Thiel Owners

I can offer what I find to be nearly ideal for my 2.4 listening position/setup.  Speakers 8' apart center-to-center, toed-in 10 degrees each or less, grilles on.  9.5' coax to my ear.  38" listening height.  I use the coax as my reference point as that defines the source of the most-directional sound and imaging and phase information comes from when making small adjustments to position.

But I've used the spikes to tilt the speakers back an unspecified amount, a little bit because my ear is 2" higher than design, but mostly due to having more vertical latitude for frequency balance.  Stereophile's vertical response graphs illustrate (though perhaps at too close a distance) that response above the coax axis sucks-out the lower-mids, and below the coax further fills-in the lower-mids.  So even if I give up some degree of time/phase coherency by tilting the speaker further back (altering arrival times ever-so-slightly from spec) I get more wiggle-room before midrange suck-out.

Additionally, each speaker is pretty much in free-space,  6' from cabinet edges to either side wall and 3' to a 'soft' back wall, 6' to a 'hard' back wall.  Nothing at all diffractory around the speakers or between the speakers and my ears, or even to the sides, after a little living room tweakage for a proper listening session, ie move the coffee table behind the speakers rather than right in front of the couch. 

A thick pile carpet, soft cushy furniture against the back wall, and an 8'x2' acoustical absorber behind the couch/listening positions.

RTA shows a lumpy low-frequency response due to my open floor plan asymmetrical living room (though this also puts 25Hz at 0dB ref 1kHz!), but otherwise lets the Thiels be Thiels with as little room interference as possible.  So I'm fortunate my current living space allows for such a great setup for any speaker to sound their best.

Tom,

Thanks so much for weighing in.  I do enjoy a listening height of 3', which I noticed from your earlier posts is a critical factor in finding the sweet spot.  It also makes complete sense that there are many variables at play that have a greater impact on sound than focusing on precise placements.  But as you well know, we love to get lost in the details!  And with so much out there about distance from the walls, the listening position, and each speaker (including 3 full pages with 5 diagrams that Jim dedicated to it in my 3.7 manual), I just couldn't resist asking what people think the norm is (so thanks as well for mentioning you measure from the tweeter/midrange).  

Room treatments is probably my biggest missing element.  Presently I have an "acoustifuser" panel on my wall behind the listening spot that I purchased from Next Generation Acoustics, but nothing else to speak of besides some well position furniture and window shades.  Part of the issue is aesthetics (yes, it's a weakness), but it also is another rabbit hole that I fear I'll never get out of.  Of course, that also is where the fun lies..

Dhoff - I'll add some context to your location question. Mostly, the spot you choose is up to you. You keep track of locating the speaker in your space and dimensions are handy for doing that.

In the background, is that the issues in play are rather larger than which spot you pick. The driver integration, lobing, room reflections, etc. are more dependent on the room variables than on the measurements. The spot I use is the tweeter plate, which is the same distance from the listener as the sonic centers of the midrange and woofer, which are both hard to determine, but closer to their voice coils than the baffle.

Relatedly, the angle of launch into the room is of great importance, but lacks an easy numeric measurement. That angle is influenced by how far the listener is off-axis, and also how the mix of the various frequencies of the various drivers is delivered into the room and the listener. I tilt the speaker back vertically to account for my 42" ear position (against the 3' design position). That tilting also affects the sonic envelope due to floor interactions which are different than the design assumptions (seated on a couch at 3' ear height).
The fun never stops.

Jafant,

I currently measure the same way you do.  From my ear(s), I measure just over 8 feet from where the base of the speaker is.  Speakers are also 8 feet apart (measured from the center of each speaker) and 2’ 6” from the back walls (measured from the closest point on the rear of the speaker, which is near the top).  After a lot of trial and error, I find that placing the speakers on the long wall provides the best results for me, so while I sacrifice some in terms of distance from the back wall, I enjoy 5’ of distance from each side wall (measured from the tweeter).  But since my room measures at 20x15, I don’t have much wiggle room in terms of distance from the wall behind the listening position and the distance behind the speakers.  I try to keep my ears at least 3 feet from the wall behind me, which I think makes a bigger difference than the distance behind the speakers. 

Long winded way of saying I’m curious if everyone measures the same way.  Do you measure from the outside of the cabinet, from the tweeter, from the center line, or a mix (like me) depending on which wall/speaker you’re looking at?  I’d love to hear Tom Thiel’s thoughts too..

Thanks,

David

arvincastro
You ears do  not deceive. White Ladder is a well-produced recording by David Gray.  This year the album celebrates a 20th anniversary.Enjoy the Music!
Happy Listening!

dhoff01
Good to see you again.  I suspect that each of us could measure from a different part of the loudspeaker. Personally, I measure from the front of the base (bottom cabinet) where the Thiel logo is located.Using this method, I have never had an issue considering our beloved speakers offer pin-point imaging.  Keep us posted as you test your own preference.
Happy Listening!

Hello all!

Haven't posted in a while, but happy to see the "usual suspects" as well as some new posters contributing to this great thread...I hope everyone is safe and well.

Tonight, looking to listen to something on the more mellow side, I decided to revisit David Gray's "White Ladder" album (streamed from Tidal, then from my own CD ripped to my Bluesound Vault).  While Gray's music can be lumped into the "Mom Rock/Pop" category, I always felt his song writing and musicality were way better than other performers (i.e. singers) of the genre.  Listening to this album tonight, I couldn't help but feel that I was listening to something that should be considered as reference-quality material.

For whatever reason, I never realized how ell recorded this album is:  the backgrounds are dead quiet, which really helps heighten the moody tone of the songs as well as allow Gray's vocals to be presented with some real air to them.  The musical performance is excellent as well...piano being Gray's primary instrument, his playing shines here as well as multi-layered strings and percussion giving you a sense of how complex the music is, yet presented in such an easy, soothing way.  But, most of all, many of the tracks on "White Ladder" have electronic components to them, primarily drum/beat machines.  This is what surprised and captivated me the most...low, deep bass with real slam and snap to the timing.  My 3.5's conveyed this with astonishing authority...bass that could be felt and heard, but never without a sense of musicality.

Again, I don't know exactly why this album, which I have always loved and have known well, sounded so different (in a very good way!) to me tonight.  I chalk it up to finally having that second D240 MKII ARC amp in my system and running them bridged-mono...480 watts/channel is a lot of watts.  But more importantly, I guess I'm just in a very comfortable place where the music just sounds so good coming out of my system, no matter what I select to play.  

Anyway...if you haven't heard the album, I recommend giving it a listen.  And if you have, I suggest listening to it again with an ear to its musicality and complexity.  You may be pleasantly surprised to find a new reference-quality recording! 

Thanks for reading and contributing to this forum...I truly learn so much from you all.  Again, I hope you and yours are all staying safe and doing well...Take care!

Arvin

Quick question (and forgive me if this has been asked and answered before) - when measuring the distance between the 3.7 (or 2.7) and the listening position, do you measure from the tweeter/midrange or the woofer?  I assume that it’s the tweeter, but given the slope of the speakers the measurement can change depending on the focal point.

Thanks,

David

All

yesterday's HiFi Chats featured Micheal Fremer of Stereophile fame.

Happy Listening!

frankm1

Stereophile Test CDs are excellent and can be found on the cheap from eBay.  Keep me posted on which disc(s) purchased.

Happy Listening!

Hed - the EQ itself is not the problem; the problem is that producing that much bass down to 40 or 20 Hz takes lots of muscle. No accident that subwoofers sport kilowatt amps! The eq presents a benign, non-reactive amp load which is easier to drive than the more reactive passive radiator loading of newer Thiel products. In Frank's small room, his amp might fill the bill.

hedwigstheme

Welcome! The CS 2.4 can be easily found on the secondary market.
Keep us posted upon acquiring a pair of Thiel loudspeakers.

Happy Listening!

I've never had a Thiel although I have heard a few in the distant past. Hope to pick up a 2.4/2.7/3.7 someday--too much stuff right now.

I could easily be wrong on this, but I thought that I read that the Thiel equalizer puts a demanding load in the bass on an amplifier and that a 200 watt/ch solid state at 8 ohms that doubles into 4 ohms and again into 2 ohms was recommended regardless of room size and listening volume.

I’m in the process of acquiring a test cd so I can better identify just what is going on with the bass. Will keep everyone posted. 

Frank - your description suggests the EQ is not working. I suggest getting a test recording. In your room, the deep bass should be big and boomy, and the woofer and midrange should visibly pump much harder than without the EQ.

Thanks for the suggestions. I know the eq has been recently recapped so I suspect it is operating properly. Although I’ve never really used an equalizer I do currently have one ( other than the Thiel one) in my system - see my virtual system under ‘Frankm1’s (mostly) vintage system’. I’ll try the 40 setting for a while and try some different source material. 

Happy Friday! All

I’m guessing you meant un-equalized CS 1.2’s?
Checking the eq is a good suggestion. I’ve never had a problem with mine, but in the last 30 years there have been some reports of eq issues. Your available power is just about the minimum suggested for the 3.5’s, but it is a small (and not ideally proportioned) room, and that might the reason for the limited bass response. I’ll hazard a guess and say the 40 Hz setting will probably work better in your room.

Can you hear a difference with the eq in or out of the chain? With the eq should make a noticeable difference. Otherwise your eq may needs a check up. I have had 2 of mine repaired as they are vulnerable to static electricity.

unsound

I have the equalizer between the preamp (Marantz 7T) and the amp (Marantz 15). I've tried the 20 and the 40 settings but haven't detected any difference. I have had the amp and preamp completely gone through and restored as needed. The amp, although rated at 70 watts into 4 ohms is actually putting out 80 watts. I know that may be on the low side but the room is not large - about 12X12X8. The bass doesn't really seem to be significantly different from the equalized 1.2's. Maybe my expectations were too high; I was hoping to be able to feel it (without too much volume)!  

frankm

Welcome! The 3.5 loudspeaker is a Panel favorite. New, old or vintage this thread offers something for every Audiophile. Take your time perusing as there is a plethora of information. Have fun!
I look forward in reading more about your system and musical tastes.

Happy Listening!

^You shouldn’t have issues with bass depth. Bass volume can be a bit shy. Do you have the eq set up correctly? Unless you’re amplifier and/or room compromised, bass should be a strong suit.

I have commented before, but an additional comment might be in order.That is that terminology often obscures the discussion. Some of that obfuscation is purposeful, some is accidental. It may help to insert the word ’polarity’ when it fits. Polarity, here, is the direction the driver moves when fed a signal. A 6-volt dc (battery) signal is appropriate. With plus to plus, the driver(s) should move out into the room. Coherent speakers do that, most don’t. A Wilson, KEF, etc. will leap-frog such that the woofer comes out, midrange goes in, tweeter comes out, etc. Those speakers are polarity-incorrect. Conversely, when all drivers come out, many companies call that ’phase correct’, despite any other phase or timing anomalies. I would call that ’all out’ condition ’polarity correct’. But most designers and critics consider either behavior as OK, whether all drivers move out, or leapfrog up the array, irrespective of many phase and time anomalies. That’s because the ear-brain can reassemble the intended wave-form, and do it quite well. I believe that many listeners, including pros, actually enjoy the mental gymnastics required to reassemble the waveforms. Consider that the BBC ruled that if an individual person can distinguish positive or negative air pressure (polarity inversion), the preference-judgement is personal. Their ’research’ demonstrated that a majority of their subjects preferred negative polarity, which would make a drum hit (for instance) suck rather than blow. The leading edge would be a vacuum whereas it was a pressure wave from the real drum. The BBC deemed that the negative pressure attack was more polite and acceptable. - preferred by more (British) listeners.

In that light, the typical designer generally strives for ’listenability’, that polite, acceptable presentation, which is quite often not what the microphone ’heard’ or the recording stream produced. (Deeper discussion deferred that many ’modern’ recordings invert various polarities to ’fill the mix’.) But I am addressing the speaker reproducing its input signal. Wilson (as example) inverts polarity at each driver exchange (crossover point.) Good engineering executes the hand-off between drivers with smooth phase transitions. The absence of abrupt glitches gives the ear-brain no hard evidence of trouble. And most design styles, companies and critics call that victory.

In contrast Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen (and a few other oddballs) chose to preserve the phase-time information intact. Many of you guys appreciate that, most people do not. When phase is kept intact AND the drivers are aligned so that their leading edge transients all reach the ear simultaneously (time-alignment), we call that Coherence. I notice that today the C word usually means ’smooth phase transitions’. rather than our assignment of ’integrated waveform’ period. First order roll-offs (including electrical and acoustic elements) sum to produce zero phase shift. (One driver leads by the same amount that the other lags, such that at the design listening distance, they sum to produce no shift.) Add physically equidistant sound sources, and you get an actual representation of the input signal representing the recorded sound, with no need for the brain to descramble the phase and time information. Thiel and Vandersteen decided that goal of authenticity was worth all the difficulty of making it right. The industry at large does not consider that element of fidelity to be important, or important enough to warrant its difficulties.

I suggest pulling out ’phase’, ’polarity’ and ’time’ in trying to understand the landscape. Richard Hardesty’s journal has been cited here. I consider his clarity and teaching style to be stellar.

@erik_squires, I think you might have me confused with someone else; I never made such an assertion.  I was merely replying to your response to my 06-07-2020 post on this thread.

@unsound

I could find nothing in that post which supports your statement that flipping polarity of a driver is in any way related to it behaving like a pistonic driver.

I suggest you quote any relevant sections.

@ctsooner , @erik_squires , et al, 


Please see the post by the late Roy Johnson dated 05-09-2005,
12th paragraph:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/first-order-crossovers-pros-and-cons

brayeagle
Your hearing is still healthy as the CS 2.7 is not harsh in presentation nor sound. Hope you are well this early Summer evening.

Happy Listening!

cascadesphil

I believe that one of the Panel members reached out to Rob Gillum regarding those filters? The answer was not to change any of the OEM parts.

Happy Listening!

Maybe it's just my ears, but I haven't heard the harshness described in my 2.7s

Poor recordings can emphasize sound in that region. 

YMMV

@cascadesphil 
I cannot imagine modifying the filters for the CS3.7 (really, any speaker but especially first order designs) based on John Atkinson’s quasi-anechoic measurements! That’s whack.

 I actually exchanged messages with that ebayer (his ebay history is spotless!) as I was buying my 2.4SEs. He had an ad for tweaking the 2.3 and 2.4 XO. I was flirting with the upgrade idea even before exchanging ideas with Tom Thiel. I am super glad I worked with Tom instead! 

Just out of curiousity - anyone try this?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/153963516829#viTabs_0

"Pistonic motion" does not.

To be fully accurate:  at a high enough frequency most cone drivers eventually have break up modes where the driver no longer functions as a piston.  It is the speaker designer's job to account for this in picking the driver and low pass filter.

There is no "true piston" vs. not designation in traditional drivers, just what range and what output levels they remain pistonic in.

The exception that proves the rule though are the Ohm type drivers, which are decidedly NOT pistonic. I believe they are fixed at one end, and driven at the other.

One area in phase that you is always left out is the phase of the midrange cone during playback. If you look at the Wilson midrange it’s out of phase as it’s not a true pistonic driver.

I’m sorry but this is misinformed.

The correct polarity of the driver (which terminal is attached to + or - wires) has nothing to do with "true pistonic" motion. We assume they’re all pistonic in their operating range. The reason a speaker designer may flip a driver is to phase match the driver above or below it. The output’s phase angle is related to the rolloff.  This flip ensures optimum frequency response across the crossover region.  In fact, using positive polarity would create a deep null.

With traditional (non time-aligned) 2-way speakers, flipping the tweeter relative to the woofer is quite common. With three, having the mid-range flipped relative to the woofer and tweeter is.

The angle of the speaker’s baffle, the acoustic center of a driver and the crossover slopes all contribute to these choices. "Pistonic motion" does not.

Lastly, if we are talking about the sliced paper cone drivers Wilson uses, those are some of the very best sounding mid and mid-woofers in the world. I have them in my own speakers and many high end manufacturers have turned to them as well. They are amazing.

One area in phase that you is always left out is the phase of the midrange cone during playback.  If you look at the Wilson midrange it's out of phase as it's not a true pistonic driver.  That's not marketing hype by Vandersteen.  

I have no idea, but I wonder if the pre 2000 cones were phase correct for any speaker?  There are break up's when they aren't pistonic and it throws things out of phase.

On the flip side of phase, not everyone is effected by it.  Some folks don't even notice it, but they may notice soundstage depth and pinching in the rear.  Those who don't notice phase anomalies may be more aware of stage size etc...  We all hear differently. 

I'm the first to say that I couldn't listen to Wilson speakers until recently.  They have done a great job of making a dynamic speaker, that is non fatiguing, but to MY ears lack the micro and macro details that I am aware of as my Vandersteen's don't smear.  It effects the leading and trailing edges per say.  

All speakers have to have compromises.  It's who's compromises you like best or who's marketing you buy into.  Makes it fun.

Hi @unsound,

All multi-way speakers employ crossovers, and the phase must align correctly or there will be frequency response anomalies and lobing effects.

What I suggest you do is look at the Stereophile reviews for Thiel and Vandersteen speakers and compare them to say Monitor Audio or Wilson. your answer is there.

As I understand it; a speaker might be phase correct but not time correct, where as a time correct speaker will be phase correct.

I can promise you that to MY ears there are differences for sure.  The deal with all digital is that it's so room/house dependent. That's mostly for power cords and conditioners and grounding.  Ethernet and USB do make a noticeable difference to me though.

Dave is a great guy and really knows his stuff.  He's fascinating to talk to.

yesterday's HiFi Chats via YouTube featured Dave Gordon of ARC.

Fast forward to around 30:15 where Dave said "not all USB cables sound the same".  I am sure a lot of people will have issues with that :-)

tomthiel

Thank You for another Thiel Audio history lesson. Hope you are well this early Summer day.

Happy Listening!

Add Brinkman to that list and you have zero feedback designs that work BEST with TRUE time and phase correct speakers like Thiel and Vandersteen.  Many speakers will claim they are like Wilson, but only the adjustable Wilson's are time correct, but are in no way phase correct as they claim.  

Cool history regarding Dave Gordon! I’m an A-hole: my favorite electronics are Ayre, Aesthetix, and ARC.

And it may interest you that Dave was Thiel's national sales manager from the late 80s to 90s. He moved his family to Lexington to help Thiel navigate their rapid growth into compatible and excellent dealers that he knew from ARC and Magnepan. He eventually went back home to ARC, and everyone was better for the experience.

All

yesterday's HiFi Chats via YouTube featured Dave Gordon of ARC.
We have many members of the Panel who own ARC gear for their Thiel Audio loudspeakers.

Happy Listening!

Happy Friday! All

@stspur 
I don’t think you’re going to find a 630V EL. If you’re swapping for fresh ELs just match the voltage rating. The high voltage *film* caps are for critical feed path placement in which higher voltage = thicker film = better sound. 
Now, if your 3.6 is like @vair68robert CS2.7 and you have ELs in the feed path and you want to upgrade to film caps then you might need to go to an outboard solution. And be prepared to $pend.

I want to update my statement about stereo vs bridged Benchmark AHB-2 use. I spoke with John Siau today who said they updated their software to allow current to 1 ohm at full power, with no sacrifice of noise or distortion performance. Any Thiel model can be used either stereo or bridged. I listened today and found very slight subjective differences. Stereo produces slightly more 'air' and sense of harmonic detail. Bridged produces slightly fuller bass lines, probably due to the halving of damping factor from 370 to 185. Bass still sounds clean and tight. JS does not relate to these subjective differences. I will change from bridged to stereo, using one channel of each amp per speaker for a slightly better 'I am there' presentation, since 100 watts provides more than enough volume in my space.

I'll also correct my statement of limited audiophile acceptance. My impression was wrong, they're selling like hotcakes. I love mine.

Many thanks for all the responses towards my 3.6 XO project. This is proving to be such fun already and so glad to have the history along the way! With regard to the Claritycaps: I see 250v and 630v option. I know that the 8.2uf version will be used as recommended by Tomthiel however, I can't seem to find 630v versons of some of the remaining ELs if required. The original Solen VersaTronics are rated at 400v so I'm a little stumpted here. I'm checking out Madisound and Partsconnexion for all components. Any other referrals would be greatly appreciated.

4 @ 100uF is what Jim always used. People here have recommended Mundorf's lytics. Or ask Jeff at Sonic Craft.

Thanks Tom
I am have a hard time finding " replacements " for the Topmay caps ,
I found AVS makes tantalums in the values needed and the are low 
ERS , so I was just wondering .
We talked about using 4 100uf 
Rob