tomthiel, I understand and appreciate your points. Please forgive me if I am belaboring the point. Although I would consider a modification that would allow bi-amping with my Thiel 3.5's, I suspect that might be due to the unique qualities of the 3.5's with their 4 Ohm nominal/minimum rating with not dropping below 5 Ohm independent testing, that opens the choices of appropriate multiple amplifiers at more reasonable costs, and of course as a way to restrict the influence the eq which applies to a few other Thiel loudspeakers as well. The special cabling required to make the Benchmark work with the eq's is not typical of how end users make connections. Some might be apprehensive to invest in custom cables that will have such limited alternate use. As such many might disqualify the Benchmark. I would think amps that have more universal appeal with all Thiel loudspeakers might be more advantageous. I think the idea to adapt Thiel's with more challenging impedances with bi-amping with modern amplification certainly has merit, especially considering what I suspect is a paucity of other options. On some level none of referenced speakers could be considered any thing like new, and I wonder if we should just accept that that ship has sailed, and just deal with it. Though appropriate amplifier choices might be limited, they exist and are often readably available. At comparable
cost's; would two perhaps less capable modern amps be a better value than one capable one? Mixing amps can become problematic on it's own, doing so with first order cross-overs could make it even more complicated.
|
I don't think one has to forgo classic Thiel virtues to attract the HT crowd. The concentric drivers lend themselves to it.The more recent models might be adapted to the more recent HT formats. Imagine another concentric driver mounted on top of the 3.7's dome? Some of the most expensive budgets spent on sound is by Hollywood. I believe one of the reasons HT hasn't attracted that many audiophiles ( expense aside) is the fact that most of them realize that properly placing two channels is challenging enough adding another 3 to 5 or more is daunting, if not impossible. I've touched upon this before, but let me bring it up again. If like Thiel the objective is to get everything off the recording as accurately as possible to the listener, no matter how much attention is paid to the system chain the room itself will ultimately impose the biggest hurdles. One way to help ameliorate the problem is with DSP. I suspect that one of the problems with using DSP in the past is that direct sound from the loudspeaker to the listener and the reflected sound from the loudspeaker to the room to the listener has been convoluted. While is it has been estimated that 80% of the sound one typically hears is room reflected (and therefore corrupted), we know that given sufficient time delay (estimates vary from about 5-8 milliseconds, which loudspeakers placed well away from the walls will provide) listeners ear/brains will prioritize the initial direct sound from the loudspeakers over that of the reverberated room influenced sound. That might(?) be fine for symmetrically placed two channel systems, but such symmetry might well be impossible in typical listening environments for multi-channel (and perhaps preferably so for other reasons) but what was once not much filtering/processing on the ear brain has now become greater in amount and more complex from varying room influences. The problem with DSP in typical room set up is that when correcting for the secondary distorted room influence, one ends up correcting the primary direct sound from loudspeaker sound as well. That can become quite unnatural to the listener and especially more so to those listeners not in the sweet spot! Keep in mind that many recordings already have their original room influence on the recording, now with typical loudspeaker setup we're adding/superimposing more. That might be best be described as distortion. And with HT/multichannel setups distortions that varies from channel position. That's a lot of ear/brain filtering/processing, which might become fatiguing. One way to offset this myriad of convolutions is to minimize them. If the loudspeakers baffle is very close to room walls, then direct sound and reflected sound become more of one, and then the DSP room corrected sound and the reflected sound become more of one and the same, with no or little imperceptible timing issues. The advantages of such loudspeaker placement becomes more evident in multichannel and HT, especially so now that flat screen monitors/screens are fairly standard with their lack (or close to it) of projecting boxes that previously added side reflections. Placing five to seven channels 3-5 feet will into the listening room with 16-20 feet across from themselves (which would provide 8-10 feet from loudspeaker to listener) would require huge rooms (and perhaps a bevy of potential tripping speaker cables) not readily available to the typical consumers. Obviously having the loudspeakers close to the room walls could have decorating advantages that can't be undervalued in the marketplace. With such wall placement, perhaps less labor and money(!) might be placed on cabinet beauty. The downside might be an increase in baffle area to compensate for box volume losses. I have some ideas for such a baffle box, but I've probably taken up to much space already. Still, I suspect that such box reduction costs might be somewhat passed on to the consumer for ultimate multichannel affordability and commercial competitiveness. On some level Thiel has been doing just this for years and with great advantage with their concentric drivers(!), think Powerpoint, Dewdrop, etc.., just without the DSP possibilities.
|
tomthiel, Is there a suitable way to mount powerpoints on top of the Thiel subs?
|
Oblgny, efficiency is not necessarily the same as sensitivity, and 2.87 Volts is not necessarily the same as 1 Watt.
The 3.5’s depending on vintage were rated as 88-89 dB @ 2.87 V. in to 8 Ohms. That does not account for for the 4 Ohm nominal/minimum impedance rating (though not dropping below 5 Ohms in independent testing ). Suffice to say one could round down to a 85-86 dB sensitivity into actual load.
The same holds true for the 3.7’s, only more so as the impedance drops even further. If you consider the actual impedance load the more relevant sensitivity drops accordingly.
This is why the power levels into lower impedances need to increase as much as they do. |
There’s been a lot of recent talk about using Bryston amps with Thiel’s here recently. I am not the only one who has touched upon this more than once before, but I guess for some slogging through all the posts on this thread might be daunting. There was a time with the earlier Thiel’s that Bryston was as easy recommendation to make. A company with a long tradition of well made products, with one of the best warranties in the business, respected by both audiophiles and pros alike. Heck, the 3B is still one of my favorites. But... the more recent Thiel’s with sub 4 Ohm impedances aren’t quite as good a match. If one is considering purchasing Bryston amplification for any of the sub 4 Ohm Thiels it behooves you to read the following: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-4b-power-amplifier-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-3b-st-power-amplifier-measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-7b-sstsup2sup-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements We can see that only the biggest 7b mono’s really have a proper 2 Ohm power delivery window to deal with the more recent Thiel’s. Even then it 690 Watts into 2 ohms is equivalent to a 172.5 Watt amp that could truly double down. With the latest Thiel’s impedance load one would be paying for 400 or so of unused Watts per channel.
|
rosami, while there has been some incremental improvement (IMHO more hype than substance) over the years in speaker design, I still think the real value is with some of the older stuff. Some of the great designers, like Jim Thiel, John Dunlavy, Peter Walker, etc., have past, and there hasn't been a stampede of newer one's jumping to take their unique places. If you like Thiel's you might want to check out offerings from Duntech, Green Mountain, and Vandersteen. I suspect the next generation of speaker design on the horizon might be a bit different with more internal DSP functions. Time will tell. |
I suppose it’s rather personal, but I would choose CS 5i’s over 7.2’s. I seem to have a strong preference for sealed boxes over ports and their variants.
|
tomthiel, I’ve always been curious as to why Jim chose to use the crossover on the CS5’s for some of the time alignment ( /8”?) when there seemed to be so much attention already spent on those baffles. Why not just do with the baffle?
|
^BTW, those CS 5 Brazilian wood cabinets were gorgeous!
|
tomthiel, sorry if I pulled on a scab.
|
Tomthiel, Because Thiel; I expected a technical explanation. I completely understand the dynamics of business and personal decisions. I didn't mean to pry, but your candor is appreciated.
|
I caution those that plan to use Thiel floor standers for nearfield listening. All Thiel floor standers need at least 8' from speaker to listener for proper driver integration and ergo time coherence, a classic Thiel hallmark. |
Prof, "...most audiophiles..." aren’t running steady close to 2 Ohm loads, or in my case a steady 4 Ohm load with a 12 dB bass boost eq (albeit with an 8 Ohm impedance bump up at that region). What might seem like copious power into 2 Ohms when compared to 8 Ohms; really isn’t. It’s not all about sheer volume levels, but rather about ideal operating conditions. |
tomthiel brings up a good point about "sweet spot" or best value. For instance my previous declaration in favor of the Bryston 3B (within appropriate matching with older Thiels) was based upon such a criterion. It's not necessarily one the best sounding amps, but at it's price point it performed quite admirably for the task at hand at the time. Which is quite an accomplishment! It's a lot easier to make a cost no object good sounding (and unfortunately enough examples of the over priced / under performers exist as well) kit, than one that performs nearly as well for quite a bit less.
|
There are other Krells (though not all!), with more and less power that are suitable. Holco suggested the Audio-GD Master 3, with which I have absolutely no knowledge or experience, but certainly appears to be worthwhile of investigation. Not all Thiel's have the same amplification requirements! |
Tom tomthiel. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
I think you nailed it regarding time. I’ve come to believe that like other things in audio some people are more sensitive to such things. And even if statistical data suggests that many if not most don’t seem to appreciate it; for the many that do, do it consistently and deeply.
I also hope you realize that your time on this mass hurling through space, has brought about deep and enduring joy for many.
I’m sure all here wish for you to be around for many more birthdays. Thank you.
|
^...Or a treble roll off. Which is why I think the smaller models sometimes can sound a bit tilted up compared to some of the competition. The more full range (and having the room to properly accommodate that can not be over emphasized) Thiel's are less likely (when properly amplified and set up) to sound bright. |
^Kudos to them for using a neutral environment. Too bad they don't measure at distances that allow for proper driver integration, time accuracy or actual listening positions.
|
^Wow! The ingenuity is a marvel. Your dedication is admired and of course appreciated. |
Was someone's feelings hurt? It seems as though more posts have been deleted. If that's the way this thread is going to go, I'm not sure I can continue here with that type of censorship. We have already lost valuable contributors here for the same reason. I don't really want to split this up , but perhaps we might need to move this dialogue (!) to another thread where the discourse has greater freedom? |
Jafant, please direct me to these “rules of engagement”. |
Jafant, since you brought up these "rules of engagement" I believe it behooves you to support the existence of them.
|
^^"...I concur with your assessment on newer technologies and devices that utilize an incredible amount of high bandwidth/wideband noise that did not exist in a pre internet age...." http://spectralaudio.com/ |
|
Some Bryston’s are compatible with some Thiel’s.
|
@tmsrdg, It was a long time ago, but when I lived in NYC one my favorite dealers carried amongst others both Spectral and Thiel. They often rotated both in and out. I think this was up to the 2 2’s and 5’s time period, but pre co-ax.
My recollection was that the combination demonstrated both of their attributes, but the Spectral while capable of handling the low impedance of say the CS 5’s, was happier with the above 4 Ohm and above Thiel’s.
The Spectrals were admirably lighting fast, very detailed, smooth, with no electronic smear what so ever. Ultimately I found them a bit thin, threadbare and bleached. I can imagine them having their admirers though.
The Spectral’s were said to be rather particular about matching pre’s and speaker cables, with their own pre and MIT cables being very strongly recommended!
Hope this helps.
|
Innovative Audio in Brooklyn used to carry both Vandersteen's and Thiel's. |
