Thiel Owners
@tomthiel Over on the AVSforum, there is a thread on the current science of loudspeaker design, essentially touting the "NRC/Harman Kardon" school of speaker design (itself based on lots of prior research). The eminent Floyd Toole responded to an inquiry about whether he knew Jim Thiel with this comment: Floyd Toole: I would occasionally see Jim Thiel at audio shows, but I never got to know him personally. We disagreed about the importance of phase, but for him it was a distinguishing feature for marketing, not science. He was always friendly. As apparently inferred by others, that seems to say that Jim was designing for time/phase coherence for marketing purposes, not for it’s actual sonic properties. In other words "it’s just for marketing." I have been saying I’m very skeptical of that account, as it seems obvious from what I’ve read of Jim (articles, interviews etc) that Jim certainly did see time/phase coherence as having sonic consequences. He says so explicitly in at least one interview, where he said his own tested demonstrated it to his own satisfaction, if not to skeptics or to a fully scientific level of evidence. Some are saying (on that thread) that perhaps somewhere down the line Jim realized it was of no sonic consequence, but kept doing the time/phase coherent design because Thiel had already built a reputation marketing that characteristic. I think that is nonsense. TomThiel, could you add your comments on this? Thanks. |
FWIW, I sure don't hear any harshness in my Thiel 2.7s driven by my conrad johnson premier 12 tube amps :-) Not anywhere, not a bit. They are one of the smoothest sounding speakers (at least with this amp combo) that I've ever heard. And the sound is big, rich and lush - not the usual descriptors that have been traditionally associated with Thiel speakers (in the mind of many audiophiles). |
batmanfan Yup I went from the 3.7s to the 2.7s, not for sonic issues but aesthetic/ergonomic issues. My room is 13' wide x 15 deep (that is at it's deepest point, which is the end of the bay windows behind the listening sofa, so really most of the room is between maybe 12 - 14 feet deep). I have a large room opening to one side of the room, which no doubt helps. The 3.7s worked perfectly in my room, evenly balanced from top to bottom, and disappeared and imaged better than anything I've heard (except my MBL speakers). I actually think I found the 3.7s a bit easier to place for even sound than my 2.7s! The Thiel designs are very well damped and controlled in the bass which I think makes them easier to place and work in smaller rooms than many other speakers. |
@tomthiel Re the concept of accurate vs musicality, I don’t think they are opposed.But ultimately both sound systems and recordings are compromised and personally my main goal is to enjoy music through my system. I think the artist would also be happy that I enjoy his/her music too, rather than care too much if my system may have a bump at 50HZ or something. But, I’m all for reducing distortion which very often has agreeable sonic results. One of the things I love about my Thiels is their even-handedness through the frequency range, but not doing so in a way that renders the presentation bloodless, but rather still has dynamic life and tonal richness. I however have ALSO liked other speaker designs, even some that those seeking strict neutrality and the lowest distortion would denigrate or eschew. Because even some kind of wonky designs can bring some intriguing characteristics to the table. For instance, one of the things that to me distinguishes real sound objects from reproduced (be it a voice or a sax) is the physical density and presence of the real sound. It sounds solid, occupying space in front of me. Whereas many speakers present vivid sonic "images" that are more wispy and weightless - hologram-like vs the solidity of the real thing. There are some speaker designs that may be introducing canny colorations - e.g. thin-walled big box speakers that let the cabinet "sing" with the music - which seem to introduce that type of "density" in to the sound. It may come from some deviation from strict accuracy, but it DOES to my ears get by those methods to something sounding "more right, more like the real thing" in certain aspects. Thiel speakers of course go the "remove cabinet sound" route, but get back some of that density in the presentation nonetheless, which could be attributed to the time/phase coherence perhaps. Still, the little tiny Spendor S3/5 speakers I have can sound spooky accurate to real human voices. And at the recent Toronto audio show I attended, voices played via the Harbeth speakers (thin wall, wider baffle design) sounded more human than any other speaker system I heard there, regardless of price. BTW, in regards to the performance of the 3.7 and 2.7... I still think the 3.7 was probably the best overall speaker I’ve owned (among many), in terms of it’s near SOTA performance in many areas and it’s over all balance, tone, and lack of speakerly artifacts. Though my recently acquired Joseph Audio Perspective speakers do give them a run-for-the-money in some areas, and I think exceed them in one or two. For a lack of "hash" to the sound, and for delineating instrumental timbre, I haven’t heard their better. Also, when it comes to the Thiel’s high frequencies (I think the 3.7s were a bit more refined vs the 2.7), I continue to laud the Thiels for the most part, with some caveats. The Thiels still have as coherent a sound as I’ve ever encountered from a speaker. And the high frequencies match to the rest is essentially perfect to my ear. I can’t hear out the tweeters at all, the sonic spectrum simply continues from bottom to top seamlessly disappearing in to the ether, with nice air and immediacy and smoothness (and importantly: the Thiels seem to maintain the "size" of the sound up in to the high frequencies - higher frequency instruments from cymbals to high flutes/woodwinds don’t dramatically thin out the way they do on many speakers). My caveat is that although the Thiel high frequencies are truly excellent and coherent, they have never been quite as beautiful as I’ve heard from some other speakers. It’s a bit hard to describe, but the sheen of bow on strings was there...but not with the sophistication of texture and smoothness I’ve heard elsewhere. Drum cymbals too were...fine...but didn’t seem to have to tonal clarity, purity and timbral complexity I would hear in some other speakers. They didn’t really "pop" out and drive the music as much, almost like there was some slight scrim/veil holding those frequencies back. This is put in relief in comparison to the Joseph Audio speakers I have now (no I’m not getting rid of my Thiels!). The high frequencies of the Joseph speakers are shockingly pure and grain-free, without brightness.Cymbals pop out of the mix like a scrim of hash has been wiped away, and ring with more of the beauty of the real thing. Same for orchestral string sessions - just a more finely rendered combination of vividness and silkiness. Basically, the high frequencies just sound "better," more real and sophisticated than from my Thiels. I think, no doubt, that the designer will say this is a result of the benefits that can be found in going with a higher order crossover, and (in the case of the Joseph speakers, at least purportedly having a steep crossover shelving), to allow drivers to operate optimally within their range with lower distortion and less crossover interaction. I would leave it to people with more experience and knowledge to hash that stuff out. I’m just musing about my own experience comparing speakers. Still, while I find plenty to praise in my new Joseph speakers, I think the Thiel 3.7s were still probably the overall more balanced, amazing achievement. |
Yes, I’ve also wondered before about what might happen if the 2.7 baffle were further re-enforced. Though not being a speaker designer, I wouldn’t know the trade-offs. I’d imagine that if, say, you tried to re-enforce it from within, adding thickness with some material behind the baffle, you start intruding on inner cabinet volume, which could screw up some other parameters of the design? BTW, I’ve now heard the much lauded Kii Three speakers twice, which use DSP to correct both for frequency response and time/phase coherence. Maybe I still haven’t had a good demo of those speakers, but in neither set up did they sound as timbrally natural to my ears as my Thiels, nor did they image with the specificity and density of the Thiels. |
Dsper, I am interested in other Thiel owner opinions regarding transports and DACs and at what point a listener needs to start playing with interconnects. You don't need to play with either. (And certainly not transports...and streamers/servers don't 'have a sound of their own' if they are operating properly). But from what you wrote, I don't think that's the point of view you are looking for. It's your money ;-) |
thielliste, Yeah, the Thiels seem to perform well with tubes IMO. As to SS, from my experience I can only say that 250W of Bryston power drove some Thiel CS6s that I had very easily. The 3.7s should be even easier to drive. If one has a really big room and listens really loud, that could change. But then, moving between 250 W to 300, or even 140w to 300, is a very modest increase in actual available loudness potential. |
bighempin, Sounds fun. But who is "JA?" Also, about the tweeter, from my experience having had dented tweeters before and talking to manufacturers about it, a dented tweeter doesn't necessarily result in audible problems in sound quality. I've had what looked like a seriously dented tweeter, but the speaker sounded the same to me, just as good, before I fixed the dent. (And the manufacturer indicated that would likely be the case too). |
My spidey-sense was tingling... Anecdotal observations from owning both the Thiel 3.7 and still owning the 2.7s, while also owning the Joseph Audio Perspective (Infinite Slope) speakers: I’ve mentioned it before but... The Thiels image with greater image specificity and precision, especially with a sense of sonic density to the instruments and voices. They are a bit more lush sounding from top to bottom. A bit more balanced dynamically/frequency response. They maintain imaging and tonal balance over a wider area than the Joseph Speakers (at least in my set up, and to my memory. Been a couple months since I had the Thiels set up). The Thiels are also more perfectly coherent sounding. As I’ve said, try as I might I simply can not "hear" the tweeter in the thiels. The treble area just melds seamlessly with the rest. My hunch, having heard various Thiel speakers over the years, is that this is not *entirely* due to the time/phase coherence. This is because, at least in my memory, I didn’t find the old Thiel 3.6s quite as perfectly coherent in the treble - a little bit more of a treble shine poking out with those. The CS6s that I had were smoother, but still had a tiny hollowness in the upper midrange that could take away some of the body of instruments and slightly separate highs from the rest. Subtle, but there. (I think we discussed that back then Thiel was still working out the problem of a bit of interference that could happen between the tweeter and mid - can’t remember if that was due to concentric driver design, or due to challenges in first order crossover. Now that I remember the Meadowlark speakers I had (time/phase coherent) actually had this problem to a much greater degree, I believe it’s a challenge in the time/phase coherent design). All that seems pretty much solved in the 3.7/2.7 design from what I can tell. The Joseph speakers have, as I mentioned before and to my ears, a lower level of hash (reduced driver interference?) as their main sonic virtue, which makes the sound more relaxed and un-mechanical sounding. A rare purity of tone. They seem to have a bit finer resolution, and bring out more timbral nuances, differences, in the mixes.They can sound surprisingly huge for their small size. Though I don’t think that’s anything to do with time/phase coherence vs lack of. More driver choice/voicing etc. The Thiels sound a bit more focused and dense in the bass. The Josephs are a bit more "juicy" and punchy, with a bit more "heft" lower down from the Thiels. A bit of added warmth perhaps. But it makes for exciting punchy drums and bass tracks. I can constantly "feel" the bass from the Josephs, where the Thiels would tend to produce the bass happening more holographically "in front of me" behind the speakers. The Joseph speakers are very coherent - that is one of the characteristics noted in review after review. So it seems their crossover design works to minimize driver interference. Still, it’s only having lived with the Thiels that shows up the Josephs as being slightly less coherent, both from bass to mids and mids to highs. There is a teeny bit more of the high frequencies, the tweeter, "riding on top of the sound" vs the Thiels. But again, the Josephs are more coherent than the majority of speakers I demoed. But the gorgeousness of the upper frequencies are entrancing. Last night I was listening to everything from soundtracks, to rock, to jazz, and the sense of openness, airiness, the aliveness and vividness of tone was like a sonic rainbow. Really pleasing. Finally, to throw in one more wrench: I was also listening to my little Spendor S3/5s last night, comparing with the Joseph speakers.The Spendors aren’t of course time/phase coherent, but MAN are they coherent! They also sound virtually perfect in coherence. In fact, with vocals, they are THE most coherent sound I’ve heard, even beating the Thiels. But if I’m to ponder why, it could be that the Thiels are super coherent but more revealing, so the artifice of recording technics, which will exaggerate sibilance or color voices, will be more on display.Where the Spendors have a canny balancing act of an under-damped cabinet, and a voicing that likely does a bit of BBCing, which hides a bit of the problem frequencies that tend to show up on voices. So even on sibilant recordings, for instance, the frictives on vocals "sets back" naturally in to voices instead of sounding detached. And they have a richness and roundess that recreates the organic quality of voices. They still astonish me. There you go. Too much, probably. Just don’t get me started....;-) |
thosb, Thanks! (Correct on cables. If you want to hear everything on the source, standard pro grade cables will do it. I used Belden for my speaker wire and there isn’t a thing I hear in other set ups using vastly more expensive cables that indicates I’m missing anything at all. Every rational neuron in my brain curdles on the mention of Synergistic Research....but I won’t go there....) My last audition of the Devore O/96 speakers left me thinking they’d likely have made me very happy. As I put it in my own thread, they were like my Spendors on steroids. The main challenges were the wider baffles (which could interfere with the projection screen image behind them), the fact they seem to require at least 8 feet listening distance to sound their best (I need a bit closer), and the question of how I’d feel about their somewhat warm/big bass voicing over time. I never got to try them in my home and that sure would have helped my decision.But the Joseph speakers have sounded even better than I thought they would. As for sources: A couple years ago I got heavily back in to vinyl, and took the plunge in buying a really good turntable/cartridge/phono stage (Transrotor Fat Bob turntable, Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge/JE Audio phono stage). I was pretty astounded at the sound quality coming off my records and that, combined with the fun of the physical aspects of vinyl, led me to buy ever more vinyl. It’s not that I don’t still like my digital source (Ripped CDs/Tidal streamed via Rasberry Pie to Benchmark Dac), but I have so much vinyl piled up to listen to, it’s my go-to listening experience. |
harrylavo I listen at moderate levels when in the sweet spot, but my listening room is a general media room that opens to the rest of the house. So I am often blasting the music loud to listen from the rest of the house. My CJ premier 12s (140w tube) had no problem driving either the 3.7s or 2.7s to house-shaking levels, while sounding clean. |
tmsrdg, I'm not turning the thread in to a cable debate. I don't want to go in to any depth on cables 'n stuff in this thread. That's why I made such a short comment. But on the subject of merely talking about these things, I believe you have an imbalanced and biased sense of proportion: I simply added my voice to anyone else's opinions on the subject. Why is, for instance, your opinion to be the default - automatically favored over mine? Why is your experience to be seen as veridical, and a relevant data point, but mine and my experience counts for nothing? Why is it any less "tedious" to hear a constant throng of "every material sounds different/all cables/tweaks change the sound?" With no counterpoint to it? This hobby comprises audiophiles who have a range of opinions and experience supporting those opinions. Why should your own version be the default, which can be explicated over and over, yet someone more on the continuum of being skeptical (for good reasons) should just sit down and shuddup? When someone asks about cables, or in this case particularly about spending money on transports and which server "sounds best," he is sure to get many opinions about how to spend that money. I'm simply adding in one other perspective "you *might* want to consider that you are considering quite a lot of money for something that is controversial and for which the claims can be fairly dubious.* It was people who added that voice to discussions like this who helped folks like me figure out where allocating my money made the most sense. No one has to do as I do. But it's good to hear other viewpoints, rather than live in an echo-chamber IMO. BTW, you might consider dialing back the insults ("cognitively challenged" analogy). Doesn't help anything. Cheers. |
Hi Dsper, Playing with speaker position and room acoustic will yield differences that swamp what you’d get switching around digital sources.(And btw, I’m not in the camp that says every digital source sounds the same). You should be able to alter the brightness, image focus, soundstage depth, all sorts of things, by playing with positioning (or perhaps adding some acoustic absorption panels or a diffuser at a problematic reflection point).My left speaker is right near a very reflective tiled fireplace. It can cause some shrill high end so I made a thick velvet cover that I place over that area (on hooks) for listening. Works perfectly to balance the sound. Are you sure you have done all you can with speaker position/listening position/acoustics to dial in your speakers before chasing other solutions? (Of course if you really want to try those other things, go for it). Cheers. |
andy, Yes that's a fair point. Though I think to a degree. But there is so much that you can adjust via speaker positioning/room acoustics, especially when we are talking about things like an assertive treble, that it makes sense as a first step before trying to "fix" it with gear that may or may not come close to doing so. On the other hand, I don't think I'd get exactly what I get from my CJ tube gear vs a solid state amp, strictly from changing speaker positions. |
tomthiel, I’ve assumed (or maybe read somewhere) that Thiel designed their speakers to be used with the grills on (as in the sonic effects of the grill were accounted for in the design). Is that correct? I’ve always listened with grills on, and it seems to be the norm for Thiel speakers from what I’ve seen. |
For those 2.7 fans or owners here’s an old, obscure review of the Thiel 2.7s in a Chinese audio magazine: https://review.u-audio.com.tw/reviewdetail.asp?reviewid=628 Will require googletranslate. Though I found using the Chrome browser, which offers automatic translation, worked very well. There were very few reviews of the 2.7 (TAS, Secrets Of Home Theater, and an italian one), so finding another is fun. I love the finish on that pair in the review! Looks like the same pair, possibly, as the one sent to Secrets. |
mr_bill If you search this thread you’ll see a lot from me comparing the 2.7 to the 3.7s. I owned both at the same time for a while and ultimately went with the 2.7 as it’s smaller size fit better aesthetically in my room. (Plus to my eyes the 2.7s are among the best looking speakers I’ve ever seen). The 2.7s have the essential sound of the 3.7s, with a slightly reduced sense of scale. Though without direct comparison to the 3.7, the 2.7s cast a really big soundstage - among the most expansive and precise as you’ll find anywhere around their size. |
I mentioned earlier I was putting my Thiel 2.7s back in my system after having spent quite a while with my new Joseph Audio Perspectives. I keep several speakers around because I always like some things about one speaker, others about another, and switching them around helps keep the experience feeling fresh. I never know for sure if I get used to one sound whether it will end up making me appreciate the previous speaker more, or less. With the Thiel 2.7s back in for the last couple days, if anything I appreciate them more having had a break from them. As usual..wow!..what a speaker! The Joseph speakers have an airier, more brilliant, more pure sounding high end and a lighter tonal shade. The Joseph speakers also have a rounder, juicier, more punchy bass. They can really create a beautiful combo of "punchy fun sound" in the bottom and gorgeous rainbows of tone from the mids up. What I’m loving about the Thiel again is that extra thickness and density to the sound, and the tidiness and precision. They just sound more confident and in control top to bottom, making other speakers even the Joseph speakers sound a bit more see-through and diffuse. The Thiels are darker and richer and more full in my system vs the Josephs. The highs are "very good" and superbly integrated, though the Josephs are more beautiful - strings sound a bit more silky and refined on the Josephs, that kind of thing. On the other hand, the Thiels will give a string section more solidity and presence. In fact over all the Thiels have a more consistent dynamic presence top to bottom and density.This really helps for rock music (I’ve been playing a lot of Rush lately). The Joseph speakers can be a bit on the "wispy" side in the upper mids when called upon to do crunching, thick electric guitar. The Thiels give electric guitar that grunt and solidity. The Thiels also do that fabulously controlled, yet dense and present bass - so Geddy Lee’s bass sounds tremendous. On the other hand, the Joseph speakers have, as I said, a bigger, rounder bass - very tight! - but there is a punchy reach-out-to-my-sofa bass effect that makes kick drums, bass guitar etc feel palpable. So with the Thiels, Neil Peart’s bass drum and Geddy’s bass will be locked right in between and behind the speakers, dense solid objects, but "over there between the speakers." Where on the Joseph speakers each note on the bass or hit of the bass drum punches air out so I feel it, which feels a bit more "real in the room" and is quite involving. And, where the Thiels are more consistently dynamically enthusiastic from top to bottom - there is something about the bass foundation of the Joseph speakers that feels like they "breath" a bit more realistically, insofar as I hear and feel the emphasis and dynamics a drummer is producing. It feels a bit more real. But then I go back to how the Thiels seem to do more justice to Alex LIfeson’s guitar, and it’s the old 6 or one-half-a-dozen thing between the speakers. In any case, I’m absolutely loving the Thiels, wallowing in their smooth organic tone, realism of imaging, the way they seem to do so well with any kind of music, etc. Just a great speaker! |
brayeagle I have briefly tried my subwoofers with my 2.7s. It did add some bottom and depth to the sound (fairly subtly) though it didn't change the character to the way the Joseph speakers sound in the bass. I've had my subwoofers and an expensive JL Audio crossover since 2017 and it's such a damned hassle to properly add subwoofers I still haven't got around to it. It's continually on my "to do list." And my interest is waning. I don't find myself pining for more bass either with the Thiels or the Josephs. |
I was just re-visiting the old Stereophile review of the CS5.It sure did impress that magazine! JA had a room-based problem which didn’t work with the CS5s so LA took over the review and raved. In the measurements section JA concluded: "All in all, the CS5 is both the most thoroughly worked-out speaker design I have ever come across and perhaps the best-measuring loudspeaker I have yet experienced." Which is about as strong a comment as I’ve ever seen from JA in the measurements section before or since. |
vair68robert Or you can get some cables that are confirmed as built to well known standards for audio signal transmission, and used by the pros, but which are sold for usually much less than those hawked in the audiophile world. Examples like Canare, Belden (which are available for instance from BlueJeans cable). If a speaker is not "compatible" with standard, competently, neutral-performance cable, then it's a defective design. Fortunately Thiel speakers are well designed and don't need anything exotic to do their job. I've used Beldon speaker cables for my Thiel 3.7 and 2.7 and it "just works." That combo sounded better than most speakers I auditioned that were hooked up to gazillion-dollar cabling because the Thiel speakers are that well designed, and a competently designed "everyday" cable allows them to sing, rather than trying to find cables to act as tone controls. Anyway...just another view for you to consider :-)....you'll get a lot more people suggesting you go about playing the "specialized cable lottery" and if you find that fun and have the pocket change for it, go wild! (Back to our regular Thiel talk...) |
Brayeagle. *bro fist* Not many of us here;-) It's not like I'm unfamiliar with having "heard" high end cables. I used to review audio gear for a while and have well-placed pals in the high end audio reviewing business, so I have for years been hearing systems, swapping cables with top of the line cabling (literally, sometimes my pal's system is running up to 50 or 60 grand just for the cables and power conditioners! He's getting a big new haul of cables in again so I'll hear the system again with new cables soon). I've heard speakers I own with cables that I almost guarantee are higher in the bleeding edge of price than anyone in this thread is likely using (think top of the line Nordost, Crystal Cable and others). So, my own view is not due to lack of experience in the subject :-) But...I would never tell someone else how to spend their own money. If someone gets a buzz from trying out various cables, enjoy life! (There's another "extreme"for me which is those "objectivists" who dismiss so much in high end audio that they pride themselves in purchasing the cheapest possible equipment, speakers, amps etc. That approach doesn't appeal to me either, not for the "saving money" aspect which is fine, but for the way it dismisses so many interesting designs available in high end audio). |
Hey folks, what's up with Thielaudio.com? When the "new" lifestyle-product owners took over it of course showed those products. But I seem to remember it went dead once Thiel folded. And I expected the site wouldn't even exist now. But lo and behold: https://www.thielaudio.com/ Has someone, somewhere, resurrected the original Thiel site (which looks to be the version just before new owners took over)? Who? Why? |
As I’ve mentioned before in this thread: My Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks, 140W/side, drove the 3.7s beautifully. It seemed like an "ultimate" combination of lush, organic sound, but with precision and plenty of power. A friend who is a high end audio reviewer, and who actually wasn’t fond of Thiel speakers (felt they were always too bright when heard at shows/stores etc) was simply blown away by the combo. He felt "it just doesn’t get much better than that." |
One of my CJ amps had to go in to the shop momentarily and an audio-pal lent me his Bryston 4B3: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1073-bryston-4b3-stereo-mono-amplifier I tested it on my Spendor S3/5s and then my Joseph Audio Perspective speakers. I had the usual reaction when I use solid state: wow, neato grip and power, density, transient edge vividness etc. Really fun. But once I got my CJ amp back and compared...I was definitely still in the "tube" camp. They sounded about as powerful, but richer, fuller, more organic and beautiful. Next up I'll be trying the Bryston with my Thiel 2.7s. I've never heard the 2.7s with solid state so this should be interesting. |
@jon_5912 I don't know that the CJ is rolling off the treble. At least, it doesn't sound like it - it doesn't sound darker, in fact a bit more lower treble illumination. In comparison the Bryston actually sounds a bit darker. And of course the differences I'm describing fits in to the "picky little audiophile differences" category. But as we all know, those little differences we seize on to can have big subjective effects in how we enjoy our systems. I swear, sometimes I feel like I might not even be in this hobby if it weren't for tube amps :-) |
I tried throwing the Bryston 4B3 amp in to the system again today, doing some back and forth between it powering the Thiels and my CJ tube amp. I keep thinking "I’ll put it in and just live with it for a while." But when I put on familiar tracks - e.g. Talk Talk’s Happiness Is Easy - I can’t help be taken aback by the difference. "Where is that roundness, fullness, 3 dimensionality of the images?" By 3 dimensionality I don’t mean that with the Bryston the Thiels don’t image/soundstage. They certainly do, with precisely placed voices and instruments. But the voices and instruments themselves sound flattened dimensionally and tonally. More like the way "3D" images look on those old viewmasters - a series of flatt images placed in 3D relief. That’s an exaggeration, but essentially the nature of the difference I perceive. I put back in the CJ, and everything sounds bigger, more filled out, the drum kick and snare sound rich, with a present texture, the drum-set now seems more 3 dimensional like I’m peering in to the studio, voice sounds organic, acoustic guitars have that similar golden sparkle I hear from my own guitar, etc. And with the Bryston, string/keyboard parts that usually float organically and 3D sound thinner, flatter, more icy in tone and texture. Interestingly, this is exactly the character I perceived when my friend switched from his tube set up to the Bryston, at his house. Ever since then I’ve found a slightly off-putting coldness/hardness/icy quality to the sound - things sound clear but nothing sounds organic and real. (Though I never tell him this! I know not to excite audiophilia nervosa!) Anyway, none of that is to say the Bryston is objectively worse than the CJ tube amps. The Bryston also brings some excellent qualities. Just not the ones I tend to value first. |
I use the CJ Premier 12 monoblocks (140W/side).Tube richness but with power, grip, control and nothing "slow" about the sound. Michael Fremer truly nailed the sound in this review: https://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/653/index.html |
jafant The Premier 12s don’t have easily user accessible 2,4,8 Ohm taps, but they are available in the design so a local dealer can apparently switch them to whatever tap you want. They come configured for 4 Ohm taps, which makes sense because, per JA’s measurements, they seem to be essentially designed for 4 Ohm output, generating most power/least distortion at 4 Ohm. That’s no doubt why they seem to have worked so well with all sorts of lower sensitivity/harder to drive speakers I’ve owned including the Thiels. The CJs don't seem to "need" a high sensitivity or higher/even impedance load to work great. Since my Joseph speakers are closer to 8 Ohms I did some research in to whether it made sense to have the CJs configured for 8 Ohm output.But research yielded information suggesting that it’s actually generally best to go with a 4 Ohm output if you can (and not just with the CJ tube amps). Even for tube amps that increase power output at 8 Ohms, or speakers that are 8 Ohms, apparently a 4 Ohm output will tend to yield the best accuracy and bass control. So for some amp/speaker pairings you may loose a tiny bit of power headroom, for slightly better sound out of 4 Ohm taps (and since it will likely be a mostly inconsequential amount, the overall better sound from the 4 Ohm can be the better choice). Again, since the CJ outputs the most power/accuracy at 4 Ohm, I leave it there and it works great with my Joseph speakers too. |
