Thiel Owners

thank you TT,  your continued input is so appreciated. 

here is a great video on burn in from Paul McGowan. 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJFnlDTtsBA

Ron and Prof, Ron's 3.7s are new old stock as I interpret the particulars. Rob has various cabinets and parts and I believe he assembled that pair from such service parts. So, all the parts would be unused.

Break-in is something that many engineering-oriented observers dismiss as voodoo or make-believe or user acclimation. From the very beginning, we perceived its reality beyond question, but have never developed any definitive causal narrative. Jim's official answer was "I have no idea why." Of course he had ideas, but didn't want to enter the controversy. Among the causes are physical elastomeric settling of driver suspensions: surrounds and spiders. The cabinet itself settles in via the extended vibrational patterns. All the passive parts have their micro-structures altered by electricity, magnetism and vibration. A huge deal is solder joints . . . heat distresses the molecular structure of the long-crystal copper, which the "heals" with use. I experimented with crimped (cold-welded) joints, to audible improvement, which isn't practical in crossovers.

Although subject to derision in some circles, I will be comparing cryogenically treatment to non. Prior experience with guitar strings and knowledge of what is happening biases me toward expecting improvement there. The ear-brain is capable of immense discernment. Our job is to find synergy among the myriad variables to produce cost-effective outcomes. 

Tom Thiel:

  I like what Vandersteen has done with a powered subwoofer in the enclosure. I suspect that Jim may have gravitated in that direction, having spent considerable effort developing the SmartSub.

PS Audio is working on some new speakers that may be quite fantastic and they are using a powered sub built in as well.  Unlike Prof.,  I have not heard in great detail all the speakers he has.  A local dealer carries Magico but have not spent enough time listening to them (I do not want to waste his time since they are not in the budget right now),  and there is a Joseph Audio dealer also nearby. Those two brands along with the PS speakers would be on my short list to audition,  but for the next 3-5 years or so,  the 3.7's will be staying here (yes I know,   famous last words)

Prof:

Your 3.7s had to be used, weren’t they? Hence if break in occurred, I presume it would already have happened long ago. It’s my suspicion that it was acclimation on your part, vs the speaker.

I would have thought so too but i found out from Rob that he had replaced a number of the drivers and that may explain it.   plus they were demos that had been taken to shows but not used a lot. the first night i put them in, i played a Sting cd that i had played earlier that day. it was terrible,  and i thought, i have really screwed up.  but i let them play as much as possible when i was not around,  and they did get better.  A friend who had bought a used pair about three years earlier that had not been played much,  made the same comment about the need for more time.

For instance, during only the period of last week I went through a "Wow are these speakers are incredible, I’m totally happy with them" to "why am I finding nothing impressive on these tonight?" to "I really think I need a more lively speaker" back to "wow these are INCREDIBLE."

Boy do i know what you mean.  sometimes the music is so compelling and other times,  it is just so so. glad it is not just me that has those issues.  

I’ve acclimated to the different 2.7 sound now and in a way they now sound "different" to me (I don’t notice, or pay attention, to things I used to in how they differed from the 3.7s). 

I have sold my 2's so no more comparisons,  but on discs that i am very familiar with,  i do think the 3's are sounding better for my taste.  But as i said earlier, i could live with either and i do like the looks and the size of the 2's better.

I believe that if home theater and other spectacular bass recordings (ie: 1812 Overture Canons) had not been on the rise, Thiel may have stuck with sealed enclosure bass. The CS5 was developed as a guidepost to the future; its tweeter went into the 2 2 and the 3.6 and its Kevlar drivers were precursors to the stiff aluminum diaphragms to follow. CS5 bass approached 20 Hz with 3: 10" woofers (two deep and one upper bass.) They didn't bottom on full symphonic crescendo or heavy rock. But they bottomed on some "modern" mixes. Jim wanted deep bass as the foundation of the music, so he settled on the passive radiator due in large part to its ruggedness. Without a voice coil to bottom, bend and burn out, and with proper tuning, the passive radiator can do a pretty good job.

I like what Vandersteen has done with a powered subwoofer in the enclosure. I suspect that Jim may have gravitated in that direction, having spent considerable effort developing the SmartSub.

Nice! thielrules
not too many of you guys using a SET amp out there.
Happy Listening!

Thanks brayeagle, sounds like you more or less confirm my suspicion. Have others noticed more significant differences after an "upgrade". Remember, I don't play music any louder than 70 DB and very happily employ a 4 watt set amp.

ronkent
Many Thanks! for sharing your impression and thoughts owning both CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 models. I trust others can benefit from your and prof's experienced ears.
Happy Listening!

One cannot own too many loudspeakers - prof.
Happy Listening!

Much Thanks! brayeaglefor sharing your thoughts and impressions here for a fellow CD lover.Sacd(s) too.  Happy Listening!

Good to see you- thielrules
Happy Listening!

brayeagle,
Same here.   That's why I own more than one speaker.  (Too many, probably, and I'm looking to add another, but can't help myself...)

prof, 
When I get into that mood with the 2.7s,  I Cheat!!
Yeah, I cheat and pull out my STAX Lambda Pro Headphones for a while.  Entirely different listening experience.

I remember only slight differences between the 2.7 and the 3.5, Sensitivity of the 3.5 was 88 db, the 2.7 is 87db; however, the 3.5 was a infinite baffle speaker with (to me) a slightly lower bass. The 2.7 is a bass reflex design.  Not being able to do any direct listening comparisons, I'd surmise I selected the 2.7 as it sounded similar to the 3.5 with my CDs.  I didn't have to change my amplifier or preamp. Of course, the driver placements in  the 3.5 were different from the ones in the 2.7, having separately-mounted treble, mid range and bass, and of different material than the 2.7 

brayeagle,
I play practically every type of music on my system, jazz, rock, fusion, electronica, soundtracks, classical, country, folk, world music, choral, you name it.

Sometimes I ride the volume for the comfort of my ears (I do have to watch classical music which can go from 0-100 in an instant).

There are some tracks of music that, try and fiddle as I might with the 2.7s, never attain the hair-raising experience those tracks had on the 3.7s. But those are ever fewer as time goes on.

ronkent,

Your 3.7s had to be used, weren’t they? Hence if break in occurred, I presume it would already have happened long ago. It’s my suspicion that it was acclimation on your part, vs the speaker.


I’ve acclimated to the different 2.7 sound now and in a way they now sound "different" to me (I don’t notice, or pay attention, to things I used to in how they differed from the 3.7s).


And I can find my 2.7s (or 3.7s) sound quite different over periods of time, and even from day to day, depending on my mood, hearing at the time, how I’m listening, what I’m playing, what me expectations for that listening session are, etc. For instance, during only the period of last week I went through a "Wow are these speakers are incredible, I’m totally happy with them" to "why am I finding nothing impressive on these tonight?" to "I really think I need a more lively speaker" back to "wow these are INCREDIBLE."

(And some of this has to do with the fact I’m juggling other new speaker purchases in the back of my mind. But it is amazing how my response to my system can vary, and if I was always presuming an external cause I may be attributing it to "break in" or "AC issues" or any other in the standard audiophile list).

Brayeagle, since you came from the 3.5 how would you describe the differences with the 3.7 and 2.7. I'm telling myself that with my low max volume of 70 DB, it would be hard to improve on the 3.5 but I have never put it to the test.

I would like to add that both speakers,  for whatever reasons,  need lots of break in time (400 Hours).   When i compared my well played 2.7's with the new  (and hardly used 3.7's I got from Rob) in the first month or so, the 2's killed it.   it took over 3 months for the 3's to catch up and now i think they have surpassed the 2's for my tastes.  but as i said earlier,  both are fantastic and nobody loses with either one.

I'm just wondering in the differences we hear between the 3.7 and the 2.7 is based on the type of music we tend to play. Also there's a difference in  sensitivity between the two: 3.7 at 90 db;  2.7 at 87db. 
I auditioned the 3.7 and the 2.7 with my own CDs that I had played on my 3.5 pair.  I'm a classical music nut, so I took a selection of symphonies. operas, chorales, requiems, organ pieces and chamber music.  IMO, the dynamic range of a properly-recorded symphony (Beethoven, Mahler) might go from barely audible to"full blast;" however, to capture the barely audible on a properly-recorded RedBook CD means the recording isn't jammed and compressed into the maximum loudness levels sometime used by some of the modern jazz and rock bands. Ergo, with a decent RedBook CD, you shouldn't need  to twiddle the preamp volume control once set for the soft sounds.  That might make a difference in the relative loudness one appreciates between the 3.7 and 2.7        Just a unscientific thought by someone committed to RedBook CDs    YMMV

Thanks, Tom and brayeagle.  I've been on the lookout for a "tradeup" for the Classe ca-300 that I use with my 3.7s, and it would be nice to know what the pros where using for voicing. I remember a conversation with Rob a year or so ago who said that Jim Thiel used the Krell FBP 600 for voicing (apparently among some others). The Classe 300 is very nice, but I want to squeeze every last bit out of these fabulous speakers potential.

hi Prof,   thanks for the comment.  i thought the analogy worked, and as i have gotten older,  i am trading sporty handling and ride for comfort and sitting a bit higher.  my measurements are 88" from the ear to the tweeter,  and 102" between the two tweeters versus yours of 84" and 99",  so very close.  i too like the "immersive sound i get that way.   some think i sit to close but it works for me.  speakers are barely toed in and I sit with my ears about 4-6" below tweeters. 

and of course i have to put a plug in for the PS Audio BHK amps as well.  They were not around when Jim could have heard them,  but they are a fantastic amp for the money.  Plus they are still in business and have the best customer service in the industry

Second,Bryston amps, as well as, Anthem, Classe' ,  are all sonic matches w/ Thiel loudspeakers.  Happy Listening!

ronkent,

Nice analogy. I agree the 3.7s do majesty. I always felt they never had me wanting for a larger speaker/bigger sound because they sounded so big!

I’ve been happily surprised at how large the 2.7s can sound as well. Never as large as the 3.7s, but I’ve now got them sounding quite reminiscent of the experience the 3.7s gave me. Rock music, symphony, jazz/fusion, when mic’d closely enough, really sound BIG and chunky in terms of imaging, and very big in terms of soundstaging. In fact in my long speaker audition thread, I’ve mentioned numerous times how coming back from a speaker audition to fire up the 2.7s usually makes the point of how huge their soundstage is relative to many other speakers.

Currently I have my 2.7s set up with 8’ 3" between them (from cabinet to cabinet), and just under 7 feet from my listening position. So that’s an immersive listening angle. What type of listening angle did you use, and do you use with the 3.7s?

tms,
 I had two conversations with Jim Thiel while I was using the 3.5s. He steered me to the Bryston amplifiers. So far, I've had a 4B in its variations, and am now using a 4Bsst2 for the 2.7s. With a 20 year warranty, I don't have to worry if something goes kaput with the amp. 

tms, I'm sorry I don't know the model numbers. One was a big Krell, another a pair of big Levinson monoblocs, and a Bryston. I was there on a visit and not really in the loop. Rob Gillum knows, but he is swamped with Coherent Source Service. I'll try to find out.

Tom,
You wrote " I was at the Thiel factory when the final 2.7 arrived for confirmation, and we heard it compared repeatedly to the 3.7 with a couple different amps in the room that I knew extremely well ..."
What were those amps?

For me, the SS2.2 is ideal, as you're not yanked up in your seat when the sub cuts in. Just the impression of the 2.7s low frequency being extended.   None of that  "Hey, there, I"m a SUB" 

wow. very nice.   i use a REL SHO 5 sub and it works great,  but i do have to wonder if a Thiel sub would not match better.

I added a SS2.2 sub and positioned it between the 2.7s (PX05 crossover).  Nice

As someone who has owned the 2 series since 1985, lived with the 2.7's for over 3 years, and now the 3.7's for a few months,   i would like to weigh in on the comparison of the two.   Boy there are no losers here as both are great and i for one, could happily live with either.  Even before i read Tom's post above about the 2's being more responsive,  i had come up with what i thought might be an apt metaphor.   Comparing the two speakers is like comparing a 3 series BMW to a 5 series.  Both are awesome but in different ways as the 3 is a bit more sporty and responsive and the five is more comfortable and luxurious.  That is how i hear the speakers.  My musical tastes are divided between classical (50%) and rock/pop/jazz at 50%.  However I find big symphonic music to be my most favorite thing and that requires moving more air and having a bigger sound.   I think it is more difficult to produce a symphony in full swing versus say a Lyle Lovett or Mark Knopfler.  So for me,  and based on that criteria, as much as i liked the bit more nuance that i got from the 2.7's,  i find the power and the majesty (remember that album) of the 3.7's to be more to my liking. If your musical tastes are towards smaller ensembles or more nuanced music,  the 2.7's may be the better speaker.  As i said earlier,  no losers here.

Thank You- tomthielfor your continued participation and contributions here. Awhile back one of the owners proposed that we list our serial numbers from our loudspeakers to gain a better idea on figures. This is open for all models from CS 3.7 to Vintage status.
Happy Listening!

Thank You - frozentundrafor the kind words and contributions here.  Happy Listening!

Gents:

This is a great forum:. "Thiel Owners"
The best and most honest/fact based of this Audiogon site, in my opinion

Not a lot of BS, and if miss-stated, there is always a nice respectful return

keep up good work

Jeff

Prof and Eagle, I really appreciate your thoughts; you have far more experience with the products than I do (one listening session in 2012I) I would need to get intimate the products before forming a hypothesis. I will say that the Model 2 has always been more responsive and delicate due to coupling with less air. The 3 fills larger spaces and gives up some finesse to do it. The crosspoints seem to be higher on the 2.7 (no published specs that I can find.)

Jay, I don't know the sales figures, but they were small. The high-end had gone $tratospheric and the dealer network had fragmented and things were falling apart, necessitating the sale of the company . . . and the rest is history.  Even in its healthy-hayday, Thiel made only a few thousand pairs of any model before upgrade-replacement.

Good to see you - brayeagle.
Happy Listening!

Tom and Prof

I was able to listen to both the 3.7s and 2.7s at my dealer for several hours over a couple of days.. (I could afford either pair)
Maybe it's just me, but after continuous listening sessions, I decided The 2.7s would "wear" better for extend listening in my living room, as I fire up my system for two or three hours almost every evening for serious listening to classical music.  
I believe there might be a difference between short term versus  long term attentive listening to content, rather than listening for flaws in reproduction.

Great stuff Tom, thanks!

I’ve been saying since I got my 2.7s a year ago that the 3.7s sounded a little bit more revealing. (And spacious, and a bit more even).

One thing that really surprised me about the 2.7s is the dynamics. I’m using Conrad Johnson Premier 12 amps, 140W/side of tubes. The 2.7s are lower sensitivity than the 3.7s and I wondered if I’d notice a slight reduction in impact/dynamics or whatever.

But to my surprise, to my ears and with my amps, the 2.7s sounded more dynamically alive than the 3.7s (which were already excellent!).I thought at first maybe it was due to a little mid bass hump somewhere giving that extra sense of "oomph." But it was really top to bottom, in both micro and macro dynamics, where even a trumpet sounded like it was being played with a bit more life-like energy and micro-dynamic life between all the notes.(And also I have the sense of more density to the sound, and sonic images, on the 2.7s, whereas they are bigger and more spacious on the 3.7s).

I have no idea what accounts for this, but it’s been my consistent impression in owning both the 2.7 and the 3.7.

Additionally, I feel very fortunate to have had the generous opportunity to demo models 2.4, 2.4SE and 2.7 for the sake of comparison, critical listening. This shines a positive light on the great Thiel Audio dealers/retailers network prior to the conglomerate that took over soon after Mr. Jim Thiel's passing. Those business owners had such a professional disposition representing the brand.

Happy Listening!

A very fine pair of products- tomthiel.Much Thanks! prof for the follow up and Phil's quote as above.  All points taken from you guys on descriptors are on-target to be sure. The CS 2.7 is sweet, certainly nowhere near dark, and represents Model 2 heritage respectfully. Whomever had a hand in the concept models CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 should feel a strong sense of pride. It would be of interest to learn the number of pairs sold on each model.  Both loudspeakers are loved by true music lovers.
Happy Listening!

Prof, I had seen that quote from Phil here before. The story from Thiel doesn't really match all that well. Regarding the 2dB/decade, I don't really see that in my perusal of comparative test results. I wish that Stereophile had reviewed the 2.7 so that we might compare John Atkinson's rigorous measurements between the two speakers. In the absence of that direct comparison, I am postulating reasons to explain what I have heard. Please note that I have not done any serious forensic engineering on these two models, since I am addressing older models first.

As I have mentioned, I was at the Thiel factory when the final 2.7 arrived for confirmation, and we heard it compared repeatedly to the 3.7 with a couple different amps in the room that I knew extremely well, having built it in the late 80s. My opinion is that the two speakers share all their textbook and test stuff, but the 3.7 is a higher resolution device due to many particulars. That higher resolution comes at a price of revealing everything: all that stuff of amp and cable and RF and room mode interaction and on and on as audiophiles are wont to do.

Among the reasons the 2.7 might be easier to take is that it has a high count of large electrolytic caps in its signal path. That statement might sound backwards, but please hear me out. E caps serve to extend the time signature, a distortion that provides a more forgiving presentation. Similarly, the 2.7 baffle is made of MDFiberboard, which is softer and absorbs a little of the leading-edge transient. Also, the more "normal" 8" woofer of the 2.7 will flex a little more, providing a slight sonic cushion.

Here comes another controversial statement, one that I have noticed consistently over many aspects of music-making and playback over nearly 5 decades. We humans are more comfortable with the known. We use our history as our benchmark. Those tendencies translate into comfort with distortion, as long as it is low order and musically plausible. Note that most of the record-making craft centers on the introduction of various distortion components. Note also that most of those liberties are in the interest of second-guessing the particulars of the imagined playback milieu. I think the 2.7 comes closer to those assumptions of normalcy and is therefore what Natasha called "friendlier".

I can tell you that in the Thiel music room, the 3.7 provided goosebumps and giggles and OMGs. The 2.7 provoked smiles of admiration and relief regarding a long, hard haul to create a respectable product worthy of the Model 2 heritage of translating Model 3 breakthroughs into a more affordable package. The 2.7 is gentler. The 3.7 is more vivid. But I would not attribute the differences to tonal balance, or at least not primarily so; the two speakers are pretty similar in frequency response and polarity patterns. The 3.7 comes closer to Jim's goal of authentic translation of the input signal. What a fine pair of products, no?

That’s really interesting insight, Tom.

As to possibly different design decisions made by that newer 2.7 team,  I’ve posted earlier in this thread, Philip Bamberg who worked on the 2.7 design had posted in another forum:

Philip Bamberg: I can vouch for both the CS3.7 and 2.7 speakers having a 2dB/decade downsloping response from 200 to 2kHz, transitioning back to level in the treble. This is a tonal balance curve similar to many high-end speaker brands. However such a speaker still does not sound dark (there are other more technically involved reasons for this).

My 2.7s indeed don’t sound "dark" (though a tad darker than the 3.7s) but they certainly are sweet and easy on the ears. I wonder if that downsloping response was something engineers like Bamberg brought to the table, vs what Jim would have done?

Jeff, the point is that such a system (CSnext) required far more horsepower than available from an individual who may have played some minor role.

Creating a design team after Jim's departure was a huge undertaking. The 2.7, 1.7 and MCS (#next) were developed at costs so great that the new owners abandoned that path.

No trouble- Jeff
Happy Listening!

Tom T;
Many apologies for the “ fake news”

i always thoijght if it was posted on the internet; It ws a fact!!!!

lol

i guess the point was:
2 different people or consultants designed the crossover
Could that ( different designers) be a variable

keep up the good work

jeff

Good to see you -tomthielThank You for the additional information and clarification on this matter.
Happy Listening!

For the record regarding product development. Jim was a sole developer with support from Gary, Rob, Kathy, etc. The 3.7 was his last product. The 2.7 was a spin-off, as the 2 series had always been. It took $6 figures to develop that product with outside engineering resources, primarily a Canadian consulting design engineering firm working with the Canadian National Research Institute. I understand that Phil was one of the designer-candidates scouted for possible contribution.

hi Frozen,  thanks for caring.  i have not had a  hearing test in about 10 years,  but the last time i was shown the results and it was good.  I have some minor issue that when the volume gets too high my right ear buzzes a bit.  it happens more in live concerts than at home since i can turn it down.  i guess too many  nights in the clubs back in the 70's took a tool.plus playing drums along with Deep Purple on my stereo way back.   i am lucky i can hear at all but my hearing is good.

Good to see you - JeffThank You for the XO information related to the CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 models.It is interesting that different designers were on board for each loudspeaker.
Happy Listening!

Much Thanks! for sharing the information on Goertz cabling.
Happy Listening!