sdecker
what are the power ratings on your McCormack DNA 0.5 amp?
Happy Listening!
what are the power ratings on your McCormack DNA 0.5 amp?
Happy Listening!
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
13,628 responses Add your response
@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. |
So happy to find thoughtful and wise Thiel owners/community... I am hoping to get a bit of advice. My 1st pair of Thiel speakers were the model 2 2 (no point, I think is correct). I could never afford a decent amp so, I "moved up" to the model 3.6 driven by an upgraded McCormack DNA 1 with the larger toroidal transformer, balanced inputs and just about every other option that Steve offered as of last year. I have been very pleased with the sound. The 3.6 reveals every tiny change made in electronics, cables, etc. I have been able to tune my system based on what I am hearing through the 3.6 system. So, as I am reaching the end of my working life (48 years as a middle school teacher) I have saved enough $$$ to "move up" again. I am considering the model 3.7 that is perhaps 4-5 times the cost of the 3.6. No expectation that the 3.7 is many times "better" than the 3.6. My question is, how might the 3.7 be an improvement over the model 3.6? The only time I heard the 3.7 was probably 10 years ago being driven by Ayre electronics. I was not impressed as the the system was far too lean, although the Thiel clarity, articulation and soundstage were mostly present. Should I hold tight or go for 3.7s? Thanks in advance. |
@beetlemania Certainly a valid question to ponder, for any small business reliant on the founders combination of drive, passion, technical and innovative chops needed to thrive... I can assure you that Richard Vandersteen and I have had that exact conversation in some detail / I consider him a friend, peer and also a mentor in many things. His is a family business with son and daughter playing important roles. Nathan was the innovator behind subtle but effective innovation in the model 7 mk2. While I enjoy them immensely, I don’t expect them to be the end of the line. i spent a career in high technology manufacturing and program management, always willing to help small firms in any way I can. All the best! jim c |
It is nice to imagine innovations to the Thiel speakers but to really make this happen will take a considerable investment. I'm curious how many of us have resources to share to assist Tom in his pursuit and would be able to commit to make this a success. Tom is not immortal and will need support and cheering if not some simple help to verify the accuracy of his observations. I am very willing to contribute to such an initiative and am wondering if there are others. You can privately contact me if you prefer. |
I am not arguing about the technical merits of time-phase coherent. I am only arguing about Thiel business model as if it is financially viable. I would not criticize PSB or B&W as they are able to find a way to be viable even if using a different design strategy. To me it seems like Thiel had put themselves a bit into a corner with such a singular mindset - that is first order time-phase coherent or all else which may be correct technically, but financially, it did not have a way out.Or perhaps Thiel had been successful *because* of the "singular mindset". Thiel speakers were (and are) unique, well-executed, and great sounding. And when Jim Thiel passed without any other engineer among the small business’ staff, subsequently bought by people with no experience in the industry (who steered the company completely away from Jim Thiel’s design principles), it was predictable that Thiel Audio would fail. We’re talking about *Thiel* Audio. B&W is part of a much larger company. Can you name any of their engineers? I know Laurence Dickie designed the Nautilus but I can’t name any current engineer at B&W. Will Vivid stand after Dickie passes? What do you think will happen when Richard Vandersteen passes? Jeff Joseph? It looks like Wilson Audio is making a go of it with Dave Wilson’s son as the main engineer. ARC successfully transitioned from Bill Johnson and Ayre is making it work with Ariel Brown. But it’s not great for a small audio company to lose its founder and primary designer. I suppose Mark Mason could have been more successfully plugged into Thiel Audio if Jim Thiel had designed me-too speakers. But, then, would Thiel Audio ever have been successful at all? Would we be on this thread talking about our Thiel speakers? Loving them? Modifying them to get even better performance? |
uncle_monkey Welcome! Good to see you here. Agreed, life gets in the way of our hobbies and passions. It appears that the CS 2.2 is catching up with the 3.5 owners among the Panel. Vintage models are certainly represented.I concur with your assessment and evalaution of Maggies / Vandies. Incredible that we all connect on Thiel Audio versus the competition. Happy Listening! |
Like sdl4, my search for speakers ended in the early 90's with a pair of 2.2's. 2 years was a long time for me to own any piece of audio gear. I had some Maggies at the time, and had 2 Adcom 555's acting as monoblocks. But Still wasn't feeling it. I spent hours and hours auditioning against the likes of Vandersteen, which just weren't doing it for me. There was something so right to my ear with the Thiels across the board. Perhaps the most impressive thing was their ability to throw a sound stage like few floor-standing speakers I've heard. Not just left and right, but even from behind. Since then, I've upgraded everything at least once but usually 3 times, and most specifically a dedicated listening room with dedicated power (maybe the biggest upgrade of all). But no other speaker tempted me enough at the end of the day, even for a lot more money. Sadly, a variety of things got me out of music for several years. A divorce has kept my system/software away from me for 4 years, but I'm about to get it back! The Thiels are way too large for my townhouse, I'm looking at downsizing. They'll go back in their boxes for the first time in almost 30 years, but they're keepers. I'm not here forever. I'll probably see if the KEF R series can come close to the magic that is Thiel, but I'm not counting on it. |
This discussion, especially the inside history lesson from Tom, have me thinking about why I bought my 2.2s in the early 1990's. I was aware of the "rightness" of the sound from speakers designed using 1st order crossovers so my decision came down to a choice between Thiels and Vandersteens. I have several friends who were (and still are) very happy with their Vandersteens, but I liked the clarity of the Thiels - as well as the stunning cabinet work on the Thiels (thanks Tom!). It is a testament to the quality of the 2.2 as a package that it is still my primary set of speakers 28 years later. |
Dynaudio was a close, interactive supplier, and lots of mutual respect developed between us. No put-down intended. The point is that we did our thing. Regarding viability: companies form around and live their goals. Ours was to make musical tools that mattered. FYI: Thiel’s demand was always beyond its ability to produce. In the first 20 years, that growth was a huge burden. Later it became a choice. 50 people is a manageable number that allowed innovation and large enough scale to pay the bills. |
To Andy's point: New Thiel demonstrated quite clearly how a marketplace responds to non-focused strategies. New Thiel spent $10Million trying to do the standard job really well. Their tower speaker got 5 stars from Brent Butterworth and did the standard thing at least as well as X,Y and Z. But who would buy a Thiel Standard, when you could buy the real X,Y or Z Standard from PSB, B&W or anyone else in the field. Primary among the reasons we chose first order slopes is the uncanny rightness of sound, which I have previously addressed in this forum.I am not arguing about the technical merits of time-phase coherent. I am only arguing about Thiel business model as if it is financially viable. I would not criticize PSB or B&W as they are able to find a way to be viable even if using a different design strategy. To me it seems like Thiel had put themselves a bit into a corner with such a singular mindset - that is first order time-phase coherent or all else which may be correct technically, but financially, it did not have a way out. For those who "get it", there is often no going back. Count me in that camp in company with many of you.Again, I am not arguing about that either, but financially, since there are very few who actually "get it", and it seems to limit the potential pool of buyers. A senior executive at Dynaudio relieved our angst by saying: "What you are doing is impossible, expensive and invisible. Don't worry about others trying it." He was right, and we changed stragegy from patenting innovations to running as fast as we could on our own course.What you said was a bit of an irony. I could interpret what you said as a "put down" of Dynaudio, but then Dynaudio is one of the largest speaker maker in the world so they definitely know what they are doing. That seemed worth doing, and still feels good.I think it was Plato (or Socrates I don't remember) who said that if it feels good, then it probably is not good. I've been drinking too much beers so I probably agree with that :-) |
I worked at a Thiel dealer in 1978/1979, so right you are Tom...people hear it or they don’t and first order slopes are difficult and require a lot of innovation and work. I also eventually worked selling Vandersteen and Dunlavey and of course others, many others.... I own a minty pair of Thiel and a couple pair of Vandersteen today - last man standing but with a succession plan, my hope is it works - they are certainly a small family centered business. trade secret and move fast is a better strategy than patents for sure. wishing you all the best in 2020!!!! |
In response to Andy 2 "Monday Quarterbacking" I'll offer that over the 40 year Thiel sales history, perhaps 10% of their buyers knew what a first-order crossover was, its real benefits and challenges. And perhaps 1% of those buyers knew the engineering well enough to truly appreciate the technical aspects, as Tom touches on above. That's just a total guess knowing the hifi buying population I've engaged with over 45 years (not as a salesman). I'm perhaps in the 1% above (NOT "the 1%"!) and it still came down to lots of listening in audio showrooms in the brick and mortar days to Thiels versus similarly priced and respected speakers. I had a preference for their engineering, but if they didn't appease my sound priorities vs all the other good speakers of the day anywhere near their price or form factor, I wouldn't have bought 2.3s, and later 2.4s. I had no trouble finding Thiels among many dealers throughout the northeast with which to compare to many other brands. They didn't seem a 'boutique' speaker to me at the time, splitting the difference between say B&W and oh I dunno, Silverline Audio. Also, Thiels were generally getting good to great reviews over the years, with 'too bright' being the most common complaint I recall. Thiel's "real" designs of their final decade seemed the best-received. So I don't agree that things would have been any different if Jim chose to use higher-order crossovers to 'save' the company, assuming the voicing, pricing, cabinetry, etc were otherwise similar. Doing so would dumb-down the brand for the 10% and have little perceivable difference in the showroom for the 90%. Perhaps the bigger 'problem' was Jim's solo brilliance and unwillingness/difficulty in finding a suitable protege, ending up with perhaps the dumbest audio-related buyout I've ever been aware of :-( |
I am in complete agreement with Beetlemania. The core designs are what helped separate Thiel from the herd. It would be hard for a small company to market competing design principles and still maintain credibility. Grooming a replacement for Jim wouldn't be too easy. As the late Roy Johnson of Green Mountain used to say, most people aren't up to doing the math. There aren't that many with the chops and the will. It's one thing to put together a 1st order crossover in a slanted box , it's another to customize for driver anomalies so that the whole acts as a time coherent system. When I first got serious about auditioning speakers, and not understanding the reasons why, I kept coming back to the few time coherent designs (the maggies were the only exception even considered). To this day I am still consistently attracted to time correct designs over all others. |
In case anyone is interested, received the following email from Audio Consultants: Audio Consultants Retirement Sale Continues Dear Friends, As you know, before we officially closed our doors on December 21st, we held a comprehensive sale and most of our vast inventory is gone. However, a few interesting items remain. Some of these include: - 1 pair Vienna Acoustics Music, with crates - 1 pair Vienna Acoustics Mozart Grand with boxes - 1 pair Vienna Beethoven Concert Grand, with boxes - HRS MXR double wide rack with platforms - Various Salamander cabinets and racks - Various Transparent cables - 1 Solid Tech 20” high double wide rack - 1 pair McIntosh HT3 dipole speakers - 1 pair Klipsch RS7 speakers - Critical Mass amp stands - Grand Prix amp stands - 1 pair Thiel SCS 3 speakers To inquire about anything, please call 847 864 9565 or please stop in. I will be in the store every day until about the end of January, probably from 10am to 4pm. Thank you again. Sincerely, Simon Zreczny |
I like Beetle's perspective, and the two factors are fundamentally linked. Early-on, I wanted to work toward an ongoing entity that would transcend any and all founders' contributions. Jim disagreed. He wanted a vehicle to support his research and development ideas. "And when I'm finished, it's over". That stance caused the lack of successors to his chops, which in turn caused the lack of interest from qualified buyers, since history is but a small fraction of viability. An extensive multi-year worldwide search turned up NO qualified buyers. The denouement was thoroughly predictable because it was embedded in the company's genes. The paragraph above is a short snippet of a 40 year scenario that was quite difficult to live through. A company, even a small entity like Thiel Audio, orchestrates significant life events and outcomes for scores of people spanning dozens of years. A primary motivation for my re-entry into this story is to soften some of the rough edges of the company's trajectory. To Andy's point: New Thiel demonstrated quite clearly how a marketplace responds to non-focused strategies. New Thiel spent $10Million trying to do the standard job really well. Their tower speaker got 5 stars from Brent Butterworth and did the standard thing at least as well as X,Y and Z. But who would buy a Thiel Standard, when you could buy the real X,Y or Z Standard from PSB, B&W or anyone else in the field. Primary among the reasons we chose first order slopes is the uncanny rightness of sound, which I have previously addressed in this forum. For those who "get it", there is often no going back. Count me in that camp in company with many of you. Another reason was the extreme difficulty. By the time of the 03 and 04 in the late 1970s, there were companies (Japanese and European) buying them for competitive evaluation. I, as external affairs liaison, would follow up those encounters. Frankly, we were afraid that companies with comparatively unlimited resources would take our ideas and leave us in the dust. A senior executive at Dynaudio relieved our angst by saying: "What you are doing is impossible, expensive and invisible. Don't worry about others trying it." He was right, and we changed stragegy from patenting innovations to running as fast as we could on our own course. That seemed worth doing, and still feels good. |
@andy2 Thiel Audio found a formula that sounded good to them and they pushed that vision as far as they could. No doubt they considered and listened to alternatives but first order filters became their cornerstone. Tip of the hat to them for finding something good and sticking to it. You can decide whether it sounds best to you. All designs have trade-offs. My ears quite like Thiel’s solution. I have a lot of respect for that. I mean, look at Magico. Their models are all over the map in terms of design philosophy. I think their main skill is throwing gobs of money into the company, trying whatever design element they can think of (well, mostly borrowed from others). IMO, they’re mere hype from TAS. From my perspective, Thiel Audio had two main problems: 1) Jim Thiel didn’t train an engineer to carry his vision forward; and 2) New Thiel owners had almost no experience in high end audio. Do you really think Thiel Audio folded because of adherence to their design principles? I sure don’t. Quite the opposite. |
Jim’s approach was that everything matters.First thanks for your insights and I don't mean to play the "monday quarterback" game, since that could offend others, but it would be interesting to see "what if?" without being too negative. Is it possible that if Thiel as a company was not so strong in its insistence on first-order coherence, that is if Thiel product portfolio was a bit more inclusive, was more open to other point of view, it could be more financially viable even after Thiel? I think some of the speaker companies who are more currently successful have a wide range of products - if for nothing, it is to stay financially viable since one product can be used to support others and so on. Having only one product or having only one philosophical point of view may restrict oneself to the potential buyers, who whether we like it or not, will determine the success of a company. Had Thiel had been more flexible, it is possible that Thiel would still be in business, and that means not only more people would have access to Thiel time-phase coherent products, but Thiel other products will be made available to the a larger group of buyers, and ironically, it would serve to what you stated as "everything matters". I don't know ... I guess I am more flexible as opposed to your point of view. If it was possible to go back to the past, if you had known the road Thiel was going would eventually lead to the current situation today, would you still? Anyway, this post makes me want more beers ... something I guess most people would agree :-) |
The story of the CS1.7 from Tom is very interesting since it told a story of what is superior - the fourth order xover that allows for better power handling and "smoother" treble response, but of course it is not time-phase coherent which some view as having technical superiority. I was wondering whether the reason it was not well-received by the Thiel loyalists because it was not a time-coherent design or of some other reason? Is it possible that even if the CS1.7 is "better", it would not have been embraced by Thiel loyalists
no matter what
because it was not time-phase coherent? I guess it could be viewed under the lens of a philosophical debate between first order vs higher order, and not based on the technical merits? I am just asking since I don't know the details, but it seems like a perfect example of what has been arguing within the audiophile communities: first order vs. higher order. |
Mr Bill - the CS1.7 is a real pot of soup. It represents the final battle in Thiel's hope for survival. I have patched together the story from reliable insider sources and first-hand evidence, and here's the thumb-nail. The 1.7 was codeveloped along with the 2.7 by Kathy's home team and the Canadian consultants previously outlined in this forum. The 2.7 was introduced in the fall of 2012 as a re-statement of Jim's design goals by his surviving company. The 1.7 was being readied for introduction at January 2013 CES, after the purchase by New Thiel. They pulled it for Mark Mason to "design a better speaker" on the 1.x platform. The resulting 1.7 had a more robust tweeter and 4th order crossovers. An argument ensued as to whether they could-should call it a "coherent source", since they owned the trademark; but the loyalists insisted it wasn't a coherent source, and I concur. Heads rolled the Dawn and Gary and Steve DeFuria and Bob Brown (the leading loyalists) got fired. Lana and Rob kept their heads low and stayed on. And the circus commenced which led to the liquidation bankruptcy which is still incomplete. Stereophile stayed out of it and didn't review the 1.7. I have seen no other reviews. I know the cabinet was beefed up. I know the tweeter was improved - quite good I understand. The slotted port is the same as the 1.6 and the woofer had been developed by old Thiel. The 1.7 as introduced has a smoother frequency response and it handles more power due to the 4th order slopes. Its anechoic tonal balance peaks at 100Hz and falls about 6dB to treble, so it's balanced like a B&W rather than flat like a Thiel. In the world of magic and speculation, interested loyalists might acquire the few extant pairs of 1.7s for later conversion to the 2013 first order crossovers and have a final tribute to Jim Thiel's design legacy. If I live long enough or am able to create a successor organization, I would relish that possibility. In the mean time, the current CS1.7 is a bit of a hybrid, mostly Thiel with a core dose of PSB/Mark Mason/New Thiel crossover slopes, which by world standards is what is expected in a modern speaker. Happy New Year and New Decade, all |
I think different frequency range presents its own difficulty. The upper mid/treble region does have its own issues. On the opposite pole, the lower bass has its own unique issues as well. I've designed speakers with both ported and seal designs, and the ported has more "bass", although the seal bass theoretically can extend lower freq., it has a less perceived bass vs. the ported design. On the flip side, the ported has a higher order high pass slope, so it has more group delay vs. the more shallow slop of the seal bass design. For monitor design with smaller woofer, a ported design makes more sense since it has "more bass", at the same time, it is small enough that does not load up the room and may cause room issues. I've used seal bass design for monitor and they just do not have enough bass to justify the more "bass quality". For three way design, with a larger 8in woofer for example, you could afford to use seal design, but given the same 8in woofer, I could clearly hear the less bass output from the seal design. I think if you have a good cabinet design, a ported 8in woofer will sound just as good and a 8in. woofer is still small enough that will not load up the room and cause issues and that is if the cabinet is well designed. Most Thiel designs use Passive Radiator. In theory, it has a higher cut-off vs ported, but lower cut-off vs the seal design, so it is somewhat in between, with respect to efficiency and transient response. The ported design has the most bass efficiency but poor transient response, the seal design on the other hands has the least efficiency but the best transient response, and of course the Passive Radiator is somewhat in between. |
Strindl - I love your system. I also resonate with your musical tastes. I believe it worth saying that your desire to derive meaning from your music was at the very heart of the Thiel Journey. What we struggled to find and execute was a vehicle for connection. For Jim the focus was the musical web. For Kathy and myself the lyrical realm mattered as much. Walter tuned in to the drums and rhythm and Fred went right to visualization and the out of body experience. The communal aspect kept the dance alive full-time. As time went on, those intangibles took a step behind the relentless work of continual developments and growth. But the founding value of access to soul by musical journey remained in the products’ DNA . My present renaissance work seeks to hold sacred that goal of connection. I find a joyful dose of contemplation in the systematic discoveries every day. My hope is that the meaning and message in your music will become even more accessible and real through the next generation updates. |
My 3.6's are used in a system that can be configured in different ways. I have an Integra DHC 9.9 pre amp processor, when I want surround sound with my music, but I can go strictly two channel with a 1994 vintage Threshold T2 preamp. The Thiels are driven by either a Threshold SA/4e pure class A power amp, or a pair of Emotiva XPA1 monoblocs. All connections between the preamps and power amps are done with balanced XLR cables. I have used a pair of Velodyne F1500 r subwoofers with the Thiels since they were new as well. I use a 40hz crossover point for them, as well as for the 3.6's. My sources are either a Logitech Touch streamer for my digital server collection of lossless CD rips, an Oracle Turntable with Magnepan Unitrac 1 arm and a Shure V15-V mr cartridge, or an Oppo disc player. I have over a thousand CD's ripped to my server, and I have a little bit of everything in there as far as type of music. My favorite music is acoustic/vocal contempory folk . I like songs with lyrics that have some meaning, and maybe deliver some sort of message. |
gs5556 , I've owned my 3.6's since 1993 and still love the sound they produce. I did have to have the midrange and tweeter repaired on one of the speakers at different points. The midrange had a problem where something failed and thin wires kind of unwound and were protruding around the base of the phase plug. I took it to Audio Consultants where I had purchased it and they took care of having the driver repaired by Thiel and reinstalled. That was about in 2003 or so. A few years later the tweeter in that same speaker pretty much fried. I spoke with, I believe it was Rob at Thiel and sent the tweeter in for rebuilding. He called me a few days later and we talked about what may have happened He said the driver was pretty badly damaged and I mentioned the type of music I listen to. Contemporary Folk..basically acoustic guitar, vocals, that type of music, and nothing at any levels that are apt to over drive a tweeter. He sent me back the rebuilt tweeter, but had me do a test before I reinstalled it. He said that they had had an issue with a specific component of the crossover failing, that would send a full range signal through to the tweeter. He had me do an ohm meter test on the resistance being supplied by the crossover to the tweeter inputs. He said it should be 20 ohms. Mine was .1 ohms, that's point 1 ohms....basically a dead short. That's why my tweeter blew, and the rebuilt one would have blown as well had I hooked it back up without having the failed crossover component replaced first. Rob knew exactly which component in the crossover needed to be replaced and I had that done, and the tweeter has worked perfectly ever since. I do have two other systems in the house, both with Magnepan speakers, but my main system still has the Thiel 3.6's and I have no plans to replace them. |
