Thiel Owners

What a happy article that was!

So much of what made Thiel great came from the character of people running that company, and the tradition is being carried on by Rob.

@tomthiel,

Whatever happened to the MCS1.2  center channel announced in 2012?

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/long-awaited-thiel-center

That got a lot of Thiel owners very excited, but of course it never came out to market.   What exactly happened with that speaker?  Were any actually produced beyond a prototype?

And...what lucky bugger ended up with the one shown in the picture?
(If I'm allowed to ask)    :-)

@tomthiel,

Regarding raising/spiking Thiel speakers.

I’ve generally had the best success in my room with my 3.7s/2.7s (and other speakers) sitting right on the floor, no spikes. (It’s a wood foor covered in a shag carpet).

However, I’ll probably try spikes or footers again at some point and it makes me wonder about raising the coax driver relative to my ear height. Right now I’m in a nice sweet spot but if I raised the speaker on spikes/footers I may change that. Therefore, I’m wondering about compensating for raising the speakers via altering the angle - that is raising the back of the speaker a bit more to tilt it towards me, to maintain a more precise relationship with the drivers.

As Thiel speakers have a precise slope angle for integrating the arrival time of the woofer with the coax, I’m wondering if altering that angle via tilting the speakers a bit forward would be deleterious or not. (Or even change the floor woofer’s intended relationship with floor bounce, or other parameters I’m not thinking of).

What are your thoughts?

@tomthiel

Thanks Tom.

Just to be clear, when you write: <i>"38" ear height is design target."</i>
Does that design target assume the speaker is on spikes or not?

"The outriggers and spikes on my CS2.4SE raise the speakers a good 2""

That's one reason I haven't used mine.  Even raising my speakers on shorter footers has changed the sound in a way I don't care for.

Although I've been intrigued by the idea of hot-rodding my Thiels, it sounds like it's a lot of playing-with-fire.  Something of a crap shoot in terms of ending up with similar tolerances/values for replacement parts, vs sticking with the originals that were part of the original design.

I believe I’ve finally made my decision after torturing myself between the Thiel 2.7s and the 3.7s for many months now.

I’m going to sell my Thiel 3.7s!

The 2.7s are good enough to keep blowing me away when I listen to them. I’ve had them up for a long time now, long enough to "wean" me off the 3.7s. If I put the 3.7s back in my system to check again I’ll just hear what they can do better, so why bother?

I have the 2.7 position tweaked to where they are ridiculously vivid, alive and dynamic. It’s just freaky how they conjure palpably "there" musicians into my listening room,  track after track. And with the introduction of my first truly high end turntable - a Transrotor Fat Bob, Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge and JE Audio phono stage, the system sounds more spacious than ever.

The 3.7s will probably be the best all around speaker I’ve had, but I have to be realistic; while they work perfectly in terms of sonic performance for my room - still the most even sounding speaker I’ve heard - they are too big ergonomically and block too much of the entrance to the room. And I’m not going to shuffle them in and out for listening as I originally imagined I might. Even if I kept both the 3.7s and the 2.7s I don’t feel like hauling speakers around - at least not ones as big as the 3.7s. The 2.7s can stay right where they are and they look great, without impeding the entrance-way like the 3.7s.

If, like most sane people, I could just have set up the 3.7s and left them there I’d have looked no further for another speaker.  I'll sometimes miss the scale of the 3.7s for sure.  But...the 2.7s are pretty great too!

Rob,

I’m glad you enjoyed my ramblings on the Thiels. At one point I rambled in an online hi fi mag reviewing speakers (many years ago) so I’ve had a lot in my listening room. I drifted away somewhat from the hobby for a while (turning to designing my home theater room among other things). Still, both back then and now I have enough contact within the community to hear amazing gear.

I keep experimenting, modifying the positions of the 2.7s and find I can get them sounding almost however I want - smooth and lush, brighter more dynamic or a mix in between.

Right now I’ve dialed them to where they sound just super clear with incredible transient response, yet with a warm inviting timbre. Playing something like P. Glass’s Powaqquatsi with it’s ever changing layers of percussion sounds so exciting and life-like, the exact character of every different drum, block or triangle so vivid.

Like I said, I’ll miss the 3.7s scale, but the 2.7s portray more rhythmic drive and conjure sonic images with more solidity than anything else I’ve yet heard. So they are to my ears very much a “performance-first” speaker where the lively sense of musicians performing is the overall effect vs other speakers where soundstaging/spaciousness may leave the overriding impression.

ronkent,

Thanks for the REL recommendation. I used to be more familiar with that line years ago and they were my first thought.
However I’m in a situation where some room features rule out anything but very small subwoofers and the size/performance ratio of the JL Subwoofers I chose are tough to beat.

As I think I may have detailed earlier in the thread, the JL subs, though generally made to use the rca line ins also offer a high level speaker input - ala REL - and as that was easiest I started taking the feed off my 2.7
speaker posts.

Though I got some of the subwoofer benefits - larger, deeper sound - I also lost dynamics and the tone of the system went too dark/soft/rolled off.

i don’t know why (and I’m mostly a newbie with subwoofers as I’ve usually hated subs).

I tried using the rca inputs as well (sent from my preamp) and while it was a bit more dynamic the tone of the system changed too dark. In both cases this was running the 2.7s full range with a low crossover point.

JL Audio’s position, and that of most of the subwoofer aficionados I’ve read, is to go with the crossover and split the sub/mains, usually around 80hz. So that’s my next move. (I bought JL Audios high end analogue crossover).

Beetlemaina,

Sounds like you are edging toward how I listen. I’ve always preferred closer listening, away from room boundaries, which inevitably makes for smother more immersive sound, and better apprehension of subtle detail. Those more subtle details go missing from further away, and get lost in room bounce “hash.” I hear more of the individual tonality of instruments captured in the recording as well as more details of the acoustics/reverb of the recording.

The only thing that starts to fall away a bit more with closer listening is the sense of liveliness so I always look to maintain a balance.

Fortunately I have a really good room that is well damped (not too damped) and low in such factors so I can still use a further listening distance and still hear great detail in the recording.  But for soundstaing immersion I still like a fairly close seat.

Most speakers tend to sound a bit more rich and full, emphasizing the midrange over high frequencies, when you lower your listening position. That is true of the 3.7s though for some reason less so of the 2.7s which seem to maintain a very even tonality over a wider vertical area. The 2.7s might have the most consistent tone over a wide axis of any speaker I’ve owned excepting the MBL omis.

I sit on a very large sofa that I had custom designed for deep seats and somewhat high backs to facilitate comfot and support for watching movies and long listening sessions. I specifically made sure the back supports my shoulders but ends before my neck/head so as not to interfere with direct sound from the speakers.

However I can recline further, feet up
on the ottoman, resting my head into the pillows. At that point the sound changes a bit from the reflections from the pillow around my ears, similar to when I introduce some more room reflection by moving my curtains off the side walls near the speakers. The sound brightens a bit, gets a bit more lively and present, a bit more expansive though less image focus. It can be enjoyable too.

But tonality becomes a bit more whitened and homogenized so mostly I listen with me back supported, ears clear of the back cushions.

Folks,

I plan to put my Thiel 3.7s up for sale soon, and as I'm just starting to research pricing I wondered if I could get some feedback.  Mine are close to mint (had them refinished) in the Morado finish. 

Any suggestions on a list price?

I plan to offer them on Canuck Audio Mart first, hoping for a local buyer.

jon_5912,

As I think I detailed somewhere in this thread, I didn't have the luck I hoped using the speaker level inputs on JL Audio Subwoofers for my Thiel 2.7s.  It seemed to such a bit of life out of the dynamics, transients, and also darkened the overall tone too much.

I tried the RCA inputs (running from my CJ pre-amp) and that sounded a bit better dynamically, but still darkened the tone too much.   My CJ preamp probably isn't the best for driving the long runs (30 to 40 ft) cables I had to use.  So I have the JL Audio active crossover now which I'll be setting up soon (hopefully).  That in theory should work better, and it will be the first time I'm actually splitting the signal to the Thiels, probably between 60 - 80 Hz - instead of running them full range.

Fingers crossed.

Uh oh.

Anyone else experiencing weirdness with this thread?  At least on my browser the posts now cut off at page 55 where the last posting date is early 2016.

I hope it's only a glitch on my end and that we haven't lost all the subsequent posts!

LOL.  Turned out somehow (I don't know how) the thread sorting had switched from "oldest first" to "newest first" which is why all the new posts weren't appearing to me at the end.  Whew!  Never mind....

Had a fascinating experience with the Thiel 2.7s last night.

As I’ve mentioned before, they image with a specificity like few other speakers in my experience.

Last night I was listening to the album in which the California Guitar Trio combined forces with the Montreal Guitar Trio for a live performance (album streamed from Tidal). So that is six acoustic (and sometimes electric) guitars lining the stage, close together.

The Thiels imaging was so laser precise that every one of those 6 guitars in a line were easily discernible from the one beside it! They just showed up corporeally in space and I could close my eyes and point directly to each single guitar, even during complex passages.  The images of the guitarists were not recorded up front, but are portrayed at a distance.  So the instruments are not full sized, but smaller as in further away.  This puts the guitars relatively closer to each other in terms of the demands of speaker imaging, and the Thiels literally  carved out each guitar in space where I could "see" one end and the other begin only inches away from the other.

For me this is one of the ways good imaging pays dividends - beyond the timbrel cues, he spacial specificity makes it easy to discern what any particular musician is playing in a mix. And the sensation of musicians playing in front of me is more pronounced.

(I’m definitely a "tone and dynamics first" guy, but I also require the speakers to disappear and image well to be fully satisfied spending big bucks on high end audio).

I've been interested if an upgrade was developed for my 2.7s.
However I would not be inclined toward an outboard crossover.
Aesthetics matter in my room.

(And, holy cow, those outboard crossovers are HUGE on the Avalons!)

jafant,

I haven't tried to sell them yet.  But I just got a nice trade-in offer to put towards some Devore speakers if I go that route.  (Alternatively I'm still looking at possibly buying Joseph Audio speakers).

I wouldn't sell my Thiel 2.7s - they are too rare a find, I got too good a deal, and it's a sound I don't want to give up.  But...I like speakers and don't mind having more than one sound to go to.

tomthiel,

As I own both the 3.7s and the 2.7s, I agree.  The 2.7s do sound slightly different, the 3.7s sounding more open and a bit more resolving of the finest details and "air" around voices and instruments. 

The 2.7s are pretty darned good, though.  In a way I find the tonality of the 2.7s a little bit more beautiful and rich.  But as I say, it does seem at the cost of the last bit of openness :-)

tomthiel

Not that it gives you any more information per se on the Thiel 2.7, but maybe of interest to you is this post in another forum by Philip Bamberg
who worked on the 2.7:

I designed the crossover for the CS2.7 upgrade to their coax mid/tweeter driver. It was not easy. I was present at the voicing sessions in Lexington, after some listening in my own house.

I can vouch for both the CS3.7 and 2.7 speakers having a 2dB/decade downsloping response from 200 to 2kHz, transitioning back to level in the treble. This is a tonal balance curve similar to many high-end speaker brands. However such a speaker still does not sound dark (there are other more technically involved reasons for this).

One shining performance feature that I can vouch for with the CS2.7 -- the bass is spectacular. Their 10" woofer RULES, and the cabinet alignment is excellent. Play acoustic bass or drums on this speaker to believe me.

Also, the coax unit is impressive in its own right. The midrange is actually flat to 20kHz (without crossover). I think the time-coherent acoustic alignment and fast response drivers may lead to the listeners' reaction of bright or forward.

Thiel also spends for PP and polystyrene bypass caps for additional transparency. For these reasons, system matching is a bit more critical with the upper Thiel models. Also, all 3 drive units have aluminum diaphragms. I promise you that I addressed the woofer ring, and achieved excellent time and phase coherency - Thiel was quite demanding of this as you can imagine.

While I performed some reverse engineering of a few of their models (part of a technical familiarization of Jim's work) I am not intimately familiar with the design and history of all their models. I suspect that their models over the past dozen year vary in tonal balance, and that it is a mistake to conclude that the company voices speakers to be bright/lean/forward overall. IOW, I think the time for audiophiles to conclude that Thiel = Bright should come to an end.

I am no longer under contract for Thiel, and I gain no benefit from their sales. These are just my own objective and subjective observations.

Philip Bamberg

@beetlemania,

Just wanted to say:  Thanks very much for all the work you are doing and letting us know the results.  Much appreciated!

thieliste,

I doubt many 3.7 owners have driven the 3.7s with a succession of different amps.  But FWIW, I've found the 3.7s pretty easy to drive.
My 140W/side Conrad Johnson tube amps drive them great (great tone, grip, control) and even a 14W integrated tube amp sounded wonderful (if less taught in the bass) on the 3.7s.

Like most speakers you'll probably realise the greatest dynamics the more good watts you throw at them.  But that's the usual trade off between tubes and SS amps on most speakers of average efficiency/impedance.

"I highly recommend very short runs of speaker cable. "

FWIW: I've been using 25 foot long Belden speaker cable (10awg).  Nothing fancy or special, but the 3.7s still sound better than just about anything I've heard anywhere near their price.  (Including my friend's system that uses tens of thousands of dollars worth of Nordost etc).

Tom,

I used the Belden 5000 series Cable, 10-guage, from Blue Jeans cables:

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

Though I've been a high-end audio nut much of my life, I'm not big on spending money for high end boutique cables, which makes me a bit unusual I guess in forums like these.  (Even though through my friends and contacts I have access to, and have listened to, some of the the most expensive cables in the world from Nordost and many others).

I like Blue Jeans cable because they are a no b.s. company, you can find measurement specs for the cable, etc.

I located my source equipment down the hall from my listening room so I had to run speaker cables under the floor to my speakers - about a 25 foot run or so.  The Blue-Jeans cables have excellent specs for long runs and I went with 10-guage, which is probably over-kill.  But what the heck.

As I said: I've heard some speakers I own with with these cables, and with the highest end Nordost, and...well...even for a super picky listener like me I'm happy where I spent my money :-)

As I've written about earlier in the thread I have to sell my 3.7s because they are just big enough to impede traffic flow in and out of my listening room.   Despite auditioning the newest-thing speakers out there, the 3.7s have been sooooo hard to replace because they just seem to effortlessly "do it all."

tomthiel,

My problem with my 3.7s isn't sonic; it's aesthetic and ergonomic.  Aesthetic in that they are visually just a bit overwhelming in the room (though I love their design).  And ergonomic in that they must be placed in a way that impedes traffic flow in and out of the room.

Sonically, in my room they are as perfect as I've heard in any loudspeaker anywhere, in terms of not showing any obvious room interaction issues.  My room was an expensive re-design employing an acoustician in the design - bass treatment etc is built in to the room, and I can alter some of it's reflective characteristics easily for higher frequencies.   The 3.7s sound completely linear and controlled.

But....they just don't work in terms of size...such is life.

The 2.7s I picked up are a very nice consolation prize, though. :-)

As I've said: I've been quite happy with Conrad Johnson 140W/side tubes.  Lots of Thiel owners have preferred tube amplification with Thiels (and that has virtually always meant lower power). 

ronkent,

Wow, another person with both the 2.7s and 3.7s!  Looks like we are in a similar scenario.  Though I've decided to sell the 3.7s.

I'm just trying to decide whether to sell them myself, or accept a nice trade in price from a local dealer for another pair of speakers (Devore).
I wouldn't be giving up my 2.7s which I intend to keep.  And the Devores are almost hilariously at odds with the Thiels in terms of design.  But there's many ways to skin a cat as they say, and I enjoy having access to more than one speaker sound.

jafant,

What stage are you at with your system?

You have the 2.4SE is that right?  How are they sounding and what amps/sources are you using?

ronkent,
Beautiful looking speakers!  Someone will be lucky to get them.What does your your girlfriend like better about the 2.7s?  Is it just a size, design thing?  Or does she actually prefer the way they sound?
For me the 2.7s is a nicer looking design than the 3.7s and I figured my wife would agree.  But I was surprised that she actually liked the looks of the 3.7 a bit better. 

Not me though.  I think my 2.7s are just about the nicest looking speaker I've ever seen and finding them in ebony was such a rare occurrence, and I got them for such a great price, I don't think I'll ever let these go.  Even if I bring in another speaker to play with.
I've had the 3.7s out of my system for so long it's helped me "forget" to some degree the ways in which they are obviously better.  I don't want to do any more comparisons, and my 3.7s are ready to sell.  I'm just trying to decide if I'm going to sell them myself or take a trade in from a local dealer for another pair of speakers (Devore Fidelity).

BTW, I see a subwoofer in your set up.  Did you have any trouble mating it with the 2.7s?  And how did you go about doing so?
I've had my JL 110E subwoofers for a long time and STILL haven't got around to giving another try to mate them with the 2.7s.  It just seems such a damned complex undertaking once it involves cross-overs etc.Feels like I'm trying to re-design a speaker.

ronkent,
Yes I've commented on the mid-bass bloom of the 2.7s as well.  It can really add some nice punch and warmth in many cases, and a dynamic feel.  And for the most part it does it invisibly.   But certain tracks can really zone in on that hump and then I hear it thrumming, getting confused.
Fortunately this doesn't happen very often and so most of the time the 2.7s sound to me superbly defined and controlled.  They are a dream speaker for electronic music - the imaging, palpability, punch, control, gorgeous tone. 

But the 3.7s do sound more linear and a touch more open in the midrange.

Funny you mention Magico, I'm going to be checking out the Magico A3 speakers soon.

I tried hooking up my JL subs in the REL fashion (they allow for that type of set up) and didn't have great success - the sound got tonally darker and less dynamic for whatever reason. So I went whole hog and bought a high end JL crossover to "do subs right" and split the signal between the mains and the sub (as all the subwoofer aficionados will tell you).  

But it's such a friggin' hassle I can't get around to doing it.

ronkent, jafant,

I've long been familiar with REL and their approach.  I've had REL subs in my home before.  But I want to try doing subs using a crossover, which have some advantages if done right to the REL system.

Improvements are always good.
But for me I have to say the last thing on my list I'd write down as "needing improvement" is the cabinet behavior of the 3.7s.
I say that because I find the 3.7s to already beat just about any other speaker I've heard in terms of sounding utterly boxless.  It's one of the main things I notice every time I came home from auditioning even the latest, greatest speakers.  The 3.7s disappeared as detectable sound soruces (at least in my room) more effortlessly than any of them.

tomthiel,

I look forward to the results of your efforts!

I'm a bit gun-shy about messing with the tone of my 2.7s, but if I read some brave soul happy about upgrades I may go for it. (That is, if such upgrades become available for the 2.7).

ronkent,

I was quite interested in the GAIA for quite a while and intended on trying them with the Thiels.

However, I ended up buying some Isoacoustic Iso-pucks which I was thinking of using under my turntable platform.  I tried them under one of my Thiel speakers and didn't care for the effect - tended to make the sound a bit more flubby and less alive.  (Which could all be due only to the acoustic effects of raising the speaker - I can't be sure).

But it did dampen my enthusiasm for spending more money on the GAIA.

My speakers tend to sound best simply sitting on the floor, no spikes or risers.  I tried some other risers again - some Herbie big footers which not only add some isolation, but make them easy to shift the speaker position.  Yet again, I found raising the speakers to sound a bit less preferable to simply sitting on the floor.

I am intrigued quite a bit by the Townshend isolation base for speakers, a they are designed to isolate the speakers from the floor without raising them up, and I had terrific success using the Townsend spring-based pods for isolating my turntable (very big measurable difference with a vibration-measurement app when the pods were used under the turntable base)

ronkent,

Yes for the most part I've used the Thiels sitting on my floor (shag rug over wood floor) - no spikes, nuthin'.

I like playing with speaker positions so I recently put some Herbie's gliders under them (which screw in to where the spikes go).  It raised the Thiels a bit and to my ear thinned the sound a tiny bit.  I tried to make up for the height change by angling the Thiels a tiny bit down toward me.
Seemed to get a bit better.

But whenever I've tried footer thingy's, the tone of the speaker gets dark and base gets less tight.  Everything snaps together when they are just sitting on the carpet.

Oh, right, I forgot that the new crossovers would be outboard.  That would almost certainly rule them out for me.

@beetlemania,

Thanks for the updgrade info.  That's more comforting that parts values will remain so similar.

^^^ Thanks for the added info.  

As can be seen in this thread, and another speaker thread I have going, I have a roving eye for speakers.  I just like trying various types.
But even if I purchase another speaker I can't see myself ever getting rid of my 2.7s.  Too good, and the bargain I paid was ridiculous for the performance. 

I love electronic music and the 2.7s are a dream for that category.  Their particularly dense, punchy, solid imaging and gorgeous tonality make electronic music feel like another dimension has been summoned in and around the speakers.  I never get tired of it.

FWIW:

Bass depth and weight are experienced as very similar between the 2.7 and 3.7. Though there are tracks where you can definitively hear the 3.7 go a bit lower.

The main difference is the sense of scale and linearity. The 3.7 just creates larger sonic images and a bigger soundstage. What exactly to attribute that to is a bit of a puzzle to me as they share the same mid/tweeter and only differ slightly in woofer size. Is it JUST that extra 2 inches in woofer size? Or is it something about the bigger cabinet of the 3.7 as well? I don’t know exactly what causes this difference.  Confusing the issue a bit further: with the brief tests I've done integrating a sub with the 2.7s, the soundstage does seem to grow somewhat, but I don't think the image sizes expand in to 3.7 territory - and yet with a subwoofer that's adding another 10" driver and producing more bass than the 3.7!

I’ve also wondered why the 3.7 sounds a bit more linear all the way to the bottom of it’s range. It could be a difference in voicing to some degree (maybe the 2.7 was voiced with a tiny bulge to compensate for it’s slightly smaller size - though I don’t think that was normally the Thiel way. Thiel was never shy about keeping linearity even if it meant their smaller speakers sounding a bit base-shy compared to some other brands).

I’ve wondered if the added control/linearity has anything to do with the different woofer constructions. The 3.7 has that sort of dimpled woofer and passive radiator and it’s general shape was claimed by Jim Thiel to get rid of some common reflections around woofers. So I wonder if that contributes.

Tom,

Great info, as usual!

Well, I just auditioned one of the latest and greatest recent speakers:
The Magico A3. 

(See my "Devore speakers/auditioning" thread if interested in details).

Turns out...I like my Thiels better :-)

beetlemania,

The audiophile in me of course salivates at any possible upgrade.

But the cautious side makes me not want to mess with what I have.

batmanfan,

I've made numerous comparisons of my 2.7s vs my 3.7s in this thread and I'm presuming you've read them already (as you said you've read through the thread).

Of course I empathize with the audiophile nag in the back of the mind "could I have gotten something better?"   I'd originally been deliberating between buying a pair of used 2.7s in beautiful ebony, vs the 3.7s in other finishes (very nice finishes, but none in my preferred ebony finish were available).

The 2.7s would be an obviously better fit for my room size/aesthetics wise.  But I thought if I bought them I may well end up thinking "these sound so great that I wonder how much better the 3.7s would have been."

I chose 3.7s over 2.7s so that I wouldn't have that niggling doubt that I didn't go for the best I could get.   The 3.7s turned out to be awesome and sonically fantastic in my room.  But the funny thing is, especially due to the 3.7s physical size in my room, I started wondering "maybe I should have gone for those 2.7s after all."

It's a curse ;-)

So when the 2.7s in ebony showed up on audiogon I couldn't resist to try them out.

And it turns out, it seems: yes, the 2.7s are the one that best fits my needs.  

As for selling my 3.7s, I have decided I'd like to sell them soon, but still haven't decided which route I'll take - trade in, selling them only for local pick up, or opening it up to selling them to someone on Audiogon.

batmanfan,

Yes my Thiel 3.7s are in the Morado finish!

:-)

But just so we are talking about the same thing: I’ve seen one or two people mix up the "Morado" finish with the Amberwood finish.
Mine are in what Thiel called their Morado finish, which is the darker reddish stain with the nice wood grain patterns, as shown in the very first image on this page:

http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-thiel-37-part-1-visiting-old-friend.html

In preparation for selling them a while back I had a top level furniture re-finisher go over them to make sure they were tip top. They came back looking essentially "mint" like they just rolled off the factory floor. I was so impressed by this that I actually couldn’t let them go and it’s one reason I held on to them that much longer!

My wife likes the look of these 3.7s more than my 2.7s. (My 2.7s came to me second hand a bit scuffed so I intend to bring them to the same place to get the "like new" treatment).

Still, my 3.7s gotta go at some point.

Believe me, I know how tough it is when you want a rare speaker and ALSO put the constraint of a certain finish on them. That’s what I did with the 2.7s and had to wait 3 years or so for them to pop up in Ebony, and even then never seen another pair for sale, so I feel like I found my Unicorn.

I sit even closer to mine (7 to 6 1/2 feet)!

Though I disagree a bit with some of the things stated on the mapleshade site.  For instance the idea that sitting closer gets you better bass impact and slam.  I've tended to find the opposite with almost every speaker - the closer I get the more linear and less bloated the bass, but also the less kick and impact (the more headphone-like it gets).  So I'm always trying to balance - close enough for smoothness, distant enough to keep impact.

ronkent,

The speakers are so easy to move around on my rug (one thing nice about not using spikes) that I often fool around with different listening positions.  I may settle on one for a week, or a month, or many months, then move them around. 

Right now I have my 2.7s a bit further from my ears than I thought - 7.4' - probably because they are spread out a bit more - 8.4' from the inside of each speaker.  Due to the wider spread, I have them toed in a bit to maintain some sparkle and image focus.  When in a narrower setting, I tend to have little to no toe-in.

I also find listener height can alter the sound a bit, but much less so on the Thiel's concentric driver arrangement vs a lot of other speakers (sound gets a bit more "plummy" rounded and warm with a lower seating height.  I've slightly angled my 2.7s downward to account for a bit of this).

I'm really a nut about tone and timbre and it's easily diminished by room acoustics and speaker/listener positioning.  I want warmth, roundness of tone, but with a realistic inviting sparkle as well.  To that end I find imaging, soundstaging and tone are almost always best for me when there is nothing behind my head - e.g. my sofa cushion comes up to my shoulders but no further.   Leaning my head back in to the sofa pillows, more reclined, while comfy, also changes the sound due to the reflections - makes it a bit more whitened and lively and spread out.  Which actually can be fun sometimes.

I've looked for pillows to lean my head on that don't alter the sound in an unappealing way, but there are no "neutral" pillows because it's going to change the sound reflections around my head.  Physics is physics.

That said, I just discovered that one of the small, narrow arm-rest sized pillows on my sofa, which is only the width of my head, actually works quite well to lean on.  Doesn't destroy soundstaging and imaging - though alters things a little.  Tone gets a bit more zing and aliveness, lightens up a bit, and a bit more focus.  So for instance a cow-bell or wood block hit will actually sound more lively and immediate.  And the tone doesn't "whiten" so much as leaning against a big pillow, but goes a bit more into the "amber" territory (I tend to perceive sound in colors this way).  Which I quite like.

Further...while on the subject of acoustics, I keep meaning to make a little thread about diffusors.  A single small diffusor that I bought a while back has proven really fascinating to play with - the way it can alter and dial in the sound so minutely via any number of positions in the room.
Placed right beside the speaker, I get a more alive sound, but also a bit more blanched in tone.  Placed just beside and behind the speaker and I get sonic images snapping even more together, and sounding a bit more dense and lively, but without loosing much of the organic roundness of the presentation.  Really fun.

Sorry...way more than you asked for.

Ok batmanfan. Noted.  I've had interest from others too.

I'm also  still deciding whether to trade them in for some Devore speakers, or sell locally (both those options meaning no shipping hassle).

batmanfan,

You possess more equanimity than I...

jafant,

Thanks, glad you got a kick out of my wacky journey.

tomthiel,

Thanks!  That explains why the grain pattern of the Morado I have is so similar to the Amberwood finish.

But just to be clear:  Do you mean the dark red color of the Morado wood is natural?  I'd always presumed the speaker started out with a lighter color and some type of red stain was added to give the red color.