Thiel Owners

Shite.  

I almost returned to Thieland a week or so ago when I offered $500 for a pair of CS3.5 from a seller within driving distance.  I had just sold off the Meadowlark Kestrels to another member here and couldn’t believe my good fortune finding a LOCAL pair of Thiel. We arranged a pick up time, agreed to cash, all set.  He even had the original cartons.  

The following morning I called the seller to tell him I was on my way, that the trip would take about 45 minutes.  He said, “I sold speakers.”  I replied, “yes I know, we spoke yesterday about picking them up today, remember me, Bill?”  Silence.  “Yes, yes, I remember, but I sold them.”  I asked him if he still had the speakers thinking that, hoping that there was something neither one of us was clear about. 

Nope. He sold the out from under me. 

C’est la vie.  

I had also also sold off my Bluesound Powernode 2i to help offset my purchase of an Audio Research DSi200 Integrated. Received it from TMR, perfect shape.  Original carton, all the desired usual suspects.  Couldn’t wait. Wouldn’t you know it that a pair of new Maggie MMGi’s came to bear within shirt order. NOS, still wrapped in the shipping carton.  Used price - hard to beat. 

I hook up the integrated, hook up the Maggies, take my usual spot in the living room, toss on Ani Difranco’s “Evolve” album and await goodness.  

Now I’ve had, including this pair, 5 pairs of Maggies. I’ve had ARC separates, too - I have a pretty good idea of what either is capable of providing sonically.
I’m listenin’ but I ain’t hearin’.  The sound is...lacking. No depth, no space. I turn it up a tad believing that maybe the amp likes to flex a muscle every now and again, kinda like my pair of 3.6’s that showed best at levels I don’t normally listen at. Nope.  I put the disc on infinite repeat believing the amp, as I’d read about, likes a long burn.  Nope.  Still...lifeless. I’m flummoxed.  

I spy in the A’gon classifieds a Belles 250i integrated for less than half of what the ARC cost me.  It’s in Joisey, close enough, so I make an offer. It’s accepted. I deal with one of the nicest guys I’ve met here on Audiogon - The integrated arrives the next day.  

Voila!  The Maggies are being profoundly Maggie. Except for the rather anemic bass I was hearing the kind of clarity I had been anticipating.  The Belles is a truly remarkable integrated.  It’s a hybrid, employing a tubed pre - which I’ve pretty much done me-self over the years with various setups.  

This is is the best integrated I’ve ever owned. 

Now...I’m watching the ads again for Thiel.  There’s a few 2.3’s around at acceptable asking prices. 

Almost back...it’s been painful. 

Hi,

I follow this thread now and again and have a question that is a reality check. Bear with me.

There is another current thread about the differences that can be heard between a $1,500 and $10,000 DAC. Of course, the conversation got around to needing to have the equipment to hear the difference; the consensus seemed to be the difference would be primarily in the high frequencies.

I have Thiel CS5's and think they are good enough to hear these types of differences; as any time I change out gear I can tell a difference.

My question to other thread followers here would be: Would you agree with me?

I am asking because I have not heard that many different speakers in my home and was fortunate early on to acquire the CS5's at a good price so sometimes I wonder if that is all clouding my judgement.

Thanks for listening,

Dsper

Correction: the CS3 was introduced at the Chicago Summer CES in June 1983, which is part of the 03b story.

Sandy - thank you for your remembrances. The 03a was the real beginning of it all. It upgraded the 03, which was Thiel's shortest run in history: one year. The 03 was our first product to address time / phase with first order slopes. We struggled nearly two years to minimize all the problems which coherence made glaringly obvious, but which melted into obscurity with higher-order crossovers. We launched the 03 in early 1978 to an encouraging audience at the Winter CES in Chicago. But back home, we were still working around the clock to identify and solve "problems".

A root problem turned out to be diffraction, which wasn't much on the radar in 1978. We nested the drivers in heavy wool felt, and brought them closer together, virtually transforming the speaker, without changing the drivers or the crossover. By the end of the year we had the 'a' iteration which we introduced at January CES 1979. The illustrious Harry Pearson, editor of Absolute Sound and to many minds the founder of "high-end", gave the 03a a glowing review, citing its many unique strengths and only its ultimate power handling capability and his unease about the equalizer as his mild reservations. He finished with something like "Thiel's 03a is a tour de force; I expect to hear more from this emerging designer." That is a paraphrase from memory.

I suspect you're right about the early 80s at Havens and Hardesty because the CS3 was introduced January 1983. Here's a quiz for the group. Has anyone ever heard of the 03b?

arvincastro

Though I prefer Conrad Johnson tube gear to ARC, I’ve certainly heard what ARC can do in various systems and appreciated it.

A pal of mine recently got rid of some nice ARC amps he’d been using for years. Wanted something beefier and more reliable and went with a big Bryston amp. He’s happy, but to my ears his system lost magic, and has taken on a more steely tone. I’m less happy listening to his system now.

I did some auditioning of various speakers yesterday, powered by Bryston amps (and I used to own a Bryston amp) and it only re-enforced my commitment to my tube amps. Everything hooked up to the Brystons was afflicted by a hardened, tight (and to my ears icey) tone.  I know that is not what people enjoying those amps in their systems will hear, but it's what I will tend to hear.   Which is why I have always gone back to tube amps.  I just don’t think I’ll ever be someone who can get along with solid state amps for my system.

Interesting Warren, thanks.

I had contact with Kathy and she was a thorough, graceful professional.

Oh, by the way, that first pair of Thiel speakers I ever heard, at Havens & Hardesty, was the O3a, predecessor to the CS3, CS3.5, CS3.6, etc. I wonder what year that was, probably early 1980s.

Thiel was as-yet off the audiophile map at that time, having just received a review in either TAS or Stereophile, which of course was extremely complimentary, particularly about the O3a's amazing imaging, including from way outside the speakers' locations. Also about "depth", imaging from way beyond the back wall. Imaging and depth were all the rage at that time, not emphasized so much now-a-days.

tomthiel

The first time I ever heard a Thiel speaker was at Havens and Hardesty in Seal Beach, CA. Somebody from Thiel was there, just trying to convince Mr. Hardesty to carry them, which they did, soon after. I was blown away by the specificity of imaging, even from outside the speakers, and the presentation of depth from far behind the speakers . No speaker ever did that for me before. I wanted a pair, but I was a penny-less college student, so I bought a pair used. When the 3.0 came out, I never had an interest in upgrading, based on hearing them at CES. But hearing the 3.5, and reading about it in the magazines, sold me immediately, and I bought a pair new (from Havens and Hardesty).

Now, besides my new CS3.7 and subwoofer, I have 3 pairs of CS3.5 in storage (originals still have the blown midrange, the extra 2 were for spare midranges but they are too nice to take apart), two pair of O3a (one pair have never been out of service since I bought them used as current models), two pair of O2 (they need woofer re-foam, so I’ve never heard them), and two pair of CS2.x (also have not listened to them yet). The older CS2.x I intended to use for rear channel speakers maybe, and the newer CS2.x I only bought very recently to participate in Tom’s upgrade kit project. So I still have a lot to experience with my older Thiels. The O3a, in my opinion, are very close in sound to the CS3.5, particularly the spectacular imaging and low-level detail retrieval. I have never heard CS3.0 or CS3.6, except at CES, and I didn’t think they ever really sounded great at a show, like they might have in a real home environment. For some reason, the CS3.5 always DID sound VERY good at CES, Chicago (Blackstone Hotel) and Las Vegas (Sahara and Riviera).

At CES, Jim and Kathy were never available for me to chat with, so I always spoke with Tom at the shows. Jim was somewhat uncomfortable just chatting in general, so he was always tucked away in the meeting rooms, and Kathy was always busy doing business in those rooms. When not so busy, she just never seemed to be approachable. But Tom was ALWAYS extremely warm and approachable.

Just so all of you know, Tom is a super warm and down-to-earth guy; as they say, the kind who you would really like to have a beer with. I perceived Jim as seriously introspective (as you might expect a genius to be), and Kathy just seemed all business, no fun. And then, after Tom stopped going to CES, there was Martin (I think was his name... or was his guitar a Martin?... anyway, he was a Tony Rice fan), who was also very nice to chat with. He worked for Thiel for a LONG time.

--Warren (AKA Sandy)

@jafant 

Yes...I am quite happy with my ARC gear!  However, I do have to admit that if I ever decide to move to another brand, it would be to Pass...I've heard several systems driven by Nelson Pass' gear and every time, I walk away working out the trade-in math in my head...

Hope you're well!

Arvin

JA - one dovetail of the XO project with my musical instrument work is that I use the same listening, mic, software and equipment setup for both purposes. So, I am taking measurements while making the guitar, and making archival recordings for later comparisons. I can compare those progress measurements against playback measurements in the same place in the same room, for a very fine-tuned reference standard. 

Hello Sandy - good to see you here. This forum is my sole on-line activity. My experience tracks yours. In all the years of demonstrating and exhibiting 3.5s, we (Thiel Audio) NEVER blew a driver, even when purposely tempting fate with high levels for extended time. But, news from the field mounted, we warranted many drivers, especially midranges with burned coils. The story was almost always moderately powered amps - 50 watts is enough to fry voice coils, but not enough to stay clean. Program material was almost always soundtracks or other oo-wow exhibition pieces. Rooms were usually large - required power rises as a cube function of size - it escalates very fast. And the "felons" often had compromised hearing - think rock concerts. A core liability of first order slops is vulnerability.

The first replacement driver was free under warranty, with a lesson and warning. If they blew another driver, the dealer had the option how to charge - we supplied the driver to the dealer at our cost. After that they were on their own. Under normal use with normal program material, a driver should last many years. But, "normal" has drifted to much higher demands than the old days.

tomthiel

Hello Tom, this is Sandy. Your explanation of the single most important limitation with the 3.5 explains two questions that have been bothering me for the past few years.

1) I NEVER had any problem with coping with dynamics, when the CS3.5 speakers were in my primary audio system (well, my ONLY audio system at that time). But then again, in those days, my 3.5s were in a very small dedicated listening room, only 10’ x 11’. And, that was in the days before CD was invented. So, more recent reports, claiming that newer Thiels are "better" always caused my disbelief... because how can perfection be improved upon! Well, you answered that: I didn’t have a situation that pushed their limits.

2) I heard a rumor that the 3.5’s midrange can be easily blown, from a burned voice coil, due to the wide bandwidth it has to deal with, imposed by the gentle crossover slopes. But I NEVER had a problem. That is, until I moved to a much larger room AND entered the era of CD. Since then, yes I did blow a midrange and I had to start being careful about volume. So, because those midranges are impossible to repair or replace, I had to buy a whole second pair, just to scavenger a midrange. And I have been hoarding 2nd and 3rd pairs ever since. Luckily, 3.5s are absurdly cheap now, particularly in poor cosmetic condition. But having these extras as spares takes up a lot of space!

I am SOOOO glad I found you here, so I can hear (read) more of your Thiel comments.

-- Warren (aka "Sandy"), Audio Note (uk) dealer, www.TheAudioHome.com

JA - the disciplines are related and knowledge usually cross pollinates. But my goals in Denver relate to acoustic guitar and piano design. Making the music is my heart's delight.

I'm definitely of the opinion that old Thiels are great and I'm not sure how much better the new ones are when it comes to just enjoying music.  I love the overall character of Thiels and as has been said, that hasn't changed too much over time.  

Hi guys - just back from the soundboard voicing masterclass in Denver. Physics rules the technical arts. I'd like to affirm these recent comments about the 3.5 and the progress of Thiel's models in general. As this inner circle understands, the goal did not change. Each model approaches the same goal of translation of the input signal into acoustic output without degradation and within its constraints, which are primarily bass and power. The 3.5 was the 5th iteration of the model 3, and with it came a leap in magnet geometry in the woofer and midrange. Subtle distortions were reduced by an order of magnitude. The 3.5 also saw the final form of the styrene x tin foil 1uF bypass cap and refined the ratios and form of compound bypass nano-caps. These technologies were, to my knowledge, not used by anyone else at the time.

The 3.5 was a clean, settled design which would have run longer, but for the advent of peak-intensive music. Wilson's Audiophile Recordings, complete with uncompressed cannons, along with other exhibition-style recordings simply over-drove the 3.5, well beyond what vinyl / analog ever could. The 3.5 drivers were by far the most robust we had ever used and we replaced, by far, more of them than any other model. That led to ported bass in upper models which, I believe, Jim developed extremely well. His alignments produce proper augmentation without the B&W bump and dump. But, as 3.5 fans know, the ported alignment introduces more phase shift and steeper low-end rolloff for a less natural result.

Each generation of each model makes incremental progress, led by its new driver development and then shaped by its enclosure and crossover implementation. The 3.5 was a breakthrough product and still holds its own today, nearly 35 years on.

I thank all of you for your continued appreciations.

So happy that there is actually an active Thiel community out there. I bought a new pair of the model 2 2s way back in the early 90s but quickly traded them even-up for a used pair of 3.6es. I have never regretted doing so.

Recently I upgraded my amplification by adding an Audio Research Ref 3 preamp along with a full Monty refresh of my McCormack DNA 1 (now Ultra Platinum). I have discovered that really good tube preamps work well with Thiel (prior was Audio Research LS 9). The McCormack DNA 1 with the Plitron transformer- wait for it- can "transform" Thiels. The amp can dump current far beyond what is necessary to control the 3.6es. Steve McCormack should be recognized along with Pass, Bascom King and Dan D'Agostino et al. as a Hall of Fame amp designer. 

Finally, cables matter more than I thought. Power cords are Shunyata Alpha HC (C-19 on ARC Ref 3) and ICs are Audioquest Columbia balanced XLR on all ins and outs.

The Thiels dutifully reported every change I made. The system is warm, musical, revealing but absolutely none fatiguing. It provides a large and detailed sound-stage and a "coherent" presentation of the source material. Yup, poor recording are not sugar-coated, but the good stuff is really, really good. I think that there are now "better" loudspeaker systems with more modern technology available, but make no mistake: Jim Thiel made a major contribution to the art and science of speaker design that has stood the test of time. His speaker designs are relevant, correct in concept and execution and timeless. Thanks Mr. Thiel.   

I face a quandary and request the forums assistance.

I want to get a subwoofer to match my system of 2.4’s driven by Psaudio BHK preamp and a 250 power amp.
Audio only.

i have no access to trial units. Budget is $1000 - 1500. The used market is full of high quality units, and yet there are companies like SVS, REL, and Rhythmik that have new units in this range.

I appreciate you input.

dave

Warren

You are preaching to the converted about the quality of old Thiel speakers.  In this very thread I've blabbered on about how much I love my super old pair of Thiel 02 speakers (circa early 80's).   I sheepishly admit sometimes preferring listening to them over my 2.7s!

I have something to add about having owned Thiel CS3.5 speakers for over 30 years. I have quite a few friends that remember my system with these speakers as being the best system that they every heard anywhere, including CES and other audio shows. One of my friends finally declared that there is "no way a system 30 years old can still have sounded better than I have ever heard since. I must be building it up in my mind, like a fish story".

Well, about 2 years ago, when my wife bought an extra house for us (I mean that we didn’t move in, she just bought it for later), I decided to set-up in its living room the EXACT same system that I had dismantled about 10 years earlier.
The speakers were in storage, the Cardas Hexlink Golden 5C interconnects were here, the CAT preamp was there, and may favorite tube mono amplifiers for the Thiels were also in storage. Once all put back together, I invited a few of these old friends over to hear the "famous" Thiel system again. We all agreed, it was STILL the best system we have ever heard. Wow, with carefully chosen associated equipment, the CS3.5 speakers sound like magic. They make magic, with their immaculate imaging, impressive dynamic contrasts (both micro and macro), super low and accurate bass (with the EQ), and reproduction of the natural timbre of real acoustic instruments. My new CS3.7 speakers are not significantly better in these particular qualities. As a whole, they sound quite similar. I doubt that any 2.x speakers can beat the CS3.5, but I have two pair of 2.x now, that I have not heard yet, so I will find out soon.

I know that some of you are thinking, including Tom, "No way his 30 years old CS3.5 speakers can sound as good as 3.7 speakers with Audio Research Classic 120 amps and a $20000 Audio Note preamp." Well just don’t underestimate the benefit of 20 years working on a system, carefully comparing amplifiers and preamplifiers, using current VERY high-end cartridges (e.g. Koestu, Benz Ebony LP, ZYX, Shelter), and choosing the best sonic match for every single cable in the system. Plus experimenting with AC conditioning, room acoustic treatments, and speaker positioning (in inch increments). Also, since the 3.5s were moved to a bedroom and the 3.7s are back in the living room, I have started the intense tweeking process with them, like I did with the 3.5s.

One of the greatest pleasures for me in our Hi-Fi hobby is when you listen to something you thought you know intimately well, only to discover nuances and details you never knew where there, or in this case, never truly appreciated.  This just happened to me...

I had just noticed that Tidal has an MQA version of The Beatles’ Deluxe Anniversary Edition of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.  Now, without getting into the wormhole of what MQA is or isn’t, I was simply blown away by what I just heard.  Specifically, on “A Day In The Life”, I was simply floored by sheer amount of layering my 3.5’s where throwing out...Lennon’s vocals had such air, like they were suspended high above all the instruments in the studio.  Then, Ringo’s incredible drumming...such timing...pop, pop, boom...pop, pop, boom...all from the right side, with the orchestra filling in on the left. Pianos on top of strings, horns sweeping...it was engulfing.  The song had so much presence to it, so much to its construction that I never heard before. This was not only a soundstage that had width and depth, but layer upon layer from top to bottom.

I love that song and I love that album...but I never heard it like that.  And, MQA or not, I wouldn’t have had this experience were it not for the Thiel 3.5’s. It takes a speaker of outstanding capability and quality to convey a musical performance like I just heard.  The Thiels never disappoint.  They have this ability to just sound so right...so detailed and yet so musical at the same time...that no matter what I throw at them, I simply enjoy. Incredible!  

I had to take a break from working to play that track again...and replay the album from the start.  I write this posting still gobsmacked at what I’ve just heard and so look forward to the next time the 3.5’s do this to me again...

Hope you all doing well!

Arvin

beetlemania

I can guarantee I could have impressed anyone skeptical of that pairing with a demo, especially if they didn't know what amp was driving the Thiels :-)

one of my favorite pairings with the 3.7s was my little 14W Eico HF-81 tube amp!

Oh, my! I'm gonna guess you will get some responses less than supportive of this pairing. But, good for you! Always trust your own ears first (and last).

Hi Warren, we communicated about your new 3.7s on the Steve Hoffman forum.

I've been "Thiels with tubes" for decades, myself.  I use Conrad Johnson Premier 12 140W/side monoblocks and they have driven every Thiel speaker I've had great (Thiel 06, 02, 3.7, 2.7).   And actually one of my favorite pairings with the 3.7s was my little 14W Eico HF-81 tube amp!Certainly not the last word in bass tightness (though surprisingly good), but wow what a sparkling, lush, organic yet lively presentation!

Sandy, 

Those sixteen power tubes probably can keep you warm in the winter, but your summer air conditioning bills must be something else!  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-).

George: A former very satisfied 3.5 owner - - now listening to 2.7s.

warjarrett:  too funny as i am  the same way.  " Yeah, I think I was crazy. I can tell you this: I never play background music anymore, with these tubes burning. The system either has my full attention or is off. I don’t answer the phone, my wife knows to ignore me (because I will her),

Even I suspected that I was crazy to spend as much on power tubes as on the entire purchase of the amps. Particularly since, as ARC’s only amps ever made for full triode operation, these amps make a measly 120 wpc with the 16 power tubes. All other ARC amps that have ever used 16 tubes, before or after the Classic 120s, made/make at least 200 wpc. So these are VERY special amps and VERY special tubes, and I am happy to be hearing them, despite their total cost.

To make my tubes even more interesting, these Tungsols came from a big box of military supply, in which ALL the tubes were matched (some 60+ years ago), then stored truly NOS ever since. So my set is a matched "sex-teen-tet"... well I also bought 4 spares, so a matched "twenty-tet".

Yeah, I think I was crazy. I can tell you this: I never play background music anymore, with these tubes burning. The system either has my full attention or is off. I don’t answer the phone, my wife knows to ignore me (because I will her), and even the dog won’t come in the listening room anymore when I am listening.

By the way, my preamp is a $20,000 Audio Note M6 with phono, and my cables are Cardas Clear Reflection. So the ARC amps and the Thiel speakers are hitting WAY above their current used value would suggest.

well my PS Audio BHK amp only uses to little baby input tubes,  but it is a great amp with my 3.7's.   would almost be afraid to try something like ARC mono blocks with those tubes.  that could break the bank

warjarrett

I totally agree with the ARC-Thiel synergy. My Ref5SE-Ref150 with my 3.6s are absolutely intoxicating. I'm not sure I want to risk the cost of tube rolling since the ARC-chosen Sovtek KT120s and 6H30s sound so sublime.

The ARC amps were just "quite good" with the stock Russian tubes. I really splurged, and bought 16 (8 per channel) NOS (and really new, never used) Tungsol 6550 tubes, USA made in the 1950s, for $175 each. And, WOW, they sound like different amps now, TOTALLY worth almost doubling their cost to me. Now they are indeed "killer" to my ears. Surprisingly, my CS3.5s don’t sound much different than my CS3.7s, with these amps. There is a consistency to the sound of all Thiel speakers that is truly impressive. Most speaker manufacturers have more variety in how their different speaker models have sounded. B&W is a prime example of this.

hi Warren,   great story.   i  bet the 3.7's are killer with the ARC amps.  wow what a combo. 

thannotopis321

I remember that the Aragon amps sounded very good with my Thiel speakers, too.

Tom Thiel and Harrylavo:

Hello Tom, this is my first post in this forum. I have been posting only in the SteveHoffman.tv forums for the past few years. Today, I just found out that you are here. So, here I am too.

During the decades of owning my Thiel CS3.5 speakers, I have tried hundreds of amplifiers with them, and can remember my sonic result with just about all of them. Adcom NEVER sounded good with Thiels, no matter how much power. Together they sound bland, lacking in dynamics, and electronic (not natural). The Amber Series-70 was an excellent combination in every way, one of the best I ever heard. It had actually only about 60 wpc (but it was famous for a having a VERY large power transformer and capability to deliver high current to low impedance or wildly varying impedance speakers). The other excellent matches were Classe DR series amps, all Mark Levinsons, and all Krells. But when I started hearing tube amps with Thiels, I never went back to solid state with them. Even very low power tube amps sound REALLY great with Thiel CS3.5. In fact, I never found one tube amp that didn’t sound great with them. Even a 6 wpc SET amp from AES was awesome. Now I am using Audio Research Classic 120 mono amps with my CS3.7, and it is an impressive match with the CS3.5 also. I think $3000 for a pair of these amps is a bargain. With my 3.5s, I am still using my MFA (Moore Franklyn) M-120 amps in triode mode, 60 wpc. When listeners hear this system, they cannot believe that I have been listening to such great sound for about 30 years. Newer, comparable amps would be from Bruce Moore Design, but are expensive. So my advice is that just about any stereo tube amp, with at least 60 wpc, into the CS3.5 is pure heaven. With solid state, you need to be more careful to audition in advance, and don’t go lower than 100 wpc in power.

--Warren (AKA "Sandy")

Happy Friday! All

thannotopis321
Welcome! Good to see you here. I remember the Aragon brand from the 1990's.  I look forward in reading more about your musical tastes.
Happy Listening!

Tom Thiel -

Perhaps an answer to your question re replacing with high current amps on 2.2's.  I recently pulled an Adcom 5300 away from the 2.2's and replaced it with an older Amber power amp still in good shape (this amp was noted for its current ability back in the old Absolute Sound days).  The change was pretty dramatic ..... bass firmly under control at all frequencies, making it sound much more "3.5-like".  I then substituted in Outlaw M200's, which did the same thing but a somewhat more laid-back mid-range.

I have the thiel CS6 speakers and they are fantastic to my ears. I use the Aragon 8008 (1998 vintage) and Audible Illusions Modulus 3A preamp. I also use a BSP 400 mirage subwoofer (old but very effective) I use the SL1000 MK2 for my ablum collection.(31 yrs.young) The associated equipment and my cs6 speakers are nirvana for me.

Thank you. I think doing this stepwise does make the most sense for me. Getting an appropriate high current ss amp first with using the preamp of my Linn would buy me time. I've read that the preamp is better than the amp section on my Linn, so it should be fine for a while. I wouldn't go with Linn again, although it has been trouble free, I'd much rather follow the suggestions found on this forum when the time is right. Your knowledge and experience led me to the 3.5s and I'm thrilled with them, so why mess with success? I really do appreciate all the suggestions and advice offered here. I'm not one to cycle through gear, so I'm fine with waiting for the right amp. 

I agree with jazzman7 about using a stepping stone approach. I first seriously started in this hobby about 7 years ago when I purchased my CS3.6s. At the time, I had an Exposure 2010 integrated amp. Obviously, it was very evident that I needed more 'juice', so I purchased a Bryston 4B using the Exposure as a preamp. Much better but it was just the beginning.....

rwmeditz

Another thought re your amp situation. If you are willing to consider separates, you could think about finding an appropriate power amplifier and continue to use the Linn integrated as your preamp via its preamp outputs. Using this stepping stone approach, you could then take your time with regards to potentially upgrading your preamp, at which time you might wish to consider worthy preamp/DACs for upgrading any listening you do in the digital arena. Just a thought. 

rwmeditz
I was thinking about your situation for possibly moving to an upgrade in Integrated amp.  I do not know if Linn makes a current model. A few years ago I was impressed with the Rega Saturn-R Integrated amp. I believe that it would match well w/ your Linn cd player while retaining the classic British sound.  Worth an audition.

Happy Listening!

Rules - zero phase rings before and after a transient event. Minimum phase does NOT ring. It's worth some study

Tom, if Thiel speakers keep phase changes to a minimum, would according to the same reasoning keeping the phase changes to zero as in linear phase be better then minimum phase? Creating linear phase is possible with active digital sound processing creating other problems such as ringing but would it not be another step closer to the ideal? My experimentation with the 3.5 seems promising and certainly increased my respect for the quality these speakers already have.

Tom Thiel

I will definitely let you know if I can hear them through an appropriate amp. I've just recently started reaching out to the community, but have been reading the posts for close to a year now. I've never been to any events and none of my friends have the bug, so it may be a while. 


I'm thrilled that you are continuing to pursue and offer your special talents, both in gear and instruments, to the rest of us. Keep the faith!  

Jafant

Yes, it is a great ride, with the music making an ever greater impact as the gear reveals more. Words can only approximate what the music offers, just as they fall short of describing the smell of freshly cut grass or the feel of a loved one's touch.