@thoft, the original Krell FPB's ("Full Power Balanced") are designed to work best through their balanced inputs, though if you wanted to direct connect to a high bit, high output DAC the RCA inputs might have an advantage to avoid bit stripping. The latter FPBC's and FPBCX's don't even have RCA inputs; only XLR and CAST.
As far as using an intergraded as a pre, well I suggest using the KISS approach. Your just introducing more potential noise and failure prone parts. |
Let me add that theses impedance loads are typically best served by ss amps. Unlike tube amps, ss amps don’t clip gracefully. When ss amps clip, it’s sudden and ugly. With ss amps t’s best to keep far distance from the clipping point. Fortunately ss Watts are typically much less expensive than tube Watts. Making it much more affordable to avoid it altogether and have the safety of that extra power margin. |
@yyzsantabarbara, I’m a firm believer in working backwards: budget, room, speakers, amplification, etc.. But I offer this with sincerity: perhaps your affection (which might be well deserved) for the Benchmark might lead you to more compatible speakers? |
@yyzsantabarbara,@yyzsantabarbara, “A shame these things cost money.”
Haha😄 |
@yyzsantabarbara , If an amp can't double down into lower impedances, at higher volume levels it can lead to frequency linearity issues. The Thiel's tend to have fairly steady impedance loads, so it might be less of an issue. FWIW, considering everything I'm not sure why you have such loyalty for the Benchmark. Something like the above mentioned Krell FPB 300 would be ideal. The FPB 300 has perhaps a bit of overkill power for your current room, but that's not a bad thing, especially if your considering moving your speakers to a larger room in the future. The FPB 300 is something of a sweet spot model in the line up, a nice step up from the smaller models, due to improved parts such as a bigger tranny. It's sensitivity also makes it a suitable model for direct connection for some of the newer high bit, high output DACS without having to worry about bit stripping, negating the need and expense of a line stage if you don't have analog sources to contend with. The issue with the Krells, perhaps due to their, though modulated, Class A output is that they seem to need recapping more frequently than some of the competition. That's not an inexpensive proposition unto itself and then there's the expense of shipping such heavy gear. Though I think you can conservatively expect 20 years between such servicing. |
@jon_5912, I think you mean 64 Watts for 102 dB. And one would need 256 Watts for 108dB. Now one would not ordinarily play Thiel’s that loud, but should it happen you wouldn’t have to worry. Ultimate volume levels are a Thiel weakness. For me the Thiel virtues outweighs the compromises, and the speakers that can play that loud are too compromised elsewhere for me. Though not the last word in accuracy, I’ve used a phone app to track my listening volumes in my roughly >3800’cubed room for a few weeks. The average sound pressure was about 85 dB, but there were peaks a few times each day of well over 100 dB.
It’s not the ultimate power of the Krell’s that impresses me the most, but rather the ease in which it handles low impedance loads. There’s nary a strain, and it’s reflected in the sound. BTW, with my >4 Ohm Thiel’s I use a less powerful amp that’s not a Krell. |
@jon_5912, That’s not quite correct. They’re spec’d at:
90 dB at 2.83 V 1/m
not
90 dB at 1Watt 1/m
You need to drop the sensitivity by 3dB for each halving of impedance below 8 Ohms.
I don’t know what amp you are using to drive which speakers, but it’s not uncommon for an amp to halve it’s Class A output as it doubles it’s output with each halving of impedance. |
@yyzsantabarbara,
There are different types of distortions. Clipping is the consequence of some distortions.
The Benchmark is somewhat unique, I was wondering just how it’s feedforward mechanism works when confronted with low impedances? Does it reduce power when sensing overload, does it shut down, does it provide some sort of dynamic headroom, does it self correct the distortion ala DSP, or something else?
|
@jon_5912, It’s been 50 years since my middle school / high school physics classes, but I seem to remember:
current X voltage
_______________ = Watts
impedance
I’m rounding the 3.7’s as a 2 Ohm load.
Space is the ultimate luxury. I’m envious that you can have multiple quality systems. I agree that’s a great way to approach this hobby. |
I suppose it’s a good thing that this amp protects against overload, but I can’t help but think having extra power margins into lower impedances and the superior frequency linearity that come with it, wouldn’t be better. I’d rather an amp just keep delivering when called upon than shutting down, even if just briefly. As of now it seems as though there are better options available. Perhaps a beefier AHB3? |
^With the right amp you can play these speakers pretty loud. Jim recommended up to 600 Watts per channel and used a Krell FPB 600 for them. |
^Most driver damage occurs when people try to play too loud with underpowered amps. |
@tomthiel, you seem to be referencing your experience with the AHB2's with the Thiel CS 2 2 's but most of the conversation here is in regard to the Thiel 3.7's. https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-2-loudspeaker-measurementshttps://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs37-loudspeaker-measurementshttps://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-ahb2-power-amplifierWe can see that while the 3.7's appear more sensitive than the 2 2's, the 3.7's work at a lower impedance. The 3.7's are also recommended for greater power input, perhaps to compensate. The AHB2's would seem a bit more comfortable providing comparable useable power into higher impedances than comparable useable power into lower impedances. Though not conforming to ideal textbook performance, the AHB2's are spec'd to the 2 2's load. However, I think that the crux of this conversation is in regard to the impedance and the corresponding specifications of the AHB-2's into the load at hand for the 3.7's, for which they are not. The difference between a 3.5 and a 2.4 minimum impedance load is not insignificant. Forgive me if I appear jaded, but that "John is adamant that the AHB-2 has enough power. Engineers can be that way." sounds more like he's wearing his marketing hat, rather than his engineering hat. |
|
@tomthiel, at the risk of appearing petty, it think the AudioScience review you’re referring to was by the author who goes by "amirm" not John Atkinson of Stereophile. |
@hifi28, For a small room, yes for:
Thiel CS 1
Thiel CS 1.2
Thiel CS 2
Thiel CS 3
Thiel CS 3.5
Vandersteen 2ce
|
CS 3.6’s present a tough load on amplifiers. You would need to look at amplifiers spec’d to a minimum of 400 Watts into 2 Ohms. |
A couple of thoughts regarding moving speakers closer together. One should be aware that as one moves the speakers closer together that you would also be moving the speakers closer to the listener. As such, it could affect driver integration. In order to preserve the time coherence that Jim Thiel worked so hard to achieve, a minimum of 8’ and preferably 10’ distance from speaker to listener needs to be maintained.
Also, as I previously touched upon, yyzsantabarbara is considering using DSP RC. In which case the opposite closer to wall placement could be advantageous. In fact. when using DSP RC not placing them directly besides the walls could trade one set of problems for another. Ideally speakers such as Thiel’s own powerpoints would be used with DSP RC.
Without DSP RC keeping the typical Thiel speakers well away from immediate reflections is most advantageous.
|
@yyzsantabarbara, the previous Thiel’s were laminates. I suspect the same holds true for the 3.7’s. Though they came after Tom Thiel’s departure, I doubt you’ll find anyone with more insight regarding Thiel’s cabinetry. He’s a master at such things. |
@yyzsantabarbara,FWIW, I typically don’t care for black finished speakers, but for the very reasons you’ve suggested, I think the black finish could help disguise the harlequin effect the often 3.7’s present to my eyes. |
@yyzsantabarbara, I think you read too much into my previous post, I merely meant that with their contrasting color quadrants that they looked like a harlequin. |
I would imagine that Jafant’s suggested satin black might be particularly handsome. |
Going from CS5i’s to stand mounts with tubes could be a very different contrast.
B&W’s usually aren’t very compatible with tubes. Just look at Fig. 1 for the 805’s
B&W Matrix 805 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
That rollercoaster frequency response is not what tubes typically like to see.
Personally, I don’t much care for the B&W sound, though I once heard a pair of 802’s in a very unusual room powered by ss/tube hybrid Counterpoint amp making some beautiful work of a chorale performance. The demonstrator shut down the system after about 20 minutes, because he was afraid the amp might go up in flames.
|
^That’s a different comparison. A sealed box 3.7 would be a triumph! |
@tomthiel, Your entitled your opinion and yours will deservedly carry more weight than mine. I’m not so sure that the 3.6’s are more accurate, perhaps not even more mature. But, while the 3.6’s are more dynamic, play louder and are more suave from the midrange up, the 3.5’s go deeper, have better time and phase coherence, and get more from less costly amplification. You’ve confirmed what I always suspected: that the 3.6’s were rushed to meet cyclical market demands. I was and remain disappointed. I would have guessed the 3.5’s would have been followed with a 4 way sealed box with time compensated bi-wiring keeping the eq out of the upper range. I can understand why some might prefer the 3.6’s, but I’ll go with 3.5’s every time. I think all things considered the 3.5’s were Thiel’s best product. The port made sense for the CS2’s down, but I think it was a mistake that kept being made (except for CS5’s whose amp requirements keep it from being the best Thiel) with the 3.6’s on.
YYMMV. To each his own. |
I used an Adcom SLC 505, a B&K CS115 and a c-j PF 2L with the Adcom 555 II. At least one of the Adcom pres was highly rated, and considered something of a giant killer. I never heard a Musical Fidelity product that I would consider buying. Isn't the MF Tri Vista an integrated? Are you planning on running one integrated into another integrated? Most high end pre's use separate power supplies, and the same holds true for ultra deluxe power amps. Having all that circuitry so close to each other allows for the transference of RF, EMI and ground issues. Does the Tri Vista use those canned tube nuvista devices. I remember reading many years ago that MF claimed that they had big surplus of them, but that was a long time ago. I don't know of anyone else that might stock those rather unique devices. I'd check, you might be SOOL should you need replacements. Would you need to send the unit back to England for repairs? I have to admit I have a bit of prejudice against MF. Shortly after Stereophile was sold to a major holder, for a few months the magazine looked nothing short of a monthly catalogue for Musical Fidelity, pages and pages of MF ads with intermittent reviews of many MF products. Suspicious to say the least! |
@thieliste, re: your 11/24/2020 post: Thiel Owners | Audiogon Discussion Forum IMHO, what improvements the Thiel CS 3.6’s had over the Thiel CS 3.5’s amounted to 2 steps forward / 3 steps back. Where as the flat co-axial drivers in the CS 3.7’s were a major(!) improvement forward. Still when all (!) is considered; I think Thiel’s CS 3.5’s were Thiel’s best product. When I say all, I’m including ROI or more plainly value. Lets compare: Thiel CS 3.5’s last sold for $2850 up until 1992 Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com Thiel CS 3.7’s first sold for $11,000 in 2006 Thiel CS3.7 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com Considering inflation between 1992 and 2006 would make the Thiel CS 3.5’s cost in 2006 = $ 4,067.03 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Now, if one wanted to retrieve all the musical information available on one’s recordings, unlike the Thiel CS 3.5’s the Thiel 3.7’s would need to be supplemented with subwoofers. Let’s use a pair of Thiel’s own bottom of the line Thiel SS1’s, original 2003 cost of $2800 each adjusted for inflation in 2006 = $3046.10 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Thiel SS1’s X 2 = $6092.20 That alone costs more than the 2006 inflationary cost of the Thiel CS 3.5’s When added to the original cost of the Thiel 3.7’s: Thiel CS 3.7’s: $11,000 + Thiel SS! X 2 : $6,092.20 ____________________________ Total: $ 17,092.20 Or more than $13,025.17 than the 2006 inflationary cost of the Thiel CS 3.5’s And that doesn’t include the cost of amplification: Jim Thiel mostly used the Threshold S 500 amplifier for the Thiel CS 3.5’s. Lets use the last version sold; the Threshold S550e which sold in 1989 for $6300 adjusted for 2006 inflation for a cost of $10,289.13 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Jim Thiel mostly used the Krell FPB - 600 amplifier for the Thiel CS 3.7’s. Lets use the Krell FPB - 600 C which sold in 2000 for $13,500 adjusted for 2006 inflation for a cost of $15,867.10 USD Inflation Calculator - US Dollar (1956-2020) (inflationtool.com) Which would be an additional $5,555.97 in amplification cost, which when added to the extra costs of the CS 3.7’s with 2 Thiel SS1’s over the 2006 inflation adjusted Thiel CS 3.5’s = $18,603.14 Thiel CS 3.7’s = $11,000 Thiel CS SS1 X 2 =$ 6,092.20 Krell FPB-600C =$15,867.10 ________________________________ Total $32,959.30 Thiel CS 3.5’s =$ 4,067.03 - Threshold S550e =$10,289.13 ________________________________ $14,356.16 ___________ $18,603.14 Now the Thiel CS 3.7’s combination will outperform the Thiel CS 3.5 combination in most every way; ease of placement, freedom from lobing, ultimate loudness, (and with the subs especially in the bass region), and much, much more,... except time and phase coherence, and foot print where the Theil CS 3.5’s despite their 20 year age disadvantage still have the edge. Still, the CS 3.5’s wouldn’t be too embarrassed by the comparison. If one wanted to do something similar with the current state of used prices, I think the advantage would be probably proportionately even greater for the Thiel CS 3.5’s. Considering everything; I think the CS 3.5’s were Thiel’s best product. |
@tomthiel, In reply to your 11/25/2020 post:
Thiel Owners | Audiogon Discussion Forum
Let me say that your measurements are better than mine, as I have none. Though I think Stereophile's component measurements have real value, I am hesitant to use Stereophile's speaker measurements, especially with speakers like Thiel's. I have heard the 3.5's next to the 3.6's very often at my preferred dealer at the time, Innovative Audio in Brooklyn, with various gear such as Adcom , B&K, conrad-johnson, Exposure, Levinson, Krell, PS Audio, Rowland, Spectral, etc., And as they had a policy of only (except for the small budget lines) having one set of speakers in a room at a time, they were regularly moving speakers in and out of their various sized rooms. So there was that too. It's hard for me to imagine a speaker with a port and less bass output as being "more accurate" by "adhering to a more flat frequency and phase response curve" than a sealed box with extended bass response.
Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com
Thiel CS3.6 loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com
It might appear as though the 3.6's were .5 dB more linear above sub bass frequency but, when including sub bass frequency they were 1dB less linear, and only to 27Hz as opposed to the 3.5's 20 Hz. I can only wonder what the 3.5's frequency response above 27 Hz might have measured as. It seems incongruous that, all else being equal, a port would be more phase linear than a sealed box. I was aware of the significance of numerology in eastern culture. But, it seems as though Thiel's nomenclature only had value within Thiel. The difference between the CS3's and the CS 3.5's to the consumer seemed less than than that between the CS 3.5's and CS 3.6's. The CS 2's were 3 ways. The CS 5's had 6 drivers. The CS 6's had 3 drivers. The CS 7's had 4 drivers. Thiel could have used any number of alternative names to avoid using the #4, such as 3+1, or 2+2, etc.. The baffle was covered by a grill. With apologies to Bill; : "A speaker by any other name would sound just as sweet". Perhaps "rushing to market" was overstated, But meeting market demands still seemed to be the objective. The refinement of the 3.6's was welcome, but expected. The loss of bass response and the let down in time and phase coherence (a Thiel hallmark!) was not, then the extra demands on amplification and concurrent costs was also not. The jaded might suspect it was an attempt to give dealers an excuse to sell their more of their new home theatre sub woofers. Oh well, time moves on, and so must we.:-) |
@thoft, I assume your addressing me? IMHO, the CS 6’s were something of a poor value. Similar to the CS 3.6’s in range, though with much greater ease and dynamics, but at nearly twice the cost, again IMHO, a poor value. YMMV! The CS 7’s were one of Thiel’s best. But, and I might be in the minority here, I preferred the CS 5i’s. But the CS 5’s amplifier requirements are, let’s put this politely; demanding.
I had an Adcom on long term loan (a couple of months), and heard them on a lot of gear. While I admired them for allowing those on a budget to use speakers that might otherwise be out of reach due to amplification budget requirements. They were up to the job that was previously only available from more expensive (and sometimes much more expensive) amps. Ultimately the Adcom was amongst my least favorite amps. I found them to be dry, grainy, flat. and lacking dimensionality. I noticed that as long as it was in my system, the less time I spent listening to it. |
@tomthiel, at the risk of beating a dead horse, please note in order to have a consistent, generally available reference that I used the Audiogon Blue Book for pricing. I also used end of cycle pricing for the CS 3.5's combination, and beginning of cycle pricing for the CS 3.7's combination. The original pricing for the CS 3.5's was about $2550 and the original pricing for the Threshold S500 was about $2900. Of course that doesn't take inflation into consideration. The end of cycle Threshold S550e was priced over twice that cost, which included a nice upgrade of dual trannies and true balanced inputs, that couldn't be used with the 3.5's eq. On the other hand the $11,000 pricing quote of the 3.7's seems quite low, as the Stereophile link suggests $12,900. IMO, the CS 3.5's were and are one of the all time audio bargains. Kudos to you and the rest of the Thiel team! |
@tomthiel, Jim’s idea of costs coming down with production would seem to make sense. Amortization sets in at some point, no?
I only referenced the combinations that I did as a refence to what Jim was using. Other than for small receiver/ shelf mount little systems. Packaged setups weren’t the norm at the NYC dealers. Although Lyric used to demo Maggies with Audio Research often, and Levinson might be hooked up from time to time. But not so much at Innovative, where the set up was more often what ever the last customer requested. When one walked in you never knew what speakers were in what rooms or connected to what gear on any given day. Adcom was getting a lot of attention back then, so it wasn’t uncommon to see that set up. But Krell, Spectral, c-j, P.S. Audio, etc. would very often be hooked up too. I got to know the owner of Innovative in another environment/relationship and he claimed that the CS 3.5’s were amongst his all time favorite products. First and foremost because he sold a boatload of them, and secondly because they so easily demonstrated the virtues of moving up to better gear. More sales to a steady, returning clientele. Innovative were big Linn dealers, and Linn was all about the upgrade path. Of course this was all before personal PC’s, the internet, and HT was just emerging. People seemed to spend a lot more of their discretionary income on hi fi in those days. |
@jmbumgarner01, FWIW, I clearly prefer the Pass Labs 250.8 to the Classe’ DR-15, but at what cost? I suspect the extra costs might be more rewarding if spent elsewhere. Perhaps, on newer digital sources, or upgraded Thiel’s? |
|
@coop-301, @vair68robert offers good advice. This is a subject that has garnered a lot of conversation. As your building your system presently, I'll try to give you the skinny. Please realize that this is somewhat incomplete.
First of all, if you have analog sources, you're probably better off with an active pre.
Ideally you'd have a digital source with a voltage output equal to your amps input voltage sensitivity for full output. Having less voltage output will negate getting all the clean power your amp is capable of producing. Having too much voltage output will increase the chance of bit stripping through volume attenuation. Having an equal voltage output/input will allow less fussy full range of the volume control.
It would be better to have a digital source with built in volume control than using an external passive pre. Having a digital source with extra bits available (such as with the now ubiquitous 32 bit chips) to handle the volume attenuation will negate the chances of bit stripping.
It is better to use low capacitance interconnects (more likely with shorter ones) between digital source and amplification.
With the ML 23.5 with its 2.25 V input sensitivity it's more likely that with most typical 2 V (for CD) - 2.2V (for HDCD) digital sources that the lower voltage output via single RCA outputs will better avoid excessive attenuation that could lead to bit stripping, but will reduce the full clean power output potential. With the typical 4V (for CD) - 4.4V (for HDCD) balanced XLR output you'll get greater noise rejection, full power output from your amp, but with the necessary volume attenuation required you'll increase the chances of bit stripping.
FYI, if I recall correctly the ML needs somewhat unique Camac connectors on the interconnects for RCA input.
Other considerations, most external DACs unlike many all-in-one players are incapable of playing SACDs natively. While there are now many affordable DACs that can equal or outperform units from the past, currently the cost of dedicated disc transports tends to be somewhat expensive. The best value might be in an all-in-one player that has digital inputs that can serve as a hub for additional digital sources such as a streamer.
The above is in reference to "ideals". One doesn't need to match everything exactly in order to achieve satisfactory results. There is some wiggle room, particularly when using the above-mentioned DACs with extra available bits. Such a system if carefully put together to be compatible can not only offer terrific value it can also offer perhaps the purest sounding one. Some, however prefer to add a bit of flavor to the mix. FWIW, IMHO those that want to add something to the mix might be better served with a high-quality equalizer. YMMV.
|
@thieliste, I’ll hazard a guess that the 16’s 100 Watts Class A output halves with each halving of impedance (assuming it can hold up below 4 Ohms) below 8 Ohms. And that happens as the CS 3.7’s sensitivity is dropping as proportionately with impedance. Interesting that the 40 though not quite a double down monster still has a respectable 2 Ohms rating, but the 16 does not. CODA 16.0 Stereo Amplifier - Destination HiFi Coda 40.0 Stereo Amplifier - Destination HiFi |
^Many if not most B&W's have impedance plots and phase angles that don't typically take kindly to tube amplification. That B&W bought Classe' might be due to more than a coincidence. |
@coop_301 IMHO, the high bit internal volume control is preferable to the out board passive pre scenario.
|
@coop_301, After re-reading my last post, I realized that I failed to mention that the recommendation to use a DAC with internal volume control vs. an out board passive pre was predicated on using a DAC with extra available bits (such as the 32-bit chip equipped DACs alluded to). If one were to use a 16 or even 20-bit DAC (as is typical with most R2R DACS), analog volume attenuation (typically though not necessarily through an outboard passive pre) would probably be better to avoid bit stripping. That how-ever adds other considerations, especially with regard to interconnects as suggested by @tomthiel.
|
@coop_301 I had a moment, and knowing that for a newbie setting up what your proposing can be a bit challenging; I found this:
Output voltage (Page 1) — ADI-2 Pro & ADI-2 DAC — RME User Forum (rme-audio.de)
While RME offers the very nice feature of adjustable voltage output from both single ended (RCA) and balanced (XLR) outputs, none of them conform to consumer industry standards. Regrettably this is all too common, making consumer system building that more challenging. On the other hand, this common practice might allow you to find a close to perfect match. This deviation while not ideal, might not necessarily disqualify the RME from consideration, but I'd recommend keeping your options open. With a 32 bit source, you should have a generous amount of wiggle room before bit stripping occurs. As such, given the choice, I would recommend going with a slightly higher rather than slightly lower voltage output. Please bear in mind that all these recommendations are restricted to the technical considerations (albeit, perhaps more critical for what your proposing, than might otherwise be the case). There are other considerations such as what sounds best to you! There is a plethora of digital sources out there, I recommend you use these technical considerations to pare down the options to a short list, and then choose what sounds best to you.
|
@dsper , what you're asking for is really out of my wheelhouse. I don't much care for stand mounts. From my perspective they're wobbly units that take up just as much floorspace as floor standers with less bass output. I would seriously consider soffit mounted speakers with DSP, but alas my room isn't the right canvas for that. While I can fully appreciate the technical benefits of high sensitivity speakers, I've yet to hear any that I'd care to own. I prioritize system building first with budget, then room, then speakers, then amplification, etc., etc. I have hard time wrapping my head around choosing speakers for amps. As I've previously mentioned; I hear things that tube amps do well, but all in all ultimately all things considered I prefer ss.
Is this for an alternate system? I have difficulty imagining one would be satisfied with such a system if one were coming from properly set up and amplified Thiel CS 5i's in an appropriate room.
But that's me. YMMV. Good luck with your quest, I hope your find satisfaction.
|
@coop_301 , This link might be of some help:
Audio Electronics Review and Measurements Index | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
If you scroll down the column on the far right, you can see the as tested voltage outputs. Keep in mind that is the as tested voltage, as you know some units offer adjustable voltage output. Also, as per the sight's lead tester the "SINAD" measurements that seem to carry so much weight become somewhat academic beyond 115 dB, as he claims that to be the threshold of human hearing in anechoic measuring, which is a much higher standard than one might hope to achieve in a typical listening room. Better measurements are not a bad thing and allow for a greater sample to sample margin of error. But at some point, it just becomes a game of specsmanship. Still one can see those good measurements don't necessarily have to be expensive, and that some more expensive units and some that have garnered good subjective reviews appear to be broken.
I don't think going balanced via XLR is likely to work for you. The outputs are typically too high. You might find that just attenuating down to the ML 23.5's overload threshold will reduce the volume setting to the point where anything lower than maximum capable volume will introduce bit stripping. While balanced certainly has its advantages, especially in pro settings where noisy environments with many overlapping long cables are at work. In a home setting, this is less critical. I think you'll find that going single ended via RCA straight to your amp will still lead to cleaner results than going balanced via XLR through an active preamp. Most users tend to use their active preamps almost as buffered brakes rather than accelerators. Nelson Pass once made an outboard passive/active pre that only engaged the active stage past a point (2:00?) on the volume knob, very few users reported ever getting to the active stage.
|
@dsper , Ah, it all makes so much more sense to me now. May I ask what your proposed layout will be, such as long or short wall, how far back or out into the room the speakers can be, how married are you to the c-j, and perhaps indelicately what’s your budget?
|
|
Well, now into a new year: any news on the Thiel Audio bankruptcy proceedings? |
@dsper, A room of that size could accommodate full range sound, the only thing that might be holding back that possibility is the c-j amp. Now, I like and have used c-j (though ss) in the past, and I don't mean to harp on this, but I think the resale on c-j stuff is quite good. You might be able to get a visually less imposing speaker than the CS5i's that could offer deeper frequency response and still meet your other criteria, if you would consider other amplification that met the loudspeakers needs rather than getting speakers that met the amps limitations.
|
|
@dsper,
Keep in mind that the Thiel specs at 87dB/2.8V/1M which is confusingly not the same as 1 Watt. Considering the 4 Ohm nominal impedance, it's more like <84dB sensitivity. Jim Thiel told me that his power recommendations were based upon the assumption that quality ss amp that could appropriately double down be used and that for example that if one using a Thiel speaker with a 4 Ohm rating with a tube amp one should double the power of those recommendations. Furthermore, the c-j specs seem quite generous:
lp66s2man.pdf (conradjohnson.com)
with a rather high +/- of 1.5 THD and a somewhat limited bandwidth of 30Hz-15Khz.
Considering the limited bass output of the CS .5's and that they can seem a bit tippy without any treble roll off of their own, and the fact that tubes overload more gracefully. it would seem as though it should all work out. But in a room of that size you might be at the limits.
Of course, due to the small size of the CS .5's, they are not at all too cumbersome, and it wouldn't be too difficult to move on from them.
Sure, I guess it's worth a try.
|
thoft, I've matched the Forte' 3 with Thiel CS 2's a couple of times for different friends. A very nice match. But, the CS 2's are 6 Ohm nominal / 5 Ohm minimum load. I wouldn't match the Forte' with the 3.6's impedance load. Furthermore, there is some question as to whether or not there are still IGBT devices, used in some Forte's, available should they need service. Nelson designed the early Forte' stuff, the later Forte's were designed by Bladelius, et al.
BTW, I seem to recall that the Palladium's quickly give up Class A bias when presented with sub 8 Ohm loads. Despite being optimistic when they where released, I remember being quite disappointed when auditioning them.
|
^The wording on the amp is a bit ambiguous. The wording suggests that the amp not be tested into 2 Ohm loads. Musical loads might suggest momentary dips into 2 Ohms. The 3.6's practically live in that region.
Get an appropriate Krell. |
“Stable” only means that the amp won’t go into oscillation. It doesn’t suggest how much power, what distortion levels or how it will sound into that load. |
