Thiel Owners

jonandfamily,

My own subjective impressions, especially of amplifiers, aren't much use to other people I think.  We all have different tastes, different hearing, different criteria; what I hear as uninvolving will be someone else's musical nirvana. 

And by "bleached" I'm talking of timbral or tonal color, nothing to do with dynamics.  I tend to sort of see colors when listening to sound (and clearly so do some other people, which is why lots of audiophiles refer to colors in describing sound).  When I listen to my acoustic guitar I always "hear" a golden sparkly tone.  I'd take that recording around to various systems and speakers: from most of them, I don't hear that tone.  It's more silver/gray.  And that's my main complaint with most systems: they sound "bleached" of tonal color, which is what I always perceived whenever I was able to compare Audio Research amps with, say CJ amps, over the years (and that's only a few times, really).

That doesn't mean someone else will hear the same thing.  Although...it was interesting to see it described that way here, and I have seen the Audio Research sound described similarly over the years.  Just like the CJ sound is often described as "golden."

My pal loves his Audio Research amp - had it forever, doesn't want to part with it.

jeff,

Sorry, no system pictures. I don’t know if I’ll ever get around to that. (I think the pictures would look cool because I designed my room carefully/aesthetically for home theater and two channel, while having to be a "nice" looking room since it’s our living room on the main floor. I used to have my system photos on imageshack, but they went to a paid model and took them down).


But since I don’t have a sytem page, I may as well take this moment to list my audio gear.

Currently, my stuff is:

Thiel 3.7 speakers.

I’ll be picking up the pair of Thiel 2.7 speakers I bought sometime in the next week or two.

Other speakers:
- MBL 121 radialstrahler omni directional monitors.
- Waveform Mach MC monitors (egg shaped).
- Spendor 3/5s
- Old Thiel 02 speakers (can’t bring myself to get rid of them - they re-ignited my hi-fi passion).
- Just sold a pair of Harbeth Super HL5 plus speakers I was testing out.

For me it’s "tone first" when buying a speaker. I have to hear that organic warmth in tone - woody guitar body, sparkling strings, golden brass...as wide a rainbow as tonal colors as I can get (the MBLs are the champs here, but limited in extension).

The speakers have to soundstage well because that’s one of the things that makes it intriguing to bet my butt in the sofa listening to the system.
(Though I have zero interest in a system that soundstages fantastically, but is tonally boring or off-putting).

I want an image density and projection as well, giving some dynamic life, which the Thiel brand excels at.

Amplification:
Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks, 140W/side. Currently with the CJ advised Tungsol 6550 tubes (I’m not a tube roller...the amp sounds superb with them and I’ve got enough audio stuff to worry about).

Pre-amp: CJ Premier 16LS2.
Also have a locally built tube pre-amp which absolutely excels like nothing else in providing image density and a realistic "they are there" solidity. The CJ preamp is more transparent and better delineates different instrumental timbre, so I go back and forth.

I have a prized re-furbished Eico HF 81 14W integrated amp which is an absolute marvel of musicality. It’s stunning to hear that amp drive the big Thiels!

Dac: still have my old Benchmark Dac 1. I’ll be upgrading soon.
Usually streaming ripped CDs from itunes (god I hate itunes, I’ll be changing this soon).

Just got back into vinyl:

I have a micro seiki turntable and some nice cartridges (so I’m told) donated by my father-in-law, with a cheap Rotel phono stage. Sounds sublime, but obviously a path for future upgrades.

Cables: I don’t care about hi end cables. I have robust 10awg Belden speaker cable (I have a long cable run to the speakers), and my interconnects are a mishmash of kimber PBJ, low end and expensive high end cast offs from audiophile buddies who own too much cable. I couldn’t even tell you what some of them are. But they work :-)

frozentundra,

Cool.  I look forward to hearing my new Thiel 2.7s next weekend.

I also have some "ear issues."  I played for decades in a very loud band and acquired quite a case of Tinnitus and some hyperacusis (hearing sensitivity) came along for the ride.  It was really rough for a few years but has gotten better over time.  It made my ears quite sensitive to bright speakers or coarse distortion (I don't have hearing loss issues though, fortunately my hearing - when tested - is excellent).

So this makes it somewhat ironic that both of us own Thiel speakers, which have a reputation among so many audiophiles as being bright and hard to listen to.  It never was quite true in a good set up, but I think it's a tribute to Jim's final designs especially just how smooth and fatigue-free he got them sounding, while producing as much or more detail than ever.
I can listen fatigue-free to the 3.7s endlessly, more than any speaker I've had.  (Of course system matching is part of the key; the CJ gear helps here - liquid and organic, but with no sense of darkening, roll-off or making the sound simply polite).

I've love to hear the Volti speakers!  I figure  they would bring an even greater sense of presence and density to the sound than even the Thiels.
But with other trade offs.   I wouldn't be able to place a speaker like that in my room.

As for reproducing voices and intrumental timbre, as I mentioned I find the MBLs the current champ...and the previous champ were the Hales Transcendence speakers - I had the floor standing T5s at one point but...forgot to mention in the above....I have a bunch of Hales Speakers still, Transcendence monitors.  They are amazing for having a low noise floor and producing a rainbow of tonal color.  They are dynamically reticent though, have less density and texture than the Thiels.

I found the joseph audio Perspectives to edge the Thiels in tonal beauty - just a bit lower noise floor, a bit more surprising variety in instrumental timbre, a bit more pure/smooth sounding high end.  Though the Thiels edge out the josephs in other ways (image size, soundstage, density, dynamics, bass control...)

My 2.7s certainly are helping me get through the home isolation.  They are a wonderful conduit for food-for-the-soul music.

I was moving my 3.7s to make room for the 2.7s I’m getting tomorrow.
For the heck of it I set up my old Thiel 02s. For those who don’t know that model, it was before the time/phase coherence - just a regular box speaker, but engineered for a flatter response than most speakers at the time (even though it’s not perfectly flat - a bit of emphasis in the upper mids). Not sure I’d listened to them yet since I got my CJ Premier 16LS2 pre-amp a while back.

Unbelievably musical. So clear, alive sounding, yet warm, with more sparkle than the 3.7s. It’s actually my benchmark for the sound I’ve been chasing for years, which is why I can’t ever get rid of them.
Every time I fire them up I end up thinking "maybe this is all I need" but I know after time I can start to crave some of the finesse of a newer speaker (and scale). But boy do I love those speakers, an unbelievably synergistic match with the CJ amps. (And my Eico HF-81).  I actually prefer listening to them over the Harbeth SHL5 Plus I just sold!

I should have my 2.7s tomorrow so this will be interesting...

I've done some listening to my gorgeous-looking 2.7s.  Wow!  What a speaker!!

Ok, so here for anyone interested is my initial first impressions report on the Thiel 2.7s:

As I've mentioned, I have the Thiel 3.7s and have considered downsizing somewhat, for space/ergonomic reasons, though not for sound - because they sound mind-blowing.

The 2.7s are in a high class ebony which matches the room really well and they are one of the most beautiful pair of speakers I've seen.  That's huge because part of my move has been for aesthetic reasons.

At first the 2.7s didn't seem that much smaller than the 3.7s when taking them out of the box.  But once set up the difference is really noticeable.  They are much less room-dominating and more sleek than the 3.7s.  (Though I ultimately like the look of the 2.7s better, my wife slightly prefers the 3.7 design).  And certainly moving them around is much easier in terms of their size and weight.

I've had the 2.7s up and experimenting with positions for 2 days, and for the moment have found a nice position that seems to maximize their soundstaging, precision, tone, dynamics.  (They are close to the same set up as my 3.7s ).

Having lived with the 3.7s for years, how do the 2.7s sound?  First impressions: almost exactly like how I thought they'd sound: just like the 3.7s.  That same immediately identifiable tone and presentation, just a bit smaller.   And the bass seems quite satisfactory - a lot of the times it seemed to be going as low as the 3.7s.

But it wasn't long, in going through many familiar tracks, before some sight differences started to emerge.   The first is the soundstaging.  The 2.7s do that wonderful Thiel thing in disappearing as sound sources.  Very "un-speaker-like" sound emanating from all around the speakers.
(Far cleaner than, for instance, the Harbeths I recently had).   Images have amazing precision all around the speakers.  That said, it's not the same soundstaging as the 3.7s insofar as the 2.7s present a more forward, more present and less deep and wide soundstage.   This is something that would not be noticed if I hadn't lived with the 3.7s which are just about the most phenomenal soundstaging speakers I've ever had.  The 3.7s just can cast an enormous soundtage, almost life-sized feeling for jazz and even classical with the right set up.  It's almost like the depth and width can keep going and going.

In contrast, the 2.7s soundstage pulls all the musicians closer.  I can hear all the reverberation cues and spaces, but the instruments aren't placed as far away.

Also, in favor of the 3.7s, the big guys sound a bit more relaxed and sort of softer than the 2.7s, with a bit more carved out "air" around instruments and voices.  Plus, not surprisingly, instruments and voices can be a bit smaller on the 2.7s. 

The other differences are that the 2.7s sound very slightly more forward and present than the 3.7s, with just a bit more sparkle and shine in the upper mids/lower treble, giving cymbals, brass, and anything with a "leading edge" such as guitar picking or piano notes a bit more presence.  It's not an incoherent "tweeter sticking out" sound at all; they are incredibly coherent like the 3.7s, but somewhere just a very slightly different tonal balance.

Then there is the bass/midbass/lower midrange.  Voiced for the smaller woofer, this aspect of the sound changes as well.  It's sort of like taking the 3.7s deep weighty sound and shifting and squishing that energy upwards more into the midbass.  The 2.7s have just astounding "punch" and density - and control! - in terms of bass that goes up into the lower mid range.  There was a thread on audiocircle where the fellow who did some design work on the 2.7 chimed in:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=122636.0

His comments on the bass are right on.  Bass drums and stand up bass are so dense and punchy. 

So what this all combines to on the 2.7 is a presentation that seems more forward, more exciting, more alive, and even more "dense" than I get with the 3.7s.  Everything just vibrates the air as if it's really there, in front of you.  I had wondered  about the specs of the specs of the 2.7s because they are rated as quite a bit less sensitive than the 3.7s.  Though my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks (140Wside) have driven any speaker I've used, I wondered if I still might here a bit of dynamic reticence in the 2.7 vs the 3.7.  No, just the opposite!  These things utterly kick ass with the CJ amps!  Incredibly punchy, ballsy and more dynamically alive than virtually any non-horn speaker I can ever remember hearing.  That is their main virtue thus far: the way the field around the speakers is populated by particularly dense, air-moving voices and instruments.  Drum solos have more pop, snap, punch, thereness and I'm more aware of the sounds and variations in how the drummer is playing (or bongos or anything percussive).   Stand up bass panned to one speaker sounds like it's in the room, moving air.

Vocals?  Thus far what I'm hearing gives some ground to the 3.7s, takes away in others.  I'm getting more focused sound, more density and "thereness" and a bit more presence, so vocals can sound quite astonishing.  On the other hand, the 3.7s seem to have a sightly smoother, more subtle, softer and organic texture for voices.   I can enjoy both.

Strings, similarly, have a somewhat more subtle, softer sheen on the 3.7s, just a teeny bit more rasp on the 2.7s, but also more dense on the 2.7s, more "moving air."

Overall thus far I'd describe the 3.7s as sounding more relaxed and cinematically scaled, the 2.7s bring forth more life energy, impossible not to be tapping my toes through pretty much every song.

I'm going to take a while in making my decision (as much as my wife is putting the pressure on!).  Thus far I love aspects about both the 2.7 and the 3.7.

And for anyone wondering about the 2.7 (who thought about grabbing one)...it seems they are pretty rare on the second hand market, but I can't recommend them highly enough if you think the Thiel sound is for you.  I've been auditioning plenty of more expensive contenders recently, but I don't know if I can think of a better bargain than second hand 2.7s. 

Over 'n out for now.

robinarbour,

Do you mean how much have I tilted them? I haven’t tilted either the 3.7 or the 2.7. Simply set them down without spikes (I’ve tried spikes before and they didn’t make anything better about the sound). So they have whatever tilt is built into their shape.

I often experiment in terms of my head height when listening - sometimes sitting up, slouching, lying more reclined. Thus far I found the tonal balance changes a bit more with the 3.7 when doing so, vs the 2.7. There’s a slightly richer, more mellow balance the further I go below the 3.7 tweeter height. But the difference may be that the 3.7 tweeter starts out higher than the 2.7 given my listening position, so slouching in front of the less tall 2.7s means I’m still more in line with the 2.7 mid/tweeter, so the frequency balance doesn't change as much.

I’m going to get used to the 2.7 for a while longer and continue experimenting before I put the 3.7s back to compare.

Last night I spun some vinyl, Niel Young at Massey Hall. While it didn’t have quite the cavernous scale as on the 3.7s, there was a more solid sense of the performance, which made it remarkably realistic.

I think the very slightly more forward upper midrange - a more incisive leading edge - combined with the upper bass/lower mids density of the 2.7 (due to it’s different tuning for the smaller woofer) tends to give piano notes in particular a more solid presence. Pretty nifty stuff.

I actually find the 2.7 sounds a bit more like the earlier models vs the 3.7.
The 2.7 has that slightly tighter, denser, focused concissive quality I'd always heard from Thiel - the 3.7s being a bit more of a departure - smoother more lush.   This is fairly subtle stuff, though.

I always wondered if those Les Paul 3.7s sold or not.  It can be hard to tell when trying to track sales of speakers.

corvette01,

So if I understand correctly you got only really lowball offers?  That seems weird, since as far as I can tell 3.7s have sold fairly well over the last couple of years (and now are all the more rare).  I wonder if people are wary of a custom finish or something?

I hear you corvette01.

I had to sell my Harbeth Super HL5 Plus speakers recently, wanted local sale (I'm in Canada) and it was all the local sale people who hummed and hawed.  Ended up selling them to someone in the USA.

Though, literally 1/2 an hour after I secured the deal to ship them to the USA, the local guy got the money to buy them.  Would have been soooo much easier, but I'd already committed to someone else.

I'm going to have to go through this again, probably not that long from now,  when I decide whether to sell my 3.7s or my 2.7s.

The easiest to drive Thiel speaker I've ever used or heard of is the older Thiel 02 speaker (which I still have).  90 db sensitivity, easy impedance load, these things live and breath almost like a high sensitivity speaker, even with lower powered tube amps!  Still sound absolutely gorgeous.

Cabling auditioning is next. Stay tuned.

Not interested in whatever-the-cables, but they will at least get sound coming out of your speakers!

I admit I find your situation baffling. 


You've been advising others here for years about cables and equipment, without it seems having a working system.  Or do I have that wrong about your system?


What's been the hold up?

Wait...

After 4 years Jafant actually finally got an amp and is actually listening to his set up?  


Could it be true?

But, I checked the set up photos.   No cables going to the speakers.So, I guess not?

What's the update Jafant?

Now that I currently own 3 sets of Thiel speakers - 02s, 2.7s and 3.7s, it's occurred to me:  I guess I like Thiel speakers :-)

The 2.7s continue to amaze me in how much punch and life-like energy they bring to the party.

Will do, robinbarbour!

I'm in no hurry, nkonor.  (That's the nice thing about owning them to test out, vs a limited home audition with one of them).

Keeping both is an option, but one I'm trying to resist.  I tend to like one aspect of a speaker over another and not want to part with it for that reason, hence I build up a collection of speakers that have to be culled at some point. 

At this point the only other speaker in the running (for which I had a home audition) is the Joseph Audio Perspectives.   Given I'm looking for "smaller size profile with great aesthetics and great sound" the Perspectives fit that bill.  But they are incredibly expensive relative to these second hand 2.7s.

But I do want to try to end up with a pair of the Perspectives at some point, money-willing.  Neither the Perspectives nor the 2.7 give the scale of sound I get from the 3.7s so I may end up with a 2 speaker solution (e.g. maybe the 3.7s and the Perspectives, or the 2.7s and the Perspectives...I dunno...)

It would all be a lot easier if these Thiel designs weren't gone and hence scarce on the used market now.  That puts a lot more pressure on my decision, as you know.

BTW, best wishes for whatever health issue you are dealing with!

I don't know if Miss McKenna can help turn the fortunes of the new Thiel around...but they should at least have waited until she was off the toilet before taking her picture ;-)

nkonor,

Still pondering.  I've been listening to the 2.7s for quite a while and just last night switched in the 3.7s again.   It's still a tough decision because they do different things "better" but I'm not in a big rush as I own both.

Yeah, there will likely always be old Thiel speakers available on the second hand market. But Jim’s last great Thiels, the 3.7 and 2.7,* are damned rare on the market now. I’ve been keeping track. When I look at my 3.7/2.7s I think "whoa I’m lucky to have these."

And that was reiterated once again as I was out speaker shopping this week. I heard more contemporary speakers from $4,000 up to about $30,000 and none of them sounded to me as good as the Thiels. What a crazy bargain the 3.7 was in particular.

(*I know the 2.7 was partially designed after Jim's death, but it obviously carried on his work).

vair68robert,

First, congrats on your purchase!

I'm taken aback by your reporting of all those 2.7s for sale, as I had (and have) been following that market for quite a while and the 2.7s were even more rare than the 3.7s.  (In fact, it took two years to find 2.7s in the finish I preferred).

Was the situation you described recent, or are you talking about seeing those Thiels further in the past?

vair68robert,

My 3.7 Thiels are in the Morado (red finish with deep wood grain).
They are gorgeous, though my room is done in a deliberate brown, cream and black accent, so speakers with those tones tend to sit beautifully in the room.    (I've considered having the 3.7s refinished in a room matching color if I keep them).

As for the 2.7s, a couple years ago when I was looking to buy Thiels I was deciding between used 3.7s or 2.7s.  I'd originally had a line on the 2.7s in the most expensive ebony finish.  The pictures showed just about the most beautiful speakers I've seen, and were a perfect match for my room.  But I hesitated too long and they were sold, so I moved on to purchasing the 3.7s.

When a pair of 2.7s miraculously appeared in ebony on audiogon recently I had to grab them.   And they are indeed gorgeous!  They match my room so well.

oblgny,

I agree the Meadowlark speakers can be wonderful. I’d listened to most of their models (when they existed) and ended up with the Blue Heron speakers at my house for a while. IMO, The Meadowlark sound was characterized by a natural organic woody/warm tone, with an airy open sound, and huge soundstaging - a real disappearing act - and decent dynamics. As you went up the Meadowlark line, and as Pat M. started using more expensive tweeters, the sound became more smooth and refined. And the larger speakers like the Heron were notable for a lush, full midrange.

As much as I absolutely loved the warmth of the Meadowlarks, I did find their tone to be more obviously imposed on the sound vs the more neutral Thiels. (I had the CS6s near to when I had the Meadowlarks).

Also, the Meadowlarks exhibited a well known characteristic with time aligned/first order crossover speakers when used in a typical tweeter/mid layout: a weird interference pattern depending on where you sat. Especially if I would rise higher or stand up, the sound would do this slightly odd change, to a suck-out in the upper mids. It reminded me of the aural equivalent of those images that use ’Lenticular Printing’ where the image shifts or changes as you change your viewing angle. Not a big thing given we tend to sit in one spot listening, but it somehow nagged a bit at me.   The coaxial design of the Thiels mitigates this (one of the reasons Jim went in that direction) so not only do I not hear that problem with the Thiels, they are actually one of the better speakers in providing a uniform sound off axis.

Anyway, I agree the Meadowlarks are quite a bargain used.

kevinaudio,

Given you've expressed some reservations about spending too much on speaker cables, if you want to get off that merry-go-round you can always get professional, competently made cables by Beldon which will pass all the same electrons as the super expensive stuff.

I buy from Blue-Jean cables, the Belden 5000 series:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/speaker/index.htm

I use the 10-gauge 5T00UP as I have a pretty long speaker cable run.
Review with measurements (something you don't usually get for the high-end cables):

http://www.audioholics.com/gadget-reviews/blue-jeans-10awg-speaker-cable-5t00up/blue-jeans-cable-mea...

$22 for a pair. Think of all the money you'll save to put towards music....:-)

(BTW, if you want to talk expensive cables:  I've heard speakers I own hooked up to a variety of high end cables, up to  $30,000, and to my very picky ears they sounded no better than they did with the Belden cable).

FYI...there's a pair of 3.7s now listed on Audiogon.

tmsrdg,

I hear you.  My listening room is a main floor room which I try to maintain as the nicest looking room in the house (first room you see when you step in our door).  Aesthetics are a high priority so I always insist when I can on waiting on the right speaker finish.  (I had to wait years for a pair of Thiel 2.7s to show up in the finish I wanted).

Anyone visit the current Thiel website lately?

Boy it's depressing.  It looks like a company that is almost gone, like a generic web site selling over the net lifestyle products:

https://www.thielaudio.com/

I went through it wondering "where are the speakers?"  I had to dig down into the menus to finally find just a handful left of the (non-Jim) Thiel speakers now called "Legacy Products" (so selling those last ones off), along with hats and T-shirts.

Man it's just too sad what happened.  It's hard to imagine what the point of calling a company like that "Thiel."  People associated a certain speaker with that name, and they sell nothing like it. so what does the name even get them?

The first post-Jim Thiels actually got some good reviews. I really think they may have done better under a new company name. I think putting them under "Thiel’ actually hurt them, because the whole reason Thiel’s name meant anything had to do with a specific man, and a specific type of speaker design - that’s what the name symbolized. Putting out an entirely different type of speaker using the Thiel name only breeds ill-will or lack of interest among exactly those loyal consumers who held the Thiel name in high regard.  If you aren't courting the very people among whom the name Thiel has any pull or cache...what are you doing with the name?

A total shoot yourself in the foot company move, IMO.

Oh man, that interview with the new CEO!

She kept talking about how the company had to remember they are a "speaker company" and that was their identity.  Said it numerous times.
But when it comes to speakers what does she say?  Aside from a pair of me-too little lifestyle wireless speakers, THEY AREN'T DESIGNING ANY MORE SPEAKERS!   In fact, they aren't even manufacturing speakers...except if someone specifically asks they'll build an old legacy model.

A more contradictory, self-undermining interview I've rarely seen.

The company looks now exactly what you'd think it would look like if someone with no knowledge or interest in speakers took it over.  It's just taking the name and making it into an entirely new business, reflecting the lack of audio interest in the CEO (and whoever else is involved).

Yuck.

I've never blown a driver in any speaker I've owned in my whole life (and that's a lot of them).  Some people either have bad luck, or like their music super loud I guess.

Still loving both speakers.  I have the 3.7s running again and after two years they still blow my mind.    I also crank them quite loud when I'm listening outside the room (they are down just a short bit of hallway from my computer chair).   They seem to handle high SPLs very nicely.

I've continued to audition other speakers - most recently Proac Response D20 some Revel speakers, Kudos and Kharma (Kharma more because the dealer happened to have them playing).

I found the Proacs looked beautiful, but unfortunately they had that "ribbon tweeter" discontinuity that I almost always hear in such speakers.  (The exceptions being the Raidho and the JM Reynauds from my auditions of those speakers).   And every time I come home to the Thiels they blow me away compared to what I've just heard elsewhere.
I have the 3.7s spread really wide apart, and about 6 1/2 feet from me, and the sound is just a massive, incredibly deep stage with beautifully focused voices and instruments throughout.  And just clarity from top to bottom.  The only speakers that really come close to doing that kind of effect (other than my MBLs) are the Audio Physic speakers - Avanti.
I am pretty curious about the Audio Physic Codex - the Avanti is possibly the most beautiful speaker I've seen in one of their high end finishes.  The Codex is I think not much smaller than the Thiels so wouldn't solve much of my "too big" issue with the 3.7s.

I still think I may be headed to purchasing the Joseph Audio Perspectives when I can, at which point I will have to let go of either the 2.7s or 3.7s (if only to please my wife).

jonandfamily.

Man that's ruff!  I can't believe they sold for that (admittedly, the lowest Tier finish but still...)  I absolutely hate missing out on gear like that, which is why I often take a hit in paying more than others will if I really want it.

It's always possible to have the Thiels re-finished (that is what I'm still contemplating.  Rob G at one point said he'd do it for me, but I found a local guy who will do it as well).

Not to rub it in, but last night I was listening to one of my favorite Bernard Hermann scores, Jason And The Argonauts.  I love the way he wrote for those guttural sounding woodwinds, low growling oboes etc.
If a speaker doesn't do those instruments right, it's immediately removed from contention.  Through the 3.7s last night those instruments were glorious: huge, full-sized, rich, just vibrating the air like someone playing in front of me, all with the appropriate organic warm tone.  And no matter what register they played, nowhere did they sound remotely like they were coming from a box.   It's the same with voices, whether its a female singer traveling the upper registers there is zero discontinuity and never a sense of a tweeter or treble being separate or on top of the rest of the spectrum.  Or a male singer singing into the chesty range - which on many speakers gets into that zone that excites speaker resonances or cross-over issues etc, where suddenly you start to pick up the lower notes as being augmented in some fashion.  Not the Thiels.  No matter where the voice travels, it remains perfectly rendered, organically full, continuous, and without any box or resonant presence at all.  

Auditioning other speakers, even newer ones, only make me come back to marvel at what Jim achieved with the 3.7s!

I've had pretty much all my speakers shipped, usually from the USA to Canada.  So far no problems, but I have to say if anything is going to cure me of my speaker obsession it's shipping and receiving - I think I'm done shipping big speakers!  What a hassle.

jonandfamily.

Wow, you got rid of the Revel Ultima Salon2s?  Those are among the most universally lauded flagship speakers!  And you probably know they were designed via the blind-testing facilities at Harmon.  There's a big thread on them, along with great input by Floyd Toole, at the AVSforum.

Can you tell me what disappointed you about the Revels?

I haven't heard that model, but I've auditioned a couple slightly lower on the rung and while I was generally impressed as they sounded really neutral and well designed, I still preferred my Thiel 3.7s (and 2.7s).  Something about that Thiel tone, soundstaging, realism...

arniespin

It's sales like the one you got that will drive down the price of my 3.7s if I have to sell them!! ;-)

Lucky guy.

Sounds like you are well set up for the 3.7s.  I'll be really curious what you think.  I'm driving mine with 140W of conrad johnson tube power and they are controlled beautifully from top to bottom.  The 3.7s are a bit overdamped in the bass relative to a lot of other big speakers, which actually makes them easier to place in real rooms.  You can really modulate the sound via placement (like most speakers).  I tend to prefer a nearer placement (I'm about 6 to 7 feet from mine) and the 3.7s remain coherent close up (the coincident mid/tweeters and their wide bandwidth certainly help that). 

The 3.7s sound smooth either toed in or toed out - the more you toe in (again like many speakers) the brighter and more focused the sound.
I actually prefer the Thiels widely spaced, facing essentially straight ahead, with just about no toe in.  The sound becomes much bigger, more spacious, with more dimensionality and depth to the imaging, but also a warmer, richer tone. 

I'm curious what positioning will work best for you.

arniespin,

If only it were that easy. The whole reason I’d considered selling them is that they are large enough to present an ergonomic/aesthetic problem in my rather idiosyncratic set up where they share space with a full surround home theater system as well. Hence I’ve been auditioning everything under the sun (smaller). In fact I was so set on selling the 3.7s that I actually took them to a local furniture restorer guy to have them looked over, to freshen them up for selling (very minor signs of wear on them). As I was loading those beasts in to my car to get them to the furniture guy, I said "that does it, these things are just too big, good riddance..."

But then while they were in the shop I continued to audition speakers and nothing grabbed me. When the 3.7s came back they looked gorgeous, like new, fresh out of the factory. Continuing to audition stuff has only made it sink in how special the Thiels are so I figured I would keep them and still consider a smaller speaker (like the Joseph Audio Perspectives), essentially having the peace of mind of not having let the Thiels slip through my fingers. The fact the 3.7s have become so rare on the used market is also a major factor.

Now I have the 2.7s as well, figured I’d choose between them and the 3.7s, but the fact they sound different, both great in their own way, and the fact I found the 2.7s in my most coveted, rare ebony finish, makes THEM hard to part with as well. This is why I always end up with too many speakers.

BTW, my 3.7s are currently set up 8 feet apart, 6 1/2 feet from the listening position (7 feet if I recline on the sofa), facing almost straight ahead.

I’ve just been re-visiting the tech literature and interviews with Jim Thiel about all the ideas, advances and work that went in to his speakers, especially the 3.7. It really helps explain why I can audition newer speaker models of other manufacturers, even really highly lauded ones, and still come home to be all the more impressed by the Thiels: there was just so much original thinking by Jim, such a persistent dedication towards refining a specific goal for 30 years - the special design of the woofer system for lower distortion, the new rippled-but-flat midrange unit, the bent wood design of the cabinet etc. Virtually everything designed and made by Thiel. No wonder you don’t get what the Thiels do from other manufacturers, and there’s every reason to expect the novel design of the Thiels to remain competitive if not advanced for many years to come.

The mid-bass on down in particular blows my mind because it separates itself from the crowd so distinctly. At least in my room, I get the most pitch perfect, holographic, non-speaker-like bass I have ever heard by a long shot. I frankly would not have believed that level of bass transparency and control was even possible before hearing these things, given it’s such a problem with most other speakers.

I also think Jim just finally nailed the coaxial mid/tweeter design in the 3.7. The idea of coaxially mounting the drivers is great in terms of having the signal arrive at the right time no matter where you sit.
I’d listened to other phase/time coherent speakers - Dunlavy - and owned Meadowark speakers which were first order crossover/time coherent as well. But those designs, especially the Meadowlark, did suffer from the traditional problems of lobing/interference - a weird suckout in the first order crossover design that made for a phasey sensation when moving my head especially vertically.

In previous Thiel speakers - e.g. the CS6s I had and others - though better, they still had this residual coloration, a bit of a hollowness in the upper midrange sometimes, especially depending on seating height.

The 3.7s, I’m supposing because of finally being able to mount the tweeter within a flat mid driver, seems to have totally banished that issue.
The midrange is so pure, and so coherent right through into the treble, with no noticeable dips or tells, over a wide seating area.

It’s hard to shake the Thiels once you are used to them; other speakers will tend to be revealed as more colored. I even remember when I first heard the 3.6s at a dealer. Aside from the better than normal image specificity and density and transient believably, there was a distinct impression that everything was lined up as it should be, without emphasis, producing an overwhelming impression: "this is what the original recording actually sounds like." Similar to the first time I heard the Quad ESLs (within their range).

Anyway, it’s good to have a Thiel owner thread where we can rave about Thiel - sort of like having close family who will listen to you talk about your kids :-)

Rob,

No pops either with my 2.7 or 3.7s.  I have CJ amps and pre-amp.

Yes I'm still going back and forth between the 3.7s and 2.7s. 
3.7s for the more relaxed (and slightly more resolved, I think) sound, effortless scale and soundstaging, 2.7s for the smaller, denser, more focused and punchy sound (and seemingly a bit more lively dynamics, which is interesting given the higher sensitivity of the 3.7s).

Rob,

Yes, about that close to either the 3.7 or 2.7.  I tend to listen to one pair for a couple weeks, then swap them for the other pair.

Angling varies depending on how wide I've placed them or if I desire more lively sound.  I only ever use the tiniest angling in when I do, but usually no angle - facing straight ahead.  I still get excellent center-fill, even from the wide spacing and not angled in. 

arniespin,

Before I had any Meadowlark speakers in my home I was well acquainted with the popular Shearwaters. I ended up with the Blue Heron speakers for a while, and also owned the stand mounted Meadowlarks Swallow.

What I loved about the Meadowlark sound, especially the bigger Herons, is that they pulled off that very rare combination: rich and lush and warm, but without being dark and sleepy in tonality. They were very open sounding and disappeared like few other speakers. They had, to my ear, a sort of "woody" tonality that really benefited acoustic instruments and voices, vs the more steely or electronic tone of many speakers. The Herons were smoother sounding than the more forward Shearwaters (which were such a fun, exciting speaker, while still not fatiguing).

Though I really enjoyed the Herons lushness and soundstaging, I did find they bloomed a bit much in the bass for me, and although their coloration was very consonant with acoustic instruments, I ultimately found myself a bit too aware of their voice. I think it was actually either the Hales Transcendence 5s or the Thiel CS6s that replaced them.

I'm still a bit sad that I sold the smaller Swallow speakers.  They had little bass to speak of but my god did they sound open, quick and "invisible" with a gorgeous warm tone.  I had too many speakers though and my wife had put her foot down.  It was a token "sell."  :-)

What Song, Album or Genre do you use to set up your speakers ?

Well I truly love all types of music so I'll go through quite a variety, from electronica, disco, rock, funk, jazz, classical, folk, world...you name it.  If I'm auditioning a speaker I put it through all those genres.

But for setting up my speakers I have some go-to tracks I've been using since the 90's simply because I know them so well and they have to sound right or I'm not going to like the speaker.  One album I use is Everything But The Girl Atomic Heart, the first track.  It has acoustic guitar (that has to sound right - clear, golden, sparkly - stand up bass -has to sound woody, deep but not flubby - vocals, percussion.   It's also not a perfect recording, with just a slight bit of sibilant emphasis and even a slight bit of distortion.  It really helps me know how a speaker handles that kind of thing - is it going to tear my head off and make it electronic and unlistenable?  Will it disguise the flaws?  Best is when I can hear the flaws, but it's not aggressive and the essential beauty of the recording comes through.  That's what the Thiels do.  I know where everything should be in the soundstage as well.

BTW, although I go on about how great the Thiels are in this thread especially, I found out long ago that it's very unlikely I would stick with one speaker.  As we know there's no perfect speaker and I can get restless.  Even just hooking up my older Hales T1 monitors to my 2 channel system, as I did recently, reminded me of what those speakers do so magically, that even the Thiels don't quite do.  The Hales have a Harbeth-like magic with vocals and a way of producing a rainbow of instrumental timbre that even the Thiels don't match IMO.  If I had the space, I'd probably choose to own the old Hales T8 speakers over the Thiels, and almost bought a used pair before going with the Thiels.  But the Hales are even more massive and I'm trying to downsize.

I'm sure I'll end up with other speakers at some point in my aim to downsize, though in this case I doubt I'll actually get rid of both Thiels.  I'll have to keep one of them.

arniespin,

Congrats on the 3.7s!

"These guys just vanish in an almost spooky way."

Yep, it's really something isn't it?  Pretty much every review remarks on that quality of the Thiels.  And the fact they "disappear" through the entire spectrum, bass being just as holographic as the rest.

jonandfamily,

Well, if you are soliciting opinions: I prefer to spend money on something that is actually likely to have an audible impact.  But that kind of opinion tends to fall on deaf ears in the audiophile tweak world, and I ain't gonna tell someone else how to spend their money.

pops,

I know!  It's one reason I've been so shy on putting one of my Thiels up for sale.  Given the fact they seem to have dried up on the used market in terms of availability, it feels like it would be quite a final decision to get rid of my 3.7s.  Unlike, say, Quads or something that you'll always be able to find easily again.

BTW, I contacted Rob Gillum and he has all the drivers for the Thiels, including the 2.7s.  That's good for me as I'm pretty much convinced I won't be giving up these 2.7s.   They sound glorious and look perfect in my room - I'd never find another pair on the ebony finish.  So I may grab a spare coax/woofer/passive radiator for the 2.7s, and if I keep the 3.7s I might do the same for them.  

jafant, 

Just wondering:  are you a moderator?

nkonor,

I will indeed watch that sale. I’m really liking the 2.7s. I hit a "sweet spot" in positioning them which gave me the best depth and tonality. Now they are getting more soundstage depth like the 3.7s. Tonally the sound is ravishing on the 2.7s - lush, transient clarity, sparkle on top, rich dark tones when appropriate in the lower mids, and an aliveness that even the 3.7s don’t quite do.

There are many tracks that I actually like a bit better on the 2.7s, though also tracks that were better on the 3.7s. Sometimes I will miss the vastness of the 3.7s presentation that can just be hallucinatory. The 2.7s counter this with a greater sense of density in imaging - the way a bongo or a synth part will just ripple the air right in front of me. Centered vocals have a "thereness" that is like someone has rushed in and set up a center channel.

In contrast to what we often hear "get the smaller speaker for the smaller room," the 2.7s have been more challenging to set up in getting the type of performance I was used to with the 3.7s. In fact they seem to have a warmth in the upper bass either due to design, or to interaction with my room (though my room is well treated). I’ve got it almost dialed out, but not totally. Most of the time, though, the bass is superb.

Overall I’d still call the 3.7s the betters speaker - bigger, airier soundstage, richer/bigger sonic presentation and image sizes, more relaxed, slightly more resolving I think,  and it seems perhaps the cabinet design and different rippled woofer of the 3.7s get the best out of the whole package - they just sound more perfectly realized in terms of completely disappearing as a sound source.

But the 2.7s are so gorgeous sounding I may almost have been weened off the 3.7s. I’ve actually ordered a pair of JL Audio 110 subs. I usually HATE subwoofers, but I want to see if I can integrate them to give some more bass reach and weight to the 2.7s, and if that happens I will likely sell my 3.7s.

nkonor,

I appreciate your being my audiophile conscience :-)

I certainly know what you mean about hearing something off with a set up, knowing that I would have sold the system that didn't have such faults.

On the other hand, I also have other things to balance - room aesthetics and ergonomics, which provide constant, strong motivation to replace the 3.7s.   I put a ridiculous amount of money and energy - 2 years - into the design and reno of that room so that it could accommodate both the new home theater system and 2 channel listening, in a way in which every element is ergonomically and aesthetically "perfect" for my goals. 

It's only when I introduced the big Thiels to the room that it was thrown off kilter.  Originally I bought them with the plan that I'd move them in and out of the room, as I used to go through "2 channel listening phases" and "home theater phases."

I've tried everything, making wheeled platforms, adding wheels to the speakers, using a dolly, adding sliding feet.  Nothing truly makes them easy to get in and out of the room.  And I've realized I listen to 2 channel so often that the only route that makes sense is to have permanent 2 channel speakers in there that stay, and which also look right.

The 2.7s, in size and finish, suit that goal pretty much perfectly.   When I look at the room with the 2.7s I swoon at how nice it looks.   When the 3.7s are in there it's always a bit of a drop in my heart because they impede on the balance I sought so hard to construct.

So, yes if I get rid of the 3.7s I will no doubt miss them on various pieces of music, or hear something in the 2.7s that were more perfect on the 3.7s.  On the other hand, I have to weigh that against the even more constant visual/ergonomic frustration in keeping the 3.7s.   Such is life...

Rob,

I agree with you about the looks of the 2.7s ,they are gorgeous
the 3.7s kinda look like a skinny r2d2.

Ha, just this weekend I had a guest say the 3.7s looked like a skinny R2D2!

Having hosted a gathering of pals, I was doing a little poll as to which speakers I should keep, on looks alone.  For me it seems a no-brainer: the 2.7s.  Yet opinion was divided on the looks of the speakers with, to my surprise, slightly more people preferring the look of the big 3.7s! 

They thought the 3.7s looked a bit more cool, different "statement-like."

I auditioned the much-hyped Paradigm Persona 3F speakers today.
They were very impressive in many ways, balanced, open, detailed, clean.

But I'll say this:  when I got home and put the same music on my Thiels, I felt like hugging my Thiels :-)

jafant,

The Paradigms were mated with a big Anthem amp. Don’t know which one, but it was big! I first listened to some vinyl (I don’t know what record player) and then I listened to my own burned CD demo tracks (I think it might have been a Bryston CD player, but not sure).

I paid no attention to cables, sorry ;-)

My feeling is that I’d prefer the Paradigms on tubes, like my CJ amps. I found the Paradigms a bit relentless to listen to after a while. Though I’d be a bit wary about the bass control if they weren’t paired well with the right tube amp, just because even with the Anthem they were just edging into the "rich, round bass" territory and I don’t know if they’d edge over into loose bass. Thought not against the back wall, they were closer than I’d want ideally so I heard a little bass lift (even though the Paradigm’s downward facing port is supposed to make them less sensitive in terms of placement). As usual I took various seating positions, close and far, to take the room out of the equation to some degree.

The main impression is very open, airy - giving a very live realism - and very clean and clear.

In comparison I've dialed in my Thiels to achieve a sound I prefer, which is an almost ideal (to my tastes) combination of clarity, energy and warmth.  They are completely unfatiguing.   The Paradigms tended to emphasize the artificial nature of recordings, with harder sibilance and a slight hi-lighting of singers breath over the actual vocal tone of the note, the slightly icy, chalky character of bow on string emphasized vs the deeper string tones.  Singers always sounded very clear in a "hi-fi" manner, but never particularly warm and real.

In comparison,  my Thiels/CJ combo has more warmth, and less emphasis on the lower treble area, for a slightly darker sound, but to my ears less artificial and electronic.

The Paradigms were often captivating, though.  They have a big, full sound - so you get really nice scale for the size - I woudn't need any bigger (though I think I get even bigger scale from the 3.7s when they are set up).

In terms of clarity and realism, the Paradigms gave one of the most impressive playbacks of Herbie Hancock's song Chameleon that I've ever heard!