Lejonklou Tundra

rowlandhills · Post by **rowlandhills** » 2013-06-10 19:46

That's a great story. Really nice to hear when a good system can do that.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-06-11 20:20

PSive wrote:My father in law is staying with us. He lives in Joburg, and has lived in Africa since 1952. He brought with him an ancient record of Don Shirley playing the piano. It left England with him in 1952, has been played in a tin hut in the bush in Zambia, up the Drakensberg mountains, and in all the other places he has lived since. It is very precious to him.

But when I played it for him at my house he had tears in his eyes 'there are so many things in this record that I have never heard before.' Thanks to the Tundra, I have made an old man really happy.

Thank you for a lovely story!

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2013-06-18 20:06

This is just a little update as I relatively recently received back the first of my Tundras to be updated to v1.2 (the others are in the process of being upgraded right now). It has been a bit of a hassle for me to really evaluate this as well as I would like due to a number of unusual circumstances. I won't go into that here as I just posted all about it on the Tundra Mono thread so you can read the details there. For now I will say this is an initial evaluation and I plan to do more listening as time allows.

I am very pleased with the v1.2. So much so that I wondered if the Monos would really be better (I received the upgraded 1.2 a little while after I managed to get the first Monos here). As you can read in the Mono post I didn't need to worry about that as the Monos are still clearly superior. But I was surprised at how much better the 1.2 is than the 1.1. I expected a subtle difference and found there was a fairly sizable improvement. I'd have to say that there are two things I notice most about the way the 1.2 plays music: it has more grip and power in the bass and makes it definitely easier to follow bass lines and drums, and it has an improved sense of ease and flow that involves you more in the music. It doesn't grab you quite as much as the Monos do (but then neither does any other amplifier I've heard) but it does seem to connect you more to the message of the music than pretty much anything else other then the Monos. Just a real joy to listen to (or rather through as that is the sense you get). A very impressive performance from an under $5000 amplifier, indeed.

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2013-06-19 11:22

Also enjoyed hearing a 1.2 the other week. Music did seem to flow more than the 1.1, but I'd need to listen at home to really know.

Ozzzy189 · Post by **Ozzzy189** » 2013-06-19 18:48

Dudes !
no worries about the tundra being loud enough, just had a guy round my house from a nearby housing estate asking if i'd turn it down as they could hear it in their house !
I asked him what type of music he liked. lol.
When they got out the car with purpose i thought it was all going to kick off, i was having my tea, only had my jogging bottoms on, so i went to greet them, 6'3'' and 14 1/2 stone, with a nice friendly smile, my usual finger breaking handshake, and they were all of a sudden really friendly ! lol.
rock on !

valentine · Post by **valentine** » 2013-07-02 17:55

Reading the reviews of the Tundra stereo I noticed that some people rank the Tundra 1.2 above the Linn KCT/D and some people even close to the Linn Solo.
Is the ranking below correct or is it outdated because of the upgrade?
Tundra Stereo < Linn KCT/D < Tundra Mono < Linn Solo/D
How close are the Tundra Stereo 1.2 and KCT/D actually?

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2013-07-02 18:09

valentine wrote:Reading the reviews of the Tundra stereo I noticed that some people rank the Tundra 1.2 above the Linn KCT/D and some people even close to the Linn Solo.
Is the ranking below correct or is it outdated because of the upgrade?
Tundra Stereo < Linn KCT/D < Tundra Mono < Linn Solo/D
How close are the Tundra Stereo 1.2 and KCT/D actually?

I would say the above ranking is still correct, as far as ranking can go.

I would also say Linn and Lejonklou amps have a different sound, consequently you may have differing opinions from the forums.
The only way is wait until you've had a dem.

Flatcoat · Post by **Flatcoat** » 2013-08-18 18:39

As a result of finally selling the last of my Twins, I have now put the two stereo Tundras in after being upgraded. I was using a MDSi with its internal amp driving 109s in the kitchen, but also connected to my office driving 212s with one of my KCTDs.

I have now switched off the internal amp in the MDSi and am using Tundra 1.2s for each set of speakers. Before the Tundras were upgraded I had been using the 1.1s. All I can say is that my kitchen/office system has never sounded so good. The 212s have so much more musicality now that they are being driven by the Tundra 1.2 - a significant improvent from using the dynamik Twin (that was being used with the internal amp of the MDSi on). The 109 system is in a different league and makes you think why spend so much money upgrading when the 109 system sounds this good - it really sings. This is even more amazing with my speaker positioning in the kitchen - one of the 109s sits on top of my fridge freezer and the other on top of the wall mounted cupboards at ceiling heigt and lying on its side !

My conclusion is that the Tundra upgrade is very significant and very well worth a listen if you are considering an amp upgrade.

PS My next move is to have a play with some Totem Dreamcatchers when a pair appears at the right price. I have heard them briefly, and in the same way I consider the tundra amps to be special, the same possibly applies to the Dreamcatchers.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-08-20 21:24

Thank you for the update, Flatcoat!

I find it very inspiring to hear that you're so pleased with your systems and with your Tundra's.

tokenbrit · Post by **tokenbrit** » 2013-09-11 01:13

With the addition of a Tundra Stereo*, and with gratitude to Thomas (& Fredrik, of course ;) I feel my system is really coming together... Next on the list for an upgrade is the speakers: my smaller Spendors get a little lost in my listening/living room** I like the Spendor sound so have been looking for larger speakers within the same line, but here is the question: I'm 'told' that the larger Spendors "seem to like some power" - does that suggests they would, or wouldn't, be a match for the Tundra Stereo? I'm not bothered about power ratings, but was wondering how the Tundra amp copes with less efficient speakers... Is it a question of volume &/or musical preferences that might indicate that a Tundra will or won't 'drive' a particular speaker? Should I be looking for Spendors that are more efficient ... or should I be looking at Monos? :)

* replaces a tuned A4200
** ~20 x 17 x 17' (L x W x H)

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-09-11 14:27

Nice to hear it's coming together, tokenbrit!

You're right not to bother with the numbers. When it comes to inefficient loudspeakers, it's usually just a question of reaching max volume earlier. The only way to know is to try, because how loud you think it is has a lot to do with the room. I've used Tundra Stereo with 83-84 dB/1W/1m speakers (inefficient monitor speakers) and it was more than loud enough. But that was in a small room. In a big room it can be different.

tokenbrit · Post by **tokenbrit** » 2013-09-12 16:16

Thanks Fredrik - I've been told these speakers 'need 200w', 'min 100w', 'less than that .. forget it'. I upgraded from the A4200 to the Tundra Stereo for the musical improvements - I want to keep that & find speakers that make even more music with the Tundra :)

I'd love to try them first, but they are second-hand speakers & more than 1200 miles away - no way to try at home for volume & room interaction unless I buy to try... They're a 3-way so more complex crossover, with a large bass driver that supposedly needs a fair amount of current(?)

If I did get them to try at home, what would I need to look or listen for to know whether the load on the Tundra Stereo was 'too much'? Are Monos more able to handle higher volumes with difficult speaker loads, as well as better musically? (apologies if I am not phrasing the question(s) very well)

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2013-09-12 20:49

tokenbrit wrote:Thanks Fredrik - I've been told these speakers 'need 200w', 'min 100w', 'less than that .. forget it'.

That's a myth, normally used selling huge beefy amps.
Due to my experience it's not about power, it's about performance.

What speakers did you have in mind?

tokenbrit · Post by **tokenbrit** » 2013-09-12 21:14

I'm considering Spendor S9 speakers, or S9e... my sense is it's a bit of a myth, but don't know too much about load, impedance, damping, or current demands on an amp to know whether I'd be better to concentrate on 'smaller', more efficient Spendors.

My listening room is quite large so there's a fair amount of space to fill with music, and a larger woofer would move more air, but it seems logical that might also place more demands on the amp that's driving them... especially if the quoted sensitivity is 'optimistic' .

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-09-12 21:58

It's common to think that a big speaker is difficult to drive. It seems intuitive, like big and heavy vehicles needing a large motor to move it around. But this is not the case with loudspeakers. Often the bigger speakers are easier to drive while the small inefficient monitors are the worst. And as Jan said: That myth is seldom contradicted if it can help sell a big and expensive amplifier.

I'll check the data of the models you mentioned and see if I can make an educated guess regarding how "demanding" they are.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2013-09-12 23:11

While I have no direct experience with the Spendor S9e, I do have a customer who has the S6e and used to own the S5e both of which I have set up for him. He runs them with a tube integrated amp rated at 36 watts and can play them much louder that he wants to in a fair sized room. So these claims of the S9e needing lots of power seemed questionable to me.

I did some digging into specs and reviews and found that the S9e appears to be anything but a difficult load to drive. Spendor rates them at 90dB efficiency which is relatively high (most current Linn speakers are more in the 87 to 88dB range) and they rate recommended power at 30 watts to 350 watts. A review by Hi-Fi Choice rated them 84% for ease of drive and said that they don't drop below 4 Ohms, so again this doesn't at all sound like a difficult speaker to drive. I don't remember which Spendors you are currently using but I would be surprised if they are higher efficiency than these. As Fredrik mentioned, larger speakers are often more efficient than smaller ones. While good current delivery is important to having controlled bass the Tundra amps are quite good in this regard as shown by their ability to drive 242s and other full range speakers with a musical, controlled low end.

Your room is a bit on the large side so you might have a problem if you want to drive things at ear crushing levels. However, at the old store I used the Tundra Stereo in the big room running 242s and the two big Viennas (which despite their efficiency of 89 and 91dB are difficult loads with a nominal impedance of 4 Ohms and the tendency to drop below that) and was able to play any of them louder than anyone in the store wanted to listen to them without clipping. That room was 20' x 17' x 9' so it wasn't small either.

tokenbrit · Post by **tokenbrit** » 2013-09-13 01:41

I really appreciate the responses. I have the S5e Spendors: a bit small for the room - 2.5 way - but happy to sing with the Tundra Stereo.

It has been between the S8e & the S9e, but a pair of S9s (not e) came up in the right finish... Researching these suggests they're definitely worth considering except for all the power-myth comments, and suggestion that the true sensitivity is more like 84 than 90db; not sure how well they behave when it comes to impedance...
If the Tundra is "quite good" on current delivery, with a musical, controlled low end, then this seems much more important than outright power ratings. After all, the 4200 is rated higher on power, but I'd rate the Tundra Stereo 1.2 considerably higher on performance - I just wanted to make get an idea of whether the load of the S9 might trip up the Stereo for some reason.

Ozzzy189 · Post by **Ozzzy189** » 2013-09-13 08:38

Hi tokenbrit. Did you read my findings regarding the tundra and 4200?
I was amazed at how much better Freddie's box was to be honest. It rather embarrassed the Akurate in my opinion.

Post by **lejonklou** » 2013-09-13 10:55

I did a quick search for specifications on the Spendors. While Stereophile's measurements of the S5e indicate that Spendor exaggerates the sensitivity (which is common), Spendors own data point towards the S9e being easier to drive than the S5e. Sensitivity is said to be 3 dB higher per Watt and the minimum impedance above 6 ohms instead of 4.

Although I am now just guessing based on data, I don't see anything that would make the S9e a more difficult load. Rather the contrary.

MisterH · Post by **MisterH** » 2013-09-13 22:36

As you may have spotted from the For Sale section I have my Klouts & Active Kabers for sale, soon to be joined by my Exotik, when I get to writing the advert.

The reason being I have just bought one of Frederiks amazing Tundra amps and also managed to persuade Chris (Hidden Systems) to part with his Kikkin.

Having read so much here and on Linn forum regarding the amp it had me wanting to listen and compare it to a Klimax Twin, just to see if the comments people hade made were actually true or was it just that they like me had read about and thought it would be better, after all an amp at 1/3rd the price of a Twin being on a par, or better in some people's opinion, too good to be true?

I had almost decided that I was going to change my Kabers for 212's and go passive with a good amp, so arranged to visit Chris to have a listen to both amps.

Thanks must also go to Anthony for bringing his Twin for me to listen to and spending so much time even though I probably wasn't going to buy anything from him.

Having borrowed the 212's and a 4200 for a week my immediate reaction on hearing the Tundra which was playing through some Majik 140' s when I walked into Chris's was that sounds great, I had heard the same speakers the week before with a Twin and hated them.

Any way connected up the 212's and they just played music, not hifi, but music, the speakers sounded like I had never heard them before.

We then tried the Twin and that to was good but the music was not the same, and someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the way the amp does voices is so natural, and there is so much detail.

After almost a whole day at Chris's I walked away with his Tundra, which now sits in my system ( I did pay him for it, not just walk out with it) and also left craving a Kikkin instead of my Exotik, but was seriously disappointed that they are no longer available. (Frederik, you really must consider continuing with them or an alternative)

That was a week ago, I now have managed to obtain the Kikkin, Chris has installed and tuned my system and it just sounds awesome and so musical, I am hearing stuff in the music which was obviously there before, but was lost and had no relevance, where as now it is just adding to the music.

So after that long ramble, just to reiterate,
The Tundra is an amazing amp,
The Kikkin is so good (not quite as good as a KK but the price ?)
Frederik is a talented guy, he has also kept in touch to see how I was getting on.
Chris is a first class dealer, he has spent considerable time demoing and visiting to install, and tune the system. He actually went through the whole lot to get it right.

Keep up the good work guys

Ozzzy189 · Post by **Ozzzy189** » 2013-09-14 18:32

Great post Neil. Awesome stuff, I really enjoyed reading that. Chris and fredrik are absolutely spot on!
I hope Mr valentine is not going to dismiss the tundra, anyone who dismisses it because it's not linn or any other big name manufacturer is being very very naive.

valentine · Post by **valentine** » 2013-09-16 10:19

Neil, Interesting to read that you prefer the Tundra stereo over the Klimax Twin. I really want to compare it myself one day with a pair of 242 speakers. The sound of natural voices is very important for me, especially when the source is not that good (like a TV signal).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2013-10-02 23:02

I thought I'd already commented, but can't find anything. Anyway, I heard the latest Tundra several weeks ago at Tony's. It was with KDS1 KK1 and 350Ps. It sounded really good. Fredrik's continued efforts are clearly paying dividends. I thought it was very musical and really enjoyed listening to it.

clasch66 · Post by **clasch66** » 2014-05-26 11:33

I assume adjusting the phase is a good thing with the tundra as well.
Could somebody advise which contact, left or right should be the phase? I could measure, but I am lazy ;-)

Cheers Claus

Post by **lejonklou** » 2014-05-26 12:47

Hi Claus!

If you are using a European Volex cord (which I supply with my products), please look at the pin end of the plug. There you will see the name 'Volex', and the pin closest to the letter 'x' is where the mains phase should go.

Lejonklou Tundra

Tundra stereo 1.2 vs KCT/D

Re: Tundra stereo 1.2 vs KCT/D

My new Lejonklou system

Tundra vs KCT