I haven’t found any discussion comparing these monoblocks.
I am looking to upgrade from the NAIT 1 in my second system after experiencing what a 500DR does to the Linn Kans. Would a NAP 350 be an even better match or will the equivalent era 135s suffice.
I think in terms of preamp I will go for NAC 12, 32.5 or 72.
Dont Know the 350 - but with your choice of pre, I will go for 135 (but I wont give you yours back 
). In my opinion the pre/power combination sounds both when they are kept together, e.g. 52/135; 552/500 and 332/350.
I think if you are going to use an olive preamp like the 72 then it has to be the 135’s. I still have this pairing in the loft - just in case!
I know I should’ve held onto the 52/supercap.
Even the nap 500DR. Could’ve saved me the hassle of buying again.
We live and we learn
Still in the market for a properly powerful amp for the linn Kans but in the mean time I’ve picked up NAC 12s and NAP 160 BD to compete with the Nait 1
I really wanna see how far I can go with the Kans. I agree the sound is thin. Kans have a soundstage but due to the lack of bass, only do half of the job at convincing you it’s real. The bass extension is noticeably limited.
However, in terms of drive, speed, and a focused and an articulate sound with pin point precision, the Kans are second to none. I’d go as far as saying they’re the most fun speaker I’ve ever heard. Nothing comes close. Well my SW1X 963s on higher voltage come close but they sound more diffuse than the surgical pin point precision of the linn kan.
As of now I’m leaning towards the NAP 350 for the Kans. Ideally id just want another 500DR but the nap350s are available right now at a really good price and somebody had mentioned that for speakers that can dip very low in impedance it’s best to avoid bridged amps.
I have a pair of late Kan Is in the attic, last used over 20 years ago when I had a 102/CB250. They had a certain addictive quality, but I couldn’t get past their tendency to be fatiguing.
I sometimes wonder how they’d sound in my current system (552DR/300DR). If my listening room suited Kans better - unfortunately, there’s no exposed wall to put them flat against - I’d be very curious to revisit them.
I think us seasoned audiophiles crave that sense of engagement more than anything else. As of now, I would certainly opt for a fun system over a technically superior one.
I’d highly recommend you dust them off and plug them in for a bit of fun. BTW leave them plugged in for a few days before making judgement. I have no idea why but when I hooked up the Kans to my SW1X PRE 3, NAP 500DR system they sounded shut in for a few days. Was it the aging crossover? Who knows. The amps were never switched off so I’m perplexed what happened there.
Exactly this as far as I am concerned, very well put.
WRT the OP I would probably use olive 135s with an olive pre like the 72. I guess we will never know unless you try those 350s though…
Stu
Hello, I recently tried my Kan 2 with my 552/500 system. Fantastic sound, fast, tight and also forgiving. I then put my IBL into the same system, more high end, more precise, fast, clear - precise. I have a pair of ATC 20 (Passive, stand mount) coming.
It seems crazy to me to put what appears tobe a fantastic amp in the 350s on such a compromised speaker, rather than getting better speakers (or do you have another system with better speakers and this just a side distraction? )
That is said about Kans so often - but the concept is alien to me: if I want fun from music I’d choose music that is fun rather than have choose speakers that modifying music to make it fun. More fundamentally (pun not intended!) I’m not sure that music without bass can reach its full potential to maximally enjotyable and convey all the emotion in the music (unless listening to music without bass), though presumably that can be fixed by using with subs.
That’s a common take. I completely accept that it isn’t for everyone.
I personally think every speaker is compromised. What I love about the Kans is the vitality to the sound. The music is vibrant when played through them.
I would even put them in a statement system
To answer your question. Yes my main system is in my profile. That’s also a very engaging system albeit with a different presentation to what the Kans deliver. The 350s would be in my second system. I previously had the Kans running in the main system which at the time was hybrid, tube source and pre with solid state NAP 500DR. They certainly did not sound out of place in that setup. Exhilarating listen and I honestly did not care that I couldn’t hear the lower notes of the songs I was listening to.
I still reckon a 72/135’s and Kans as one of the best systems I’ve owned. Sure the bass couldn’t compete with bigger speakers like Isobariks but the speed and musicality was simply wonderful. It’s taken me a long long time to find a system that matches the shear speed and also does the bass!
Many years ago I took a pair of Tukans (not exactly the Kans) though an upgrade voyage spread over several hours one afternoon/evening.
Using a CDS2/XPS as the source we started off with an 82/180 passive.
So the CDS2/XPS/82/180/Tukan passive
Quite poor sound…very harsh, tinny and thoroughly unengaging.
Added a Supercap to the 82, so now CDS2/XPS/82/Supercap/180….more listenable, but still far from any value for money.
The replaced the 82 with the 52 to have CDS2/XPS/52/180/Tukan passive.
THIS was the start of a fun system. Not great VFM though. The 52 was soooo much better than the 82, even with a SC on the 82.
Time for the big guns now….replacing the 180 with one 250
CDS2/XPS/52/250/Tukans passive. This shows the 180 to have an unpleasant glare that was not apparent on the 250.
Replace the 250 with a pair of 135s…to give CDS2/XPS/52/SC/2x135s/Tukans
FINALLY…the Tukans were swinging like beasts.
And just because I had a pair lying around…swapping out the 135s for a pair of the ultra rare Exposure XVI monoblocks. Now it was CDS2/XPS/52/SC/2xXVI/Tukan passive. This was an even better match for the Tukans than the 135s, since they had all the pace and snap of the 135s but had a rounder more organic midrange.
We also tried using 2x250 driving just one channel of each into the passive Tukans. This was virtually indistinguishable from a single 250 and quite some way behind the 135s. This was a very satistying system, but maybe a little overkill for the Tukans.
Overkill until we went active with a Snaxo/dedicated Supercap
CDS2/XPS/52/Snaxo/SC/2x250. As good as the XVI were passively, the benefits of going active were unmistakeable and gave a great sense of life and propulsion.
And the coup-de-grace….replacing 2x250 with 4x135 for the ultimate
CDS2/XPS/52/SC/Snaxo/SC/4x135
This was completely unrecognizable to how the 82/180/passive system sounded at the beginning of the day. Huge amounts of drive an life, that was missing even using ‘just’ 2x250 active.
VFM….probably so, even though the Tukans were greatly eclipsed in price compared to the humongous amounts of black boxes upstream.
But I still cannot answer the question of 135 vs 350s. What I can say is that even with 135 passive the Tukans are a phemenonal speaker. The original Kans will have an even greater sense of presence at the expense of a quacky midrange coloration. Swings and roundabouts you know.
But one thing for sure….get the best preamp you can before you start dropping coin on poweramps.
72 HiCap or Supercap with 2 x 135s seems right with Kans. Or an 82 or 52. 350s different sound signature and complete overkill in terms of expenditure.
Personally with Kans I would stick with what you have as 2nd set up 160CB will be fine.
You have invested heavily in main set up. With inferior 2nd set up will you use it at all.
I would put everything into primary set up. But that’s me. If you want to go for it, I look forward to hearing your results! It’s a fun hobby after all. There are no rights or wrongs. You could use a subwoofer with the Kans to get the bass up to how you want it also.
In my experience,the best sources and active is the way to go with Kans ,having had over 20 pairs of Kans.
Tried with nSub,it wasn’t fast enough for Kans.
Thanks. I love the 135s. Owned two pairs in the past, I guess that’s why I’m wondering what the new monoblocks would do at home. At the dealers I wasn’t blown away by them. Frankly speaking my 500DR system at the time had more drama about it but perhaps it was their setup and component matching that wasn’t to my liking.
BTW I envy all DBL owners. The one speaker I almost never find for sale and even if I found one I couldn’t accommodate it. Super jealous 
Thing is you know how good 135s are. And they represent good value for the money. They will work well with olive 72 or CB preamps. 350s represent greater investment and is that what you really want. Better paired with 332 pre and NPX300 power supply at greater cost for what seems like an experiment away from your main set up.
If you want the two set ups to run in tandem with switching speaker cables only I would go back to what you had which was 52 Supercap and 2 x 135s. You loved that set up!
IIRC there was a maple set of DBLs on PFM about a week ago - allegedly near mint (no connection to me).
There’s something about a small, capable bookshelf speaker on the end of a top notch source and powerful amplification that really appeals to me. Every part of my system has been upgraded through multiple levels, yet I’m still using small sealed standmount two way speakers that are not fundamentally different from the Kans.
That said, I’m as certain as can be that, if I were to set my Kans up in my current room, they’d fall short, and I’d be unlikely to make it through a single side of an LP. The only place for them is in a shallow bay, which seems to suit the Tabs OK, but would be completely wrong for the Kans. I’m reminded of the Kan enthusiasts who would cut away sections of skirting to get the back of the speaker almost touching the wall!
I’m in a rare and much appreciated state of contentment with my system at the moment, but I can see myself casting around for a pre-loved 500DR in a couple of years, when the prices come down a bit more.
ON IT!! Thank you