Thiel Owners
Rob - for clarification, my experiment at your suggestion was to double-up my Morrow SP-4 cables. Each cable contained its traditional + and -, and that cable was paralleled with an identical + and - as in normal bi-wire, but with single pair of amp and speaker terminals. Your new concoction makes each entire cable either + or -. I compared this morning and must say that I am intrigued. I will listen more and defer any comments until after Beetle has commented. I also encourage others to make this comparison because it raises many questions. It can be carried out at any cable quality, as long as you can conjure 4 identical cable runs. I would love to hear comments from cable skeptics. Fascinating. So much to learn, so little time. |
@beetlmania I'm glad that you like what your hearing , more open , clear and dimensional is similar to what TT heard when he tried it , page 155 . Does your preamp have a left / right channel and mono option ? If this does end up sounding better to you then it would be a great upgrade because it was free and easy . |
@vair68robert I re-configured my cables per your suggestion last Tuesday. That night there was a subtle echoplex sound but I knew that these changes can take time to settle in. With the quarantine it’s been hard to have the house to myself but I did listen a bit yesterday with a critical ear. I have to say my system sounds better than ever: more open, clear, and dimensional . . . but that was also my opinion before I made this change. My modded 2.4s really sound great with my electronics. I plan to listen this way for another week or two then change back before declaring one or the other better. Regardless of possible sonic differences, the current configuration is physically more obtrusive with the cables extending out to about speaker width rather than promptly dropping to the floor. |
tomthiel, I am so impressed by your thoughtful and systematic approach to listening tests. Using a combination of unblinded and blinded testing is ideal. The problems with ABX testing have never been related to the fact that ABX is blinded, but rather the fact that it ignores basic characteristics of human perception, cognitive processing, and decision making. Your linkage to primitive fight or flight reactions is interesting and not something I have considered before. |
After mowing the lawn for the 3rd day in a row , (1 acre with an electric mower ) I thought I'd do something fun like checking out other Thiel owners virtual systems , they are beautiful ! Soon ( I hope ) my room will be presentable enough to show . Also some lite reading http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm . It's long but very informative . In Memoriam: Siegfried Linkwitz, 1935–2018Blogby Robert E. Greene | Oct 14th, 2019 After reading the artical in The Absolute Sound I learned why every time I tested an audiometer I had a dip in hearing in both ears at the 3-4khz frequencies . |
sdl4 - Thank you. As you know, our undertaking was more heart and soul than the standard business model. We took pride in how long people used our speakers, sometimes for generations. Subtlety and nuance was a requirement, not a nicety. I agree with your ABX comments and can add a couple more. You are not alone in "shutting down". I believe the judgement process is not only nearly impossible with the auditory chain, but actually misleading. I believe that several key factors are overlooked in the ABX model. Central among them is that the auditory processing response is closely linked to fight-flight / survival. We must immediately recognize the size, shape, weight, direction and speed of whatever made that noise in the woods. Sound is wired globally in our being. As such, the cognitive analysis of the sound is specifically shut down, especially in the right ear. Analysis is a luxury that the primal being can’t afford. So by applying ABX analysis and judgement, we are trying to short-circuit our primal experience of the sound (music). I believe that the global direct experience in fact contains the information that we need as designers and want as music listeners - connection to the stream of energy. I still use a refinement of the evaluation process we developed in the 1970s at Thiel Audio. Here goes a story demonstration: Some of you might remember Natasha, my young friend who listens to bats talk. Tasha happily has found love and moved out of town, which is great news for all concerned. But my ageing ears still want help. Good news is that I have found Marina Harris, a young singer-songwriter musician with outstanding natural hearing abilities. She is taking well to learning and relishing the listening that Tasha left behind. We have had two productive sessions, which served to underscore a very important element. That is Trust. Until she became secure that I was not "pulling a fast one" by repeating the musical segment with the same conditions, she was somewhat shy about proffering her opinions, and indeed could not really form them well. Once we established and she believed that I would always tell her the truth, and there would be no "fast ones", then she leaned into the task. The procol goes like this: Describe and agree on the protocol. No idea what we’re testing for. Play A while taking listening notes.Play B while taking listening notes(B has advantage of second hearing of same cut).Play an agreed part or all of A again - taking notes.Play same selection of B again - taking notes.Compare notes and discuss.Describe and discuss what we are testing for, such as doubling up the speaker cables, swapping an interconnect, speaker iterations, etc. including some description / speculation about how our notes relate to the systems under test.Then, armed with this experience and learning:Repeat A / B, A / B and discuss again. Note that by design at no time is a commitment required, and at no time can the listener be "caught out". ABXers consider that a cop-out. I consider it a necessity and my experience is that a valid session is always (and must be) replicable after scrambling A and B double blind. In other words, a third party can re-assign channels and substitute different audition material before the subsequent validation test. This protocol produces a wealth of information from many aspects including, technical, performance, emotional, memory/evocative, etc. I use it in evaluating recording sessions, mixes and masters as well as equipment and rooms. It makes ABX seem thin and poor. As a historical note, in the early 80s, when developing the CS3, we had developed a relationship with the University of Kentucky. They were willing to collaborate with us using medical, music and engineering students, if we were willing to use the ABX protocol. We did some trial runs, which served only to muddy the waters, and provided little if any productive information. Therefore, we opted out. I am convinced that if we had gone down their path, we would have ceased refining our multi-faceted development process. Plus we didn't have the time to indulge their ABX plan unless it provided valuable information for us, which it did not. I hope you’re all enjoying your opportunity for seclusion. I’m getting more time in the studio since the phone stopped ringing.Tom |
Tomthiel, I strongly agree with your statement about ABX testing and the pressure it puts on the judgment skills of the listener. I have participated in ABX tests of auditory judgment online and am able to tolerate the ABX procedures when the discriminations are not subtle, but as you say "ABX is irrelevant to nuance." What is often overlooked by proponents of ABX is that the judgment of whether two sounds or musical passages are different requires only to find a single element of "difference" while confirmation of "sameness" requires exploring all possible elements that can be perceived and matched by the human ear/brain. This task quickly stresses my cognitive systems and makes me want to shut down completely or simply focus on one or two possible elements to evaluate for sameness or difference. Unlike many critics of ABX, though, I do see the value of blind testing in addition to extended non-blind testing. For me, blind testing should be preceded by training the listener to hear differences between components in open listening and then confirming or disconfirming the results in blind testing. I also would argue for eliminating the "sameness" judgment that requires excessive cognitive processing and instead make it clear that each sound/music sample in a blind test is being played on a different component. The paradigm would still be blinded because the listener wouldn't know which component is which and the probability of success with random responding would remain at 50%. I am still using Thiel speakers after 28 years because you, your brother, and other folks at Thiel Audio heard nuances in your speakers that still make them a joy to listen to today. |
Andy - it's good to point out not only the article's conclusion, but also other aspects such as why are they doing it, and what is significant to whom. As a whole, the professional community thinks that wire doesn't matter. Audiophile sensibilities and nuances are often not on their radar. If a factor doesn't hold up to ABX scrutiny, they dismiss it out of hand. I have developed a neurological model showing how ABX is irrelevant to nuance. And many top-drawer pro audio practitioners know that they must "live with" a component or solution for a week or two in order to "get it". That's a different world than ABX, where a snap judgement is made regarding whether X matches A or B. It is their gold standard, but I believe it is testing the judgement priorities of the subject rather than the subtle, complex merits of a component or solution. |
I know for certain that many amp, cable and source practitioners and critics use Thiel as a tool to "see into" the source chain. I find that significant.I find that interesting is that now it’s probably harder to purchase Thiel speakers, what speakers do they use to evaluate their equipment now? Also the link I post demonstrates bit of an irony. Studios have resorted to using software to linearize the phase of their studio monitors, which means they obviously have to agree that it matters, but the article came off as saying the difference was not much. |
I and my clients can hear the difference between a correct, unaltered take, vs one that has been "linearized"Personally I also have my doubt as to the "software linearization" technique. It just seems too easy. Also we don’t know what type of hardware that was used in the studies. A lot of the DSP method was done on hardware that a bit on the humble side, and those hardware may represent a bottleneck in the studies and may have masked some of the differences. |
Thanks for mentioning that. Those studies assume that anything that is scrambled can be descrambled with no deleterious artifacts. Part of my profession has been pointing out those "inaudible problems" in mixes and masters. I and my clients can hear the difference between a correct, unaltered take, vs one that has been "linearized", etc. You know, a big part of the demise of "New Thiel" was that they chose to believe Toole, et al rather than construct their own comparisons. I offered to participate in those comparisons, and they said "no thanks"; they said knew what they were doing. |
I agree about the 'special sound', as we have discussed here. My take focuses on the brain power that is freed up by not having to descramble the phase errors in other systems. I find the difference significant as do some others. "The Industry" (Toole et al) dismiss it in various ways as trivial. I know for certain that many amp, cable and source practitioners and critics use Thiel as a tool to "see into" the source chain. I find that significant. |
phase coherence made other anomalies much more obvious, requiring solutions to problems that would have remained invisible in normal phase-compromised systems.Yes, I would agree with this. I also think first order, time-phase coherent design has a "special sound" that cannot be found in other types of design as I have said so in some of my previous posts. Also, FYI, the studies done in my previous post (said link) was not necessarily done using first order speaker. I won't go into much detail, but basically they use a front end DSP software to linearize the phase to make the speaker 0 phase even if the speakers were LR2 or LR4. I suppose the difference would be more obviously if the studies were done using purely first order speakers. |
Andy - thanks for the article. I would mention that some of the statements are broad enough in nature that they don't apply to any specific loudspeaker in its use conditions. Of course, I mean Thiel. Toole's statement that off axis (vertical and horizontal) integration always suffers (paraphrase) is such a statement. Indeed it is true. But it is also true that a Thiel speaker 30° or 60° off axis is linear in both phase and amplitude. It is clearly true that the 1st order vertical axis lobing requires a single vertical listening position, ear height 3' up at 8' plus distance. But the up-tilting driver orientation and the resultant off-axis listening axis serve to create an average in-room phase and amplitude power response that is quite respectable, often bettering non-aligned counterparts. As to the obvious dynamic range limitations due to large driver excursions - granted. First order slopes don't work well for stadium coverage or high-amplitude monitors. Driver overload is the Achilles Heel that we constantly fought and gradually improved. Drivers burn out or fatigue when asked to cover large frequency bands. But for livingroom hi fi, Thiel developed drivers that did well enough. Despite the claim of near or no audibility of phase correctness in real playback rooms, Thiel demonstrated it over a long period of years to our complete satisfaction that phase coherence was audible enough to merit tackling all the hassles that came with it. And for some jujitsu, phase coherence made other anomalies much more obvious, requiring solutions to problems that would have remained invisible in normal phase-compromised systems. |
For those who prefers time-phase coherent design, you may find this article interesting. They compared an identical speaker that was done with time-phase coherent and with more conventional approach. Since the comparison was done on the same identical speaker, it has some credibility. You could read the article, but the finding was the difference was subtle and more clearly heard in an
anechoic chamber but if done in a regular living room, with reflections and all that, the difference was more difficult to hear. https://audioxpress.com/article/zero-phase-in-studio-monitors |
@oblgny , Have you ever considered Thiel CS 2's? I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just offering an option for consideration. I know you're a fan of the 3.5's, but circumstances might be keeping you from those. I see CS 2's regularly listed for a few hundred bucks. Somewhat similar to the 3.5's in sonic signature, but also somewhat easier to drive. Other than perhaps for some amplifiers and to a lesser extant some speaker cables, upstream components would suit both equally well. If and when considering, do make sure to inspect the drivers. Though the CS 2's might have been Thiel's most durable models, I've seen examples of unscrupulous sellers passing off other drivers as OEM. The CS 2's somewhat unique grills, which perhaps more so than any other Thiel model needs to be in place when used, have additional and rather sturdy double sided tape attached to the baffle. At first it might seem as though the grills can't be removed, but they can. Be sure to inspect that the drivers are genuine Thiel's. All in all the CS 2's might make transitioning back to 3.5's when circumstances permit rather easy. |
@beetlmania Thanks , when I made my speaker cables there were 2 main variables replacing the 2 x 11.5 awg ( 8.5 awg ) Neutral Reference speaker cables with 1 x 9.5 awg chassis wire and keeping them sperated to eliminate capacitance . I was well rewarded by doing this but I can't tell which change had the most positive affect . |
jafant... Everything is fine here, albeit a bit "On The Beach" for everyone. I live out in the 'burbs (close to Stony Brook U.) so maintaining the socially acceptable distance between humans is not as difficult as it is for Manhattan residents. My sister resides in lower Manhattan and her best descriptions repeat "surreal" over and over. Even out here in the 'burbs the optics can be off-putting - shopping mall parking lots completely empty, playgrounds and small local parks cordoned off with crime-scene tape, gasoline at $2.09 a gallon! Aaargh! I just picked up a pair of Usher Audio X-719 stand mounted monitors whilst I await the sale of my Totem Acoustic Rainmakers. (My Thiel CS2.4's are committed to) I have a great deal of admiration for the Rainmakers, but I discovered that my living room might just be a tad too large for them to truly shine. I had a pair of these a few years ago with different amplification, so that might also be a contribution. The X-719's have a slightly larger woofer which has fleshed out the pressurization admirably; they are ported, and I do detect a smidgen of bass bloom on some music so I am currently looking to fashion some foam plugs for the ports to see what happens. (I have posted a pic on my virtual systems page.) In the past, among many other things since joining this confounded community, I owned a pair of Usher's CP-6311 floorstanders which I enjoyed a LOT, so I was already somewhat familiar with their performance/sonics. Like the Rainmakers the x-719's are bi-wwire capable and I am awaiting a pair of Bluejeans cables with banana plugs fore and aft - the space on the Rainmakers and the X-719's is a royal pain in the ass to monkey around bi-wiring with spades. I am now using a pair of non-descript bi-wire cables that I rastled from the snake pit of accessories I keep near the main setup. And to think I used to just toss things away willy-nilly... Other than that I have been enjoying the heck out of my Qobuz subscription. I have totally abandoned Apple's iTunes and its replacement, Music. It just stinks. I've used Tidal in the past and enjoyed it, but Qobuz is $14.99 monthly for the high-rez while Tidal is $19.99. Admittedly, Tidal's catalogue is deeper, but as I discovered through my memberships on each, one has slightly differing catalogues than the other in terms of depth, but that probably has more to do with obtaining the rights/licensing etc., etc., etc. Not a big deal at all considering that I use the service as a complement to my collection, not a replacement or subsitute. In the absolute end, done at near-field listening comparison, Qobuz just sounded BETTER. Sheesh - i went on a bit here, aye? Chalk it up to the virus and time on hand! Be well, stay safe, and turn it up! |
I looked at your systems page , you do have 2 GR bi-wired cables ! Base crossover wiring on the bottom and mid/tweeter on top ? Try taking cable #1 and make it + , both black and red at the amp take cable #2 and make it - , both black and red at the amp at the speaker end take cable #1 black to bass + and red to m/t + then cable #2 black to bass - and red to m/t - ( I think I got this correct ) Give this a try and let everyone know what you hear . |
My amp has only one output per channel but they are Cardas binding posts (identical to what I put on the Thiels) which accept spades from either side. No issue to hookup two runs. Even tri-wiring would probably fit on a single post if your speaker had a corresponding XO. If I understand your other question, no. And I can longer try that as I sent my jumpers to Tom Thiel for his experimentation. I have a couple of pics on my system page. |
@vair68robert I chose red and black wires and one of them had a slightly less flexible jacket, making the twisting a bit asymmetrical. Helped to have one end anchored as I twisted at the other. You definitely need to add length. I didn’t take notes on my raw and finished lengths. Maybe add 25%? I am bi-wiring, not bi-amping. The latter probably results in the very best sound but I’ve been told that most of the benefit comes from the more affordable solution. My wife already thinks I’m crazy. I suppose it’s true :) |
Thank You @beetlemania Tom's solution looks like a more balanced increase in guage , than going from 15.5 mids to 11.5 which might be to much . I"ll have to learn the hand twist +/- to 3 turns per inch , how much longer per foot does the twisting add ? I have already worked with Caradas wire , I'm using a 96.5% tin , 3% silver and .5% copper bar in the solder pot . I'm a 97.5% vinyl and 2.5% CD guy ( only because some albums are not available or to expensive ) . Do you bi-amp with your bi-wiring ? Rob |
@vair68robert Cardas Audio recommended 11 ga input on the woofer but Tom T steered me to this solution: Woofer: input 15 + 17.5 twisted together (effective gauge 13) output to woofer: 15 Coax: input 15 output 17.5 Note that you have to tin the Cardas Litz. I bought a solder pot for this purpose (Cardas charges $5 per end). PM me if you want my solder pot. Tom also instructed me to hand twist +/- wires to, IIRC, three turns per inch. The final result was very satisfying. Hard to describe in words . . . Sort of snapped the soundscape into a coherent focus. A nice culmination to all the upgrades I made to the XO. Also, I used the opportunity to make my 2.4s bi-wirable, replaced the single pair of OEM binding posts (which were partly brass) with two pairs of Cardas CPBP (rhodium over silver). I used Cardas jumper plates to compare bi- vs single runs of speaker cables. IME, the biwire solution sounded more liquid and engaging. I’m a happy camper. Had my DAC upgraded (Ayre QB-9 Twenty) and that is probably the last change I will make to my system other than to try Tom’s baffle treatment on the 2.4s. |
Reubent - a general note: The 2.3 was the first generation of the passive coax. That coax and the woofer were bettered by the 2.4. But the crossover topologies are the same, and many of the values are same or similar. Eventual performance upgrades will apply to both models, and 2.4 drivers should become retrofittable to 2.3s with appropriate XO changes. |
Hello Thiel aficionados, I have a friend who is building a new home and he is going to have a bonus room above the garage that will be a dedicated man cave (in the sky). He has asked me to assist him in putting together a $5k system, using new or used components. I'm keeping an eye on the local Craigslist to see if anything pops up. There is a pair of gloss black Thiel CS2.3 available locally. They were purchased new in 2000 from a local hi-end shop and they have all of the original packaging and accessories. Currently asking a tic over $1000. Is this a potentially good option at this price? Thanks for any feedback or guidance. Not locked into Thiel, just searching locally for a good value in a hi-end speaker. |
@beetlemania I have a question ( and your opinion ) about your guage selection for both the woofer in/out and the coax in/out . All Thiel speakers used 18awg in and out , Tom Thiel has advised increasing the the guage from speaker post to X-over boards , which I am planing on doing . I will be increasing the input to 11.5awg since I am using 9.5awg Cardas chassis wire for speaker wires . Question While I've thought about using different gauges to the speakers ( 11.5 to woofers , 15.5 to mids and 17.5 to the tweeters ) do you believe that the different gauges worked for you ( you said you had a smile on your face ) or do you think that using the same gauge ( 17.5 ) as in OEM would have been the way to go ? I'll be installing 9.5awg and Cardas posts in and on my amp , then Cardas posts on the Speakers ( just placed my order for ) . I plan on replacing the speaker wiring as the first upgrade . Thanks Rob |
rosami Thanks for the input on that. For the past 17 years mine have been on a second floor dedicated room, but it was built in such a way that the part where the speakers sat had joists running a short direction of only 6’, which definitely played a part in the rooms interaction. The low midrange hump I was getting elsewhere was gone. Now, I’ll have them on slab floors (hardwood on slab) and have zero idea how they’ll sound - but assume they’ll be as fast as I barely remember in the shop 35 years ago. I definitely want to try something like the iso-acoustics out once I live with them for a few weeks and get the room more or less tuned. It’s driving me nuts that they’re literally 5 blocks away from me right now, and with our shelter-in-place I can’t get the movers over there. I’d dearly love some tunes in this big empty house right now! Ugh. I’ve got an old Adcom 555 pre/amp in the garage, I might try doing something as an interim/streaming setup and some inexpensive bookshelves. I’m about Netflixed out!I’ll keep you posted. |
Unsound - you're right. Tennessee is decidedly the South, where things can move pretty slowly. Kentucky is "a place betwixt and between", with elements of many cultures and none in predominance. Lexington feels like a small cosmopolitan city, whereas Nashville feels like a southern town driven by country music. |
I spoke to Rob on February 21. I ordered paint masks and Thiel logos (they stick on and hide one of the screws) for my Power Points I use as front height channels. I'm going to get the room painted (which is huge as a bunch of rooms connect) probably sometime in the next year or so and wanted to have them on hand. |
There is a new loudspeaker on the scene in the tradition of Time -I’ve read the review and also the interview with the designer but I couldn’t find any reference to it being "time-phase coherent". He did mention the slanted baffle was made to "time align" the tweeter and woofer acoustic center but that does not necessarily mean a "time-phase coherent" design. https://www.audiophilia.com/reviews/2019/12/19/59hvvshkumcd2ft8l8oglik1j7r18c Also the woofer seems rather large, probably around 7in., which may have an issue running at a higher frequencies to match the tweeter which is required of the woofer if using first order design. It may explain why most of Thiel designs using smaller than average mid driver. Anyway, my 2cents. |
Good to see you again. Are you building a new loudspeaker?What else is on your radar this Spring season?I've been detoxing :-) I've recently converted a 3-way speakers, that previously was designed with higher order filters, to first order time phase coherent which sounds really good. I am looking to build my own website publishing some of the designs I've made, but so far time has not permitted. |
