Thiel Owners

who hears remembers Julian Hersch,  aka Mr. "if it measures the same it sounds the same" from the 70's?

Beetle - that distinction may be the watershed between hi fi and high end. Hi fi, dominated by academic engineers, mathemeticians and physicists definitely listened with their fore-brains and negated the existence that couldn't at least be verified by double-blind ABX tests. High end, on the other hand, broke through myriad barriers because they/ we believed what we heard. When the cats payed attention, we really took something seriously . . . the cats didn't even read the specs.

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 narrativeeyond question, but have never developed any definitive causal narrative

Yes, thanks for sharing this perspective, Tom. I completely agree. I’ve experienced break-in not just from speakers but from electronics and, even, cables. Just because we can’t explain or measure it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. 

Wow. I’m so relieved to hear that things I don’t fully/technically understand I am able to HEAR. I fell in love with Thiel not because of what the specs are but the way these speakers SOUND. 

I almost feel proud. 

One advantage a manufacturer has is the ability to compare samples with 0 to hundreds of burn-in hours. Speakers, cables, caps. Very interesting what one hears with an open mind.

Happy Friday- All.

From the Thiel 2.7 Owner’s Information:

"The CS2.7s, like most speakers, require a period of playing before they perform optimally. The time required depends on how loudly the speakers are played; more time is required if played softly, less if played loudly. At least 200 hours at moderately loud levels are required before the speaker is performingnear optimum. You should notice even more improvement after 300-400 hours of playing."

Prof - at Thiel we all began as skeptics. Through thousands of experiments over dozens of years, we gradually adopted the Modus Operandi of believing what we hear, rather than what we understand. There are countless ways to lack cognition of experience. Trust your ears.

music lovers may want to read this article on how to protect our valuable hearing.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/07/26/how-to-treat-tinnitus.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20180726Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM223863&et_rid=375695806

Tom, thanks.  Some form of mechanical break in sounds plausible to me for speakers.

makes sense.  thanks

ronkent

Another  reason for a manufacturer to burn in electronic devices is to ensure they continue to work to specifications under the advertised voltages and loads. If solid state components are to fail, they'll do it very early on.  It's for the sake of the warranty. 

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!