At 150 wpc into 8 Ohms and 300 wpc into 4 Ohms the V5ke is going to power the 2.4s just fine. I use a 45 wpc CJ CAV50 with the 2.4s and have plenty of power. |
Guys, next time you plan to be in Eugene, OR, please let me know so that you can stop by to hear my system. That's the only way I can convince you that I have plenty of power with the CJ into the 2.4s. And my room is not small; it has a high ceiling. |
As Atkinson noted in his technical review of the CAV50, "On the test bench, the Conrad-Johnson CAV50 delivered a just-to-spec 53Wpc into 8 ohms (17.2dBW) for 1% distortion, midband. Loaded down to 4 ohms, it measured 78Wpc (15.9dBW) single-channel, showing a respectable load tolerance for a tube amplifier. The output rating fell 1dB with both channels driven (eg, to 16dBW, 40Wpc, at 1kHz). At low frequencies (20Hz) the amplifier clipped at 36W (15.6dBW) (which isn't bad), and raised 65W at this frequency into 4 ohms (15.1dBW). At the other end of the audio band, the amp delivered a true 56Wpc at 20kHz into 4 ohms at 1% THD, with 45W available into 8 ohms (16.5dBW). This is a good result, confirming low shunt losses in the output transformer." I have had audiophile friends both of the tube and solid state culture, listen to this system and they all are impressed by the results. I get decent bass response, not up the level of my Krell/Thiel CS6 system, but convincing enough, and the notes are felt as well as heard. Incredible midrange and high end. I think it's the power supply and the output trannies that make this amp a gem. |
Apologies; it was Martin Colloms, not John Atkinson who made those measurements.
Bottom line is that more power does not necessarily translate into improved sound with the 2.4s. I failed to mention earlier that I have also owned Musical Fidelity's 250 wpc, Krell's 150 wpc and CJ CA200 185 wpc integrated amps with these same speakers and, by far, and to my ears, the CAV50 outperforms the other sonically with these same speakers. It simply provides that "ahhhh" factor much better than any of the others; I know I was hoping that either the CJ CA200 or the Krell integrated would be preffered, but such is not the case. What I also know is that the 2.4s are nowhere as diffcult to drive as Thiel's older models, such as my 6s, which I power with a Krell 400cx. The 2.4s are highly, and I emphasize, highly, revealing of the quality of the power feeding them. |
Interesting thread. Further thoughts are that, of the three much higher powered integrateds I owned for a time in this system, the CJ CA200 was the most enjoyable. What I missed though was the upper bass warmth of the CAV50; this is my second one, I too "second, third and fourth guessed" myself and finally returned to this model. Certainly that amp could drive the Thiels to much higher levels and not venture into tube glare territory. But i can get this system up to 95 dB with most music before glare sets in and that is more than I normally listen at for extended periods (I mean, how high do you guys expect to be able to go?). Fortunately I was able to find another on the 'gon and once this was back in the system, all sounded "just right" once again. I used to be very critical of the ear vs. technical issue, reading the literature on this, the Absolute Sound vs. Sterophile battles, etc., and, for a period of ten years or so, was convinced that measured specs were perfectly predictive of sonic performance. I have now at least partially moved over to the other camp in that there are component combinations that empirically defy technical predictability. Believe me, my expectations used to be more closely aligned to most of the sentiment expressed above with regard to the need to high current and Thiels.
I also have CS6s and when I was trading up from Bryston 7B monoblocks ten years ago, I first purchased a Krell 300cx amp; it was OK but I decided to try the 400cx the next day, so I took back the 300cx and traded up (full credit within 24 hours, blah blah) . The rssults were clearly heard. The more powerful Krell made a distinct improvement in dynamic swing and width and depth of staging. Bass was also improved. So there was my conclusion that high current amps are de riguer with Thiels. Until the CAV50 appeared, that is.
I really do wish you guys could hear this set up, at the very least it would make for some interesting conversation. If I hadn't "validated' it with others I trust, I wouldn't be so promotional about this. Remember it's that first watt or two that we most often listen to to drive our speakers to 80-90 dB levels in he listening position, and I can only conclude that in this case it is the quality of those first couple of watts that make the difference. I'm not using any NOS tubes either, but only low noise selected versions of JJs from tube depot.
Steve |
Could be; I can certainly and easily get it well above 100 dB, the 95 is a nominal figure and I am sure that even on the rat shack meter, the actual peaks are 100+ dB.
High end aspirations...now there's an interesting concept. |
Unsound, feel free to go ahead and invalidate my assertions and experiences. It's OK, this is common place in the world today. But is it based on experience or speculation?
There is no "well into clipping" going on here, and frankly, in this regard, you don't know what you're talking about. So while I appreciate your comments in your attempt to poo poo my CJ/Thiel rig from a non-listening distance, my sense is that this comment is one that is built on pure speculation and not on reality. But that's the luxury of the internet isn't it? |
OK, The 2.4s measured 88 dB at 1 watt at 1 meter at 1% THD. The CJ at worst puts out 77 wpc into a nominal 4 Ohm load at 1%. So for most of my listening at 80 to 85 or so, I am using a watt or two.
Unless 1% THD is considered to be clipping...
Look, if it made a difference and improved things SONICALLY I would have GLADLY (yes I initially did the MATH experiment X 3!) kept one of the Musical Fidelity, Krell or CJ (solid sate) integrateds.
I'm done here as I feel I;ve been effective in gettign my points across;
Cal: the Thiel 2.4s are relatively easy to power, it's the quality of the power that makes the difference. |
Unsound: Do you actually own 2.4s? |
As Unsound suggested earlier (nod to you bro!), you might also consider Krell, a brand I strongly recommend because I use a 400cx with my CS6s in my other system and it drives them adequately. The 6s are, in my opinion, more difficult to drive than the 2.4s. Plus, I know the 2.4s sound wonderful powered by this amp as I have tried this combination. The cx series autobiases to Class A operation, dependent on the input signal. You will need a preamp that outputs a balanced out (unless you're ready for some surgery to the amp). Also, Jeff Rowland, Audio Research, CJ 2500A (there was one on here recently) are additional candidate amps that I expect would power the 2.4s and sound great. |
