Thiel Owners

zkga,

Glad it worked out for you.  Your experience is the type of lesson many audiophiles could benefit from; you'll get far more from the free tweak of playing with speaker placement than from spending money playing cable roulette.  (And of course addressing room acoustics if necessary - which may not be free depending on the acoustic solution, but is likely to still be less expensive than a lot of audiophiles spend on cables). 

I'm constantly amazed at how much sonic change can occur moving or angling a speaker by inches - sometimes even less.  But, that's the physics of acoustics for you.

Bill 10907,

Since you welcome all opinions...here’s mine :-)

Don’t rely on cables as an attempt to tone control. Aside from the dubious claims that they will make much difference in the first place, if cable manufacturers are changing the sound, then they are designing the cable to depart from neutral. Why roll the dice like that?

You could simply purchase cables by Belden or Canare (or the like) from, say, Blue Jeans cable. They are pro-grade cables, by companies that actually supply measurements, so you know you are getting competently designed cables not meant to alter the signal or sound. From that starting point you can know it’s not the cable, save significant money by not playing the audiophile cables-sweepstakes, and concentrate funds or attention to where differences will matter more, especially the interaction of the speaker/room. Placement and angling, not to mention some room treatment if necessary, will render differences FAR bigger than any (competently) designed cable.

I can make my Thiel 3.7s or 2.7s sound thinnish and bright if I really toe them in, or deep, smooth and lush simply by toeing them out. In fact I’m constantly amazed how much sonic difference the slightest adjustment of speaker position or toe in makes (which is expected by acoustic theory).  I can make the sound dense, punchy and exciting by pushing the speakers back some more, or enveloping and ethereal by moving closer to nearfield.  Or a mix in between.  These are levels of sonic difference no cable can give you.

I know a lot of audiophiles don’t want to hear this type of advise; we want everything to make a difference so we are "in control" and the idea of tweaking with cables appeals to this. And the manufacturers will happily take your money by preying on this audiophile nervosa. But...there are other ways.

I just bought a beautiful new turntable that I would not have been able to afford if I’d allocated the portion of funds to high end cables that many audiophiles presume to be necessary.

Now...back to expensive cable recommendations from others....;-)

jafant,

I appreciate your enthusiasm.

Looking at your last string of posts:  I know the original comment was deleted, but you have to admit that question as to whether you are a Walmart Greeter in your spare time was pretty funny :-)

So great to hear about Rob's business!

oblgny,

I hope some day you get a chance to try the 3.7s in your system.  Apparently Jim was deliberately going for a higher efficiency than previous Thiels (Stereophile measure it just under 91.dB).  The impedance was low, but as I've said many times on this thread, the Thiels have been amazingly happy being driven by my CJ amps, and even my Eico 14W side. 

And the 2.7s despite being 87 dB efficient are dynamic and punchy as hell on the CJ amps.

My listening levels are conservative as well.   But I have to say my listening levels have crept up these days because the Thiels are so smooth and fun to listen to, and can sound so "live."

FYI:

The"more bad news at Thiel" thread panicked me a bit.

I am still deciding on which Thiels - 2.7 or 3.7 - to keep and I'll want spare drivers for whichever one (e.g. spare coax and spare woofers/passive).   I spoke to Rob G. and as I understood it, the spare parts business is still associated with Thiel at this point.   Though he can't say (doesn't know) how this will all turn out, he does still have plenty of spare parts for Thiel legacy speakers and should have them still available for the foreseeable future.

I still think I need to speed up my process of deciding so I know which drivers to order.   My new attempts to pair the 2.7s with subwoofers have really slowed me down though.  It's amazing what an absolute pain in the ass subwoofers are to integrate into my system.  (And subs are a PIA generally, if you want to get them right).

dhoff01,

Thiel spare parts costs, sent to me quite a while ago from Rob: 

CS3.7 coax - $525
CS3.7 woofer- $400
CS3.7 Passive- $200

The 2.7 speaker parts are, as I remember, between $50 to $100 less per part.

Sub integration:

I haven't had a chance to do much at all since my work started again.
I'd only received a pair of JL Audio e110 subs - the only size that will fight where I need them to go in my room.  Though fortunately the 110s are high quality with stellar reviews.

I first hooked them up "REL fashion" running speaker wire from the Thiel  2.7 terminals back to the sub high level inputs.   Did some mild tweaking, ran the 2.7s full range, dialed in the subs around 40 or 35 Hz.

It really changed the sound of the system.  Obvious gains in low bass, and the sound became fuller, more dimensional, more precise imaging relationships, and more lush.  It also because more rolled off and softer sounding, like my amp had been reduced in power.   So it was some gains and some set backs. 

JL tells me they really recommend against that type of connection and, like many subwoofer aficionados will tell us, the real gain in performance is to be had by crossing over the lower frequencies to the subs, relieving the main speakers for cleaner sound overall.

I've read enough reports, reviews and raves about properly integrated subwoofers to think there is something to this and I'm therefore willing to give it a try, despite my previous disdain for subwoofers.   So I plan to buy the JL CR-1 crossover which apparently makes dialing in subs a dream.  I will also likely try some DSP for the sub signal, running the sub signal through something like an SPeaker Anti Node.   This would digitize the low pass signal in order to do room correction.  I'm thinking I can handle that idea because it would be in the domain where my ears are far less sensitive.  All the upper end goodness would still be the analog signal from my CJ amps/preamp. 

Will see how it goes, but it's going to be a time consuming and pricey experiment.

If all works well, I may end up getting most of what I liked about the bigger 3.7s and more.  (I already like some aspects of the 2.7s over the 3.7s even without subs).

Oh man, I took a look for that Smart Sub on ebay and came across an auction that was literally ending in 20 minutes for a Thiel SmartSub SI 1 Integrator!

Those were said to be masterful for blending Thiels and Thiel subs, and rarely come up on the market.  My bidding finger got very itchy and I did some quick research.  Apparently they were only for use with Thiel subs and I have the JL subs.  The SI 1 went for a steal, about $800.

Makes me wonder if I should have bought one of those Thiel subs I thought about on audiogon over the years.

However, the Thiel subs are too tall to place where they need to go under my projection screen so it would have had to go behind the sofa.  Ultimately the two JL subs aligned behind my Thiel speaker are likely the best way to go anyway.

unsound,

I believe I measured for a Thiel sub on it’s side and decided against it - I think it was still a bit too big and I never could find a place in my room I’d want to put it, without crowding the room. The JL subs were very small, yet high quality, so they are really about my only option.

bobsjr4

Thanks for the info!

As to that mismatched Thiel coax driver, I do seem to remember seeing that add.  But wasn't that quite a while ago?  I can't find any add for that now.  A mismatch of surround/color wouldn't bother me as I always listen with the grill covers on.  (I'm not a fan of seeing speaker drivers when listening to music - my brain can't help mapping the sound to the visible drivers, so I "hear" high end stuff like cymbals as being "sound coming from those tweeters"...)

ish_mail,

Great info, and congratulations. If I’d had more than 20 minutes to research the Thiel unit I may have been your competitor :-)

I’m new to subwoofers and it’s a hell of a learning curve. It’s absurd just how complicated simply adding the last bit of low frequencies with a sub is to "get right." I vacillate between throwing in the towel here and there because there is so much information, and so many differing opinions, it seems someone will tell me I’m doing wrong no matter which way I turn.

But in my brief check of the Thiels with the JL subs, I did hear some stuff that was promising enough for me to pursue this. And besides, I’m past the return time for the subs and I own them now.

Thanks for the suggested set up. JL Audio apparently recommends to avoid using a Slave/Master set up when possible - it’s there for problem solving but not optimal use.

Note: The 4th-order crossovers in the JLAs are not compatible with the 1st-order crossovers in Thiel speakers.

Are you sure? I did worry somewhat about this due to the way the Thiels crossover runs each driver much wider than usual. But, as far as I can tell the CR-1 offers nice flexibility including altering the slope of the crossover frequency, narrowing or widening it, and fine control over the Q and width of the overlapping crossover area itself. It seems to me this should allow a decent blend even with a first order crossover speaker like the Thiels.

Thanks for the heads up on the Marchand Electronics unit. It’s good to know as an option. However, especially as a newbie to this stuff, the JL CR-1 still seems more attractive as it was created with JL subs in mind (though can work with any sub) and the controls seem both intuitive and flexible, with some features other crossovers don’t have. (I like the damping control, and the sub/sat balance control, as well as the easy defeat of the subs, etc).

I see the Marchand unit can be bought with a first order crossover.
On first thought it seems to make sense for use with first order crossover Thiels. But on the other hand, it doesn’t make sense.

If I’ve got this right, using a first order crossover on an active crossover in adding a sub, means the sub driver will be run covering a wider range of frequencies than usual, so higher up the passband into the Thiel’s woofer area. But that’s the very type of scenario adding a sub with crossover is supposed to help us avoid. The fact a first order speaker like Thiel runs the drivers over a much wider frequency range is a compromise they had to give in to, in order to maintain phase/time coherency in the design. So it’s not a "good" thing to do in of itself.
That’s why I don’t see why it would be a good thing adding a first order crossover with a sub, with the additional overlapping in frequencies that would incur. Ideally we want to minimize frequency overlap between drivers and if we can do it with the sub it seems we should. And it seems the Thiels would benefit having some of the amplifier load taken off their main drivers, like any other speaker.

If using a first order crossover with the sub were about maintaining time/phase coherence, I’m not going to have that anyway. The subs will have some delay, and will be placed behind the speakers, hence time delay. I could ideally get them phase coherent with the Thiels with the phase controls, but they’d still be at least a cycle behind in terms of time coherence (unless I go whole hog and want to digitize the entire signal to allow the mains to be delayed for time coherence with the subs - which I’m not yet willing to do.  And, btw, isn't that what the Thiel subwoofer integrator does?  Digitize the entire signal to mains and subs?).

So I’m still unsure as to why the Marchand would be a better choice, even with a first order crossover, vs the JL CR-1. If it’s only price, I’m willing to throw a bit more money at a solution that is more flexible and user friendly.

One thing I have worried about is maintaining the Thiels time/phase coherency. If I use an active crossover the mid/tweeter will remain phase coherent, and the woofer will still be playing adding sound and that will be time/phase coherent. So the question is, what effect will the frequencies below the crossover frequency - the sub frequencies - have if they are not time coherent? The intuitive inference is that I would maintain most of the benefits of the Thiel time/phase coherency, in the most critical frequency ranges to my ear, even if the lower frequencies were not perfectly time coherent.

Thoughts? What am I getting wrong here?

Thanks.

ish_mail,

Classy system you have there.

How ironic: I didn't bid on the Thiel integrator because I thought it was only good for Thiel subwoofers and I have JL. But here I see you are using it to integrate JL subwoofers too!   Live and learn...

Thank you for all that info.  I have indeed already investigated the sounddoctor site and intend to get the CD.

I see what you mean about the Marchand crossover.  Will investigate.

arvincastro,

I own Thiel 2.0, 2.7 and the last flagship 3.7 speakers. I’ve also in the past had the big Thiel CS6 speakers.

For me the combination of Thiels and tube amplification is magic.

Previous to hearing Thiels on tubes I’d always heard them on solid state amps and while I loved aspects of the sound - the accuracy, aliveness, density of imaging, believable tone etc, I also found them a bit “tight” sounding, a bit reductive in shaving off a bit of the fullness in voices and instruments and I could also see why some found them fatiguing after a while.

That all changed for me when I heard Thiel CS 6 speakers with VAC tube amplification at a CES audio show. It was among the most beautiful sound I’d ever heard.  (And I remember other people commenting, even non Thiel fans, that it was a stand out room at the show).

I couldn’t afford VAC amps but wondered if I’d get any similar synergy with the Conrad Johnson tube amp I owned. So I ended up with a pair of the CS 6 at my place. They did indeed have a similar tonal richness that I heard at CES, but my amp then was only 55w and not known for good bass control or playing tough loads.

I upgraded to a second hand pair of the Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks 140W/side and - bam! - just the ticket. The sound was now everything I’d hoped for: smooth, tonally rich yet accurate sounding, open and not rolled off sounding, and punchy and controlled throughout far whole frequency range.

I still have the CJ amps powering my various Thiels and it’s always a killer combo. I have a case of tinnitus and harsh or bright speakers do a number on my ears, but I can listen to my system for as many hours as I like. Bad recordings and all.

A reviewer pal of mine who’d complained of Thiels always being fatiguing for him finds my system to sound gorgeous, organic, realistic and anything but fatiguing.

So that’s one storey for you to ponder if you are contemplating tubes with Thiels.
I don’t think I’m getting the last word in what the Thiels can do in sheer dynamics perhaps, vs what a very powerful SS amp would give me. But I absolutely require a sense of dynamic life in a system and I have it with this combo.
(Back when I had the Thiel 6s I also owned a Bryson 4Bst amp, 250w and a powerhouse in terms of driving any speaker I threw at if. But I consistently preferred the CJ premier 12s on the Thiels).

All that audiophile stuff being said: please remember the role of room acoustics and speaker positioning given how profoundly it affects the sound. If you find the sound can become too harsh sometimes, even before contemplating adding acoustic treatment just playing with speaker angles and positions can work. For instance you should find that towing out the speakers more (facing more straight ahead inst ad of angled toward your listening position) will make the sound a bit less bright and more lush. Same with moving the speakers closer to you, which will take more of the room reflection/hash out of the sound for a smoother presentation.

I favour sitting closer to my Thiels, with the speakers facing more straight ahead, for these reasons.

Arvin
 
The classic description of CJ vs AR tube amps is the CJs being “warm and golden toned” almost a romantic presentation with the AR being more nuetral with a whitish/grey cast to the sound.   That’s exactly what my ears have heard every time I’ve compared 

My experience comparing the two agrees.  My friend has also had AR tube amps and I’ve brought over my CJ amps to his place and I much preferred the CJ amps.   I find the AR sound to have its own signature, a sort of bleached character that to me renders vocal and instrumental tones more in black and white vs the warmer tone of the CJs.   My friend felt the CJs were more gorgeous sounding - wants them in his system when he hears them - but sticks to AR for what he feels is a combination of tube virtues and neutrality.  I find the CJ sound to actually remind me of real life vs the AR sound, but that’s of course my subjective assessment. 

As for bass, the CJs I own have the most overall coherent sound I’ve heard in a tube amp - look at the Stereophile review as Michael Fremer nails their sound.

That said, the 12s have seemed sometimes to shelve off the lowest bass frequencies.  Some other amps I’ve tried seemed for whatever reason to go a bit deeper in the bass and I don’t know what would account for this, if I’m fact I’m hearing that accurately.   But the sound with the Thiels is still plenty deep, and the bass is in virtually perfect pitch control to my ears.

Jon,

I would never think that someone should presume a subjective impression like mine is objectively the case.  The AR amps are obviously very highly regarded with lots of happy owners, and in no way would I say the CJ amps are "better."  Just a bit different. 

What I found fascinating, though, when I was in heavy amplifier audition mode years ago, was that my audio companions concurred on exactly the same differences I described between the CJ and AR amps.
But more interesting was...after I'd done my own comparisons...to read both plenty of audiophile comments on line, and reviewers noting just what I heard in the AR house sound.   You can see an indication of this reputation here:

Some reviewers have commented that earlier Audio Research amplifiers suffered from a certain lightening of tonal color, i.e., a threadbare or whitish quality.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audio-research-reference-250-se-amplifier/

So although the reviewer states the AR amp under review doesn't suffer from this, clearly the AR house sound has some reputation that precedes it.  (And numerous review have mentioned it over the years.  John Atkinson has described some AR amps as "a little too much of the Minnesota snow blowing through it for my tastes.")

By no means do I mean to say there's anything wrong about AR amps, and at this point in time I haven't even heard most of them.  I'm only mentioning all this because you mentioned being confused about what I reported in listening to AR amps, which seems to suggest I may be the only one who hears them that way, or that you may have been unaware AR has had a reputation for a certain house sound.  The "whiter" AR sound has often been contrasted to the "golden glow" CJ house sound over the years.

I always felt AR amps did some things better than CJ amps - control, frequency extension, clarity etc.  I just prefer the somewhat older CJ sound.

FWIW...

Yesterday while picking up some products at an audio store I was able to spend some time listening to a couple of speakers, and then went home to compare with my Thiel 2.7s. 

First was, the Monitor Audio Platinum II

This store had really well acoustically treated demo rooms, and the speakers were well set up.  In the case of the MA speakers I didn't play my own music, only sat down to listen to a bunch of full-res songs being played.

I generally like the Monitor Audio sound.  My father-in-law has a pair of huge monitor-looking Monitor Audio speakers from either the late 70's or early 80's I believe and they are still one of the most impressive speakers I've heard.  They have a gigantic, full sound but also an amazingly beautiful, clear, realistic tone.  Trumpets sound so realistically brassy, strings so much like strings, etc.  Experience with other MA speakers (I use some for my sound work, and have a pair of MA Bronze surrounds for my home theater) has left me with the impression the MA speakers are one of those rare line that can sound "tonally colorful" for lack of better word.  It's one of the reasons I'm so enamored with my Hales speakers as well (and why the MA bronze surround speakers mesh so well with my Hales L/C/R speakers).

Though in recent years as MA has tried to up the resolution with ribbon tweeters etc I've noted a tilt upwards toward a bit more "whitening"  of the tone.  That said, at a recent audio show some MA speakers produced one of the clearest and most realistic drum sounds I've heard.

The MA Platinum speakers had that super clear, precise sound I've heard from their modern speakers.  But it was also tonally colorful, acoustic guitar sounding warm and woody in the lower registers, sparkly in the top.  There was a rewarding sense of "surprise" to the timbral characteristics of different voices and instruments, from metal bells, to bass guitar, to wood blocks etc.  Bass was decent, not amazing in tonal terms - a bit warmish.  There was also a sort of boxy, speakerly quality in the lower midrange.  The resonating body of acoustic guitars for intance seemed to sort of flatten in the soundstage, sound hard and not so detached from the speakers.  Moving closer or further to take out room influence didn't change this character.

There were some really beautiful moments of female background vocals that sounded so tonally pure and clear!

On to the next speakers, ones I've heard briefly but wanted to spend some more time with (I'm always willing to kick out the Thiels should I hear a speaker I like more).  The new Focal Kanta.  They are mighty stylish and benefit from all that focal driver/tweeter technology.

These were also in a very well treated demo room.  This time I played my own test music selections from my USB thumb drive.

Impressions:  Yep, that super clear, clean Focal Beryllium, drivers sound.  These had more tonal color than the smaller stand mounted Focal speakers I've demoed (e.g the Sopra), which had sounded too blanched of timbral color.  Also, though clear and extended, I didn't find the sound particularly fatiguing.  The room filled with absorbers/diffusors no doubt helped that somewhat.

It was a similar presentation to the MA speakers, except I found the Focal speakers less timbrally colorful and suprising than the MA speakers.  Just a bit more of an electronic cast overall.  Piano, though, was particularly well served - really precise, clear transient quality and ringing tonality.  I could really hear all the different layers of acoustic guitars and how each one was being played on some of the Johnny Cash's "Won't Back Down."  It reminded me of my recent demo of the Paradigm Persona speakers, though I recall the Paradigms being just a bit more liquid and sophisticated...just a touch...though after time I seemed to fatigue more from the Paradigms than these Focals.

I wasn't terribly impressed with the bass of the Kanta speakers.  It seemed a bit thick and detached in character from the rest of the spectrum.  The more tracks I played with lower bass, the more incoherent the sound seemed to me, like a brilliant. clear upper frequencies riding on a slightly different sounding, darker, more turgid and slightly boxy lower frequencies.

I'm sure this could be ameliorated in certain room set ups.

My take away thoughts when driving home where:

Loudspeakers have been "progressing" at a glacial pace.  By that I mean, as I've gone through various new contenders, very little has stuck out as being advanced over the older speakers I own, certainly including the Thiels.  Do I hear "more detail?"  Eh...not really in the sense of "Hey, I never heard that little detail before, finger picking, instrument at the back of the hall" or anything else.  It seems more about reduction in "hash" insofar as tones become more pure.  But even then, only incrementally.

Of the two speakers I'd take the Monitor Audio speakers, for the more beautiful tone.

That said, the biggest, most in-my-face impression of both systems was:
"Hi-Fi" in the derogatory use of that term.  Virtually every track, instrument and voice sounded distinctly artificial - an electronic hardness, sharpness, crispiness, and an icy electronic sheen to everything that consistently told me "this is artificial." 

When I got home and replayed the music on my Thiels (including some tracks I heard on the MAs) it was just another world in terms of how natural things sounded.  Surely some of this is going to be attributed to the fact I've dialed in my speakers at home, and also to the difference in using Conrad Johnson tube amps vs the solid state amps used in the store.

But...voices sounded sooo much more relaxed, dense, and natural.  Strings, guitars, cellos, all so "woody" and rich and organic.  Stand up bass which on the Focals had a sort of hard, whitish, artificial almost-sampled sound, sounded on the Thiel/CJ combo so obviously like the big wood resonators they are.  Plus, the sound was so much more detached, controlled and unboxy from top to bottom on the Thiels.
And the overall drive and pitch control on the Thiels, especially in the upper bass to the bottom, was so superior.   I was listening to tons of music last night and the punch and musical "drive" of the Thiels is just amazing to me.

So...I'm still holdin' on to them :-)

As usual this experience re-enforces to me:  1. How much I prefer tube amplification like my CJs to most solid state.  I never really seem to want to sit long listening to an SS based system like I do with certain type of tube amplification at home  2.  How much more choice of speaker, placement, room etc impacts the sound over anything else.

In both the demo rooms the speakers were hooked up to very high end equipment.  The Focals for instance played off of Naim's high end server and amplification, giant garden-hose thick audioquest speaker cables, and a crazy high end AC conditioner that the salesman seemed convinced had transformed any system they'd used it in, including this one.  "Veils lifted, life-like vocal sound achieved, dynamics improved, etc"

And none of that added expense - thousands and thousands of dollars! - seems to translate to any more impressive performance than I get at home, my speaker cables and interconnects being nothing extravagant, my gear plugged into cheap power bars, etc.  It makes me really happy not to be worried about putting big sums of my audio budget in that direction.   I know I've rung that bell before, but I can't help but notice this every time I return from a high end system with all those expensive accouterments and listen to my own system.

Having re-visited many of the latest speaker designs in my quest to possibly replace my Thiels, I've concluded that, especially with the 3.7s, they are conceivably "last speaker I need to own" quality.  By that I mean that at anything around their price point (I mean even when they were new) they are still competitive if not better than anything new I've heard.
The resolution seems to be at a point where you can't go much further, and they render box coloration so low that IMO most speakers are still trying to catch up, and most won't for a long time.   So in terms of performance, I'd be comfortable with the 3.7s in terms of that "what am I missing?" itch that we audiophiles get "am I missing out on some advance in resolution or otherwise?"  No, not that I've heard to a significant degree.

But of course no speaker does everything better than any other speaker. and the character of speakers are different.  I like some aspects of the 2.7 more than the 3.7 and visa versa. 

I've been re-visiting some old Thiel reviews and discussions and thus often encountering the "Thiels are brighter and thinner and more clinical sounding than most speakers" reputation.

One of the interesting contrasts between the sound of my Thiel 2.7s and the Monitor Audio and Focal speakers I auditioned recently was how much more full, organic and lush the Thiels sounded compared to those speakers - basically all the aspects people don't associated with Thiel.
It was actually the other speakers that sounded thin and reductive in comparison.

I think this is likely explained, in my case, not only as due to how Thiel's last coaxial driver design managed to be both transparent and smooth, but also to the influence of using good ol' tube amps on the Thiels, as well as adjusting their position (more straight ahead) for this type of balance...and also room placement/acoustics.

As I've mentioned before, I have sensitive ears and I can't believe how loud I'm finding myself playing the 2.7s.  The distortion is so low, the sound so smooth and easy; even though they sound lively and punchy at lower volumes, it's just more comfortable than ever in my system to turn them up and really enjoy more life-like volumes.

Both the 3.7s and the 2.7s are organic and seductive in their own way.  The 3.7s are a bit more open sounding, more delicate in detail, and get the essential softness and delicacy of the human voice really well.  The 2.7s though more incisive and dynamic both from top to bottom have a slightly "sweeter" sound in terms of frequency balance in the top end.  Not *quite* as open and airy, but still a drum rim shot will tend to sound a bit more solid in terms of transient performance.  The more alive dynamic, incisive character is balanced by a slightly more "sweet" tonal balance up top, and I think this is what makes them so addictive to me - the drive of the music keeps me pinned in my chair bopping around, but the ease of the tonal balance allows me to crank them up even louder than the 3.7s with comfort.

While the 2.7s smack around most other speakers I've demoed in terms of low box coloration, they still don't quite disappear as completely, at every frequency range, as the 3.7s.  There are some pieces for instance by the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet that have always been a complete marvel on the 3.7s.  Just press play and 4 guitarists suddenly show up in the room, life sized, as if the speakers aren't there.  And despite that they are all playing similar guitars, every guitar is perfectly untangled from the other in the mix.   Not as much on the 2.7s where the size of the guitars is a tiny bit reduced, and there is just a bit of blur in certain areas - some resonance I think - that misses the perfection of the illusion achieved by the bigger 3.7s.  On one piece the guitars are accompanied by an occasional metal triangle "ting" and that "ting" on the 3.7s is floated in it's own separate, airy space more than the 2.7s.

Another area of give and take between them is string tone.  The 3.7s have always been fabulous at rendering the detail of bow-on-string as well as the body of strings.  But if I had any criticism it's that the sheen of strings on 3.7s is rarely quite as beautiful as I now strings can be - just a bit of a chalky quality vs a silky quality, in absolute terms.  This is one area where the Joseph Audio Perspective speakers I auditioned in home exceeded the 3.7s - a truly grainless upper register that gave strings that present but silky quality.  (Though I still think the 3.7s had a bit more detail).  

The 2.7s are a bit more similar to the Joseph speakers in that regard: string tone is more routinely beautiful on the 2.7s than on the 3.7s to my ear.  I do think this is at the slight expense of not quite the same detail, but the trade off is musically a fairly happy one.

I'm experimenting with subwoofers with the 2.7s and initial results imply that the 2.7 imaging becomes more like the 3.7s in terms of separation of instruments, with a subwoofer involved.  But I'm trying to do it in a way that doesn't alter the midrange/high frequency voice of the 2.7s that I love so much.   Next weekend I'm receiving a JL Audio CR-1 crossover, among the best analog crossovers available for dialing in subs, and hopefully that will help.

Anyway...those are my current musings.

jon,

I would stay happily with my 3.7s if I didn't have to battle room ergonomic/aesthetic issues.

(Well, as my flagship speaker anyway.  I like different speakers too much to only own one, so I usually have a couple different on hand to switch in for a change).

I doubt anyone has been expecting this version of Thiel to stay in business much longer.

ranchhand,

Someone here being satisfied with a speaker that long?

Inconceivable ;-)

I've had plenty of speakers in my room, of all different designs, and the Thiel speakers (CS6, 2.7, 3.7) have all produced the best bass I've heard in my room - the tightest, most tonal, least boxy, most focused and punchy.  I love Thiel bass! 

Well, I still have my old 02 Thiels which I acquired from my wife in '93.  And she had them since '82 or so.  They have certainly proved to be too satisfying to sell.

geeze bcarr38, I wish I could help you by hurrying up my decision on whether I'm going to sell my 3.7s. :-)

I'm trying out subwoofers again with my 2.7s this weekend, I hope.

I continue to pinch myself with luck that I managed to bag a pair of the 2.7s in my coveted ebony finish.  They are just about the most beautiful pair of speakers I've seen, and aesthetics count a lot for me.

Before getting the 2.7s I was just about to start the process of having my 3.7s re-finished in a better color for my room.  Though I would likely have liked the results, I'm glad I didn't get around to is, because selling a custom finish pair is generally harder than selling one with a standard finish.

ronkent,

That sounds a bit worrying, as I’m probably making the 2.7 my main speaker.

No problems with mine so far (and it’s second hand, it was probably played even louder by the previous owner).

Though I don’t play them very loud when I’m in the room, I do crank them somewhat to listen to them from down the hallway. So far they perform like champs. But your post does make me nervous!

I better buy some replacement drivers as back ups.   Though I've never in my life blown a driver in any speaker I've owned, so hopefully that mean my listening habits are generally meek enough to keep my Thiels safe.

Was it the tweeter, or the mid, or both that you had problems with? What happened? Do you listen really loud?

Also: are the drivers easy enough to replace once you receive the part?

@ish_mail ,

Again, superb stuff!  Thanks for the reassurance that going the CR-1 route isn't a total screw up :-)   I'm a total newb with subwoofers.

@ish_mail

Thanks very much for all that info.

I will have to read it more than once to have any hope of processing your post.

It's timely as next weekend I'm picking up my CR-1 crossover to finally test the JL subs crossed over with my Thiel 2.7s.

(I also have the soundoctor CD and info...and I've just received a Dspeaker Anti-Node that I will try on the subwoofer channel.  But first I'll stick with the CR-1 crossover and see how far I can get integration).

BTW...

I tried some Iso Acoustic Iso-Pucks under one of my Thiel 2.7s tonight.

Some here probably know Iso Acoustics products are all the rage these days in terms of speaker stands/isolation and their Gaia series speaker footers seem beloved.

I'd been meaning to try out the Gaia footers, but ended up first with 4 of the slightly smaller iso-pucks which I'd picked up mostly to test for use in isolating my new turntable.

Using an iPad accelerometer sensor app, I did much of the same tests for the iso pucks as I did for a bunch of other materials, and frankly couldn't find much measurable isolation.  Still, I thought I'd try them under one of my 2.7 speakers.  I'd heard a store demo of the Gaia footers on one speaker, where they switched back and forth between the one with the footer and one without, and thought maybe I'd heard an agreeable change.

But on my Thiels tonight, it turned out I wasn't so happy with the results.
First, the L speaker (that I put the iso pucks under) did become a bit more lush and mellow, less hash to the sound.  That in of itself is nice.
Though that could also be due simply to the 1 1/2" rise in height from the footers, changing the speaker interaction in the room, putting my ears just a bit more below the tweeters for a more midrange sound.  Hard to tell.

Beyond that, the midbass on down actually lost tightness and snap, became a bit resonant sounding and slightly more muddy.  The feeling of aliveness was reduced.  I listened for quite a while going back and forth between the speakers - an obvious difference - and also listening to both in stereo (only one having the iso pucks).  But as soon as I took out the iso pucks the sound became more taught and clean again in the lower mids/bass, and the upper frequency range returned, the whole sound took on that drive, snappiness and aliveness that I love.

So that's a bit disappointing.  I'd love a tweak like that to work for me.
But it's also in line with when I've tried some other footers on my speakers in the past, even spikes.  I tend to get the same changes and end up preferring the speakers flat on my floor, no spikes.  The design of the speakers just seems dialed in for that height relationship with the floor, in terms of floor bounce or whatever.

I'm not sure now if I'm still going to try the Gaia footers.  I may some time spring for the Townsend Seismic Isolation Bars.   The reason is that I've been very impressed with the measured isolation performance of the four Townsend isolation pods I've received for isolating my turntable.  And the isolation bars employ those pods.  The bars, unlike most footers/spike/isolation systems don't raise the speaker height.  So it would seem more ideal for my purposes.

I may try the 4 Townsend pods I have under one of my Thiels, to see how they work vs the iso pucks.  Though they will raise the Thiels probably even a bit higher than the iso pucks.

@ronkent,

The iso-pucks can be used for any device within their spec limit.
The web site mentions a variety of speakers, from monitors to bass amps under which to put the isopucks, which of course use the same principle as the Gaia footers.

My Thiels are 77 lbs each, 4 iso pucks are rated to 80 lbs, so they should be fine used for the Thiels.

I'm very glad that Jim Thiel took the path he did in terms of value for money.  I always appreciated the fact that Thiel never went into that ridiculous-price territory we see in many other manufacturers.  A top of the line Thiel competes very well with much more expensive speakers from other companies.

(As for Jim's "change of heart" about measurements, I'm not so quick to interpret it that way. The signature strikes me as perhaps a concession by Thiel that audiophiles really go for boutique parts upgrades, capacitors and the like, so this is a concession to that.  Similar to how some manufacturers continued to include bi-amping posts on their speakers because they knew audiophiles wanted them, even if the manufacturer doesn't share the same belief).

beetlemania,

No that doesn't sound insincere.  I think Jim was a pretty straight-shooter, so that suggests he believes he heard the difference.  Though I would have been interested in a longer conversation with Jim, to draw him out on the subject and see how he may nuance things.

I’m seriously freaked out because I’ve essentially staked my system on the Thiels (including having just spent tons of money on subwoofers, crossovers etc to use with the 2.7s), with the mindset I could get spare drivers.

I note this at the end of that article:

A skeletal team remains at the company wrapping up details before finally closing the doors. Sources tell us there is significant inventory of the Aurora speakers that remains and there is no word yet on how the company intends to dispose of them.

I sure hope we can still get the legacy drivers from Rob !  Anyone have any  idea what a closure like this usually means for remaining inventory?

Yikes!  That post about Thiel being "toast."

How does that comport with Jafant's recent contact with Rob suggesting parts will be available?

@marqmike

Great info, thanks!

Good news for Thiel owners!

Yesterday after the news about Thiel closing, I’d sent Rob Gillum an email inquiring about about replacement drivers for my 2.7s.

I received his reply today.

Rob will be taking over the THIEL Service department - as previous posts have suggested  - and so servicing/parts will continue to be available for our legacy Thiel speakers.

Boy was that a relief!

I have to say I was made so anxious reading the news about Thiel last night I actually had trouble sleeping until I found out whether Rob would still be servicing/providing drivers.

I’ve spent all too much time agonizing over which Thiels to keep, and I’ve spent a ton of money on subwoofers, crossovers, digital eqs etc to try to integrate them with the 2.7s. (I should be doing a good test of this sytem this weekend). Given all this, I want to feel secure that I’m building a system around speakers that will be with me a long time, and that can be fixed, in particular if a driver fails. The reports of the coax driver being fairly susceptible to this worried me more. I just didn’t want to live on the edge, having to treat the speakers with the fear of one bad move...and that’s it.

So having the spare drivers available really makes all the difference to my peace of mind.

It was the same with my Hales speakers that I use for my home theater.
Paul Hales wielded absolute magic with his design, the smoothest most organic sound I’d ever heard from metal drivers (and still right up there).
No speaker managed to make home theater listening so easy and smooth while crystal clear, that I could find. Yet by the time I wanted Hales for my system, they’d gone out of business (my timing is perfect!).

I managed to find one of the few remaining pair of T1 Transcendence monitors, and an incredibly rare (huge) top of their line Transcendence center channel made to match the transcendence line. It was just heaven to listen to. But...at any moment a driver could go and that would be it.

So I kept my eye out for another pair of T1s just in case and somehow ended up talking to Paul Hales himself, who sold me the last remaining pair that he’d been using in his office!

Since then I’ve tracked down two spares for the even more rare center channel (they made very few). One complete commercial one, and also the template version - raw MDF no finish - Hales used for to quality check voicing of the other transcendence center channels.

Yes..a bit obsessive about it ;-)

But, the result is having speakers I don’t ever intend to replace in my home theater, and being able to relax about the possibility of failures down the road.

I’ll certainly be stocking up on the Thiel drivers.

(BTW, the fella I'm most envious of is a guy I know who ended up with, what for Hales fans, is the mythical unicorn:  The Hales Alexandria.  It was a new go-for-broke design, the single pair they displayed at a CES, which disappeared because Hales went under shortly after that.  Reports were that the sound was magical.  I can't believe anyone managed to snag those!).

It's nice, if melancholy at the time, to notice the old Thiel Web Blog is still accessible.  Tons of entries from when "Thiel was Thiel."

http://thielaudio.blogspot.ca/

The announcement of Jim's passing, with plenty of warm and interesting comments:

http://thielaudio.blogspot.ca/2009/09/please-share-your-memories-of-jim-thiel.html#comment-form

@ish_mail

I now have the JL Audio CR-1 crossover.  I'm going to try and crossover my 2 JL 110E subs with my Thiel 2.7s this weekend.

I'll have to go through your posts again, but do you have any direct advice for me as a starting point?  Crossover frequency?  Crossover slope?  Etc?

Thanks!

Thanks again ish_mail !

@ish_mail

Wow, I couldn't have asked for a more helpful response!  What great information.  Thanks for sharing as it will come in very handy!

I'll let you know how things go.

beetlemania,

I'm always looking for the most immersive sound I can get, while not sacrificing image density.

For whatever reason, the 3.7s can be spread ridiculously wide and still have focused images.

The 2.7s, which are the next version of your 2.4s, are very good in that regard but don't take to be spread quite as wide.

Still, I've got my 2.7s at 8.4 inches apart, 6 1/2 feet from my listening position, and the image density (their hallmark) is superb.  I just demoed them to a musician friend and the first thing he raved about was the imaging and the "thereness" of the images between the speakers.

My room was designed with an acoustician - it does both home theater and 2 channel listening duty.  It's 13ft x 15ft deep, 9ft ceiling, with a large opening to one side of the room into the hallway.  That opening helps "save my bacon" too I think.  It's a well damped room.

My Left speaker is close to the side wall, near a fireplace with reflective tiles, so for years I have placed a thick velvet cover over those tiles when I'm listening.  It mellows out the sound, reduces hash, increases image focus.  But just recently I've tried leaving the cover off and I've really appreciated the added liveliness it brings to the sound.  The only issue is that tonality does take a little hit. 

So I'm going to order a curved diffusor and try that out, to see if I can keep some of the liveliness I'm enjoying, but restore a bit better tonality.

Beetlemania,

I've always liked closer - takes out more of the room, tonality smoother, speakers soundstage/disappear more, etc.

More distance generally means tighter images, brighter more lively sound.  I play with both, but tend to end up trying to get a good mix with a closer seating.

One constant is that I almost always have the Thiels points almost straight ahead.  I don't like the more pinched, tonally brighter sound when they are toed in, and that goes for pretty much every speaker I buy.
Toeing out closer to straight ahead gives a bigger, more lush sound, where to my ears voices and instrument start to become more realistically life-sized.

BTW, one thing I've occasionally puzzled over is how the Thiel 3.7s seem to be just a tad more airy and resolving, despite the fact both speakers share the exact same coax/tweeter.  I recently watched a Thiel video introductions of the 3.7 and the 2.7 and noticed that in the 3.7 Jim made the point to that the 3.7s front baffle was made of inches thick aluminum.
But on the 2.7 video, the front baffle was only described a "3 inches thick" but aluminum wasn't mentioned.  So I think maybe the 2.7 uses maybe thick MDF or some other material to mount the drivers in, vs the aluminum in the 3.7s.  Perhaps that accounts for the slight difference I seem to perceive.

Wow!  Terrific information Tom!  Thanks so much.

As I've written, when I hear so many other speakers they still haven't seem to have caught up to what Jim achieved.  And it's wonderful that Rob's service will be available to us Thiel owners.  Now you have me pondering upgrading parts!

I understand if you don't have the time to answer any more questions, but just in case you do:

1.  As far as setting up the speakers to preserve the benefits of the time/phase coherence, as I understand it the coaxial driver design essentially solved the issue of listener distance, orientation; the coaxial signal will remain time/phase coherent if you are six feet or 12 feet away, slightly lower or higher than that driver in seating position.

The issue left would be the coherence with the other drivers, e.g. the woofer.  If one wants to preserve the time/phase coherence of all the drivers, it's the mix with the coax and woofer signal that suggests more care in listener orientation.  Would that be right?

I'm about 6  1/2 feet from my Thiel 2.7s and they certainly "sound like Thiel" from this distance, and as far as I can tell from stereophile measurements, I should also be realising coherence with the woofer as well, with my ears just below the coax.  Does this make sense?

2.  Subwoofer integration.  Some of us trying to integrate subwoofers worry that doing so takes apart some of the time/phase coherence of the system, insofar as a sub can't be placed right next to the main speakers and will therefore have a delay.  Phase can be achieved with the Thiel speaker, but the sub would be around a cycle behind in terms of time arrival.  I'm wondering about the likely effects of this on the time/phase coherence.  It seems to me one would at least be still getting the coherence in the midrange on up.  And if one were using, say, an 80 or 60Hz crossover point, the Thiel's woofer will still be playing part of the signal in time/phase.  I just wonder how much a subwoofer could cover this up, and whether that recommends a lower than usual crossover point for sub integration?

Thanks very much again Tom.  Very timely information in my case, and much appreciated!

Thiels I think have a true to life tonality in general, but their neutrality is  really nice blank slate that you can push in the direction you'd like.

I use tube amps to push them in the direction I like.

Tube Amp Owner Rejoice!

http://thielaudio.blogspot.ca/2006/10/tube-amp-owners-rejoice.html

;-)

I just dropped in to a new high end audio store near me that sells some wonderful products.  I sat down to listen to some music that was playing on a set of speakers and it re-enforced yet again to me how much I value the lack of boxiness, precision of imaging and the openness of the Thiel speakers.   For background listening I don't mind a speaker "sounding like a speaker."  And this speaker did have some nice tone.  But if I'm going to actually devote time sitting down in front of a pair of speakers, I have little time for that type of coloration that tells me "you are hearing the SPEAKER" rather than the artist.  That "getting out of the way" quality of Thiels is awfully addictive.

pops,

My little Thiel 02s have been my "back up" speaker since the early 90's.
Though not a CS design, they have taught me so much about what I like in a speaker.   As a reference and a source of pleasure, I could never get rid of them.

ish_mail,

Makes me wonder if I'll get along with  just my CR-1 analog crossover to dial in the subwoofers, and not use the DSP units I bought for the subs (I have both the Dspeaker Anti-Node and the older Velodyne sms-1, which I bought second hand "just in case" I need them).

Tom,

Thanks again and please feel free to keep us informed.

I've never upgraded a speaker before so I'll keep my eye on suggestions, and it may some day give a nice excuse to drive my speakers down to Kentucky to Rob for an upgrade.

What kind of sonic differences might one expect from upgrading crossover and other parts?

Folks,

I'm somewhat amazed that this pair of 3.7s has been sitting so long on Audiogon (and USAudiomart):

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/full-range-thiel-audio-cs-3-7-2018-01-17-speakers

They are in a beautiful finish, apparently great condition. And at a stupid low price considering past prices for the 3.7s.

What gives?

Do you think it's the lack of boxes for them?  Or have the 3.7s finally lost a bit of luster on the used market?   I'd think the scarcity would make them even more valuable.

I just noticed those radiators too.  I suppose someone actually looking to buy would have looked with a keener eye than I did, in passing.