Thiel Owners
rwmeditz, Very impressed that you had a class with Paul Jacobs. Excellent, innovative pianist who died way too early. Many of his Nonesuch recordings have yet to be reissued, unfortunately.Re the Thiel 2.2 discussion here: I just shipped mine off to TMR in Denver. Look for them there. Nice speakers...but I can't have both 2.2 and 3.7 in the house! |
Sandy - Here's a recap of model strengths and upgrade strategy. I hope those interested find value and that others can allow an old man his remembrances. The model 3 was our first best guess of addressing the most things required of a loudspeaker. A long-excursion 10" 3-way to fill a decent sized room at decent sound levels. On the heels of the success of the CS3 (1983), there was an expressed interest by supportive dealers for a little sister at lower cost for smaller spaces, larger than the 04 / 6.5" 2-way. The CS2 was developed in response and in communication with dealer feedback, much like the 02 / 04 had been. Now, in the used market, cost is no longer a differentiator, but, the personality is distinct. The smaller diameter drivers produce a more delicate, intimate presentation, and tend to excel in low-level conditions. As to which generation of each model to upgrade, there are real issues of driver availability to consider along with technology maturity considerations. Rob and I discussed driver repair and replacement options. The CS2's drivers are no longer available, plus they were prone to destruction by over-driving, and they were basically customized, ordinary drivers. Also, the solutions developed for the CS2.2 system were qualitatively more successful than the original CS2; each generation stands on its predecessors' shoulders. The 2.2's drivers are quite special. The tweeter was developed in-house for the CS5 and includes the first generation of shaped magnet structure, copper sleeves, custom dome geometry and so forth - a breakthrough driver in its day. The midrange also contained significant customization including its fibrated, poly-coated cone. The woofer was the first iteration of the dual cone which graced future drivers up to the x.7 star geometry, as well as other leading edge motor developments. As the production designer, I love the 2.2 as the first product designed in conjunction with our in-house CNC capability. Previous products had been partially migrated onto CNC, but the CNC-native 2.2 went all-out with interior bracing, in-house milled passive radiator, flared mounting rings, interior driver relief machining, and matched grille / baffle contouring - all things previously unfeasible via manual methods. I also gravitate toward the final iteration of separate (non-coax) drivers for their place in history and wave-launch characteristics. For the seated listener the discrete drivers produce wave-forms free of the "moving waveguide" effect of the coaxes. And, personally speaking, I own the pre-production prototype CS2.2s and have used them in my work of recording evaluation for nearly 30 years, in comparison with other mixing and mastering systems . . . I know the 2.2s very well, allowing subtleties of changes to be readily apparent to me. To summarize, the 2-series is preferable to some listeners over the 3-series, noted by the long-standing audiophile affection for the 2s. And, there are a lot of them out there. And the 2.2s are the oldest (1990) product with reliable driver availability. (I had dismissed the older 3.5 (1988) due to driver non-availability, but would love for suitable replacement drivers to emerge . . . but lots of ground to cover there.) Each generation developed its technologies as the company developed its capacity to implement the products of Jim's creative mind and relentless experimentation. I think you would be pleasantly surprised to hear an original CS2 from 1985, or any of the further developments. I hope you'll be blown away by the 2.2s now in the works. The foundational knowledge and solutions developed from their upgrade process will apply to all the models we might eventually address. I know this post is long and some of it repetitive of previous postings. But I hope it adds some value to the conversation. Tom |
tomthiel Would you mind telling us about each 2-series model, what the differences are, and why you chose one over the others to design your first kit? Also, why would anyone want a CS2.x, when (to my thinking) a CS3.x model is bigger and better, for about the same used prices? I only ask because I am a fan of the O3a, CS3.5 and CS3.7, but never even heard any 2.x yet (except at a CES). --Sandy |
harrylavo With Thiel CS3.5 speakers available now for only $400 or $500, I collect them for their drivers. I think using original drivers is the only way to keeping them sound as they should. One time, I bought a pair of CS3.5 on Ebay, and asked the seller to remove and send ONLY the tweeters and midranges. The tweeters are stock items, which appear on ebay quite frequently. The midranges were custom made, so totally unavailable now. But they can be re-coned, although a burnt voice coil is not repairable. The solutions are 1) use an amplifier that has plenty of extra power that you will never use (and will never clip from reaching its power limit) and 2) don’t ever play music loud enough that you hear some dynamic compression or distortion. 3) If you want to follow my advice, don’t play CDs anymore either, Just stick to analog. It sounds better, and it is peak-limited for the very same reason that Thiel CS3.5 like them better: phono cartrdiges have a mechanical excursion limit as do speakers. No strike this suggestion, I was just using this opportunity to push records over CDs. Answer #2 should suffice, no matter what format you play. |
Unsound Thank you. Now that I have a better feel for what the 3.5s can do (I am absolutely thrilled) even when underpowered, I'll back off to the 40 hz and play them with an even lighter touch, especially on the bass heavy stuff. I will admit that without the EQ at first I wasn't quite as gentle, but still not at all heavy handed - Jack Bruce, tympani, and the rumble of Mahler and Wagner were still phenomenal. I'd rather not deal with disconnecting everything to take the integrated to a dealer, I'll just disconnect the EQ when I want to play bass heavy music at lower levels or connect the DAP. Still have LPs I haven't played in eons. Everything just sounds so wonderful and musical on the 3.5s, except of course for poor recordings. The 3.5s have spoiled listening to them for me, Disraeli Gears import LP, you know who you are. |
oblgny I have not had any dealing w/ High End Audio Auctions in Brooklyn.Read over the eBay feedback- people are pretty honest over there. I can relate to your musical impressions on the Belles 250i amp.Earlier this year, I felt the same way about the Ayre AX-5 Twenty Integrated amp. I kept arriving to the same sweet conclusion = Musical! Happy Listening! |
Hello. Has anyone here conducted business with High End Audio Auctions on eBay? They’re located in Brooklyn. Reason that I ask is because they list a pair of CS3.5 currently. There’s no mention in their listing if the EQ is included. I just sent an inquiry to them regarding that. I loves me Maggie MMGi’s but I can’t wait until I toss a pair of Thiels at my Belles 250i Integrated. Man, this is a remarkably musical product. |
rwmeditz, It would appear that your unusually flexible integrated (kudos to Linn) might allow you to insert the 3.5's eq between the Intek's pre out and the Intek's amp in. Caveat: the manual does suggest dealer support when using the Intek's amp input! https://www.manualslib.com/manual/619667/Linn-Intek.html?page=4#manual This would free up all your inputs and tape loops. As your using the minimum suggested power output into your 3.5's, you might want to consider the 20/40 Hz button on the 3.5's eq when playing tracks with loud deep bass. Damage is more likely with under powered rather than over powered amplification. |
Arvincastro I had the exact same impressions of hearing the high res remastered, but non- MQA, Beatles Sgt. Pepper as you did - it offered so much new terrain. The remastered White album even more so, with the Esher sessions and outtakes really allowing me to understand and feel the music and creative process nearly as well as Sgt. Pepper. I'm hoping Giles Martin continues his magic and remasters Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road, Let It Be, Revolver and Rubber Soul. I have only listened to the 2 remastered Beatles albums through my 2.2s and in the 3.5s without the equalizer. I have the EQ in one of the 2 tape inputs of my integrated amp but I'm leery of connecting my DAP into the other tape input with the EQ in place. Can I safely do that? Before the 3.5s that's how I connected the DAP, but even using the line out the volume was so low I really had to crank the integrated up. If I can't use the second tape input I'll just disconnect the EQ when I want to listen to music on the DAP. Regarding the midranges, how careful do I have to be with the volume, especially with the EQ? I certainly don't want to blow them, and although I rarely listen with peaks over 80 db, never over 85 yet, the bass on some operas, Mahler Symphonies, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (my eternal gratitude to former NYP pianist Paul Jacobs for this, my college intro to western music professor) and Japanese taiko drums can be thunderous. It doesn't help that the integrated only has 80 wpc into 4 ohms. I hope to be able to address that in the not too, too distant future. The guidance as to what to consider offered here has been, and continues to be, very helpful. Thank you all. |
Just as I got my reconfigured system where I wanted it, I made a mistake and blew one of my two 3.5's with good tweeters (two others already have blown or scraping tweeters and have been out of the system.) So I am finally going to have to locate replacement tweeters. My search has narrowed to two: * Scanspeak Classic D2905 9700 tweeter (1" cloth dome, 104mm 4-hole, 89.5 db, 400hz -3db low end, 6 ohm. This is the closest match so far as I can speculate based on the discussions here. * David Louis Audio private-labeled Chinese imported tweeter (1" fabric dome, 104mm 4-hole, 92db, 800hz -3db low end, 6 ohm) which he compares to the ScanSpeak 9500 (better) and 9900.(almost as good). He claims these tweeters are made by the same factory that originally produced the ScanSpeak Thiel tweeter. Has anybody here had experience with either of these two tweeters as replacements in Thiel 3.5's? Tom? Beatlemania? And if so, how do they sound/measure? Any special installation issues? Any help you can give would be appreciated. |
Sandy - I'm having fun sharing this stuff with you all. You're on it - most speakers scramble time / phase, sometimes by many hundreds of degrees. The ear-brain does a commendable job of reconstructing those wave-forms into intelligible music or sound. But in Thiel, Vandy, etc. which keep the time/phase intact, those sway effects are certainly audible. I notice that I listen at lower level (-2dB) with the spikes in place, probably because the transient detail is satisfying without needing extra volume. FYI: I am working on a whole package of mechanical stuff in the 2.2s. When all added together, I expect the mechanical upgrades to make an appreciable improvement. |
tomthiel I am very excited you added that "sway effects" (your words) influence imaging of the higher frequencies. This makes so much sense that, in the words of a Thiel -- the ultimate name for speaker phase and time coherence and their effect on "image specificity" -- the speaker swaying from "equal-and-opposite motion from woofer motion" (my words), would have primarily this effect. Most speakers don't have a Thiel's capability for this level of imaging, whether they are swaying or not. So for most speakers, a flabby bass is the most obvious effect of not providing stable spikes to stabilize them. I AM having fun, just reading and writing about Thiels, almost as much fun as listening to them! --Warren (aka Sandy) |
batmanfan My pleasure to offer a possible solution to your initial query. The Panel is here for you anytime. Further, fans and owners of the CS 2.7 are experts on this loudspeaker's form/function. This thread is an excellent read plus contains a plethora of information to take your system to the next performance level. Happy Listening! |
Thank you Warren, ronkent, jafant, brayeagle, prof and especially Warren and Tom for your thoughts. The insights here on this site coming from the forum members is incredible, and I always learn more than I ever think possible. I knew stability was one improvement from the feet but just reading about how that translates to sonic changes helps me understand the subtleties beyond what I believe my ears can discern. Regarding the bottom of the 2.7s, they are indeed flat but my tile floor is not, so the right speaker is a little wobbly but the left speaker is fine. I put on the feet (atop isolation pucks) which has improved stability but because the sides of the speaker curve inward to the back, the rear feet are close together so the stability of the speaker is a concern of mine, especially since I live in earthquake-prone California! In fact, I was doing some dusting when I lost my balance and nearly knocked one of them over--which triggered a chain of thoughts about the sonic impact from changes to speaker stability and elevation. At this point, I think I might try to obtain a pair of outriggers to see how it impacts what I hear. If anything, it would improve the physical stability of the speakers--and that alone would be worth it to me. By the way, I really enjoyed reading all the articles that members have forwarded here about the demise of Thiel Audio. Very interesting! |
warjarrett I enjoyed reading your posts over on the SH forums site. Very informative thought sharing and writings. Hopefully, we can capture those Thiel owners on this thread. On the subject of coupling/decoupling our loudspeakers, Sound Anchors, are another option in addition to the excellent suggestions mentioned. Happy Listening! |
I'd like to share my thoughts regarding spikes; I performed the investigations way-back which led to our incorporation of spikes in the CS3 in 1983. As Sandy said, the chief problem is recoil. The effects, however, depend greatly on the floor system and are generally more evident in odd ways. On carpeted floors the speakers sway and those motion effects become quite significant at high frequencies. A firm carpet may exhibit little to no symptoms, but a foam pad or bouncy carpet may allow considerable movement. On the other hand, coupling to a bouncy / resonant floor may introduce greater problems than allowing the speaker to float on the carpet. Some floor systems can be stimulated into resonant modes by spike-coupled speakers. Those vibrations can often be felt via bare feet in the listening position, offering clues to what's going on. The sonic effects seem to congregate around image stability. The subtle spatial cues that convey image specificity can be scrambled by a moving speaker. Vague imaging, especially front-to-back depth, can be caused by unstable speakers. Early Thiel spikes , (up to at least 3.6) were 3-point, non adjustable - explicitly defining a plane of contact. Those spikes had 3 lengths for various tilt strategies to arrive at 3' launch point aimed at your seated ears. Later models adopted 4-corner adjustable spikes. Caution: if those 4 spikes are not very carefully adjusted, problems could result from the insecure foundation. This afternoon I tested my 2.2s under development. My floor is glued 5/8 + 5/8 plywood on 2x12 joists on 16" centers. That's stiffer than many domestic floors. My covering is commercial (old ski-lodge) tight, hard rubber backed carpet squares. My spiked speakers transmitted a little more vibration to my bare feet. I sum to mono in my preamp and pan left or right speaker for comparison using self-recorded material - in this case Dana Cunningham's Dancing at the Gate - with lots of detail. The spiked speaker produced more subtlety, nuance, detail, complexity. Highest single notes sounded more dimensional and more ambience was apparent across the range, with bass decay remaining more musical for longer times. The improvements could be reliably noted in my setup. These are the kinds of performance particulars which I hope to increase with upgrades. However, I must note that this incisive precision is not always appreciated. Many manufacturers purposely make cap bundles to spread out such transient information; and I suspect that many listeners would find the added detail to be a negative, especially with recordings that lack the spatial and ambient clues that add enjoyment when present. To batmanfan's original question: outriggers will do more than plain spikes. And I don't know the configuration of the bottoms of his speakers. If they are flat like the 1.6s, then some kind of feet are almost certainly an advantage. (I have seen marbles set into the corner sockets.) Threaded feet allow more precise bearing. And if your floor is resonant, then some kind of isolator pad might help decouple from those resonances. Have fun.Tom |
I've tried my 2.7s without and then with the outriggers.They're located three feet from the wall on a carpet with a floor mat. I played a variety of music, including several CDs with substantial bass with near-instantaneous bass impact, as well as with sustained bass. I couldn't tell any difference between using the outriggers and just leaving the speakers on the carpet. Just my experience, YMMV. |
I've experimented a bit with stuff under my Thiels - spikes, isoacoustics footers etc. I preferred the sound of the Thiels just sitting on my rug, no footers (beneath that, wood floor). Just by lifting a speaker up you can expect some changes to the sound, which means it's not necessarily coming from the material or footer you've used to raise it. And "different" sound of course may not be better. |
I would like to explain the basic principle behind Outriggers or spikes under the speakers, so that each of us can answer the question of "need" for ourselves. Basically, when a woofer’s motor structure (this means the magnet and voice coil) applies force to the cone, causing it to move in and out, the woofer itself has enough mass that an equal-and-opposite force is applied to the entire speaker cabinet. If the bottom of the speaker cabinet is not firmly coupled to the floor and rigidly stable, the speaker will rock in the opposite direction as the woofer, causing inaccurate sound from the woofer (primarily Doppler distortion). So we apply cone feet under the speaker, to stabilize it, and even better, puncture through the carpet to the floor itself. We are simply trying to make sure there is not even very slight cabinet motion possible, under the force of woofer motion. Since Thiel speakers have a relatively small footprint compared to their height, it can be helpful for the cones to be situated farther apart than the depth and width of the cabinet. The Outriggers help in this regard, compared to simply adding cones under the speaker, due to their greater separation distance, as well as their firm attachment to the bottom of the speaker. But, however you stabilize each speaker, if you cannot rock either one, and so they are firmly unable to move even the tiniest bit, then you have accomplished this "rigidly stable" condition, that I am claiming is so important to producing accurate bass. A well known TAS reviewer from the 70’s and 80’s, Enid Lumley, claimed she stabilized the speakers by hanging them from the ceiling with fishing line. She claimed that the weight of the speaker, and the long length of the line, did the trick, PLUS decoupled the speaker from the floor completely, so there was absolutely no interaction of vibrations in the floor with the speakers. I have noticed recently there is a growing number of audiophiles applying heavily damped, but not rigid, feet under speakers to accomplish this. This is a current "fad" that is growing in popularity. But that is another story, beyond this spike/Outriggers explanation. By the way, Enid’s speakers were Magnepans, so their moving panels had lower mass, and therefore applied lower "equal and opposite" force on the cabinet, than cone woofers. --Warren (aka "Sandy") |
hey Batman, i have used both 2.7 and 3.7 speakers with outriggers and think they help. however i strongly recommend testing feet from Gaia and the brass feet from Mapleshade. i used them both with the outriggers. However if outriggers cannot be used, then try those feet directly under the speaker. Talking about the value of our systems versus everything else, I too had to laugh. not counting my home, my audio system is my most valuable asset. True story: in 1978 I bought my dream car, a baby blue 1976 BMW 2002. It was so cool and sharp. a year or so later i got a job working in a mid and upper end hi fi store. sold Dahlquist, Maggies, and Infinity among others. At this store, we were able to get things at a special employee "accommodation price" that allowed us to get things below dealer cost. Oh boy. since i really had no extra money (still in grad school) I did something totally stupid and sold the BMW and bought a cheap ass little honda cvcc (a pregnant rollerskate). took the money that was left and bought audio stuff. Been crazy about this hobby ever since. |
Hello everyone, it’s been a long time. Lost my job and finally got a new one, so my audiophile hobby was put on hold. Had a chance to dust off my system and start listening again. Man I love good music and good sound! Curious if there is a sonic difference (improvement) when adding outriggers, or it is merely to stabilize the speaker? In particular, does it change the sound from my 2.7s? I got them used a few years ago and the original owner didn’t have any but if there is a difference, I might try to track down a pair, perhaps Rob might have some? Also, is there a difference in sound (again improvement) if I use the stabilizer feet that does come with the speakers in case I can’t source any outriggers? I apologize if this has been discussed previously or in another thread. If so, I would greatly appreciate a link to them. Thank you for your thoughts! |
The radial wavy plate midrange of the x.7 presents a better launch-pad for the center-mounted tweeter than does the previous midrange cones. The cone double diaphragm allows a much shallower front profile than standard, and is therefore more benign than some other coaxes. But off-axis listening does change character. The x.7 wavy plate seems immune from those effects of geometry in addition to being an order of magnitude stiffer. |
jafant... Yup - year’s ago I had a Rogue Cronus Magnum and enjoyed it. I think I had a pair of Totem Rainmakers at the time. Used Magnums, depending on the version, fetch around and upwards of $1,200. I also used a Rogue 66 pre for a while - during my monoblock stage methinks. To be fair I haven’t had the opportunity to fetch a Pass Labs integrated, but my experience with the X150.5 amplifier was simply excellent. The criticisms of Pass Labs being “clinical” or “bright” are shared by many Thiel models. Bah! What silliness. I was able to get the Belles 250i for sub $1k. Can’t touch a Pass Labs integrated or power amp for anything close to that. I know. I been a-looking. I would have a difficult time of it discerning between the Pass and the Belles if I were blindfolded. It’s THAT good. With speakers as articulate as Thiel and Magnepan are, an equally articulate amp like this is an amazing match. Info on the Belles is at best difficult. A few sources I found on the interwebmabob aren’t that reliable. Methinks it’s rated north of 100 watts @ 8ohms which, at my conservative listening level won’t stress the MMGi’s any - nor for that matter a Thiel 2.3, 2.4, or 3.5. There’s a few tempting sellers out there of each model. Hmmm... So far as my “amazing” audio purchases have developed over the years, the Belles now tops my list. And that includes the $1500 Salamander equipment cabinet that I scoffed up for $150 when Stereo Exchange in NYC lost its least a couple of years back. |
I even heard this mild hollowing-out interference a bit with the Thiel CS6 when I had it. Not nearly as bad as the Meadowlarks. I was frankly quite surprised when I got the 3.7s as to how this issue seemed totally banished. With both the 3.7s and my 2.7s, they sound remarkably even when varying listener position, either horizontally or vertically. I have not heard the CS6 but having seen the picture of the CS6 coax, it may have been a older designer vs. the coax in the 3.7 and 2.7. I don't know. It's possible that the coax drivers in the 3.7 and 2.7 is an improvement over the older coax. |
oblgny Always good to see you here. Hope you are well and enjoying a Summer Shanty for me (good music too). Do not feel bad about the Audio Research Integrated- I was not impressed either. For half-price, a Rogue Audio beats it down. Keep us posted on the Belles as I have not had an opportunity to demo this brand. Happy Listening! |
jon_5912... I actually laughed out loud reading your post. Yup, same here. I almost decided to sell my house in order to keep the gear. Seriously. I might make an offer on a pair of 2.3's - I had a pair right before I discovered my first pair of 3.5's. |
brayeagle, Yes, still have the 2.7s. But I've been promiscuous in listening to my other speakers as well, lately. andy2, I even heard this mild hollowing-out interference a bit with the Thiel CS6 when I had it. Not nearly as bad as the Meadowlarks. I was frankly quite surprised when I got the 3.7s as to how this issue seemed totally banished. With both the 3.7s and my 2.7s, they sound remarkably even when varying listener position, either horizontally or vertically. |
prof Agreed - selling off stereo gear isn’t necessarily the path back to financial stability, but since two channel listening is my sole guilty pleasure I had, and have, nothing else of significant value to the general public. I woulda been worse off without the funds selling it managed to raise. Ugh. Anyway, I’ve been listening to the Belles 250i and I continue to be VERY impressed. A lot of the remarks in this thread include the words “uncolored, musical, airy”, and this little integrated hits all those marks. There is VERY little info on its specs anywhere to be found while at the same time a plethora of information about David Belles. Interesting man. I’ve said before that I love both Thiel and Maggies. Jumping back and forth between the brands as I have sacrifices one thing or another, but IMHO, the trade offs are minimal at best. “Thiels are Maggies - but with mo’ bass”, I’ve said before. I don’t intend to hijack the thread, but if anyone is considering a Belles product, based on my thus far limited experience with one of them, I say go for it. Ani Difranco’s “Evolve” album, and Paul Simon’s “So Beautful So What” have some fairly complex interplay going on in many tracks, and with the Belles I can literally feel the pluck of guitar strings. The bass - MMGi’s don’t reach down very far, 50hz - also can be “felt.” I can can only imagine how a Thiel will sound in lieu of the Maggies. It’s gonna happen. Don’t know when, but it will. Alrighty - back to the thread! |
Thiel seemed to have solved that first-order crossover issue in their later designs. Probably due to the use of coax drivers. The high freq./short wavelength xover between the mid and the tweeter is most problematic, but with coax, it's mostly not a problem. People have commented that the pre-coax Thiel also had problem with mid/tweeter integration with vertical listening axis. |
oblgny, I had a similar situation last year. I’d saved for a couple of years to buy new speakers. Out of nowhere hit with huge financial blow. All that saved money disappeared in an instant, as did a lot more. Been digging out from under it ever since. I have to say, selling old hi-fi gear isn’t exactly the fastest route to financial recovery ;-) BTW, I was a fan of Meadowlark back in the day too. I liked the Shearwaters, I had the Heron-i speakers in my home for a while, and owned the little Meadowlark Swallow stand mounted speakers.One of my regrets was selling those little speakers - they have a combination of clarity, warm tone with simply astonishing "disappearing act" imaging. It’s one of those old "still-hurts" sales that makes me hoard my current speakers :) As I’ve mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread, probably my biggest issue with the Meadowlark design was the weird interference that happened vertically between the drivers, due to the first-order design.A weird image/tonal shift hollowing out a little part of the frequency spectrum. Thiel seemed to have solved that first-order crossover issue in their later designs. |
Sandy - I hope that name is OK, since that's your hi-fi identity to me. I credit Harry Pearson with creating high end out of its hi fidelity foundation. Hi Fi had been generally academic, formal and engineering driven. Hi End was generally young, entrepreneurial and music driven. Thiel straddled the two worlds more than many high end companies. But Harry was the first to take live music with all its nuances and psychic / emotional / intangible hooks as the Absolute Sound, the real and final reference for our work. He and his team created much of the vocabulary which we still use. Many related industries lack such vocabulary or frame of reference and therefore struggle with having to prove their work, satisfy the textbooks, and so forth. |
tomthiel Oh yes, now I remember the HP review of the O3a. After I heard Thiels for the first time, at Havens and Hardesty, I stumbled upon that recent issue of TAS and read HP's review of them. What I remember most was that his choice of words described with amazing accuracy what I had heard. I have never read, before or after HP, another reviewer's words that so vividly described sound. It reinforced my excitement about the "image specificity" and "disappearance of the speakers' location" that he described. So, there were no speakers in the world that could satisfy me after that pair of experiences: hearing them and reading HP's description of them. Plus, the cabinet shape and wood finish was just gorgeous. Luckily for me, a rich guy in Laguna Beach went througn speakers like I drink water, and he had the hots for "Kindel Phantom" speakers instead of his Thiel O3a, so they were almost brand new when I bought them from him. Of course now, we all know he was crazy, because Thiel speakers are still cherished by all of us here, whereas Kindel speakers are long forgotten by everyone. I visited him a few more times after that. Soon after his Kindel speakers, he sold those for Spendor SP-1 speakers (another still HIGHLY remembered and GREAT speaker), but sold those also almost right away. He could simply never be satisfied. And to this day, I am greatly satisfied with the O3a that I bought from him, and still listening to them. |
prof... I sold off a bunch of my gear last due to a wholly unanticipated, devastating blow to my finances. The upside to having good stuff is being able to sell it off and use the funds to pay off things. Ugh. The list of equipment I’ve bought and sold over the last few years is almost embarrassing. (Damn you, Audiogon!) The majority of it all bought and sold here on the site. As I had to attend to the mess that visited itself upon me, I had to whittle down my priorities and - forgive the pun - face the music. The Meadowlarks referred to in earlier posts came back from my girlfriend, I somehow squeaked out enough to buy the Bluesound Powernode 2i. I’ve had that Oppo CD player around for quite a while. It was...sufficient. I incorporated back in October 2018. Amidst all the legalities I encountered, getting it operating has been a lesson in circumnavigating...everything! I don’t fault the gent who sold the 3.5’s out from under me. It’s perhaps the second time in years of doing this that a transaction went south. There’s another pair of 3.5’s that have been on a site for two years - stating available pickup in New York. I contacted them and was told they are still available. But alas, they’re in Florida and always have been. $1000 for them plus shipping? Methinks not. At least not now. I’ve been lucky in the past regarding “local” Thiels for sale, and I’ll keep my eyes open. My nephew, to whom I gifted my first pair of 3.5’s years back, is getting married in the fall. Unfortunately his future wife has pretty good ears and she loves them. I’m watching a pair of 2.3’s - which I had before. I liked those a lot. Sheesh...I went on a bit here! |
