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!!!! |
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 :-)
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I have a pair of CS2s, looking at updating my amp. Any thoughts or experience driving these with a Simaudio Moon 340i?
|
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.
The magic is in the beers :-) |
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!
|
|
altx
Welcome! Good to see you here. Can you cite the Serial Numbers on your CS2 loudspeakers? What other gear is in your current system?
Happy Listening!
|
altx
stay tuned until one of our vintage experts weighs in to your query.
Happy Listening!
|
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? |
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. |
beetlemania
Excellent points all around. Ayre is successful due to Ryan Berry , Aerial Brown and Gary Mulder. Sure, the engineer has to be on-point, as well as, the business manager (CEO), customer service manager.
Happy Listening!
|
thielrules
Right On! I wished that I lived closer to Rob or Tom. Members of the Panel feel free to chime in if located near these gentlemen. I am certain that additional assistance would be appreciated.
Happy Listening!
|
2nd Note;
A special Thank You to the DIY members of the Panel. Your hard work and passion, to make Thiel loudspeakers better, does not go unnoticed.
Happy Listening!
|
@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
|
When the world turns dark
And the heart turns cold
And beauty turns to me
That's when I turn cold.
OK, what's the hell is that? I think I just need more beers :-) |
jafant,
Thanks! Thiel SNs are 977, 978. Running a B&K EX-442 power amp and PS Audio preamp. Looking at going to Moon 340i and Aurender A10.
|
altx
Thank You for the S/N. Simaudio Moon is a sonic match, double check the power rating for CS2 for best outcome. Several owners of the 600i/700i models. Keep me posted on your purchase decision.
Happy Listening!
|
Altx - your CS2s are early.. You might consider talking with Rob Gillum at Coherent Source Service about an update that addressed the upper midrange. CS2 was most popular model ever.
|
tomthiel
Thank You for assisting altx. Impressive, that model CS2 is the most popular Thiel Audio loudspeaker.
Happy Listening!
|
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. |
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.
|
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! |
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!
|
@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.
|
sdecker
what are the power ratings on your McCormack DNA 0.5 amp?
Happy Listening!
|
pops
Good to see you again. Thank You for addressing yabe1951 's query.
Happy Listening!
|
I know audiophiles don’t admit physical aesthetics. But the 3.6 and 3.7 are as different as it gets in the Thiel line. Another thought is that the 3.6 drivers are completely Thiel design and build. OK the tweeter was assembled by Vifa, but it’s all-Thiel, unlike the 3.5 which were modifications of normal, pre-FEA era. |
Hi Tom, I can't believe I had the restraint to not buy the 3.7. I listened to it a lot at 2 different shops with difference electronics. And to top it off it was my wife pushing me to do it!
The 3.6 was like an old girlfriend, just couldn't give her up!
|
When it comes to true Jim Thiel designed models with first order slopes/coherent source CS models I imagine the 3.7 is the ‘best’ model or top of the heap.
After the 3.7......what is most desirable?
2.3 or 2.4?
3.6?
1.5 or 1.6?
these are the most reasonable sized models and I’m talking using in a normal sized room.
Thanks for comments as I’d really like to own a pair of Thiels at some point and 3.7 is a bit too large. |
I'd look at 2,7s or 2.4SEs |
jafant, it was sold as a nominally 100wpc stereo power amp. Steve McCormack's estimates of mine is 125/250/500 wpc 20-20k@<1% THD into 8/4/2 ohms, absolute stability into 1 ohm, and as much as 60A peak current delivery depending on the measurement technique.
Most of this power improvement comes from barely fitting in the custom Plitron power transformer designed for the DNA1 upgrade.
Overall negative feedback has been reduced to 3-4dB (which is nearly zero by today's standards) and it will pass DC (at a much reduced level, and hopefully not) to the outputs all the way up to a 250kHz -3dB point, intentionally rolled-off to prevent ultrasonic issues... |
sdecker
Thank You for those measurements. Your amp is plenty powerful w/ 60A peak current on board.
Happy Listening!
|
mr_bill
Try to score an audition with a pair of CS 2.4 loudspeakers. This model will fit nicely into a medium/normal sized room.
Happy Listening!
|
Thanks for your suggestion.
Is the 2.7 a true Jim Thiel first order crossover CS series design?
|
......keep the input coming, I appreciate it! |
@mr_bill
The CS2.7 was developed after Jim T passed. It was a collaboration in house but with external engineering for the crossover. Search “CS 2.7” written by “tomthiel” to get the history. It has a first order network.
If you aren’t afraid of a soldering gun, get a pair of CS2.4 and either wait for Tom Thiel’s upgrade kit or pour through this thread for ideas of how to make a great speaker into a superb one. |
mr_bill
If you search this thread you’ll see a lot from me comparing the 2.7 to the 3.7s.
I owned both at the same time for a while and ultimately went with the 2.7 as it’s smaller size fit better aesthetically in my room. (Plus to my eyes the 2.7s are among the best looking speakers I’ve ever seen).
The 2.7s have the essential sound of the 3.7s, with a slightly reduced sense of scale.
Though without direct comparison to the 3.7, the 2.7s cast a really big soundstage - among the most expansive and precise as you’ll find anywhere around their size. |
|
@beetlemania,
I think a pair of 2.4s now with upcoming @tomthiel crossover or upgrade kit would be a great way to go. Thank you for the suggestion.
Does anyone know the status of this or when will be ready? |
@altx, I’n the past I’ve run CS2’s with a few different amps including amongst others the B&K ST 140 and closer to your EX-442, the B&K M 200’s. The M200’s are really nice. I am not familiar with the Sim intergrated. I do know that the Sim amps have over the years garnered mixed reviews. I’d be concerned about resale value with the Sim. The CS 2’s are especially easy to drive Thiel speakers. But, their sonic nature requires special consideration. The ported bass can be a bit bloomy and the upper midrange to lower treble can become a bit forward and hard if not carefully matched to appropriate upstream components. You’d be mistaken if you were to assume from the above that I don’t care for them. They are IMHO one of the high end’s greatest speaker values. With all that said I’m not sure that a move to the Sim would be an improvement, and perhaps even a step back from your B&K. I strongly suggest you audition with your speakers before making a move.
|
mr-bill
I spent several weeks auditioning the 3.7 vs the 2.7 speakers using a collection of my classical CDs.
Like prof, I ended up getting the 2.7 speakers, but added a SmartSub SS2.2 to extend the bass.
IMO, both the 3.7 and the 2.7 needed bass extension, and the subwoofer solved the problem. I'm a very happy camper.
Agree with prof on the 2.7 soundstage.
|
Brayeagle, have to admit that my subwoofers fixed any bass deficiencies of my 3.7. current measurements show bass extension down in the teens. |
Can anyone direct me to the pages that would have specific 2.4 vs 2.7 listening comparisons? My understanding is the entire 2.7 low-frequency system is pure 2.4 (cabinet loading, woofer itself, radiator, XO tweaks only to
better match
woofer
roll-off to 3.7 coax), yes? The 2.7 is the only full-size Thiel of their last 15+ years I haven't heard. |
Unsound,
Thanks for your insights! I had also been considering Hegel 390i and possibly the Ayre EX-8. Any thoughts out there on pairing these with CS2s? |
@altx, I’m not really versed in the intergrated market. iIntergrateds do offer value in reducing the significant cost of case work, reduced cabling and shelf space. On the other hand, if you notice the top pres often have separate power supplies, as do the Uber high end power amps. Typically separate power amps offer better isolation of noise and heat and better possible weight distribution. Often one will see higher class A bias, and or better power delivery into lower impedances from a manufacturers separates than from their own comparable intergrateds
Both the Hegel and the Ayre’s have received rave reviews. I haven’t heard the Hegel’s in any sort of serious context. I have no opinion on them. I’ve only heard the early Ayer separates. I found those Ayre’s too rolled off in the top end for my liking. YMMV. The more recent models have been described as sounding quite different. As I posted earlier, the CS 2’s with their 6 Ohm nominal / 5 Ohm minimum super smooth impedance, and fairly easy 88 dB sensitivity are from a technical stand point rather easy to drive. You should have plenty of options to choose from. Just be mindful of the CS 2’s sonic signature.
At these prices have you considered moving up the Thiel line? |
Hegel makes nice products. I use a Hegel H190 in a secondary system driving a pair of Ohm Microwalsh Talls. |
@cascadephil
I'd be curious to know if you ever tried using your Hegel H190 to drive your Thiels ... and if so what you thought of the pairing.
Hegel specs say their integrated amps are stable down to 2 ohms.
So if so, all that is left is if it's a good sonic match.
|
