I have a Starke Sound AD4.320 amp on trial currently. Had some issues getting it working with my PX-02 crossover and USS sub, but suddenly everything worked. Intermittent connection somewhere. I have Powerpoint 1.2’s on my hardwood over (heavy urban) concrete floor. One might scoff whether this is a true Thiel setup. I know that tomthiel who owns some does not. These are serious two way speakers that happen to be optimized for a planar infinite baffle at 45 degrees setup. This is probably the best sound of my life. Seriously.
I used to be a an “amp denier” having been spoiled by the ‘70’s amp races to “perfection” - which the 70’s were. They became far less of a limiting factor. Speaker tech had to catch up. It did.
As you know from my recent post, I have been a Meridian believer for the past two decades. I abandoned the archaic analogue multi component system as flawed. I now have (for the time being) a hybrid system with a digital streaming front end and “digital” amplification to an analogue conventional crossover passive speaker.
The result is sublime. And I suddenly understand what modern amplification has brought. Leapfrogged again.
|
beetlemania
Thank you for your DIY contributions to this Panel.
I really must connect and hear your upgrade(s) soon.
Happy Listening! |
I'm an old-timer in this business and so "cabled-up" way back in the mid-eighties, buying used Monster M1000 (their top-line) interconnects in many lengths. Liked them very much, although I only compared them to about four other brands. So over time I have grown two complete Thiel systems strictly with these cables, other than for speakers where I use WaterCables (the Monster speaker cables seriously degraded the sound of my Thiel 3.5's.)
These Monster's calling cards were audiophile cables long before the name showed up in Best Buy. The M100's new in the '80's were around $200 for a one-meter pair (most of mine were bought used at about $100 a pair.) Their calling card was three woven layers around increasingly larger dialectrics, and Monster says they were "phase coherent". Don't know about that, but they do have depth and width of soundstage, as well as naturalness and coherence on individual instruments, and every improvement I've made in components has been audible, so they don't seem to be masking anything.
Anybody else had experience pro or con with these? Tom, I take it from your comments that you haven't. Did Jim or Thiel corp ever try them? |
beetlemania,
I may be coming into your 2.4 saga late, but when you mention sub reinforcement, why do you go Vandersteen? Rather than Thiel that have very well matched subs - particularly via speaker level PX crossovers? I have at least 6 different subs that I have tried to integrate via line level input. The current system with PX crossover is by far the most natural and completely integrated I’ve heard. Granted, there is zero support when the amp eventually gives out. Is that your motivation?
|
harrylavo
Good to see you here. Thank You for sharing your Cable history.
I started w/ Monster Cable in the late 80's myself.
Happy Listening! |
@snbeall Finding a stereo pair of Thiel subs with the appropriate crossover is a tall order. And, yes, lack of amp service is an issue (I think Rob Gillum only services speakers). Finally, the Vandersteen room correction is very appealing (although I would have to send my integrated amp to Ayre for an internal crossover). But this is academic as I’m not seriously considering this move. I am aware of my system’s minor shortcomings and enjoy it nonetheless. Immensely. I mean, it’s not like it sounds broken.
:) |
beetlemania,
tomthiel and Rob have said they lack the schematics for any of the active electronics (at least until the bankruptcy is settled - the hope being that they might turn up once they can sift the ashes). This includes all of the sub amps. The amplification stage itself was OEM’d out toward the end (BASH?) so might be serviceable. The secret sauce of Jim’s room boundary circuits is a different story. I happen to have a SS-1 whose original amp died and was replaced with the latter USS amp plate which (I am hoping) will be serviceable.
That said, can you point me to page number where your 2.4 DIY work is discussed? |
@snbeall I don’t think there is any single page or post that summarizes what I did or why. Relevant posts begin January or February, 2018. I made my final changes about one year later. So, look at pages within that interval, especially posts by Tom Thiel. |
I hate cables. I really do.
Started with:
Computer (running wtfplay) --> Synergistic Active USB --> MSB Analog --> Chord Cobra VEE2 --> Krell FBI --> Audioquest 4 --> Thiel 2.7
Current state:
Computer (running wtfplay) --> Synergistic Active USB --> MSB Analog --> Transparent Reference XL MM2 --> Krell FBI --> Acoustic Zen Satori --> Thiel 2.7
Had the opportunity to pick up a pair of the Transparent Reference XL MM2 interconnects for a fraction of the retail price so I jumped on it.
Put them in from DAC to Integrated amp.
Instantly hated it. It made the treble for lack of a better term "scratchy". So I put the Straightwire Maestros in for the AQ. That turned a colorful but scratchy sound into greyscale.
Have a pair of Acoustic Zen Satori speaker cables laying on the floor. Put those in and voila! it all comes together. I had tried the AZ cables several times and they always disappointed. With the Transparent cables in between the DAC and amp they are amazing.
Was listening to the Shostakovich 7 with the CSO and Bernstein on DG. Toward the end of the 4th movement the brass is doubled. The normal section is stereo right as per usual and the additional players are on stereo left. I have never heard something so massive on record. Live is another story. The color was on par with what I have heard them do live. The range and impact was there. It was glorious.
|
|
snbeall- regarding the 02 / SCS / PP series. I do consider them true Thiels to the core. Yes, they use second order slopes because they were designed with home theater considerations, etc. But, Jim's implementation used both drivers positive polarity and a non-conventional alignment. That alignment plus the dispersion characteristics of the two drivers with large diameter differences, results in a flat room response and no excess energy at the crossover point. The 02 is quite unique in that regard. The fact that a box speaker can be placed on its side and/or at any height makes it susceptible to non-alignlment, which Jim's personality couldn't tolerate. So, the 02 directly led to the SCS with the coincident / concentric tweeter which yields a coherent wavefront, albeit with broader phase angle swings than first order, but never falling farther out-of-phase as do inverted polarity implementations.
Note that I use a pair of PowerPoint 1.2s as my room-filling / mixing references. That 45° launch was patented and is uniquely effective. My only suitable space in my studio is near the corners at the wall-ceiling joint, which works quite well - I have also demonstrated them on a floor, which works better. Ceiling was their design environment if you have a suitable situation. I built outboard crossovers for all ClarityCaps and Mills resistors. Better than stock.
I do have a quibble with the concentric driver in general. Through time Jim was able to create the double cone for a shallow, wave-guide geometry of the front cone with a deep, straight-back reinforcing back cone - minimizing the cupped hands effect, but it's still there a little. My enamourment with the 02 is to make a stand monitor with two discrete drivers, with Jim's second order style crossover and without the inherent problems of the concentric driver. Note that I do appreciate the concentric driver's ability to deliver coherent sound relatively independent of listener position. We can't always get it all. (Except perhaps with the radial wave 7 coaxes.
|
All - progress is being made toward the schematics and closure of the Thiel legalistics. I'll announce when I can.
|
Harry - good to see you. Thiel did have early exposure to Monster, I don't remember the models, but it was with their high-end offerings. I remember Audioquest bettering our Monsters and so on and so forth.
I don't know whether I mentioned our significant relationship with Monster. Jim had designed and patented a head amp circuit (his first patent) in the early days of moving coil cartridges where their very low outputs presented serious problems to the input circuitry of phone stages. Monster exclusively marketed that head amp and we swapped / beta-tested products with them until the late 1980s when cartridge outputs got higher, preamp circuits improved and CDs ran away with the market. I have a couple of those head amps if anyone wants to try one in a low-output moving coil system.
|
snbeall - regarding cable theory - I am familiar with that Townshend paper and have kept up (as time and education allow) with cable development. Within the considerable snake oil in the cable corner of the market, I believe there is a lot of real, honest, verifiable truth. The stuff in the Townshend paper is consistent with my understanding of the arena.
As an anecdote, I collaborated briefly with John Dunlavy in the mid 1990s regarding cabinet design. I was amazed by John's grasp of and attention to wire considerations. John held multiple patents regarding antenna design, and thus paid close attention to electromagnetic and other propagation effects of signals through wires. His knowledge far surpassed my understanding, but his stack of patents and results in his speakers spoke volumes to me.
In general, I see parallel explorations between audio cable designers and high-level physics considerations, and much of the dismissal and ridicule coming from the engineering-oriented skeptics who want the designers to prove their points. As a manufacturing practitioner I know for certain that we plain can't afford the time, energy and approach of proving our improvements to anyone. We, as designer-manufacturers, have to do our innovating, get it to market and run as fast as we can to innovate again. Let the academic engineers fight it out, as long as our customers support our work.
|
tomthiel
Thank You for more Thiel Audio history lessons. Keep sharing!
Happy Listening! |
solobone22
Acoustic Zen (AZ) satori seems to be an Audiophile favorite. I have read about these Speaker cables across other Audio forums over the years.
Happy Listening! |
I'm really enjoying this long thread guys. Thanks for letting it meander a bit.
I just read about 'why' Vandersteen subs. Being a Vandersteen owner (I still love other speakers too and have owned more than a few, but rarely change my main speakers (average over 15 yrs of owning my main speakers since 1969 before moving on).
Vandy subs are special in the way they mate with the main amps. You don't ever lose the 'voice' of your main amps. If you are using an NAD integrated amp, your sub will morph into the NAD sound. If you are using the largest 70k amp, it will do the same thing. You don't lose that house sound that you paid so much money for. I never understood buying a sub and the amp doesn't match the main system. It may seem small, but as you move up in a system you certainly hear the difference.
The room correction is done in the analog domain too. I have yet to hear anything done in the digital domain that you don't hear. I've heard some exotic gear that uses DSP etc.. and It's never sounded as good to my ear than analog. I do miss the ease of using the digital for correction, but I still can hear it. Just my two cents and the Sub 3 is an affordable sub by most accounts. Their Sub 9 is the best sub I've ever heard and I've heard it in a couple of systems that weren't Vandersteen speakers.
IRT cables back in the day, I too owned the original Monster cables, but only AFTER I was using the Polk speaker cables. They were my first. I owned Polk 10's which were an amazing speaker back in the day and their speaker cable made a positive difference (Moscode and Roberson amps with a Conrad Johnson preamp and Rotel turntable with a top Grade cartridge as well as the top AT cart).
Bruce Brisson (started MIT) was the brains behind the original Monster stuff. It was as good as anything on the market in the beginning for many reasons (little competition). Noel Lee who owned it was like Mark Levinson. Both men are sales men. They knew what branding meant, before folks in audio even thought about branding per say (my ex is/was?? Mark's lawyer so I do have a spec of insight). Colangilo was the engineer behind Levinson as most know. I any case, when Bruce had his issues with Noel, he left to start MIT. That's when I met Bruce and started using his top cables at teh time (the MH 770 wire used for the Spectral gear, not the 750 wire used on the majority of his top cables. I also used the top 350 shotgun interconnects. He tuned the cables for my Quicksilver tube gear and it sounded better than the Kimber I was using. When he and Karen Sumner has their split and she started Transparent, I used both of them, but the MIT sounded better in my system. I think part of that was because my Quick preamp and monos were rewired with MIT's wire. When we (dealer and Bruce) did the rewire (brand new units) it made a HUGE difference. I never expected that type of difference. Then they tube rolled and upgraded the sockets to ceramic and then upgraded the caps to the Supercaps or whatever the top ones at the time was and it kept getting better adn better.
I know this is too long and im' sorry, but the point is that wire/cable changes teh sound, but not always for the best. It's why we see so much cable on the used market. I now only use AQ cables. I have had much of the uber expensive ones in and out of the system and the AQ cables constantly perform more neutral in my system than the others. If I wanted to tune my system, I'd just purchase different components. I want what I paid for. Again, just my opinion and it takes nothing away from others. (using AQ Niagara 3000 with Dragon power cord into the AQ Edison outlet on dedicated, separate earth ground, Hurricane power cords for everything else, including the subs on the Vandersteen Quatro's, balance Fire interconnect from analog out of The Memory Player server/streamer/dac (bespoke) to Vandersteen MH5-HPA amps, William Tell Silver true bi wire with the Zero and Bass cables).
I've been learning a bit on the Vandersteen forums (we have some Thiel lovers there too :) ) on peoples preferences for true time domain and phase correct speakers and how you need proper cables that are capable of delivering all that you paid for from your designer. Hope all are well. Pete |
Pete - it seems that Jim Thiel and Richard Vandersteen shared very similar approaches to their art. Jim's subwoofers also used the power amp output, and Jim's room correction was also done in the analog domain, for the reasons you stated.
I love what Richard did with his main amp bass rolloff to be re-boosted in the subwoofer - brilliant.
My wonderment includes that those two designers existed in such separate spaces: their products were never, that I know, compared; and their fans and users rarely overlapped. Interesting how markets and brand niches develop.
The cable thing is, in my opinion, a bigger deal with coherent speakers. I've spoken to the point previously, but to summarize I believe the ear-brain scrutinizes the music more critically when its coherence suggests real rather than reproduced music. When you get it all right, it's really right.
|
Got my father a pair of thiel bookshelf speakers the scs 2 I think |
The SCS was the coax version of the 6.5" two-way that began with the 02 in 1976, the SCS in 1984 and on through the 2, 3 and 4.
One of the driving forces for the original SCS was our interplay with Toyota who built their Camry / Avalon plant up the road in Georgetown KY, beginning in the mid 1980s. Toyota's manufacturing model includes sourcing everything within a 50 mile radius of the assembly plant, which they modified to 100 miles for the larger distances in the USA. We waded into developing a luxury speaker system for the Lexus, and a coax was critical to that system since listeners are at various and changing distances and angles.
The project was intriguing, and Thiel eventually dropped out. The biggest contention was that they wanted Mark Levinson amplification, and Jim was unable to get ML to incorporate shaping circuitry into the amp designs. Japanese development engineering is extremely bureaucratic, authoritarian and invasive to internal company information, all of which didn't mesh with Jim's personal style.
But, that first SCS coax came from that interaction which was further developed over the years for all the power-driver products.
I hope your dad enjoys them.
|
tomthiel
Thank You for the history of SCS coax moving forward. Very cool story involving Toyota/Lexus.
Happy Listening! |
ctsooner
Good to see you as always. Thank You for addressing Vandy subwoofer(s) and their application in audio systems. I enjoyed reading about M.I.T. and Transparent cabling as well. I hope you are ready for Spring.
Happy Listening! |
|
Retirement means every day is Friday. Yeehaa |
I put the grill clothes back on my CS6’s. It was fun for a day to listen to bare speakers. They sound different with the grill cloths off but more natural with them on. Also, I have been tweaking my speaker position lately as well and I think I have found the ideal arrangement for me. Using the center of the tweeter as the reference point, the speakers are 102" apart, 50" from the side walls and 80" from the front wall (ie. behind the speakers) to the front plane of the tweeters. I find a tiny bit of toe in sharpens the focus of the imaging. I have 1/2" toe in. My listening position is 122" perpindicular to the front plane of the tweeters. That means from my ears to each speaker is a bit more than that distance. This gives me a deep and wide holographic soundstage. I can almost reach out and touch the performers, (but of course I wouldn’t do that). |
tonywinga
Thank You for the follow up to the generalized query about Grill off/on.
I can only speak to the effect for models CS 2.4/2.4 SE, CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 loudspeakers. During my demo sessions, I detected no discernible difference(s). Based upon your speaker positions, I would safely say that you are dialed-in. Enjoy that larger-than-life soundstage.
Happy Listening! |
The 3.7 grill is a flat piece of perforated steel, covered in fabric, and attached to the front of the speaker with magnets. I've never thought about this before but the grills on my ATCs are also perforated steel with fabric covers. I've listened to both with grills on and off and didn't hear a meaningful difference in either. Maybe a very slight difference but nothing better or worse. |
jon_5912
Agreed. It is a cool invention (grill) that adds a touch of elegance to these loudspeakers.
Happy Listening! |
Tom, I follow this thread religiously even if I don't contribute much, so I see YOU her several times a week, but thanks for the feedback in answer to my question. Back in the '70's cables were just beginning to distinguish themselves and at the time I felt the M1000's were at least in the upper ranks. But I do use Audioquests from the turntable to headamp. |
harrylavo
Good to see you again.
Happy Listening! |
@tomthiel
Can you clarify your project with the old 02s for me?
Are you experimenting with upgrades so as to advise other people in how to DIY upgrade their own pair?
Or will you be offering a service to upgrade a pair of 02s if sent to you?
Or will be you selling upgraded versions of 02s?
Thanks.
|
Prof - it's hard to say. These various projects have taken on beta-partners, people who systematically build out the designs while carefully noting their listening experience as it goes. Eventually there may be all of what you list above, from advice to plans to kits to in-house upgrades to new Renaissance products. I know it's been a long time, but the project is still in early stages for reasons too quirky to itemize.
It is quite a trip, though.
|
Ok thanks for the update Tom!
|
JFANT ctsooner Good to see you as always. Thank You for addressing Vandy subwoofer(s) and their application in audio systems. I enjoyed reading about M.I.T. and Transparent cabling as well. I hope you are ready for Spring. Happy Listening! First off, grills and designers are a funny thing. Most want you to take them off and others say don't. I was always told by my dealer who sold and owns the last of Jim's designs (the larger ones), to never take the grills off and he designed and voiced them with grills. Vandersteen's also use grills that shouldn't be removed. I've never once taken the grills off my TReo's (sold) or Quatro's. They have special heavy felt that are there for the upper drivers. It makes a large difference as a dealer proved when I was auditioning them. As for the MIT vs Transparent deal, feel free to DM me and I'll share my phone. I knew the owners and designers of both back when the split happened. It was so ugly. My dealer was the only one left who sold both lines. After he sold and got out around 2001 or so, they forced folks to make a decision one way or the other. Transparent has done a much much better job of moving forward than MIT has IMHO. That said, I'll take the AQ's that Garth Powell has designed over any of the exotics etc... |
ctsooner
Thank You for the follow up and perspective on M.I.T. vs Transparent cable systems.
Happy Listening! |
I plan on exploring XO modifications on my 3.7s. If anyone has direct experience in a similar endeavor with this model, please let me know.PM is fine. Thanks in advance for any and all input.
|
tmsrdg
Good to see you again. Stay tuned for XO upgrades via Tom and Rob soon.
Happy Listening! |
tmdrdg
what gear including cabling is in your current system?
Happy Listening! |
hi i have an peculiar problem with my thiel cs 2.2 current system is
coda csx power amparc ls 26 preamparc ls22 preamplumin t1ridge street audio speaker cabletransparent audio icsi am not able to get sweet spot and good highs . sound is muffled. and also changed amp to mcintosh ma 7900 treble is little bit improved but not mellow. inputs needed where the system is mismatched. any upgrades to speakers to be done on cross overs or something. inputs needed.
regards
|
mallikh67
Welcome! good to see you here. Make sure that all cables are connected to your gear. Tight connections on the speakers as well. Once this is accomplished continue to listen for improved sound.
There are a few CS 2.2 owners here on the Panel. Stay tuned until they chime in to address your query.
Happy Listening! |
mallikh67 - Have you worked through standard troubleshooting practice? Does the bad sound persist with another speaker, or headphones? If only your 2.2s are at fault, is it in both speakers? Try to narrow the problem down to an individual problem and then we can help you mitigate it.
|
tomthiel
Thank You for chiming in to address mallikh67 's query.
Happy Listening! |
@mallikh67 Can you tell us more about your setup? How are the speakers positioned? What is the distance from walls, are they on the floor, are they toed in, how big is the room, do you have hardwood floors, etc, etc
I've never heard the 2 2 however I have speakers cut from a similar cloth the 3.6. |
2.2 and 3.6 have same tweeter.
|
tomthiel
Thank You for the 2nd follow up.
Happy Listening! |
|
A thought. It is asked whether phase/time really matters or if designers so inclined just pay close attention to everything, therefore producing successful products. This week's experiments might shed a little light.
You know Marena. We’ve been working together again in the times of waning Covid fears. She has great ears, a well developed musical sense, and is a performing singer-songwriter. We’re comparing Douglas Pauly’s turbulence control technologies which I call "laminar launch". We’re using the 02 because it’s easy, available and feasible to ship around the country for serial evaluation and input. I became irritated with the one cycle lead of the tweeter - distracting from the deep engagement needed to compare laminar launch variations. So I made 4 sample 02s. R: stock = Reference, which Doug has been using in California. A, B, and C, leap-frog upgrades till now all the same with Thiel CS.5 drivers and 02 XOs implemented with ERSE coils and their best caps plus Mills resistors on separate W and T boards, plus my new super-wire, and nicely braced cabinets with F11 felt on the baffles. Substantial performance improvement over stock. A, B and C all measure and sound very close to identical.
Enter the dark horse. I moved the woofer on A forward until the onset transient is time aligned. Still second order slopes, but all positive polarity and time-aligned, like an SCS / PowerPoint series. A's frequency response and harmonic distortion are undifferentiable from B and C. However, the impulse and step response now show time alignment. Excess phase and group delay are marginally improved. Of note is the waterfall plots behave better, which surprises me. The listening experience is qualitatively different. Subjectively, A now seems less forward, especially the high frequancy edge is gone. Gone. The differences read like many Thiel fans cite as their reasons for liking Thiel’s sound.
Marena and I have practically written each others' comments regarding the improvements.
But now I have a treat to add from this morning. My home is a small village of 1000. I have known Lincoln Fedicovich since he was born, as a rambunctious child and now a hard-working young man of 20, who is helping me move my shop/studio on short notice - another story. When he came for work this morning I asked if he would help me listen. His reply was "sure, but I’m not very musical". My test cut was Sarah Jaroz "Peace" from her "Follow Me Down" album. As is our custom, Lincoln listens blind, in his case very blind with no musical or hi-fi experience, knowing only speaker A and B, each fed a mono-mixed signal through the Classe DR6 to bridged dedicated AHB-2s for each channel. A & B are 4’ apart with listening line 6’ out. Play A, Play B, chat: Lincoln is my ideal "naive listener", interested but quite unexposed or opinionated. He said: "A was more crisp, clearer in every way. B was more like a speaker. Then I told him they were identical speakers except that A’s woofer was on a stand-off to make the music from both drivers arrive at the same time. I added that many experts think that doesn’t matter. We repeated A & B after which he said: "B still seems like a speaker. A is more like the music is here, happening in front of me. Can we listen in stereo?" We did after which he added: A is overwhelming better if every way, like it’s real".
Then he added. "I always wanted to learn guitar. My grandma played lots of music for me growing up. Everything: Classical, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, country folk, Johnny Cash, Nelson - lots of stuff. I haven't thought of that in years. This is good stuff."
He agreed to help listen whenever I want. Now, how’s that for Saturday morning before getting to work on moving!
|
Do any of you have any experience with SST Ampzilla 2000 monoblock amps (series 2) with Thiel speakers? I bought a pair kind of on a whim to try, but I'm curious if anyone else has experience with them.
|
I've made a point to have "Lincoln"-like friends to evaluate changes in my own system over the decades. Changes I (and other audiophile friends) may be too caught up in the minutiae to make an unbiased evaluation. I think half the reason the Lincolns are so useful is they're excited to hear 'real' hifi reproducing music that they can better focus and more enthusiastically assess, free from what they 'should' be hearing.
What does your experiment say to the common knowledge (?) that time/phase coherence can only be achieved using first order XOs when processing in the analog domain?? |
At TA I always cultivated “Lincolns” and their contribution was invaluable.
others here might supply more technical explanation of XO slopes; Here’s my layman’s take, IF a system creates a proper step response, it is phase/time coherent. Jim’s second order XOs in the 02/SCS series do create such steps, because he kept polarity positive and he used beaming of the largish woofer to good effect. It works whereas most 2nd order executions don’t. Nevertheless, there are more reactance and wider phase and impedance swings in the second order. First order is more ideal BUT 1st order requires much more sophisticated drivers. I am presently comparing 1st vs 2nd in the O2, which is of great interest to me. I’ll report findings. Marena and Lincoln will keep me honest. |
