Thiel Owners

Also thanks to everyone who is involved in keeping Thiel alive on this forum and elsewhere!

@arvincastro regarding Class D amps - I have a pair of the Bel Canto REF600M monos.  My initial impression driving either 2.7's or 3.6's wasn't favorable and I believe this was due to a poor match with other associated components.  At the time everything that I had was going towards the accurate side of the spectrum and this may have not been a good recipe to insert the Bel Cantos into.

I need to try them again with the Thiels using my newest preamp - a Levinson 326s.

As a point of partial reference I'm running the 2.7's with Bryston 7BST monos and the 3.6's with a Krell TAS in stereo mode.

The Bel Canto amps are currently running B&W CDM1SE's in an office system with excellent results.

Well, I bought a pair of ViewPoints off ebay for $450.  I don't have a real specific use in mind yet.  They might be surrounds, might end up used as computer speakers.  Maybe I'll take them to work and use them to listen to music at work.  I'm frequently the first one in the office and I have an hour or so before anyone else gets in.  I'm guessing these are probably as good as the PowerPoints and an off the chart bargain at the price. 

Tom I wonder what they would  sound like incorporating your ideas of up shimming  the woofers bi amping and incorporating the new wavy drivers from the 3.7s!! Add some cabinet and grill  tweaks your learning  from the hot rod garage and upgrade the remaining  caps!!! Wow could you imagine???

Tomic - Thiel's early approach was to strive for a product line where the primary delineater was bass extension. Bigger products with deeper bass for bigger rooms. It seems that Jim wandered away from that approach in that the later 2s and 3s go nearly as deep as the 6s and 7s. My experience is that sealed bass with its 2nd order roll-off tends to pressurize rooms more than vented bass with its 4th order roll-off. So, perhaps the game changed. The market certainly did with homage being paid to Home Theater.

As a historical note, my original farmhouse, 5 miles up Georgetown Road from the factory had a more normal listening room, which we used as a cross check in product development. The Victorian farmhouse's room was 10' high x (about) 18' wide x 18' deep with a bay window-wall behind the speakers. Plaster on wood lath walls and ceiling, Hardwood floor. Transom openings above doors to 3 walls. Lovely sounding room. The 0 series was totally developed there, plus the CS2 and the CS3 and 3.5. By the mid 80s we had added a modest room in the Nandino Blvd factory, but used both rooms simultaneously. The CS5 development in 1988ish used the new, big factory listening room. We continued to have a playback system at Georgetown Road, along with band instruments set-up for live vs recorded music and jams with traveling musicians.

Just as with electronics, Jim considered the room to be the users' problem and playground. He balanced for 'average' rooms without consideration for standing waves, etc. Some dealers cracked the code and sold lots of speakers. Many users never figured out how to optimize, and generally blamed the speakers.

I would at the end of the day sided with Beetle

On Jafants peacemaking skills :-)

On Jim T’s room dimensions, great bit of history but frankly ( and Vandersteen s Room is even bigger ) why the developer must also include smaller rooms or EQ in the bass, but is is essential to use the larger more perfect room to push the limits !!!!!

On high passing, it’s an unfair advantage.... try it some time.... but use a first order filter with  a Roger M designed Beveridge box

On JA, just read any of his Vandersteen measurements from the 7 to Quatro to Kento ... and the power amps.... I have the same frustration with him, oh well

Several thoughts, will try to parse a bit...

reminder I have a pair of 2.3+
Yes, Charlie at Ayre a brilliant designer and EE with ears, to wit his A to D converter ( and musical recordings) and DAC with listen and measure filters ( a fantastic poke in the eye to those obsessed with measuring the wrong things), yes his SS amps some of the best, TomT the old 100 watt amp very affordable used, getting long in tooth for sure but still quite musical 

Prof - that was a great review EXCEPT that both John and Larry included the statement that they couldn't get the CS5 to sing. That product sold poorly and didn't pay back its R&D costs; Jim was discouraged and dropped the idea of deep sealed bass. By the way, Rob has retrofitted CS5s with dual inputs to raves from the customers. Taking the deep bass killer low impedance burden off the main amplifier solves tons of amp  issues. Also, I have imagined a physical solution to staggering the drivers on the baffle to eliminate the two bucket brigade delays on the upper and lower midrange circuits and thus radically simplifying the feed circuits for those critical drivers. At that time Jim was convinced that those custom styrene caps and high purity coils were sonically invisible. I have my doubts from my present-day perspective.

I wouldn't mind finding a CS5i pair for the hot-rod garage. 

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.

sdecker

Thorough listening notes are always welcomed here. 
This is the aspect that I miss the most reading current Audio press.

Happy Listening!

You're welcome.  As long-winded about audio as I can get, be relieved (all of you!) I'm not transcribing my thorough listening notes here of all the gear mentioned on this forum that I've compared to other stuff, or pre- vs post-modifications, that a career test engineer tends to do!

sdecker

Your assessment and evaluation of the Dynaudio is accurate. 
Having heard a few of those models, as well as, Joseph Audio models (except Pearl series) and neither brand equals a Thiel CS 2.4 to CS 3.7 loudspeakers. Thank You for the report and perspective on the Plinius.

Happy Listening!

Thank You Tom

I had no intention of trying these as you had advised me 
to just use better electronics on the cross-over board ,
( I had to ask out of curiousity )
this is the same advise that Mr. McCormack gave me when asked about upgrading my DNA-250 amp
( Which I have almost finished with great success ) .

Robert - I know a little about those add-on filters. I spoke with the maker, who would only say that he is fixing known problems with the 3.7 upper frequencies, as well as with Rob at CSS, and we ran a cost thumbnail. The Stereophile review near-field response shows a rough rising high end and the undamped oil-can tweeter resonance. Jim let that ring due to its out of band frequency and that the required notch filter imparts a veil on the whole sound. The low-treble roughness is, in my opinion, in the time domain and primarily an artifact of near-field measurement. In other words, it will not be fixed by more XO circuitry which modifies the frequency domain. Note also Stereophile’s averaged listener-position graphs, which show no hint of that alleged roughness.

Rob and I looked at the parts vs retail selling price and determined that those parts, if of Thiel quality, would cost more than his asking price for the assembled unit. So, he is inserting coils, caps, resistors and wire of lower quality, which quite probably reduces global transparency.

Neither I myself, nor Rob to my knowledge, has heard the mod. Plus, he may be doing more or differently than what I’m saying. It would be instructive to hear direct experience. But at this point we would not recommend it.

Good Morning All

I had to look at the 3.7's on E-Bay , listed at $7,300 .
When I purchased my 2.7's new and delivered for $3,000 
I passed on the chance of owning new 3.7's for $7,000 delivered ,
the same birdseye maple finish ! ( if they were $6,000 I might have )

While looking at all the Thiels for sale there was an ad for 
an add-on filter for the 3.7 & 2.7 speakers ,
does anybody have any knowledge about these ?

I'd like to thank sdecker for all the info about McCormack amps .
.

And, by Dynaudio's ad copy, a couple 'tricks' in their crossover to capitalize on their first-order slopes to mimic a sloped baffle and correct the phase response between drivers.  Stereophile's step response plot of the C1 even looks more coherent than most small two-ways.  Good design intentions didn't equal my high expectations I had for their sound.

Of interest here is that the C1 is a first order design. Thanks for the wonderful report!

jafant, these were separate amp and preamp shootouts.  The Plinius power amp compared to my McCormack was a class-A SA-103 (125wpc 8ohms, 220wpc 4ohms), that had comparatively unremarkable sound.  The Plinius Kaitaki preamp vs my Sonic Frontiers was remarkably good-sounding across the board, the only preamp in the shootout to better my preamp in its current configuration.

Just to stay on topic to your thread, the most recent in-house speaker comparison was my 2.4 vs the Dynaudio Confidence C1, a modern, large-for-a-stand-mounted $7500 2-way.  To my great surprise, the Thiels crushed them in every possible aspect.  Even their vaunted Esotar tweeter had no discernible improvement in natural accuracy, smoothness, or micro-dynamics over the 2.4 simple aluminum dome constrained within a jiggly midrange cone.  And the Thiels smoked them in every form of soundstaging, imaging, center focus, wide speaker spacing without loss of center-fill, etc.  Nobody was more surprised than me that such a highly-regarded monitor had nothing - *nothing* - on my 'old' Thiels...

sdecker

Thank You for the clarification.  I have considered a Plinius amp except for the fact that the specs report it does not double power from 8 into 4 ohms? 2 ohm not avail/tested.

Happy Listening!

unsound, thanks for the compliment.  I'm hardly a 'vintage' guy, but my late-production (2001) Line1 SE has been *completely* reliable over nearly twenty years of often daily use.  Of course, I can't leave well enough alone, and it too has been substantially upgraded over the years, to the point where last year it bettered 4 modern $5-15k preamps, though did get 'beat' all-around by a wild-card Plinius solid-state unit.  If our house burns to the ground, the insurance 'replacement' cost for my stereo is going to be far more than what I paid, starting with those CS2.4s...

tomthiel

Yes- I remember reading about the Mod Squad in magazines back then. 
I had forgotten that aspect of Steve. Thank You for the audio history refresh.

Happy Listening!

@sdecker, 

thanks for the specifics. It's helpful.

 Checking the c-j website:

https://conradjohnson.com/vintage-conrad-johnson-products/

It turns out that the output impedances aren't quite as severe as I thought. I might have been confusing the Audible Illusion pres with them. In any event, unless one is using some weird esoteric cables I doubt there should be many issues with that. On the other hand, the gain and output voltages can be even higher than I thought. 

Let me compliment you on your choice of the Sonic Frontiers pre. I am  a huge fan. I typically fall in the ss camp, but the SF models are exceptional. A dear friend had an SFL 3 that I heard quite often. Despite rumors of troublesome volume controls; count me as mightily impressed. One of my all time favorites.

All McCormack power amps have a 100k input impedance which is fine for any preamp.  EXCEPT for the DNA500, and its monoblock equivalents DNA750 of only 10k, and I believe these to be the only McCormack amps that offer balanced inputs via a phase-splitting transformer (hence the low Zin). 

Most if not all of his amps do have a high input sensitivity for Steve's preferred (?) passive preamp mating, that forces conventional volume pots to work at the very low end of their range with your typical active preamp with 10+ dB gain. 

Mod Squad seemed to really start to make their mark with "Tip Toes".

Some conrad-johnson pre's can work quite well with some McCormack amps. But due to the high output impedance of some  of the c-j pre's coupled with the low input impedance of some of the McCormack amps it can be a bit trickier. Furthermore, the high output of some c-j pres with the high input sensitivity of some McCormack amps can reduce the effective range of the volume control. Of course c-j doesn't offered balanced outputs for some of the McCormack's balanced inputs.

Even earlier history - Steve ran the Mod Squad in the late 80s, early 90s where he kept abreast of evolving digital technologies, offering substantial performance upgrades to CD players (primarily). The Mod Squad's niche dissipated as digital filters and topologies improved. Then came McCormack Audio, etc.

jafant, just a (looong) clarification.  Steve made a name among the tweakers post McCormack, but the company in its prime throughout the '90s and early-00s was substantial, offering moderately-priced well-engineered preamps, DACs, phono stages, etc. as well as power amps.  They were brilliantly designed, but brought to an affordable price point with modest chassis build and components.  Which is what makes the SMC upgrades so significant -- the basic design can really shine with top components and clever tweakage.

C-J took over manufacturing of the power amps in the late-90s with some consulting from Steve, but he had already started SMC Audio as his next gig.  The later amps built by C-J never had the same success as the earlier California-built amps.  My top-of-my-head chronology may be a little off, but that's the gist.

No overlap in the sonics between the two companies so far as I can tell.  McCormack amps are purely solid-state with a bit of the good characteristics of tubes baked-in to the design.  C-J has kept the classic tube sound more than other modern tube gear designs, but others here could evaluate that far better than me.  A C-J preamp + McCormack power amp would be a good pairing I'm sure; I use an upgraded Sonic Frontiers tubed preamp.

Laughing harder, that you actually *are* in conflict resolution and counseling without my knowing a thing about you!  Goes to show what I pick up on when my wife's a therapist, my neighbor a professional mediator, my father a (former) college professor...

Steve has been a 2-man show running SMC Audio for years since Conrad Johnson took over McCormack production for a few years before dropping it entirely.  So Steve's 'second' career is redesigning and optimizing his 'first career' mainstream amps to demanding customers (like me), and has all the test gear from a lifetime in the business.  I can't speak directly to C-J, but not many amp manufacturers see the relevance of 1 ohm specs, especially when there's nothing flattering about the power output into it for 95% of amps, especially a company whose foundation is tube amps.  All Steve McCormack's testing does is confirm his amps (or at least *my* SMC Audio amp) will remain fully stable into 1 ohm, not oscillate, melt, or blow up.  In fact, my tiny 'signature' box in the upper left is this amp...

I’ve now twice mated an Ayre integrated with a Thiel. Been super happy both times. 
Interesting that being able to discern how an amp sounds from measurements is “objective”,  lol. 

jafant is clearly someone who works in mediation, conflict resolution, marriage counseling, or a college professor.  Or fears discord in his 150 page thread!  It's all good.

Makes me satisfied that Steve McCormack thoroughly modified his already-stable power amplifier to meet the needs of my CS2.3, now using the slightly easier load of 2.4s, and can confirm it has great specs into load in stock form, much better specs now as confirmed by the designer, and sounds great driving them to my own ears, as well as besting 5 other $5-15k modern amplifiers in a all-day shootout last year!  I wish this were so for all Thiel owners (not only those in this forum).

Prof   I don't find myself pining for more bass either with the Thiels or the Josephs.
Your experiences may be different but for me the subs really add something that I don't realize until it is not there. It is not so much more bass but clearly hearing the foundation of the song. Once dialed in, there is no going back. Now, if you switch out speakers regularly, it may be inconvenient to go through the trouble. For my large room, the subs were easily integrated, but for my smaller room, I'm still experimenting with determining the best positioning. 

prof,
My sub gets the signal from  a PX05 passive crossover for the 2.7s. I hooked it up, placed the sub between the 2.7s and haven't done anything since, except upgrade the preamp and amplifier.
Music source is an extensive classical CD collection via a Bryston BCD-3 spinner. Relatively few of my CDs have appreciable low bass. 

@beetlemania, No, I haven’t forgotten your demonstration of subjective opinion. I’ve offered an objective counter point.  As has been said; opinion’s are like a part of one’s anatomy, everyone has one . Congratulations, with your closing reply you’ve managed to demonstrate both.

@prof

My thanks, also, for your comments re: CS2.7 v. Joseph Perspective. If I were buying new in that price category, the Perspective would be on my short list. And your experience adds weight to my opinion that you need to reach even higher up the price scale to significantly better a Thiel. My guess is that I would have to spend north of $30K to notably better the sound I'm getting with my modded 2.4s.

I think that while measurements might not tell all about how an amp sounds, some aspects of sound are quite predictable from measurements.

Perhaps in a vague way. But you either forget that I have actually *heard* this combination of gear or you seek to invalidate my experience. Piss off.

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.

@beetlemania, The CS 2.4's measure closer to 2 Ohms than they do to 4 Ohms. As there is a direct correspondence model between static impedance figures and sensitivity, measurements are typically made at such fixed points. I don't agree with your assertion that measurements tell you "nothing" about how an amp sounds. Quite the opposite, I think that while measurements might not tell all about how an amp sounds, some aspects of sound are quite predictable from measurements. Frequency response, impedance, power output, distortion, harmonic content, etc., etc., and when and where they are applicable can give one quite a bit of insight into predictable sound. These measurements also provide manufactures an opportunity to provide consistent results to the end user from sample to sample of a given product. They also indicate in what situations a product might or might not be appropriate. Furthermore, measurements give the consumer an opportunity to discover whether a manufacturer knows and or cares about what they are doing.

The amplifiers under consideration are not inexpensive. Having such a generous budget should probably allow for consideration of more options. That the products under consideration measure as they do, suggests that they might have been intended for other different uses. In other applications they may possibly be ideal.

The quote from Thiel is most interesting.  What is the intention of the use of the words "high sonic quality". In my conversations with Jim he told me that when he referred to an amplifiers power output, he was referring to standard 8 Ohm ratings. And, that recommendations for power output was with the understanding that one would be using a quality ss amp that could double down, and that if one was for instance choosing to use a tube amp then one should double the power output recommendations accordingly. Was Jim referring to "high sonic quality" as judged purely by perception or by technical prowess and the sonic consequences? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's the latter. An amp rated at 100 Watts that can double down to 400 Watts at 2 Ohms would qualify as an amp with more "high sonic quality" than an amp rated as 200 Watts that was heading into oscillation below 4 Ohms, when being asked to drive a sub 4 Ohm load. 

I would love the opportunity to hear any Ayre amp on any Thiel speaker, especially with coaching from you guys.
I've been told that Jim greatly appreciated Ayre's products.

As a Modus Operandi, Thiel's listening always guided our work and led the way toward solutions. Measurements were taken to make sure that the audible improvements were valid and to guard against the paths of seduction where one or some elements might be improved at the expense of other elements. That was not acceptable in Thieldom.

In my present Laminar Launch investigation, I am honoring Jim's approach and standards. I can make no change if it compromises some other measured elements. I am chasing a clearly audible improvement in inner harmonic detail and reduced harsh glare with large, complex signal. The improvements are real and verifiable with other listeners, and achievable via multiple subtly variant techniques. Presently I am using measurements to identify which combination of techniques produces the least compromise of measurable elements. A particularly interesting measurement is harmonic distortion. That envelope varies between -50dB and -100dB and the envelope is changed via different solutions. I intend to find the combination that both produces the desired sonic effects AND reduces harmonic distortion, smooths group delay, quiets the waterfall thumbprint and flattens frequency response. By ear alone, I would be lost, since 4 different solutions have produced pleasing results, all demonstratibly better than stock. I'm zeroing in on a best choice.

This MO is what we practiced at Thiel Audio, although my explorations go beyond what our budgets of time and cost would have allowed.

prof,

Thanks for the 2.7 vs Joseph comparison.
Although monaural, the SS2.2 sub reinforces the lower bass on my 2.7s.

@unsound

Um, one of us has the actual *experience* of listening to the CS2.4 driven by an Ayre AX-5.

Stereophile’s measurements help us to discern that the AX-5 is not a good match for the CS5 or Magnepan 20 and shouldn’t be mated with the CS2.4 *if* the listener demands 100 dB peaks. You might note that the CS2.4 never drops to 2 ohms (it was measured by 3 reviewers, Stereophile seems to have measured the lowest value). As for

But into 2 Ohms (green), not only is the THD higher, but the level was a *little* unstable at the lower frequencies

Not only does the CS2.4 never drop to 2 ohms but the AX-5 behavior JA is describing was observed only in the bass where the CS2.4 impedance curve greatly rises. Also, those were steady state test signals, not music!

Regardless, those measurements tell you *nothing* about how the amp sounds. You need ears for that part!

From the Thiel owner’s manual for my product:

Keep in mind that sound quality is usually much more important than sound quantity. There can be large differences in the sonic performance of two amplifiers of equal power, and this is more important than large differences in power. Most everyone will be happier with a 100 watt amplifier of high sonic quality than a 200 watt amplifier of mediocre sonic quality. For this reason, we feel there is no substitute for listening in making your amplifier decision.

Apparently, I’m in the "most everyone" camp. Good day, sir.

Unsound - I can shed some historical light on your query of "what would Jim Thiel do?" Jim's thinking was decidedly compartmentalized. He considered his business that of designing loudspeakers and the other elements to get right were the business of other entities - designers, technologies, etc.

We started with the Phase Linear 400 and then Nelson Pass' Threshold, then Classé, and gradually developed trade relationships whereby we swapped speakers for the best of form from Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Mark Levinson, and Krell. (There were undoubtedly others after I left in the mid 90s.) I know that the xx.7 series were developed primarily with Krell's 600fpb.

I remember vividly a visit from Larry Archibald (then incoming publisher of Stereophile magazine) where we demonstrated, among other models, our new CS1.2, with underhung, shunted motor, aluminum tweeter and other advanced-for-the-time technologies. All were quite impressed. The speakers sold for (approximately) $1500 / pair and the amps driving them were (prox) $15K. Larry argued the "marketplace absurdity" of such a pairing. Jim argued that good amplification was his assumption for his designs.
I would classify Jim as unassailable or incorrigible in the realm of his assessments, his assumptions and beliefs regarding such matters. And that was problematic within the company. Company politics demanded that Jim was always right, so all products were developed with relatively "great" amplification. (An inexpensive product might be developed with a $10K amp and an expensive on with a $20K amp, etc.) The same thinking applied to cables. And as you might know, our listening room was purpose built at 14' high x 22.5 wide x 35' long with low-key but very effective acoustic treatment. So, let's say that the working environment of our speakers under development and test was somewhere between great and rarely reproducible in our customers' real-life situations.

Both Larry Archibald and Harry Pearson in his original 03 review took Jim to task for his compartmentalized position, as have numerous later critics either directly or indirectly. Most of you as fans have carefully and painstakingly worked around these interface problems. Congratulations to you. Jim would be pleased for you and proud of your ingenuity. But it wouldn't have altered his position of "that's not my job". 
Note that there were other amps after my time. Dave Gordon, Thiel's national sales manager from the late 80s to late 90s would know them all, both at Thiel and in the field.

In my present work I am considering real life application environments. My amps and cables and room are quite modest and quite likely bettered by many of your environments. Among the lessons I have heeded is that there are problems attributable to the speakers which can be ameliorated in the speakers rather than shifting responsibility to source or chain. There is always more to learn, and I am immensely enjoying this learning experience.

@beetlemania, @jafant,

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/170241/Thiel-Cs2-4.html?page=5#manual

The CS 2.4's are spec'd at :

87 dB@2.87 V -1m

and suggests a minimum of 100 Watts per channel


I would offer that even accounting for gain from room lift and the doubling of speakers, the sensitivity drop off from standard 8 ohm rating to actual load by 3dB for each halving of impedance and similar loss to actual recommended listening distance of 3 meters would preclude a 90 dB sensitivity with CS 2.4's . 
 With an admittedly crude phone app I reach peaks in excess of 100 dB's at my listening position, sometimes up to a few times per day, though only averaging dB's in the mid 60's. Many amplifier manufacturers suggest that amplifiers are in their most linear state somewhere between 10 and 20 % of rated full power, and further recommend that one have 8 to 10 or more times that of clean head room power available beyond that.
 As far as the ability to "vomit" power into 2 Ohms; I would suggest that ability to do so is suggestive of a healthy response for the speaker load at hand. Not being able to do so is often suggestive of a weak power supply and/or poor heat dissipation capabilities. If an amp manufacturer's amp is capable of doubling down into 2 Ohms or come reasonably close to doing so, they are likely to brag about it. If an amp manufacturer fails to list their amps specs into 2 Ohms, it's likely because they are not proud of those measurements.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ax-5-integrated-amplifier-measurements
  When Stereophile measured of the AX-5 into 2 Ohms it clipped at 220 Watts with only one channel driven with a higher level of distortion at lower powers. …"That the AX-5 was not as comfortable driving 2 ohms as it was higher impedances can be seen if fig.6.".."But into 2 Ohms (green), not only is the THD higher, but the level was a little unstable at the lower frequencies."
https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurements
 With the 2.4's measured sub 3 Ohm load and difficult phase angle, that might be good enough, but I think one could do better.
 When driving Thiel's, it might be prudent to ask; what would Jim Thiel do?