Upgrade Suggestions

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2008-12-14 09:45

If you don’t have a carpet, no issue tuning Keltiks w/ Skeets.

Put on a nice clean pair of sneakers and kick the stands gently at the same time holding the top of the speakers with your hands applying a force AND making sure they don’t rock. Without sneakers, your toes going to hurt BADLY the day after.
Be careful not wearing clothes that can scratch the veneer! Observing others moving speakers, I think most of the scratches are made like that, pity.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2009-02-01 15:36

The new KK, skeets and silvers are all in place now. Done all at once - I did not take time to listen to the change of each component. It is still probably burning in - but has seemed to turn a corner in this regard. I don't think I have a different experience/opinion than others regarding the Tune. Love it.

I think I've located a Klimax Crossover for the Keltiks. How would this compare to Chakra cards in klouts? Any ideas as to cost of Chakra Cards new/used? Any experience with Klimax Crossover? I've seen photo of KC and it does not have 8 RCA connectors like the current Tunebox. Any knowledge of how the KC is implemented into the system?

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2009-02-01 16:44

chakra cards; used = around 50% off
Keltik Klimax Xover; seen them for about 2k-4k€ but as they are rare...

Havn't seen Kletik Klimax Xover but Komri filters have RCA sockets. (XLR to bass)

Klimax Xover have many advantages:
- you can use ANY amp
- better than the mono/stereo cards
- you can adjust the levels down to 0.5dB (chakra only 1dB= more or less useless). Assuming they have same spec as Komri filters.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2009-02-03 18:47

It is important to note that the Klimax Crossovers are mono - you need two of them for a pair of speakers. This is why they don't have the number of RCAs that the Tunebox has as they only need half as many.

The Klimax Keltik Crossovers should have 2 inputs - 1 RCA & 1 balanced XLR, and 4 RCA outputs - 1 Tweeter, 1 Mid and 2 Bass. Controls are Bass Level in 1dB increments, Treble in .6dB increments and Bass Extension (usually best at the lowest setting - position 7 or 20Hz.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2009-12-23 23:51

Well to get this thread up to date I've now gotten Klimax DSd and KK/1d at the front end of the the system. Klimax crossovers 4xklouts and Keltiks.

I'm leaning towards some ATC 50 towers. Accountant says spend some $ by end of year :lol:

Anyone with experience with both systems?

Any and all comments appreciated.

Merry Christmas to all.

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2009-12-24 12:29

Havn't heard ATC but I consider it being better having Xover/amps outside the speaker. Separate components also make upgrades easier.
Sooner or later the technology in ATC and 350A if we take a Linn speaker.. going to be obsolete.

You have two options IMHO;
- upgrade Klouts to 2*C4200/D and laster when Linn upgrade the Klimax amps, get these
- get Komri

I had Keltiks/4Klouts and only Komri offer improvements in all aspects.
But Komri is quite expensive.

If you don't need Keltik/Komri slam and deep bass, look at 242mkII's

Post by **lejonklou** » 2009-12-26 21:53

Does you accountant have time for another customer, SaltyDog? He or she seems to be of just the right kind for me! :lol:

I haven't heard any ATC's yet, which is a shame. I also haven't heard the Klimax filters for Keltiks. But I agree with ML that the latest 242's are really nice, provided they get careful installation. Although Keltiks will give more bass SLAM on the New Years Eve party, a good signal into 242's will be musically more satisfying. And with that front end, you certainly start with a good signal!

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2009-12-26 23:57

I wouldn't be too quick to rule out the ATCs. While is true that it MAY be more difficult to upgrade speakers with built-in amps, it doesn't mean it is not possible. Linn have made two rounds of upgrades to the Artikulat 350s: the Klimax upgrades and the Dynamik power supplies. Both of these are retrofittable to older models. ATC has also offered upgrades in the past for the 50, 100 and 150 models, first when the SL bass and midrange drivers were released and later when a better tweeter was incorporated. And the ATCs have all the electronics mounted on a panel that is easily accessible and removable from the backs of the speakers - they even have massive handles! Remember that upgrading a pair of Linn Aktiv speakers to new amps is not always a trivial matter either as it has often required all new crossover cards as well at substantial additional expense.

Also there are advantages to an internally active speaker design including the ability to optimize each amp for the matching driver and having very short cables from the amps to the drivers.

I can't comment on the ATC SCM50ASL towers as I haven't heard that version. I have been told they aren't quite as good as the 50s on stands as the bottom of the tower is only a hollow box but I haven't been able to verify that with my own ears. I also won't claim that you might not be able to make a more musical sound with the latest Akurate 242s and a pile of Klimax amps and crossovers as I haven't heard that either. I certainly would love to have my ATC 100s driven by six Klimax Solos and if i ever hit the lottery it just might happen.

But what I can tell you is that after owning the ATC 100s for several years I have no real concerns about the quality of the amps. I have heard Akurate 242s driven actively by 5125s and passively by twin 2250s and Klimax Solos and I don't consider them in the same league as the 100s. I have also had a fair number of opportunities to listen to Artikulat 350s at the store and at a customers house using the same equipment I had in my system (LP12SE, Ikemi, KK) and I would not trade my ATCs for the 350As - I just find my system more musical and more fun.

I have heard the ATC 50As on stands and they really sound very similar to my 100s with a bit less bass extension. I think they are great VFM and a good choice for spaces or situations where my behemoths might not be welcome.

As to your accountant, definitely refer him to Fredrik. As for me, what I really need is the extra money to spend. :)

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2009-12-27 06:40

Thanks everyone for your comments.

The difficult thing is to hear the different possibilities.

Thomas, what do you think of 50's with a sub vs. 100's with sub? I understand that they (50s and 100s) differ mostly in bass extension. The 100's w/o sub should be better than 50s w/o subs in the bass, but is there any advantage to bigger woofers and cabinets if using a sub?

The cheapest route would seem to be 2xc4200.

This is a tough decision. Seems so few people have had the chance to hear the stuff I have vs. the ATCs.

Keep the comments coming and I'll keep you updated.

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2009-12-27 10:59

ThomasOK wrote: Also there are advantages to an internally active speaker design including the ability to optimize each amp for the matching driver and having very short cables from the amps to the drivers.

Please explain.

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2010-01-29 14:55

Music Lover, was there ever an explanation regarding the advantages of an internally active speaker design?

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2010-01-30 17:44

Oops! Looks like I missed a couple of questions. I wasn't trying to be coy, I just missed answering them. I normally read and post at work so if something comes up to pull me away from the computer (a frequent happening since I'm in retail sales) sometimes I'm not sure what I've read and what I haven't by the time I get back.

In answer to SaltyDog I really don't know how 50s with sub vs. 100s would fare. Since I have chosen to use a REL B1 sub with my ATC100s and find it a substantial improvement my best guess is that the 50s with a sub would outperform the 100s without a sub. I think that the musical advantages provided by the sub would outweigh the performance advantage of the larger driver. This is all really theoretical as I really don't know if there is any performance difference between ATCs 9" and 12" woofers other than the ability of the larger to move more air, although it seems like they are built to the same standard.

But I really feel a sub is recommended for both. So to me the more important question would be: Is the ATC 100A with sub any better than the ATC50A with sub? A really good question and one for which I have no answer. Since the sub can provide the low bass and drives the room better in the lowest bass it can easily fill in below either bass driver so there may be little difference if both have a good sub. There is only 6Hz difference in frequency extension and 3dB output between the two models so a sub could certainly make up the frequency extension difference with no problem. It would definitely be a good test to hear both speakers with the same sub. A friend of mine told me that he felt the 100 was better than the 50 in the midrange and the 150 was also better than the 100 in the midrange. But I know from experience that a good sub properly integrated does improve the midrange of the music reproduced and not just the bass. So the improved midrange from the larger models could just have been a function of the more extended low end. The sub might erase this difference - the only way to know would be to try.

In some ways this is all academic now as I know you already ordered the 50s. You should let us know how they work for you. When I ordered my 100s I did not plan to use a subwoofer and I was replacing Isobariks so I wanted a speaker that was full range all by itself. Also, when I bought the 100s there was only about a $2000 difference between them and the 50s whereas to go to the (rather huge) 150s was an additional $7000! Since my girlfriend was already used to big, black Isobariks in the living room I had no problem putting the 100s in their place - especially with the lovely rosewood on them. Now that I have the REL sub in my system I am a convert to the use of a sub-bass system (as REL likes to call it) with any speaker as every speaker I've heard regardless of size, quality or price has been enhanced by a good sub. So with 20/20 hindsight I might have bought the 50s with sub and put the other money elsewhere.

Well, that was a fairly long answer for a short question. Now to the question from Music Lover. I'm guessing you don't need an explanation of the advantages of short cables from the amp to the speakers as Linn has long recommended long preamp to amp cables and short amp to speaker cables as the preferred way to go. As to optimizing each amp for the matching driver, drivers above the midbass range don't need nearly as much power as those in the bass range. This is made clear by the Artikulat/Klimax speakers which have 500 watts for each bass driver and 500W for the midbass with 250W split among the midrange, tweeter and supertweeter (the exact split is not exactly clear). Likewise on the ATC 50, 100 and 150 active models there is 200 Watts for the woofer, 100W for the midrange and 50W for the tweeter. So it becomes fairly obvious that having 200W of chakra power for every driver in an Akurate 242 (as an example) is not a very efficient way of doing things. Yet, since the 100W chakra amps are not as musical as the 200s using them on the midrange up is not a good solution.

In the case of the ATC speakers (and I would assume the Klimax/Artikulats) there are amps of different outputs tailored to each driver but they are of the same quality. As a matter of fact, since it is generally easier to make a lower powered amp more musical than a high-powered amp (fewer output devices under less strain, etc.) the amps on the tweeter and midrange, where your ear is most sensitive, are likely to be a touch better than the bass amps. This way you are giving each driver what it needs with optimum quality but without paying more for power capability you don't need. You are also shortening the signal path as the active crossovers and all three amps are on a single board in the ATCs - no interconnects, RCA jacks, multiple power cords, etc. And, of course, there are the cost savings of not needing all the extra casework, connectors and power supplies. Certainly a good way to get the best value for the money as, IMHO, the ATC100As give better musical performance than Artikulat 350As for under half their price. Or, another way of putting it, for not much more than the price of just the amps and crossover boards to go Aktiv with Akurate 242s!

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2010-02-05 02:33

Good explanation Thomas, much to think about 8) .

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2010-02-16 17:54

Thomas, do you use a sub-woofer for your stereo system or just the ATC speakers?

Post by **lejonklou** » 2010-02-16 18:38

Thomas uses a REL B1 sub, which he mentions in his post above.

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2010-02-16 18:50

Thanks Lejonklou :). I had to read his post again, wasn't sure if it was his stereo system or entertainment system.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2010-02-16 19:39

That's correct, the REL B1 is supplementing the ATC100As in my stereo system.

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2010-02-16 23:11

Thomas, many of my friends use a sub-woofer for their entertainment system, but what caused you to use a sub-woofer in your stereo system?

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2010-02-17 17:24

Actually, I posted a rather in-depth summary of my findings on subs in stereo systems on this thread:

http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=442

There are additional comments by myself and others as well. Note that further down the thread I did some more testing and made a change to the way the sub is connected based on comments from Fredrik.

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2010-02-17 18:42

Thanks for the thread Thomas, lots of good information :!: