Thiel Owners

Is it too late to join this party?
2+ years and 100 plus pages of forum discussion proved too much catch up reading, so hope you all don’t mind me jumping in at the risk of repeating what may have been covered.
i just got a pair of CS5i  and am going through the process of getting to know them. It’s early on (3-4 days) so I will hold off on giving any comments. 
I will say that I have not found the right position for them to get focused imaging. My room is 14’ wide. The  length is 19’ but really doesn’t come in to play because the back wall is almost completely open to a dining room.  I have had success getting other speakers placed to focus fairly sharply in this room.  this pair placed 8’ apart 2’ off the front wall as a starting point with 4 moves so far have me lost.  Usually as I make changes I can tell whether I am going in the right direction and adjust as I go. Not here.
i’ll be Happy to list system components if anyone is interested.
Cheers.

Greetings Thiel Owners!


I am a hopeful future Thiel owner and I have been lurking on this thread since early November.  I felt it was finally time to introduce myself and tell you all a little bit about my speaker/Thiel journey to date.


Before I explain anymore about myself or my journey, I was hoping to do a quick review. Not a speaker review but a review of this thread and this community.


This thread, Jafant and the people contributing to it are something special. I have never been accepted as a beginner into a community of enthusiasts, as easily and quickly, as I have been into this community of Thiel owners. I had the extreme good fortune of meeting JA at the start of my audio journey and I must say he is every bit as friendly, passionate, knowledgable and generous with his experience in real life as he is in this forum. JA lives down the road from me and he has been communicating with me since early November. He is always giving me time on the phone, or on email, or even going out to lunch with me, to discuss anything from our dream systems, how to audition gear, what music to listen to, work, health, travel, anything. He even gifted me a great reference disc(Jamie Cullum's TwentySomething) to take on my travels to audio shops. I reached out to an internet stranger and got an instant friend and I am very grateful to him for his kindness and for sharing his passion and experience with me and all of us by creating this thread.


JA is not the only one. This entire thread is driven by all of you and your experience and passion and the respectful banter and exchange of ideas between you. For a newb like me, your passion and experience fuels and inspires me to find my own sound and system. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the conversation here, you have all taught me something.


Thank you to Prof who has been a great source of information, thank you for sharing your time and experience with me. I appreciate your help.


And a very big thank you to RonKent for his amazing generosity and hospitality. After a few email exchanges with ronkent, I invited myself to his house, to listen to his system. Not only did I invite myself but I gave him very short notice. He took me into his home and not only let me listen to his system but fed me an excellent home cooked meal, prepared by his girlfriend, and then let me stay after dinner to continue listening. Let me say that again, he let a complete stranger sit in his house and listen to his system until 8:30pm and fed him(me) dinner. If you make it to the end of this wall of text, or if you want to skip to the bottom, I will save my thoughts on his system for last. Ronkent is an awesome guy with an amazing system and I sincerely appreciate him welcoming me into his home for a listen.


Now for a little about me. I am 38 and my current setup is an audio technica turntable with a wifi transmitter and a bose soundlink bluetooth speaker. I have always had an interest in getting a real stereo setup centered around a beautiful tube amp and turntable. I was recently diagnosed with pretty significant heart disease and my doctor told me I need more music. That was all the excuse and motivation I needed to get my first real setup. I live in Alabama and my options here are limited so I turned to the internet and that's where I met Jafant. JA pointed me in the direction of this thread and several dealers in the south east. I had a work trip up to Raleigh and JA helped me setup some demos up there. I was so excited to hear my first hifi setup but a few days before that trip I went into Atrial Fibrillation and spent a few days in the ICU and my trip was canceled. Since then I have recovered and continue to pursue my first setup. Since my trip to the ICU I have had some really great opportunities to listen to some amazing gear and I was hoping to share my experiences with you guys. I know this is a long post and appreciate anyone making it this far. I feel this context was and is important to understanding my experience level, which is none, and what some of my motivations are for jumping into this hobby.


So far I have had 5 different demo sessions at 5 different places and listened to a lot of amazing gear in a short period of time. I have listened to the Dynaudio Excite 38 and Contour 60. I got to tour PS Audio and visit their listening room with their Infinity IRS V. I went to Soundings in Denver and listened to Vienna Acoustics Concert Grand, Chario Academy Sovran, Rockport Technologies Atria, and Rockport Technologies Cygnus. I also went to ListenUp in Boulder and listened to Sonus Faber Sonetto VIII, Sonus Faber Sarafino, Focal Kanta, Focal Maestro Utopia, Magnepan 1.7i, B&W 804 D3, and B&W 802 D3. Lastly, I got to listen to ronkent's Thiel CS3.7 paired with his PS Audio gear.


I had initially intended to give my first impressions on all of these speakers but this post has gotten rather long. Also, I don't want to derail the Thiel discussion with first impressions from a newb on other non Thiel speakers. I would however like to give my first impressions as a newb on 2 of the systems I got to hear, the IRSV at PS Audio and ronkents CS3.7s. If anyone is interested in my impressions on anything else I heard, or more in depth details about the gear I heard them on, Im happy to share those details as well.


As far as my experience in the PS Audio listening room, it was eye opening. The listening room features Infinity IRS V speakers powered by PS Audio BHK 300 monoblocks. I am assuming their listening room would blow away even the most seasoned audiophile, but for someone who has never listened to a true high end hifi setup, it was a "wow' moment. I did not know that a two channel setup could make a sound like that. I don't really have the vocabulary to describe it yet but I explained it to a friend as "black magic". The music came on but it did not come from the speakers. It came from behind the speakers or really from everywhere but the speakers. Those IRS Vs absolutely disappeared. Scott played the first song and he picked James Taylor Gaia. It sounded like a full sized James Taylor was in front of me singing and he was there, just 10 feet behind the speakers. Then a choir started singing and they were another 10 feet behind him and the separation of the other instruments and band members was so obvious and amazing. And beyond the separation and imaging, I found the overall sound to be amazing and clean. The voices sounded amazingly real which I really like. But this experience taught me about imaging and I am hooked.


I tried to explain it to my brother who is a skeptic in general but also has no experience and limited interest in hifi. The best way I could explain it to him was that it was like if you had seen black and white your entire life and then you saw color for the first time. I used the same analogy with JA Fant but took it a bit further. I have read so many adjectives and descriptors of sound quality that are hard to understand or comment on, until you have actually heard them. I told JA that it is hard to describe the color green but it is even harder to describe it if you have never seen it and now that I have seen color, so to speak, it makes it a little easier to understand and discuss.


I was worried about having the Infinity IRS V be the first listening experience for me in Colorado as I was scared it would set my expectations too high but in retrospect I think it was actually the perfect place to start as it set the bar for the rest of the gear I listened to thereafter. Everytime I listen to something now it is always in comparison to my memory of those IRS V. Nothing I listened to came close to the performance of those IRS V(except maybe the Focal Maestro Utopia at $75K) that is until I got to listen to RonKents system.


RonKent has gone into his system, setup, and listening room in great detail already in this thread so I won't rehash all of that. If you are not familiar with Ronkent's setup he has the Thiel CS3.7 powered by the PS Audio BHK 250 and all PS Audio gear and cables and he has everything dialed in perfectly. It is impossible for me to do justice to his system with my limited vocabulary but to say my jaw dropped is an understatement. We started off listening to Gaia by James Taylor, just like in Boulder with PS Audio. Of all the speakers and systems I listened to, this was the closest to replicating the sound I heard at PS Audio. The only other system that sounded that good or better was the Focal Maestro Utopia paired with Marc Levinson gear and the speakers alone were $75K. I remember grinning so hard and so much at Ronkents house that my cheeks hurt. Those big CS3.7's absolutely disappeared and it was that same black magic effect I felt in Boulder at PS Audio. The sound literally came from everywhere. He has some acoustic treatment panels in his room and I told him I wouldn't be surprised if people who didn't know better thought the sound was coming from those, and he said that has happened before. We listened to a song off of Deep Purple "FireBall" and there was this effect where the sound crashed in like a wave from the left side of the soundstage to the right and then rolled back again, it was an awesome!


Ronkent asked me for an honest first impression comparison between his system and the one PS Audio has and this is the honest feedback I gave him. First impression was that the soundstage on the IRS V felt taller to me, which to me makes sense, since those speakers are so much bigger. Also, the sound stage on the IRS V sounded like it had more depth to me. For example in Gaia, when I heard the choir singing 10-15 feet behind James Taylor in Boulder, they didn't feel quite as far away in ronkents system but there was definitely separation there. That being said, I was absolutely blown away by ronkents setup. I have read so much about the Thiels that I was scared I had set myself up for disappointment but when I heard them they were better than I expected. I told ronkent I thought it sounded "rich" but in a good way, he agreed and used the word "full" which was exactly what I was trying to describe. Voices sounded very good to me on the Thiels which I really like as I have been described as someone who like "big voices". Getting to listen to and experience ronkents setup was a great experience that proved to me, what I had been suspecting all along, which is that I want to be a Thiel owner too!


So the day after meeting ronkent and listening to his system, I met up with a guy who has a pair of Morado CS3.7. He mentioned he might be interested in selling them and he was upfront about the fact that he was on the fence. I took him a certified check with my best offer on it and he thought the offer was the right price but he needs more time to think about it, so I sadly drove 550 miles back home empty handed. I am hoping he comes around and decides to sell them but I'm not sure if he will or not. He assured me if he sells them, they are mine. In the meantime I am actively on the lookout for some CS2.7 or CS3.7 with a very strong preference for the CS3.7, so if any of you decide to sell, please consider me, as I would give them a very good home and they would be very well appreciated and cared for here.


This has been an epically long post, thank you to anyone who actually made it to the end and thanks again to this community and JA for all the help and support.

So, thank you for your participation and thank you all for your interest, which has helped me take on this rather complex and challenging project.

You’re welcome and thank *you* for your coaching and encouragement. It’s been fun, even if I had a moment or two of doubt. 

I saved for over two years to buy my Ayre amp. But then it became obvious that my speakers were the weak link. Not wanting to wait as I saved again, I bought the SEs which I figured would be a nice step up for relatively small investment. They were,  but I knew even more was possible. With the SQ I’m now hearing I think I would need to spend at least $15-20K to find something better. I suspect these are my last speakers :)

Beetle - thank you for consolidating your experience for us. It all sounds quite straight-forward as written, but considerable study and thought went into this trial and, as you know, considerable time elapsed while researching and considering this first trial build. This build is fairly high-end; although more money can always be spent for greater but diminishing returns. The upgrade parts cost alone is somewhere in the $1K range. (We haven't actually counted beans.) I want to commend and thank you for your enthusiasm, patience and careful listening tests with detailed notes and summaries, along with your good-natured willingness to try new solutions when something failed. (For the record, we are experimenting with heat management and mounting the resistors on aluminum heat rails created a subtle sonic anomaly.)

Among the points made above, I wish to comment on one in particular. At the end of the second-last paragraph, you address the "flaws in the recording" issue. This issue has been a constant companion during the entire lifespan of the company. Nearly every reviewer picks it out as a problem, often called out as a shortcoming of the speaker. Indeed there are very many very good speakers which do not exhibit this trait. At the very beginning, when co-developing the 03 as a phase coherent point source vs "normal" topology, we sweated blood over whether to take this plunge, knowing it would remain the core of our struggle forever going forward. We did and it did. Our central reason is philosophical: "the best speaker reproduces its input signal with the greatest fidelity in all its aspects." Phase coherence has been both a burden and a torch that led our way.

This "warts and all" approach is, as you know, not the normal approach, which seeks to present the most involving musical suspension of disbelief with the broadest range of recordings to the largest body of listeners. Everyone at Thiel learned to live with the "bare, naked facts" dilemmas, as did many critics, dealers and users around the world. But we still hear today a drum-beat of criticism around how revealing Thiel speakers are.

My central misgiving in this upgrade project is that it seeks to intensify that "music under a lens" approach. Every day I hear technical, mixing and mastering errors or shortcomings on recordings. In fact, in my life after Thiel Audio I have provided evaluation services to recording artists by identifying such flaws in their production mixes and trial masters (and that is with stock CS2.2s.) So the results and report of your upgrade journey gives me encouragement. I believe and you concur that by removing more of the subtle artifacts introduced by the speaker, we are more closely approaching the original musical event, making a firmer connection between the music and the listener. I believe that connection brings joy, even if it reveals some flaws in the music making process. 

So, thank you for your participation and thank you all for your interest, which has helped me take on this rather complex and challenging project.

pwhinson
I concur with your assessment of Atlanta regarding dealers/retailers.
I have watched, for many years, Audio shop after shop closing their doors? The few that are operational do a very good job for us consumers.
You are correct in that only a few speaker brands are represented city-wide. I am looking forward in reading about the in-home demo with Paradigm.

Happy Listening!

pwhinson
Thank You for the follow up. I had a feeling that moving the speakers a margin apart could make a positive difference in presentation and sound within your excellent system.  Thumbs up indeed.

Happy Listening!

beetlemania
Thank You for the update from your end. Outstanding detail in the recent post. I am excited to hear the upgrade path that you have explored and integrated into the SE.  Happy Listening!

BTW this Thursday I’m getting an in-home audition of the Paradigm Persona 9H which another poster in this forum seemed to think gets closer to the "rightness" in terms of timbre and tone that my Thiels give me. Its my first venture outside the Thiel family to try to get to to that "final speaker" for this 61 year old. Of course another audiophile asked me if such a thing actually exists and I can tell you for certain that you WILL have a final speaker of some sort! I’m fortunate enough to be able to at least consider some of the best. I have a short list of other products to hear but I’m going to have to go out of town to hear them. Its sad that today’s high end can only be heard in all its diversity in only our 3 or 4 largest cities. There you can find anything. I’m in a city of 7 million (Atlanta) and the dealers we have are really good but there are only a handful of speaker designers represented. If you want either Vandersteen or Von Schweikert Atlanta has you covered. Others, not so much. While the 9H is expensive you have to remember that even the Vandersteen Quattros are now up to $15K pair.

@jafant:  not sure I ever answered your question about changing the distance between the speakers...yes a huge difference, much better imaging, wider soundstage, more holographic, NO problem with centerfill at all, images come from mid-way between the speakers all the way to just outside the speakers.  Imaging and fine detail including fine detail in quiet portions of the music increased dramatically when I changed over to pass amplification.  Huge thumbs up on that for me.  

jafant

 In addition to your own preamp,  see if you can get them to use a "settled in" Bryston BP17 cubed preamp  with the 4B cubed amplifier.    The 17 preamp made a difference with my 4BSST2. Smoother and cleanly-defined upper midrange and highs, particularly  in the soprano voice and violins. 

Just a thought.

I'm feeling extra lucky to have what I believe are an early pair of 3.7s.  I bought them used in 2012 and the SNs on the boxes were 41 and 42.  Whatever was on the speakers themselves is completely gone.  I just shone a flashlight directly on them and couldn't see anything.  I'm no golden ear but these have cured my desire to upgrade.  The only things they don't do are the deepest bass and crazy loud.  My other system with ATC110s and Velodyne DD18 does that and then some so I want for nothing.  

tomthiel,

I listened to both the 3.7 and 2.7 in my dealer's showroom, using several of my own CDs.  I'd listened to these CDs over several years with my Thiel 3.5s, so I might have developed a certain mind-set as to what I wanted in a new pair of Thiels. 

My "review" CDs were from the classical  genre - - symphonies, concertos, chorales, operas, requiems, instrumental trios and quartets and organ.   I went back four times to listen.   

Yes, the 3.7 had a more extended bass, but I preferred the 2.7s way it handled the upper bass and lower midrange.   So, I settled on the 2.7s with an SS2.2 sub.  Cost/price, or appearance, were not  considerations.

I certainly might be missing something, as I haven't listened to modern jazz, rock, heavy metal or synthesized music, etc. through a high fidelity stereo system.  Just classical music through my two channel rig - - from 78s through 45s, LPs, 1.5 reel-to-reel, to CDs. In the mono years, I built my own speakers, using JBL, Altec-Lansing and Tannoy drivers. 
 
BTW: I got my love of music listening to Enrico Caruso on 78 Victor Red Seals, played on a wind-up Victrola with cactus needles. There's been quite a bit of progress in recording/playback capabilities  since then.

George 






, 

Beetle - I say that I don't yet know enough to make any calls of good or bad news. As time goes by I will compare notes with Rob and others and get more solid footing. I did not mean to imply that Lex was inferior. In fact I hear an overall rightness and musicality in Lex compared with an overall analytic precision in FST. Shades of allure. 

I am learning about specific alloys, materials and methods in the various parts and over time will be able to make educated choices among the extant parts. For example: remember our cap noise test which revealed no noise? Such tests, including listening, will identify re-usable vs non-re-usable parts. As I introduce upgrade parts, my knowledge base will grow. 

Such is the collective institutional knowledge of a company or designer. That knowledge is quite weak in Thiel-land today. But, progress is being made, albeit slowly. Getting started is the hardest part.

Your thoughts on 2.4 upgrade vs all-FST might be of interest to the group.

@tomthiel
I am surprised by your Lex v FST listening results. And this seems to confound the upgrade path I imagined. On the one hand, FST owners will be relieved that their sound is not necessarily diminished by those parts (good news). But on the other, Lex owners may be looking at retaining fewer parts in the upgrade, increasing costs (bad news). Perhaps the Lex coils are the only parts worth salvaging?

Guys - I should add something to the 2.7 vs 3.7 comparison. I have many unknowns in my knowledge equation - piecing together facts of history for better understanding. Beyond yesterday's thoughts, there are some manufacturing matters that may flavor the stew.
As you suspect, I have been comparing and contrasting various components. My workhorse is the PowerPoint 1.2. I know it well, it is simple (6"x2way), its room interaction is simple and predictable with its 45° launch which eliminates floor bounce, and its crossover has very little compensation due to the maturity of its drivers: styrene fillet in the woofer and total Thiel motors in both drivers. I have been auditioning 3 versions so far:
A: Original made in Lex with classic Thiel components = best of form developed over the years and used in higher-model traditional Thiel products.
B: FST1, made in China with a mix of Lex (caps) and FST (coils) parts.C: FST2, made in China will all FST parts and assembly - tested in Lex.Note: the FST components were co-developed with Jim and are intended as clones of Thiel's traditional parts. But later FST coils are known to be physically inferior, and the FST caps have migrated from propylene to polyester via Beetlemania's 2.4 experience and my PowerPoints. I would be most interested in examining XOs of Prof's and Brayeagle's rejected 3.7s. But, alas, such rigor is ethereal.
However, our listening tests are controlled, double blind and results are consistent among listeners. Results may apply to the 2.7 vs 3.7 discussion, since similar manufacturing history applies.
First, there is no clear winner of Lex vs FST. There are differences which stack up as FST being more incisive, cleaner and detailed - leaning toward cool and analytical. Lex possesses more cohesive solidity, naturalness and ease. Listener's preference varied. These results were surprising, but true and withstood swapping drivers and multiple tests. For discussion let's let the results stand and apply them to the 2.7 vs 3.7.
Flash back September 2012 when I heard final 2.7 samples compared to 3.7 at Thiel. Both of those were made with Thiel parts; both were tweaked engineering prototypes, the reference standard of each model. I, along with all others present, heard differences which I summarized previously, which I have been projecting on Prof, Brayeagle and others here. My projection contains flaws. Namely, the 2.7 manufacture never left Lex with traditional parts and the 3.7 gradually went to China much like the PowerPoint described above. So, I surmise that the 2.7s among you are potentially more similar to the 2.7s I heard than the 3.7s among you to the 3.7s I heard. I don't know your 3.7 serial numbers, but I project that the lower the numbers, the more likely they are to perform like the reference prototypes. One of these days I hope to compare an FST 3.7 to the original Lex 3.7 to evaluate differences. Until then, who knows what to believe.

Good morning, gents.

Happy Friday -All.

prof

Have to agree with you with the sound of the 2.7 vs the 3.7. I auditioned both before choosing the 2.7s; however, I added a SmartSub 2.2 to the mix. (PX05 passive crossover.)

tomthiel

Thank You for more Thiel Audio history and the cast which made them a force in the loudspeaker world. I have much respect for you guys, movers and shakers, who put this company in the consumer marketplace.
I am glad that Rob decided to remain a major part within our customer service aspect of all things considered. Hopefully, you distinguished gentlemen have an open report with one another moving forward.
Each maintaining your respective trades that contribute to the whole process. I am looking forward to your XO offerings later this year.
Be well.

Happy Listening!

prof
great lines for questioning for Tom.  Having heard both 2.7 and 3.7 models, I concur with your observations being, the CS 3.7 is a true Flag-ship loudspeaker. Both models are voiced very closely to the other, the 3.7, requires a larger room/space and a bit more high current/power to really open its capabilities.

Happy Listening!

Prof - I heard what you mean. I don't know whether the difference is in the frequency domain - the mid / tweeter coax is identical. The XO is different enough that I can't make any direct comparisons, except that the 2.7 has a big bank of electrolytic caps in its feed, which would soften the attack transient. 

The MDF baffle of the 2.7 would also soften the transients, taking the edge off the attack compared to the 3.7 aluminum baffle and nacelle - cap.

I have not seen lab measurements of the 2.7, since Stereophile didn't review it. I'll know more when I get a pair of each for potential upgrade; that's at the end of a long list of older classics.

Thanks for all that illuminating insight Tom!

I no longer have the 3.7s, but when I did, as I've written before, my comparisons suggested the 3.7s were the somewhat more accomplished speaker in terms of over all perfection, no doubt due to Jim's oversight.    Still, I was amazed how close in sound the 2.7s were with the 3.7s.  Definitely the same overall voice.  Though, to my ears, the 2.7s seemed voiced a tad "sweeter" with a bit of a comfortable depression somewhere in the upper mids/lower highs.  Subtle, but there, I think.

Prof - here's a sketch of what I know. Please redirect if I have not addressed what you want to know. 

The fellow who claims to have designed the 2.7 as Thiel being "very demanding", had little to no input on it. He was interviewed for the project, but was not chosen.

Those directly involved included Kathy Gornik - as listener-evaluator and executive from the beginning and quite conversant in Jim's approach, values and methods. Likewise Dawn (now Cloyd) was part of the mix since she was 6 years old. Rob had been on hand and paying attention since the mid 80s. I re-hired Walter Kling, who had been part of the start-up but left for an architecture career, as part of my escape team. Walter was a manufacturing genius and had good, analytical ears, but did not intrude into Jim's space. Walter left when Jim died.

After I left in the mid 90s, Gary Dayton became Jim's assistant. Reports are that Gary had a good ear and that he co-evaluated sonic considerations with Jim, but he was not an engineer. Gary was part, along with those mentioned above, of the "Thiel team" that evaluated the outside work of new product development.

The 2.7 was developed as a joint venture between Team Thiel, creating the topology and cabinet particulars and evaluations, with the engineering performed by lead engineer Tim Gladwyn at Warkwyn Enterprises in Canada with complete design capability and the resources of the Canadian National Research Lab, among the very best in North America if not the world. The 2.7 was complete before the New Thiel owners brought in their own design team for the post-Jim products. The process I saw was that Warkwyn would develop a prototype built on Jim's research and prior components and topologies and coaching from Team Thiel. That prototype would be sent to Lexington for evaluation and be judged as some form of inadequate, and Warkwyn would go back to work. The expense was enormous and unaffordable. I was visiting when the final 2.7 prototype was delivered and was able to compare it with the 3.7 in Thiel's listening room. I would judge it a completed design, albeit more similar in components and price to the 3.7 than prior model 2 generations to their model 3 siblings. All previous 2s would have used a smaller diameter midrange to cross more efficaciously with the smaller 8" woofer. The 2.7 has a huge electrolytic cap bank to roll off the bottom of the midrange where the 8" woofer wants to cross in. 
You know how the two models stack up from your extended comparison.

So I suppose you could say that there was a core team at Thiel who were quite versed in what a Thiel speaker had to measure and sound like, but no one who could actually perform the engineering to get it there. 

Your final question gets to the nit of it. All the work was on Jim's shoulders. Jim did not have proteges studying under him. Although lip-service and disagreements surrounded that MO, in fact Jim was introverted, solitary and a solo inventing designer. Not only did he develop the products, he developed the research tools to develop them. And he was effectively the CEO, a very hands-on manager. Thiel Audio was an extension of Jim's interests, talents and considerable abilities.

Great effort was expended trying to identify someone to take on Jim's legacy. Kathy tried to bring in engineering talent. That failed precipitating the company sale. The New Thiel owners likewise pursued that path vigorously. I wasn't part of that search, but I trust that such a candidate was simply not available.

@tomtheil

I’m curious what you know about the design process for the 2.7s after Jim was gone.

The fellow who was brought in to help design the 2.7, worked on the crossovers at least I believe, said that Thiel was obviously very demanding that he get the time/phase coherency and other aspects right.

But it leaves me wondering: with Jim having passed away, who at Thiel would be in charge to be "demanding." Who at Thiel would have been left in place who run that ship and/or have the technical know-how to continue producing speakers based on Jim’s coherent source design/

I just don’t know how much of Thiel’s design-work was on Jim’s shoulders, or whether people were learning under him who could have continued his work.

Thanks.

PW - in the absence of other responses, I offer similar advice as to Mr Fire. The room is a huge part of the playback experience and can often be directly addressed very cost-effectively. Your geometry would benefit from effectively shortening the room as well as convex diffraction / diffusing on the corners, especially where end-wall corners meet the floor. Pleated wool draperies are amazingly effective as is wool / horsehair (old fashioned) carpet under-pad. Let us know your progress.

mrpostfire - Your room is large, which is great, but its dimensions present some potential standing wave issues. The average ceiling height is the same as the width and the length is double that dimension. That setup is less than ideal.

If there is any way to get your speakers farther from the boundaries, that might help. Also, opening doors is good, especially if near corners and/or center of long walls. As a learning experiment I suggest the following:Your width is fine, although I might try 8' between speakers to give 3.5 to side walls.Length in difficult rooms sometimes works well with golden ratios.
Listening position at 18.5' from wall behind the speakers.Speakers at 10' from wall behind them.That gives 8.5' from speaker line to listening chair.
Or reverse the room end-for-end if better for traffic. 
You are then closer to the near-field with generous room all around to delay the room modes relative to the initial direct sound.

If you can try this arrangement, please let us know how it works.

mrpostfire-
Welcome! to this thread. You will find a plethora of solid information to assist your speaker set-up and obtaining the best presentation and sound.

Happy Listening!

mrpostfire-
My pleasure.

Wonderful! to read about your scoring a pair of CS 2.4 loudspeakers. 
Experiment with speaker placement as you certainly have the dimensions for best outcome. When imaging is off center try placing the speakers closer to each other, a measure farther from back/side walls or sitting closer 10-12 feet.  Keep us posted as you dial-in these speakers into your system.

What other gear including cabling rounds out your current set-up?

Happy Listening!

Proud new owner of a pair of Thiel speakers.  My 2.4's are driven by Classe CA-200 in a living room with sloped high ceilings (about 10 to 20 feet at its apex).  Room is roughly 15 feet in width by 30 feet in length.  Speakers are space about 9 feet apart.  With respect to the room walls, the speakers are placed about 2.5 feet from the backwall and 3 feet from the side walls.  Listening position is about 12-13 feet from each speaker.

Sound is good so far but imaging is a little off.  If I add a cheap tube buffer like FX Audio Tube 1, the imaging and soundstage seems to improve quite a bit.  I'm hoping to experiment with better tube preamps in the near future.

Thanks to jafant for providing many insights.

On integrating a subwoofer: my aesthetix preamp has two sets of main outs. Presently I have one set going to my Pass power amp and to my main speakers. Would it be possible to use the other set to feed a subwoofer that has an internal crossover filtering out everything over around 60hz? Then using REW to effect a DSP crossover with the same slope and point so that I integrate the two. OR do I really need an electronic crossover fed by the Aesthestix, then out from the crossover to the sub and to the mains?  IF I need an electronic crossover, does anyone have any experience with this Bryston unit:  http://www.bryston.com/products/other/10B-SUB.html

@tomthiel high ceilings at 9'5".

tomic601
Good to see you again. Hope you are well and enjoying the Winter season.  Happy Listening!

PW - what is the ceiling height of your tunnel?

So, my advice to you, pwhinson, is to pursue room treatments.  I think you could improve by optimizing listening positions (speaker placement relative to sitting position), two channel taking priority over ht.  Possible room treatments include false wall of diffusers on front wall, same on back wall, absorbent on right sidewall and ceiling.  Now I have to convince myself to do the same

Pwhinson -

I have a 21 x 11 tunnel of a room with a large window on the front wall.  I have spent the last six months convincing myself the next most cost effective upgrade is room treatments.  I have researched room treatments and have figured that for my room, I could spend $1000-$1500 (and perhaps considerably less) and virtually be guaranteed a significant and irreplaceable upgrade in sq.  I’d be happy to spend that much or more on equipment that would likely have the equivalent impact, and yet I just can’t pull the trigger.  Which is crazy because I learned this lesson the easy way when I set up our ht room.  I could afford the middest of mid fi equip, but had a great room to work with and a spouse who was fine “decorating.”  It was easy, cost wise (as in basically free), to optimize and nearly perfect the positioning of speakers to listening position, using golden rule math, and with some canvas pictures backed with foam at the 1st and 2nd reflection points, it made a $2500 midfi home theater, in two channel mode, sound in the same league as my brother’s $8,000 set-up.  So now I have a dedicated two channel room that presents some dimensional challenges that could be addressed with reasonable cost. And yet, I can’t pull the trigger.  

tmsrdg
keep us posted as you have the CA-300 amp repaired and serviced.

Happy Listening!

pwhinson
Thank you for the update and photos!  Did you notice any difference from 7 feet to 8feet 11 inches?  Sitting 12 inches from the CS 2.4 is optimal distance.  Keep experimenting and measuring via DSP software.
You really have an elegant room.

Happy Listening!

Really cool room setup. Like the carpet.

 @pwhinson Lovely room and setup
the laser is your friend !!! Verify distance from seated position to each mid/tweeter also
i do this by shooting laser from my chin
also don’t underestimate the great sound possible in an odd shaped treated room :-)
thanks for the pictures !!
enjoy
jim

OK, a little removed from the "speaker" thread, but at least related: I run my 3.7 speakers with a Classe CA-300 amp. It has developed a slight hum audible from the tweeters. I've found someone in my area who works on this kind of thing. I'm wondering what other upgrades to the amp I might ask for besides just fixing the hum. Any amp hotrodders out there who can offer suggestions?
Todd

For those who are interested, I’ve attached another couple of photos of the room trying to capture this strangely shaped space on the fourth floor of a 4100 sq ft townhome. ALSO, in addition to the Thiel 2.4’s which I utilize for more serious two channel listening, I also use the room for movies and the room incorporates a pair of powerpoints right and left front, an SCS3 center channel, two additional power points on the ceiling at the rear for rear surrounds, and a pair of powerplanes installed in wall as mid-surrounds. A JVC DILA RS520 is employed as the projector.  The middle of the long gray sofa is the seating position for serious 2 channel music listening.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sbcc6jw6ljdsm5t/IMG_6143.JPG?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1as5wudkvab3gkl/IMG_9854.JPG?dl=0

@gasman117 our hearing usually gets attenuated (reduced) as we age and its the high frequencies that go first so that's unlikely to be the problem.  Still, we all recordings and music differently and have different preferences...one man's clear and incisive is another man's borderline "bright"/bridge too far.

@jafant and @tomthiel: So this morning I went to home depot and bought a little lazer measuring device and realized I got the eyeballed measurements all wrong. The distance between the speakers is 8’11". The distance from each speaker to my seating position is 12’9". The speakers were previously -- when you heard them jafant -- about 7’ apart. The new speaker cables allow the approx 9’ distance. So the CORRECT MEASUREMENTS explain alot. The room is irregularly shaped (which may also explain alot): thus, the distance from the right speaker to the side wall is only 2’ and the distance of the left speaker to the side wall is 4’5". The distance to the rear wall in both cases is 4'10".  Previously in the narrower spacing I had the speakers facing forward; in the current wider spacing I have them toed in. As I’ve said even toed in I don’t experience them as "bright" although I know some folks do and elect to eliminate toe-in. I’ve attached another photo which shows you a little more about the irregularly shaped room, the disparate distances between each speaker and the side walls. Note that farther into the room, the room narrows a bit to the area of the seating position. As I explained in my earlier post I’m somewhat stuck with seating position although I have a little window within which to adjust the speaker positions. The Powerpoints have been in use as the right and left channels of a video projection system with a screen that comes down from the ceiling (you’ll also if you look carefully see an SCS3 center channel there near the ground level ). Here’s the additional photo. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qm41tvx4on9amvr/IMG_7273.JPG?dl=0

I made a new recording of my CS2.4 with now also the Jantzen wax coils mounted.
The recording is made twice, 1 time with the Thiel's connected to earth and 1 time without the earth connection, the recording is mixed so that every 30sec is switched between the two recordings, you can also see that in the picture if there is or not a ground wire to be seen next to the speakers.

I do not hear a difference myself, but it could be that the speakers first have to play a week without the earth wire to hear a difference, who knows ........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wws3q_bQCiw

Direct link for download
https://free01.thegood.cloud/index.php/s/kQQZQ8e2QY9LTW6

gasman117Thank You for the update. It is good to read another PS Audio customer here. ronkent was out first endorser of this brand and loves his system's synergy. Which cables/power cords are you using currently?
Happy Listening!

gasman117,

It seems that you have the CS2.4?  I do not find them "hot" at all.  Actually I think they are just a touch on the warm side although they are very transparent so it could be the electronics.

My front end equipment are Ayre QB9 DSD, Pass Lab XP10, SimAudio W7 amp, Acoustic Zen Hologram II cables. 

Latest update:
  2.4’s, Proceed CDP driving a NEW Psaudio 250.
  The Psaudio now over 100 hours is settling in. What a great amp!
  The Thiels have disappeared. Such detailed and layered imaging. Gotta say I really can appreaciate the linearity of the Thiels now.
   Only thing is they are a little hot. Maybe it’s my eardrums as I age (63). But snare drums strikes are pretty harsh . What would the upgrade cap set do to the sound?
   I am days away from getting the Psaudio signature preamp so I got that going for me too.
thanks for you input .

PW - Your listening position is far enough away to allow wider spacing, but anything over 10' gets dicey for center-fill. I generally consider distance to walls as more critical than distance between speakers. Your 5' behind is ideal, at less than 3.5' (±) the auditory brain tries to conflate the bounce with the primary signal causing smear. Great at 5'.Small side distance stimulates room modes as well as exascerbating the reflection bounce. 2.5' is very close to the wall. As an experiment, can you bring the speakers together?

I avoid same dimension behind as beside. If 5' behind, then perhaps 4' beside, leaving approximately 9' between.
I apologize in advance if you have tried and ruled out these ideas.I am quite interested in how you are using the PowerPoints. Please share.

pwhinson
Good to see you again. I agree that your room is well damped, not overly damped to my ears. How does your speakers sound at 8 feet apart? Then 10 feet apart? I see that you arrived at 12 feet apart. The sweet spot for a pair of CS 2.4 loudspeakers is the original 8 feet apart. I suspect that one could adjust this measure to accommodate a larger room/space.
Happy Listening!