Thiel Owners

Tom,

It’s helpful to read what you wrote about my turntable base. It represents the ideas I vaguely grasped while putting together the base, so it’s nice to see it gain some confirmation from a pro.

I’ve always been curious how many of the post-Jim speakers (e.g. Mark Mason designs) Thiel ended up selling. (And if they had any stock left).
I think they were designed to order.

It's interesting no owner of those speakers have found their way to this thread. Though I'd have to guess they wouldn't be the typical Thiel fans to begin with.

Wow, only 3!

And to think how many more Thiel may have sold if it where an authentic Thiel design - say if they had sent Stereophile the 2.7 instead. (Not saying, at that point in time in the company’s fortunes that the 2.7 would have sold bucket-loads, but I’d think more than 3!).

There's a much sought after, classic Conrad-Johnson Premier 350 (350w) amp for sale right on on Agon!  

A number of Thiel owners over the years have thought this was the best amp they ever tried on Thiels.  They don't come up very often and if timing were better for me I probably would have snatched this one up!

When I was designing my new home theater room in 2009, a pal gave me some Thiel Power Points to try out.   They were very impressive, such clever engineering, and they worked as advertised.

Ultimately I preferred a bigger richer,  relaxed sound so went with my Hales set up.   But the power points were really cool.

With all the Bryston love, I'm sure a tube-head's opinion isn't welcome.But....

For my own personal taste, I had the Bryston 4BST for a number of years just to be able to test on a variety of speakers - an amp I could always throw in that would drive anything, even though I mostly used tube amps.


Never could keep it in the loop too long.  I sooo much preferred CJ tube amps on my speakers, including the Thiel CS6.

My pal is going through one of his "I'm fed up with the hassle of tubes" phases.  Replaced his tube amps with a big new Bryston.  All vinyl system.  He's very happy with the sound.   Me...I definitely miss what to me was the more natural, organic presentation he had before.


But, that's personal taste for you.

tom,

I remember way back when I had the CS6s at my place, they were the most luxurious speaker in terms of fit and finish I'd ever had.  The wood finish was simply gorgeous, a fairly dark brown with strong grain - I forget the name of the finish (macassar ebony?)


Did you do that work? 


Also:  Weren't Jim and Kathy married at one point?

@thielrules

Music Reference Amp designer, Roger Modjeski, has been pointing out on a thread in the amps forum something I think we often forget: that most audiophiles often overestimate how much amp power they actually need. Most are barely using the power available in their amps, given typical listening levels. It often takes some significant volume to get them out of a couple watts. I tend to listen when sitting in front of the speaker to an average level of 70 to 75 db at most (though I crank it up when listening from another room). Apparently, my amp would just be cruising, barely breaking a sweat at those levels, even though I’m using a 140W tube amp.


I also have never noticed any sense of strain when I turn it up louder.Now if I truly cranked it REALLY loud levels, it could be a different story.  But, as I understand it, if one’s listening levels aren’t terribly loud to begin with, then there’s no reason lower powered amps should be a problem on Thiels or many other speakers.


(I sometimes use my Eico HF81 on my MBL speakers which are a brutal 82 dB sensitivity, and it sounds plenty good to me, no strain that I notice).

There are of course other variables to consider: current, damping factor, bass quality, possible impedance interactions, the type of music one listens to in terms of dynamics/peaks and how loud. But in terms of sheer power, from what I understand, there’s not mystery why tube amps, which are so often much lower power than one can find in SS amps, often sound good with Thiels.

My hearing issue is improving enough to get bits of listening in on my system (not too loud).

And on that note: I visited my pal’s place today because he currently has in the new Vivid Kiya speakers. He has many thousands of bucks worth of Nordost cabling, power conditioners etc. He switched a while back from tube amps to a Bryston 4B3. He’s happy. I find his system lost something I valued quite distinctly when he made that switch.

Anyway, listened to a bunch of tracks on the very expensive Vivids. In a nutshell: very vivid! More "transparent" sounding with super extended sounding high frequencies than I hear at home on my Thiel 2.7s.
It was super-fi in terms of clarity. I’ve heard Vivid speakers before, so this was more of the same.

But beyond that, as usual when I got home and whipped music on my Thiels powered by my big ol’ CJ 140W side tube monoblocks: wow what a difference. So much bigger, richer, so much more believable tone and organic quality. And despite that the Vivids are known for really "disappearing," which they did quite well from the low mids up, the Thiel system just whipped their butt in terms of a sense of soundstaging dimensionality, with solid images totally detached from the speakers. The same tracks with stand up bass on the Bryston driven Vivids sounded a bit boxy/speaker-bass to me, where on my Thiels, in my room, the bass just exists as a taught, natural instrument detached from the speakers top to bottom.


I missed that Thiel focus and density to the sound and imaging when I listened to the Vivids. Played some Johnny Cash on the Vivids and, while super clear, it was "hi-fi" sounding insofar as Cash’s voice just sounded artificial and a bit crispy around the edges. And the acoustic guitars, again, vivid, but bleached of tonal color. On the Thiels/CJ combo cash sounded like a human in front of me. And when the acoustic guitars came on on both sides, they sounded so much bigger, thicker and richer, and tonally it was "aaahhh...THAT’s that authentic acoustic guitar tone I was missing from the Vivids."

If anyone still had the idea that Thiels are bright, or thin or harsh sounding speakers, I can confidently declare a listen to them at my place would dispel that instantly. They are chameleons that you can make sound as you wish, via associated equipment, positioning, etc.
Just thought I’d share.

I'd also mention the Vivid speaker frankly looked and felt cheaper than my Thiel 2.7s (or my previous 3.7s, or the CS6s).   There has always been an obvious pride of build quality that came through Thiel speakers, which translates IMO in to a pride of ownership.

I hesitate to mention how much I got my Ebony 2.7s for on Audiogon!  It was a price I really couldn't pass up.  Ridiculous bargain for these speakers.

But if I hadn't happened upon them, I'd still probably be taking a look at that pair in jon's link.

Tom,

More great reading, thanks.

QUESTION:

As you may know I have the 2.7s.

I don't know how old my pair is, bought them over a year ago - apparently a dealer pair -  though I know the 2.7s were introduced in 2012.

Can you give me some insight as to how long I might expect these speakers to last, in good working condition?

I bought a spare coax, woofer and passive from Rob for just-in-case scenarios.  But in terms of just speaker wear and breakdown over time, how long should they hold up and what parts are most likely going to need attending first?

My little Thiel 02s circa early 80's still work great, so I suspect the 2.7s should stay the course.   Though perhaps their added complexity makes things different?

Tom, thank you!  Very informative, and that's a note I will save.

As for the expiring of the electrolytic capacitors in my 02s, what type of symptoms occur when the capacitors start to expire?  Not sure if I should bother replacing them.

vair68rober,

Thanks for that info.  I finally bothered to check and my 2.7 serial number is # 244.   So looks like they continued after the ones you bought.

The 2.7s were introduced the same year - 2012 - that Thiel changed ownership and Jim's designs were discontinued.  So they sure couldn't have made many of them (I wonder how many if any were made after 2012).

I sure feel lucky to have snatched up a pair, especially in the rare ebony finish, as these feel like a "forever speaker" for me.

jab,
oooh...in amberwood!  The pictures I've seen of 2.7s in amberwood are stunning.

Tom,
How did Thiel measure speakers, and what type of facilities did Thiel have for measuring speakers?  Thanks.

Thiel seems to have generally measured quite well, despite the limitations of the Stereophile methods.

A lot of manufacturers diss Stereophile and Atkinson for measurements that don't go their way.  But nonetheless, I am grateful for the work JA has done.  Even if flawed in ways, he's given us an amazing, wide-ranging body of work in terms of measurements of speakers and other audio gear, and attempts to correlate measurements to sound.  I can't think of any gathering of data on high end gear that approaches what JA has provided to the paying public.  (And even now, online, for free).

Tom, thanks I'll try to find your older post when I have time.

That was an absolutely fascinating read, Tom.  Thank you!

I'd followed Thiel for years, and especially when I was on the hunt for 3.7s in 2015 and afterward, I was fascinated with the story of Thiel's history...and it's demise at the hands of new owners - delving through all the Thiel articles and comments on Thiel at the time.


It's hard to think of any other high end figure who garnered so much sincere admiration and good will from writers, industry folk and audiophiles, as Jim Thiel.

It's amazing the amount of b.s. you encounter from high end salesmen (well...they *are* salesmen).   Guys who work decades in a high end store can just ossify in their own ignorance and it's a shame how many people they may miseducate.


Fortunately I've always been able to find a very few salesmen who are low-key, no b.s., no sales pressure and know when to just leave someone alone to listen to a system they are auditioning.  Those are the shops I go back to and often purchase equipment.

Thanks Tom.

My issue is that I simply couldn't use any of the Thiel subwoofers (despite that I sometimes see them for sale on audiogon!). 
My 2 channel listening shares space with my home theater set up, so the room is packed with speakers already, and the only place I have for subs is under my projection screen along the front wall - behind my Thiel 2.7 speakers.  The Thiel subs are all too large and would intrude in to the picture area, so I had to find the smallest subs I could buy, of good quality.  Fortunately the JL Audio E110 subs fit just right, and come with truly excellent reviews.

But...it is such a headache to do the whole sub thing right that I just haven't got around to it.  Some people spend frightening amounts of their time integrating subs. It's not uncommon for me to read "after several years I've finally got my subs perfectly integrated!"  Yeesh!

@tomthiel

I bought some JL Audio subwoofers quite a while ago - and their CR-1 crossover (and an Anti-node DSP unit to use on the subs if I want).

I haven’t gotten around to really integrating them yet. Which again will be pushed off for quite a while.

Truly integrating a subwoofer seems to be a very difficult process. It seems to me so daunting because you are essentially, as a layman, becoming a speaker designer. Whereas the skilled speaker designer carfully selected drivers, crossovers etc to integrate the low woofer frequencies, you are throwing that away and saying "I’ll take over from here" below the low pass filter, say, 80 hz.

I have fretted especially about integrating a sub with Thiel speakers given the entire speaker was designed to be time/phase coherent...but if I’m going to add a sub at, say, around 80 hz down, then the exigencies of sub placement etc means I’ll lose the time coherence for the bass frequencies. Am I not right? That is, unless one is using DSP on the whole signal which could set up a proper delay etc between the subs/Thiel speakers.

How did the Thiel subwoofers maintain time/phase coherency?

beetlemania,

Until I win the lottery, I'm going to put my money where >99% of the musical content is. 

That makes sense in one way of course.  But it does miss some of the major reasons why people integrate subwoofers.  A sub tends to change (and if done right, enhance) the sound almost across the board on content, even when there isn't obvious deep bass content.  Having experimented with my subs, I've found that to be true.  In most content soundstaging and dimensionality increase when the subs are on.  And then there is the purported benefits of crossing over the low frequencies to a sub,.   Relieving the main speakers of doing the low frequencies is supposed to lower distortion in the main speakers, make for better performance, more dynamic, less restrained etc.

I haven't tried using a crossover yet so I can't give my own report on that, but I do have a great crossover to try, so I'll report how things sound if I ever get around to adding my subs :)

A pair of Thiel 3.7s just hit the market:

https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/649484143-thiel-cs-37s-satin-black-wtheir-original-spikes-an...

FWIW, I've bought several items before from that seller.  Good guy!

I was reading an old Audio Critic magazine pdf recently. For those that aren’t familiar, it was run by notoriously critical and cranky editor Peter Aczel who was devoted to repudiating "audiophile myths" via appeal to sound engineering and science.

He would publish sometimes his "White Hat/Black Hat" list of those in the field of audio, distinguishing between the "good guys" who were solid no b.s. engineers (and writers) and the "bad guys" who peddled dubious technology, poor speaker designs, woo-woo and snake oil.

He put Jim Thiel in his select list of White Hats. A quote from the article:

Jim Thiel (Thiel Loudspeakers)


The high priest of the doctrine of coherence through first-order crossovers in loudspeaker systems. I do not even agree with his doctrine but nonetheless admire him for his engineering talent and uncompromising integrity. The man’s devotion to scientific design and quality construction cannot be questioned. On top of it he is a true gentleman.

rosami,

I have extensive experience with the 3.7 and 2.7 and the older big CS6.

I am betting that the thinness you heard was very likely in the set up of the speakers.  As with many speakers, I found I could dial in the size and richness of vocal and instrumental tone and images via tweaking speaker positioning.  If placed closer together, or if toed in a bit too much,  it could squeeze the sonics down.  Once I had my 3.7s dialed in they sound was HUGE in every way, and extremely big and lush.

I originally thought I'd have to live with some level of disappointment with the smaller 2.7s due to a reduction of "fullness" and size to the sound.However, like the 3.7s, further experiments in placement in my room finally yeilded the type of big, rich presentation I was used to from the 3.7s.


Of course, I can't tell from my perspective that your 3.6s actually *don't* sound richer and less thin than the 3.7s.   It's been a long time since I heard them myself, though my memory is that they sounded thinner than what I got from the 3.7s.   But the 3.7s definitely sounded richer than the CS6s I had.

rosami,

I sold my 3.7s not too long ago and kept the 2.7s.

There was no real way to make the 3.7s continue to work ergonomically in my room.  I'm thankful that the 2.7s are so good I rarely miss the 3.7s.

@samzx12

Which higher powered tube amp did you just try and how many watts?

I’ve long used my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 140w/side mono blocks and they seem to drive anything with grip and verve, Thiel 3.7 And 2.7s included.

I owned a 55 w CJ tube amp before those and the difference moving up in power and amp design to the Premier 12s was quite dramatic. Mostly in the sense of focus, density, punch, grip and sense of power.

The crossover info on the 2.7s could perhaps assist when I finally get my subs in action.

It's anecdotal but FWIW:  I've run the Thiel CS6, 2.7 and 3.7 on my CJ 140W tube amps, playing soft and loud (I crank them especially when I'm listening from another room in the house, make it sound like a live band).My amps have yet to be eaten by a Thiel speaker :-) 

I did some listening at a friend's house.

He recently moved from tube amps (AR) to a solid state Bryston amp.Vinyl set up.  He has access to high end stuff so he currently has a $25,000 phono stage, $12,000 cartridge, and extremely revealing speakers from Vivid (replacing for the moment his smaller monitors from another company).

I've heard his system get more and more transparent and detailed along the way.


And...I could barely listen to it by this point.

To my ears, it was all super detail and transparency, without a bit of human or organic warmth at.  All icy and cold and thin and hardened.

When I got back and spun tunes on my Thiel/Conrad Johnson set up, I just wanted the hug my system, it was so much bigger, richer, more beautiful and satisfying.

Prof, welcome to the final destination on the ride.

Ha! I know myself too well to think I’ve settled on my last and only speaker. I’m polygamous with speakers.

As I’ve said: my Thiels are so wonderful overall I really can’t imagine ever selling them. I’d truly end up kicking myself. So if I get new speakers it will be in addition to the Thiels, not replacing them.

As per my previous report: I listened to a fantastic Chet Baker album, featuring beautifully recorded trumpet, sax and flute, at my pal’s place, and then later spun it at home. The clarity at my pal’s place was extremely impressive. But at home on the Thiels (and CJ amps) it wasn’t only clear, the trump and sax were so much bigger, richer, had more realistic weight and presence and that elusive organic quality.

Joni Mitchell singing on Blue at my pal’s place was, again, impressively clear, but it wasn’t a human being: just a bunch of "super detail" where her voice seemed sort of disembodied and taken apart in the sound field.At home the Thiels focused all the sound so it all sounded like it was coming from the same place, a person in between the speakers, with body, roundness, appropriate softness, sibilance sounding like breath not like an electronic artifact, etc.

@tomtheil

I’m curious what you know about the design process for the 2.7s after Jim was gone.

The fellow who was brought in to help design the 2.7, worked on the crossovers at least I believe, said that Thiel was obviously very demanding that he get the time/phase coherency and other aspects right.

But it leaves me wondering: with Jim having passed away, who at Thiel would be in charge to be "demanding." Who at Thiel would have been left in place who run that ship and/or have the technical know-how to continue producing speakers based on Jim’s coherent source design/

I just don’t know how much of Thiel’s design-work was on Jim’s shoulders, or whether people were learning under him who could have continued his work.

Thanks.

Thanks for all that illuminating insight Tom!

I no longer have the 3.7s, but when I did, as I've written before, my comparisons suggested the 3.7s were the somewhat more accomplished speaker in terms of over all perfection, no doubt due to Jim's oversight.    Still, I was amazed how close in sound the 2.7s were with the 3.7s.  Definitely the same overall voice.  Though, to my ears, the 2.7s seemed voiced a tad "sweeter" with a bit of a comfortable depression somewhere in the upper mids/lower highs.  Subtle, but there, I think.

pwhinson

When I was seeking a possible replacement for my Thiel 3.7s (only due to the size/depth of the 3.7s causing me a little ergonomic problem in my room) I auditioned the Magico A3 at length.   I wrote about my impressions in another thread, but in a nutshell I found them highly transparent and detailed, not bright but a tad bit fatiquing over time.  I found the bass to be not as precise and controlled as the Thiels, and even though powered by a decent solid state amp, I found them dynamically a bit limp compared to my Thiels.  I also preferred the timbral quality of voices and instruments through the  Thiels.

For me the Magico A3 were very impressive on a number of audiophile score-card characteristics, but they ultimately failed to really engage me.

I have very limited experience with any other Magicos. I heard larger Magicos for a couple of test tracks a while back and they were very impressive, but didn't have time to gauge the "emotional involvement" factor - they were way beyond my price bracket in any case.

andy2,

In my personal experience, my emotional engagement with a speaker is not based on whether it's first order or not.   I have several speakers using high order topologies that I find very emotionally engaging.  (In fact, I was partially driven back in to high end audio by how smitten I was with my old pair of Thiel 02s, which are not time/phase coherent).

I was listening to my Waveform Mach MC monitors over the last week.  Waveform, when in business, made a pretty explicit rejection of the case for time/phase coherence claiming even frequency response/even power/dispersion and other characteristics were more important for accuracy and believability.   Just as I find the Thiels make a good case for the Thiel approach, I find the Waveforms make a good case for that approach.  The Waveforms sound to my ears warm, open, extremely natural in instrumental timbre, and particularly uncolored and "alive" sounding.   I almost bought a pair of the larger Mach Solos that were for sale recently and I'm kicking myself that I didn't as they are super rare and gone now.  (I would not sell my Thiels to buy them, though).

I would go back and forth between the Waveform and the Thiels.  The Waveforms are imaging monsters, and the Thiels are great too.  In some ways I found the Waveforms a bit more neutral than my 2.7s, and a bit more revealing of exact differences between instruments, and more revealing of dynamics to a degree.  So they really communicated a "live" sense of musicians playing instruments, with amazing imaging.

On the other hand:  The Thiel 2.7s - certainly having an advantage of being more full range and not just monitors like the Mach Mcs - had that special Thiel thing of organizing the sound even more precisely so instruments and voices have a depth, dimension, solidity and body that the Waveforms did not have.  There were more subtle advantages the Thiels gave in the richness - so a flute would have more body and airy texture vs a clarinet, where on the Waveforms both those instruments had a more similar "hardened" quality.

But my point is, I found that the two design philosophies were fairly neck-in-neck in terms of pleasing and impressive results.  Which is why I love having different speakers.

Damn!


I've been switching up my speakers with some others I own, like the Waveform Mach MC monitors and then my old Thiel 02s.


Sometimes I think I shouldn't do this, because every time I throw on the Thiel 02s I'm bewitched.  I think "THAT'S what I'm looking for!"  They have a magic tone, actually a sort of rainbow of tones, where cymbals and horns pop from the mix in shiny metallic, warm hues, guitar strings sparkle and sound EXACTLY like an acoustic guitar, with a woody body, voices sound beautiful, and drum snares sound so organic and have that papery "drum snare" pop and texture, bongos the same thing.  They have this magic ability to give electric keyboards, and electric guitars (no distortion) a beautiful shimmering quality like I hear in real life.   Strings have such beauty and texture.


And they image wonderfully.   Though they do have a slight upper midrange peak that helps give that glow and palpability.  They aren't as coherent as the bigger Thiels.  


But when I hear them I can't help but think "have we really come that far?" in terms of speaker design.


My 2.7s are wonderful and produce a far larger, richer sound.   But in terms of sheer tonal beauty, and in terms of the palpability and sense of life, I find myself leaning towards the 02s!


Then again, leave anything in the system long enough, the flaws come out and it's time to switch.  But...jeeze...there's a reason I just can't sell these things.   "Thiel 02s...girl!...I can't quit you!"

:)

tomthiel,

Ha...yeah I feel a bit strange lauding them so highly.  They just happen to hit my buttons. 

As I said, at least my pair has an upper mid/lower treble peak of some sort that unfortunately can make them shouty or piercing with the wrong material.  And they won't turn up terribly loud before straining.

But they have such an in-the-room palpability.  And they seem to be a match made in heaven with my Conrad Johnson tube gear and especially with vinyl playback, which I think plays to their strengths and mitigates some of their weaknesses.   I'll have to try pairing them with my subs at some point for fun.

Wow, thank you Tom!

It’s so nice to be able to read a previously hidden history of a pair of speakers that have meant so much to me for decades. And now, given Jim’s disdain, I feel even more guilty liking them so much ;-)

It just goes to show you that even when a talented engineer’s heart isn’t in to it, the talent still comes through.

I’ll be interested in your experiments with the 02!

tomthiel

Do you know if Rob can service the Thiel 02s?

Wondering what I'll do if, at their age, they start having issues.

Thanks.

Thanks Tom!

ahofer,


I became infatuated with the Harbeth speakers last year and ended up buying a pair of Super HL5plus to see if they could replace my larger Thiel 3.7s (I wanted a somewhat smaller speaker).


Ultimately I simply found my Thiels gave me most of what the Harbeths gave, but more refined: cleaner, more precise, less speaker sound, more realistic, yet still rich and organic.    The Thiels also imaged/soundstage with more scale, depth and precision.  So I sold the Harbeths and ended up with the slghtly smaller Thiel 2.7 speakers to replace the 3.7s.


But that's not a knock on the Harbeths; the Thiels were just that good.


I still LOVE the Harbeth speakers and every time I encounter them playing - e.g. at a show or an audio store - I find myself luxuriating in their sound - so rich, organic, clear and "right" sounding.  In fact during a visit to a local hi-fi store I recently compared some highly lauded JM Reynaud floor standing speakers - a brand that has it's own fanatics - to the Harbeth SuperHL5plus.  I found the JM Reynaud speakers sounded very nice, but just not tonally realistic.  As soon as we switched the signal to the Harbeths it was like the tone and timbre of saxophones, drums etc just dialed in to "THAT is what they sound like in real life."


If I had the money and space I'd own some Harbeths too, probably,  But then I have a speaker hoarding problem . :)

Tom,

02 owner here, as you know.
I still have the 02s in my system now (the poor 2.7s are standing beside them with folded arms and a "what are you thinking?!!!!" expression on their drivers).   Still loving them.


Did you receive those 02s yet? And if so what do you think of them?

Tom that was a wonderful story!  Thanks!

Out of curiosity, is anyone else getting weird stretched-width formatting for this page of the thread?

pgastone

I know exactly what you mean about re-hooking the 3.7s up and realizing you can't do without them.

I went through something like 2 years thinking I had to replace my 3.7s due to decor and ergonomic issues in my room (a bit too big).  But every time I hooked them up I realized they outdid everything else I heard, including speakers I bought to try as replacements.

I was only "saved" by finding the slightly smaller Thiel 2.7s which gave me that Thiel sound and did enough of what the 3.7s did to let me finally sell my 3.7s.
On the same "proof is in the pudding" level, despite what I'd heard about Thiels being super current hungry and necessitating beefy solid state amps, I found my conrad johnson tube amps drove them beautifully, as they do for my 2.7s.   It all depends on the demands any particular person puts on the speakers, and what sonic characteristics are most important to us.

I've had the little Thiel 02s in my system for quite a while and they continued to enthrall me.  I still think they somehow get a sense of the exact differences in materials, and the way an instrument produces it's sound, than maybe anything else I've owned.

But I just switched back to the 2.7s which are of course overall more sophisticated and enveloping.  Among the most satisfying differences is the sheer sense of ease a bigger floor stander gives.  The small two way 02s quickly give a sense of becoming strained when asked to produce more rousing music at higher volumes (though, within a comfortable volume limit, they still seem to convey more liveliness and enthusiasm in some sense).  But the ease and dynamics of the 2.7s seem almost unrestricted in comparison.  Strings swell, horns blast, drums pound, the sound breathes dynamically in more convincing and unrestrained manner.

Which is why I've never been able to stick just to smaller stand mounted speakers for the long haul.

unsound,

Did you follow up that call?

Especially if we are talking about a small outfit run by one, or few people, it can be tough juggling the  communication part.  It's certainly taken some follow up reminders when I've communicated with a number of smaller companies, especially the almost one-man-show type.

congrats bighempin!

I had the 3.7s for a few years and when I tried to replace them I listened to a long list of new speakers. I didn’t find anything that could out-compete the 3.7s.

*bites lip*

Thanks beetlemania, I saw that article when it came out.

Afterword I was in the process of replacing all my cheap power cables with expensive ones, when I noticed the date.  Man was I p*ssed! :)

Also, FWIW, as I have mentioned before:  The 2.7s don't float images away from the L/R speaker locations as well as the 3.7s.  There is more of a "U" shape to the 2.7s soundstage in that respect.  Not exaggerated as that, but instruments panned towards either speaker tend to "stick" to the speaker a bit more vs the 3.7s that seemed to completely vanish as a sound source.  I think the last time I brought this up, Tom suggested it may be due to the heavier-duty front baffle on the 3.7s.