Thiel Owners

tomthiel,

Thanks again. I think this coming weekend I'll pull one of the woofers and see what is actually in there. I'm not sure if Rob is on vacation or super busy, but he hasn't returned my two emails. 

Hmmm

... my problem with collecting too many models of Thiel speakers is that I am an Audio Note dealer. I need the space for demonstration of Audio Note products. What you are doing makes me wonder if there is a market for a used/modified Thiel dealer, here on the West Coast... hmmm.

Tomthiel,
I agree that the CS3.6 is the model to start with. There were so many sold, and they have had so many accolades, positive reviews, and historical references, that people who own them just love them, and people who dont, do remember them. There is nothing in the used marketplace, even close to thier audiophile sound qualities for the prices they sell for now. So once you get a couple of thier sonic flaws eliminated, and the word gets out that Mr. Tom Thiel (and Rob of Coherent Source) offer mods for them, one of the USA's most famous speakers (ever) can become a truly collectable "classic" item.

I will stick with my Thiel 3.5s and 3.7s, driven by MFA and ARC 6550 tube amps (respectively) of course. BUT, I do have a BIG solid state amp, that I'm not using, just PERFECT for 3.6s: Classe DR-250, 250 wpc, and one of the sweetest big amps ever made.

prof,

I'm certainly interested!

I've been luxuriating in my new Joseph Audio Perspective speakers for a while, but tonight I'm switching in my Thiel 2.7s in to the system again.I'll be interested to see how I react to them after acclimating to the Josephs.

Rockrink - on further remembering, we reinforced the 03A woofer baskets with epoxy. Rob at CSS might have original drivers or rebuild kits.

Rockrink - The original 03A woofers were made my Eminence, the sound reinforcement manufacturer. They had stamped steel baskets, foam surrounds, and (I think I remember) square ceramic magnets.

Someone suggested that the woofers in my 03A set may not be original. Does anyone remember what the originals would have been? 

I own the CS 2.4SE and the improvements that one can expect is the use of top film capacitors on the x-over. Happy Listening!

Happy Friday! All

Unsound- for many reasons, I am starting with old models. The 3.6 is good and stable without my ministrations for the time being.

@tomthiel, there are different reasons for different things. If you think the 3.6's are a better product to cut your teeth on for this project, so be it.

Re: CS6 Data Point

I wrote Rob a short note and asked him what he could tell me about my CS6’s - SN 1537 & 1538. Here’s what he said.

The CS6 was in production from 1992 through 2009. My pair was built around 2005.

There are a few versions of drivers and crossovers for the CS6 but mine are the latest version.

I asked Rob if he had developed any "hot rod kits" for the CS6 and he said that changing any parts to the crossovers have proven to reduce the performance. He added that he felt that Jim had pretty much optimized the design of that particular model.

I’m surprised that the CS6 had such a long manufacturing run (17 years). It seems to overlap somewhat with the 3 series but obviously it held its niche in the product line.

Unsound - an interesting thing about the 3.6 is that the drivers and XO are extremely well developed. The specs are great. However, it is the product where I identified the "hard glare" which I have been working to ameliorate with surface flow technologies. An updated 3.6 may perhaps be the easiest products to upgrade. Or so it seems at least until it gets on the bench.

I believe that a peer would have been good for him, his products, his company, and its future. But he never found that place. We all make our way the best we can. Thiel Audio carried him pretty well.

This is a very sweet and succinct assessment of Jim and his company.  As only a brother could write for us.

@tomthiel, I think your 3 series division is most logical. There is much respective overlaps there. The division also corresponds to amplification requirements of their respective eras, earlier models >4Ohms, later models <3 Ohms, and what users might have built around. I have no idea how many units have survived. IMHO, the marketplace for these  speakers is too unstable now to use as a barometer.

@thielrules, this also true of many other manufacturer's powered subs. Unlike some high end consumer class D amps, the OEM Class D units have perhaps become the most persistent break down problem in audio presently. 

We have not yet developed a maintenance solution, but are working on it.

Although the Thiel subs are great, I decided not to go this route as Rob warned me that he can't service these build in amps. When they malfunction, you are stuck. 

Unsound - you've got me thinking . . . I've been considering the 3.6 as the terminal discrete driver iteration of the model 3. But it might be more rightly thought of as a transition product between the sealed-bass "pure 3s" and the reflex bass "new 3s". The CS3 and 3.5 were, if I remember correctly, identical except for the midrange driver with its crossover tweaks, and the single jacks. The CS3 mid was too fragile and the more robust 3.5 mid was in fact a full-range driver. Any upgrades to the 3.5 could be applied to the 3 as well, creating perhaps a 3.5r (renaissance) as the next "pure 3". Combined, about 7500 pair or 'pure 3s' were sold. We know some of them survive on this forum and my "new" pair in the studio. How many do you think are out there?

Hey Jafant.

For interconnects, I generally use the Audioquest Evergreens. I think they sound good, are well made, and are generally a good value. My speaker cables are DIY built from some bulk Canare Star Quad cable I picked up a few years ago. 

How about you?

rockrink

I am looking forward in reading about the consultation with Rob.
Which cables/cords round out your system?
Big Lucinda Williams fan as well.

Happy Listening!

Thanks for the warm welcome. 

I checked the model number last night, and I stand corrected. The correct model is 03A. 

I have reached out to Mr. Gillum and will keep the group posted.

I have these paired with an Electrocompaniet integrated amp. I play vinyl from a VPI Scout and digital streaming using Audirvana running on a mac mini. My tastes range from Lucinda Williams to Led Zeppelin to Max Richter to Mark Knopfler and all points in between. And I am always looking for new music to listen to. When I first brought the Thiels into our living room, I played Lucinda's Rescue from her album West as a demo for my wife, and she just stared at the speakers and smiled. Scuffs and scars and all, they are now a part of our decor. 

I believe that a peer would have been good for him, his products, his company, and its future. But he never found that place. We all make our way the best we can. Thiel Audio carried him pretty well.

Unsound - again I agree. I suppose “maddening” is the word I would attach to Jim’s insistence on such low impedances.

@tomthiel, I guess you like the flat drivers. :-).
The other reason I’d be some what less interested in an updated 3.6 is the amplifier straining impedance load, without the redeeming lobing fix.

Saw Simon over at Audio Consultants yesterday where they are in process of cleaning up what little they have left. In case anyone is interested, among the leftovers was a pair of Thiel SCS3 speakers.

Unsound - I believe that the wavy driver completely eliminates lobing at its cross point, leaving only the lower cross point to lobe. And the 3.7 lower point is so low that beaming is quite minimal, so the on and off axis response is effectively very similar, leaving only on axis ear height as a constraint, which is easily solvable - sit on a couch or easy chair. The flat wavy disc practically solves the hollow tweeter launch environment. Can you tell that I’m a fan? 
My main reason for addressing the older models is due to their geriatric needs, the large quantities, and the greater room for improvement.

rockrink

Welcome! Good to see you here. Consult Mr. Rob Gillum at Coherent Source Service (CSS) in Lexington KY. Keep us posted on your progress. I look forward in reading more about your musical tastes and system.

Happy Listening!

@tomthiel, the flat concentric mid/tweeter of the 3.7’s are of greater interest to me than the 3.6’s separate drivers. I would imagine the concentric driver could go a long way towards ameliorating lobing issues?

Brayeagle - thanks. I also confirmed with Rob that the SS2.2 is all Jim's design, updated by an improved amplifier.
Unsound - I don't know. The motor and coil could be the same, but the surround, spider - compliance in general, and moving system mass would have to be altered. It would be a piece of cake for Jim to modify such a woofer, and could also be done by SEAS, etc. But, as usual, a stable forward-reaching company would have to take on such an endeavor, DIY couldn't in my opinion.
Robrink - sorry that I missed it. I gather that you have 03As. Well worth upgrading. I remember those plinths as made from Baltic Birch, which could be repaired by a local cabinet shop.

Tom,
   "Does anybody here know if the SS2.2 has the room boundary compensation.?"

Yes, it does. Mine is corrected in meters,, rather than feet. 

@tomthiel, understood. Could the parameters of the original woofers be modified to make them more appropriate?

Unsound / Warren - a woofer designed for sealed box loading is a different animal from a ported unit. What you propose is very interesting to me. I would like to take a 3.6 and replace the woofer for a sealed box loading to make a super 3.5. That would be a worthy undertaking in my estimation. 

Robrink - 02A doesn't sound like a Thiel model. Can you tell us anything about it?

@robrink, You might want to start here:

https://www.coherentsourceservice.com/

Does anyone have information about the 02A floor standers. I have a pair and had the mids rebuilt. I finally convinced my wife that we should "test" them out in our main listening/living room. Now, she won't stop listening to them and the pretty newish non-Thiel speakers that had been in that room are relegated to my home office.

I am trying to see about having the crossovers rebuilt. Also, they have the black built-in pedestal stands where the terminals are located, which are made of MDF and have absorbed moisture over the years. Any tips on getting replacement pedestals is greatly appreciated. 

Thanks all.

@warjarrett, I'm envious of your potential setup! I'm confident that such a configuration will compete with systems that cost multiplies of your proposed Thiel system.
I'm not trying to tell you what to do or how to decorate,  but...,there is a strong argument to be made for using even more than 2 subs. Using even more multiple smaller subs to even out room induced anomalies that particularly effect bass response, might be more effective than a couple of larger subs. DSP can also be quite helpful with bass peaks though much less so with nulls. Of course vertical space loss might be less intrusive than extra footprint room space loss. Not to mention the extra cabling required. With so much invested in bass response, one has to wonder if the 3.7's could be modified for sealed bass response? Perhaps replacing the passive radiator with another woofer and appropriate cross-over to compensate for differing proximities to the floor and the variables that brings.

What ever you decide, I wish you the best of luck and do hope your report back on your decisions and results. I'm sure many here share my envious curiosity.



I

Speaking of boundary compensation (that is correction for SBIR --- Speaker Boundary Interference Response), Thiel smart subs have SBIR correction to compensate for reflections off the front and side walls, but not the rear wall (behind the listener). It turned out I had a major rear-wall SBIR problem that could not be fixed by adding forward facing subs along or near the front wall of any size or quantity. The only cure was a sizeable array of *tuned* bass traps on the rear wall, tuned in my case around 50 Hz (where regular bass traps have very little effect). The key diagnostic for rear-wall SBIR is that the drop-out frequency shifts with distance from the listening position to the rear wall, but not with sub placement along the front wall. Once that problem was fixed, I did go with a 2-sub solution that works very well.

The distance from the LP to the rear wall gives you the quarter-wavelength of the SBIR dropout. From that you can find the dropout’s center frequency. If that frequency is well above your bass range, you can feel safe that you don’t have a rear-wall SBIR problem.

My room dimensions are roughly 15’ (front wall width) by 22’ x 8’3". I wish I had higher ceilings, but otherwise the room sounds great –– after treatment for early reflections, general bass control, and the aforementioned tuned bass traps for SBIR.

I strongly agree with other posters that emphasize the importance of getting your room’s bass response under control before going too far with adding subs. If your bass reverberation times are too long, adding more bass is likely to seriously degrade your sound.

....

I’m likely the guy with the Thiel SI-1 active crossover that @tomthiel mentioned. Although the passive PXO crossovers also do a fine job blending subs with mains, active crossovers also relieve the mains from reproducing low bass. This audibly improves the sound of my 3.7s (for a number of physical reasons): sweeter highs and plays louder w/o distortion. I was looking at Marchand active crossovers just before my SI-1 came up for sale. I wanted a crossover with balanced circuitry, and one of the Marchand variants was the only one I could find, other than the SI-1, that had this feature. In principle, a properly configured Marchand X-over should bring similar benefits, but the SI-1 was designed by Jim Thiel to make configuration a snap, even for non-experts.

Correction: I have read that the SS2.2 was introduced when Kathy was still president, so it would be an update of Jim's design. The conversation and questions I am remembering must have come later in the game.

Warren- wow. Let us know how this venture unfolds. Are you a closet headbanger?

FWIW - I think the SS2.2 is a post Jim Thiel alteration , much like the CS1.7 was. Does anybody here know if the SS2.2 has the room boundary compensation.?

Regarding subwoofers for my CS3.7s, I am throwing caution into the wind, along with money  (gulp). I am buying two SS3 subs, and providing all the answers that I was hoping someone here could answer for me. The single SS2.2 I have now is on US Audiomart. But I suspect just adding another SS2.2 would have been the more conservative and equally satisfying route.

Do you mean the 3.6 made it, but the 3.5 and 3.7 didn't? I strongly disagree with that. Every model in the 3 series was an innovative step forward in audiophile speaker history. The O3a was reviewed as unmatched in palpability of imaging. The CS3.5 was an O3a and 3.0 perfected, with an EQ that really brought full bass to a reasonbly priced speaker along with every audiophile quality fully provided.

The 3.6 sold a lot, and was a little better than the 3.5, but not so revolutionary in the history of audio. The 3.7 was the designer's testiment in revolution, execu5ion, performance, and accuracy including the most advanced custom driver designs ever yet marketed.

Check out The 10 Most Influential Speakers of the Last 50 Years article over on Audioholics.com -  Thiel Audio 3.6 makes this list.

Happy Listening!

@warjarrett, Perhaps 2 SS1's might work for you?

Warren - I lack the direct comparison of SS2 vs SS3, but can share some relevant experience. I have one SS1 and two SS2s, which I have mixed and matched and moved around. First, my room is weird. It is my guitar-making and music studio and speaker workshop rolled into one. Its acoustics are good, but unusual, so YMMV. In the corner of a second floor residential-construction building with 12K cuft with open stairway connection at far corner to identical space below and smaller attic space above. Lots of volume. Playback is intelligible anywhere in the whole envelope. The studio walls enclose 3600 cuft in an L with front and left exterior walls solid and other walls porous - non-reflective with lots of diffusion. Virtually no room modes. Speakers in the assymetric L corner, listening in the 15’ wide top of L. It’s weird, but it works and presents neutral sound and smooth measurements.

In this context I have experimented with Thiel subwoofers.
SS1 between speakers and in solid corner (front left). Thiel PXO sums R&L channels. Dedicated XOs for PPoints, CS1.6, CS2.4 (used with my CS2.2s) and CS3.6. The PPs and 1.6 are substantially upgraded by deep bass. The 2.2s and 3.6s additional deep bass is nice, but not musically necessary for me. Same speakers with pair of SS2s. The musical experience is qualitatively improved with all speakers. The art of mixing includes collapsing to mono without cancellation, but that business is difficult and approximate at best, as Unsound noted. Note that using a pair of subwoofers driven by a single PXO was substantially inferior to using a pair of PXOs, one for each channel, which keeps the bass information of that channel with the speaker for that channel, as Unsound  observed above.

Regarding replacing an SS2 with SS3, I believe the only reason would be if your space / loudness requirements are overloading the SS2. I don’t overload my SS1 in the corner (best coupling) at robust loudness levels into an effectively huge space. Any model SS's low frequency extension is lower than musical content for all practical purposes. My experience is that a pair of SS1s or SS2s with 2 PXOs provides a highly satisfying musical experience for 2 channel music. I plead ignorance of HT .1 channel.
Note that someone here previously reported a big step up by using Thiel’s Sub Integrator whereby you can tailor a sub to woofer crosspoint at a higher frequency and custom slopes. I want one, but haven’t seen any on the market. Perhaps your Marchand might provide that function. I consider all of these options as more satisfying than going to an SS3, UNLESS you have a very large room, listen at loud levels, and are running out of steam with the SS2. I vote that two SS2s in any placement driven by two separate PXOs would be worth an audition.
Enjoy,
Tom

And, there is more to this integration of SS subwoofers to CS3.7 speakers. The Thiel passive crossover that is specifically configured for CS3.7 speakers was designed to only have a mono output. So one subwoofer was the original design concept. I would have to use Y adapters to split for two subwoofers, so they would both be mono anyway. 

It is a wonderful implementation because the crossover adds nothing in the signal path going  to the main speakers. The CS3.7s run full range. The crossover only senses the main speakers' signals from theor speaker cables, then transfers that information to the subwoofer to create ONLY the bass that 3.7s cannot reproduce alone. 

I do have a very nice Marchand active crossover I could use, but it seems to me that Thiel figured this all out, so why not use their passive crossover as intended?