richardp01, Your points are not without merit, but when it comes to the 3.5's the cost to value considerations become a bit convoluted. At their current asking prices the 3.5's might be one of the greatest audio values of all time. It would cost several times the going rate of the 3.5's to find another brand with similar qualities. Unfortunately if one were to simply replace their existing 3.5's with another pair of 3.5's, one might find the replacements have the same issues. So despite the apparent cost to value discrepancies it might very well be a good investment to maintain them. From a performance perspective such an investment is a sound value. As I alluded to earlier despite looking like off the shelf outsourced drivers, the 3.5's drivers were unmarked customized units made to Jim Thiel's specifications. If the replacement drivers come from a one time Thiel dealer you might be in luck. Otherwise, buyer beware. Again, I highly recommend Bill LeGall of Miller sound for consideration as well: http://www.millersound.net/millersound-testimonials.html If may add to the somewhat obvious advice previously offered; may I suggest that when removing screws start at the bottom, and when reinstalling screws start at the top. If you don't have an appropriate table/step stool to place in close proximity to the speakers, another set of capable hands belonging to some one with patience and willingness to work closely (intimately?) will do. I'm not currently in need of any extra parts for my 3.5's (I already have a few), but depending on condition and price I might be interested in grills, tweeters, and/or midrange drivers ;-). |
Richardp01, IMHO, the 2.4's and 2.7's will be even smoother on soprano voices and massed strings. But, those later 2 series will not be as coherent or have the same depth and overall quality of bass as the 3.5's, and require much more expensive amplification.
|
Richardp01, I'd suggest getting that 3.5 eq back asap, then setting it to the 40 Hz setting with your sub, if you find the sub that helpful. I'll say it again, the current market value of these speakers seriously belies the performance level. To my ears the only other speakers I've heard that compare/better regularly sell on the used market for roughly 5- 6X what the 3.5's are selling for, and those speakers then again outperform speakers many time their cost! I prefer them to most of the more recent Thiel models as well. Unless you plan on trading up/out (?), I'd suggest incurring the cost of repair if your considering keeping them for some time. |
|
|
^^Or, get a second Esq and have both converted to mono balanced units.
|
Oops, not Esq, rather: eq
dang spell check
|
Richardp01, This is fourth time this week I've tried to respond to your question with attention it deserves. Every other time I lost the contents just before sending. Oy! In the mean time your follow up posts answered a lot of questions I had for you at that time.
Obviously you have found that for your preferred set up, in your room, the 3.5's sans eq with the Velodyne DD12 works better for you. Who am I to argue with your success and satisfaction?
I generally suggest keeping the 3.5's eq in the system for a variety of reasons, even when using a sub.
One can actually get deeper bass response from some of Thiel's smaller, less expensive models than using the 3.5's without the eq.
Very often multiple sources of bass output will smooth out bass nulls and peaks better than bass output from a single source.
Unlike the dedicated bass channel such as is found in home theatre audio, stereo bass when summed to mono can send conflicting signals, compromising bass output.
Typically I would expect two 10" woofers to have less energy storage and more agility than one 12" woofer.
As for the effect of the eq on the rest of output, I have no doubt that you hear what you do, but I am surprised. It's interesting that of the reviews printed around the time of the 3.5's release, such as those found in the Absolute Sound, HiFi Heretic, Sensible Sound and the original Stereophile review from Anthony Cordesman, only the later Stereophile review (and the only one that readers can now find on line) from then editor and owner of Stereophile Larry Archibald (who BTW kept the 3.5' s as his reference loudspeakers for longer than any other speakers other than the later and much(!) more expensive Thiel CS 5's) found any quibbles with the eq. Even he found the 3.5's better with than without the eq. Interestingly enough he suggested a bit of sharpening, of higher frequencies with the eq which is quite a bit different than the smearing you've noticed. FWIW, I do agree with Larry Acrhibald's opinion of the eq, including his observation that many audiophile often already have a prejudice to these type of devices. Such different impressions happen often, for example, as I recall the reviewer for The Absolute Sound found the 3.5's to be a bit (paraphrasing here (it's been a long time)) too buttoned down and reticent, where as Larry Archibald found them a bit forward. Go figure. FWIW, I find them neutral.
Your suggestion of relieving the demands on your 100 Watt tube amp is not without merit, but keep in mind that the eq starts to increase impedance and ergo sensitivity as it kicks in which mitigates the demands on the amplifier, especially a tube amp. While a 100 Watt tube amp could certainly be adequate depending on room and desired sound volume, a bigger amp could negate those concerns.
As for your use of the Velodyne DD 12, I think that the placement of which in your room might have something to with the improvement you've noticed. As does the digital processing it provides. That processing is especially interesting to me, as I've been long considering using a digital room correction device with adjustable eq function as a replacement for the Theil provided eq. As you've discovered, the likes of which can adjust the bass response to ones particular room rather than some anechoic standard. I've yet to find a budget friendly unit with enough eq adjustability to match the 3.5's equalizer yet. As for the recommendation that others try the Velodyne, I think it important to note that the original asking price of the Velodyne DD 12 is more than the original cost of the 3.5's! I would imagine used prices being similar. Furthermore, if one were to consider using a subwoofer, I'd recommend considering using two rather than one, for the reasons above, even if that meant using smaller ones.
|
Richardpo1, Obviously I haven't examined all that many 3.5's without their grills, but the only times I've seen a 4 holed midrange drivers is on mismatched with a 3 hole midrange driver, on used pairs sold on e-bay. I've never seen a pair with two 4 holed midrange drivers. Perhaps different runs of drivers were made with different mounting brackets? I don't know. I'd hazard a guess that the 4 holed drivers might be the off the shelf drivers not made to Jim Thiel's specifications. Not sure what the exact differences might be, if any. Perhaps it's the short coil/ long gap motor, something else? I really don't know for sure, but until I know better, suspicion would cause me to avoid the 4 hole drivers.
|
Another consideration is the superior time and phase superiority of the Thiels sealed box bass response over the ported, vented, etc. bass output of many subwoofers. Typically the bigger the driver the better the response gets at the lowest 1st octave, but the worse the response gets at progressively higher octaves,.
|
Dlcockrum, Ordinarily I would suggest that amps with the DR-9's power specs might be adequate, but not necessarily ideal. But, those older Classe' amps seem to be an exception to the rule and work beyond what their specs would suggest. Conservatively/under rated? I don't know. But a lot of Apogee users with their even more challenging load, seemed to indeed be very happy running those older Classe' amplifiers with them. |
dlcockrum, I always look forward to your contributions to this thread.
IMHO, the CS 5's price aside were Thiel's absolute best performing speakers. When price is considered I have to give the nod to the 3.5's as his best total value. I agree the "I" versions without the pad damped woofers were a very nice improvement. Regrettably there was very little, if no follow up in the rags on the very nicely improved "I" version. Though I am not aware of any testing that would confirm this: I would imagine these later woofers without the attached damping pads would be much more amplifier friendly as well. I also agree that they are especially demanding of set up and associated gear. If it weren't for the expense of proper amplification, I'd probably own a pair.
While very nice amps, I always felt that the afore mentioned Krell 250's were hazy in the upper frequencies and didn't quite have the signature bass quality typical of Krells. As much as the pressed loved it, it wasn't my favorite Krell. I much preferred the earlier KMA 160's and 400's. For a while Larry Archibald was using Levinson. Never amongst my favorites. For me they lacked the crispness that is sometimes part of the music, and didn't have the micro and macro dynamics that the Krells had in spades. Some time after the formal Stereophile review there was some mention that Larry Archibald was enthusiastic that he got the CS 5's to really sing with bigger 600 Watt Krells.
I can't help but believe that the Thiels sometimes got unfairly blamed for accurately portraying what was really on the recording. |
|
obglny, May I ask how you have decided to connect the eq through your system with the the new amp?
|
^i still recommend doubling the 8 Ohm power rating when using a tube amp compared to a ss amp with speakers like your 4 Ohm minimum 3.5's and even more with later models that have impedances that drop even lower. Personally I prefer quality ss with their inherently superior frequency linearity and subsequent timbre accuracy. Others might prefer the the even order harmonic distortions of tube amps over the odd order harmonic distortions of ss amps. Pick your preferred poison :-). |
Oblgny, have you tried using the tape loop on the BAT? You'll get a lot of the noise rejection benefits of the balanced cables that way. Besides, both the BAT and the Pass work best with balanced out/in.
|
^You can use two short (1/2 meter (?) lengths of RCA) lengths for the eq tape loop. After which you might very well find that less expensive runs of balanced interconnects out perform more expensive single ended interconnects. Heck, a good portion of the expense of the BAT and Pass is due to the extra parts and labor of their balanced design that makes them perform as well as they do.
|
oblgny, Of course as I alluded to earlier, even better, if you could find another 3.5 eq, it shouldn't be too difficult for a qualified tech to convert your now 2 eq's to balanced mono configuration. Then you would avoid the conversions, extra lengths of interconnects, have greater stereo separation, and avail yourself to extra inputs/outputs of your BAT.
Another option would be to find a digital room correction device with equalizer function and balanced inputs and outputs. The additional advantage of which is that you could tune your speakers bass output to the your specific room rather than Thiels anechoic one. Something I've been considering for some time. Unfortunately I have yet to find such a budget friendly device with equalizer functions that expand to the 12 dB range that the Thiel unit goes to. |
Jafant, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. "...Electric guitar/electric Bass guitar-driven music..." unto itself typically doesn't go below the first octave where power demands are usually the greatest. Any of the Thiel's made after the 3.5's either/and drop below 4 Ohms and have a phase angel that the vast majority of tube amps don't have the current capability to deal well with. Tube amps when faced with such a load not only don't double down, they very often actually lose power potential. Tube amps will need to provide multiple times the equivalent ss Ohm rating. Very high powered tube amps can get saturated and start to have their high frequency capabilities compromised. Furthermore, tube Watts typically cost quite a bit more than ss Watts. Not exactly the best value. While tube amps do tend to distort more gracefully than ss amps, I'd rather avoid the distortion all together by getting more Watts for my dollar with ss amplification.
I've head c-j tubes with many Thiels, and while they do seem to have a lovely upper bass to midrange quality (amongst other things), it's a quality that distracts one from realizing the bass can be quite loose. But just as when one see's through an optical illusion, once it's noticed, it's presence can't go unnoticed. c-j ss are lovely amps that have many of the c-j tube amp qualities and after considerable auditioning between both on Thiel's, I actually bought and ran ss tubes with Thiel CS 2's (most durable and easiest load of any Thiel ever made with a 6 Ohm nominal/ 5 Ohm minimum load). A perfectly lovely combination. A word of caution though while certainly adequate with other Thiels, the larger ss c-j amps don't quite produce the doubling down current capabilities of some of the competition.
|
"we all hear differently." I couldn't agree more!
When moving up the c-j line of pres often times the output impedance moves up too. Making system matching more of a concern, especially with many ss amps, even more so with amps like the Pass Labs with some having rather low input impedances. And, of course no c-j product has balanced connections, which the Pass Labs seem to work best with. While I can certainly appreciate the charms of tubes, I'm not convinced they are the panacea some might suggest they are. But then again, "we all hear differently." |
dlcockrum, please forgive me for not doing so sooner. I have been meaning too: thank you, and
"Best to you," as well,
Unsound
|
Erratum:
In my earlier post I meant to post that I ran c-j ss with Thiel CS 2s.
|
Continued....
available now, or some impedance customizations for your specific gear (unlikely necessary, but heck now is the time to ask), or who knows what?
Might mitigate some of the issues some claim to be bothered by with the Thiel eq?
|
Oblgny, you might want to reach out to both Pass Labs and BAT about your plans to do these we balanced mods. Both are amongst the biggest advocates of balanced operation. I don't have any experience with BAT, but Nelson Pass and the people he has around him have for many, many years have been amongst the most generous in the industry in helping customers with technical concerns.
Some time ago there where a couple of companies offering replacement eq'for speciific speaker models such as Those fromB&W, KEF, Thiel etc. Many Since they would be going in for surgery, perhaps there are some now available parts upgrades
|
^please accept my apologies for this disjointed post. Dang phone keyboard.
|
|
|
oblgny, I would caution you on assuming that the later Thiel 3.6's are better than the earlier 3.5's. Many would agree with that, but I don't. I much prefer the earlier 3.5's, much like I prefer the earlier 5i's to the later models.
|
|
oblgny, Let me guess; you bought an eq for Thiel 3's instead of 3.5's? The 3.5's eq was a nice upgrade over the 3's eq. I have admit, considering how the eq works, the bi-wireable binding posts on the 3's would appear to be a good option with eq. On the other hand, Audiogon member Lrsky, who used to work at Thiel around that time has claimed that the eq works beyond the bass spectrum, which would negate that consideration. While I don't doubt the sincerity of his assertion, I haven't seen anything that would confirm it.
Have you reached out to Pass Labs or Thiel yet? |
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. |
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, 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?
|
^Good catch! Must have been a senior moment. Nelson Pass was actually working for ESS not Phase Linear.
Sorry about that!
|
^right time frame, wrong specifics. Brain fart. Considering my history of clumsiness, I suspect everyone here's future is quite promising!
Best to all, and a very happy Thanksgiving!
|
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. |
I'll second the Gryphon recommendation. Top tier, but at a cost. |
|
It wouldn't appear as though the Rogue's are ideal for sub 3 Ohm impedances:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/rogue-audio-m-180-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements#LVjCMXjMd2M7Rf56.97
|
Jafant, please forgive me if I appear dogmatic with regard to impedance, etc., but I do believe that these considerations are paramount when qualifying amplifiers for consideration with a given loudspeaker.
|
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.
|
jafant, I'm confident that there many others out there with a better, and broader knowledge of specific Krell models. |
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. |
^Might be a little current limited for Jafant's 2.4 SE's. |
http://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs72-loudspeaker-measurements#efdDcr96dkP033ye.97
|
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/ |
