Which c-j’s?
Showing 50 responses by unsound
Jafant, I do hope you get to hear the STR with your Thiel’s before committing to it. I wouldn’t exactly agree that it’s “very powerful”, not with your Thiel’s at least. Look at the specs below 4 Ohms, both the integrated and the SRT power amp seem to drop current output fairly dramatically (for ss) below 4 Ohms, which is where your 2.4’s reside from 100 Hz straight through past 20 KHz. Below 100 Hz the 2.4’s impedance curve is a bit of a roller coaster ride with some challenging phase angles too. It’s power output below 4 Ohms is comparable to a less than 138 Watts per channel amp that could truly double down to 2 Ohms. Of course, depending on room, source material and desired listening volumes, either could be satisfactory. Personally I would be concerned about depreciation purchasing one of these new. |
May I offer the advice that: one should not necessarily assume that because a marque gains a reputation for robust separates that the same badge on a smaller scale integrated will perform the same as those separates. And visa versa, the performance of an integrated does not necessarily reflect what the same manufacturers separates are capable of. It might, but more likely does not. |
tomthiel, Wow, I just love this insight! Would Jim have put the cross-overs before or after the amps in a self-powered speaker? If I may humbly suggest considerations for revised 3.5 eq's: Mono operation for those with dual mono pres and mono-block amps, as well as for use in home theatre applications. Industry pro standard AES pro true balanced operation. Perhaps a return to the dual speaker terminals of the earlier CS 3's, to restrict the eq's input into the upper frequencies. If a digital option were to be considered, direct digital input and output, preferably with IS2, perhaps with DSP room correction for actual rooms. And of course anything else that you guys might deem worthy. Thanks again! |
tomthiel, I couldn't find any images of the dual binding posts on the CS 3's, but reference is made here: https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/684cs3/index.html |
tomthiel, "...signal-shaping was done within the amplification envelope..." Wow, that seems quite ambitious, especially when considering it probably would all have been done in analog then. In today's digital era development time an effort would probably be dramatically reduced. I remember just before Jim's passing that he thought that Class D was best limited to sub-woofers. Much time has passed, and perhaps Jim might have come to appreciate the current status of Class D more, or, perhaps not. I agree with you regarding perhaps moving to a higher impedance. Though at the risk of appearing petty, I think moving the minimal impedance to 4 Ohms would be most interesting. The required amplifier budget has scared me off the CS5i's. |
Jafant, I don’t know anything about this particular unit, or the seller: There are plenty more that know plenty more about Krell’s than I do. I have enjoyed various Krell’s on various Thiel’s many, many times. Amongst my favorite combinations. The only models I didn’t care for where the integrateds, the KAV and home theatre series. I’m not familiar with the post D’Agostino Krell’s directly on Thiels. While the KSA 250 wasn’t one of my favorite Krell’s, I’d still put it on my short list to use now. If I were in your shoes; I’d be investigating this option. Then again, perhaps my 10 EE’s wouldn’t fit.:-) Sorry, I don't know why the hyper-link keeps failing. There is a listing for a Krell FPB-300 here on Audiogon. |
Larry, It's been a long time, and I might be mistaken, but I thought the late "Bud" Fried also thought 1st order cross-overs were "all wrong". I seem to recall that some of his designs were supposed to be based on transmission line cabinets, yet none appeared to be suitably ginormous enough to be actual transmission lines. Also, wasn't there some sort of brouhaha with Stereophile over the measured bass output of his speakers vs. Thiel's, wherein Stereophile reexamined their procedure; to find that they were in fact correct. |
IMHO, and this indeed a very personal view; the McCormack sound checks off oh so many boxes, but....they’re just too forward. For me(!) there are some more appealing options. With Thiel’s and McCormack’s there is so much good stuff, but it ends up right in your lap. The McCormacks are truly excellent, but perhaps a better match with more laid back speakers; a truly outstanding match with Vandersteen’s. YMMV!!! The similar but voiced slightly different c-j ss amps can work very well with Thiel’s depending on the models. |
Gee, I thought J. Gordon Holt and Stereophile in general have been quite flattering of Thiel's products. Here is the review of the previously mentioned CS 3's: https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/684cs3/index.html Larry Archibald had used first the CS 3.5's and then the CS 5's as his reference for what seemed to be quite an extensive time, first as editor and then as owner, before selling Stereophile to a major magazine conglomerate. |
Yeah, I'm not sure Thiel's would typically need such large cases for cross-overs, except perhaps for the CS5's. Perhaps something that resembled typical components might be found more acceptable to some? If external cross-overs were to be considered perhaps both pre and post cross-over amplification could be considered too? I am most curious about upgrades for the 3.5's! There are a few different things that could be done with that model. |
Tomthiel, thank you for your prompt response. I can’t help but wonder if more traditional less high, 17” ( or 1/2 size X 2) with available rack mount wings, component style cases that could fit on a typical rack might appeal to more individuals who might prefer not to have boxes strewn on the floor? Such standard cases might be more cost effective? As I alluded to previously an outboard crossover might lend itself to the option of bi or tri- amping for many models (with allowances made for CS5’s). Something that might be of particular interest to earlier models with bass eq’s. I have neither the time, tools or expertise to be of much help, but I do have 3 3.5 eq’s. I might be willing to lend 2 of them as guinea pigs for upgrade considerations. Balanced mono’s? In sympathy with updated cross-overs? Something(s) else? |
^jimthiel, you hit exactly upon what I thought would be the main concern: driver/total loudspeaker correction. I would have guessed that with the co-axial drivers it might not have been too much of a concern with their mechanical cross-overs. The obvious advantage for those models with bass eq's is appealing of course. Perhaps a fusion of active and passive, or just going digital (which could probably reduce developmental labor hours) might be an option. Of course such an option could provide adjustable bass eq for one's actual room rather than perhaps an otherwise unused anechoic standard. |
tomthiel, I’m in complete agreement with your criterion, demonstration of proper square wave and step response would be required. I could imagine a tri-amped Thiel with a 3.7’s mid/tweeter and 2 3.7’s 10" woofers above and below as in the MCS except in an hourglass shaped floor standing cabinet with separately adjusted/amplified The DEQX and Lyngdorf products look interesting. |