George - by tonality I intend to mean the whole perception of tone, which includes the fundamental and all the overtones. Tonal information, as I understand it, is processed differently than time information.
A very interesting, to me, aspect is the interplay between tone and time. I am presently working on a new termination scheme of the piano string at the bridge. Various schemes deliver various temporal envelopes relative to the frequency (tonal) response of the note.
(all related to the impedance variables at the bridge and the length and tuning of the back-scale between the bridge and the string's final termination.) The fascinating aspect is that the fundamental is only required momentarily, for the brain to "get it" (understand the harmonic structure), rather than having to create a phantom fundamental inferred from the upper harmonics (which takes lots of work.) Anyhow, once the real fundamental is there for a instant, the upper harmonics make sense, and then the phantom can drop out and the upper harmonic structure is more intelligible on its own. This harmonic development / sonic motion is related to the phase interactions of the string and bridge, which can be manipulated. Imagine that.
|
|
@vair68robert
I was doing my yoga this morning and found my eyes about a foot away from the outriggers on my 2.4s. Do you have outriggers? If any part of the outriggers is not tight, the Ayre tone glide can result in a rattle over portions of the sweep!
|
We are barely scraping the surface here. The point is that the inner functioning of the ear mechanism itself is vastly complex, even before the neuronic energy is sent to the brain for processing. Hi Tom, I was under the impression that the only part of our body that can "sense" sound is the ear drum, but then what you’re saying is that since our ear drum is only part of a complex network that forms a mechanism to "sense" sound, therefore it’s possible our brain can get sound information from other than our ear drum. So there are three options to this argument: 1. If what you said is true, then even if our ear drum can only vibrate at 20KHz max, other parts of the ear has the possibility of vibrate at higher then 20KHz. I mean our body works like a machine in that sense. You need something to vibrate at higher than 20KHz for our brain to process signal. Otherwise where would the brain get the information from? 2. But if the ONLY part of our body can vibrate is our ear drum, then I don’t see how we can sense sound at higher than 20KHz. 3. The third argument is this. Considering the equation Y = 1/x. Y is approaching zero but never gets to absolute zero. Y will get smaller and smaller but never zero. In general that’s the nature of our analog world. Nothing is absolute zero. So our ear drum is like that. Is possible that the ear drum does not get cut off right at 20KHz, but its response after 20KHz gets smaller and smaller but just enough to be able for the brain to obtain information. And when we say "we don’t hear it", it’s our brain that "told" us that we don’t hear it, but that does not mean our brain did not process it. Think about it. If we are constantly being interrupted by supersonic sound, we would be driven to crazy. Trust me. I know. I used to have a girl friend lols. A lot of people say that truely low bass can only be sensed, and not heard. Our whole body can be thought of as a giant ear drum but for only very low frequency. Our body can actually vibrate but only at very low frequency. So when we "hear" low bass, I guess it’s more like the sensors in our skin telling our brain about the low bass (how else would we know if somebody punched us?). In that respect, not only our ear drum can hear low bass, our entire body can hear it too. |
but anybody try Acoustic BBQ speaker cables with their Thiels? I need to get some speaker cables with spade connectors (long story) and leaning towards trying these, unless someone can make a strong case for something different for less than $400. Same old requirements - less harshness in the treble, no loss of resolution or harmonics. Currently have AQ CV-8s which are the only audiophilesque speaker cables I've tried.
For high end speaker such as the Thiels, in order to bring out the best, I think you need some really decent cables. I am using Acoustic Zen Hologram II and the sound is a lot more sure footed than some low end cables. These can be found for about $500 here at Audiogon. |
Beetlemania
No I do not have outriggers that cost $500 ! ,
but I did purchase the outrigger spikes to penitrate the carpet .
Beetle , as in VW beetle ?
Rob
|
Hi Andy,I believe the ear drum maxes out at 20kHz.#1: the cochlear envelope gets inputs in addition to the ear drum.They mostly modify the conversion from sense (electromagnetic energy) to neuron output, but also direct cochlear vibration produces modification. Also, there are other types of auditory input in addition to vibration. Think time-impulse, not tonal-frequency.
#2: False assumption. Brain gets inputs from cochlear cilia (hairs) which can be stimulated various ways. Plus additional inputs (beyond cochlear cilia). It is known that video input affects the ear (dizziness from spinning alters sound perception) and bright lights (strobes affect hearing), and so on. The brain is a parallel processor.
#3: Probably mostly true, but the ear-drum-stirrup system obeys the mass-stiffness-damping physical laws and therefore falls off rapidly above its upper resonance. And I don't know how much importance to assign to the residuals. Psychological damage can be inflicted via super-sonic sound that is not knowingly heard. On the other hand, there are thresholds below which we don't knowingly hear, and there are masks where we become unaware of sound beyond some marker, such as a resonance frequency or FR hump. More questions than answers.
#4 ( A lot of people). That's a good example. Sound below about 20Hz is sensed via the solar plexus (chest-diaphragm) as well as mastoid process (skull behind ears) and forehead. The head bones directly modify the cochlear response, but the solar plexus couples directly with the right-brain auditory cortex, with speculation about other skin-body involvement.
Historical note: The Germans developed a sub-sonic technology in the 3 to 5 Hz range to play before Hitler took stage. People puked, fainted and became agitated. As he took stage, they stopped the signal for a state of comparative euphoria. These low frequency tones can be lethal, infra-sonic but definitely directly related. Horses can "hear" a train more than 5 miles down the track. They sense that 4Hz wave through their hooves. I mention these things as examples among many to illustrate that hearing is complex beyond 20Hz to 20kHz eardrum vibration.
|
Horses can "hear" a train more than 5 miles down the track. They sense that 4Hz wave through their hooves.
In that sense, I was wondering if dogs are just opposite? They can better sense high frequency sound. That's why my dog tends to act up when I play Diana Krall :-) |
Yes, dogs' hearing goes higher. Don't let your dog or cat near your tweeters!
|
andy2
Ours would act up at Kathleen Battle.
|
Ours would act up at Kathleen Battle.
I would too :-) |
@vair68robert
top nut on my outriggers occasionally gets loose but it’s possible one of your spikes is doing the same, especially if the weight is mostly on three spikes rather than all four as could happen with an uneven floor. Worth a quick check. |
Thanks for thinking about it beetlemania
I plan on taking the passive radiator out , play the EBI cd
and feel around inside to see what is vibrating .
since I don't have the outrigger support I go directly into the speaker
like the original rounded spikes , I use the original nuts to level and tighten .
I have been looking into binding posts and it seems that
Cardas might be the only maker of long posts .
|
I’m very happy with the Cardas binding posts even if it’s tough to get a good mechanical connection. Tom had me strive for that standard wherever possible. A couple of other places I had trouble: 1) connections on XO boards where multiple coils, resistors, and caps come together (especially joining the Litz wire to the bundle), and 2) connection to driver posts, all the more so with the Litz (but even the OEM solid core was pretty much a solder connection there). |
1) connections on XO boards where multiple coils, resistors, and caps come together (especially joining the Litz wire to the bundle), and 2) connection to driver posts, all the more so with the Litz (but even the OEM solid core was pretty much a solder connection there).
Hi beetlemania, Does it mean you also did swap out the stock internal xover wires? |
tomthiel
Thank You for the SCD-1 update. Watch eBay weekly for Sony ES parts, especially, the SCD-1 player. Hope you can return health to your spinner.
Happy Listening! |
@andy2
The only remaining OEM are the drivers and cabinets. If I had Lexington rather than FST boards, I would have salvaged a few coils and, maybe, bypass caps. |
Thanks andy2 for the cable recommendation, jafant I imagine you must have some speaker cable opinions, or maybe could share what the expected differences in outcomes would be for using Duelund 12awg based Acoustic BBQ vs Acoustic Zen's Holographic II, which uses 8awg 6N zero crystal copper? Tube amp driving 2.3s. |
thosb
I have spent time with Audioquest Mont Blanc and Volcano speaker cables. Both were excellent w/ the CS 2.4SE, CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 models.
Honorable mention goes to Audience AU24 series and Transparent Audio MM2 series all of the way up the mighty OPUS, in other non-Thiel systems, over the years. I have read about Acoustic Zen being a sonic match on Thiel Audio loudspeakers. Duelund is a modern favorite with the D.I.Y. crowd (I have not spent any time w/ AZ nor Duelund).
Check in over on Audio Asylum for more interpretations of Acoustic Zen and Duelund cable discussions. I can report that Copper matches the best and is worry free. Silver, is a little more dicey on models CS 2.4 through CS 3.7 and requires careful gear consideration. I wonder if silver is less dicey on CS 2.3, 2.2 or other vintage loudspeakers?
Happy Listening! |
|
TGIF for sure, and thanks jafant for the cable info, much appreciated. |
|
not sure "centered" was a good word choice above, the thread does get way off topic at times. |
Thosb - Wow, what a ride! The topic of amps driving Thiels is, of course, of great interest and concern to me. Jim did his thing for his reasons, and I disagreed (about impedance mostly), but he was the designer-engineer. The interacting variables are very real. My hope was that by developing our own in-house driver manufacturing we could circumvent some of the hard problems of magnetic gap electrodynamics, etc. that limited the overall system design. Thiel drivers did indeed become quite radical. But to my dismay, the system impedances fell rather than rose, which disappoints me as I re-assess these designs.
I wish that Thiel speakers presented a minimum 4 ohm load! That didn't happen. The nearly magic work-around that a poster mentioned on that thread, is to add a second input for a separate amp for the 3 bass drivers. Most of the problem evaporates, but cost is incurred for 2 more amps.
I find it interesting that in all that discussion and examples, that Benchmark AHB-2 didn't surface. My question about it on this thread also got no response. Is it invisible or somehow inappropriate? Absolute Sound rated it Class A. I find it exceptionally clean, uncolored, versatile and affordable. Am I missing something?
|
Thosb & Tomthiel,
I've read the "Class D and 2 ohm load" thread, and there's lots of interesting discussion - but quite a bit of rude argument as well. I don't know if I agree with the poster who claims that Class D amps are a bad match for low impedance speakers because they typically don't double the power output at 2 ohms compared to 4 ohms. There appear to be a number of Class D amps that can provide reasonable wattage at under 4 ohms, but I don't have enough personal experience with those amps to know if they really have the low-ohm current to power hard-to-drive speakers like several of the Thiels.
What I do know, however, is that my PS Audio M700 monoblocks do a great job with my Thiel CS 2.2 speakers. I don't know, though, if the M700s would do as well with some of the Thiels that are harder to drive than the 2.2s. The M700s (Class D) took over for an Adcom 555-II (Class AB) I've had for many years, and the new amps really made the 2.2s come alive, improving both bass control and naturalness/openness across the spectrum.
I don't have any experience with the Benchmark AHB-2, but I would assume that it would power the 2.2s well even if it might have more trouble with some of the Thiels that present lower impedance loads to the amp.
|
Good question tomthiel re the Benchmark, I convinced myself a while ago that if I were to spend my audio $$$$s on a ss amp, it would likely be this one, but thus far I have not tired of tubes. My guess is very few Thiel owners have tried this amp, but for the life of me I don't know why, as on paper it seems a match made in heaven. Maybe it's a question of distribution? Maybe the classics (Bryston, Classe, Pass, Ayre, etc) are the no-risk choice of high current amps?
And once again, reading some of these other threads reminds me of why I so much enjoy coming back to this one - the regular posters have a lot to offer newish users like me, and they are generally very open to others' experiences and philosophies. Rock on Thiel Users! |
If you try the Benchmark, you could consider a pair for either horizontal or vertical biamping. Just don't bridge them... (see the parallel thread on bridged stereo amps into lower impedances...) |
I bought a pair of AHB-2s about a year ago and am thrilled. I specifically want to hear bridged vs stereo and how this amp stacks up against my well-known Classe DR9s (also a pair). They are remarkably similar and grain-free. The Adcom GFA555mkII exhibits the kind of problems that plague Thiel users. The 3 amps provide a good window into what might be going on.
BTW: John Siau (AHB designer) told me the following, based on my speaker schematics and his load analysis:CS7.2 Stereo or mono (bridged)CS5: Stereo onlyCS3.7: Stereo onlyCS3.6: Stereo onlyCS2.4: Stereo onlyCS2.2: Stereo or mono
Believing him, I have nevertheless tried both modes on the 2.2 and 3.6. The 2.2 does fine either way (Its impedance is higher and more benign.) The 3.6 sounds a little sweeter on stereo. When bridged and pushed hard the amp clips with very effective momentary protection. Amidst the thunder the only evidence for me was seeing the red lights flicker. This amp is Class H power feeding a class A output. Very unusual distortion profile. Essentially clean until it's not, which shuts down instantly.
Twoleftears: that single vs dual input scheme is high on my list, but I haven't implemented it yet. I'm wired for vertical bi-wire/bi-amps.
|
More good info thanks tom. Can you elaborate on “kind of problems that plague Thiel users” when using the Adcom amp? Would other Thiel models benefit from being modified for dual inputs to allow for vertical biamping, and could (should?) this be done as part of a XO modification? Apologize if this has already been covered in the thread, if so I will go on a search mission, unfortunately withthis format it’s easier to ask than go back and search. |
Congrats on the score! And many hours of sweet, happy listening! A few years ago I had picked up the 3.7s and love them. I often gravitate to vintage and good, and paired these with a Bryston amp, and eBay Tom Evans pre-amp. But some of the greatest advancements came from the cabling which, relative to the system, was actually the most cost effective. I first experimented with, then put broadly, the Anticables, from Paul Speltz. At that time, Tidal was offering a section of their website that tested the "can you hear a difference [with lossless format]?" And before the cables, it was random. After the cables (on the same system) I want to say I picked out five out of six.
All of this is through Oppo BDP 105D, which is a sweet (but unfortunately discontinued) media server.f
Enjoy! |
Tom, thanks for your very experienced discussions here! Fascinating reading. |
Thanks donzi, whichlevel anticables did you end up with? Assume speaker and interconnects, did you also try their power cables?
|
Thosb - the broad brush paints a picture that the select few amps (which you guys end up with) seem to handle the difficult loads, mitigate "the harshness" or otherwise perform well without softening or sweetening the signal. Jim's view was that these are "good amps" which should be used with "good speakers". He tested amps and knew the designers and indeed many of the used our speakers for their design loads.
What I hear from the Adcom is somewhat bland / lifeless, grainy and dry. Not bad. Pretty good compared to many, but fairly vanilla compared with better.
Regarding dual inputs: I'll recap. We identified dual inputs as a good solution and used it in the CS3. Problems occurred when people used radically different cables for bass and treble and/or bi-amped with differing amps, including unmatched gain. These hassles were unacceptable to Jim, who put tons of energy into matching to within a fractional dB across the spectrum. Kathy polled dealers who thought at our price points life would be much simpler with single inputs. End of that story.
But the back story doesn't change. Since the current draw makes many amps misbehave, even if marginally, separating the bass loads from upper loads cleans things up enormously. There is a perceived problem by some that jumpers degrade the sound if you choose to single-input. I don't hear it when using Cardas high purity copper jumper plates, which are affordable and allow the user to substitute with jumper wires if desired. I like vertical bi-amping where one channel drives the woofer and the other channel drives the mid-tweeter. I don't have a good sample, since my amps are pretty good and I only have 1 Adcom stereo. (The second one arrived DOA and I opted for a refund unstead of repair.)
I suggest adding the second pair of posts when modding the XO. Beetle may chime in - he looked in to that with his 2.4 upgrade.
|
I’ve been thinking about the time/phase coherent and to be honest I’ve been back and forth - it matters, then it matters not like a girl choosing who to marry. One is for money and one is for love lols. A lot of it is more like personal experience than actual reasoning - like marrying.
But I think now know who but I need to know if she’s for sure lols. You guys probably thought I was gay right :-) ha ha ha ha ha |
andy2
Get a decent set of electrostatic headphones (Stax) and you'll be even more confused. ;-) |
thanks again tomthiel for your input. |
George - C'mon, please say more.Thosb - You're welcome. These questions fascinate me this time around.
|
FWIW, I sure don't hear any harshness in my Thiel 2.7s driven by my conrad johnson premier 12 tube amps :-)
Not anywhere, not a bit. They are one of the smoothest sounding speakers (at least with this amp combo) that I've ever heard.
And the sound is big, rich and lush - not the usual descriptors that have been traditionally associated with Thiel speakers (in the mind of many audiophiles).
|
Prof - the most modern Thiel I have in the HRGarage is the 1.6, which predates your 2.7s by a decade. And I don't hear any of those harsh attributes in it either. There was steady progress made through the years. But the early products could and would often sing sweetly. The positive reviewer experience rarely gives any mention to the complaints some observers proclaim. I'm developing some working models, but still there's a lotta mystery.
|
Tom,
Electrostatic headphones use a very, very thin and low mass membrane, positioned between two stators that are driven by a high voltage signal. (The stators operate push-pull to ensure the membrane reacts in a near simultaneous move to the coming signal.
In effect, the membrane reproduces the signal, covering all frequencies fed to it, in a near-instantaneous time.
What this means is what you hear (for example) is what the CD spinner/DAC feeds to the headphone does not have the differences in both the reaction time and the physical distances in space that define a normal speaker system.
What you hear is essentially what the recording engineer and the manufacturer put onto the CD.
I've been using Stax headphones and amplifiers for years to "audition" every classical CD in my collection. (now using the 009 and associated amplifier)
Yes, an electrostatic can sound thin in the bass - - but very clean and precise, and the higher frequencies can appear bright - - but the accuracy and resolution cannot be beaten by dynamic cans, nor the arrival of complex sounds from my 2.7s. (and, no room effects! :-) :-) :-) )
I use my Thiel 2.7s for musical enjoyment. My Stax for finding out whatinthehell really is on that CD.
George |
prof,
I agree with your description of the 2.7s, although I'm using a Bryston 4B cubed with a bp17 cubed preamp. To me there is a clear difference in the 2.7s being driven by the 4BSST2 and the 4B cubed.
George |
George - I've never actually heard electrostatic phones. I use Beyerdynamic 770s live and Sennheiser 800S in the studio-lab. I chose them for high quality neutrality and because many top-notch recording and mastering engineers use them.
Of interest is that the handling of stereo signal is different for in-room stereo and in-can binaural playback. Great recordings play well in both environments, but many ordinary recordings do not. It would be fascinating to learn whether that qualifier makes for good playback on Thiel / Vandy speakers. A recording that plays well on both stereo and cans must have its phase-time information intact and refrain from 3-D tricks of the trade. I bet those "proper" recordings would sound right on phase coherent speakers. Anybody know anything about this topic? I'm just surmising.
Tom
|
Hello fellow Thiel Owners. I have a question for the tinkerers of the group.
I bought a soldering iron and I have been practicing soldering and desoldering in preparation for possibly removing the damaged driver from my 3.7s. I have been talking with Rob who suggested I do one of two things, either desolder the terminal connection, or cut the wires as close to the terminal as possible. It seems to me that desoldering would be the preferred method but I am curious which method you would chose.
Also, I sent a few questions to Rob and was hoping I could pose the same questions to you guys. Here is what I sent Rob:
"I had a few more questions about removing this driver. I bought a soldering iron and I have been watching youtube videos and practicing soldering and desoldering. I think I am ready to give this a try. What is the best way to position the speaker to remove the driver(on its back, on its side, standing up)? Is a desoldering wick the way to go and if so what size would you recommend? Secondly, once I remove the screws and have the driver lose, how much slack is there in the wire connecting it, will I need a second set of hands to hold it while I desolder it? Beyond the soldering iron, what other tools would I need or would you recommend? Any practical tips for a beginner trying to desolder this terminal connection?"
Thanks for the help guys.
|
bighempin
From my experience ,
Set your soldering iron to 600 F , use a flat tip about the size of the wire ,
heat the wire and remove it , use solder wick to remove the solder
from the connector , use solder with silver ( Cardas for me )
to reconnect .
Good Luck
Rob |
Tom,
WoW! 800S cans. They certainly must sound better than my HD 600s. The circular transducer must make a difference.
I agree. Everything that sounds coherent via the electrostatics also sounds coherent with my 2.7s.
I think the major difference between dynamic and electrostatic cans is in the compliance and mass of the respective transducers. (Thiele-Small parameters: Small signals.)
( I use the HD600s when my "bat-ears" neighbor grouses about my nocturnal listening habits .)
George
|
George - I auditioned the HD600s and the 800s. The 800-S is a big step up due to controlling a resonance at about 8K and the angled circular transducer. As I mentioned, my decision was for alignment with the recording community, not doubting that your electrostatics might sound better. BTW, I see the Audeze cans making serious inroads into high end recording.
|
Looking for CS1.5s. I've spent a good part of the past year building a lab with measurement equipment, various playback chains, a hot-rod garage of models and accumulating knowledge and ideas. Many pieces of the puzzle are in place, and I have decided to take on the CS1.5 as my first project. It is highly rated, well loved, simple two way, good parts availability, and old enough to need assistance. I'll learn a lot from them to apply to more complex models. 2.2 and 3.6 are next in line.
But I don't have any CS1.5s, nor does Rob. So, please know that I am looking for a pair or two as workhorses, in any condition, with or without good drivers. Thanks for any help you can give.
|
@bighempin I would desolder. Note that Thiel used unleaded solder which
has a higher melting point. Your iron/gun should be at least 140 watts. Speaker
should be on its back so that the driver can’t fall out and prevents solder
from dripping onto the driver. There is enough slack in the wire to access the
terminal but not much more. A second pair of hands is very helpful. I did this
solo on my 2.4s by setting the driver on a shim above its hole which leaves plenty
of room to get at the terminal.
It’s not that difficult but you can gain confidence by
practicing soldering and unsoldering bare wire.
|
I suggest adding the second pair of posts when modding the
XO. Beetle may chime in - he looked in to that with his 2.4 upgrade.
My experience with bi-wireable Vandersteens led me to
explore this option with my CS2.4s and Tom Thiel encouraged me to try it. Also,
the OEM binding posts have brass whereas the Cardas CPBP are rhodium over
silver. The OEM hook up wire in my “SE” version was sourced from FST and, based
on the parts quality on the FST-sourced boards, I suspected was sub-optimal
(those of you with Lexington boards have higher quality parts). I replaced the
posts and wire with Cardas and added separate binding posts for the low and
high pass boards.
I sonically compared single runs of speaker cable from the
amp using Cardas copper jumper plates to double runs of identical cables. The biwire configuration consistently sounded more relaxed and
liquid. Some songs also sounded a bit more dimensional and clear via biwire. The latter characters are especially subtle but I heard
the effect on more than one song.
This is not an easy or inexpensive upgrade but certainly
worth it for me. The low-hanging fruit, however, is to upgrade the caps and
resistors, maybe the coils if you have boards made by FST (it appears that Thiel
Audio started using FST shortly after Jim Thiel’s passing). So, start with the
XO parts, especially if you’re on a budget. But if you’re insane (like me) and
want to squeeze every iota of performance out of your Thiels then dual binding
posts should be on the agenda!
|
Pardon me, I mis-typed. The 2.2 and 3.5 will follow the 1.5. Lots of work is being done on the 2.2 which can be applied to the 3.5 which seems to have a strong following, especially in its sealed bass. I'm looking for a pair of 3.5s as well as 1.5s.
Tom
|
