Thiel Owners

Some components and speakers are also just more sensitive to changes.  I used to make virtually all of my cables (I probably have some of them in back-up systems and I have made them for others - didn't set out to do it but after they heard it, I agreed to do it at cost of materials).  Sometimes I'd make something and marvel at the difference it made in one system and then struggle to figure out why there was almost no difference in another.  Much of course depends on the room as well (it is so often the most overlooked thing).  I've had a one-third octave RTA for many years (and also now that computers have come so far I have Audio Tools on the Phone and iPads along with a calibrated mic as well as Windows 10 music servers in other systems with REW and a USB mic) and doing changes/movements in mine and other systems has helped me evaluate things better.  Of course everyone has different tastes and priorities as well (and there's nothing wrong with that).

cascadesphil

Beautiful room and system.

Happy Listening!

Given some of the recent posts about cable upgrades, I wonder if you notice that the "larger" the system, the more apparent the difference makes.  For example, if you have small monitors in a small room vs. a large system such as a real four way speakers in a large area room, any upgrade such as cables will make more of a difference.  

Let's take this analogy.  If you have two digital pictures with different resolution, says one is 0.3 megapixel and one is 7megapixel, and zoom them on to two large computer screens, the difference in quality will be very apparent and the 7megapixel will have superior picture quality vs. the .3megapixel.  But now if you display these two same pictures on very small computer monitors, the difference is not quite apparent and it is related to the picture resolution.

Now back to audio system, the larger the system will expose the quality of the equipment better because the sound will have to be projected in a larger air volume vs. a small systems.  The difference will be amplified in a large system in similar way with pictures.  I think that's why different people will perceive the same set component differently and some say the difference is significant while others may say the difference is minimal.  From personal experience, I used to have a small system in a small room and it was hard for me to tell the difference, but now I have a much larger living room and much more high end system and any differences from different components are very easy to tell.  Not only that, any difference when the system not fully warmed up is also very easily to tell.

Of course we have to consider the affects of "subjectivity", but what I said above plays a significant roll in how the sound is perceived.  

Don't have any side walls (or even a back wall - there's a small portion of a back wall where the fridge is behind it in the kitchen).  To the right of the right speaker is basically a whole wall triple sliding glass door (covered by window treatment).  I already noted the space is open on the left side (foyer by the front door and dining room and no walls separating them from the living room).  It's an integrated AV system, so that also makes a difference on speakers placement and why the rack was custom built to my design the way it is..  The speakers image great where they are.  I've had them back a bit more and forward a bit more as well and they are best where the current listening chair is via listening and measurement.  The space behind the listening chair has several feet behind it and is open to the kitchen via a half wall.  I have a sound treatment sitting on top of the half wall separating the kitchen.

@cascadesphil

Have you tried the rack on a side wall (maybe with amp on the floor between the speakers) or pulling the speakers more into the room, away from the rack?
Could make a difference in imaging.

I have 3.7s and in my old house I had 19 foot ceilings with about a 16x20 ft. room that opened into other spaces (there was a foyer, an opening on one side of the back of the room to the kitchen and a stairway that led to an upstairs hallway that had a half wall along much of it) and didn't have an issue.  The current room is about 16x18 with a 10-11 ft. ceiling and the left side is open to a foyer and a dining room and the back is mostly open to a kitchen area and no horrible issues.  However, that being said with both those situations, I do have sound treatments.  Not enough to make it look like a studio (and I do that in all of my systems as the room tends to be overlooked by so many) but enough to mitigate the bad issues.  There's a pic of the rack and the speakers here -  https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8093#&gid=1&pid=1

Actually the ceiling is 25+ feet. The Width is 12 and Length is 21 feet. It is impossible for me to put the speakers along the long wall. California homes for the most part are not audio friendly.

Do you think the short wall (with non-uniform side wall distance) is a no go for the 3.7? I have some other speakers I am considering for this space but I wanted to investigate the 3.7 first.

The Yamaha NS 5000 is one speaker I am considering and that has foam plug on the back that can do some tricks when 1 speaker is not the same distance from the side wall as the other.

Another speaker under consideration is the Paradigm Persona 9H with it’s bass management.

YY - I suggest you find an alternate reality where you can turn your room on its side. That 21' x 25' room with a 12' ceiling would be fantastic!

A hypothetical question. How would the Thiel 3.7 sound in room that is 12’ W x 21’ L + 25' H. The main issue is the unequal side wall distances.

The speaker would need to go on the short wall. Facing the speakers, the right speaker would be 2 feet from the side and about 1.5 feet from the front wall. The left speaker would be 1.5 feet from the front wall but about 7 feet from the left side wall. There is a room entrance that is 5 feet wide and I am not including that area in the overall room because that space turns immediately into a staircase.

So my question is how would the Thiel 3.7 sound in this uneven side wall space room WITHOUT acoustic treatments?

Would I need to get a preamp with Balance controls to boost the left side?

bighempin

Nice job. Beautiful room and system.

Happy Listening!

Tom Thiel,

Very cool!  You are most welcome ... glad I could be of service.

Jazzman7 - Thanks for the lead to the CS1.5s at TRM. They're on their way here as my intended proof of concept workhorses. I'll apply what I've learned to these 1.5s due to their relatively simplicity, low risk and firm foundation. Are there any 1.5 fans here?

bighempin,
Thank you!
I very much like your setup as well. A big thumbs up!.  Your 3 daughters are very lucky.

I hope everyone had a nice weekend! I finally got everything setup and decided to get some pictures and setup my virtual system. Feel free to take a look at and critique my setup. Any advice or tips are welcome. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8162


Jazzman! I see we had the same idea late last week. What a gorgeous setup. That room is beautiful. I love your 2.4’s in black.

thieliste

I enjoy reading your Integrated Amp inquiry thread. Have you found a model? Still auditioning?

Happy Listening!

jafant,
I'm very happy with the Kimber/Transparent combo.  Upgraded to Kimber Hero XLR from RCA interconnects in 2013 and it was a nice upgrade.
Then a couple years ago my dealer had a used demo pair of Transparent Music Wave Super Gen MM available at a bargain price.  Took them home to give them a try in place of my much more modest Transparent "The Wall" cables.   No contest.   Big and immediate jump in SQ.  My wife was all in favor.  Just turned around and called in my credit card to Audio Consultants in Evanston, IL.

Interestingly enough, just last week met with Bob McConnell of Transparent Audio at Audio Consultants.  Reviewing my cable loom, in terms of next steps, he thought my best bang for the buck would be to try Music Link Plus or Music LInk Super MM2 between my DAC and preamp.

jazzman, 

The reason I asked is because the cable that comes
 wit the 26 and power supply is rather short.

George

cascadesphil,

Yes, I'm familiar with the diagram on how to wire a cable for use between the power supply and the BP-26, as I own both. (and I have te manual.)
IMO, Belden cables are top quality, and, I've used their cable stock for many  years to roll my own speaker and interconnects, 
Getting excellent interconnect spades, banana plugs, coax, etc. - - and securing them to the cable is the trick. 

George,
I purchased my BP20 back in 2004 (pre owned but purchased from an authorized Bryston dealer, Audio Consultants in Evanston, IL); and it came with the MPS-1 power supply and cable that I've been using to this day. 

" The power supply for the BP-26 is some distance away from the preamp.
Where did you get the connecting cable?"

The manual specifies what can be used - http://www.bryston.com/PDF/Manuals/300021[MPS2].pdf

This site has raw wire ( https://www.showmecables.com/belden-9444-4-conductor-20-awg-unshielded-pvc-audio-control-cable-per-foot?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIu_Hbtc645QIVEp-fCh1zbwpHEAkYASABEgKghPD_BwE) and also indicates they can do custom cables.

jazzman,

The power supply for the BP-26 is some distance away from the preamp. 
Where did you get the connecting cable?

George

In case anyone is interested, I just posted pictures of my system to Virtual Systems.

https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8156

Comments welcome.

Thanks Beetle. I'll point out an error in that old post, when I was dusting off my remembering stick. The sequence of the CS1 series (6.5"2-way) goes O4, O4a, CS1, CS1.2, CS1.5 (5th generation), CS1.6, CS1.7. The model 1 represents the most changes of any Thiel model family, due mostly to it being able to accept trickle-down upgrades from the many products above it.

I posted a long version answer perhaps a year ago on this thread.

Almost *exactly* one year ago (link)

Just an fyi that TMR has listed a pair of CS 1.5s in Dark Cherry for $699.  Condition was listed as 7 out of 10 with some visible scuffs and nicks.

Jacksky - I posted a long version answer perhaps a year ago on this thread. 3 is the model 3 and .5 is the 5th generation. The CS5 is a 5-way, and has no passive radiators. The bass is sealed and all 3 woofers extend below 10Hz.

Jacksky - a long answer may be of interest to some on this thread. I just lost a few paragraphs and will find some time soon. Hint: the 1.6 is the sixth generation of the model 1 (with pre-history of O4 and O4a).
Tom

Tom/jafant,
is there a code to the different models names... i.e. 1.6 was named as such for the 1.6 cm interior volume.....or 3.5 stands for 3 series (like BMW) and 5 stands for number of drivers including passive radiators?

Happy Friday! All

Unsound - thank you for those links. I remember the Angelus; Bau was putting the tweeter into the (relative) infinite baffle domain (like Jim's desire for the CS5 to have a wide, curved baffle). And his woofer wanted a wider propagation environment at its high end. A rather quirky implementation of good ideas. Spica had a solid high-performance appeal. I've never heard one.

The Dunlavy interview is excellent. I would project the he and Jim would agree on everything. Dunlavy brought tons of ability and experience to his work and built a successful company which permitted his development of his good ideas. As I mentioned, I only heard his early products, which I judged as not thoroughly refined. But I would like to hear some later Dunlavy speakers. I bet they're excellent.

The elements of a speaker all work together as a whole - a pot of soup. Trying to separate any single element leads to confusion.

Still, the little tiny Spendor S3/5 speakers I have can sound spooky accurate to real human voices. And at the recent Toronto audio show I attended, voices played via the Harbeth speakers (thin wall, wider baffle design) sounded more human than any other speaker system I heard there, regardless of price.

I think it might be just a coincidence.  A lot of the "human" sounding probably has to do with driver selection and speaker voicing.  I don't think a "thin" wall speaker has any inherent advantage in term of able to reproduce a "human sounding" vocal although I know what you meant.
I've listened to "hard and stiff" wall speakers and a lot of them could reproduce voices very well so much so that listening to Diana Krall makes me think twice about getting married :-)

This is put in relief in comparison to the Joseph Audio speakers I have now (no I’m not getting rid of my Thiels!). The high frequencies of the Joseph speakers are shockingly pure and grain-free, without brightness.Cymbals pop out of the mix like a scrim of hash has been wiped away, and ring with more of the beauty of the real thing.

As Tom pointed out, the Joseph uses of the expensive soft dome tweeter from Seas probably has a lot to do with that.  Soft domes have come a long way.  In the past, soft domes although haave the sweet sound but they lack the transparency of hard domes, but nowaday the newer ones such as the Seas have both.  I think Thiels tweeters use metal based material (aluminum alloy I think) and although aluminum has a lot of details and extension, it may not sound as sophisticated or sweet as the best soft domes from Seas.

I think, no doubt, that the designer will say this is a result of the benefits that can be found in going with a higher order crossover, and (in the case of the Joseph speakers, at least purportedly having a steep crossover shelving), to allow drivers to operate optimally within their range with lower distortion and less crossover interaction.

I think it may be a "red herring" in this case, since I don't think "high order" is what responsible for what you've heard.  The drivers used in the Joseph play a large part to the characteristics of the sound.

A few previous posts ago, I said that the most apparent difference between first order vs. higher order is in the treble.

I also notice that first order filter speakers such as the Thiels make early 1980's recordings sounding more "musical" than they really are.  I have quite a few early recordings back in the early days of digital recordings that generally sound sort of flat, analytical, and very lean with very little presence.  But through first order, they actually sound musical and the sound has a fulsome quality that not there in typical conventional systems.  

tomthiel

Thank You for the sales figures. I know that you will succeed in your modifications. Looking forward to reading about the (4) pair outcomes.
Enjoy the Audio journey.

Happy Listening!

Tom,
Cool!

Prof - the 2.7 baffle is 3" thick and well-braced. I doubt that it is moving much. The baffle treatment I am developing is a 3-layer felt and fabric overlay to make the baffle surface virtually disappear. This territory is new to me, and I am making progress, and have 4 pair under development with 3 co-conspirators.

JA - circling back to 1.6 and 1.7 sales: Rob says approximately 2500 pairs of 1.6 and 1000 pair of 1.7 were sold. The preponderance of evidence suggests the 1.7 has 4th order Butterworth XO slopes for time coincidence, but not phase coherence.

Yes, I’ve also wondered before about what might happen if the 2.7 baffle were further re-enforced. Though not being a speaker designer, I wouldn’t know the trade-offs. I’d imagine that if, say, you tried to re-enforce it from within, adding thickness with some material behind the baffle, you start intruding on inner cabinet volume, which could screw up some other parameters of the design?

BTW, I’ve now heard the much lauded Kii Three speakers twice, which use DSP to correct both for frequency response and time/phase coherence.

Maybe I still haven’t had a good demo of those speakers, but in neither set up did they sound as timbrally natural to my ears as my Thiels, nor did they image with the specificity and density of the Thiels.

Prof - there is some low-hanging fruit for the 2.7 upgrade. A 400uF electrolytic midrange series feed cap (although well bypassed) is certainly limiting the clarity-directness. Other XO tweaks too. The 2.7 baffle is nicely optimized, but I bet we'll gain some harmonic delicacy with treatment.

tomthiel,
My post was also meant to justify my interest in whatever possible upgrades show up for the 2.7s.  It would be intriguing if a bit more of that "sonic purity" I hear in the Josephs could be introduced in to the 2.7s.(Even *some* movement in that direction would be intriguing).

Prof - thank you for your thorough comparisons and commentary.I have read Stereophile's reviews of the Joseph Perspectives and admire the outcome. I am a big fan of magnesium as  a driver material - the SEAS Graphene material seems great to me. Thiel products never got to that level of refinement with their associated costs. But in my fantasies, I would develop a tweeter with such a diaphragm to take the breakup above 40K Hz without electronic intervention. My experience with microphones says that magic would flow.

For the record, we can improve the 3.7 performance with passive component upgrades (like Beetlemania's 2.4s) and a little baffle treatment. Don't sell them yet.

Unsound - wave guides might have merit in the right designer's toolkit. But I am not that guy. The famous "lobing" is caused by vertical offset between the tweeter and midrange as a function of wavelength and crossover slope mating. The 3.5 drivers are very close, providing a pretty large vertical window for any seated listener more than 8' away. I consider that set of parameters as baked in to the fundamental product design. Wide horizontal energy dispersion is also quite good in the stock product; I'm keeping stock geometry.I'm working with surface treatment to absorb the energy propagating along the baffle surfaces.

I do not know Bau's or Dunlavy's later work, but your near triangle makes good sense. Before I left Thiel Audio, I experimented with tapered cabinets, which require CNC router-cutters with differing angles per each taper angle. In a production environment, quite a bit of complexity is added, plus no matter how sophisticated the cutter, the sharp veneered panel edge is somewhat damaged. We stuck with rectangular panels where the CNC-mounted saw could cut precise, sharp mitres.

We have identified a replacement midrange, with a new tweeter in the works - giving me the courage to address this classic model, which sold more than 5000 pair in a 5 year run from 1987 to 1992. That in many ways was a high-point of connection with our audience and market. At this point, I cannot address the equalizer. And today there are good subwoofers to augment the 3.5's extraordinary sealed bass.

@tomthiel

Re the concept of accurate vs musicality, I don’t think they are opposed.But ultimately both sound systems and recordings are compromised and personally my main goal is to enjoy music through my system. I think the artist would also be happy that I enjoy his/her music too, rather than care too much if my system may have a bump at 50HZ or something.

But, I’m all for reducing distortion which very often has agreeable sonic results. One of the things I love about my Thiels is their even-handedness through the frequency range, but not doing so in a way that renders the presentation bloodless, but rather still has dynamic life and tonal richness.

I however have ALSO liked other speaker designs, even some that those seeking strict neutrality and the lowest distortion would denigrate or eschew. Because even some kind of wonky designs can bring some intriguing characteristics to the table.

For instance, one of the things that to me distinguishes real sound objects from reproduced (be it a voice or a sax) is the physical density and presence of the real sound. It sounds solid, occupying space in front of me. Whereas many speakers present vivid sonic "images" that are more wispy and weightless - hologram-like vs the solidity of the real thing.

There are some speaker designs that may be introducing canny colorations - e.g. thin-walled big box speakers that let the cabinet "sing" with the music - which seem to introduce that type of "density" in to the sound. It may come from some deviation from strict accuracy, but it DOES to my ears get by those methods to something sounding "more right, more like the real thing" in certain aspects.

Thiel speakers of course go the "remove cabinet sound" route, but get back some of that density in the presentation nonetheless, which could be attributed to the time/phase coherence perhaps.
Still, the little tiny Spendor S3/5 speakers I have can sound spooky accurate to real human voices. And at the recent Toronto audio show I attended, voices played via the Harbeth speakers (thin wall, wider baffle design) sounded more human than any other speaker system I heard there, regardless of price.

BTW, in regards to the performance of the 3.7 and 2.7...

I still think the 3.7 was probably the best overall speaker I’ve owned (among many), in terms of it’s near SOTA performance in many areas and it’s over all balance, tone, and lack of speakerly artifacts.

Though my recently acquired Joseph Audio Perspective speakers do give them a run-for-the-money in some areas, and I think exceed them in one or two. For a lack of "hash" to the sound, and for delineating instrumental timbre, I haven’t heard their better. Also, when it comes to the Thiel’s high frequencies (I think the 3.7s were a bit more refined vs the 2.7), I continue to laud the Thiels for the most part, with some caveats. The Thiels still have as coherent a sound as I’ve ever encountered from a speaker. And the high frequencies match to the rest is essentially perfect to my ear. I can’t hear out the tweeters at all, the sonic spectrum simply continues from bottom to top seamlessly disappearing in to the ether, with nice air and immediacy and smoothness (and importantly: the Thiels seem to maintain the "size" of the sound up in to the high frequencies - higher frequency instruments from cymbals to high flutes/woodwinds don’t dramatically thin out the way they do on many speakers).

My caveat is that although the Thiel high frequencies are truly excellent and coherent, they have never been quite as beautiful as I’ve heard from some other speakers. It’s a bit hard to describe, but the sheen of bow on strings was there...but not with the sophistication of texture and smoothness I’ve heard elsewhere. Drum cymbals too were...fine...but didn’t seem to have to tonal clarity, purity and timbral complexity I would hear in some other speakers. They didn’t really "pop" out and drive the music as much, almost like there was some slight scrim/veil holding those frequencies back.

This is put in relief in comparison to the Joseph Audio speakers I have now (no I’m not getting rid of my Thiels!). The high frequencies of the Joseph speakers are shockingly pure and grain-free, without brightness.Cymbals pop out of the mix like a scrim of hash has been wiped away, and ring with more of the beauty of the real thing. Same for orchestral string sessions - just a more finely rendered combination of vividness and silkiness. Basically, the high frequencies just sound "better," more real and sophisticated than from my Thiels. I think, no doubt, that the designer will say this is a result of the benefits that can be found in going with a higher order crossover, and (in the case of the Joseph speakers, at least purportedly having a steep crossover shelving), to allow drivers to operate optimally within their range with lower distortion and less crossover interaction.
I would leave it to people with more experience and knowledge to hash that stuff out. I’m just musing about my own experience comparing speakers.

Still, while I find plenty to praise in my new Joseph speakers, I think the Thiel 3.7s were still probably the overall more balanced, amazing achievement.

Unsound - in developing the CS5, I evaluated a tapered cabinet, large enough for the woofers at the bottom and as narrow as possible at the top. We never mocked up or tested it. The 3-dimensional cabinet geometry would have added considerable cost and production engineering time-to-market delays. CS5 product development was on the fast track. I hadn't heard of Jim's "wider baffle" statement.

I lobbied for a CS5.2 with that tapered 3-D geometry, plus a frontally-contoured baffle to put all the drivers in their proper physical alignment. Half of that extensive crossover (dozens of parts?) is for time delay for the upper and lower midrange drivers. That requirement would vanish and the signal path would be enormously shortened, allowing ultra-quality components. And so forth and so on.

As a company we chose to concentrate on our core lower-price market, leading to home theater products and subwoofers and a lot of scrambling. A different Thiel Audio would have resulted from pursuing a 5.2 and other upscale products.