Thiel Owners
Is there anyone reading this who has heard the difference between a SS2 subwoofer vs. a SS3 subwoofer? I just don't want two of these big subwoofers in my living room. So for me, it looks like I will have to experiment for myself, 1 SS2 vs. 1 SS3. A pair of SS3 subwoofers would cost more than than the 3.7s are worth and has got to be overkill for just 2 channel music with CS3.7 speakers. |
@warjarrett, tomthiel set you right. Two subs are better than one. Especially for two channel music as opposed to the .1 output for home theatre. Unlike HT with it’s dedicated sub channel, when using one sub for two channel sources, the bass frequencies need to be summed. It’s possible that one channels signal will be overlapping and opposing the other channel, which can actually cause bass subtraction. Furthermore, having two subs can distribute the bass in the room so that room influenced peaks and valleys can be evened out. |
To anyone who has used Thiel SS2 or SS3 subwoofer(s), either single or pair, with CS3.7 speakers, playing 2-channel music (not multi-channel video), I would like to ask for your advice. I currently listen to a pair of CS3.7 with a single SS2 in the middle of the CS3.7s, and now I feel like upgrading the subwoofer. Shall I get another SS2, and run a pair of them, OR, shall I sell the SS2 and buy a SS3? Tom Thiel recommends a pair of SS2 over a SS3, for stereo music listening. But for me, that is starting to make my living room too full of speakers. I would rather trade-up in woofer size to a single SS3. The question is: What sonic benefits will I be likely to hear, comparing these two models, and will being bigger actually provide a sonic upgrade? I don't usually play loud, bass heavy music. Maybe a Mahler Symphony could benefit from a little more bass power for the tympany drums, and I would like to hear Tool or Perfect Circle with lower and more powerful bass. But what will I really hear, if I were to get the pair of 12" woofers (in a SS3) compared to the pair of 10" woofers (in the SS2) that I have now? According to the specs, the bigger woofers don't actually play lower, just louder. |
These numbers were chosen as an example, but isn’t as unlikely as it seems. These are peak levels taken from the listening position (9’) from a pair of speakers playing (2 speakers = +3dB) with some room boost, and C-weighting (accounting for most of the bass). That’s not filling the entire room with 100dB, those are peak readings at a semi-nearfield listening position in a near-ideal room for these speakers. And this represents probably less than 5% of my overall listening, and then for perhaps a side of an album. 95dB peaks would be a more typical *loud* listening session, still infrequent, with *no* 2.4 power handling concerns. Even then, if that highest level is 105dB at 1m, that’s ~100 amplifier watts (if they’re 87dB@1W/1m), and my amp delivers ~500 watts per channel into 2 ohms with plenty of dynamic headroom. I now better know the limits of the limited midrange, and am comfortable with keeping volume and program material well within their comfort zone. I have never heard my amp compress, harden, and certainly not clip at any volume into any speaker load, which suggests I’m not intent on finding the limits of my amp or any guest speaker! Rob Gillum tells me in ’destruction testing’ of the similar 2.3 coax development, they typically achieved 115dB SPL steady-state (not transients) before ’it blew apart’ (with 600W Krell monoblocks), and that 100dB peak SPLs from 2.4s should be reasonable in a 3000 cubic foot room (mine is 2500). FWIW, I have never blown a 2.3 coax, even though we have no reason to believe they are a sturdier design. Indeed, Rob says his current rebuilds of these drivers use more-modern adhesives and construction techniques that will increase the robustness of the 2.3/2.4 coax. Half my coaxes were covered under warranty, and only one exhibited obvious signs of being driven beyond its excursion limit. More typically the lead wires fatigue from years of excursions (well within the driver's (motor + surround) excursion limits) and open the circuit. Rebuilding a coax every couple years is a whole lot cheaper than buying a speaker today that ticks as many boxes for me as my 2.4s! |
if playing 100dB, mid asked to put out 250Hz percussives at 88dB (round 'electrical' numbers, not taking acoustic roll-off contributions to the end-result 6dB/octave slopes.)). Ask Rob how many 2.4 coaxes I've gone through, and not due to lack of clean watts and amps! Interesting. If ability to play >100 dB was an important factor to me I would probably look at something like the JBL K2 S9800. Modestly efficient Thiels with their low impedance seem a, um, sub-optimal choice for those who like to listen at very high SPLs. And to still have your CS2.4s after burning multiple coaxes? You must *really* like their sound! |
sdecker - you are asking the right questions. And I have no answers. Remember that I had no involvement or insider information from 1995 to 2012. I'll tell you what little I have pieced together. Please pardon any repetition for the long term readers. Thiel created the CS2.7 to develop and demonstrate their ability to produce valid products without Jim. They auditioned multiple inside and outside engineering solutions and landed on Warkwyn - Toronto, a full service design development firm with full access to the Canadian Research Center which develops most of the Canadian brands' products. The concept design was developed by Home Team Thiel, and Warkwyn did the engineering and prototyping. The results were not acceptable to HTT, and that process went on for a couple of years and cost mid $six figures. I got the impression that engineering decisions, such as you iterate above, were not on the table for discussion for reasons I can only speculate. I will say that Jim never used a cap larger than 100uF, even in parallel circuits. I will say that Jim was very cognizant of beaming and its power response implications. And it seems to me that the core personality of the 2.7 became conflated with the 3.7 to a much greater degree than previous model generations. The 3.7 was designed to play louder into larger spaces with deeper bass; whereas the 2.7 was to be more intimate in smaller spaces with less bass extension to not distress those smaller spaces, at considerably reduced cost. Such gestalt overview seems to have suffered as time went on - the 2.7 / 3.7 seem far more similar to me than the CS2 / CS3.5. Your suggestions above seem well considered to me. I wonder with you why such basic considerations didn't make it into the product. Notice that there is a convenient slot of 2.5 - 2.6 in the line-up. Who knows what the future might bring? |
@tomthiel, sorry I was off the forum for a week and didn't see your response about 2.7 development until recently. I'm unclear why the 2.7 needed a HIGHER frequency woofer XO point than the 2.4's 1000Hz. The 3.7's 4.5" midrange should be able to much better handle lower frequencies than the 2.4's 2.5" midrange. Indeed, the 3.7 XO is at 300Hz, so the mid can go at least that low. So why not lower the XO point of the 2.7 woofer to say 500Hz for better power handling and even less beaming? That would stress the 2.7/3.7 midrange less than in the 3.7, and stress the 2.7/2.4 woofer less than in the 2.4, so a win/win with a lower XO point, but you state it is higher, and with 14X more capacitance, it would seem a LOT higher. Hmmm. Please expound. To that point, why wouldn't the 2.7 use 4x100uF film caps or even smaller to get to 416uF, rather than one massive 400uF? It would seem the slight increases in space and price 4 or more film caps would create would more than offset the potential sonic deficit of one giant electrolytic directly between the amp and wonderfully pure coax driver. Indeed, that's the weakest link of the 2.4 for me, the excursions required of a 2.5" cone (effectively less when including the hole in the middle for a tweeter dome) to move enough air at lower frequencies at higher volumes, to below say 250Hz (2 octaves below XO point, so only -12dB; if playing 100dB, mid asked to put out 250Hz percussives at 88dB (round 'electrical' numbers, not taking acoustic roll-off contributions to the end-result 6dB/octave slopes.)). Ask Rob how many 2.4 coaxes I've gone through, and not due to lack of clean watts and amps! |
Re: CS6 Woofer Rebuild & Replacement I thought I would document my experience of removing and replacing my CS6 woofer in case there might be any useful tips for other Thiel owners. When I figured out that I had blown my woofer I called Rob and basically asked, "What now?" Rob was very patient and helpful but I also learned a few tricks myself. Here are the steps I went through. 1. Lay the speaker on the floor on its back. Do not try to remove the woofer with the speaker standing up. Rob suggested it would be easier to do the operation if you can put the speaker on some sort of stand but I had to make due with the floor because I had no way to lift a 170 lb. cabinet onto a table, nor did I have a table that would support it. When you lay the speaker on its back it is really helpful to put a pillow under the upper cabinet so that the upper part of the cabinet is slightly off the floor. That's so that you can get your fingers under it to stand it back up again. I learned this the hard way the first time I laid the speaker down to hook up the spades to the terminals. 2. Have a thick cotton towel handy to lay on the face of the speaker over the mid/tweeter so that when you remove the woofer you have a place to set it without scratching the baffle. 3. The 9/64 allen wrench required to remove the screws is an odd size so you will need a complete set of SAE allen wrenches that include that size. 4. There are screws for the trim plate and then seperate screws that hold the woofer to the baffle. In the case of the woofer they are the same size. However I strongly recommend placing the trim plate screws along with their washers in a separate baggie with a label. The reason for this will become evident below. Remove the screws for the trim plate and be careful to remove and keep track of the tiny thin black washers. They like to fall into the cabinet and bury themselves in the insulation. If you lose some of these washers it is extremely difficult to find replacements. There are also tiny black rubber O rings which can also get lost. Those are easier to replace but still rare. Of course I would never be so stupid as to lose any parts like this but I'm pointing this out just in case. 5. Take a photo or two to document where the rubber o-rings go. Once you remove the trim plate and account for all the hardware you can remove the screws holding the woofer to the baffle. According to Rob I should have been able to get my old fat fingers to grip the edge of the rubber surround where it meets the basket and lift the woofer out of the cabinet. Forget it. Ain't happenin'. I was afraid I would damage the rubber surround so I called Rob back and asked if I could pop it out by removing the passive radiator and reaching around to get under it. Rob complimented me on my speaker repair ingenuity and agreed that would work. 6. To remove the passive radiator you need to remove the trim ring and then remove the radiator. The screws for the trim ring and the passive radiator are different lengths. IMPORTANT: Keep the screws separate and label them along with their respective washers (both metal and rubber). Steve put them all in the same bag. Steve used the wrong screws to reinstall the passive radiator. Steve broke the passive radiator. Don't be like Steve. 7. Even when I had access to the bottom of the woofer I could not lift it up out of the baffle. It was stuck. Fortunately there is a brace that goes under the woofer with a inch or so clearance. I used a plastic scraper to apply some leverage between the brace and the woofer magnet and popped it loose. Then I figured I could lift it out as Rob had recommended. No effin' way. That sucker is heavy and it didn't want to budge. I was able to push up the bottom of the speaker from inside with one hand and get my fingers between the basked and the baffle with the other. Then I could get both hands under the baffle, lift the speaker up and out, turn it over, and set it on the towel face down. There is enough wire to be able to do this. 8. I am an absolute novice when it comes to soldering so I watched a couple of Youtube videos and got myself a 25 watt Weller soldering iron at Lowes. Rob had noted that they use silver solder which has a higher melting point so when I went to desolder the wires from the speaker terminals it took a little time before the solder melted but when it did the wires came off readily. The wires from the crossover were crimped around short wires that were attached to the speaker terminals in a simple arrangement. 9. I followed Rob's directions about packing the driver because if it breaks in shipping it could be very expensive to fix. The repair was $600 on a sound driver - I would hate to know what it would cost to fix a broken one. 10. CSS had the driver fixed in several days and sent it back. Rob sent some silver solder to reconnect the wires to the speaker terminals. I cut off the ends and stripped the wires, crimped them around the woofer wires at a 90 degree angle, and soldered them in place. With a low wattage soldering iron you have to be patient but eventually you heat up the wires enough to melt the solder and make a good connection. At least I took a photo and noted which crossover wire goes to which driver terminal. C'mon, I'm not that stupid. 11. Replacing the woofer back in the baffle was pretty simple. There are metal inserts in the baffle material for the screws but I suspect you have to be really careful to not overtighten them. Hopefully you noted where the washers and rubber o-rings go so you can put them back properly. 12. When I replaced the passive radiator I used the long screws to fasten the trim ring. I heard what I thought was a couple of cracking noises so I stopped and took it back out. The screws bottomed out and stressed the soft wood of the radiator and cracked it. The unit was still intact but there were cracks. I gathered up a bunch of clamps and carefully applied wood glue to the interior of the cracks with a toothpick and clamped it all the way around. I'm comfortable that it's as good as new, but damn, I was pissed at myself for making such a dumb mistake. My mood changed considerably when I fired them up and they sounded wonderful. I think they sound better than they did before but that's probably my imagination. The moral of the story is that we are very fortunate to have support for decades-old highly custom designed speakers for which the manufacturer is out of business. I'll add my voice to the chorus of shoutouts for Rob - he was an absolute pleasure to deal with and I wish him a long, happy, and profitable career in giving extended life to these amazing speakers. |
@8th-note Glad to read that your CS6s are working again. We are fortunate to have Rob/CSS! Thiel Audio went into bankruptcy about one month after I bought my 2.4s. Rob opened not long after and I asked him about replacement drivers. He said none are available for that model but that he can rebuild them. When I did my upgrade, I found his name on two of my drivers (one was dated well after the speakers were built, so he must have serviced that one). |
Hello again. My last post was in August when I talked about my newly acquired CS6's and the fact that one of them had a woofer with a dented dust cap. Tom and a couple other members gave some advise about using a vacuum cleaner or tape (Ron G. recommended the same things) but none of that worked. Whatever material that cone is made of is very stiff and didn't want to move. Due to my audiophile OCD I was seriously considering getting it repaired even though it sounded OK. Well, through sheer stupidity and carelessness, I solved the problem. I was hooking up my Denon Blu Ray player to my PS Audio DAC and didn't mute the preamp. I sent a few seconds of loud digital hash through the speakers and blew one of the woofers. Fortunately the woofer that fried was the one with the dent. I called Ron at CSS and he patiently helped me through the process to get the woofer removed and sent in for repair. When I finally got it sent to him the turnaround was very fast. My speakers were out of commission for the last few months but last week I reinstalled the rebuilt driver and my CS6's are back in action! In the meantime I worked my way through this entire thread and I have to say that this has been like a 400 level course on speaker design and construction (not to mention amps, cables, etc). Virtually all of the discourse has been constructive and based on first-hand experience. Thanks so much to Tom and the other knowledgeable participants in this forum. This has made me appreciate my Thiels (and Thiel owners) even more. BTW, SNs are 1537 & 1538, Morado finish. I will make some subsequent posts regarding my amateur speaker surgery and other relevant observations but again, thanks to all who have generously contributed your experience and knowledge. This is hands-down the best audio discussion I have ever seen in my 40+ years of this hobby. |
I had a Bryston 3BST in the secondary system (along with an Odyssey Candela preamp and a Meitner MA-1 DAC) driving Ohm Microwalsh Talls (augmented by a Rel Strata III sub). I had a friend bug me about Class D in the summer of 2017. I had last seriously listened to them at the Capital Audiofest in 2015 and I thought they had gotten better but not quite there yet. I told him I would look again at RMAF in 2017 and that I'd probably get one as I had multiple systems and I was sure by this point I could at a minimum replace something like the Emotiva XPA-200 I had in one system. I ended up getting the Mivera SE amp. I broke it in using the secondary system and just put it in place of the Bryston 3BST. It smoked it right out of the box (was shocked by that much of a difference and surprised how much better the system sounded - always thought the speakers were more limited but was wrong). I ended up using that (the Mivera, where it bested the Modwright amp - even more shocking and I had a Bryston 14BSST before the Modwright) in the main system. I traded the Modwright amp for the Hegel (then sold off the amp, preamp and DAC I had in that secondary system) and then I got the EVS amp and moved the Mivera and sold off the Emotiva amp. I still use the Mivera in the main system for HT (my main system in an integrated AV system and it is a pain to get behind it so it is easier to move the Mivera which drives the 3.7s with ease). I wanted to get a higher end Hegel that had a less limited USB but just couldn't justify it for the secondary system. I'm sure Hegel would drive Thiels quite nicely. |
@cascadephil Thanks. Bryston 3BST / Bryston BP20 has been my amp / preamp combo since 2004. Been driving CS 2.4s since 2011. Before that CS .5s. When I purchased used pair, my dealer still had brand new CS 2.4s on the floor, and was my Bryston dealer as well. Made it much easier to audition both the speakers and the ampflication, as well as the pairing. Won't be so easy next time around. And my local dealer just retired and closed his doors. Been thinking that should I move on from the 3BST, should I entertain going with an integrated, and if so what integrated. In that regard Hegel has been on my radar. Hence my question. |
@jazzman7 "I'd be curious to know if you ever tried using your Hegel H190 to drive your Thiels ... and if so what you thought of the pairing.Hegel specs say their integrated amps are stable down to 2 ohms.So if so, all that is left is if it's a good sonic match." No have never used the Hegel on the 3.7s. The main system is in a larger room (16x18 with 10 foot ceilings and a tray ceiling on top of that and open into other spaces bigger than the 16x18). I was using a Modwright KWA150SE (along with a Modwright LS26.5DM preamp) to drive them and tried a Class D (Mivera), and was shocked that it bested the Modwright. I now use the EVS 1200 amp (same module as the Mivera except dual mono and with mods) to drive them and it's plenty of power and sounds great. I traded the Modwright amp straight up to a dealer for the Hegel and sold off my preamp, DAC and amp I was using in the secondary system. Am quite pleased with the Hegel. I'm using a small PC music server with JRiver since the USB DAC in the Hegel 190 is limited and it can't do DSD (I use JRiver to play it back at 176.4 along with a USB to coax converter). If I were to use a Hegel (integrated) in the main system, I'd go with one of two models above it (I'll probably at some point convert the DSD files and have them somewhere on the network so I can just play them back over ethernet (the Hegel can use UPnP) and do away with the PC - just have other things I'm working on for now and don't use the secondary systems all that often). |
sdecker - regarding the 2.4 vs 2.7, I can supply some contextualizaion and personal observations. I don't know either speaker well, but I heard both in September 2012 when the 2.7 was finalized, although our working comparisons were between the 2.7 and 3.7, which is a different story. I think the 2.7 is an extraordinary speaker, but built and priced by a different standard than Jim's ethos. I also think that it veers away from the traditional role of the model 2, which was the svelte little sister to the model 3 big brother. The model two had always used a smaller diameter midrange than the three, along with the smaller woofer with higher crosspoint - resulting in less doppler distortion, lower inertia, and a more nimble, lithe personality for the model 2. The 2.7 was developed under different circumstances and therefore different rules. Thiel needed a new product after Jim's death to demonstrate that they could produce a credible contender without him. I say it is a success, but not the same contender that Jim would have designed, because Thiel no longer had his considerable chops and long-range vision. Jim was working on a CS7.3 with a new, improved coincident, passively coupled high driver. (The CS7's high driver was developed in the CS2.3). That 7.3 high driver would then be tumbled down to the 2.5 - the way Jim Thiel did things. All those plans went on hold when Jim died and a successor engineer or company was not found to carry the torch. A far simpler and executable fall-back plan was to take, as you mentioned, the extant 2.4 bass system including the woofer, passive and enclosure volume and mate it with the extant 3.7 wavy high driver, making XO changes to accommodate. One circumstance is that the higher woofer to mid crosspoint necessitates a very large capacitance coax feed. The 2.4 has 30uF feed capacitance and the 2.7 has 416uF, including a 400uF electrolytic. That's the only electrolytic feed cap since the 1976 model 02, as far as I know. So, yes, the CS2.7 is a valid Jim Thiel tribute design with first order slopes, minimal diffraction and lots of learning rolled in. And it is good. Some forum members here and elsewhere choose it over the 3.7. But it is in some ways less elegant and demure than the next model 2 from Jim would have been. Enjoy the ride, wherever you go. |
I've mentioned this before, but perhaps it's worth mentioning again. Claims of stability into a given impedance doesn't really say much, other than the amp won't go into oscillation when faced with such an impedance. Sure it's nice to know your amp won't blow up when confronted by such a load, but it doesn't indicate how it will perform when dealing with it. How much power can it deliver under such a load? Failing to double down into lower impedances suggests that frequency linearity could be compromised at the amps high power outputs. Often times amplifiers start to strain and sound hard before going into actual clipping. Altx's CS 2's have a fairly easy and particularly smooth impedance for any speaker never mind a Thiel. Probably not an issue for him. https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-loudspeaker-measurements Neither of the afore mentioned intergrateds are spec'd below 8 Ohms. The Ayre EX 8's measurements: https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ex-8-integrated-hub-integrated-amplifier-measurem... are rather disappointing to my eyes for such an expensive ss amp. Still, for the CS2's if not pushed too hard in a smaller room the Ayre EX 8 could work. Unfortunately I couldn't find independent measurements for the Hegel 390i, but is spec'd for much higher power output into 8 Ohms. https://www.hegel.com/products/integrated/h390 The Hegel 390i will probably work for the Theil CS 2's. If an amplifier can double down into lower impedances, they'll likely list those specs as bragging rights. If an amplifier can't double down (or come reasonably close) into lower impedances, It's less likely they'll list those specs because they're not proud of them. |
@altx, I’m not really versed in the intergrated market. iIntergrateds do offer value in reducing the significant cost of case work, reduced cabling and shelf space. On the other hand, if you notice the top pres often have separate power supplies, as do the Uber high end power amps. Typically separate power amps offer better isolation of noise and heat and better possible weight distribution. Often one will see higher class A bias, and or better power delivery into lower impedances from a manufacturers separates than from their own comparable intergrateds Both the Hegel and the Ayre’s have received rave reviews. I haven’t heard the Hegel’s in any sort of serious context. I have no opinion on them. I’ve only heard the early Ayer separates. I found those Ayre’s too rolled off in the top end for my liking. YMMV. The more recent models have been described as sounding quite different. As I posted earlier, the CS 2’s with their 6 Ohm nominal / 5 Ohm minimum super smooth impedance, and fairly easy 88 dB sensitivity are from a technical stand point rather easy to drive. You should have plenty of options to choose from. Just be mindful of the CS 2’s sonic signature. At these prices have you considered moving up the Thiel line? |
Can anyone direct me to the pages that would have specific 2.4 vs 2.7 listening comparisons? My understanding is the entire 2.7 low-frequency system is pure 2.4 (cabinet loading, woofer itself, radiator, XO tweaks only to
better match
woofer
roll-off to 3.7 coax), yes? The 2.7 is the only full-size Thiel of their last 15+ years I haven't heard. |
mr-bill I spent several weeks auditioning the 3.7 vs the 2.7 speakers using a collection of my classical CDs. Like prof, I ended up getting the 2.7 speakers, but added a SmartSub SS2.2 to extend the bass. IMO, both the 3.7 and the 2.7 needed bass extension, and the subwoofer solved the problem. I'm a very happy camper. Agree with prof on the 2.7 soundstage. |
@altx, I’n the past I’ve run CS2’s with a few different amps including amongst others the B&K ST 140 and closer to your EX-442, the B&K M 200’s. The M200’s are really nice. I am not familiar with the Sim intergrated. I do know that the Sim amps have over the years garnered mixed reviews. I’d be concerned about resale value with the Sim. The CS 2’s are especially easy to drive Thiel speakers. But, their sonic nature requires special consideration. The ported bass can be a bit bloomy and the upper midrange to lower treble can become a bit forward and hard if not carefully matched to appropriate upstream components. You’d be mistaken if you were to assume from the above that I don’t care for them. They are IMHO one of the high end’s greatest speaker values. With all that said I’m not sure that a move to the Sim would be an improvement, and perhaps even a step back from your B&K. I strongly suggest you audition with your speakers before making a move. |
Pair of white 2.7s in VA https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649579278-thiel-27-speakers-rare-white-like-new/ |
mr_bill If you search this thread you’ll see a lot from me comparing the 2.7 to the 3.7s. I owned both at the same time for a while and ultimately went with the 2.7 as it’s smaller size fit better aesthetically in my room. (Plus to my eyes the 2.7s are among the best looking speakers I’ve ever seen). The 2.7s have the essential sound of the 3.7s, with a slightly reduced sense of scale. Though without direct comparison to the 3.7, the 2.7s cast a really big soundstage - among the most expansive and precise as you’ll find anywhere around their size. |
@mr_bill The CS2.7 was developed after Jim T passed. It was a collaboration in house but with external engineering for the crossover. Search “CS 2.7” written by “tomthiel” to get the history. It has a first order network. If you aren’t afraid of a soldering gun, get a pair of CS2.4 and either wait for Tom Thiel’s upgrade kit or pour through this thread for ideas of how to make a great speaker into a superb one. |
jafant, it was sold as a nominally 100wpc stereo power amp. Steve McCormack's estimates of mine is 125/250/500 wpc 20-20k@<1% THD into 8/4/2 ohms, absolute stability into 1 ohm, and as much as 60A peak current delivery depending on the measurement technique. Most of this power improvement comes from barely fitting in the custom Plitron power transformer designed for the DNA1 upgrade. Overall negative feedback has been reduced to 3-4dB (which is nearly zero by today's standards) and it will pass DC (at a much reduced level, and hopefully not) to the outputs all the way up to a 250kHz -3dB point, intentionally rolled-off to prevent ultrasonic issues... |
When it comes to true Jim Thiel designed models with first order slopes/coherent source CS models I imagine the 3.7 is the ‘best’ model or top of the heap. After the 3.7......what is most desirable? 2.3 or 2.4? 3.6? 1.5 or 1.6? these are the most reasonable sized models and I’m talking using in a normal sized room. Thanks for comments as I’d really like to own a pair of Thiels at some point and 3.7 is a bit too large. |
I know audiophiles don’t admit physical aesthetics. But the 3.6 and 3.7 are as different as it gets in the Thiel line. Another thought is that the 3.6 drivers are completely Thiel design and build. OK the tweeter was assembled by Vifa, but it’s all-Thiel, unlike the 3.5 which were modifications of normal, pre-FEA era. |
@yabe1951. Nice amp and speakers you have. I own both the 3.6 and CS6. Thielist makes a good point about tradeoffs. I am using the CS6 because I have a large room and the 6 is more dynamic than the 3.6. However, the 3.6 is the most transparent speaker I have had in my room, you give up just a tiny bit with the larger model 6. They are definitely cut from the same cloth - both are excellent. The CS6 fits my needs in my room better. I never warmed up to the 3.7 after much anticipation being a longtime 3.6 owner. I thought Thiel got a little aggressive on the price 12K to 14K. I know it was innovative and an upgrade but the 3.6 has always been my favorite speaker. Hope that helps your decision. |
yabe1951 Welcome! Good to see you here. Thielrules and sdecker offers sound advice. In order to determine if the upgrade via a pair of CS 3.7 is warranted, seek out another audition. 10 years is a long time between demo time. 10 years ago Ayre had not invented the Twenty Series of gear. Much changes. Either way you go, retain your 3.6 or purchase 3.7, McCormack amplification is a sonic match. Several members of the Panel, here and on other Audio forums, enjoy the McCormack brand.Keep us posted on your Audio journey. Happy Listening! |
Thielrules, It seems your takeaway is IF you spend all the money on tri-amping, finding which drivers to replace or update with limited available resources, and (to some of us, compromising your signal chain by) using DSP that's not commonly done in most higher-end audio systems, only then will a 3.5 "approach" the sonics and performance of a baseline 3.7. Even if his 3.6 is X% more-evolved than the 3.5, it would seem the 3.7 would be an easy replacement recommendation with an appropriate room acoustic? Yabe1951, I have been powering my 2.4s with a custom SMC upgrade to my McCormack DNA-0.5 for a decade now. We designed the upgrades for synergy with Thiels, including a scad of current drive into low impedances. The pairing is perfect. A recent amp shootout confirmed how well this amp sounds compared to the best-regarded amps of today in the $5k-15k range. I can confidently say your amp will never need replacement for purposes of better sound! |
I had the 3.5 and got last year the 3.7. I can argue both ways: the mid and highs of the 3.7 are superb, but the bass and extended bass can be improved with subs. They're improvements that shine in a large room. Now, it all depends on the room. If your 3.6 work for your space and more importantly, you have learned to like them for what they are, and all the drivers and xo are good, any change to a 5,6,7 or 3.7 will involve a trade off. Proceed with caution, and clarify your goals depending on your situation. By tailoring my 3.5 by going with tri amping, replacing some drivers and carefully applying dsp, I was able to approach the listening experience of the 3.7 using the 3.5 in the space they were located. |
