My last comment should read:
"Now I do really like the speakers but maybe I should get rid of them. I know many people will tell me to do just that -"
Also the "flat" comment was in response to the Adcom
Curse you iPad and your auto correct!!! |
Like you said, the Thiels can sound truly amazing when everything is right. They are clear windows looking back to your source. If the source or the amplification chain is compromised, then you will clearly hear it with the Thiels. Don't shoot the messenger. I submit that the main problem may be driving your amp directly with the A/D box. This is just a thought- the DAC may not have enough output and/or the optimum output impedance to match your amplifier. That may be making the highs sound too shrill or perhaps the bass is underpowered. A good preamp will match impedances better going into the amp as well as give you better volume control. You really will not loose anything with a good preamp in the chain.
One other thing- in general, tubes do not really roll off highs or accent mids, except for when they are badly worn. A good preamp, be it tube amplified or SS, is a good preamp. Each has their own sonic signature, but tube preamps and amps can be further varied by type and brand of tubes used. And then, yes the characteristic highs can be altered. That is added complexity that can get frustrating. Some days you might like the sound of one tube, but then pop different tubes in and suddenly like that better. Then one day you won't like the sound of those tubes due to air temp, mood, etc and go back to a different set of tubes. A real merry-go-round of delight. |
Thanks for the response. To be clear I did have a modified Acurus LS11 but it didn't do me any favors. The highs and lows sounded about the same - meaning a bit bright. Right now the only thing I have to go on is that when I added the VTL preamp the highs sounded a bit rolled off compared to the Acurus. And when I swapped out the amp with the adcom amp the highs sounded good too (NAD directly to amp). The NAD unit is designed to act as a preamp so I'm not sure what I should look at to verify if it's matched correctly. I do know there doesn't seem to be any problems driving the amps. It does sound better alone than with the Acurus attached as a preamp. So I guess that's why I'm looking into a better amp. Of all my gear it seems to be the weak link and the one constant, meaning if the treble is bright the Vincent is always part of the occasion.
Weather preamp or amp I need something that will provide a warm sound without being bright. On my budget that seems to be SS amp or a tube preamp. Though i dont disagree with your comments on tube vs SS I generalize when I say that the characteristics I'm looking for and from what I've been reding is found in tube equipment or SS that sounds like tube.
Ive done some research but I'm just not that familiar with what gear would be the right fit based on keeping the Thiels. |
Thiel and McIntosh sounds amazing together.... I would start looking there.
Also, I agree that driving the amp directly from the dac might be part of your problem.
I do have a pair of Thiel 2.4's driven by Krell. Works well for me.
How's your room? You may need to add some dampening to the room, curtains, a couple of acoustic panels, maybe some thick tapestry on the wall behind the speakers.... |
I must agree that the Thiels are demanding speakers and it takes the right amplifier to make them sound their best. In general, they require an amp with high current capability. As a rule of thumb, a SS amplifier that doubles power output as impedence is halved down to 2 Ohms has high current capability. My experince early on with Thiel speakers proved this rule. The amplifier that I was using with my old planar speakers, which sounded great, did not work so well with the Thiels. (The planars were a pure resistive load.) People on the 'gon use tube amps with Thiels too, I just have no experience with that combo. Once I found the amp that I have now, I did not need to keep searching. |
|
I have had the 2.4s for two years, purchased new and I expected these to take quite awhile to break in, and in this regard they did not disappoint. Both Thiel and the dealer told me to be patient and simply let them play and do their thing. Frankly, it took a year of at least 6 hours per week of playing at moderate volumes before I felt that the remaining bit of glare at the top end settled down and the bass began to really open up.
You can certainly warm things up with CJ equipment, perhaps a preowned 2500 amp with one of their preamps will work nicely; I use a CAV50 control amp (much to the chagrin of some other Agoners) with excellent results. These are not hard to drive.
What I can tell you is that we have a small audiophile group locally here and whenever it's my turn to host the evening, my guests are always looking forward to listening to this system. I have had comments like, "if ever you decide to sell those speakers, call me." Then again, we always only play vinyl. |
I think what I am going to try to do is audition (buy with option to send back) the Channel Island D200 MKII's. From all the reviews I've been reading they have a very "tube" sound with a warm midrange and smooth highs without any harshness or grain. They are rated at 200w into 8 and 375w into 4.
Worst case scenario is I'll have to pay for restocking, but I've heard nothing but good things about these amps. I will try my preamp again with all the different amp combinations. Just last night I hooked up my old CJ MF2100 and while it didn't have any real power to drive the speakers the highs weren't bad on that amp directly hooked up the NAD. So while I don't disagree with there being an issue the NAD directly connected to the amp, the brightness only rears its head with the Vincent amp. Hey, if Im wrong I'll be the first to admit it and have the restocking charge to prove it. |
With all due respect to Stevecham, the Thiel 2.4's are not easy to drive. |
Yea, I've had a pair of 2.3s for almost 15 years. The 2.4s are meant to be a real improvement -- but relatively similar. They definitely appreciate some real current, and don't do very well without it, at least in my experience. I've also found the new ones (new Thiels in general) can sound kinda awful until they break in. I got mine used (serial numbers 212 & 213, so they were relatively old when I got them in Â’99), and never had to go through the breakin process myself, but IÂ’ve heard new Thiels in shops several times, and they really donÂ’t sound great new: brighter, anemic, pretty unimpressive coherency, and just plain flat (and not flat in a good way). I suspect that is an especially unsatisfying answer given your time frame, but not sure that thereÂ’s any real getting around it.
Over the years, I fed the 2.3s with all manner of permutation. Originally it was a VTL TL 2.5 in front of a Bryston 4b-st. Then swapped out the VTL for a Rogue 99 Magnum. Then the Rogue for a Plinius CD-LAD. Then both the Bryston and the Plinius for Rowland gear. Source-wise, went from a tubed CDP, to a Meridian 508.24, to a MHDT Havana DAC, to an Ayre QB-9. So, IÂ’ve swung back and forth between tubes and solid state for everything other than amplification. None of it sounded bad, and really comes down to a matter of taste. And for taste, I canÂ’t even manage to keep mine the same over the years, so I wouldnÂ’t dream of foisting it on anyone else. Most recently, I swapped out the Thiels for something else (which, I must admit, I like a whole lot more), but am actually still running the Thiels in a second (ill-conceived and arguably downright strange) computer set-up.
In short, I guess that the Thiels are really known for being somewhat on the precise side. Call it flat, neutral, clinical, etched, bright, resolving or whatever – which you pick is really a value judgment – really comes down to whether you like that sound or not. For years, I found myself reaching for warm, lush more organic electronics in order to dial them back to more of a medium ground. The Thiels present a great lens for seeing into the character of whatever you end up with up-stream, that’s for sure. But pair them with anything tending towards the brighter side, and that’s very much what you’re going to get. (Not at all familiar with the NAD you’re using, so no guess on what synergies might be in play there). Gosh, I ramble.
Guess four things in short. Thiels can sound great, no question. Thiels like power and current, my rule of thumb has always been at least 200 wpc, doubling to 400 at 4 ohms. Many get by with less, but I wouldnÂ’t choose to. Thiels benefit, to my tastes, from warmer electronics, and can spin out of the range of enjoyable if paired with gear that reinforces their brighter leanings. And, finally, new Thiels seem to need a lot of exercise before settling down. So, getting too far down the road of making commitments on 1-3 before working out no. 4 can be tricky. Yea, kinda sucks, but donÂ’t know what to tell you. My experience, FWIW. Best of luck. |
I ran a pair of Thiel 3.6's with first a cj MF2500A and then a cj premier 350 both worked great and were ss offerings from cj. I used a cj premier 16II tubed preamp in combination with the ss cj amp and the presentation of was very smooth and detailed. I would recommend that route with the 2.4's.
Chuck |
I actually own an old MF2100, but its not powerful enough for the Thiels. However if I remember the MF series is a MOSFET powered amp, thus a D class amp. Someone correct me if I am wrong on that. A lot of people snub their noses at D class, but when I used my CJ on my old Vandersteen 2CE's they sounded good to me. And now im going to try these Channel Island d200 MKii Monoblocks, they are D class too. Let's hope they are suppose to have a warmer sound, which I hope will mate well to the Thiels. They also have a >1000 dampening factory that should be good for the hard to drive bass. |
Your cj MF 2100 is not a Class D amp, it's a class AB amp. |
Ok, I remember seeing this:
http://www.conradjohnson.com/It_just_sounds_right/a-mf2100.html
that is why I thought it was class D, I thought all MOSFET was class d. My mistake. |
Curious to hear how the Channel Island monoblocks treat you. Had some Rowland 201s (class D monoblocks) on my 2.3s for a spell, and liked it just fine. Class D definitely elicits some strong reactions. As it's a relatively new way of going about high-end amplification, I suspect that there were some early efforts that weren't that swell and turned a lot of folks off of the idea. By all accounts, however, the technology has continued to improve. The Rowlands I have were relatively early, and I understand that things have only gotten better. Hopefully the Channel Island kit will be just what the doctor ordered. Certainly look promising to me (which is worth exactly nada, but anyway). Enjoy. |
Mezmo,
I hope your right. I keep hearing about no "emotion" in class d amps, but every professional review, save one, and almost all people who personally own the Channels really seem to like them. I never 100% trust professional critics - just cant really tell where their true intentions lie with advertisers and all. Most of the reviews of the Channels are of the older D200's not the newer D200 MKii which evidently improves the whole product top to bottom. If it turns out there is no "emotion" to these amps that may not bode well for the Thiels since they can sound analytical. Add to that the fact that I will want to drive them directly with my NAD DAC it could spell disaster - though the NAD sounds very, VERY nice. But I'll have a coulple of preamps to throw on them just to see. I could buy a used ARC preamp or CJ preamp just to see if the tubes "add" anything, but one step at a time. haha |
You might try a McCormack DNA-1 or DNA-0.5. They can be found on the 'Gon for $500-$700 all the time. They have a higher input sensitivity since they were designed mostly for McCormack's passive preamps which should be a plus if you still want to drive them w/o a preamp. If you still have a bright sound, it won't be the amp.
Also, don't forget that you can face the speakers toward each other wired out of phase and play white noise through them to speed the break-in process.
Dick |
Everything Dick, posts is true, but IMO the McCormack amps tend to be somewhat forward, something that might not compliment the Thiels. |
Chuck,
I did the same thing like you did with Thiel 3.6. Thiel and CJ sound wonderful although The best combination I had in my room years back then was Thiel 3.6 and MCCormack DNA-1 rev.A deluxe edition in mono block configuration. |
Unsound, I've never heard the Thiels, just what I've read about their characteristics and requirements over the years. However, I've never heard anyone describe the McCormack amps as "forward." I'm using a DNA-0.5 Deluxe with a pair of Merlin VSM-MXes and it sounds wonderful. On the other hand, I also don't run direct into the amp which I think would tend to push everything forward anyway. |
Djohnson54, I'm not alone on the impression that the McCormack's tendency towards forwardness. Some years ago, in conversation with a Thiel rep, he agreed with me when I mentioned it. More recently this was posted here on Audiogon:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1306608523&openusid&zzStevemcx&4&5#Stevemcx |
A high quality SS preamp from any number of companies into a push pull tube amp, also from lots of companies...problem (maybe) solved. I run a brilliantly overbuilt but extinct Kavent S33 dual mono balanced class A blah blah blah preamp into an upgraded Jolida 502p sporting (that's right...SPORTING) KT120 "mondo-a-mundo el heato mucho" tubes. My theory is to have the cleanest possible signal available before the electrons hit the Greasy Tube Tone Factory, spill out onto the magnesium/aluminum drivers in my Series II Silverline Preludes, and then into my addled brain. This works for me. Maybe it's the addled brain. |
Unsound, thanks for the link. I just don't experience that characteristic but, of course, every system is different. Steve says it's slight so maybe that's it. |
|
Djohnson54, no component is completely neutral. The otherwise very fine and superb value McCormack amps work wonderfully with more laid back products such as the Vandersteens. Some might even like the combination of McCormack's with other somewhat forward sounding products, including Thiels. I just thought a caution of doubling up on similar divergences from neutrality was in order. |
The direction I would take with any Thiel which wasn't totally clear in my last post was a tubed pre-amp with a ss power amp. Thiels really seem to like this combination. |
Bel Canto ref1000m monoblocks might come in used at around your budget and would have a good chance of ending your amp search for the Thiels. |
Jim Thiel wasn't fond of Class D amps with anything but sub woofers. But, thing have been moving fast since Jim passed. I might get a chance to hear a Wyred 4 Sound amp on Thiels soon. I'm encouraged by the reviews, I do hope Class D can make running speakers like the Thiels more affordable. |
My Channel Islands come tonite. So in a few days to a week I'll give an update. If I'm lucky all goes well and the warm sound and good bass control will mate well with the hard to drive, bright Thiels. Not sure how long it will take to break in these amps enough to get a feel for the sound and dynamics, but it better be sooner than the 30 day trial period! |
Ok. Hooked up. First impressions - so far promising for being completely green out the box. No glaring flaws. Highs are a bit softer, not so edgy. Simon and garfunkle live seems more "live". |
Ok, bass is more resolved and has more heft and punch with better body. Dave Brubeck's "take five" drum solo towards the end of the songs is real nice! |
I have had good partnerships between my Thiel CS2.4SEs and my Bel Canto REF1000Ms. If I had the choice, I would have preferred the REF500Ms. They use 3rd gen ICE modules and seem a little less lean than the REF1000Ms. |
I'd be willing to bet that the Thiels will sound much more balanced after they break in. My Merlins sounded very bright and tizzy until they got some hours on them. Now they are VERY smooth and the bass is incredible. They hadn't been played very much right before I bought them. I suspect the woofers had to loosen up so that the balance between lows, mids and highs was correct. The tweeter has calmed down and gotten smoother too. Unfortunately, break-in time and dealers' return policy don't always match up. Search the forums for break-in time on the 2.4s and play them as much as you can (even if you're not listening). You're new class D amp should make that economical. |
ref1000m's are lean and mean, no doubt (damping factor of 1000 as I recall), yet also most muscular and articulate. There is no flab in the sound whatsoever FWIW. That was the first thing I noticed when I first hooked them up. That might be a good or bad thing depending on the speakers need for damping. Some might endup sounding too lean, depending on personal preference.
THe ref1000ms are the perfect mate to the OHM Walsh speakers, especially my larger 5s, which are my mains. I think they are are a very good match with my smaller monitors also (Dynaudio and Triangle) however I could see where some might prefer less damping (more like a tube amp) with smaller monitors or even floorstanders with smaller drivers that might not be able to let loose as needed with such high damping. A damping factor of even 50 on a SS amp is generally considered to be fairly high and sufficient in many cases.
My impression of the Thiels is that they are a difficult load to drive similar to the larger OHMs, and a natural candidate for a Class D amp accordingly, though my recollection from hearing Thiels in the past is that they may tend towards the leaner side of things soundwise to start. I still think a highly damped Class D amp could deliver some very unique and extraordinary results with Thiels, similar to what I observe with Dynaudio. The BCs smooth and fatigue free top end could be a match made in heaven. I would expect similar things from the Channel Islands, but have not heard those so cannot say for sure. |
Well, I only have a couple hours of listening time on the amps right ouf the box. But the bass is better. What im ultimately interested in when it comes to how "D" amps work is if there is a loss of information like some say when comparing Vinyl and CD players. The Class D amps work a the principle of an on/off nature similar to how cd players work with 0's and 1's. My understanding is that class D amps use PWM (I think I have the acronym right) thus it would seem their sound is "interpreted" if you will just like CD's have to "interpret" between the bits. Is my thinking right on this or am I off base? Im I losing audio information in a digital amp? My understanding of the CI D200's is that the switching is analog, but the on/off concept still remains.
Also, Im driving the amps right from the NAD DAC and its working great, the highs are really nice and not bright at all so far. |
"My understanding is that class D amps use PWM (I think I have the acronym right) thus it would seem their sound is "interpreted" if you will just like CD's have to "interpret" between the bits. Is my thinking right on this or am I off base? "
I believe you are correct that Class D amps use PWM (Pulse WIdth Modulation).
I'd say it is accurate to say that the sound of any amp (Class D or otherwise) is "interpreted". The mechanisms used by different types of amps vary however.
"I'm I losing audio information in a digital amp?"
Since no amplifier is perfect, I would say yes, however, again same true of ANY amp design.
Class D amp technology is relatively new and innovative. From what I hear I would say Class D amps are competitive soundwise with other good amps out there these days, perhaps even with some at much higher price points. Like most things, there is no definitive "best". It all depends..... In the end, you just gotta do your homework and trust your own ears. |
04-17-12: Last_lemming
...............
What im ultimately interested in when it comes to how "D" amps work is if there is a loss of information like some say when comparing Vinyl and CD players. The Class D amps work a the principle of an on/off nature similar to how cd players work with 0's and 1's. My understanding is that class D amps use PWM (I think I have the acronym right) thus it would seem their sound is "interpreted" if you will just like CD's have to "interpret" between the bits. Is my thinking right on this or am I off base? Im I losing audio information in a digital amp? My understanding of the CI D200's is that the switching is analog, but the on/off concept still remains.
.............
04-17-12: Mapman
............
I'd say it is accurate to say that the sound of any amp (Class D or otherwise) is "interpreted". The mechanisms used by different types of amps vary however.
................
Since no amplifier is perfect, I would say yes, however, again same true of ANY amp design.
Class D amp technology is relatively new and innovative.
ROTFLMAO!!! Last_lemming, Mapman thanks much for providing the laughs today at lunch time...... This is a classic case of the bling leading the lame.... Yes, class-D amplifiers do use a principle called Pulse Width Modulation or PWM. Class-D amplifiers are, what one would classify, discrete-time systems. They are essentially a mix of both analog & digital hence "discrete-time" as opposed to being purely digital wherein the signal/data would be digital from start(input) to end(output). An every day example that touches our lives would be a digital signal processor in our smart-phones - digital data in, digital data out, then, a D/A conversion & we get brightness modulated on the LCD screen/phone call translated to voice/keypad push converted to user-asked-for action, etc. The technology for class-D audio power amplifiers is new to the field of audio but it is a very old technology overall. Class-D amplifiers are basically modified switch-mode power supplies (SMPSs) that are appropriately modified to modulate a music signal (rather than track a reference voltage). As many of you already know, you home desktop computer & your laptops extensively use SMPS. That big metal perforated box into which the power cable connects on your home desktop computer is a large SMPS box. SMPS power supplies have been in existence since the late 1960s & early 1970s. Back then SMPSs had very low bandwidth in the 100s of KHz. Recently, with the advancement of technology, SMPSs can have upto 6MHz of bandwidth. And, they do if you look at National Semicondutor's, Maxim's, Analog Devices' catalogs. SMPSs are now extensively used in smartphones today - there must be atleast 6 SMPSs in a Apple iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy S2, etc. So, the technology is old but the advancement lies in making the noise performance very, very good for audio applications because the human ear is very sensitive to noise in the presence region (1KHz-5KHz). In a Class-D power amplifier the music signal is an input voltage reference (moving reference, of course) & there is an analog filter that averages this input signal. This average is compared against an internally generated ramp signal. When the ramp signal is above the average signal, one output power transistor is on while the other is off. When the ramp signal is lower than the average signal the other power transistor is on & the 1st power transistor is off. So, now you can see that the time that the on transistor is on varies each time - it depends on how long the ramp signal is above the average signal. This is where you get the pulse width modulation (PWM). The 'pulse' being how long the transistor is on. Needless to say one power transistor is P-type supplying current into the load & the other power transistor is N-type pulling/sinking current from the load. After the output of the power transistors there is an analog filter to cut down the spurs that are created by switching transistors. If these spurs were not cut down they would create a very noisy output & totally destroy your listening pleasure. The other equally important reason for filtering is that the on/off pulses of the power transistors do not resemble in any way shape or form the analog music signal. If you filter/average these pulses then the averaged signal does accurately represent the input music signal. So, you can see where the "digital" nature of the class-D amplifier comes in - power transistor either fully on or fully off. If you look at power transistor classification, this action is categorized as class-D (we all are very familiar with class-A & class-AB power amplifiers which are prolific in the audio market). You can also see where the analog nature of the class-D amplifier comes in - the analog filter averaging the music signal. The 2 systems are meshed together as a whole hence class-D amplifiers are not fully digital & they are not fully analog. They are discrete-time meaning that at specific time spots a certain action takes place (one power transistor turns on & the other turns off). But if you look at time on a continuous basis you see that they analog filter has a continuous-time analog output voltage. So, this system is analog & digital all at the same time. So, the analog filtering post power transistors is an interpolation & there is some loss of signal as the filter smooths out the on/off pulses but the key here is that if the on/off pulses are, say, 10X faster than the highest frequency audio signal (20KHz) then, music signal is oversampled high enough that there is no loss of information (per the Nyquist criteria) & you have sufficient number of data points to reconstruct the analog music signal (per Shannon's theorem). So, if the class-D amp is designed correctly, information-wise you should not be losing any information. And, BTW, neither do CD players lose any information! Hope that this helps.... |
"So, if the class-D amp is designed correctly, information-wise you should not be losing any information."
Bombay, my point was that technically no amplifier in practice (as opposed to theory) is perfect, so there is always some information "loss" or perhaps transformation (not completely reversible) would be a better term.
I would agree though that whatever you choose to call this, its no more of a concern with a well designed Class D amplifier than it is with any other amplifier type, so practically no reason for concern (at least in theory).
In the end you gotta trust your ears. Theory and its practical realization in design and construction are two different things. |
Well Im glad my ignorance has amused you today!
I certainly don't claim to be an expert at audio design or technology, which you obviously know more about than I do. Thank you for your post, it was very informative. I'll make sure that in my future attempts to gain more knowlege on the subject that my lameness does not attempt rear its ugly head if at all possible ;) |
04-17-12: Mapman
...
Bombay, my point was that technically no amplifier in practice (as opposed to theory) is perfect, so there is always some information "loss" or perhaps transformation (not completely reversible) would be a better term.
....
Agree. yes, there's always a transformation of information when we switch mediums: sound pressure to electrical & back again. I see, that's where you were coming from. I agree. 04-17-12: Last_lemming
....
I'll make sure that in my future attempts to gain more knowlege on the subject that my lameness does not attempt rear its ugly head if at all possible ;)
Sorry, I should have been less sarcastic. No offence meant to you (or anyone else) & I hope that no offence was taken. Don't worry too much about it & don't let that disuade you from asking your questions. Well, reading up before is always a good idea no matter how much one knows but these forums are meant for learning. I've been laughed at many times in these forums & continue to be. I've also asked newbie questions & written material that I regretted later. All part of the learning.... Glad that you found the post informative. |
No offense taken. I try to read up on a subject before I ask a question, but my understanding of electrical design is limited to construction and architecture and reading about electrical component design gets me quite lost in tryin to truly understand it sometimes. Home electronics fascinates me, though my understanding is quite superficial. It's good to hear from people who do understand it and can explain it to common folk like me. |
Ive lived with the ciaudio d200 mkii's for about 2 weeks now and probably have about 100+ hours on the units. I've been running them in balanced configuration. So far these amps seem pretty good. Great bass control and plenty of power to drive the Thiels. The sound is very open and full with good imaging. He highs are good with a slight emphasis on acoustical guitar plucking and cymbols with voices being slightly recessed, but not on all albums which leaves me to believe its more the recording than the amps. Not sure yet. In all the amps seem quite neutral. |
Ok. Might be sending the ciaudio's back. There are some really good things to like about them but something isn't quite geling here with the Thiels. Maybe I should just sell the damn Thiels! I dunno getting real disappointed trying to make these speakers work. Anyway I'm going to be auditioning the Parasound Halo 21 in hopes to find some synergy. Not sure if it will be there. It seems the speakers need the bass and mid bass to open up to balance out the highs. The D200's went a long way in doing this but carried an edge to the highs I found a bit tiring. I did look at McCormacks like some of you suggested, from Spearitsound.com but I don't think they have a 30 day return policy.
Anybody have any thoughts on the Parasound, I'm not sure it's going to do me any favors in the highs either, or at least bring out the low, but it gets relally good reviews. |
If you don't have 300 hours at least on the 2.4s, the 2.4s sound very horrible. I remember the agony I went through with the first few months of ownership.
Then one day, the tardiness of the bass went and the highs lost their initial harshness. |
Yeah I'm hoping your right. I'm probably approaching 250. I've got about 100 hours of decent loudness playing through them and another 125+ just letting them play at night, though not very loud. So I've got a bit to go
Not doubting your word on them loosening up, but do you think some of that loosening up was you just getting use to them? |
Thiels are too good for the other equipment you are considering. These speakers sound excellent with excellent ancillary equipment...otherwise, you are spinning your wheels. |
I don't think so.
I was documenting my impressions at a local forum, almost on a daily basis.
My room then had a bad 50Hz problem so a number of R&B songs were unbearable to me. So that's what I did. I put in a Squeezbox to stream my "problematic" tracks every day.
I even used to "remote control" my home PC to dial up the volume during the day and dial it down before I got home (no one was home but the missus never let me leave the house with the volume as loud as I liked haha).
Anyway, I was very encouraged to read of a similar experience from another Thiel owner in avs forums and his comments struck a chord with me. |
Last_lemming,
In my first post I mentioned wiring the speakers out of phase. If you just swap the +/- on ONE of the speakers and face the speakers at each other in close proximity, most of the sound will cancel (especially with mono material or white/pink noise). You can then play them much louder without disturbing neighbors, etc. Of course you can't enjoy them set up like this but they should break in much faster. Forgive me if you know all of this already or don't have the ability to properly place them for this.
Dick |
Yeah my problem is they are in the living room and can't really do the "face each other" idea |
I don't doubt that I might be trying to push a rope, and what I require is a powerful amp that can provide the current needed, but I also one that will synergies well and not emphasize the the forward nature of these speakers. Other than. Buying Krell what would you suggest would work in the $3k to $4k realm? |
