Majik 140 stands

Spannko · Post by **Spannko** » 2011-01-12 18:54

Hi everyone,

I’m 90% sure I’m going to be ordering a new pair of Majik 140’s at the end of the month. I’ve heard them already, and was very impressed with their tune playing ability, but I just want to hear them again before I finally decide.

My question relates to the optional stands: How do they affect the sound, with particular regard to the tune? They’re quite expensive, but I don’t mind getting them if they improve the sound, so long as they don’t affect the ‘speaker’s tune playing ability. Unfortunately, I can’t hear the stands at my dealer’s because his dem pair are fitted with the standard bases and he doesn’t have another pair for comparison.

Many thanks

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2011-01-12 20:38

The stands are an improvement, and certainly at no detriment to the tune.

Spannko · Post by **Spannko** » 2011-01-13 20:25

Thanks for your help Anthony. I didn't think the stands would affect the tune, based on my previous experience of Linn stands, but I thought I'd just check, to make sure.

Regards

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2011-01-14 21:22

All linn stands affect the sound. The better stand the better performance, both sound and musicality.
The optional M140 stand is no exception - the biggest improvement is in the bass that is a lot more distinct and defined. The overall sound is also better but not as much as the bass that is actually rather undefined with the standard feet’s.
To a less degree (still a good enhancement) the tunefulness is enhanced.

imho, the optional stands should be standard. Never liked M140 without them.
But regardless of the stands, they not going to match Akurate 242s!
Not even close. But at 30% of the price you cant expect miracles

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2011-01-14 22:31

Music Lover wrote:All linn stands affect the sound. The better stand the better performance, both sound and musicality.
The optional M140 stand is no exception - the biggest improvement is in the bass that is a lot more distinct and defined. The overall sound is also better but not as much as the bass that is actually rather undefined with the standard feet’s.
To a less degree (still a good enhancement) the tunefulness is enhanced.

imho, the optional stands should be standard. Never liked M140 without them.
But regardless of the stands, they not going to match Akurate 242s!
Not even close. But at 30% of the price you cant expect miracles

Are you using some new 242s now?

Spannko · Post by **Spannko** » 2011-01-15 14:08

Thanks Music Lover, that's really helpful.

Regards

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-01-19 16:24

My 140s are burning in nicely. Don't miss the aktiv flowing presentation of my Ninkas much now. In fact it seems close. Musically I actually think they just have the edge now, but very close when listening to LPs I'd not played since getting the 140s.

Quick question, everything seems better now except the bass. Maybe MLs comments are playing on my mind but I suspect not (or not just that). Is it possible that when new the 140s were a bit tight sounding overall and so it wasn't an issue, but now they are freeing up, so is the bass? I'm sure my aktiv Ninkas were more focused when listening last night on the 140s, but I know when I installed them originally the bass was more powerful but also tighter.

Spannko · Post by **Spannko** » 2011-01-21 23:39

Charlie1,

I notice you are using a 4 channel amp with your M140's. How do you use the 4 channel's and did you try a 2 channel amp to compare?

When I heard the M140's at my dealer's, he used a 4200, with 2 channel's on the bass and 2 on the treble - it sounded very good to me. However, some people think that mono amping is better than bi-amping - less hifi, but more music. What were your conclusions?

Thanks

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-01-22 00:25

Hi - I'm just single amp'd. You have to break the bar to bi-amp and I wanted to leave it enough time to be certain I was keeping the 140s. But since deciding to keep them, I'll not really had time to check it out. I'll let you know if I find out anytime soon.

Spannko · Post by **Spannko** » 2011-01-22 10:37

Thanks Charlie1,

If you haven't broken the bar, that means you're mono wiring too. The fact that you have to break the bar was the reason for my question in the "mono/bi/multi-wiring" thread - there's no going back if it's not as good!

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-01-22 11:33

I'm think dealers can obtain a new one though - best to check first though.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-01-22 16:06

Dealers can indeed obtain new linking bars for the Majik 140s and other speakers. I just received a set last week for a customer who wished to perform the same experiment. The price in the US is about $30 for a set of four so you won't be out a lot if you wish to return to single wire.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-01-22 16:54

Hi, I've never seen this setup and just a little confused. Could someone explain why the bar must be broken if replacements can be reinstalled? Why not just remove the bar? Seems like that you'd need to remove the broken bar to replace it. :? Not that it matters to me - just wondering.

rowlandhills · Post by **rowlandhills** » 2011-01-22 19:51

Salty - I think that as the Majik 140 is a four way speaker, it has a four way bar joining the terminals up for single wiring. To biwire/biamp, you'd want one cable to the 2k array, and one to the mid/bass drivers. This requires two pairs of two-way strips, not just sliding the four way strip along.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-01-23 00:20

rowlandhills wrote:Salty - I think that as the Majik 140 is a four way speaker, it has a four way bar joining the terminals up for single wiring. To biwire/biamp, you'd want one cable to the 2k array, and one to the mid/bass drivers. This requires two pairs of two-way strips, not just sliding the four way strip along.

That is correct. The bars are pre-scored so that the four-terminal bridge can be broken into 2 two-terminal bridges. Once broken they can't be put back together.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-01-23 03:05

Got it. Thanks. I didn't get the part that it would still be needing to bridge the tops and bottoms. I was just thinking all or nothing.