Thiel Owners

Anyone familiar with Pilium amplification ?

^New to me. The website info is impressive.

Someone told me the 39k Leonidas integrated equals 100k worth of separates.

Perhaps, it’s just my middle class sensibilities, but I don’t think it should cost multiples of what ones speakers cost (or the price of a decent automobile) to power our speakers.

I'm not saying buy this gear for Thiel speakers obviously.Just curious about this brand.

OK

Hello all - back from away for a few days. Jon - was it you looking for grille fabric? Rob at Coherent Source Service has original grillecloth. Note that it got more sheer over time, so you might need a matched pair.

Re amps: What a trip - I have some potentially relevant experience with the AHB-2, Classe DR9 and Adcom GFA555 II. My setup includes 4 four pole knife switches plus locking bananas on their output jacks, driven by two pairs of amps, so that I can rig direct comparisons with simple switch throws and banana swaps. My test crossovers are outboard with no-solder access to separate driver outputs. Two CS2.2s are wired with two direct runs to each driver, swappable at the crossover outputs for comparing cable runs and the effects of cabling on the 3 different driving amps.
The GFA555 is a known to be decent mid-level amp. The DR9 performs above its price class. David Reich used Thiel CS3.5s as a design load. According to Atlantic Systems, the eastern US MacIntosh warranty service station, the DR9 output circuit is ’the same as’ the MacIntosh solid state circuit. Good amp. The AHB-2 is a THX licensed implementation of a class H amp regulated by a small Class A regulating circuit - new type of topology. I have appreciated discussion here of the AHB-2 among its peers. I agree with the observations that its bass leaves something to be desired. John Siau says that it is correct and "everything else" is bloated or loose or too big. That may be true. It is also true that B&W’s big bass would complement the AHB’s leaner than most bass balance. The AHB-2 is a winner, but might have deficiencies in the deep bass.

My test allows a CS2.2 woofer-only fed through a knife switch driven by the closely level-matched bridged DR9 or bridged AHB-2. The 2.2 crosspoint is 800 with first order rolloff, so there is musical content all the way up. Using a variety of sources, and with the absence of mid and highs, I consistently hear the following:

The AHB produces upper reaches which are cleaner, more detailed and more articulate. The lower reaches are drier, with the deepest transients sounding somewhat limp. The fundamental seems diminished. That diminishment might be in time-duration, but it sounds like transient imprecision and reduced level. Sounds like a hole in the bottom of the harmonic sequence.

One iteration of my test was with Dana Cunningham’s ’Live at Stone Mountain’ concert on a Yamaha concert grand, with Jeff Oster on horns and Max Dyer on Cello. I attended the stunning concert and assisted Dana’s evaluation of mixes and masters for production, so I feel comfortable with knowing the producers’ intentions. In this case as in general, I judge the DR9 to nail it much better than the AHB. The DR9 (bridged) delivers solid onset transients and well integrated fundamental bloom. I admit that the AHB reveals more nuance and space around the trumpet and cello. Similarly, the growl of the lower cello tones are authoritative with the DR9, and easily un-noticeable with the AHB.

Even if I accept Benchmark’s claim of ’rightness’, which is plausible given their company’s excellence, there remains the problem of the sonic jungle. Even for this live performance with minimal processing, the original musical event has gone through multiple stages of tweaking, and all of that tweaking used "normal" amplifiers with sonic signatures closer to (or actually being) the DR9 rather than the leaner, drier AHB.

Just for grins, my setup allows the following very appealing setup. The tweeter and midrange each has its own channel of the AHB. No contest winner over the GFA555 and noticeably more articulate and detailed than the DR9. The woofer can be instantaneously switched between a bridged DR vs bridged AHB. After all the note-taking and head scratching, I selected ’Flying over Water’, with Piano, Flugelhorn, Cello and Congas, for its beauty and complexity. Played full length with each bass amp, the DR9 always took me there and made me smile. The AHB left me in my chair analyzing the mix. Note the same result even with the SmartSub engaged; the sub-bass didn’t supply enough bottom for satisfaction.
I guess that’s my report for today.

Some persons midrange on their thiels were toasted so they pulled all drivers put in all new drivers and made it an active crossover pair of speakers. I can only cringe.

The best sound I ever got from the KEF LS50’s was with the AHB2. However, the LS50’s does not have much bass but is still rather good in a small room Now if a speaker can benefit from 2 AHB2’s, and a lot can, then that is another story.

I just listened to Linda Ronstadt’s Greatest Hits on the CS3.7 and single AHB2 and it sounded wonderful. I actually listened to it 2 times since I enjoyed it so much. However, listening to things like Zeppelin leaves me wanting more power.

I am keeping the AHB2 for its great synergy with my KEF LS50’s. I have decided on getting the $6K (less from a dealer) Coda #8 V2 which is 250 | 500 | 1000 at 8, 4, and 2 Ohms. It is also a little warmer (12 watts Class A) than the AHB2 which I think mates better with the Thiel CS3.7’s top end.

^It’s all about using the right tool for the job at hand. A different particularly fine tool might be better for a different job.

@vaan whatever you choose make it 400 watts minimum at 2 imo 

^A minimum of 400 Watts into 2 Ohms is excellent advice. Depending on ones room and desired volume output, multiples of that power output into 2 Ohms could be appreciated. As far as preamplifiers go, much of it depends on the specific amplification and source components used, it’s possible that you might not even need one.

Tom, with a tri amp setup, do you hear other benefits besides better matching of the amp to the driver?
Regarding amp preferences for the 3.7, it all depends how loud you want to play and how big your room is or distance from the speakers. The 3.7 is rated at 92 dB for 1 watt and pretty efficient. The stability of an amp at 2 ohm is relevant but the need to double power from 4 to 2 ohm is only meaningful if you use the maximum output. I based this on experimenting with the bryston 7bst, which allows to switch from parallel to serial, with a minimum impedance cut in half. No difference at any level below 90 dB listening level. 

^While your point has merit consider that ;  the 92db sensitivity rating is a standard rating into 8 Ohms. Drop 3 dB for each halving of impedance from there. Now we’re looking at something that is actually closer to 86 dB sensitivity. Which is why doubling down maintains frequency linearity. Jim Thiel told me himself that the power recommendations made were for standard 8 Ohm power ratings for amplifiers capable of doubling down, and if one were to use say a tube amp one should double the power recommendations as necessary. Thiel recommended 100 Watts minimum for the 3.7’s into 8 Ohms, doubling down into 2 Ohms would bring that recommendation to 400 Watts into 2 Ohms.

I really appreciate amps with clipping indicators, since there are so many variables of room, level and loudness preference - it's hard to predict amplifier power need; except that more is better, but usually at the cost of sonic finesse.

Rules - to your question of other benefits the answer is YES. I am working with older models of moderate (88dB/2.83volts range) with somewhat higher impedances (6ohm nominal). Let's say my amps are beefy enough to hear no clipping and to see little if any clip LEDs.

When using an amp for each driver, there is an unmistakable sense of ease and transparacy. Returning to the stock speaker with 1 amp imparts a hard edge, especially with loud, complex material. I love the tri-amp configuration, but that multiplies the cost of amplification.

A feasible solution would be to use amps available on the used market. A primary problem is gain-matching the amps. I am running the mids and tweeters in vertical bi-amp mode where each driver is driven by a channel of a stereo amp. Assume a matching amp for the other channel and there are no problems (after you get a splitter to send your preamp line out to both amp channels.) Now, the beefier woofer amp must be gain-matched to the smaller stereo amp. I am sending my source signal to two parallel chains, each having a preamp with volume control for manual level matching. But that's not a real world solution.
I am consulting John Siau regarding gain matching of the AHB-2 in stereo and mono. I am not certain that the levels are matched between stereo and mono. I'll report when I learn more next week. In my dreams I imagine 4 AHB-2s with each channel having a stereo amp for the mid and tweeter and a bridged mono amp for the woofer, which also controls the subwoofer.

I want to modify yesterday's statement about the deep bass performance of the AHB-2. The more I listen the more I like it, and my in-room sound pressure measurements suggest that the bass amp is weaker. Therefore my call to Benchmark regarding gain; and here's hoping they can be matched. Then, of course, funds would have to be found.

@vaankuil Aesthetix pre-power is beautiful with CS 3.7s, i have heard that combo with 3.7s.
Possible to find used.

A friend of mine drove his 3.7s with a Audio Research Ref 110 tube amp. Sounded wonderful. He decided to sell it and downsize and now the Ref 110 is driving my 2.7 with no issues at all. Best amp I have owned. The Ref 150 is supposed to have a better power supply which would have better woofer control. Whatever amp you choose look at the power supply specs. It isn’t always about the WPC.

@tomthiel, I would imagine that with the extreme overlap of the first order cross-overs that when multi-amping there would be significant advantages in using identical amps.

@tomthiel 

I want to modify yesterday's statement about the deep bass performance of the AHB-2. The more I listen the more I like it, and my in-room sound pressure measurements suggest that the bass amp is weaker. Therefore my call to Benchmark regarding gain; and here's hoping they can be matched. Then, of course, funds would have to be found.

I am finding the same thing with the AHB2. With some music it really sounds great. I was about to post an ad to sell my AHB2 to fund part of the cost of buying the Coda #8 (not sure V1, V2, or V3). If I sell the AHB2 I could get the Coda at the end of this month. However, I could not pull the trigger to sell the AHB2, it is too good. Unfortunately not good all the time with the CS3.7. I will keep the AHB2 around when I want to hear that clean all Benchmark sound and also get the Coda #8. 

The Coda #8 specs are as follows (8 Ohms | 4 Ohms | 2 Ohms):

• V1 150 watts w/18 watts pure class A  (150 | 300 | 600)
• V2 250 watts w/12 watts pure class A  (250 | 500 | 1000)
• V3 350 watts w/8 watts pure class A    (350 | 700 | 1400)

$6K MSRP

I am trying to decided which version to get for my small room.

^Does the Class A drop, maintain or increase as impedance load is lowered?

I've been driving my 3.7s with a pair of bridged mono Cambridge 840W's for a long time.  I think they're great.  I thought they were clearly better than the pair of Classe CA200's they replaced.  They've been in my system for close to 10 years now with no problems.  The front-end is a $600 Sony 4k blu ray player feeding a benchmark dac2 with Bryston bp26 preamp.  I run inexpensive balanced interconnects.  Possibly blue jeans or mogami gold, I've got a pair of unbranded interconnects I paid $100 for that might be in there and maybe some lower tier Audioquest.  Speaker cables are very short Audioquest type 4 I think.  I never ever feel the need to upgrade.  This is my low/moderate volume system so I don't push it volume wise.  It excels at unamplified music played at moderate volumes.  It can play reasonably loudly but if I wanna rock I listen to my other system that is better suited to it.

@jon_5912 Do your AQ cables have a burgandy jacket?  I have a pair of (I think AQ 4) cables that work great with 2.7's.  Simple no-fluff cables.

@solobone22 they have a black silver weave pattern.  They're pretty old, the color has probably changed.  

I have just received an 11 foot pair of Van Den Hul D-352 Speaker Cables they are without termination.
I would like to connect my CS-5 speakers to my Conrad Johnson Premier 350sa power amplifier.
Both are factory unmodified 5 way binding posts.
I am asking this group for recommendations based on sound quality from experience. Thank You All in Advance!

@jafant You might be interested to read the new AX-5 Twenty review in Hifi News
https://www.hifinews.com/content/ayre-ax-5-twenty-integrated-amplifier

On the bench, it produced 650 W into a 1 load under “dynamic conditions” (I think this similar to the tonebursts that Stereophile did for an interval, more music like than steady state test signals; not specified whether that was for one or two channels driven). Eye-popping how much more powerful the Twenty is compared to the original even though Ayre did not change the spec. Pretty well confirms what my ears hear paired with the CS2.4.

I’m paying off the aq type 9

@unsound  

^Does the Class A drop, maintain or increase as impedance load is lowered?

Response from CODA

It drops. This is the nature of the calculation and is true for every amplifier.

CODA

So are there amps that maintain the Class A on lowered impedance?

usaltus

In making my speaker cables I used Kimber Kable spades .
If you are thinking of using spades they are easy to connect to the cable and don't have to be tightened with a wrench at the binding posts .

@xyzsantabarbara, As I understand it; yes. I believe many of the Krell’s do, that the Mark Levinson ML 2’s did, some of the Pass Labs might (limited to 4 Ohms maybe?)? I wouldn’t swear on it though. I’ll hazard a guess that the Class A output is halved as the output doubles as impedance is halved. Though most times one cruises along at low power output, that output increases rather dramatically exponentially. You’ll have to decide how relevant the Class A output in your circumstances. Keep in mind that available higher total output can potentially protect drivers from under powered clipping damage, and the ear tends to be less sensitive to the cross-over distortions of Class AB at higher volume levels.
These are the areas that separates typically have advantages over their integrated brethren; the ability to double down and and the ability to stay in Class A output longer when doing so.

Did anyone hear EAR Yoshino pre-power with Thiel speakers ?This brand is very musical but i wonder if EAR monoblocks could handle Thiel load.

One of my CJ amps had to go in to the shop momentarily and an audio-pal lent me his Bryston 4B3:

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1073-bryston-4b3-stereo-mono-amplifier

I tested it on my Spendor S3/5s and then my Joseph Audio Perspective speakers.   I had the usual reaction when I use solid state:  wow, neato grip and power, density, transient edge vividness etc.  Really fun.   But once I got my CJ amp back and compared...I was definitely still in the "tube" camp.   They sounded about as powerful, but richer, fuller, more organic and beautiful.

Next up I'll be trying the Bryston with my Thiel 2.7s.   I've never heard the 2.7s with solid state so this should be interesting. 

^The Bryston 4B3 is not spec’d into 2 Ohms, and isn’t spec’d to double down from 8 Ohms into 4 Ohms. I wouldn’t consider this amp as a testament of the full potential prowess of ss amplification with the Thiel 2.7’s.

As a point of Thiel history, Jim used very good amps to design the speakers. His attitude was that making a good amp was the ampmakers’ business, and making a good speaker was his business. We generally had on hand the best from Levinson, Krell, Audio Research and others for comparison. His workhorse for the 3.7 development was the Krell FPB-600.

But at shows, Thiel usually exhibited with amps priced commensurate with its products. No $30K amp for a $10K speaker. Bryston was often used. I found the Bryston amps rather coarse compared to the better stuff at the factory. Many reports said that all changed with Bryston’s ’cubed’ series - which are more refined. Thiel used the a cubed series amp (perhaps 4B3?) to introduce and show the 3.7. That was the combination that George Cardas dubbed the best sound he had ever heard at a show. Bryston offers trade in and upgrade packages. I suggest that the ’cubed’ Brystons come very close to supporting Jim’s design intent for the 3.7, even though it doesn't meet the double-down standards for full current delivery into low impedance loads.

I found the Bryston’s very much improved over their earlier models (which I didn’t much care for) with the ST models with the earlier 4 Ohm > and up model Thiel’s. Not comparable to the likes from Krell, Threshold, et al, but a nice viable affordable option.

My last comment on the AHB2 so I do not drone on and annoy people. I am doing acoustic measurements with REW software and Minidsp microphone. I am doing these measurements to have Accurate Sound of Canada’s Mitch Barnett analyze my room measurements and make me some Convolution files to run on my ROON server.

My first set of measurements came out with some graphs that seemed to me that the sound was bad. I though that cannot be good and decided to do some surgery to my room. Mind you I have no idea what the graphs mean. There was a lot of red colored measurements which could not be good.

I removed a side desk and some plants and moved my system even further away from the speakers.

(the last 2 photos are the result of the surgery)
https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/7605

I ran the measurements again and this time hardly any red in the graphs. Maybe good news maybe bad news, no clue. What I do know is that the sound is much improved. The room sounds bigger and the amp sounds better. I could actually live with this sound. Though I still will get that Coda #8 amp given how much money I have already saved with this system.

^It’s possible that DSP could add demands to the amp.

That’s OK, I paid good money for the amp, need to put the amp to work.

When I first got the Thiel CS3.7 into my room I said the sound was like a 70/100. I got improvements with various steps. This room changes today take me to about 90/100. I am very interested to see what the DRC Convolution files do to the sound. I emailed the file to the engineer to do his magic. Good thing is that it is a matter of flipping a switch to either use the DRC or not use it.

I’m not trying to discourage you from using DSP, just what might be involved. I think having the speakers right up against the wall behind the speakers could reduce demands on the amp, and perhaps more importantly not over correct the direct primary sound from the corrected reflected room sound, as the two sounds will be so similar.

"
thoft62 posts10-27-2020 12:12amSo uh there’s a set of 3.6 for sale next state over. They’re asking 1500. It’s itchy.."


I've owned my 3.6's since shortly after they were released in late 1993. I still find their sound very very satisfying.  I sure would recommend them to anyone.  I did have issues with the tweeter and a midrange driver on one of the speakers...about 6 years apart. I spoke with Rob on those issues when he was still at the original Thiel, and had the drivers rebuilt and returned. They have worked just fine ever since. I've tried lots of power amps with them over the years and found that I've been most happy using a Threshold SA/4e pure class A, Nelson Pass designed amp. That combination just works really nicely. I've tried others, including an Adcom Gfa 555 Mk II, plus a pair of Emotiva XPA 1 moniblocks.  They all sound good through the Thiels, but I keep coming back to the Threshold.

beetlemania

Thank You for the review link. I have no doubt that this integrated can drive a CS 2.4 / 2.4SE loudspeaker without challenge. A 650w burst tone is quite powerful, usually into 1 channel (Stereophile). Paul Miller does a good job testing gear in his lab.

Happy Listening!

@tomthiel, Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I seem to recall Bryston’s cubed series of amps coming out years later than the 3.7’s?

Bryston Cubed Series

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=139680.0

Unsound  & yyz- thanks for the catch. Seems I am confusing my stories. The 'cubed' feedback stands as exceedingly complimentary; but I don't remember from what source. 

yyzantabarbara

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in , not about amps because of the cost 
but about room acoustics .
For a very reasonable price you could try replacing the 4 inch thick
panels you are using for the side reflection with 1 or 2 inch thick ones ,
on the acoustimac site the give the graphs for each of thier thicknesses .
You can see how you can absorb higher frequency reflections while allowing the lower ones thru , this might help with your lack of bass .

Just a thought
Rob