Well I'm a fan of the sound of the Snell so I'd go for those.. Snell's not super refined but easy to drive, easy to listen to, do very little wrong just not super high end. I've heard the C's, the D's, and own a pair of E IV's. I've heard the Thiels' but not in many years so I don't know what they are up to now. |
Big different between those two speakers. The Thiels would reveal just how bad your Adcom is. The Snells on the other hand are easy to drive and they would sound great with the CJ. |
Snell C-IV speakers are a classic speaker. Great all aound soundstage & dynamic speakers. These Snell C-IV are last of the "original sound of Snell Acoustics". Before the merge with Boston Acoustics which were the Snell C-V speakers, totally different sound and more like a home theater /Boston Acoustic sound.
Peter Snell would of been proud of the Kevin Voecks design sound of the C-IV. Peter Snell would be rolling over in his grave if he heard the C-V speakers.
Now Snell is nothing more than a name and was eaten up by a large Japanese conglomerate company including, Denon, Marantz etc.. |
FWIW, I prefer the Thiels over the Snells. |
No brainer go with the Snells. |
I have owned and enjoyed many Snell speakers. According to the Snell website and Stereophile, the Snell V was also a Kevin Voecks design. |
|
The Snell CV speaker was released in late 1993 while the Snell C-IV was still being manufactured til 1994. Kevin Voecks was pretty much on his way out of Snell in that time as cheif engineer. Even though the Snell C-V was under Kevin's reign, the speaker was being influenced by trend of home theater; aka Boston Acoustics design(more drivers and cheaper parts design).
The Snell C-IV is a better sounding purist speaker in two channel. And sticks with Peter Snell's original philosophy of building the best dollar for dollar dynamic bass reflective type coffin style speaker. I say no more , go enjoy whatever you want to believe in. |
I currently own Snell B-Minors, C-V's, & D's. I have owned Type A's and Thiel 2 2, 3.5, & 3.6. I had the B-Minors as my main speakers for many years. I had gone from 2 2's to 3.5's to the B-Minors before I got the 3.6's.
I drove the speakers variously with Mark Levinson 27 and 333 and VTL 225 & Deluxe 500. The Thiels were definitely better with tubes. The Snell were good with either tubes or solid state.
I love the Thiels. They are the closest speaker I have found to capture the 3-dimensional sound of electrostats with better dynamics.
I had the B-Minors and the 3.6's at the same time. While I got a thrill with the sound of the Thiels, ultimately the Snells were overall a more enjoyable speaker. BUT, Thiels might be a great choice for the music you listen to. I found them to cause listening fatigue with electric music or anything at louder volume. Also, your room is large. I think the B-Minors would fill the room better than the smaller Thiels. I ultimately sold the Thiels.
The B-Minors are a more forgiving speaker and will play anything extremely well. I currently use them as front speakers in a surround sound set-up and, though I have MAXX-2's for my 2-channel. I can't imagine giving the B's up. They are a classic.
Sorry you can't audition. They are completely different speakers and I don't think anyone could make up your mind. I had a hard time deciding between the B-Minor's and the 3.6's, a much better speaker than the 2 2's, and I chose the B's.
If you're thinking long term, you might want to find both, buy and test them both, and sell one pair. You shouldn't lose money on either. Also, for a few dollars more you could get the 3.6's, a much better Thiel.
Hope I haven't confused you too much.
--Neil |
Thanks everyone for their input and suggestions.
My favorite are the Snell B Minors (for music, I love my LaScalas for HT) but I guess I cant find an used pair under a grand (wishful thinking).
Ncarv: thanks for your very valuable input since you had them all. Wilson Audio is currently out of my reach so I am likely to end up with your suggestion to buy both, starting with the "grass look greener on the other side" CS 2.2 since that's a local buy and I still have my Snells to confuse my ears... |
Snell C IV review here -> http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf
From the review;
"The sound of the Snell Type C/IV is, yes, the best I've ever heard out of a monkey coffin - uncolored, transparent, low in distortion, high in resolution, perfectly balanced, much better on the bottom end than the C/II. The frequency balance-which depends not so much on whether the response is ±2 dB, or ±2.5 dB, or whatever, but on just where those little zigs and zags occur - is probably the most satisfying of any speaker known to me." |
I own CIV's and I sold CV's when they were being manufactured along with the A reference,B-Minor,D etc. I've always been a fan. I believe that prior statements about Boston Acoustics being under ownership of Snell when those speakers were manufactured is incorrect. At least not when any of those were first introduced to the market. The lines created under BA were XA, E.5 and the like. |
Snell Type A Reference, B, B-Minor, CV, D and several others were designed, manufactured and sold BEFORE the Boston Acoustics aquisition. Some models continued to be sold after the aquisition.
"On June 21, 1996, (Boston Acoustics CEO) Frank Reed announced the completion of a deal to acquire Snell Acoustics, another manufacturer of high-end speaker systems in nearby Haverhill, Massachusetts."
FYI, the date that Boston Acoustics aquired Snell is indicated as June 1995 on the Snell Acoustics history web page, however, several financial-related web sites have it recorded as June 1996, see below.
"PEABODY Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 28, 1996--Frank Reed, chairman of the board, Boston Acoustics Inc. (NASDAQ-BOSA) announced today that it has reached an agreement in principal to acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Snell Manufacturing Corp. from AudioNord of Denmark.
Both Boston Acoustics and Snell Manufacturing Corp. are manufacturers of home entertainment loudspeaker systems. The transaction is subject to the execution of a definitive Purchase Agreement and preliminary terms were not disclosed. The parties expect the transaction to be concluded by the end of May 1996." |
