Fredrik Lejonklous System?

Share your journey!

Moderator: Staff

Music at Home
Active member
Active member
Posts: 120
Joined: 2008-10-09 16:10

Post by Music at Home »

Fredrick, thanks for the reply. I've tried moving on from the Katans a few times but always seem to come back to them. Sounds like going active with my Katans is probably a safer bet than passive with the 109's - although ultimately I'm sure 109's active has the best of both options.
Linnofil
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 343
Joined: 2007-02-05 22:22
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Linnofil »

lejonklou wrote:perhaps they should be converted to internal K400 wiring, as I did in my Katan's? In addition, there are some probably not so great sounding connectors inside the 109's that might be holding them back a little.

Linnofil: Both speakers and stands were faulty?? I will tell you what the 109's look like when I've painted my pods. Shouldn't be too difficult.
If you do any modifications to your Majik 109's I would be very interested to hear all about it!

My stands where damaged in transit by TNT. One of my speakers had two blobs of white glue in the port behind the 2k array. The largest one was about 3x1,5 cm! Very visible, to say the least! One speaker was also lightly damaged in transport, but I managed to rub off the scratces with my fingers. Just typical for me when I buy new Linn stuff... :( New stands are on the way, as is a new reflektor/port assembly. I'm thinking about painting my stands white. It would be so much better together with black arrays!
Music at Home
Active member
Active member
Posts: 120
Joined: 2008-10-09 16:10

Post by Music at Home »

Fredrik,

I'm currently enjoying listening to a pair of 109's in place of my Katans. Did you get anywhere with painting your 2k arrays?

Do the 2k arrays come off without too much difficulty? I suspect they are just pushed into a plug and socket arrangement (like the 3k arrays but without the screws around the circumference) but wouldn't want to pull too hard and damege something. The 109's I have here are Cherry finish and I think the whole look of the speaker would be more muted and subtle with black arrays.

m@h
Music at Home
Active member
Active member
Posts: 120
Joined: 2008-10-09 16:10

Post by Music at Home »

Majik 109s in place.

Image

The photo makes the Cherry finish looks a little lighter than it really is.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

It's a good thing you didn't try pulling hard as you might have broken something. It is not quite that easy to remove the 2K array. In order to take it out you have to remove the woofer and you will find that the array is bolted in from the inside. It is a large bolt and you will need a crescent type wrench to remove it. I don't know what the ideal torque is for it as my screwdriver won't work so you should pay attention to how tightly it is bolted in - it is fairly tight.
Music at Home
Active member
Active member
Posts: 120
Joined: 2008-10-09 16:10

Post by Music at Home »

Ah, thanks Thomas. Not as straightforward as I'd hoped. Probably best left alone I think.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Hi M@H!

Haven't painted the pods yet, but I will. It's a bit further down on my list, as there is a lot of interesting stuff going on right now. I don't find it difficult to remove and put back, but as Thomas points out the torque does matter to the sound.

It can rather easily be checked by listening to the pod only, while gradually increasing the torque. If you play, for instance, a short piano piece and pay attention to how well tuned the instrument sounds, you will hear that it becomes gradually better and then rapidly worse when the pod is too tight.

I have never found the drive units anywhere near their optimal torque when they arrive from Linn, so I don't think you need to worry about decreasing the performance by fiddling with it.

By the way, I am liking the 109's more and more. Seems they first broke in rather quickly and then gradually became a little better over a period of many weeks. I find they like the volume turned up a bit rather than playing very quietly. With the volume turned up, they don't sound as small.
Efraim roots
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 312
Joined: 2009-10-23 01:37
Location: Sweden

Post by Efraim roots »

Fredrik, how come you didn't get the Majik 140 instead of the 109? You described earlier that you are a bass freak and when got the 109 you missed the bottom from your Espek 8). Wouldn't that have been nice to get both? Or do you feel you loose quality with the 140's?
the players of instruments shall be there..
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Hi Roots man! My kids asked me to play Michael Jackson today, which reminded me of the need for more bass... I turned it up, but with 109's it doesn't get physical, just louder.

I haven't listened that much to Majik 140, so I'm not sure whether there's anything they lack in comparison with 109. Perhaps someone else would like to comment on that? I definitely prefer Katan to Ninka, and usually Tukan to Keilidh. But in this case I don't know.

There was another reason why I didn't choose Majik 140. I think they look terrible! In my opinion, the 109 has a much better balance in its physical dimensions. My intention right from the start was to make them all black by paiting the pods. Annoys me that I still haven't succeded with that.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

109 is very balanced, 140 is like a 109 with some disco bass boom, if you follow me.
It's expensive to develop a speaker with a deep&powerful&well defined bas and 140 have bass but if you compare with 242 you hear how well defined it can sound.

For the money 140 is a great speaker though.
It's all about musical understanding!
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

Hi Fredrik. You mentioned earlier in the thread that you felt your 109s needed more volume than the old Katans to get going. Do you still feel the same now they are run in?

Would also be interested in Linnofil and Music at Home's view on this too, or any other 109 owners, as most of my listening is at low volume.

Also, are the 109s stands fairly child proof or are they easily knocked over? I seem to recall that 212s are screwed to the stands, so are 109s the same?

Cheers in advance and Happy Christmas/New Year to everyone on the forum too.
Music at Home
Active member
Active member
Posts: 120
Joined: 2008-10-09 16:10

Post by Music at Home »

Charlie,

I find the 109's work fine even at very low levels and don't really feel I *need* to listen to them louder than I did with Katans.

Having said that ... :D ...

The 109's are more efficient than katans and I find that with 109's the KK needs to be turned down by "2" to match the volume from katans. To give you an idea of my listening levels, I normally listened at around "50" with katans but with the 109's being quite a bit cleaner and distortion-free compared to katans I've found myself naturally habitualising to "50" with the 109's as well ! - still sounds natural, relaxed and effortless, but bigger, as Fredrick says, and nicely room filling.

m@h
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

Thanks M&H!

I think after your comments I'll unbox the 109s when I get my system together in the new year and try them passive with my 6100. Got no stands though :( but at least I can get some kind of feel for them which might help decide whether to sell them or my Ninkas (got going to run a 2nd system now).
Linnofil
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 343
Joined: 2007-02-05 22:22
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Linnofil »

Charlie1 wrote: Would also be interested in Linnofil and Music at Home's view on this too
...

Also, are the 109s stands fairly child proof or are they easily knocked over? I seem to recall that 212s are screwed to the stands, so are 109s the same?
I'm not so sure you want to hear my 109 story Charlie. I ordered them in August -09 and I still haven't got them in my home! Maybe in 2010? My advice to you would be to unpack them and listen to them as a pair and individually to check them out.

A friend of mine who had tri-active Ninkas (2x5125) was a bit surprised when his newly bought 109's was better (in passive mode) on top of his active Ninkas, despite passive mode and 20 meters of crappy cable.

He ended up using passive 109's in the main system and moving the Ninkas to the kitchen Knektsystem.

The 109's are not screwed to the stands as the 212's. So less childproof, but probably better performance than if it was screwed together with the stand. I have tried that a few times and it has never been an improvement.

Fully working the 109's are great, especially considering the price. I hope I get a working pair soon!
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

Thanks Linnofil. Sorry to hear yours are not sorted yet. That says a lot about 109s after your friend put them on top of Ninkas. I will try them out.
Mirage F1
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2012-04-29 18:18
Location: Sweden

Linn amps and passive congiguration

Post by Mirage F1 »

This thread has been an interesting read.

One forum member claimed that Naim stated that Linn went active because their power amps cant produce good sounding speakers.

I want to second this:

I heard Linn Kabers through Klouts and active, and I can honestly say that they sounded better through a Quad 303 amp in passive mode. I trust my ears implicitly.

Another Q asked: a good speaker to be run passively? Definitely a Linn Kaber with Quad or Naim amplification.

All of the above is my opinion of course!

Linn is a great company, but their amps only get good at the Klimax range. I compared an Akurate 2200/D with a Quad 303 and the Quad shot it down.
User avatar
mrco99
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 723
Joined: 2009-12-10 17:14
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by mrco99 »

Hi Fredrik,

To revive your system a bit - you've probably did not have much time to enjoy listening a lot with all those Tundras that have to get out of the door - I assume there must be a Tundra now playing in your own system?

How does Tundra fare with your 109 speakers?
I know you've also had (active) Katans before, can you still recall the differences?

Cheers,

Marco
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Hi Marco!

Tundra number 001 is at home, driving 109's. I've been tempted at trying a pair of Klångedang T1 or Akurate 212's (all black, but I'd have to make my own stands as I don't like the standard ones). But I'm not in a hurry, as I find the 109's to be great speakers, with a fantastic music-for-money ratio. They grow with each improvement of the system and also show differences in the electronics very clearly. Therefore I find them easy to work with.

Katan is a great speaker and Espek too (although Espek is quite tricky to install). I used to have them at home, in various configurations, and the main difference is that they're more coloured in their presentation than 109 or Akurate speakers. They distort more, although the distortion is of a nice type. Fun, but less exact and therefore more difficult to work with.
User avatar
mrco99
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 723
Joined: 2009-12-10 17:14
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by mrco99 »

Hi Fredrik,

Nice to hear from you again!
Did you make any further modifications to your 109s?
I met Philip Hobbs recently from Linn (great guy) who designed the 109s and he was also very enthousiastic about them - especially taken aktiv - .

I find myself more and more moving towards a one amp system, more simplicy, and less stacking of electronics. Most difficult issue is to decide into different speakers, though a (passive) Tundra amp also liberates the choice of speakers. No need for a maching pair eg. number of power amps anymore.

But I would have to sell on the Keltiks first, in order to make room for different speakers and power amp. Before eventually getting a Tundra, I could use my 6100 amp as an interim amp, possibly even active with 109s, being the only contemporary set of speakers that you can drive active with a single Linn power amp.

So I still eagerly await the possibility to demo Tundra with a passive speaker setup against my active Keltiks. It´s no real comparision off course, with the Keltiks being such a different type of speaker, but what I will lose in the lower registers, I may gain in musicality....

To what number of Tundra are you now, by the way?

Kind regards,

Marco
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

Hi Marco, More than one change at a time will make it harder to evaluate each individual component change. Is it possible to temporarily convert the Keltiks to passive? Sorry, I don't know much about them.

I once compared passive 109s to the Ninkas I had at the time, at home. People vary, but I found the missing bass too much of a loss, especially with rock music. If you mainly listen to classical and jazz then it might not impact you too much.

I really did like the 109s in all other respects though, which is partly why I was happy to get 140s without a dem. I also got a great price, so it was a safe punt.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Charlie1 wrote:I once compared passive 109s to the Ninkas I had at the time, at home. People vary, but I found the missing bass too much of a loss, especially with rock music. If you mainly listen to classical and jazz then it might not impact you too much.
It depends a lot on the room. My living room is quite bass heavy, making small speakers sound big.

On the other end of the scale, I've installed Keltiks in rooms where they have sounded small and lacking bass - enough so to make the owners try to support them with subwoofers.

And no, there is no passive filter for Keltik.
User avatar
mrco99
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 723
Joined: 2009-12-10 17:14
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by mrco99 »

Hi Charlie,

Thanks for your feedback. Well, Keltiks are 4way active only, which you can also drive 3way active, but bass performance is a bit crippled then.
They were Linn´s state-of-the-art speakers from the 80-90s, maybe a bit like Komri.

I have been playing with them with a 6100/d this for over a year, and though they give me great pride of ownership, I obviously do not get the best out of them. I should at least add another 2100, but better even 2x4200s and then again try to hunt down some Klimax Tuneboxes, if you can find them.
No doubt it would sound great eventually, but it will keep me busy with upgrading and adding components for at least the next 5 years.

Not sure if I want to wait that long before I would have an optimal system. I have always taken the active Linn approach as essential, never thought of a passive alternative. I´ve read about Klimax gear and how that, in passive mode, outrun active Akurate components, but those were out of my financial league anyway, so not very realistic.

With the great reviews Fredriks Tundra has received so far, and being compared with Linns KCT, this may be a welcome alternative though for an active Linn setup. I realize I have to take two steps at the same time and change both speakers and power amp.
It would be great though to have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to listen to my Keltiks with 4 Tundras...;-)

My musical style is mostly pop and jazz, and I do like some bass.
Maybe with 109s (or 212s) these could be compensated with a sub.

I also heard (active) Majik 140s lately and though I am not so taken with their looks, they did sound very entertaining. Majik Isobariks are the ´current´ Keltik incarnations, but are said to be driven active also for their best performance, so may also not shine with just a single Tundra amp.

Edit: Sorry Fredrik for polluting this topic with observations of mine - wrong thread.
Last edited by mrco99 on 2012-06-15 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

lejonklou wrote: It depends a lot on the room. My living room is quite bass heavy, making small speakers sound big.

On the other end of the scale, I've installed Keltiks in rooms where they have sounded small and lacking bass - enough so to make the owners try to support them with subwoofers.

And no, there is no passive filter for Keltik.
Thanks Fredrik.

You watching the match this evening?
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Yes I am!
Rufus McDufus
Active member
Active member
Posts: 137
Joined: 2012-04-28 07:56

Post by Rufus McDufus »

Oh dear - sorry about the result!
lejonklou wrote:Yes I am!
Post Reply