Thiel Owners
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. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
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/ |
I think this baby http://dandagostino.com/products-master-power-classic-stereo.php is a good contender to build a refence system with Thiels. Price is pretty reasonnable for D'agostino gear. |
| Post removed |
Bob Grossman did a solid review on the classic amp : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po6EhGkExj0&t=637s |
I'm shopping for another tube pre for my CS6's, last_lemming, so thanks for your input re the BAT3ix; that particular model is available I think on Audiogon. As for the Trump-priced Classic, I would think it would indeed sound as wonderful as it looks! My 6's are doing very nicely with my Krell fpb 250m monoblocks. And a plain old fpb 300 was fantastic on my 2.4's. Highly recommend Krell for the high current needed to drive the later Thiels. Of all the Thiels I've owned, the 6's are my favorites. Can't wait to try either a passive preamp (ordered a Schitt Saga) or that BAT 3x or ix. I'm also going to try the Lightspped Attenuator just for fun. I presently have a Transcendent Grounded Grid with the Krell monos into the CS6's. But who wants to spend just over a thousand bucks on a tube preamp? Must not sound as nice as BAT or AR or CJ....right? I'll know soon enough. So far the biggest bargain in Audio was the Grounded Grid. Maybe the Schitt will be an even greater bargain! |
^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. |
michaeljbrown have you auditioned the 7.2s before taking your decision to purchase CS6 ? If so what dit you like better about the 6s ? I might try to purchase a pair of 7.2s at some point unfortunately they are very rare on the used market. I love the older Thiels even though the 3.7s are still my favorite. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
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. |
Extra weight indeed- unsound. during my audition trials, I lifted the CS 2.4, CS 2.4 SE, CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 models for good measure. This is how I formed by basis for reporting such facts. It is one thing to look, visually inspect, any loudspeaker. It is quite different to actually pick it up (by yourself) and carry it around the listening room for placement purposes. The CS 3.7 is certainly more cumbersome and heavier to haul around from room to room. |
| Post removed |
