Agree with this but no need for all BOLD type
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Anyone read the latest from archimago's take on Stereophile editorial? Linked here:
- Thread starter sofrep811
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,330
- Likes
- 12,292
I bought this pair I think around 2001 or so. Second hand. So I don't know exactly how old they are. (I'm sure tracking down info using serial numbers could tell me, but I've never bothered).
I actually recently sold a second pair of Premier 12s I had for a while. That pair was a bit newer, had been fully serviced and "upgraded" with "better parts" by CJ in 2009. They were a gorgeous, pristine pair, and I liked that they were probably in better condition than mine. Still, I ended up selling those new ones instead of my old ones as planned, as I needed the money.
When I had the Bryston amp I would crank music really loud with both the Bryston and the CJ, including to "filling the whole house" sound levels. I didn't perceive any lack in the sound with the CJ vs the Bryston even when pushed pretty hard.
What is the speaker impedance that you do this sort of high volume cranking it stuff with?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,330
- Likes
- 12,292
Thiel 2.7 speakers (Thiels are traditionally held as being a fairly demanding speaker to drive):
- Bandwidth (–3dB) 35 Hz-20 kHz
Amplitude Response 35Hz-20 kHz ±2.5 dB
Phase Response Minimum ±10°
Sensitivity 87 [email protected] V-1m
Impedance 4 Ω (2.4 Ω minimum@160Hz)
Recommended Power 100-400 watts
Joseph Audio Perspective floor standing speakers, measurements:
Joseph Audio Perspective loudspeaker Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Joseph Audio Perspective's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield and spatially averaged room responses. All measurements were performed with the...
www.stereophile.com
The Joseph speakers are lower sensitivity but higher more even impedance which as I understand is better for many tube amps.
FWIW: One thing that stuck out to me when replacing the CJ with the Bryston was an apparent cleaning up of the sound around the sub-bass/bass.
So for instance some orchestral spectaculars I have listened to for a long time had moments where the double bass, low brass, lower woodwinds are all swirling around the same range, and there would be some muddiness with the CJ amps. The Bryston seemed to "grip" the speakers better so that those passages didn't sound muddy and the instrumental lines playing near the same bass region in complex passages were more separated and discernible. This seemed to be the case on both speakers, and at whatever volume level. So the "easier to drive" impedance of the Joseph speakers didn't seem to help that much. My layman's impression is that there is a deficit in the CJ tube amps performance that I don't seem to be able to tie directly to the differing impedance/sensitivity of the speakers. But I'm just some mook, so...ya get what ya paid for.
Is that with the KEF woofer?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,330
- Likes
- 12,292
Thiel's drivers were made in-house.
The last design of their coax drivers, with the "flat/corrugated" midrange, were fascinating and (to my ears) extremely successful. It's the most coherent sound I think I've heard from a dynamic speaker from the mids to highs.
Speaking of The Audio Critic, Peter Aczel in his rundown of "bad guys and good guys" (black hat/white hat) in audio, listed Jim Thiel as a "white hat."
It destroys there superhearing.Well they are hurling Bible quotes at each other on S-Fool now:
Genelec G Three active loudspeaker
My review samples of Genelec's G Three powered loudspeaker came with a little hand-sized green and tan cardboard card featuring a poem in bold black letters dated 1898: At the cottage window a little bird sang. And the light of the window did flicker. And look. The roof up it sprang and the...
Objectivism is like Kryptonite to them for some strange reason.
In St. Peter we trust.
Their woofers' similarity caused a whole lot of opinions and rumors that went on for some years. I ran the KEF version for awhile. It had bass and sounded good.
I have the Theil 2.4 which have the KEF or KEF-like woofer. Those woofers were around in 1980 and KEF sold them as components. I built some nice sounding speakers with them and KEF mids and tweeters. By the way my Audio Research CA-50 (tubes, 50 w/ch) runs them fine, although lacking a smidgen in bass, compared to my YBA Integre DT. 2.4 Specs are almost identical to ones Matt listed for the 2.7's.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,330
- Likes
- 12,292
I didn't know there could be any connection between a KEF woofer and the Thiel 2.7 woofer. I'm presuming they used the same woofer in the 2.7 that came from the 2.4, which Thiel said in a demo it was an "8 inch long throw woofer from Thiel." They re-used that, no doubt, to get size/costs down from the flagship 3.7 (which I also owned). The 3.7's drivers were all definitely designed by Thiel including the woofers (which were corrugated to some degree as well).
Timcognito: I used to use a CJ MV55 amp, 55w, which generally worked well, but as I had more, bigger, harder to drive speakers in the house, it seemed they could struggle with bass and sort of ran out of steam. When I replaced them with the 140W monos it was "wowza!" No problem driving anything with an excellent sense of power.
That reminds me of an anecdote that kind of ties together the reference to The Audio Critic, tube amps etc. Peter Aczel also listed Waveform speaker manufacturer John Otvos as a "white hat." Otvos wasn't a trained speaker designer himself, but was adamant about hiring the best, most engineer/science based no-b.s. experts he could for his design - with the use of the NRC speaker measuring facilities. Aczel raved about the results.
I ended up reviewing the Waveform Mach Solo speakers. Otvos was anti-expensive cables, anti-high priced boutique SS amps (so was I), and had no time for tube amp nonsense, explicitly recommending against using tube amps for his speakers. So I used a Bryston 4B for most of my evaluation (the speakers sounded incredible). Couldn't help myself, toward the end, tried them with a small locally built tube amp and it too sounded glorious. Otvos came to pick the speakers up, eyed that little tube amp suspiciously and again voiced his disdain (he's very forthright). But I said, just sit down and listen to a track or two. At the end he seemed amazed. He pretty much raved, saying something to the effect of: "Now THAT is like hearing the promise of stereo reproduction fulfilled! That's what we do this for!" It's not like it converted him to tube amps, but it was at least an instance demonstrating perceptually excellent results could come from using a tube amp. (They weren't as good on the bass as the Bryston, though).
Timcognito: I used to use a CJ MV55 amp, 55w, which generally worked well, but as I had more, bigger, harder to drive speakers in the house, it seemed they could struggle with bass and sort of ran out of steam. When I replaced them with the 140W monos it was "wowza!" No problem driving anything with an excellent sense of power.
That reminds me of an anecdote that kind of ties together the reference to The Audio Critic, tube amps etc. Peter Aczel also listed Waveform speaker manufacturer John Otvos as a "white hat." Otvos wasn't a trained speaker designer himself, but was adamant about hiring the best, most engineer/science based no-b.s. experts he could for his design - with the use of the NRC speaker measuring facilities. Aczel raved about the results.
I ended up reviewing the Waveform Mach Solo speakers. Otvos was anti-expensive cables, anti-high priced boutique SS amps (so was I), and had no time for tube amp nonsense, explicitly recommending against using tube amps for his speakers. So I used a Bryston 4B for most of my evaluation (the speakers sounded incredible). Couldn't help myself, toward the end, tried them with a small locally built tube amp and it too sounded glorious. Otvos came to pick the speakers up, eyed that little tube amp suspiciously and again voiced his disdain (he's very forthright). But I said, just sit down and listen to a track or two. At the end he seemed amazed. He pretty much raved, saying something to the effect of: "Now THAT is like hearing the promise of stereo reproduction fulfilled! That's what we do this for!" It's not like it converted him to tube amps, but it was at least an instance demonstrating perceptually excellent results could come from using a tube amp. (They weren't as good on the bass as the Bryston, though).
Just curious, does the record still stand? Literally 0 people have been able to discern between amps meeting said criteria under controlled conditions? I suspect 'yes' but 1997 was a long time ago. not sure if anyone would even bother testing the hypothesis anymore.
I experienced the same in 1988 when I listened to an Audio Innovations 25Wpc tube amp and an Amber ST70 solid state amp. I think it's due to higher distortion in the output transformer of the tube amp which generates more harmonics and probably also IMD which increases quantity (more bass) but decreases sound quality.
The other factor is the high output impedance of tube amps which leads to higher output at the impedance peaks of the speaker. Since those are usually around the resonance of the woofer (one or two peaks) it also adds quantity and looses quality.
JSmith
Master Contributor
Well if there were no differences in 1997, why would there be now?
It may be better to go back further, like 1987, starting from page 78;
Of course this is quite general, there can of course be differences but there is always a measurable reason why;
JSmith
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,330
- Likes
- 12,292
That would make sense of the experience I've had with my tube amps.
Even though there are some compromises, I still prefer the overall result.
Hey Matt: I struggle to type as my brain to keyboard is kind of disconnected and it looks like you are completely wired in that regard so I need to be brief. I do enjoy how much and the insight, depth, vigor and speed with which you contribute on this website.
Not sure but the large oval driver may not be a driver at all on the 2.4 and 2.7 but a passive radiator. Just guessing, because the guy at DB Audio in Berkeley CA where I bought them in 1980 for my own design said that the were often used for that. I used them as driver and they still sound good at my brothers house.
Back around 2000? I bought the 2.4's to use with my Nakamichi System One and after that went on a search for a new amp and reduced it down to Audio Research CA-50 $3.5K and and YBA Integre DT $2.5K. I liked them both wanted to save $1000 and always thought the CA-50 had a much more revealing mid-range. Ten years later when I saw a used AR CA50 I snapped it up and have swapped it back and forth with the YBA. The solid state YBA has much more control of the LF and I think low powered tube amps have this issue especially with 4 ohm loads. My son will get the AR CA50 for his 30th birthday as promised in a few years.
Keep posting and would love to see Amir test a higher powered flagship AR, CJ, Lamm etc. tube amp
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,330
- Likes
- 12,292
Thanks Tim!
Thanks. Swapping Thiel/Tube stories: It was actually hearing the Thiels with tubes that I remember being an impetus towards the CJ monoblocks.
I had heard various Thiels numerous times at various local dealers, always using solid state amps - the Thiels having that hard to drive reputation.
There was always something about the Thiel sound that grabbed me: the clarity, the focus and density of imaging, the sense the sound was "organized tightly" giving the sense of accuracy to the recording, where other speakers sounded more "swimmy" and less precise. And the timbre of voices and instruments seemed very authentic. However I also found they tended to sound a little forward in the upper frequencies, a little "hard" sounding, and a bit reductive - sax, voices, trumpet or whatever would have excellent presence, but less richness and body than many other speakers.
Then at a CES long ago I happened upon the VAC room (tube amps) using Thiel CS6 speakers. I was utterly gobsmacked, best sound of the show to me.
It had all those Thiel virtues, but seemed at the same time relaxed, smooth, easy, "natural" and slightly more filled out than I'd heard before.
Of course it could have been any number of reasons I heard this, but I now had to try Thiels with tubes. I ended up with the CS6s in my home powered by the CJ monoblocks and it produced just the type of gorgeous sound I remembered from CES. (And less so when I tried a Bryston amp...to my ears).
So ever since I've been Thiels 'n tubes I keep trying solid state in the system every once in a while, but always go back to CJ.
Yes, the oval driver is a passive driver. Sorry I thought you'd been referencing the white woofer. I have no idea where that oval passive comes from, so maybe not in-house.
Thanks. Swapping Thiel/Tube stories: It was actually hearing the Thiels with tubes that I remember being an impetus towards the CJ monoblocks.
I had heard various Thiels numerous times at various local dealers, always using solid state amps - the Thiels having that hard to drive reputation.
There was always something about the Thiel sound that grabbed me: the clarity, the focus and density of imaging, the sense the sound was "organized tightly" giving the sense of accuracy to the recording, where other speakers sounded more "swimmy" and less precise. And the timbre of voices and instruments seemed very authentic. However I also found they tended to sound a little forward in the upper frequencies, a little "hard" sounding, and a bit reductive - sax, voices, trumpet or whatever would have excellent presence, but less richness and body than many other speakers.
Then at a CES long ago I happened upon the VAC room (tube amps) using Thiel CS6 speakers. I was utterly gobsmacked, best sound of the show to me.
It had all those Thiel virtues, but seemed at the same time relaxed, smooth, easy, "natural" and slightly more filled out than I'd heard before.
Of course it could have been any number of reasons I heard this, but I now had to try Thiels with tubes. I ended up with the CS6s in my home powered by the CJ monoblocks and it produced just the type of gorgeous sound I remembered from CES. (And less so when I tried a Bryston amp...to my ears).
So ever since I've been Thiels 'n tubes
I keep trying solid state in the system every once in a while, but always go back to CJ.Mojo Warrior
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Likes
- 219
This discussion (Archimago, ASR, Stereophile) are all a reflection of the debates currently in Western Societies. That is, should we abandon facts and evidence? And replace it with religious belief and superstition? This argument is no longer limited to hifi. It appears in debates over politics, science, medicine, sociology, public health, environmental science, etc. It follows the rise of radical political ideologies.
A simple example would be: if you or a loved one became seriously ill, would you choose...
evidence based medicine or thoughts and prayers?
This is not meant to be a political statement (I am a physician) and I agree with Christopher Hitchens.
A simple example would be: if you or a loved one became seriously ill, would you choose...
evidence based medicine or thoughts and prayers?
This is not meant to be a political statement (I am a physician) and I agree with Christopher Hitchens.
I don't think a comparison with medicine is valid. Hi-fi is just a hobby in which we indulge ourselves, medical treatment is, or can be, life and death.
All someone is doing when they buy a Dave is spend a lot more money than they needed to. As long as they know that before they buy it then our work is done even if they still go ahead and buy it. No-one loses life or limb.
In the 1980s I built a DIY speaker based on a Kef design using the B139B, that is the oval driver. AFAIR Kef offered a passive version as well (no voice coil) which looked similar to the active version.
I think the juxtaposition is very relevant. Of course the effect in the medical field is more deadly than in audio, but the widespread denial of settled science, be it in audio, on climate change, vaccines or various dangerous forms of alternative "medicine" all undermine the methodological standard we as humans have successfully developed to distinguish truth from falsehood. That methodological standard applies across the board, so abandon it in one area, and there is no longer a reason to apply it anywhere. The trend seems to come with a blurring of the distinction between facts and opinions, as if facts are just opinions and thus can be equally personal, and deserving of democratic respect.
I am not quite sure how to explain the trend. It may have something to do with the rise of political extremism on the far right, but also with post modernist subjectivism, mostly on the left. For example anti vax sentiment in the Netherlands is as much a thing of the uneducated ultra right as it is of well educated privileged pretty woke types. And of course views on such things do not completely correlate: not all anti vaxers are also climate change deniers. So what is happening and what is the sociology of it (I am not particularly interested in the politics)?
As for audiophoolery, is there a social group that is particularly prone to this nonsense? Since snake oil audio tends to be expensive, I would expect it to be a thing for the well heeled, but is it? I did indeed see expressions of the kind "you deny the effect of this particular 20k technology that cannot be measured but makes a night and day difference for no other reason than that you are jealous that you cannot afford it". I guess part of the hatred towards ASR thus comes from the analogy with the story of the emperor's new clothes.
Last edited:
- Status
