What McIntosh Amp With Thiel 3.6 Speakers?


My current main system has a Mac MC-150 Amplifier and Thiel 3.5 speakers. While I enjoy the sound of my system; I've wanted to upgrade to the larger Thiel 3.6s for some time. Not only are the 3.6s a newer model; but from listening several times, I've concluded they have deeper bass and a somewhat more balanced sound. Now that I have the means to make this upgrade, I'm having some doubts if my MC-150 can properly drive the 3.6s. I would appreciate some feedback regarding a suitable Mac Amp to pair with the 3.6s. I should also mention that I mostly play classical and pop music at low to moderate levels; and my listening room is approx. 20 feet wide and 17 feet deep.
avideo
Zaikesman, at the risk of being the victim of your wit for repeated offense, I belive the word eratic was used in the less frequently used sense of deviating from standard. Your point is well made and I'm sure you clarified this too many who otherwise may have been misled.
I own a pair of Thiel CS 2.3's, and drive them with Mac's MA 6900 integrated amp. It has autoformers. I support the above suggestion to use one of the Mac amps that has autoformes with the bigger Thiel's -- In general, I find the Thiel - Mac combo very satisfying.
OK, here's my totally wit-less response. ;^)

First of all, we both spelled the word 'erratic' incorrectly, which Symphony Sound did not. My apologies if I caused you any erraticism in this regard.

Secondly, there is a 'standard' impedance? Hey, everything's nominal, as they say, but you are correct inasmuch that Thiels are lower than most, and that the same may have been Symphony's point. (And, of course, you are right concerning my brilliant public service.)

P.S. - Try for another repeat, however, and you will be duly skewered. :-)
Zaikesman...

Erratic was a poor word choice - thank you for correcting me. I tend to use that word to describe impedance curves that are difficult to drive because more often than not the _are_ erratic in that they fluctuate like a roller coaster, but in the case of the Thiel's the problem is not with the variation.

The Thiel's impedance is consistently low, and relatively flat. It has a reasonably benign phase angle although once you get down to the range where the Thiel's impedance lies for the vast majority of the frequency range, even a slightly capacitant phase angle is going to complicate matters somewhat.

The point that I was trying to make was two fold: one the nominal impedance rating on the Thiel is virtually meaningless and certainly misleading. Second, because the impedance dips down so low, you really need a lot of current, and hence the bigger the amp the better. Err on the side of too much power.
Hackmaster, I don't think Thiel's nominal impedance rating is any more "virtually meaningless and certainly misleading" than most other speakers nominal impedance rating. In fact it's probably more meaningful and less misleading than most other speakers nominal impedance ratings for the very reasons you posted. Thiel readibly offers quite a bit of detail regarding the specs of their products including the minimum impedance loads.