Thiel Owners

Coherent speakers must heed the listening position to test properly. JA knows this. His normal, small room would add too many early reflections to give readable graphs. So he chose 50” which gives false readings for coherent sources. There are other review rags using more legitimate methods. 
Early on, JA explained, even apologized for the misleading readings. But subsequent ownership policy changed that.

   I now realize what I've been misinterpreting for fifteen years.  The infamous Stereophile measurements are taken at 50".  Their 2.4 test figure #5 "vertical response family" shows the 1kHz crossover suckout just above the tweeter axis. 
   So at my 9' listening position vs their 4' measurement position you suggest I have far more leeway for vertical response, even though my 38" listening position is only 2" above "ideal."  Whew.
   I can't understand how JA's 50" measurements correlate to the real world for any speakers but pure-nearfield mini-monitors, regardless of XO design or driver spacing, especially the large multi-ways they typically test.

sdecker - tilting is the less offensive solution. But the changes introduced by either tilting or lifting are very small and either provides better performance than listening at the 'wrong' window. The coherence puzzle has its requirements, and Jim chose the average 3' ear height as part of the solution. The window is not as small as some imagine it to be unless you sit closer than 8' where it falls apart very quickly. Sit at 10' and you get a lot of leeway.

The butcher blocks aren't a solution for me due to WAF and stability, and with Tom's information, why upset my frequency balance, when the bass in my room is outstanding as is?  But is tilting the speakers <1" back on spikes, which tilts the baffle back the same amount, launching the wavefront 'higher', as the laser pointer indicates 8" higher at 9'?  Even if in so doing I lose a couple degrees of phase and gain a taller listening window before midrange suckout?  Or don't I really?

stspur
Thank You for the update. Good to read we have another DIY member of the Panel.
Happy Listening!

Hey fellow Thiel 'Gonners! Just wanted to give you updates on my 3.6 XO project. Thanks for all the wonderful advice thus far! I placed orders for Mills MRA -12 resistors some time ago and they have trickled in slowly due to shipping delays from our present unpleasentness. The first round did come in last week and was able to place 1, 6, and 15 ohm resitors into service this weekend. WOW! I'm just astounded at difference just a few new resitors can make: much taller and wider sound stage with less congested imaging. Can't wait for the remaining to arrive and have already placed orders for the ClarityCap CSAs as well.

There is smige of midband Squack but I am to understand that it's from the heated solder and will settle after time. 24 hours in and I'm already noticing it's disipation.

I'm continuing to stick with original layout values for now however I discovered a discrepency in my XO setup: the original layout uses a 1.8ohm resistor in series after the midrange first station gang . my XO uses doubled 10 ohm restistors in it's place. These are original Thiel resistors so I know they were plaaced into service at the shop. I'm to understand that there were a few updates after the last layout was used and the final version printed though. Leave it to Jim and the team to continue upgrading even after production was well underway; a testimate to their integrity and passion. More to come.

Yes, the butcher block will work. But remember that the bass will shelve down at 200Hz to lose a little weight as you raise the woofer up from its design height from the floor.

dhoff01
Yes, butcher block will work.  Fine tune the height of speakers to your musical preference.
Happy Listening!

Summer Solstice- All

Happy Friday! All

jazzman7
Nice catch!   Happy Listening!

In case anyone is interested, The Music Room has just listed another    pair of CS 2.2s.   Asking $1299 plus freight.   Listed condition as 8 of 10.

https://tmraudio.com/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/thiel-cs2-2-floorstanding-speakers-cs-2-2-amberwood-pair/

sdecker - I was thinking more in terms of a butcher block or something similar to help raise the height, but I hear what you're saying.  

I'm also lucky in that I have my own dedicated room above the garage, but I still have to make it aesthetically pleasing for the missus.  Not that I'm complaining, of course..  

dhoff01: raising the speakers 2" on the spikes, if they could go up that high, would be precarious and less-stable.  Not that sound travels this way, but putting a laser pointer atop the speaker and raising the front spikes 1" up moves the laser pointer up 8" at my 9' listening distance.  I'm doing this to manage a taller vertical listening window w/o suckout, even though I'm sure it takes a very small hit in overall coherency.  The tiny amount of potential phase shift from this is still far better than every non-time-aligned speaker out there!

Regarding the positioning, a lot of it is a function of living room WAF symmetry.  But the walls to the side and rear are so far away from the speaker boundaries, I can't believe they play a role at these distances, especially because none of them are 'true' walls in my open floor plan.

If my toe-in was any less, it wouldn't be visible.  It was from putzing with speaker width apart vs soundstage breadth vs HF balance.  If I went from <10 deg toe-in to zero, the effect would be minimal for sure.  But after 15 years of tweaking these speakers to this acoustic, I can now notice ridiculously small changes.  So rather than obsess about it, I take the time to find a reasonable compromise and let them sit in that position for years :-)

Good stuff guys. Thanks for chiming in.

sdecker- instead of tilting the speakers, have you tried raising them altogether by a couple of inches so you can also maintain time/phase coherency? Or is there another disadvantage to doing it this way? Just curious..

I also find it interesting that you both toe in and you keep your speakers positioned equidistant in the corners. I prefer not to toe in mine, as I find it takes away from the width of the soundstage, but that’s just my personal preference. I also always heard that you shouldn’t place your speakers at the same distances to the side and back walls, but always questioned whether this was truly required when considering speaker placement.

dhoff01

I try to measure everything from or to the tweeter on my 2.7s ,
speakers are 8ft apart and 8ft 6 inches from my ears
31 inches from front wall and 32 inches from side wall 
with 1/2 inch toe in .
Listening height is 36 inches .

I just recently moved the speakers 6 inches further away and reduced the toe in by 1 inch after changing speaker cables  to take advantage 
of the improved depth and sound staging .



 

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.