Aktiv Majik 109 options

[Charlie1]

So a slightly out of tune active system can be a nightmare to address.

I know what you mean. I had one of the simpler aktiv setups in the shape of 6100/Ninkas. Even that took quite a bit of attention before it was equal to or better in all respects to the same amp/speaker combo in passive setup. In other words, until all elements of the aktiv setup were addressed, the passive setup was a little better than aktiv in some ways (using same quality amps)

[Rufus McDufus]

I know what you mean. I had one of the simpler aktiv setups in the shape of 6100/Ninkas. Even that took quite a bit of attention before it was equal to or better in all respects to the same amp/speaker combo in passive setup. In other words, until all elements of the aktiv setup were addressed, the passive setup was a little better than aktiv in some ways (using same quality amps)

+1 I persisted with 2 4200s and 212s (all mkI variants) and it was a nightmare to get 'in tune' and sounding great. Board positions, cable directions etc. etc. all made a significant difference but I never got it sounding just to my satisfaction. I always kept coming back to a passive setup.

Regarding a comment earlier about people mentioning LK140s sounding great with 242s - this doesn't surprise me at all. I found LK140s worked so well Aktiv with a number of different speakers (though not tried 242 quality). They just seemed to be perfect every time with no fiddling required. But 4200 experience has sadly put me off Aktiv for the foreseeable future.

Interested in passive crossovers though...

[Nature]

Before deciding going active, did you define your long term goal?

Yes. To use Majik 109 for many years.
In order to do that I must have pretty good power amp(s).

Then work towards that goal but start upgrading the source. Then address the pre before you finally consider your amp/speaker options.

There are currently no updates available for my source and pre-amplifier.

I am surprised that passive systems so often recommended over Aktiv.
Thought passive always was to compromise.

Are you of the opinion that Linn should stop producing Aktiv systems?
When is Aktiv a good option, if ever?

[anthony]

Before deciding going active, did you define your long term goal?

Yes. To use Majik 109 for many years.
In order to do that I must have pretty good power amp(s).

Then work towards that goal but start upgrading the source. Then address the pre before you finally consider your amp/speaker options.

There are currently no updates available for my source and pre-amplifier.

I am surprised that passive systems so often recommended over Aktiv.
Thought passive always was to compromise.

Are you of the opinion that Linn should stop producing Aktiv systems?
When is Aktiv a good option, if ever?

I used 350P aktiv with Klimax twins for a year, and often felt passive solos were as good. It was a learning curve and always surprising how very small changes can alter the sound dramatically. This system could vary from excellent to stunning even if you altered the mains leads, I prefer Tongyuan, and the newer Longwell, and a dedicated mains spur helps a lot, particularly all on one spur, and not individual spurs for each bit of eqipment.
At the point of selling it, it really was sounding quite stunning, and I do miss it. I would say you really need Klimax xovers in order to achieve the finer adjustments, with akurate amps I tended to prefer default settings as often a 1dB change was too much.

[Music Lover]

I am surprised that passive systems so often recommended over Aktiv.
Thought passive always was to compromise.

My experience is that using SAME amps, active is always better.
But the discussion in this thread is active using less good amps vs passive with a better amp.

Are you of the opinion that Linn should stop producing Aktiv systems?

No!
Active is a great option, given you spend time on setup.
But I want Linn to introduce smaller dB adjustments in the filters to improve performance, as it was in the older LK-box Xovers.

[Linntek]

No!
Active is a great option, given you spend time on setup.
But I want Linn to introduce smaller dB adjustments in the filters to improve performance, as it was in the older LK-box Xovers.

I've always wondered why this option is so wanted. I suppose Linn's fixed levels correspond to best sound/responce.
In passive configuration this option is not available.

Edit: wrong person qouted - sorry

[hcl]

Active is a great option, given you spend time on setup. But I want Linn to introduce smaller dB adjustments in the filters to improve performance, as it was in the older LK-box Xovers.

Very much agree on this one. Smaller steps and a smaller dynamic range would be very much appreciated. The current settings are pretty unnessesary as they allways seem to be unaltered now, which is not very surprising as on the older speakers the settings where, as far as I know, mostly adjusted <1 dB on the treble and <2dB on the bass.

[lejonklou]

I've always wondered why this option is so wanted. I suppose Linn's fixed levels correspond to best sound/responce.
In passive configuration this option is not available.

That the option of small level adjustments for each frequency range is wanted is because tuning them improves performance. Every speaker-room combination has its own optimal settings. It's like a room response equaliser without drawbacks (no distortion or phase problems added).

To experience how well it works, I suggest installing old Isobarik's with the Aktiv filter. Levels for each drive unit was set with resistors. You can choose much smaller steps than the ones suggested in the manual. Just like when tuning the position of a speaker, the smallest steps can often result in the most important differences.

[lejonklou]

1)
Akurate 4200 : super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

3)
Akurate 3200 : left channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 3200 : right channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter

Experiment done. And it was very interesting!

As mentioned before, I did a couple of comparisons similar to the one above, using Akurate 212's and my own electronics. And my educated guess (as the setup is not identical to what Nature mentions above) - is that his option 1 is slightly better.

1 and 3 sound quite different, both musically and how the loudspeaker appears soundwise. And when going back and forth (I heard both options seven times), it gradually became clear that both have their strengths:

3 sounds homogenic - the speaker is well integrated, as if the number of drive units was one and not four. When turning the volume up, the music remains solid and sounding almost the same. In loud passages, the speakers, as a whole, seem to compress everything slightly.

1 is more separated between drive units. There seems to be more sounds, which are more divided and "all over the place". This is annoying, as each speaker is less "together" than with option 3. But at the same time, it's obvious that the upper frequencies are more clear and expressive. They communicate better and appear to be unaffected by the bass notes. When turning the volume up, the sense of separation is increased: Upper ranges sound good, while the bass becomes a bit compressed.

So, of all the theoretical advantages and disadvantages, it seems that in this case, the musically most important one is that higher frequencies are not modulated by bass currents.

[anthony]

I'm considering to activate Majik 109. Want to hear your opinions.

1)
Akurate 4200 : super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

2)
Akurate 2200 : super-tweeter
Akurate 2200 : tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

3)
Akurate 3200 : left channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 3200 : right channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter

option 1 or klimax twin passive

Thank you :-)

[lejonklou]

I'm considering to activate Majik 109. Want to hear your opinions.

1)
Akurate 4200 : super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

2)
Akurate 2200 : super-tweeter
Akurate 2200 : tweeter
Akurate 2200 : bass/mid

3)
Akurate 3200 : left channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 3200 : right channel, bass/mid, super-tweeter and tweeter

option 1 or klimax twin passive

Thank you :-)

Yes, it seems you were right all along!

Although you forgot Tundra or Tundra Mono passive...

[anthony]

option 1 or klimax twin passive

Thank you :-)

Yes, it seems you were right all along!

Although you forgot Tundra or Tundra Mono passive...

Yes apologies, I did suggest Tundra as well, in an earlier post.

[ThomasOK]

Considering the findings above it seems to me that there is another option that might provide close to the best of both worlds:

Option 5)
Akurate 2200: left channel, super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 2200: right channel, super-tweeter and tweeter
Akurate 2200: both channels, bass/mid

You should get the homogeneity of the tweeter and the super tweeter with the separation of the bass. Taking it a step further you could use one 2200 for each bass/mid driver to eliminate left/right channel cross modulation completely. Too bad there isn't an Akurate 1200.

Then again it still might be better with just a Tundra Stereo or KCT/D passive.

[lejonklou]

Considering the findings above it seems to me that there is another option that might provide close to the best of both worlds:

There is already an option 4 on the first page, so I took the liberty of renaming yours to option 5.

I wonder whether option 5 really becomes the best of both worlds, or simply worse than option 2... There is no gain from the grounds becoming separated as option 3 had (and which I thought would be more important than it actually was).

The only way to find out is to compare them!

[lejonklou]

How did it go, Nature?

Did you decide on how to run your 109's?