The CS 3.7s sound fine. Thiel will be moving slightly more mainstream with emphasis on Home Theater speakers. Several models will come out of China |
Telescope,
Did you keep your 2.7a or upgrade to the 3.7s?? |
Vhiner,
I went ahead and bought a new JL Audio E112 sub for the 2.7's. Will see if I can get it integrated (running 2.7's full range) without ruining the beauty of the speakers. The 2.7's have great bass on their own and I am mainly getting the sub for movies but hope it will also add a solid, deeper foundation with music also.
Will keep you posted. |
Telescope_trade,
Nothing works like an in-home audition. I'll be eager to hear what the JL does for you. I have more than enough bass with my 3.7's but a properly integrated sub can certainly bring an "effortlessness" to a system and definitely does things with movie soundtracks that I don't believe many, if any, speakers can do by themselves. If I used my 3.7's for AV, I would definitely audition a Smart Sub to handle the subterranean depths many soundtracks have.
The trick will be in the set up. I suggest getting a friend who shares your audio tastes to keep you honest in the process. Subs can be thrilling initially, only to disappoint later because they have been set up to stress an element of the presentation of one piece of music. If your dealer will give you a couple of weeks for an audition that would be ideal.
In any case, please post your findings. |
Jakegt3,
Thanks, I am pretty sure I am sticking with Thiel now period as they have the sound I have been searching for. That said, I would love to get the 3.7's but it looks like I am going to get a sub and just keep the 2.7's as no body seems to be buying these days. (Have to sell the 2.7's to be able to do it) I am very happy with the 2.7's in my room and personally I love their bass as it is and don't even really need a sub, but you know!?!? :o)
BTW...Looking at the new JL Audio E112. May make a decision tonight and call it a day. |
If extreme low bass is a high priority, then adding a sub is definitely an option. However, my experience with subs is that it can often be a messy business trying to get them to integrate optimally with the main speakers, depending on the sub you choose. There are potentially many parameters that need to be carefully managed to get it right: crossover frequency, crossover slope, sub placement with respect to room standing waves, sub placement with respect to the main speakers, crossover electrical phasing between the main speakers and sub, etc. I used a sub when I had Thiel CS2.3's, but it took a lot of work to get satisfactory results.
However, if you can manage the price differential, my opinion is that upgrading to CS3.7's will make a bigger overall improvement...not so much in the bass but in most other areas. On the other hand, if you are ready to spend $$, then you really should audition a bunch of other speakers to sample the alternatives. |
I have a JL Labs sub and feel it works very well with my Nola speakers. I'm sure that you can get one to work with your speakers, too, it has a lot of adjustments you can make. I still think the Thiel sub might be a better choice, though, as it has a passive crossover that was designed to integrate with Thiel loudspeakers. |
The JL Audio subs are the best that I know of!, some may say, there is no such thing as best, well, after you listen to a broken-in JL audio sub, and tinker with the controls, you should be quite smitten! |
To all,
Thanks for the replies I have received so far, but also want to mention a possible direction change I may be considering as an alternative to the 3.7's to see what you may think?? I am thinging of adding a JL Audio F112 sub and just keeping the 2.7's.
Any thoughts on this route?? I want a sub to run full range with my speakers and be fast enough as not to muddy up the fast, taut speed of the 2.7's.
I know the Thiel Smart sub would also probably be a good (and logical) choice, but my dealer has a JL coming so??
What say yee all??
Thanks again! |
Jakegt3,
I have no doubt that what you heard side by side is true, but I will also guess there was either something wrong with that particular pair of 2.7's or they simply were not broken in all the way. One other thing I remembered about mine at one point early on was that as weird as it may sound, putting the floor spikes on with the lock nut & spikes snugged together and tightened up together, they sounded a bit what I may call congested. But with a small gap between the spike & lock nut,seemed to clear that up. Vibration transfer??
Anyway After 500 hrs of break in (over 600 now and still improving) they are just fantastic and never get confused or congested on anything I listen to. Soundstaging, instrument separation, transparency & dynamics are their strong suits.
I can only imagine the 3.7's being all that & more. That would be what I hope for the the additional cost. But to be sure, the 2.7's are amazing speakers.I hope you get a chance to hear them again somewhere else sometime to see what you think.
|
@ pops, Hi, I agree, riding off into the sunset is a dream I am trying to full-fill, to reach a realization of a sound is full-filling that there is no need to further spend money and go thru more frustrations is quite peacefull to me, a since of satisfaction!, I am proud of your accomplishments going that direction! |
Let me elaborate on what I meant by the 2.7's sounding "congested". First of all, my comment said it was congested on "complex musical passages". Specifically I'm referring to large scale orchestral music. The resolution of individual instruments in an orchestra is better on the 3.7's. The 3.7's simply handle this kind of material better without sounding strained or congested, probably because its dynamic range performance is superior. But that's what you are paying more for.
I should repeat that I listened to both the 2.7 and 3.7 in the same room with the same electronics, so those variables should be mostly eliminated in comparing the two speakers.
It is possible that there was something wrong with the particular pair of 2.7's I auditioned, but I can only report what my ears heard. I'm guessing that if you really like your 2.7's, then you will absolutely love the 3.7's. I do also agree with one of the comments already made that the 3.7's really need a larger room to "bloom". |
I don't know where the "congested" reference pops up from, must be the room or something? My 2.7's are the polar opposite from congested?? Super transparent & open at all volumes. Nothing but ultra clarity is what I get. It's all about the room & setup I guess. I would never even want to upgrade from the 2.7 to the 3.7 if I heard any congestion or muffling or anything even remotely close to that. I have owned hundreds of speakers and have heard congestion & muddiness & darkness etc...etc... Thiel 2.7's are not that for sure. They did sound a little like that during break in, but not at all after. That did take 500 + hours though.
|
That is the 12k question! I have never heard the 2.7 although I am sure i would love because I am a Thiel guy. I have come so close so many times to buying the 3.7, have heard it extensively at 2 separate showrooms with various components and could just never commit. The same reason Unsound mentioned above with the CS6, just such a big price jump for what I perceived to not be worth it compared to my 3.6. They sound great no doubt but for me to spend that much on a speaker I am hoping that will ride me off into the sunset. And I didn't get that during my time with them.
I would rather stretch a little further and find a speaker that would, that is why I am disappointed Thiel has no plans for a new statement speaker. I was sort of holding out for that! Sounds like you have some similar reservations. You might be better off staying pat, tough call. |
Unsound,
Yes that is exactly what I am talking about in this case. Since they share the same mid/tweeter driver & cabinet is more similar than not, I am not sure the jump for 2hz is worth it if that is all there is? (mostly) |
I completely agree with the Rcprince and Pops! The bigger more expensive speakers are more dynamic (sometimes dramatically so) and play with much greater ease doing so.
I usually expect deeper bass response with those kind price increases though, and I don't think Thiel really succeeded in that regard all the time. |
Well said Rcprince, that is exactly how the larger CS6 plays in my room versus my 3.6. Moving more air with more ease and more relaxed when pushed through a complex passage.
The 3.6 is an excellent speaker, I like to compare it a car going down the freeway at 80 mph - with the 3.6 you feel like your going 80 with the CS6 you feel like your going 50. That is what you get with a larger speaker. |
Seems to me that you have both enough room and amplification for the 3.7s. I agree with Vhiner about the sub, the Thiel sub would be the way to go if you take that choice.
Since no one has mentioned it yet, again I'll venture a guess based on my past experience with the Thiel CS2 and CS 3.5 (as well, frankly, as in the cases of other speaker lines, like Dunlavy, when you went up the line to larger speakers), and see if anyone else can chime in. The big differences in the past between the two classes of speakers to my ears were both in bass quantity and quality and, more importantly, a better sense of ease in presentation from the bigger speaker and an overall bigger sound. The drivers moved more air, weren't working as hard and overall had a more relaxed and open sound, less strained. I know the 2.7 is really light years ahead of the CS2 and is probably one of the best Thiel speakers, but the 3.7 is a good deal better than the original CS 3.5, much as I liked that speaker, and is very highly regarded. I would think that ease, particularly in loud and complex musical passages, would be noticeable--it certainly was to me. If you listen more to smaller scale ensembles and music and at moderate volume levels, it may not be as important a difference. Just a guess based on past experience--I'm hoping someone who owns or has compared the actual speakers will add their two cents. |
I can offer an opinion;
Recently, I had th epleasure of comparing the CS 2.4SE & the CS 3.7 at the same dealer/same day of demo.
The CS 3.7 is outstanding in every way, but, you will need a room of 20x20, 25x25...etc. The 3.7 will only shine is a very large space, as it needs that room, to open up.
The CS 2.4SE is the same kind of outstanding, only a smaller scale. |
Vhiner,
Thanks, that is what I am thinking as well. I have owned a lot of subs and can get most of them to work "ok" in my room but never seem totally satisfied. I have a buyer for my 2.7's now, but have cold feet considering the price jump I will have to make and just want to be sure (or as close as I can) that I will gain something to make it worthwhile. Now I know the 3.7's are rated at only 2Hz deeper than the 2.7's but it's more about the power of that bass than the depth.
I "love" the bass quality of the 2.7's and don't even need more for music or movies really, but would love a speaker that can get me even closer to not needing a sub at all ever. (I know they would still need one for true HT but!?)
And like you said, Thiel is changing direction, so want to make a decision soon.
To my ears, Thiel is the best sounding speaker I have owned so far (and that's a lot) and will stay with them for years to come be it the 3.7's or my 2.7's I have now. |
I have not heard the 2.7's but I own the 3. 7's. IMHO, the only sub to consider with the Thiels is a Thiel smart sub. They are built to match your speaker.
There's simply *no* way to know, without experimentation in your room, whether a sub would be better or would even work well in your room. I've heard them make a great difference and frankly not much at all. Can you get a dealer to let you audition one?
One thing to consider is that the 3.7 will be phased out soon. The new company is going in a different direction. The new speakers are not time coherent. I predict used 3.7's will hold their current value for some time because they punch way above their weight class and have a relatively small footprint.FWIW. |
I auditioned both the 2.7 and 3.7 at a local dealer while I was shopping for speakers. Both had a very similar tonal character but I thought the 3.7 was the much better speaker. It was more open and transparent, and sounded less congested on complex musical passages. The 3.7 also had slightly more extended low bass response, but the difference was not huge. Both were auditioned in the same listening room with the same electronics. I know there is a significant price difference between the two speakers, but in this case you get what you pay for. |
Hi,
Thanks, my room is big enough I think @ 20x20x12 leading into an open kitchen/dining area. My amplification is the Peachtree Nova 220 & Nova pre. 400 W/PC into 4 ohm.Standard living room with no special treatments. Used for both music & 2 ch HT. The 2.7's are plenty as it is, but just wondering what I would gain with the 3.7's. My guess are they would be very close with just a bit more bass presence & power, but not much deeper. |
Do it! I had the chance, and to make a long story short, I bought the CS3.7. I am gonna cut and paste what I wrote in a Thiel thread in another forum. if you've been researching online, you've probably seen this already.
Went to my closest Thiel dealer few weeks (still an hour away) to hear the new CS2.7, I was hoping to trade in my CS2.4 and get the new CS2.7 for under $5k out the door. Maybe my expectations were too high, or they were just not totally broken in yet. I was expecting them to perform like the CS3.7 with only slightly less deep bass. The CS2.7 sounded just OK, but I was not totally blown away. I am sure I might be able to hear the improvements if I A/B a pr of CS2.7 next to a pr of CS2.4, but it would be an expensive lateral move, not an upgrade I was looking for. Then I heard the CS3.7, it has that same Thiel house sound that I love and sounded a lot better, wider soundstage, better imaging, midrange is fuller, bass sounded with much more authority and obviously deeper extension. The dealer than told the demo pr are over 2yr old that still have the cast aluminum dome top, where as Thiel made a change 2yrs ago, all newer ones are now using stiff composite plastic instead, because Thiel canÂt line up the metal dome perfectly with the wooden cabinet. Can someone verify newer CS3.7s donÂt have the metal dome top anymore? I still see Thiel lists the top as being metal on their website. Anyway, maybe business was really slow or he really wanted to get rid of the demo, we worked out a deal that I canÂt say no to, so I am now a proud owner of my dream speaker in amber wood finish. |
While I have not heard either of these Thiel models, there are a lot of Thiel owners on the forums, so I'm sure they'll chime in. The one observation I'll make is some of this will depend on the size of your room; if it's smaller, the 3.7s might not sound their best--I found this to be the case between the Thiel CS2 and 3 models I auditioned years ago. You probably should give the dimensions of your listening room, as well as the amplification that you are using, to get a more informed answer. |
I've only heard those speakers on different systems in different rooms at RMAF, but I own the 2.4s and will upgrade to the 3.7s in the next year or two. Perhaps it was the room, but the 2.7s just didn't seem like a substantial upgrade. I actually think my 2.4s sounded better, although I do blame that on the suboptimal listening environment. |
