Thiel Owners
The idea, what do you guy's think? https://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/16067084/1024/Thiel-CS-2.4/CS-2.4%3ESE.png |
jon - indeed a digital device and/or passive preamp is often not robust enough to drive the particular cables and/or input section of the chosen power amp. Active preamps are designed for that chore to ascertain that the signal voltage swings will indeed arrive at the power amp's inputs. Some cables are harder to drive than others and long runs especially can deplete signal vigor. |
I'm wondering if there are cases where what sounds like an amp problem is actually a preamp problem or impedence mismatch problem. I'm using Bryston preamps in both of my systems. In both cases I've run the systems with only a volume controlled DAC and with the DAC feeding a Bryston pre. In both cases adding the preamp made more of a difference in definition than I thought it should. This is especially true if running the amps from one set of outputs and a sub from another. I've done this twice with different amps and speakers and both times I found the bass to lack definition from just the dac. The problem cleared right up when I added a preamp. It had sounded pretty much the same as an underpowered amp but that wasn't the problem. I'm guessing the preamps are providing significantly more current and that can make a big difference in some situations. |
brayeagle Good to see you. A few years ago and my first of many encounters with the Bryston 4BSST, SST2, power amp. I heard to drive without any reservation Wilson Audio Sasha and Sophia loudspeakers. At that moment in time, I knew it was special. Thank You for sharing your impressions on its capability driving your CS 2.7 loudspeakers. Happy Listening! |
Tom, When I bought my 3.5s, I called Thiel, asking for advice on amplifiers. Jim Thiel took the call and strongly suggested a Bryston. I'm now on a 4BSST2 driving my 2.7s. Absolutely zero problems, and I'm a confirmed Bryston user. Dealing with the load imposed by that 2.6 ohm dip doesn't faze the 4B. |
gas - when the dust settles and we have accounted for the differences in effective series resistance of the new caps, coils and so forth, the frequency balance and phase response should be nearly identical to the original design. The improvements will be in the areas of ease, definition, clarity, perceived dynamic range from quieting background noise and so forth. We may lift a veil and sweeten things a little. But the tonal balance, and so forth will not substantially change. It bears saying that we may well be improving the Thiel strong suits. We cannot reduce the amplifier demands because the low impedance load is necessitated by the various correction circuits to cover the wide bandwidth of each driver. But, we may (if the customer wants) add a bi-amp option. When done right with the same amp for highs and lows (4 identical channels), each amplifier has a much easier time driving its load, plus any distress is sequestered to its own range. Audible improvements are certain. But additional amplification and cable requirements add expense. Nothing comes without cost. Our intent is to jump performance league with a modest enough cost burden to justify the expenditure. FYI: Bryston was a long-term collaborator with Thiel. The cubed (3) series is said to be strong with Thiel. The CES introduction of the 3.7 was with Bryston to high acclaim. I don't know their line, but your reported disappointment may be because of too little power / current. |
Jafant thanks for the response . I am thoroughly interested in your listening test. With the plethora of options , new and used, this will help me immensely. I find it interesting, yet disappointing, that at the price and level of engineering we are talking about there is such a difference in the sound. As I said , the Bryston 3B2 is not working with the 2.4’s. Tom Thiel. If I upgrade my 2.4’s caps, will it meaningfully change the sound of my system? Thanks Dave |
tomthiel Good to see you today. Agreed, I would be the first to state that wire does make a difference, the finest details must be addressed and covered properly, which you guys accelerated in those early days at Thiel Audio. No doubt that the term "pioneer" cannot be underestimated here. Add a genius designer and philosophy on first order, time-phase coherence, and the result is one hell of a loudspeaker. Fascinating. Happy Listening! |
J.A. - such considerations were an integral part of our development projects and accumulated knowledge. Wire effects are subtle and complex, but far from trivial. Yes, I agree that part of Jim's genius was to pay close attention to everything and pay no attention to conventional wisdom such as "bigger coils are better". Of probable interest here is the possibly little-known fact that we never performed competitive evaluation; there was never another-brand speaker in our lab or listening room. Jim considered such an idea as at best a use of time which we couldn't afford, and at worst a distraction from the work at hand, which was understanding and solving as much as possible from a first-principle approach. The same went for materials and cabinet concepts and construction schemes and production methods. We did original work. Considerable feedback came from the press, dealers and customers. But such feedback was on the conversational level. The real work included Finite Element Analysis, fine-tuning the lab and its equipment, building a world-class listening room, implementing an anechoic environment on the roof-top, experimenting with leading-edge materials and the excruciating iterative process of developing complex electromagnetic / acoustic / electronic systems to get the job done. And, of course, pruning each model to fit our market niche of affordable high-performance musical tools. |
My approach is to identify and model exactly what each coil is doing and optimize toward the ideal behavior. That is different than choosing which sound I might prefer. Coils are quite technical in how their electromagnetic fields and therefore transient behavior develops. A primary source of distortion comes from wire squirm which smears the signal. Thiel used a dipped and baked coil round wire. Foil further reduces mechanical squirm as well as develops tighter field effects. They are better inductors with fewer side-effects. They also cost more. They also remove an (artificial) roundness and excitement caused by the euphonic effects noted above. Due to practical conciderations, I am investigating replacing series feed inductors at 18 gauge and larger with foil. Smaller gauge foil equivalents are not readily available and Jim used 22 gauge coils in shunts specifically for the fine-tunable inductive resistance they provided. (Bigger is not always better.) Those resonance circuits do not carry current and are explicitly tuned to driver and overall circuit parameters. Besides, they are world-class high purity copper in custom dimensions and oven-baked. Hard to improve. |
gasman117 Good to see you again. Agreed, Revel is most certainly no Thiel loudspeaker. I like Bryston with the CS 2.4 not having heard a Mark Levinson with any Thiel model. I am in the process to setting up an audition of the newer Bryston 4B3 power amp and will post here once accomplished. If you are digging the Bryston sound there is the B-135 integrated. Same for Mark Levinson No. 585 integrated amp. I have read that either product sounds excellent on Thiel Audio speakers. Happy Listening! |
I might also compare foil and wire coils. Hi beetlemania, In my experience, wire coils sound slightly more lively and forward vs. foil coils. Foil coils sound a bit warmer and slightly over-damped on the bass. Everything considered, I may actually prefer wire coils. But I think ultimately it will be implementation and system dependent. Certain system may sound best with wire coils, but others may sound best with foil coils. |
@holco Please note that neither Tom or myself have conducted our own resistor listening comparisons. The Mundorf was on the short list but the Mills rose to the top of the list based on engineering, subjective opinions, and price. If cost were not a factor, I would try Path Audio re$i$tor$. The Mills are a really good and cost effective upgrade over the OEM sandcast resistors. Is it possible the Mundorfs sound better still? Could be but I am very comfortable with the choice of Mills. There are endless combinations of parts that could be applied in a crossover upgrade and even a full time designer could not have time to listen to them all. Tom has given very careful consideration to the possibilities based on his own extensive knowledge as well as opinions of others with broad experience. Tom only has time for a subset of sonic comparisons. I will compare the sound with and without Multicap bypasses on the coax feed caps. I might also compare foil and wire coils. But I trust that Tom has made good choices, just as I trusted those of Jim Thiel. |
harry - big southern mansions have their charms. After my time at Thiel Audio I did some installation consulting work which included Bluegrass Horse Farm Manor Houses. The sonic potential of those rooms in those dwellings is a wonder to behold. 1982 would have been the development of the CS3, which was our game-changing breakthrough product. I suspect that Larry Staples (hello Larry) arranged that listening session. Sounds like a focusing experience for you. |
i am at a crossroads i moved my thiel 2.4's to a dedicated space 20 ft x 30. setup my Bryston 4BSST2, my Proceed CDP and sat down. History: My first high end setup was a Thiel 2.2, Levinson 332, Levinson 38s, and the same CDP. It was awesome, very wide soundstage, great bass, sweet mod and highs. almost everything just right. Then i got Revel Studios. Theywere leaner, very detailed, incredibly extended bass, but with a smaller soundstage, more linear, much less enjoyable. Now my setup has a very linear sound , great imaging, detail, depth of image but a harsh high end. at low volumes nice but not the smooth easy to listen "sweet" sound i'd love. What to do? Different amp? Pre/ power combo? Intergrated? Tube pre? i got a budget of 3-5 k and dont know how to go forward. Don't want to make a mistake, just want to enjoy what i got. one option was PS audio 250's with trade is doable but will it do the trick? One said i need to do a pre/amp or nothing... thoughts? thanks , dave |
holco - beetlemania and I have combined our resistor inquiry and included some things I know about brands from history. We are convinced that the MRA-12s are our first choice. Part of that choice is their patented technologies and the Aryton-Perry non-inductive design, since I am paying particular attention to electromagnetic eddy currents. There are higher-tech resistors out there at multiples of the cost. My interest is in honest engineering-based solutions without cross-talk into sonic editorialism. Jeff at Sonic Craft and other knowledgeable operatives have been quite helpful in wading through the brands and claims and factors involved. You and all here are welcome to construct a comparative test for our collective learning. |
Thanks, Tom, for the explanation. I think we hear the same things, but you know why whereas I just hear. In any case, the 3.5's give me music .... I've mellowed in my old age. BTW, I was part of a small group of audiophiles who formed a listening group for Jim once. A mutual friend in Louisville where I was living at the time asked me to join in ..... he had a baronial place in the far suburbs beyond where I lived, and when I arrived the large living room was set up with an oracle turntable and Audio Research gear. I believe the speakers may have been early prototype 3's (this was probably 1982). In any case, the superior imaging and fulsom frequency respond were immediately apparent. Once I got back home, the flaws in my own Audio Research gear driving IMF TLS-80's made itself known, although I kept them for another ten years. Finally, after moving to Burlington, VT in 1989 I snagged a pair of 3.5's that served as dealer demo's. Been happy ever since and later added the additional 3.5's and 2 2's for surround. |
Yes, I would say the coax feed cap upgrade removes a slight coarse veil over the mid- upper frequencies. The MRA-12 Mills resistors add some ease. The drivers / cabinet have enough inherent quality to support considerably better XO parts. Keep up the good work. Regarding wire. I suggest leaving it as is. Thiel pioneered great wire before wire was a thing. I believe I alluded some details in a previous post earlier this year. Summary is that Thiel hookup and coil wire is world-class and most attempted "upgrades" would in fact downgrade the wire. Our first wire in the late 70 resulted from cousin Teddy's recommendation for ITT aerospace 6-9s pure long crystal in teflon twisted 2/inch right-hand. ITT abandoned the wire business after aerospace contracted and similar wire is now made by others. Thiel wire is all certified at least 4-9s+ twisted in teflon. The coils are of the same wire and the gauges are optimized per use. Don't think that larger diameter, lower gauge coil wire is superior. It is not. The exception is late-stage 3.7 XOs from China with CYC caps which have Chinese wire that claims the same specs, but which can't be verified and industry insiders doubt its purity. Our upcoming upgrades will add gauge to some input and driver runs, and replace series-feed coils with foil for extant wire. All certified 4-9s+ best-of-form. |
harry - regarding 2 vs 3. The target frequency response is identical, including the upper bass x midrange. I suspect the difference you hear is based on power response in the room. The 3s go deeper and move more air. The 3s have a larger diameter midrange with a lower crosspoint, so room fill can sometimes benefit. Also, the top end of the 10" woofer breaks up more than the 8" in the 2 - that breakup adding more "meat" in the lower midrange. Some folks like that even though Jim considered it a flaw - less than accurate. Both the 2 and 3 have a first-order hand-off from woofer to midrange. The bass rightness I was referencing is the deep bass. The sealed bottom end of the 3.5 and 5 allow a 12dB/octave bottom end which makes a gradual phase shift as it rolls off, supplying a natural sounding foundation. The ported / reflex models (1, 2s and news) add a pole for 18dB, and much steeper below the port tuning for significant phase shift at the bottom. (Remember that the industry judges this phase shift as of no consequence. Most modern products and subwoofer crossovers produce 4th order / 24dB/octave slopes.) Nonetheless, real acoustic instruments played in live spaces and recorded carefully do benefit, in my experience and opinion, from more shallow rolloff with greater phase integrity. There's something less hi-fi and more real. |
I'd like to add a few comments re: the discussions just a bit earlier in this thread. Tom Thiel was asked what he found so fascinating as to make the 3.5's a special speaker to him. Beyond his personal involvement, he mentioned the seamless deep bass. I have never listened especially to the higher members of the Thiel line (due to economic reality) but of the three and two series, the 3.5's simply are the only ones to have a smooth, fully fleshed out frequency response throughout the upper bass and lower midrange. As this is where most voices exist, voices through these speakers simply sound fuller and "real-er" than any of the others. It doesn't matter whether you are listening to Louis Armstrong, Eric Clapton, Judy Collins, Ella Fitzgerald, the Eagles, the Carpenters, or Allison Krauss. As good as the 2.2's sound which I also own, the 3.5's sound "real", the 2.2's and others in the line I've heard sound "light". (I attend a lot of live concerts of both jazz and classical music which also provides an excellent frame of reference for instrumental sounds.). Also perhaps because of the care Tom describes, the 3.5's have a coherence top-to-bottom that excels even the other members of the line. This exhibits itself most forcefully with full orchestral music where the entire orchestra sounds "just right" and "of a piece" whether playing loudly or softly, whether strings, brass, or percussion, etc. It is also easy to forget how much an underlying bass line is part of the classical orchestral repetoire. Except, when you hear the 3.5's you realize what is missing from many, many speakers including the 2.2's. The 2.2's have extraordinary transparency, and as part of my second system I listen to them a lot. If I didn't have the 3.5s I wouldn't know what I was missing. But I do, which is why they are in my second system. I'd also like to comment on the home theatre discussion. For about a dozen years I had a 5.0 system in a near-exact ITU setup. It was all analog, consisting of three 3.5's (front, rears) and two 2.2s (L,R). It sounded excellent except for the midrange discrepancy front middle-left/right. More recently I've moved and have a smaller listening room. In this room I've set up a more traditional stereo front (with 3.5s) using bridged left-right channels, as well as rear 3.5s. These surround setups have taught me two things. For one, placed alongside and touching a side wall, angled about 30-40 deg forward, full range Thiels make excellent surround speakers. And second, three or four (or five?) 3.5's in anything approximating an ITU placement will neutralize room standing waves, and if they are 3.5's, also eliminate any need for a subwoofer. Everything is there, even on the loudest explosions on film. (Of course, it helps that I am using five Outlaw M200 monoblocks.) Just for what it is worth for fellow Thiel lovers. |
Photo of the upgraded crossover. https://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/16063416/1024/Thiel-CS-2.4/Thiel-CS-2.jpg |
Hi Tom, I changed the 13uf and 1uf for a Jantzen 10uf Superior Z-Cap + Jantzen 3.9uf Alumen Z-Cap and I changed the 27uf and the 1uf for a Jantzen 18uf Superior Z-Cap + Jantzen 10uf Alumen Z-Cap. The why is because I wanted to upgrade to the SE version capacitors but the Clarity SA caps are a lower grade than the now used Jantzen caps. Don't know what you specific mean with listening experience, but I am a audio lover for many years and have build up a nice audio setup. Br, Mario |
silva - I believe that you made improvements. I am merely addressing the physics of the cause. I suggest googling "speaker enclosure resonances" or somesuch and see what you can learn. It's quite complex - resonances couple when harmonically linked (like octaves, etc.) But a very big deal is that the lower a resonance occurs the greater the available energy to stimulate it and the longer it will last in time (all else equal) . . . both being detrimental. The dance is to shorten their duration and push them higher where there is less available energy to stimulate. Lead is mechanically very absorptive and self-dampening. It is the right idea for the right result, but the lowered resonance frequency is an undesired by-product rather than the cause of improvement. |
unsound - What you envision could be done with the SCS, but not the PowerPoint. The SCS has the same driver and XO, but its cabinet is made for 3D space. The PowerPoint's genius (patented -?-) is its 45° wave launch from a known, unobstructed plane - ceiling is best, walls work OK. The geometry obviates the problems of floor bounce and unknown reflection environment. Because the ear-brain doesn't differentiate well in the vertical plane, and because the wave-front propagates evenly from the ceiling, the image presents as centered floor to ceiling. Add a woofer beneath it and the image locks into 3D space very believably. I am accumulating some original PowerPoints for parts. The PP1.2 has an all aluminum enclosure which makes a surprising improvement. |
