Has anyone spent time with the Thiel 3.7?

A local friend of mine has a pair. He upgraded from the 2.4's. Another local friend has the 7.0's. The 3.7's sound very crisp and energetic without being bright. Bass is very nice and tight. He drives them with a Krell FPB-200. Personally I don't care much for most Thiel models but the 3.7's are very nice. I do like the 7.0's pretty well also. Thiels in my opinion are hard to drive and bright as hell.

I auditioned them once for about 3 hours with a Musical Fidelity A5 and matching CD player. I have auditioned many speakers and these are by far my favorite speakers.

They have an extremely wide sound stage (because of flat drivers?) with pin point imaging. They are also one of the most tonally balanced speakers I have heard. The bass was never over done and always had good punch and depth. But best thing about these speakers though is how well they integrate. The drivers are seamless. I always thought a lot of speakers had good diver integration until I heard these... they are on another level.

Many people say thiels are bright. The 3.7 are not bright at all, it is balanced. They are VERY detailed and many people might perceive this as bright. They made the Wilson audio Duettes (same room same amp A/B comparison) sound un-detailed and boomy.

Anyway long story short I really like them. They do not get the press they should around there. It would be worth the trip to hear these speaker if you are looking in their price range (13,000). But in truth I think you will find they out play many speakers costing much more.

PS. The 3.7 will be my next purchase. I was looking into a pair of Sophias. I heard the Duettes side by side with the 3.7s and the thiels were better in all aspects. I made the 2 hour trip anyway to hear a pair of Sophias (different dealer, Mac gear) I still liked the Thiels much better. To me the 3.7s are more detailed, have better driver integration and the bass seems more natural (IMO of corse). Use your own ears! Sound stage was close with the thiel still coming out on top. I think I would have to move up the Wilson line to compete. But for the price of the Watt Puppy I could buy the 3.7 and some killer amps for them.

How are vocals on the 3.7s? Are they etched or buzzy at all?
(That really irritates me on many speakers.)
Any experience on how they deal with a bad recording?
Will they exacerbate the problems or just be fairly neutral, if not forgiving?
Andrew Cordesman in the recent TAS 3.7 review hinted that
they are somewhat unforgiving w/o the best upstream equipment and recordings.
I have not heard them but I am curious.
Thanks in advance for any comments.

Vocals:
The vocals seemed to be very musical. They did not seem etched but I was not looking for it either. The midrange simply played what was on the CD. Bright when it was bright and warm when it was warm... Nora Jones' voice was very transparent and notably more natural than a lot of other speakers. Her voice never had any odd distortion ("buzzy") like other speakers I heard that day (Focal 1037). Dave Matthew's voice was warm and raspy like it should be. James Hefield (of Metallica) had power in his voice with great depth and sound stage. All in all I was impressed with the vocals to say the least.

I happened to have my mom (58 years old not into hi-fi but long time violinist, singer, performer) with me when I auditioned these speakers. She summed it up pretty well. After about 20 minutes into the audition I asked her what she thought. She said "Well I am not sure I get it (hi-fi that is) but that one girl you just had on (Nora Jones) sounded like she was actually standing in the room...she laughed...ok ok I guess I get it".

Recordings:
I took mostly good recordings with me so I don't really know how they will be with bad recordings. But I am pretty sure they will be, well bad on bad recordings. Bright bass-less 80s rock albums will be just that. I am into mostly hard rock but I have no reservations about buying these speakers. They seemed to just play what was there never more never less. I should point out that I only listen at 75-80dB and use a SPL-meter. You may or may not have issues at louder levers, do to the high energy of the midrange/tweeter on bad recordings (again very tonally neutral).

Up-steam equipment:
I don't really know. I only heard them once with all Musical Fidelity equipment. It was a modest A5 (250 watt integrated amp $3,000 retail price, matching CD player) and they sounded great. They were not hooked up to crazy amps that cost 3 times as much as the speakers... You will have to ask long time owners about this one.

I would have bought them on the spot but I had just drop $10,000 on an engagement ring the weekend before. I plan to buy them soon. Sooner if the stock market comes back up.

James63 opinion is right on. Thiel has a winner with the 3.7's.

Haven't heard them yet, but Stereophile's review this month confirms everything James63 is saying. Some used ones are going for just agove half price. Man I wish I had the dough!

Yes, Audio Alternative in Atlanta.Heard them with Ayre gear and AudioQuest cables.The owner states a special synergy between the two brands,Ayre and Thiel.Very ,very coherent and suprisingly dynamic as well.Bright no.Bright to me sounds painful.Fast and agile would be a more apt with some punch.I compared the 3.7 against the Vandersteen Quattro Wood using similar Ayre gear in another listen room.

Stixman,
Could you elaborate on what you heard between the Vandersteen Quattro and the Thiel 3.7?
I would be very interested to hear your comments.
Bill

I auditioned B&w 802D, Wilson Sophia, KEF 205/2 Ref, and Thiel 3.7 side by side before I ended up purchasing 3.7. Thiel just simply outshined the rest. B&W 802D proved just how uninteresting and boring it's sound is but with ridiculous price tag. KEF was pretty good but could not match Thiel's immense soundstage and accurate imaging. Thiel is everything James above says. Very accurate but musical(can you believe that ?)..very different from previous thiels. This is Thiel's last greatest gift to music lovers before leaving us. nothing in the price range will come near it's performance level. entirely on it's own league..go trust your ears and hear them out...

I want to echo pkoh's impressions of the Thiel CS3.7. I purchased a pair around 5 months ago. I compared them to Dynaudio Anniversary Saphires (which were too clinical and restrained for my taste) and CS7.2's (fantastic speakers, but not quite as smooth in the top end and somewhat less musical).

The CS3.7's are truly unlike any other Thiel in that they are extraordinarily articulate without being harsh or etched. However, two things are important to note: many people don't allow them their 500 hour break in and sell them prematurely. Out of the box, they are absolutely wretched...shrill and painful. Second, you'll need high quality equipment throughout your system because they are stone cold truth tellers. I auditioned numerous preamps before I found one of sufficient quality. Got a crappy cdp? They'll shine a light on it. The good news is that they will throw a sound stage and produce imaging you cannot touch in the $13K price range. For those who say they skimp on bass, I suspect that's due to deficient front end components. Several friends who listened to my set up recently couldn't stop commenting on how deep the bass was and how much "slam" these speakers have.

You've gotta be willing to handle the truth about your gear if wanna own these speakers....which is not to say that they don't sound good with reasonably priced equipment...your equipment just has to be well made and musical. Thiel CS3.7's are incredibly emotional, complex and rewarding speakers that reflect world-class design and engineering, but they are not for everyone.

I have to add my thoughts here also. These speakers will show you how limited some of the upstream components really are. I had to replace my CDP, cartridge, and eventually my amps to get back to where I wanted to be. If a piece of equipment can make you do that...WATCH OUT I SAY! BTW, they replaced Vandersteen 5a's, which I thought were going o be keepers.