@oblgny, I'm a bit surprised that you seemed to prefer the Thiel treble to the Maggie treble. The Thiel's have gotten some criticism for their treble response, where as the Maggies quasi-ribbon has recieved some cirtical acclaim. I think the Thiel's criticisim has been a bit unfair, as many of the competitiors roll off theirs, where as the Thiel's more accurately offer what it's presented with. I think most of the problem is with the recording techniques. Often times we see photographs of recordings with microphones directly above the violins or inserted into the lid of the piano. With that said, I might have a slight preference for the Maggies in that regard. But..., prefer the gestalt of the Thiel's.
I think you meant to post that you'd like to audition the Maggie {sic} sub.
|
@tomthiel, wouldn’t separate power supplies for each balanced 3.5 eq be advantageous?
|
Not all Pass Labs amps are ideal for Thiel’s.
|
@biannuzzi22 I’d suggest a recapped Threshold S 500 Series Ii. It’s a power amp, so no tape loop.
|
@lars888888 Power output into 4 Ohms isn’t that relevant. Power output into 2 Ohms is. Look for something with between 400 and 1600 Watts into 2 Ohms. Personally I would look for something with at least 800 Watts into 2 Ohms.
|
@tomthiel, The Benchamark amps set the bar for SINAD when first intorduced. It has been surpased by a few since then. But it's become rather academic, as those in the know claim that some where between -115 to -120 dB SINAD becomes inaudible to human hearing even in anechoic conditions. The Benchmarks also allows for user adjustabillity to permit playing nice with a variety of accompaning components. All in all, a rather very, very good prouct....In the right applications.
Benchamark does not spec their stereo amp to below 3 Ohms, and their bridged monos to below 6 Ohms. Neither of these amps meet Jim's recommended minimums into the actual load of a speaker like the CS 2.4's. I'm not sure what ..."They maintain their operating characteristics to below 1.5 Ohms."..actually means? Is this similar to the marketing techno babble of "stability"? I don't think halving the length of speaker cable in domestic situations is going to change that. And, I don't imagine such advice is all that practical in most domestic situations.
I don't know how much using uniquely customized amps to address the need for inexpensive amps for musicians to drive the more difficult Thiel loads really is?
I get it...ultimately we are in this for enjoyment, and if these amps provide that, so be it. But the Benchmarks, while less expensive than many competitiors, is still not cheap, especially in bridged mono mode. At these prices I think there are better reccomendations available to maximize the potential of the more difficult Thiel loads.
|
@lars888888 . Being stable only suggests that the amp won’t go into oscillation when presented with the specified load. It does not imply with how much power and/or with how much distortion.
|
@dickieboy, I’m not sure where the “many” are that you are hearing are suggesting that the CS 3.5’s have a sub 4 Ohm load. Do keep in mind that the CS 3.5’s eq can demand up to an extra 12 dB of draw from the partnering amplification. While Jim Thiel most cleverly used the inherent box resonance impedance rise that coincidentally occurs at just where the eq is most demanding to somewhat mitigate the draw, it still puts quite a bit of extra demand on the partnering amplification. Jim Thiel would have recommended at least 80-100 Watts (depending on vintage) into 4 Ohms for the CS 3.5’s.
While one might be happy with less power, one would not be maximizing the full potential of the speakers.
|
@gryphon1972 , The CS 1.5's are a honey of a little speaker, and FWIW the first 1 series that I genunely liked. With that said, I think your room (and amplification) is too small for them. Something like the Thiel MCS or SCS would work much better for your circumstances. They are by design more suited for the placements you have available to you. Even then, with impedance loads dropping to around 3 Ohms you'll need more power from your amplification. As most amps aren't typically spec'd to 3 Ohms, you'll probably have to find the still hard to find 2 Ohm spec'd amps that are actually spec'd to provide at least 200 Watts into 2 Ohms. Don't be fooled be specs that suggest that the amp is "stable" into such loads, as that is not at all the same.
|
@dickieboy , Ah, that's a bit different. And with that I agree. Even here on Audiogon it's often over generalized that all Thiels are demanding of amplifiers. The CS 1's 1.2's, 2's, 3's and 3.5's all had impedances over 4 Ohms (though the CS 3's and 3.5's did have the eq demands as well). Look at this rather benign impedance plot:
Thiel CS2 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
|
@lars888888 , I suggest limiting your search for amps that are actually spec'd to 2 Ohm loads. If an amp is truly capable, the manufactures are likey to brag about it. I'd avoid amps from manufactures that rely on ancedotal marketing. If the amp is truly up to the task, let them put it in writting. Some (but not all !) amps from Krell, Levinson, and Threshold amongst a handful of others could qualify. If looking at some older models; I'd look for amplifiers that have been recently recapped by the manufacturer or manufacturer endorsed tech. These amps are typically heavy and costly to ship so having had this done recently could be prudent. Power amps tend to work better than integrateds for speakers such as the CS 2.4's, . As Intergrateds often are less adept at lower impedances and/or are less richly biased than the power amp offerings
|
@tom thiel, I expected as much; the 1.5 figure had marketing speak stamped all over it. Well I suppose it's an improvement from the old "Flame Linear" days, but can they just make an amp that delivers the goods, without cutting out in self preservation? Imagine if your automobile engine worked like that
Reccomendations would include old recently recapped/refreshed stand by's like some of the Krells, Levinsons, Thresholds, etc.. Amps that Jim used himself when he was developing these speakers.
Standard cable lengths tend to be between 8'-10'. Most users use the shortest lengths that they can. Most can not go much shorter and still allow for domestice accomodations. Cable length can affect amplifier performance, but at these lengths with typical cables, not by that much, Not likely to add lots of Watts to the output at lower impedances
I too appreciate old amps, Just as some old houses have better "bones" than some newer construction. And, many if not most could use a refresh of new caps, etc.. That they can weight quite a bit, shipping can be expensive if not perilous. I think it most economical to try and find one that has varifiable maintance recently completed.
I agree with your assemsment of the Adcoms. Perhaps the least expensive amps that could actully properly drive some Thiels. I will say that I did have one for long term loan once. Though I had thought due to it's grooved face plate sans rack mounts, that it was a Mark II, I now realize that the time frame preceded the Mark II. I had much easier to drive CS 2's at the time, I have to admit that I found it flat, grainy and lacking dimensionality. I also found myslef just not listening to my system as much with that Adcom in the my system, Still for the money, for someone looking for something to tide them over until the could aquire something better, it could be the least expensive option worth considering. Here's another outfit that has had a good long standing reputation for Adcom mods:
Adcom (musicalconcepts.com)
I share your wishes. I humbly think Jim went in the wrong direction with regard to impedance. Interesingly the previous generations were especailly easy in that regard. I think amp manufacturers don't want to make capable amps due to the costs of beefier power supplies, additional costly heat sinks. While Class D has made many strides, load variance has been a bit of a bugaboo for them. Until very recently. There's been promise of a high power low impedance option from Purifi, but these things always seem to take much longer than projected to actually make it o market.
|
Re: the Adcoms; While there may have been been better vintages, I'm not sure there were really "bad" ones, as these were really built to a price point. Though it must be said that the original 565 monos were know to be failure prone due to a reputed design flaw. An after market board was made avialble as a fix. Nelson Pass tended to shy away from protection circuitry as he thought such things compromised sound quality. With higher end, overbuilt products like the Thresholds for example that only used 20% of their output devices capabilities, such practices probably made more sense than with targeted price point products like the Adcoms. It should be noted that the Adcom 555 could not ideally double down to 4 Ohms, and when tested blew fuses when pushed hard into 2 Ohms. The 555 is probably better suited for some ot the older >4 Ohm load Thiels.
Adcom GFA-555 power amplifier 1989 Measurements | Stereophile.com
|
@theaudiotweak, Perhaps I was being too generous / forgiving of the Adcom’s as I do seem to remember reports of those 565 mono’s failing and sometimes tsking out speakers in the process,
|
@77jovian, Much of the recent amp discusion here has previously been disucssed here. Suffice to say that I doubt that the Ayre AX-5 twenty is up to driving the CS 3.6's or 2.7's to their potential. The steady impedance levels of these speakers are beyond the specs of this amplfier. Your old Krell KSA 200 would seem to be a much better match.
|
Beetlemania is not incorrect. How ever 105 dB peaks (and quite a bit louder as well) are not all that uncommon during live performances (and I think that’s what we’re trying to replicate here). MS tone burst measurements at low impedances might suggest adequacy for speakers that briefly dip into such impedances, but the speakers under consideration here spend the vast majority of their time below 4 Ohms. I think RMS measurements are a better consideration for the applications at hand. The amplifiers I usually suggest are the same or have the same parameters as Jim Thiel would use (including Jim’s minimum recommendations).
|
@jafant, Actually the CS 3.5’s even with the up to 12 dB draw from the eq, thanks to its 4 Ohm nominal / 4 Ohm minimum load (actual 5 Ohm measured) in smaller rooms with less volume demands can get by with as little as 100 Watts into 4 Ohms. That’s a standard 50 Watt rated amp truly capable of doubling down to the load at hand. Though I generally suggest as a rule of thumb / general guideline that most users double a speaker manufacturer’s minimum suggested power. It’s the lower impedance’s that reduce the efficiency of some of the other Thiels. 400 Watts into 2 Ohms is like 100 Watts into 8 Ohms. I don’t think many would think 100 Watts is excessive.
|
@jafant, Honestly I use the Adcom ACE’s mostly to offer more outlets. Years ago when I lived in a NYC apartment I used an earlier though highly regarded older Adcom ACE version for the same reason. At that time I thought it might have helped with video noise. Those older models only accommodated two prong plugs. The newer models can accommodate three prongs. The more recent models use a different “ils” ( if lightening strikes ) circuitry which claims to offer more protection. Where I currently live we have overhead power lines unlike the underground one in NYC. Theses overhead power lines are subject to more frequent brown and blackouts. So far (22 years) with these Adcom ACE’s in place, none of my gear has had any ill effects from them. I’m not sure if the Adcom ACE’s are helping with that, but as I already need the extra outlets, I don’t want to tempt fate without them. I’m not sure that any of these kind of products really clean up the power in any meaningful way.
|
I have my doubts as to whether outside paint shops could match the quality of OEM Thiels, especially when Tom Thiel was there.
|
@duramax747 , It would seem that you’re in a unique position to have the resources to get this right. I do hope you can post photos when completed.
|
@tomthiel, I’d consider using outboard cross-overs with my CS 3.5’s, especially if they could be optimized for use with upgraded eq’s. Perhaps even an eq > cross-over > amplification progression?
|
|
Seems to me that an outboard crossover might make the most sense.
|
FWIW, I would place outboard crossovers on shelves in the rack.
|
@tomthiel, your point is well taken. In my case I could possibly accommodate 1 meter runs, but something like 1.5 meters would probably be preferable.
|
@tomthiel, thanks for your consideration.
|
I suppose I could mount the external crossovers on a pair of amp stands But I’d rather not.
|
I believe Jim Thiel was using Straightwire Maestro’s before moving on to the Goertz speaker cables. Both can be found for relatively inexpensive prices on the used market.
The Goertz cables models/gauges choices will depend upon the power output of your amplification. As @tomthiel previously touched upon the Goertz cables can put some amplifiers into self frying oscillation. This can be avoided by using Goertz own small, fairly inexpensive “RC networks” (zobles) at the speaker binding posts. Should you go with the Goertz, I strongly (!) recommend you use their RC networks. There is no sound reason not to.
As different as these designs appear, they share some characteristics. Both keep the positive and negative poles in constant close proximity with Teflon barriers. Both have somewhat similar technical properties of low inductance / high capacitance. FWIW, to my ears, despite their very obvious differences, they sound more alike than different.
|
@tomthiel, I would characterize “their very obvious differences” as how they appear visually. :-)
I believe the Straightwire Maestro’s use individually coated strands layered in side by side groupings that are then woven in an interleaved fashion ultimately resulting in a co-axial configuration.
Only the 2 & 3 series of Goertz speaker cables separate the positive and negative with Teflon.
|
While I think -3dB @ 23 Hz might be suspect; the reported 35 Hz is spec’s @ 2.5 dB.
|
|
@thoft A given room will accentuate or diminish the volume of specific bass frequencies, but not extend the depth of bass output limitations.
|
@rc1985 to follow up on what @duramax747 has posted; Jim Thiel sometimes ordered customized variations for his specific applications of what appeared to be off the shelf drivers. Using a stock replacement driver could be different from the originals used and might also create a mismatch. You might want to reach out to Coherent Source for more information, rebuild or replacement.
|
|
If I can add to @tomthiel ’s exceellent summary ot the CS 2’s; on numerous occsasions different individuals at Thiel Audio have commented that the CS 2’s were the most robust, reliable speakers Thiel has ever made.
As a personal note, while the CS 2’s are perhaps the easiest from a technical perspective Thiel’s to drive, they do benefit from quality amplification. The ported bass can be a bit soft and perhaps due to this there can be something of a sonic upward tilt, coupled with a somewhat forward presentation. New they were a real value; at their current used prices make these speakers an absolute terrific bargain. Some users might have been temepted to overdrive them with underpowered amplification. The double sided baffle tape might make baffle removal a bit difficult, but it is most prudent to examine the drivers before purchasing to make sure they are original and in good shape. I’ve seen many where unscrupulous sellers try pass off cheap fixes as originals. I don’t mean to discourage potential buyers, just the opposite. If the seller refuses to offer photos of the drivers, or if you see them connected to cheap recievers: be wary.
Coupled to an amplifier with tight bass, a sweet top end, that isn’t too forward in presentation (not typicaly a cheap, easy find) one can put together a fairly inexpensive system that shoots way above it’s weight class. Despite their really inexpensive used costs, they can really benefit from better upstream gear.
I’m not sure there’s a better used speaker available at their current asking prices. Highly recommened!
|
@tomthiel, In your 1-16-2024 post you inidcated that your planned upgrades for the CS 3 and CS 3.5 would include the midrange and tweeter drivers of the CS 3.6. With this implementation will you be able to keep the minimum impedance of the CS 3 and CS 3.5 above 4 Ohms?
|
@tomthiel Thanks for the prompt response. Most encouraging!:-)
|
FWIW, I personaly really like the bottom mounted cable posts. IMHO, they are an elegant solution to what otherwise would be a daily eye sore. Furthermore, it mitigates connectivity issues from curious children and pets, and the lessening of slack helps keep adults from tripping over speaker cables too.
|
Toe in will typically increase direct high frequency, but decrease reflected high frequency. Reflected high frequency can be more objectionable.
A tiny bit of toe in can offer some compensation for limited available listening distance. For example; with a 10’ center to center speaker width, a <2 degrees toe in can allow an 8’ listening distance to more closely approximate the preferred 10’ listening position.
|
|
|
@audiofilo123, The SCS’s can be just the right Thiel’s for many small rooms.
The versions without the decorative only cabinet extensions of the “T” version are probably the preferred model though.
|
