early to late models (Linn histories) Currently I don't hear that as one does the bass and the other the treble.
Any insights as to the mk1 vs mk2 being real?

Secondly I wonder whether Dynamiking them is worthwile as opposed to putting the money towards a 2200 driving the 242 passively

Let the opinions flow freely.... :mrgreen:

[lejonklou]

I havent seen anything that indicates a mk1 and mk2 version of 2250. Different specimen can sound alike, but to some extent you can tweak that away. One thing is the direction and twist of the internal cable going from power supply to main board, another is tightening the main board screws properly (preferably with a torque screwdriver) and the IC clamps (big difference on those).

Probably the only way to find out for sure whether your 2250's do sound equally good is to remove the aktiv cards from both amps and compare them on a set of passive speakers...

I haven't heard Dynamik in 2250 yet, but it does improve the 2100 quite a bit. I always felt these two were rather close in performance, with the 2250 sounding big, fat and impressive (sort of an American sound) and the 2100 more dry, correct and Scottish ( :mrgreen: ).

If you intend to stay with passive speakers, one 2200/D will be a better option than any of the above. There really isn't that much to gain from bi-amping passive speakers, in my opinion. Not sure how a pre-Dynamik 2200 will compare to a 2100/D or 2250/D, though.

[anthony]

Agree with everything Fredrik says. It is refreshing to find you are not into biamping, I tried 4 solos on 242s and preferred 2!

[lejonklou]

Very interesting, Anthony!

My guess is that your 4 Solo's didn't perform exactly the same. I have found that when multi-amping passive speakers, the power amps need to sound almost exactly the same. Otherwise it's better to only use the ones that sound best.

This used to be well known when it came to mixing different models of power amplifiers in passive multi-amping (like: one Klout is better than one Klout and one LK100). But I found it also applies when two amps of the same kind don't sound alike (which is common, even when the serial numbers are close). Or if one of the amps gets a worse sounding speaker cable, or even a worse power cord.

With aktiv speakers, you don't have this option of using less amps. There's always one channel per drive unit. The only thing one can then play with is where all the channels should go. And if you bother to find out which channels sound the best, they should usually be connected to the treble for best results. Optimising an aktiv system this way can be very time consuming!

[springwood64]

I currently drive my Espeks aktiv with the 2200 on the treble and the 4200 on the mid and bass. From what you say could it be that putting the treble and mid together on the 4200 might make more sense?

The 2200 and 4200 are not close in terms of serial number and they have different power chords.

[JW]

I tried 4 solos on 242s and preferred 2!

:mrgreen:
Whereas I prefer 2 Twins instead of 1 8)

JW

[anthony]

Hi Springwood and JW

When you use a 4200 or klimax twin, the 2/4 channels share the same power supply and power cord. This probably reduces the differences, and as regards espeks it would certainly be worth trying 2200 on bass, my guess is it would be better.

[JW]

When you use a 4200 or klimax twin, the 2/4 channels share the same power supply and power cord. This probably reduces the differences, and as regards espeks it would certainly be worth trying 2200 on bass, my guess is it would be better.

I'll be tackling the room acoustics first, save up for some more Twins after that and go active with 5 of them. Some day :P

JW

[audiokaas]

Thanks for all the great insights....

I guess the 2250's are on their way out.
Now all I have to go and listen to is the old discussion of 5100 active vs 2200 passive....


Probably sould get a pair of solo's and stay passive :mrgreen:


Thanks all

[Charlie1]

Now all I have to go and listen to is the old discussion of 5100 active vs 2200 passive....

If you think that you'll ever end up with Passive Klimax 350s or Komris that you want to aktivate then maybe consider the 4200 instead (you would need two though) :D Just a bit more future proof.

[lejonklou]

I currently drive my Espeks aktiv with the 2200 on the treble and the 4200 on the mid and bass. From what you say could it be that putting the treble and mid together on the 4200 might make more sense?

I agree with anthony here: I suspect the 2200 should go to the bass of Espek and the 4200 to mid+treble. This is contrary to most speakers, where the treble is the most important drive unit and should have the best amp. But if you check the passive modes of Espeks (as seen on the connecting boards at the back), you will find that "bi-wire passive" actually has the bass separated from mid+treble.

At first I thought this might be a mistake. So I made a comparison between 1) the standard one wire to bass, one to mid+treble and 2) one wire to treble, one to mid+bass. Actually the standard option was clearly better! If I may speculate about the reason, it might be that mid+treble are close together and both firing forward. Therefore their "sameness" and the absence of low frequency bass currents on their common wire is more important than separating treble.

Does this really indicate that the 2200 should go to the bass? I'm not sure, but maybe.

If you do swap the aktiv cards around and put the 2200 on bass, please report what you think of it! The differences that these kind of optimisations bring are often bigger than one expects.

Perhaps I don't need to mention it, but the interconnects from the preamp should go to treble, then (internally?) to mid and then to bass. If you use the internal signal wires, make sure they're twisted exactly 7,5 turns and if you wish, do check their direction as well (you'll have to listen and compare).

The 2200 and 4200 are not close in terms of serial number and they have different power chords.

Put the best sounding power cords on both amps! Definitely worth the small expense.

[audiokaas]

another is tightening the main board screws properly (preferably with a torque screwdriver) and the IC clamps (big difference on those).

That seems agood idea what kind of torques are we talking here can you give a number for the IC's and mainboard?

I presume this would cut down on microfonie effects so would bitumen work equally well?

[lejonklou]

The IC clamps should be slightly above 0.5 Nm, main board below 0.5. Since all torque tools vary, especially in their lower regions, it's best to evaluate by ear. The IC clamps are very easy to determine. Try them at 0.5 and work your way up. The sound of the amp will get better and better until it suddenly starts to ring in a metallic way. Then you go back to the previous value.

Bitumen does something different and is quite tricky to use properly. I have never had success with it on a circuit board or a component. The enclosure often benefits from a certain amount, but exceeding that amount causes overdamping and a rapid deterioration of musicality.

[springwood64]

I agree with anthony here: I suspect the 2200 should go to the bass of Espek and the 4200 to mid+treble. This is contrary to most speakers, where the treble is the most important drive unit and should have the best amp. But if you check the passive modes of Espeks (as seen on the connecting boards at the back), you will find that "bi-wire passive" actually has the bass separated from mid+treble.

If you do swap the aktiv cards around and put the 2200 on bass, please report what you think of it! The differences that these kind of optimisations bring are often bigger than one expects.

I have just swapped the treble and bass aktiv cards. This means that the 4200 has treble (channels 2 and 4) and mid (channels 1 and 3), and the 2200 has bass.

Immediate impression is both a noticeable improvement in flow and detail and a surprising shift in the character of the sound away from 'warm' to 'dry'. It is clear that the bass is better defined than previously and the increase in detail is striking.

I reset the gain for all the channels to default (previously the bass had been dropped one notch), and I suspect that I will need to revisit the speaker positioning.

Perhaps I don't need to mention it, but the interconnects from the preamp should go to treble, then (internally?) to mid and then to bass. If you use the internal signal wires, make sure they're twisted exactly 7,5 turns and if you wish, do check their direction as well (you'll have to listen and compare).

I had previously done this, but because the treble is on channels 2 and 4, I reversed the direction of both the internal cables

Put the best sounding power cords on both amps! Definitely worth the small expense.

I checked and neither of the power cables are the same as the new ones I got from Linn, so I will order a couple of replacements.

[springwood64]

After further listening I am struck by how big an improvement this change is. Not only is the system more tuneful and much more detailed, but the soundstage has really opened up.

[anthony]

Excellent a free improvement!

[lejonklou]

Very nice to hear this, Pete!