Thiel Owners
@Pwhinson, a first order cross-over might be the only cross-over capable of time and phase coherence. The single driver Quad ESL 63’s and the quasi-multi driver Ohm Walsh, etc., did it without an electrical cross-over. Even with a first order cross-over a multi driver loudspeaker will need physically staggered drivers, and as you pointed out wide bandwidth drivers, that will in all probablility need compensating components added to the first order cross-overs to behave as as a time and phase coherent loudspeaker system. |
@unsound. Richard Vandersteen and Jim Thiel believed the ONLY thing that can make multi driver speakers time and phase coherent IS a first order crossover. Nothing more nothing less. That assumes the drivers are capable of taking advantage of the first order crossover and its more difficult slopes. (1) YES there are two drivers in ADDITION to the ribbon tweeter in a 20.7...so, NO there is NOT one "panel/driver" in a 20.7. Maybe the confusion arises because you have two drivers in a single panel in the 20.7 and just about all the Magnepans...and in the higher tiers they blend a long narrow ribbon tweeter into the panels. Its a three-way speaker inclusive of the ribbon tweeter. (2) YES these speakers do produce a perfect square wave because the crossover IN THE SPEAKER is first order and time and phase coherent. Unlike the earlier 3 series speakers there is no external crossover, rather its now built into the body of the .7 series speakers. (3) YES my reference to a "crossover" was to the EXTERNAL VANDERSTEEN crossover for the transition from the 20.7s to the Vandersteen subs. (3) YES the external Vandersteen crossover is ALSO first order. (4) YES I did prefer the sound of the 20.7’s by themselves to that of the sound produced by the 20.7s, the vandersteen crossover, and the vandersteen subs as I stated above. The Maggies were crossed over at 100 hz to the Vandy subs (pretty high if you ask me). Still, I expected more from the combination thinking that this would be a very clean way to integrate subs into the Maggies but what I found was that on the 20.7 (and I guess on the 30.7 with the extra bass panel per side), the bass is far superior than what Maggies used to be able to achieve in the past. It was clean and coherent and DEEP. The Vandy subs just smeared not only the deep bass but the upper bass as well. I really expected more. But the 20.7 is truly a great speaker I would say especially for classical music. Truly extraordinary I think. I also have since bought a pair of 20.7s (!). I liked em that much. |
Also out of curiosity, why would you need a cross over for the Magnepan? Isn't it just a single panel? The crossover was probably for the subs. A lot of people don't like subs with Maggies because they feel that the sub is sluggish compared to the mylar panel. There are many different models of maggies, though. The 3.6R, for instance, has three drivers per speaker and an external crossover that separates the lows, which go to the bass panels, from everything else. There is also an internal crossover for the midrange panel and ribbon tweeter. |
Actually the Magnepan although physically composed of just one panel, it is not technically a single driver in term of phase response. Different parts of the panel will not move in complete synchronization therefore certain part of the panel will have different phase vs. some other part. Also out of curiosity, why would you need a cross over for the Magnepan? Isn't it just a single panel? |
In my continuing flirting with other speakers apart from my beloved 2.4s, I heard the Magnepan 20.7's yesterday run with Vandersteen crossovers (the ones that come with the 7s) and two Vandersteen subs. Impressive but on most music I preferred the sound of the Magnepans by themselves without the subs. Time and phase coherent first order crossovers all the way around. |
OMG what a great story about Nelson and the hospital visit..... I may have been at that CES dont forget the Dayton Wright either!!!! One engineering techniqe is managing a balanced tradespace or even a weighted tradespace and being serious about your priority.... image, pitch, transparency, spl peak, spl Duty rating, etc Jafant gave good advice on seeking out 5a and a better audition of the 2 series Thiel have fun enjoy the music protect your hearing !!!!! jim |
Unsound - good question. I think that suspicion arises because in later years there was sourcing of parts and some production to China, raising related questions. My general comments are that Thiel products were extremely finished at introduction. Nonetheless over time there were some refinements and/or adjustments for differences between as-designed and as-implemented. A common factor was that drivers' resonance modes might average slightly different than the original prototypes, so small XO changes would compensate. Final testing compared every speaker to a standard in an anechoic chamber, which is how various drifting, etc. was identified. As a general rule, quality and consistency improved through the model life, as experience taught its idiosyncrasies. |
laserjock1963 Thank You for the update. It seems like the speakers auditioned by your friend were under-powered via the Onkyo? Room acoustics and speaker placement may have had a negative impression as well? I can advise to hold out for a personal audition, as a time-phase-coherent loudspeaker, is a different design from traditional. At the least, seek out a Vandersteen 3A Signature or 5A model there in the Dallas/Houston/SATX area, until a Thiel Audio speaker becomes available. From experience, contact John Fort Audio in Dallas. He usually has quite a bit of used/demo gear on-hand and is a pleasure to consult. Happy Listening! |
I had a buddy audition the pair of 2.4s in the Atlanta area that didn’t go so well. He brought his laptop with Mytek DAC to play some familiar stuff. The seller has a very high ceiling and is only driving the speakers with a higher end Onkyo. Obviously, my buddy couldn’t get a true feel how they sound compared to what he’s used to but he said he went in wanting to like them and be as unbiased as he could. (He has Revel F208s with 2 REL subs in a smaller room) He mentioned that the sound-stage and imaging was good but that was all he liked about them. I have decided to hold off on the purchase of them but if I can find someone in the Houston/Austin/San Antonio Texas area that would be willing to give me an audition, then I could get a better idea for myself. Anyone? I’m the meantime, thanks for the help and info from this community. Chria |
Right now using my Modwright LS36.5DM preamp with my Mivera SE ICEPower amp (and have the EVS version with two mono modules on order). I use an EMM Labs DAC 2X and a Lumin U1 (reading files from my NAS) as a source. I was using cables I made from the stranded Neotech silver/gold alloy with Mundorf RCA but tried a Teo Audio GC Ultra between the DAC and preamp and that made a nice improvement. If the new amp works out (the AS1200 module supposedly sounds much better in balanced but when I got it was not aware and I do have an integrated AV system and probably going to ditch the HT Bypass and just swap cables for the 10-12 times/year I watch TV or a movie in the main system). Likely going to get another Teo audio cable too. |
thanks Unsounds for all the good info. You are a lot more technical than me as a lot of that is over my head, but I certainly appreciate your continuing contributions to this discussion. Until i got the 3.7's, i only owned four generations of the two series, and i do not think they were as difficult to drive as speakers such as the cs5 or 7.2. Years ago a friend had a three series with an equalizer, but i forgot the model. that one i think was tougher. sdl4: welcome to our little world of Thiel lovers. It is fun for sure. I understand about the increased dollars, but if you ever get a chance to hear a pair of 2.4's take it for sure. |
@ronkent, I too have been steadily using Thiels for over 30 years. I never considered myself a "headbanger", and as I've said before, ultimate volume levels is a low priority for me. Still, it's a relevant aspect and I'm confident that Jim Thiel gave considered effort addressing it. As one moves up the Thiel range, one of the advantages is that the speakers become more capable of moving more air, with greater dynamic range and ultimate volume levels. Let's look at what Larry Archibald former editor and former owner of Stereophile had to write about Thiel's and dynamic range.: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs12-loudspeaker-page-2 https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-loudspeaker-larry-archibald-page-2 https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs35-loudspeaker-page-2 https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs5-loudspeaker-page-3-0 In some cases more recent models seemed to trade some bass response for greater loudness capabilities. Thiel's might not have the ultimate volume levels of some of the big horns, but, neither are they limited, like so many panels are. They might not be the best in any single category, but IMHO they can offer very good to excellent performance across the board in every category, save perhaps for generosity in amplifier compatibility. |
jafant: Thanks for the warm welcome! Just last month, I became the happy owner of the PS Audio M700 amps and Gain Cell DAC/Preamp, and the Stellar gear have definitely opened up the sound of my system. They have also forced me to wade into the messy (and expensive) world of cable choices, and I'll be posting my thoughts on that issue on the PSA forum very soon. In cables, as well as in other audio components, I tend to look for gear that sounds the "best for the money" rather than the "best that unlimited money can buy." At this point, I rarely use my turntable and focus instead on CD's and streaming digital audio via Sonos (using the DAC in my Stellar preamp). I haven't explored higher resolution formats much at all. My musical tastes were shaped by the blues-rock (eg, Cream, Led Zep, Hendrix, Rolling Stones, etc.) and folk-rock and singer-songwriters of the 1960's and 1970's, including Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, Shawn Colvin, and others. I also listen to some classic blues and Motown. |
@tomthiel loved the story about Nelson Pass. I googled it and came up with this post from the master himself on another board. I’ll highlight a snippet from his post here: "It was the perfect high end audio product: Exotic, inefficient, expensive, unavailable, and toxic." Here’s the full post from Nelson: The "ion cloud loudspeaker" used photocopy machine ionizing nichrome wire strung in a flat array a bit like a window screen, but with more space between the wires, and charged to a variable DC potential of about 10 KV. This screen developed a layer of ionized air, and was enclosed between two stators, much like an electrostatic speaker, except that instead of a charged plastic diaphragm, you had a charged semi-flat layer of gas, and you could push-pull it with high AC voltages on the stators. It worked fairly well, and gave new meaning to the word "transparency". It also had several flaws, one of which did result in a trip to the local emergency room with breathing problems similar to those sometimes experienced by arc welders and caused by extended exposure to ozone. The Wall Street Journal printed my comment: "It was the perfect high end audio product: Exotic, inefficient, expensive, unavailable, and toxic." |
ronkent: I have owned my 2.2's (#991+#992) from 1992 to the present, and I haven't been seriously looking to replace them. I have had an interest in the 2.4, 2.7, and especially the 3.7, but the investment needed to make the change hasn't made sense to me given how much I like my 2.2's. Also, the 2.2's are not so big that they dominate my living room, and the natural cherry of the speakers is a perfect match for the wall of built-in cherry cabinets in the room. My home theater in a different room includes five Powerpoint 1.2's and a SS1 sub in a 5.1 configuration, so I have a very positive appreciation for the excellence of Thiel's coaxial tweeter/mid designs. I can see how having a combined tweeter/mid in a floor-stander like the 3.7 would eliminate some of the issues that can arise in the 2.2 if the vertical listening position isn't just right. |
The 3.7s for sure were not as bad a load as the 7.2s. I owned 2.3s before the 7.2s and now have 3.7s. I also have SCS2s (using them for side and rear surround but had them as mains in the bedroom system of my old house). When my friend worked at a local hifi shop many moons ago, I helped deliver most of their modes from the late 1990s for about 6 years. I currently drive my 3.7s with Class D (Modwright KWA 150SE before that and Bryston 14BSST before that and a smaller Bryston SST before that). The 7.2s were in a large 2 story room and would shut down on a regular basis from the load presented to the Bryston 14BSST (they made a 20 amp version but I didn't have a 20 amp circuit). |
I would like to once again weigh in on this issue as i have owned five different models of Thiel going back to the 2.0 and have used many different amps including modified Haflers (way back), Audio Research, Rowlands, Quads, Marantz Reference, old PS Audio, and now the PS BHK 250. To my knowledge i have never had a compatibility issue and i have been know to crank them a bit (but not above 90DB). I think any well designed amp from a reputable company (Pass, ARC, PS, Bryston, etc.) should all be fine unless one really really plays them loud, but then that is not what Thiel speakers are for. They are about quality not quantity. |
My 2.2s are used almost exclusively for kids tv shows these days and they're hooked up to a ~$900 Yamaha HT receiver. I'm surprised at how deep and forceful the bass is even from this very modest power source. I'm sure there'd be some improvement with a big power amp but it's pretty darn good the way it is. They most definitely don't require a massive amount of power. My 3.7s are hooked up to a pair of Cambridge 840s running bridged mono, have been for the last 7 years, and work great this way. I was somewhat afraid that the low impedance combined with bridging would be a problem but it hasn't been. I'm sure some Thiel models require monster amplifiers but the ones I have definitely do fine with more moderate amps. I don't listen especially loud so I'm sure that's a factor. Maybe the 3.7s with their well-behaved drivers and relatively simple crossover don't present as difficult of a load as some other Thiels do. I did notice a significant improvement in bass definition when changing from one amp to 2. |
Great story about Nelson Pass and his "dangerous" speaker design! In terms of amps for use with Thiel speakers, I've been very happy with my PS Audio M700 Monoblocks driving Thiel 2.2 speakers. These amps put out 700w per channel into 4 ohms and can handle peaks at 2 ohms if necessary. Fortunately, the 2.2 runs mainly at 4 ohms or higher and only rarely drops into the 3-4 ohm range (per JA's Stereophile measurements). It's clear that some of the later Thiel models are harder to drive than the 2.2, but folks on the PS Audio forum report great real-world performance of 2.4's and 3.7's using the M700's or the BHK signature designs. I don't think anyone should be hesitant to at least demo Thiels with PS Audio amps. |
That’s a great, and funny, story, Tom! And a good reminder of the compromises designers must make. Throwing money at the problem helps but even with unlimited budget, consumers will not have a “perfect” system. For myself, I most value transparency, resolution, imaging . . . musical immersion. Those are the very qualities improved with the CS2.4 XO upgrade. And I have assembled a system that addresses those priorities within my particular budget. I have zero interest in recreating SPLs of The Who in my room. |
The matter of music and its production and reproduction is very complex, and not readily solvable within real-world constraints. FWIW a story comes to mind. The story doesn't solve or settle anything, but it may shine some light on the depths of the conundrum. Thiel often displayed with and/or next to Threshold at shows, before Nelson Pass migrated to his self-named smaller operation. Around the mid 80s Jim and Nelson were trading bets at a Las Vegas CES where they bet each other that they could design the other's product better. Jim's first impulse was toward amplifier circuit design, and Nelson's was toward loudspeakers. Jim took it as a joke and went back to work, in the typical Thiel workaday mode. Nelson didn't. Next year he showed up with his Pass Transparent Transducer. The PTT never got publicity, in fact entry to its exhibition room was invitation-only and never more than 5 minutes, and sealed lips promised. You see, Nelson's ultimate solution to distortion (diaphragm and cabinet resonances, thermal compression and all that) was to have none. The air-moving driver was ionized air which moves when excited by an electrical field between wire screens. One driver (air) for the entire range (near DC to whatever upper limit of air's compressability (let's say 100K). Pretty close to no artifacts. The sound was thoroughly enrapturing. Sweet, clean, diaphanous - images hanging in 3 dimensional space, at once solid and ethereal. It was unbelievable. This was the same time-period when Dr. Hill was showing his Plasmatronic speaker which "burned" helium gas, modulating the plasma in a high-energy electromagnetic field. You can't make this stuff up. Anyhow, Nelson's TT was in its own league in my experience. There were some "difficulties". Efficiency was low. I don't remember how low, but his custom amp delivered something like a megawatt per channel with special consideration to the seriously low impedances. Maximum sound pressure level was less than 50dB. Another "difficulty" was that it required positively ionized air and produced ozone. So, an ultra quiet exhaust fan came with the territory. And, program material was length-limited, since more than 20 minutes' exposure could lay a listener out with Welders' Fever and worse. Even though Nelson "stepped outside" the room during demonstrations, he eventually came staggering into our room and , long story short, I accompanied him in the ambulance to the hospital to explain the nature of his illness to the ER doc, who "recommended" to CES that the display become passive. The point of all this is that the interplay between trade-offs and the depth of required understanding, and the limitations of physical reality . . . make ultra-quality music reproduction extremely complex and difficult. By solving part of the equation, other parts are compromised. Even the One and Only Nelson Pass must make compromises. In our real workd, the listener's assessment is the final arbiter because you really can't get it all. |
Under the conditions I use my system (seldom above 85dB and probably never above 90), my amp has more than enough power to deliver stress/compression-free music. It sounds superb. Listeners demaning peaks of 105+ should probably look not only for a different amp but a different loudspeaker than the 2.4. YMMV. |
Perhaps some are confused about the impedance/sensitivity relationship. Thiel like many other loudspeaker companies rates their sensitivity as 2.83V* / 1 M. This can be confusing. With each halving of impedance one can subtract about 3 dB of sensitivity. As evidenced in the "Description" in this link: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs5-loudspeaker-specifications-0 *Not 1 Watt |
@Beetlemania. Once again, it’s not about ultimate volume levels, but rather the ability to provide the power into the actual impedance loads of the loudspeakers. I never meant to single out anyone in particular. Just the opposite, I’m suggesting that some of the amp recommendations made here by others weren’t necessarily the best general recommendations for many Thiel’s. It just so happened that I ended up following up to those individuals that responded to my post. The power levels I suggested were actually based upon Thiel’s recommendations. Jim Thiel told me himself that Thiel’s power recommendations were based upon standard 8 Ohm power recommendations, with the assumption that the amps could double down as needed. He offered that for example that if using say a Thiel with a 4 Ohm rating, and one wanted use a tube amp (incapable of doubling down) then one should double the power recommendations appropriately. As you can see from the links in my previous posts, many of the amps frequently reccomended here, struggle to do so into lower impedances. As impedances drop so do sensitivitities. 400 Watts into 2 Ohms won’t provide much more volume output than 100 Watts into 8 Ohms. I don’t think many would find 100 Watts an outrageous number of Watts with an 8 Ohm speaker. |
@unsound If you’re trying to recreate orchestral climaxes in your room, I suggest you have the wrong speaker rather myself with the wrong amp. Most Wilsons or the JBL K2 9800 will play loud as hell without issue. I hope buyers of the CS2.4 are not expecting to get ear splitting SPLs. And I hope, for the sake of your ears, that you reserve that experience for an actual orchestra a few times per year rather than every night in your room. Yes, 85 dB is a low bar. It’s also close my upper limit of comfort. Unless I’m going to listen to folk or a quartet, I bring ear plugs to most concerts. Even at 90 dB, my Ayre has plenty of headroom, probably <15W with the 88 dB 2.4. It’s laughable to think my amp is sweating. 2 ohm, 4 ohm, doesn’t matter at this level. Meanwhile, go take a look at Soundstages measurements of the 2.4. Speaker distortion probably becomes audible before amp distortion (and the CS2.4 has superbly low distortion). Yes, extra power sounds better, all other factors equal. All other factors are not equal. I’ll take an Ayre, ARC, or Aesthetix over any Krell or Levinson, thank you (hey, I’m an A-hole!). I won’t assume your system is wrong for you. Please grant me the same and ronkent. |
