I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model? Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Good to see you, prof! Your Vivid experience dovetails with Andy's "image density" query. My perspective is complex and deep and would take a book to explore. But in its simplest form, the 'reality factor' and 'image density' issues revolve around how the ear hears.
We make it up. Hearing is a synthetic activity of very high order. That mental process requires significant cognitive processing (which is why closed eyes help!). All that cognitive processing serves to decouple the experiencing-listener from the real-direct aural experience. A major part of that cognitive processing is the brain reconstructing the aural meaning from signals which have had their phase-time information compromised. So, I don't think that Andy or anyone else can get 'it' without first-order alignments which preserve phase-time. Once it's scrambled, work is required to guess the meaning.
Being a synthetic process, hearing benefits from all the cues and clues it can get. So all the other elements such as edge diffraction, panel resonance, component and thermal distortion, etc. all matter. The more that is 'right', the better we can hear - synthesize a meaningful aural experience.
I investigated the Vivid speakers. They are seriously competent. But I can't find anything about their filter alignments; I strongly suspect they are higher order, whereby they can more easily solve all the other design aspects and produce convincing music. Prof, I suspect you are particularly attuned to phase-time element. When the ear doesn't have to perform that aspect of sonic reconstruction, things seem more real. Because they are.
Thiel attempted to tame the dragon, to wrestle with all the elements that became even more aurally important when correct phase-time was preserved. Sane engineers and business consultants all say 'don't go there'. The current consensus is that 'there' either doesn't matter or it's not worth the effort. I appreciate the regard you all have for Thiel speakers because for you what we did was worthwhile. It matters to we few.
jon - a little history might help. Thiel's original balance was -2dB shelf below 200 from anechoic flat to compensate for room gain. Purist, first-principle approach. However, 40 years ago there was little marketplace agreement of what constituted flat, and Thiel was often called 'bright' - we were lighter than the BBC / Advent, etc. broad 100Hz bass bump. Over time, our interpretation has become standard. The 2.2 had historically the richest bass due to better room coupling of the passive radiator than either the previous ports or single-driver sealed enclosures.
I am experimenting with adding a little midrange to the hot-rodded 2.2 balance to align it closer to other Thiel designs. It conveniently has a midrange series resistor for straightforward tweaking.
jon_5912 Agreed- they are fantastic all-around performers. Over the years I have come to learn that a great deal of audiophile do prefer a centered and large midrange presentation. I find this "sound" to roll off lows, highs or both to my ears. Happy Listening!
Good to see you. I believe the whole density of sound to refer to the speaker voicing. Perhaps one of our order filter experts can chime in. Hope you are well and enjoying your pair of CS 2.4 loudspeakers.
@prof, I completely agree that Thiels aren't remotely thin, bright or harsh. My experience is mainly with the 2 2 and 3.7. From what I've read both are on the warm side of the average Thiel. That said, I can't imagine anyone finding either of them bright. They're both very well balanced. I find the 2 2 to be slightly warm and the 3.7 to be too close to call. I think any deviation from neutral can be reversed by raising or lowering your seat a little. I've powered the 2 2s with a Yamaha HT receiver and a B&K st202. They aren't bright. Anybody who says they are likes really rolled off highs or has some other axe to grind. I haven't heard the 3.7s sound bright but I have heard them sound a little bit indistinct and soft in the bass. That was remedied by doubling the power. With enough power it's hard for me to imagine anyone finding significant fault with them. They're fantastic all around performers.
You are spot on! To my ears, I never found Thiel loudspeakers to sound bright, harsh nor thin. These speakers can absolutely tuned to one's musical liking via audio gear as well. Happy Listening!
My hearing issue is improving enough to get bits of listening in on my system (not too loud).
And on that note: I visited my pal’s place today because he currently has in the new Vivid Kiya speakers. He has many thousands of bucks worth of Nordost cabling, power conditioners etc. He switched a while back from tube amps to a Bryston 4B3. He’s happy. I find his system lost something I valued quite distinctly when he made that switch.
Anyway, listened to a bunch of tracks on the very expensive Vivids. In a nutshell: very vivid! More "transparent" sounding with super extended sounding high frequencies than I hear at home on my Thiel 2.7s. It was super-fi in terms of clarity. I’ve heard Vivid speakers before, so this was more of the same.
But beyond that, as usual when I got home and whipped music on my Thiels powered by my big ol’ CJ 140W side tube monoblocks: wow what a difference. So much bigger, richer, so much more believable tone and organic quality. And despite that the Vivids are known for really "disappearing," which they did quite well from the low mids up, the Thiel system just whipped their butt in terms of a sense of soundstaging dimensionality, with solid images totally detached from the speakers. The same tracks with stand up bass on the Bryston driven Vivids sounded a bit boxy/speaker-bass to me, where on my Thiels, in my room, the bass just exists as a taught, natural instrument detached from the speakers top to bottom.
I missed that Thiel focus and density to the sound and imaging when I listened to the Vivids. Played some Johnny Cash on the Vivids and, while super clear, it was "hi-fi" sounding insofar as Cash’s voice just sounded artificial and a bit crispy around the edges. And the acoustic guitars, again, vivid, but bleached of tonal color. On the Thiels/CJ combo cash sounded like a human in front of me. And when the acoustic guitars came on on both sides, they sounded so much bigger, thicker and richer, and tonally it was "aaahhh...THAT’s that authentic acoustic guitar tone I was missing from the Vivids."
If anyone still had the idea that Thiels are bright, or thin or harsh sounding speakers, I can confidently declare a listen to them at my place would dispel that instantly. They are chameleons that you can make sound as you wish, via associated equipment, positioning, etc. Just thought I’d share.
Beetle - you and everyone else here has solved the Thiel Amp problem or you wouldn't love Thiel speakers. Indeed a high sound quality amp used within its comfort zone produces good music.
The problem introduced by amp-swapping is that there are many amps which don't produce good music when driving Thiel's low impedance load. Ask all those experts who say that Thiels are harsh, anemic, spikey, boomy, glarry, bright and so forth. You have a valid point. Specs aren't likely to tell what you need to know because amp specs show an extremely limited picture of the amp's interior workings.
As a broad generalization, Thiel speakers present low impedance, resistive load characteristics and many audiophile amps got better over the years in driving such loads. The brands presented here as successes are good bets.
Here's part of a note from a long-time Lexington Thiel insider: Equipment he remembers from Nandino (Lex address): " Levinson Transport/Dac
Sonic Frontiers gold faceplate 2 chassis preamp,
Levinson - Krell - Bryston Amps, when Dave Gordon was there you used some Audio Research. Straightwire, Wireworld, Goertz, Kimber, Nordost cables Another show did all Levinson with Kimber Select cables when they were introduced. Also you had the only pair of Kimber Black Pearl speaker cables (ones with the gel) I had ever seen or heard. I remember Jim liking the Nordost. Some dealers really liked the networked cables in Transparent or MIT (Progressive Audio). I tried Transparent but they always seemed to suck the life out of the music. I used Straightwire Maestro the longest.
As far as amps I have used or heard that sounded good with Thiels: Ayre, Krell, Levinson, Threshold. I owned a B&K amp when I had CS2’s. Actually, one of the most musical sounds I ever had. When I moved to 3.6’s compared the B&K, Bryston & Levinson. The B&K was okay, the Bryston had a little better grip on bass but nothing dramatic over B&K. The Levinson brought the 3.6’s to life. I still think Krell was the best. Your comments about an amp that doubles down is definitely true if you want to hear what the speakers are capable of."
Seems like an amp list might be heavily biased to simple measurements, and it’s tough to meaningfully measure either speaker or amp, never mind their interaction. Most Thiel models drop below 3 ohms over part of the audioband but what can you say about how phase angle confounds that? Might be even worse with amp measurements. And to predict the interaction from measurements? Good luck!
I drove my CS1.6s with an Ayre AX-7e, 60 W into 8 ohms, doubling into 4. The 1.6 impedance drops to about 3 ohms over part of the audio band. AX-7 has 66 1 dB steps on the volume control. I usually listened at about 30, maybe low 40s if I had the house to myself and wanted to rock out (my room is 18 x 19 with a vaulted ceiling and two large openings on the rear wall). Much louder than that and it became painfully loud. I found out later, when I switched to the low efficiency Vandy 2, that my combo of amp and source would result in clipping starting at about 45 on the volume control. That little amp had plenty of balls to drive the “low” impedance Thiels.
Yes, some Thiels are tough loads. The CS5 comes to mind, dropping to about 2 ohms in the low bass and even lower where musical content peters out. So, extra care is probably a good idea for some models. But most any amp that is comfortable at 4 ohms can probably adequately drive most Thiels.
The extra headroom from more power is certainly audible and desirable but less so, IMO, than the SQ from a superb amp regardless of its measurements. As it says it Thiel’s manuals, most users will be happier with a great 100 W amp than a mediocre 200 W amp. If a list must be done, I suggest maybe categories of amps: clearly underpowered, probably adequate depending on user/room, and fully adequate. I would not dismiss out-of-hand a “mere” 100 W amp. Just look at the many reports of good results with tubes!
The Stereophile review of your product of interest shows an impedance vs phase curve with explanation. Low impedance, especially where phase angle changes quickly represents difficulty. The rule of double power at 4 from 8 ohms and at least triple of 8 at 2 ohms is less important with larger amps where you demand less of its capability. And rules are made to be broken; the differences between rooms and users is immense. And the difference between how amps respond to the first watt and under full load is immense. So, there's a lot to be said for commonly shared wisdom. Traditionally a great dealer added value to this matching equation. The amps regularly mentioned on this forum have a lot going for them because knowledgeable users have chosen them from myriad competitors.
I am looking forward to the new xo's when ready. Thanks Beetlemania and Tom for you efforts.
As far as amps go I ran a sumo polaris amp (100 watts into 8ohms and I think it doubled or close into 4ohms) and audio research ls1 pre that sounded fantastic with my 1.2's. Now for my 2.4's I run a Belles 150 Reference V2 (125 watts into 8ohms and 250 watts into 4ohms) with a lightspeed passive and burson buffer and it sounds really good, a good step up from my other system. Both amps sounded solid as far as I could tell and I would recommend them in the same application. I did work for a couple of high end shops. Nothing to do with audio equipment but I got to listen to a lot of stuff. And my system's however modest the midrange sounded as good or better on the average with anything that they could put together. That was my priority, the midrange and have the extremes blend in nicely.
There are other Krells (though not all!), with more and less power that are suitable.
Holco suggested the Audio-GD Master 3, with which I have absolutely no knowledge or experience, but certainly appears to be worthwhile of investigation.
Not all Thiel's have the same amplification requirements!
Tms - I would love to see that list materialize. A good handful of offerings have been made. It takes someone to pull it together off this forum. Perhaps you?
My own personal experience suggests: Bryston 4B3 (cubed) most recent and most refined of their series Classé DR-9 in any configuration, stereo or mono Threshold S-500 (Thiel lab amp, updatable) {showing my age}
And my present research suggests: Benchmark AHB-2 specifically vetted by Benchmark, not heard yet PS Audio BHK-300 300 specifically vetted by PS, 250 questionable at high gain.
My needs are clean, neutral, capable and affordable rather than 'good-sounding to me'. But then I actually enjoy hearing what was recorded as honestly as possible. I cross-check neutrality with Sennheiser HD800S closed cans and co-play with Beyerdynamic ref 240 ohm. And 50+ years in hi-fi manufacturing, recording and mastering-consulting have supplied some helpful experience. That's my short-list for my own purposes with my own constraints.
Since we're talking about amps again: some time ago I posted a plea for a list, however small, of amps that by spec would be completely capable of matching the low impedance needs of the Thiels. Has anything materialized? I mean, besides the Krell FPB 600. Seems like we are stuck in "I like the sound of it, but..." land.
tomthiel brings up a good point about "sweet spot" or best value. For instance my previous declaration in favor of the Bryston 3B (within appropriate matching with older Thiels) was based upon such a criterion. It's not necessarily one the best sounding amps, but at it's price point it performed quite admirably for the task at hand at the time. Which is quite an accomplishment! It's a lot easier to make a cost no object good sounding (and unfortunately enough examples of the over priced / under performers exist as well) kit, than one that performs nearly as well for quite a bit less.
Prof, "...most audiophiles..." aren’t running steady close to 2 Ohm loads, or in my case a steady 4 Ohm load with a 12 dB bass boost eq (albeit with an 8 Ohm impedance bump up at that region).
What might seem like copious power into 2 Ohms when compared to 8 Ohms; really isn’t. It’s not all about sheer volume levels, but rather about ideal operating conditions.
@thielrules, I measured my 3.7s with a single Cambridge 840w because I felt the bass was lacking. I did it using test tones and my Behringer ultracurve and measurement mic. The weak bass didn't show up in the measurements as it measured fine. I bought a second identical amp to run bridged mono and the bass improved significantly. The power went from 350 watts/channel into 4 ohms to 800. The difference wasn't in the volume of the bass but in transients and texture. As far as recordings go I'd find some with sustained, textured bass and also some with deep and punchy bass.
Music Reference Amp designer, Roger Modjeski, has been pointing out on a thread in the amps forum something I think we often forget: that most audiophiles often overestimate how much amp power they actually need. Most are barely using the power available in their amps, given typical listening levels. It often takes some significant volume to get them out of a couple watts. I tend to listen when sitting in front of the speaker to an average level of 70 to 75 db at most (though I crank it up when listening from another room). Apparently, my amp would just be cruising, barely breaking a sweat at those levels, even though I’m using a 140W tube amp.
I also have never noticed any sense of strain when I turn it up louder.Now if I truly cranked it REALLY loud levels, it could be a different story. But, as I understand it, if one’s listening levels aren’t terribly loud to begin with, then there’s no reason lower powered amps should be a problem on Thiels or many other speakers.
(I sometimes use my Eico HF81 on my MBL speakers which are a brutal 82 dB sensitivity, and it sounds plenty good to me, no strain that I notice).
There are of course other variables to consider: current, damping factor, bass quality, possible impedance interactions, the type of music one listens to in terms of dynamics/peaks and how loud. But in terms of sheer power, from what I understand, there’s not mystery why tube amps, which are so often much lower power than one can find in SS amps, often sound good with Thiels.
Beetle - by 'sweet spot' I also include the price. The 3 generally out-sold the 2. But in those cases of smallish room / lowish levels and deepest bass not needed, the 2 shines for a lot lower price.
Rules - go for it. Remember that amp 'distress' is nearly invisible in tests. And, of course, listening is more difficult to objectify. I suggest you will learn more at a higher listening level. Look for things like 'glare', 'anemic', 'hard' and similar adjectives. Mono testing works well, switching between A & B in near real time.
On this and other fora, it has been repeatedly stated that Thiel speakers need big amps, specifically big currents, in order to "sing" and sound their best. I plan to find a way to test this common reported experience as I got these new 3.7 and have now in addition to the bryston 3b St, a set of 7b St. These amps are very similar except for output and provide a way to compare a regular 125 watt amp with limited current, to a high output 800 watt with limited current (serial bridged), to a 500 watt with abundent current (parallel bridged). I'll do a comparison of sweep with rem software. Please suggest any other measurements that may capture a difference. What is a good piece of music that would reveal any differences? I'll record the music through the different amps at a 90dB loudness with a high resolution recording and do a blind test where you can vote to identify the recording. Any volunteers to help out with this? Thanks
On this site many believe the 2.4 is the best sounding
I don’t recall reading those opinions here but I see that Tom Thiel considers the 2 to be Thiel’s sweet spot. That said, the "hot-rodded" 2.4 should push performance to the next SQ tier. In the context of Stereophile's rating scheme, the upgrade might be considered as "Class A - restricted" (ie, limited low frequency extension). Stay tuned . . .
2.7 as it was the last speaker Mr. Thiel designed and built.
Yesterday I posted false information about who completed the CS2.7, which was finalized and released after Jim Thiel passed. I have since deleted that post. From Tom Thiel’s PM to me:
The project was engineered by Warkwyn / Canada - Tim Gladwin leadengineer. . . . The development job was actually directed by the Thiel Team and every engineering step was approved and/or re-directed by Thiel. The job would have been a minor one in Thiel-land because the actual-same coax was used and FST-China developed the 8" woofer as a near clone of the 10" 3.7 woofer. Virtual piece of cake transplant job.
Tom included some information regarding how Jim Thiel would have created a passive coax for the 2.7 had he survived to do so (the 2.7 shares the 3.7’s double-motor coax).
jon - yes indeed. The design criteria of the model 2 permits less deep bass and overall lower output than the 3. For that you get more finesse and delicacy via a smaller midrange, woofer and cabinet. Plus the 2 always trailed a next-generation 3 (or higher) development and admitted trickle-down technologies, keeping its price lower. Sweet spot.
beetlemania Thank You for the CH (RIP) note. Ayre and Pass Labs integrated amps are well documented with the CS 2.4 loudspeaker. It is a simple matter of listening level(s) and brand taste(s). Hope you are having fun on the XO project. Happy Listening!
jab Good to see you again. Yes, it is noted that VAC and VTL are well-suited for Thiel loudspeakers. Thank You for citing your preference. What other gear is in your system? Happy Listening!
gasman117 Thank You for the update. Good to read that about another PS Audio BHK amp owner. These products are really gaining traction in the customer base. It seems that both Mono and Stereo amps are favored compared to the competition. A few more PS Audio owners over on Audio Asylum. Happy Listening!
jon_5912 Spot On! The 8" woofer is excellent, as well as, the passive radiator. Really does make for a pleasant aural experience at any level in a small to medium sized room. Happy Listening!
I'd guess the 2.4 is the best in some ways. I've never heard them but it's the last Jim Thiel designed 3-way with an 8" woofer. I don't know if there's any hard and fast rule but there are definitely advantages to not having huge jumps in driver size. The 2 series might be an ideal design for a 3-way intended for moderate volume listening.
Update on my Journey, kinda fits in with the above. Thiel 2.4s, Proceed Cdp direct to Bryston 4B SST2
The Bryston 4B SST2 was detailed with a powerful bass but too tight but quite harsh. It is no longer in my system. I got great trade-in credit and price on a PS Audio BHK 250 power amp. Thank you TMR audio for assistance in recommending this amp. Bingo!! Right out of the box, what a wonderful combination. Balanced and wonderful sound! The sound is tonally right on. Much more detailed, smooth , and musical then the Bryston. So realistic, I can separate out individual background singers. I can resolve what I call the “woodyness” of a cello, the timbre and subtle vibrato. This is releasing the Thiels to shine. Man the bass is full and bottomless, yet no booming. A good description is the bass is precise. Imma let it cook for the next day or two and post what happens. I’m really pleased . Dave
I have come to agree that quality can easily trump quantity. In my 2
channel set up, I drive KEF Reference 3's with a Pass Labs INT-60 which
is "only" 60W into 8-ohms, the first 30 of which are Class A. Lemme tell
you, the sound is extraordinary, and capable of volume far beyond
levels I enjoy listening!
Absolutely! I don't think you can well predict the sonics of an amp/speaker without listening to it, although many Thiel models should probably be mated with 4 ohm rated amps (or lower for something like the CS5). And personal preferences as simple as desired SPLs are not accounted for when amps are dismissed out of hand for being "too low powered".
From the CS2.4 owner's manual:
It is important to have enough power to play at the level you desire without distortion. If high sound levels are desired, the CS2.4’s are designed to be used with amplifiers rated up to 400 watts per channel (into 4 ohms). If you play the speakers more loudly than the volume the amplifier can cleanly produce, the amplifier will produce overload (clipping) distortion. . . .
Keep in mind that sound quality is usually much more important than sound quantity. There can be large differences in the sonic performance of two amplifiers of equal power, and this is more important than large differences in power. Most everyone will be happier with a 100 watt amplifier of high sonic quality than a 200 watt amplifier of mediocre sonic quality. For this reason, we feel there is no substitute for listening in making your amplifier decision.
Charles Hansen (RIP; Ayre):
At some point, you just have to let go of the specs and trust your ears. It's the only way to get something that sounds good.
jon_5912 Absolutely! it is all about shopping around to find the best gear that suits your taste. I was thinking that you are one of our CS 2.2 owners, thanks for the confirmation. Yamaha is still a top Audio competitor. Pioneer and Sony are not quite what they used to be as a force. Denon has a hit-or-miss record as well. Not sure if JVC is still in the game? Not sure if Marantz is making their receivers in Japan? Happy Listening!
@anthonymoody I’ve got a couple of HT receivers that I’ve used to drive various speakers with and I thought they did fine. One is a Yamaha, one a Pioneer Elite. Both had list prices around $900. Receivers, at least some of them, have come a long way and many sound very good and do a pretty good job of delivering adequate power. I have my Thiel 2 2s hooked up to the Yamaha and I think that system sounds great. It’s in the living room and mostly used for kid’s shows these days but before kids I used it in my old living room and it was a great little system. I worry that people starting out would get the impression that you can’t get a passable system for less than 10k when I think you can do pretty darn well for a lot less. I got the Thiels used in 2010 for $1,000 and the receiver off the return/open box rack at Best Buy for $300. It’s amazing to me how well you can do for little money.
Anthony - your experience with the PP1.2 mirrors mine. The image is so surprisingly dense and 3 dimensional. Part of it is the virtually invisible solid aluminum cabinet with its small launch. And a big part of it must be the unobstructed ceiling propagation wave support with no floor bounce or furniture. What a trip!
Regarding upgraded performance. Please read the back-story. We're re-engineering with today's technologies with greater budgetary freedom than a new product would permit. We expect greater ease and precision along with increased dynamic freedom. Still vapor-ware, but making progress.
Tom - that's so phenomenal...I figured from your handle that you'd been part of Thiel at some point, but wow - that's really great. Would love to learn more about the upgraded performance. How would you describe that performance? (I will indeed read further back in the thread...there's a lot there!)
My PP 1.2 LCRs...let's see. This is the second HT I've had them in (moved house some years back and took the whole set up with me). They're really remarkable. I've never really used them as 2-channel monitors because I've always had a separate, dedicated 2-channel rig elsewhere, so I can't comment on their performance as such. But, they provide an amazing HT experience. Crisp, clear dialog, reference levels but never an ounce of fatigue, great at localizing sound when called for in the soundtrack, great at blending/disappearing when a broad soundstage is called for, and of course take up no floor space and don't call attention to themselves on the ceiling above my display. I've had them in a wide, deep room, and currently in a narrower, shallower room. Nary a complaint. Paired with a James sub...can't recall the model, but a beast of a thing with I believe a 15" driver. Weighs a ton. Shakes the house.
In the 1st iteration and much of the 2nd iteration until recently, I drove the Thiels with a 7-channel Theta Dreadnaught (3 of the 200wpc modules, 2 of the 2x100 wpc modules) fed from an Integra pre-pro. The Theta is a monster, but we recently chose to rationalize and prioritize space and aesthetics in the room (I should probably list the Theta for sale). We're down to 3 sources (a TiVo, an AppleTV, and an Oppo UHD player) vs. 6 until recently, and...drum roll please...driving the speakers is a Marantz 8012 receiver.
This may cause outrage, or accusations of being deaf (possible), but, not only would I say that there's no compromise in the Marantz vs. the Theta + Integra, I would say it sounds *better* though in fairness the Marantz has a really great room correction system whereas the Integra had none. And, the Marantz has the latest codecs whereas the Integra did not. So, not entirely apples-apples, but there it is.
Better how? Dialog intelligibility is even stronger, and the sound seems warmer (though was never bright before, so maybe I just like warmer). It's also a simpler set up which helps the family...no triggers getting out of sync, fully up to date front end electronics, etc.
Now, the PP 1.2's are not the "legendarily difficult to drive" 3.6's, so maybe that's why they play so nicely with the Marantz. But in a lot of ways they're my favorites precisely because they're so great but essentially invisible.
Anthony - You would be well served to survey this long thread for background. The short answer is that I spent a chunk of my life co-developing Thiel Audio, and I want the tens of thousands of supporters to have a better option than jumping ship after the company's demise. I am developing XO hot-rod kits for select models which will upgrade their performance beyond original while replacing the age-sensitive electrolytic caps with permanent foil types. It's a labor of love and this group is performing various teaching, learning and beta-test functions.
I solicit your observations and input regarding your PP1.2 LCRs.
anthonymoody Welcome! aboard. Good to see that you found us here. I believe that you will find this thread helpful and informative. There are a few gentlemen who own the 3.6 loudspeaker and other vintage Thiel models. I look forward in reading more about your Audio journey, musical tastes and system. Happy Listening!
rosami - I echo your comment about what I've found in this thread, scanning back just a few pages. Great people, great info! As to your comment about your amp being "only" X watts...I have come to agree that quality can easily trump quantity. In my 2 channel set up, I drive KEF Reference 3's with a Pass Labs INT-60 which is "only" 60W into 8-ohms, the first 30 of which are Class A. Lemme tell you, the sound is extraordinary, and capable of volume far beyond levels I enjoy listening!
Tomthiel/folks in general - I see a lot of posts about changing the crossover in the 3.6's, but haven't found a post detailing how and why doing so is better..? Not arguing the point, just asking as a new guy. Please be gentle :)
In one theater I use a pair of 3.6's, the larger center...can't recall the model...MCS1? and 4 Powerplane 1.2s, all driven by Krell.
In another, I use 3 PowerPoint 1.2's for L/C/R, and 4 Powerplane 1.2s. I'll refrain, for the moment, of saying what I use to drive them, though the answer may surprise and anger people :D
Anyway, would be interested to hear (ha!) what the upgrades might yield.
I caution those that plan to use Thiel floor standers for nearfield listening. All Thiel floor standers need at least 8' from speaker to listener for proper driver integration and ergo time coherence, a classic Thiel hallmark.
Classical music and chamber music. I have more than 1000 SACDs combined with Netflix 5.1 movies. I am using three thiel 2.2 for the main and two .5 for the rear. Ideal would be five Thiel 2.2s for the complete SACD 5.0 system. But nothing is perfect in real world. So i can live with current setting.
Bill - I evaluated and graded the models in context of my XO upgrade project. For starters, all the products are worthy; each was Thiel's best work at any point in time. However, some were more successful or more fully realized than others. In general, the more recent products are better due to continual learning. I have chosen models that were technical and market winners. Generally, they are the most recent of each series-type. The technologies constantly evolved, plus more recent products usually have larger quantities and better spare parts availability. All that said, your biggest liability with low-count / older products is driver availability for repair. Check with Rob at CSS regarding driver availability before buying anything.
The 5, 6 and 7 series remain hypothetical in the upgrade project. The 5 has some interest, but
huge upgrade issues and small numbers. No interest expressed in the 6 or
7.2. The XO project is in its infancy, so we don't know what will
develop.
The x.7 series are most recent and parts are available; not many were sold. Best of form and possibly collectable.
In the 3- series, the model 3.6 was an all-time high seller with mature
technologies. The 3.5 has a strong following, but the drivers are no
longer available, so beware. Also, although the equalized bass is
sealed-box / low-order and natural sounding, its single driver configuration
restricts its output. So a modest room and listening levels are
required.
In the 2- series, the 2.4 is the darling. The 2.3 can be found cheap for
reasons including transitional technology. The 2.4 coax driver eclipsed
the performance and reliability of the 2.3 coax. The 2.4 is our first
upgrade hot-rod XO due to its larger numbers and greater finesse. I am also addressing the 2.2 as a personal favorite of mine, and I have the final prototype pair.
In the 1- series, I have chosen the model 1.6 as the most mature of the series: best drivers, highest count, etc. Earlier 1.xs will work well and can often be found for pretty short money.
I am also addressing the PowerPoint 1.2 as a stunningly effective product with room to upgrade. Its niche was home theater, but I use it as studio monitors. Again, due to my personal appreciation and interest. Similarly, I have the 02 final prototype pair and will upgrade it.
As a company, Thiel applied the same design goals to every product. The personality of each model is unchanged through its generations. We were definitely product / performance driven rather than market-responsive. Such an approach is unusual; it gives you, the user access to any and all models having essentially the same objectives, albeit with varying levels of success. Welcome to the journey.
rosami - I cannot commit to a time-line because of managing multiple priorities. I anticipate having something for the 3.6 during 2019, but I can't really predict the future.
@holco after you factor in extra shipping and VAT, maybe it wouldn’t be too much more to stretch for locally-sourced Path Audio resistors! They are said to be the very best available.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
