oblgny, Sell the mistakenly purchased eq. The 3.5's eqs are just plain better. It'll end up just collecting dust. I've got a bunch of assorted boxes doing just that. Someone else might actually need it.
Showing 50 responses by unsound
richardp01, I some how feel somewhat responsible for causing you some level of neurosis over the eq. Every room is different, and as Jafant has wisely noted, we all hear differently. Keep the eq in case you move. In the mean time, as I'm not in the habit of arguing with success, if it's working for you sans eq: enjoy! |
Jafant, are you sure about that short list for the Thiel 2.4 SE's? http://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurements#0RqHTvKEMC4Xqcgd.97 |
Jafant, I would recommend an amp capable of a minimum of 300 Watts into 3 Ohms, and I would personally prefer double or more than that. The combination of a sub 3 Ohm minimum impedance and challenging phase angle is likely to make most tube amps less than comfortable. Thiel recommends at least 100 Watts per channel for the 2.4's. Bear in mind that recommendation is based upon quality ss amplification that can double down, and in this case almost double down again! If the amp can't double down as such then you'll need to increase the power output of the 8 Ohms rating accordingly. There is an old audiophile rule of thumb that I have found to be excellent guidance: buy at least twice the minimum power recommended. With speakers like your Thiels if using tubes double that again, and then again. As for your apparent preference for an integrated over separates, there are some things that you might want to consider. While it's true that the case work and especially the face plates are amongst the most expensive parts of amps, so minimizing those costs would appear to value laden. And there is something to be said for shorter signal paths and the elimination of an extra set of interconnects that integrateds provide. On the other hand, I think you'll find that most intergrateds due to reduced size and corresponding heat sink real estate will have to run cooler than their separates counterparts. Very often that is accomplished by reducing the amount of Class A bias and the advantages that can come with that over the now increased Class AB output. Furthermore, you've probably noticed that many manufacturers top of the line pre's come with separate power supplies so as not to contaminate the delicate low level signals that pres work with. If these manufactures find the relatively small power supplies of pre-amps an offense, imagine what kind of insult power amplifiers might induce? |
oblgny, jafant, well not exactly. Nelson Pass worked at Phase Linear before co-starting Threshold where he developed amongst other things the acclaimed Stasis and optical bias designs which he sold with the company when the economy had a downturn, though not before licensing the Stasis design (though not application!!!) to Nakamichi. After departing Threshold Nelson Pass started Pass Labs. Some individuals that previously worked at Threshold started Coda. Coda also made gear for Legacy, Sanders Sound and others. Wayne Coburn who was with Threshold as Nelson Pass was leaving Threshold went onto Pass Labs where he is credited with much of the Pass Labs preamps designs. Though not really as much part of the Nelson Pass continuity, Mikael Bladilaius was part of the post NelsonPass Threshold team (including Wayne Coburn) that developed the T series and later Forte' gear, went onto Classe' amongst others. |
Jafant, as for recommendations, well it's just so personal. I've given you considerations from Thiel 2.4's perspective. Your room and the desired volume potential, as well as what you might have proceeding the amplification should be considered. I'm not sure if your dead set on an integrated or if not, have specific preamp considerations in mind such as ss, tubes, balanced single ended, impedance, sensitivity, etc. The recommendations I try to provide should help one avoid technical pitfalls, and narrow down the selection list to a manageable size. After that it still comes down to personal preference. If your more specific I can offer you gear I'd consider based on those parameters and if you like; stuff I like within those parameters. |
re: Stereo Exchange in NYC, before the net and Audiogon, et al, my friends and I would get excited as we came towards Presidents day; as Stereo Exchange would have their annual sale, great prices on everything, but especially used gear, and they stood behind their sales. The last time I was there it seemed as though it was mostly home theatre stuff. When I inquired as to why this was, I was told without the home theatre stuff they probably couldn't exist. |
Jafant, Not all Pass Labs and Krell's can keep doubling down to 2 Ohms. Furthermore, even if a manufacturer suggests that they can, it might be prudent to check third party testing results such as those found in Stereophile, etc.. I quite often find that manufacturer claims, even from some of the more popular and respected brands frequently don't measure up to expectations. While I don't have a lot of confidence in all of the loudspeaker measurements, there seems to be little to fault with regard to their electronics measurements. |
With regard to balanced operation; with adapters or conversions, one could still appreciate that the cables themselves would still have the advantages of superior noise rejection. True balanced would be better still, maintaining the advantages of full balanced through put throughout the circuitry, and voiding whatever pitfalls might be introduced through superfluous conversions. As for my recommendation for Oblgny to have two separate stereo 3.5 eq's converted to mono balanced operation, I assumed (always dangerous!) that described as such, that I was not attempting to suggest, as dlcockrum has wisely pointed out, that the eqs might merely be superficially converted to balanced operation. One would not need a second eq to do that. But, rather converting the previous stereo eq units to 2 mono units would permit true balanced operation. Oblgny would be wise to be quite specific when having this work done. Also, should Oblgny ever decide to go with mono amps in the future, the now mono balanced operation of the two eq's would help towards the greater stereo separation that mono amplifiers provide. |
CAVEAT: I have no relationship to the seller, and this is not an endorsement of this particular unit. For those looking for a very high value, fairly inexpensive amp that would work very nicely with those older Thiel's that have a minimum impedance doesn't drop below 4 Ohms, you might want to consider this: https://www.audiogon.com/listings/solid-state-conrad-johnson-mf-2300a-240-watt-mosfet-amplifier-2016... Obviously this amp would mate well with c-j's own ss or tube pres, that many Thiel owners of that vintage found to work well with. |
jafant, your quest has been on my mind for some time now. While I only heard samples of Dan Dagastino's amps briefly at a show, so I really don't have an opinion on it. On the other hand, knowing a bit about the designer's history and looking at the specs; If I were looking for cost no object reference quality amplification for Thiel CS 2.4 SEs, I would put seeking out an audition of his gear towards the top of my short list. http://dandagostino.com/ |
^The input impedance of the FPB 250 M's is passive friendly, but the sensitivity might be a concern at 2.4 V for full power output. You paid for that power, might as well get what you paid for. It might behoove you to make sure all your sources are up to that, and don't forget to consider your interconnects too. CD red book calls for 2 V, though many DACs put out more. Tuners, etc. are not likely to be fully up to it. |
Jafant, yes I have seen both the 2.4's and 3.7's. I think this might be a matter of perception rather than reality, or perhaps a visual aesthetic concern. All of Jim Thiel's CS designs have basically the same dispersion characteristics.. Though the footprint varies a small amount, all the Jim Thiel CS models have the same basic placement guidelines. In my conversations with Thiel regarding placement, they said that the recommended distances should be measured from the back of the woofers. As the Thiels are time aligned that would be nearly identical to the more obvious tweeters. Even if we were to get especially persnickety; though the 3.7's have larger woofers, with perhaps a larger magnet and motor assembly, those woofer faces are also by design shallower in depth. The distance from the back of the woofer, back wall, side wall, and listener should be nearly identical with either 2.4's or 3.7's. The only other concern regarding room capability would be bass output; again they are nearly identical. The difference in weight has no bearing on room compatibility, unless of course the floors are can't bear the extra weight, which to my thinking would be cause for a different and much more important concern. |
Jafant, someone bought the company very shortly before he passed away. Nothing seem to come from the company after that. John Dunlavy like Jim Thiel were such driving forces and as we have observed, very hard to replace. Most of the Dunlavy's were very large, and despite amazing performance, that might have been a challenge in the marketplace. John Dunlavy told me he was very excited about future projects before his health took a turn for the worse. |
jetter, I can only hazard guesses as to what Jim Thiel had in mind. But, first of all let's clear up the idea that the 3.7's lack bass, they have good clean bass until all but the deepest 1st octave. Perhaps, Jim Thiel thought that since most music (about 80%) is in the midrange, that there is limited musical content in that first octave, that many don't have the rooms to accommodate true full range bass, and if they did have the room, that deep bass might be better managed by his dedicated sub woofers. The only question I would have for him is why he didn't use the superior time and phase attributes of a sealed box design in the 3.7's, especially if he was willing to sacrifice actual deep bass response? Sealed boxes might have made the transition to his sealed boxed sub woofers smoother as well. A speaker capable of full range bass response would probably need to be considerably larger, and more expensive. As such perhaps more people and a correspondingly larger market share would see greater value and WAF in the 3 series with somewhat(!) limited bass response. Those who wanted deeper bass response could augment the 3.7's when space and funds availed themselves. Jim Thiel has hinted that the 3 series had for some time become the sweet spot as the value to performance leader in the Thiel line up. I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that the original CS 3's were the ones that really put Thiel on the map. I can only speculate that if Jim Thiel wasn't so abruptly taken, that he would have went on to develop more, even higher end projects that went beyond the 3 series. |
Jafant, as the 3.7's are missing the first octave; they are not full range. For that sub woofer augmentation is necessary. The 3.7's have their own different qualities, attributes. All of the Thiel CS models have the same placement recommendations. Many of Thiel's earlier models (pre-Thiel sub woofers?) had deeper bass, including all of the previous CS 3 series. BTW, a 20 X 20 room would not be desirable. |
LOL, I knew you already preferred the 7.2's over the 5i's, what I was going to offer for consideration is something else you've already said you weren't interested in. Perhaps using Thiel's own SS3 subwoofer(s) instead of also getting the 7.2's would be a consideration. You'd get the same benefit of deeper bass, greater dynamic range, with less strain and greater ease. All the while putting less strain on your main amplification, and easier bass integration into your given room. Just a thought. BTW, the amplifier demands (if chosen with an appropriate amount of leeway) isn't really all that much different between these models. No relationship to the seller: No knowledge of this particular unit: https://www.audiogon.com/listings/subwoofers-thiel-audio-ss-3-2016-12-30-home-theater-10549-mount-ki... |
@thieliste, at some point it all becomes academic, no Thiel goes down to 1 Ohm and the there is only so much power coming from the wall. But, you do realize that Gryphon Antileon’s impressive 1 Ohm spec is the equivalent of 150 Watts into 8 Ohms. If one had a large room, they might be served powering their Thiel’s with a larger amp that could double down into 2 Ohms. Probably cost less too. Lovely sounding amps though! |
^As was posted earlier, one is unlikely to find specs for a very specific load. Standard specs are for 8 / 4/ 2 and sometimes 16 Ohms. "The nature of the audio industry is what it is." Working from a standard 2 Ohm spec will comfortably cover the needs for a 2.4 user. Other impedance specs could come up short. Does the IcePower spec sheet indicate power into load? Real world trials are experienced by most everyone. Conclusions vary.
|