Majik 109 Modification

Hardware and software, modifications and DIY

Moderator: Staff

cortina
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 2011-09-05 05:13

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by cortina » 2018-11-09 15:58

Ferdydurke wrote:
His observation "some may prefer the more vivid presentation from the cheaper brother" could explain why Linn chose the cheaper Woofer for their "small" Majik System.
Still unsure wether it's a good idea to change the well-balanced configuration of the 109-as-is...
Intersting report about the drivers. Thanks!
As for the reason why Linn chose the cheaper may well have been simply to stay within budget. There will always be trade-offs, especially on entry level products.

acaro
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 2015-04-30 01:53

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by acaro » 2018-11-30 01:21

Hi Everyone,
I didn't realize their was so much activity on this topic. There wasn't any activity on this topic for over 3 years. Just a few comments on this modification based on my experience over the last few years. I really love these speakers with the mod and would probably switched them had I not discovered this. I have switched back and forth on the woofers a few times and can say that in my opinion, there really is no comparison - the modded speakers are on another level of better across the board. It took about a month of operation for them to finally settle into their best. Simply said, the bass extension is much better with way more authority. I am hard pressed to tell that these are not floor standers most of the time. They do change the signature of the sound but that was to my own individual liking. I find that the mod sounds better with a broader range of music genres.

One other important thing I would note is that because of the deeper bass extension, the need to make them more sure footed is very important. The recoil stabilizers make a very significant difference in terms of ensuring that the speaker cabinets can handle the increased energy being produced by the speakers. As a test, I have removed the recoil stabilizers and can say that for sure there is a material deterioration in sound.

Also, my Majik 109s are active and always have been so I don't know if that makes a difference vis a vis non-active versions. It was also mentioned to me by someone at Linn that the reason they didn't use this driver in the first place was definitely a cost decision. He said that given the high cost of the excellent grade cabinetry, something had to give to keep it at the price point they wanted. As mentioned before, the person I spoke to at Linn was one of the designers of this speaker and he himself has the same mod in his speakers. Happy to answer any questions.

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2018-11-30 08:33

Thanks Acaro

For me, all began from this thread.

After a month or so and 100 hours, I can confirm that the mod 109's are a different beast, a lot better bass and overall integration with 2k array.

Mine are driven passive though. The only cons that I would underline is that the sound became slightly bright.

In the next few months I'm going to try a pair of 5mt. Linn K20 and Naim standard RCA/DIN interconnect from Slipsik to the pre, instead of 2.5mt of (old) Linn K200 and Linn Silver.

M.
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2018-11-30 15:47

acaro wrote:
2018-11-30 01:21

One other important thing I would note is that because of the deeper bass extension, the need to make them more sure footed is very important. The recoil stabilizers make a very significant difference in terms of ensuring that the speaker cabinets can handle the increased energy being produced by the speakers. As a test, I have removed the recoil stabilizers and can say that for sure there is a material deterioration in sound.
Just checked the recoil stabilizers on the Primacoustic website; too high (in term of mm) for my situation.
May you suggest a similar product, just a litttle bit low (up to 30 mm)?

Thanks

M.
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2018-12-03 23:22

Just found these for less than 25€

https://www.adamhall.com/shop/je-en/stu ... /pad-eco-2

Any good?
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

acaro
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 2015-04-30 01:53

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by acaro » 2018-12-06 05:05

Those look good and fairly inexpensive. The primeacoustics are heavy with a metal plate in it. The ones you are looking at look like they may only be foam? Also, the PA come in angled versions which may compensate for the thickness?

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2018-12-06 08:52

acaro wrote:
2018-12-06 05:05
Those look good and fairly inexpensive. The primeacoustics are heavy with a metal plate in it. The ones you are looking at look like they may only be foam? Also, the PA come in angled versions which may compensate for the thickness?
Yes, only foam

The angled version of the PA are still too height.

M.
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

Ferdydurke
New member
New member
Posts: 7
Joined: 2018-10-15 23:31
Location: Madrid

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Ferdydurke » 2018-12-10 20:25

Thanks, acaro, for reconsidering your former thread (didn't pay atention to how old it was in my first post...), very interesting topic!

I would really like to follow your example but I'm not very familiar with this kind of upgrades. Perhaps you or someone else can help me to solve so basic a problem as how to get off grills and rubber rings without damaging them. With my once beloved Keilidhs there was no problem at all, but with the 109ers I'm not sure how to do that (the painting of the grill is coming off so fast, it seems, even if you stare at it a little to intensely...). Second: Did you or someone else consider a rewiring of the "innards" of these speakers, once open, or is that just no issue for improvement?

Asking again: Should one drive the modded speakers in active mode to be able to compensate the slightly inferior sensibility? Using active cards there might be no issue right now; just asking because I thought about changing my 6100D in the future for something like Tundra2 but can neither afford nor house tree of them so I would have to return to passive then...

Why modifying those nice speakers: Considering my former Keilidhs and Espek, both run active, I must say that these little ones do impress me above money-value-ratio. I chose them blindly, without auditioning, when moving from Berlin to Madrid where restricted space made me looking for relatively-close-to-wall-placed-on a-heavy&solid-sideboard-speakers. The 109 where the only option within the Linn world, and i could just get them in exchange for Espek/activ cards and I didn't regret it. I found them in some ways even better than 3x more expensive Espeks, especially because of the superior 2K-array, I guess. Still lacking things though: If I can't have real full range here, at least I'd like to have a neater bass with realistic colouring of the different instruments, more insight and space around them.

I apreciate your thoughts and recomendations,
Ferdy
Kuzma TT | Transfig. Aria | stst Agmen | AK/0 | ADS/0 | 6100D | Majik 109 | V200 & Audeze LCD2

Winston67
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2018-11-21 21:01

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Winston67 » 2018-12-18 21:30

Really interesting thread. Question for those who have done this modification: did you need to do any soldering, or do the existing wires slide off the stock woofer and on to the replacement woofer? Also interested to know if everyone who has done this mod is still happy with it. Thanks.

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2018-12-18 23:01

More than happy with it

For technical questions, wait for Marco who did mine

M
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

Winston67
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2018-11-21 21:01

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Winston67 » 2018-12-23 17:43

Thanks - would be interested to pick up any instructions from Marco or anyone else who has done the installation himself.

acaro
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 2015-04-30 01:53

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by acaro » 2018-12-26 13:08

The wires need to be soldered.

acaro
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 2015-04-30 01:53

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by acaro » 2018-12-28 17:03

The level of skill to mod the woofers is quite low. The grill is easily removed by gently forcing it up along the edges using a fine nail or a strong safety pin - work your way around the woofer and it will eventually pop off. If I recall correctly, there are 6 screws which need to be removed which are affixed to the woofer. This woofer itself might be a bit tricky to remove as the gasket between the woofer and cabinet was well sealed and seated and took some time to finesse it off. It will come off - just be patient to work slowly around applying gentle pressure to lift.

There was another forum that gave excellent instructions on how to do this for converting the 109s for active mode. Same procedure except you don't need to flip the connectors and you will need to snip/resolder the terminal leads.

One last thing is regarding torquing the screws. Don't over or under tighten as this really impacts the sound. Take your cue for the tightness necessary from how you unscrew the original woofer.

Regards.
Alan

Winston67
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2018-11-21 21:01

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Winston67 » 2019-01-03 16:56

Thanks Alan. In one of your prior comments you observed that the upgrade, while worthwhile, resulted in a brighter sound. I know this is hard to verbalize, but can you elaborate on this? I ask because most of my equipment is solid state and probably doesn't need to go much brighter, and my experience of Linn speakers (Tukan, Katan, 109) is that they already tend to be pretty unveiled/accurate. I am weighing whether the improvement in lower frequencies is worth the "brightness" price (if it is a price and not a benefit). Thanks.

acaro
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 2015-04-30 01:53

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by acaro » 2019-01-04 01:01

I don't believe it was me that said they sounded brighter. That being said, a brighter sound is not what I would describe as my experience. I find there is better integration with the 2K array and to me the sound is a lot more satisfying. There are a lot a variables here and I believe that your mileage may vary depending on system components and set up. Mine are connected to a Majik DSM with Linn cabling throughout with active being utilized.

The point of creating this subject was to inform other 109 owners of an interesting and relatively inexpensive mod. I never liked the original woofer, especially when being pushed a bit. My personal experience has been great with the new woofer and I think it is worth giving a try if your looking for different sound from the 109s. You can always revert back to the originals if you don't like what you hear.

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2019-01-07 18:54

The post regarding their brigther sound was mine.

Problem solved swapping the 2.48 mt. pair of K200 (half K400) with a 5 mt. pair of K20.

M.
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

Winston67
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2018-11-21 21:01

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Winston67 » 2019-01-16 20:05

Thanks. Woofers ordered, and will install soon and report back.

Winston67
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2018-11-21 21:01

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Winston67 » 2019-01-19 22:45

Just fired up the speakers after this mod, and although I gather that they may take some time to settle in, the improvement seems reasonably clear already. It’s most noticeable in the lower frequencies (there’s more there), but it feels like the overall presentation has more “heft” or weight. One thing I think is the case is that I need to turn the volume dial up a bit more to achieve the same volume as with the prior woofers. Anyway, thank you to everyone who weighed in on this topic; extremely helpful and maybe saved me the cost of new speakers!

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2019-01-20 01:32

Winston67 wrote:
2019-01-19 22:45
Just fired up the speakers after this mod, and although I gather that they may take some time to settle in, the improvement seems reasonably clear already. It’s most noticeable in the lower frequencies (there’s more there), but it feels like the overall presentation has more “heft” or weight. One thing I think is the case is that I need to turn the volume dial up a bit more to achieve the same volume as with the prior woofers. Anyway, thank you to everyone who weighed in on this topic; extremely helpful and maybe saved me the cost of new speakers!
Same impressions for me

Sensitivity becomes slightly lower, hence the bit more volume

M
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

Winston67
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2018-11-21 21:01

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Winston67 » 2019-01-31 22:19

Continuing to find this modification very satisfying. I am not able to A/B, but based on memory, this is a substantial upgrade that has temporarily stopped me from seeking new speakers. (I run these speakers with a Naim Uniti Nova and had been advised that the 109s, while good for what they are, were a mismatch. For now, I am quite happy.)

One question: what do you use for coupling/decoupling? I have the stands that came with the 109s, and use spikes on the bottom of the stands (into Linn Skeets to protect my wood floor) and Herbie's Fat Dots (which I believe are "platinum cured" silicone hard rubbery looking things) in between the speakers and the stands - I don't use top spikes. It sounds fine to me, but I was curious about what others do. There is a sea of conflicting information about this topic.

User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4597
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by lejonklou » 2019-02-01 08:09

Winston67 wrote:
2019-01-31 22:19
Continuing to find this modification very satisfying. I am not able to A/B, but based on memory, this is a substantial upgrade that has temporarily stopped me from seeking new speakers. (I run these speakers with a Naim Uniti Nova and had been advised that the 109s, while good for what they are, were a mismatch. For now, I am quite happy.)

One question: what do you use for coupling/decoupling? I have the stands that came with the 109s, and use spikes on the bottom of the stands (into Linn Skeets to protect my wood floor) and Herbie's Fat Dots (which I believe are "platinum cured" silicone hard rubbery looking things) in between the speakers and the stands - I don't use top spikes. It sounds fine to me, but I was curious about what others do. There is a sea of conflicting information about this topic.
Why don't you use the top spikes?

User avatar
Briain
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 2008-09-05 14:37
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Briain » 2019-02-01 13:46

Ferdydurke wrote:
2018-12-10 20:25
...Perhaps you or someone else can help me to solve so basic a problem as how to get off grills and rubber rings without damaging them...
Hi

I've had to remove the rubber rings from 350s and my technique was to first 'work' a thin and flexible piece of plastic (like a credit card, but much thinner) between the cabinet and the rubber ring, then once that was in place - to protect the edge of the cabinet - I pushed the corner of an old credit card between the thin piece of plastic and the rubber ring (one can be a bit more aggressive, now that the cabinet is protected by the thinner piece) and then using the old credit card, I managed to work a section of the rubber out of the gap. That was enough for the most of them, but on one of them I had to then use a flat blade screwdriver to pull out a little more (etc, etc) and in all cases, it was a very successful technique with zero damage done to anything (other than to my patience).

Bri :)

User avatar
Matteo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 434
Joined: 2018-01-25 14:12
Location: Milano, Italia

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Matteo » 2019-02-01 14:11

Winston67 wrote:
2019-01-31 22:19
One question: what do you use for coupling/decoupling? I have the stands that came with the 109s, and use spikes on the bottom of the stands (into Linn Skeets to protect my wood floor) and Herbie's Fat Dots (which I believe are "platinum cured" silicone hard rubbery looking things) in between the speakers and the stands - I don't use top spikes. It sounds fine to me, but I was curious about what others do. There is a sea of conflicting information about this topic.
https://www.hudsonhifi.com/products/sil ... ation-feet
LP12/Kore/Akito 2b/ARadikal/Adikt/Slipsik 7-ND5 XS 2-AK/1-A2200-M109 [Silver-K200]

Winston67
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2018-11-21 21:01

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by Winston67 » 2019-02-01 17:26

No great reason other than fear of making a mess of the cabinet and the fact that spikes seem a bit precarious in my house - kids, pets, people with vacuum cleaners knocking things around. I have tried the spikes, blue tac and the silicone dots, and to be honest I am not sure I noticed a difference (probably because i wasn't paying close attention). I was just wondering if others had a more certain view of the best way to mount these speakers.
lejonklou wrote:
2019-02-01 08:09
Winston67 wrote:
2019-01-31 22:19
Continuing to find this modification very satisfying. I am not able to A/B, but based on memory, this is a substantial upgrade that has temporarily stopped me from seeking new speakers. (I run these speakers with a Naim Uniti Nova and had been advised that the 109s, while good for what they are, were a mismatch. For now, I am quite happy.)

One question: what do you use for coupling/decoupling? I have the stands that came with the 109s, and use spikes on the bottom of the stands (into Linn Skeets to protect my wood floor) and Herbie's Fat Dots (which I believe are "platinum cured" silicone hard rubbery looking things) in between the speakers and the stands - I don't use top spikes. It sounds fine to me, but I was curious about what others do. There is a sea of conflicting information about this topic.
Why don't you use the top spikes?

ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2714
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Majik 109 Modification

Post by ThomasOK » 2019-02-05 21:03

I have generally preferred the spikes and I have not liked the softer things like sorbothane or silicone dots. However, if spikes don't work for you BluTack or a similar poster putty does seem to work pretty well. Four small dots in the corners and press down hard on the speaker. It is also probably the best solution to keep them from being knocked over as it sticks them pretty solidly to the stand.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.

Post Reply