Thiel Owners

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!

Good to see you - tomthiel.
Happy Listening!

Ron;

One of your posts mentioned your hearing issues
If played to loud "my ears buzz like a tweeter"

We hear the same way & especially with compressed 80's rock albums.
My hearing starts howling...lol

I feel your pain....... Have you had a hearing test, lately?
I have my hearing accentuate at the crossover frequency 

Does the loudness/Tweeter happen on well recorded stuff, too?

Do any of the filter setting on the PS Dac , help attenuate it?

Jeff

Ps: I hear the crossovers in the 3.7 were by Jim
       The 2.7 was done by Phil Bamburg of the speaker builder in Indiana
        Any correlation ?

Regarding CS3.7 iterations. I remember someone here getting 3.7 revision 2 crossovers from Rob. Can you tell us anything about the qualities of the revision? Thanks for any input you can offer.

more comments from my friend trying the Goertz.

Do you know when you hear a match up that is just right? That is what the Goertz / Thiel combo is. I am really surprised they such a good match. You need to try them. They need about 20 hours to really show their stuff. .

 

I thought the 2.4's were fantastic.  enjoy

Thanks jafant,

i’m picking up a set of 2.4s this weekend!

cant wait but then I gotta clear out the listening room, get my old cables out, move the pitiful advents i’ve been listening to, dust off the Proceed CDP.

My amp right now is an adcom 545 i got cheaply. I’m looking for a reasonably priced Classe .

ill keep you informed!

dave

Happy Friday! ALL.

hi Tom,  my  understanding of this is bare bones at best.   i did replace a few coaxes and do not remember seeing any with a resistor on the positive terminal.   could that be a reason for my proclivity to blow drivers?  When i sold my 2.7's i sent the extra coax that i had for it and it did have the resistor as it was my back up driver.  

Excuse me, that's 2.6 ohms.
TT

Ron, I don't have enough history to comment on your situation. I am far away and out of touch and coalescing probabilities from sketchy evidence. The detailed lab records are MIA and most of what we know is in Rob's memory. I am gradually back-engineering XOs and timelines from photos, previous suppliers input and whatever Rob sends me. Rob says that Thiel built all 2.7s in Lexington under his supervision, so he knows far more than I do.

The schematic that I created from an engineering layout shows the tweeter with a parallel pair (20+3) netting 1.3 ohms in the tweeter series feed. It is possible that value was adjusted over time. Rob would know his rationale and I do not.

thanks Tom,  that is interesting if i understand correctly about the resistors.  when i sent back the last damaged coax to Rob,  he sent the replacement back with a resistor on the positive terminal.   to the best of my recollection,  none of the others had that resistor.  could the lack of that resistor make the drivers more prone to damage?

Ron, I see from the XO schematics that the higher input sensitivity of the 3.7 is due solely to its more efficient woofer. The 2.7 coax has resistors to pad it down to a less efficient 8" woofer with the same coax. No satisfying answers yet.

I'll try to find out something from Rob about the 2.7 vs 3.7 failures. Same driver.

Thieliste, good investigation. In the day Thiel, especially the CS5, was very successful in Japan. Luxman amps were the clear choice in ultra high-end systems. They are seriously good. The amp you reference is still doubling into 1 ohm, and their engineering choices are musical (most Japanese amps are not, in my opinion.)

Tom, that's more helpful info, thanks!
Now to go crank my tunes!....

thank you again TT.   your input here is so appreciated as is the research you are doing.  it is a puzzle to me why i have had bad luck with the coaxes in the 2.7's, and maybe it was a bad batch.   i use Analysis Plus speaker cables and they are only 8' runs.   the first driver that blew was used with a Marantz reference amp,  so no slouch,  but the second and third were with the PS amp,  so i doubt i drove it into clipping.   i have issues in the right ear and it will buzz like a tweeter when the  music is played too loud.  sort of my canary in the coal mine  thing.  maybe it is a thing of the past now that i have 3.7's which i think are less demanding on the amp due to the higher input sensitivity. i have had to  dial back the preamp from an average listening level of 39 to about 33 (PS BHK preamp).

Ron, your listening levels and amplification are very appropriate / safe. So something else is going on, perhaps bad drivers, but sometimes cables can induce amp misbehavior that adds stealth distortion. I can't troubleshoot, but I will try to find out the service history of those drivers.

Prof, that cliché is true. Tube amps clip softly, without much hash, and therefore are far more gentle on speakers when driven hard than most solid state designs.

As an aside, I have played hundreds of Thiel speakers for thousands of hours, often in very demanding and loud situations, and have never blown a driver . . . I have also seen hundreds of "blown" Thiel drivers and in the vast majority of cases the voice coils are burned, which is (practically speaking) only caused by distortion (the driver will produce ear-piercing volume without damage given a clean signal.) Those burned coils are user-damage, but Thiel generally covered them ONCE under warranty as good will. Legitimate manufacturing defects include subtly mis-routed lead wires, magnet-position and/or suspension mis-alignment or glue failure, etc. Those are generally batch problems and result in instant failure (broken lead) or immediate voice coil rubbing. If it's defective it will fail quickly.

Part of my upgrade project is thermal management, which is generally ignored in hi-fi, but is very important in sound reinforcement and pro-audio. Heat is a real enemy. It can shift crosspoints radically, which adds substantial stress to the system. A 3KHz tweeter crosspoint can migrate to 2500, admitting damaging low frequency signal to a driver which is vulnerable due to the concurrent high-power situation.
So, I am mounting all resistors in heat-sinks mounted to buss bars to dissipate waste crossover heat. My CS2 2 workhorse is getting an aluminum tube spine up the back of the cabinet to sink those buss bars as well as mounting an aluminum tube from the back of each driver which conducts heat as well as provides more mechanical stiffness to the driver mount. I am puzzled that Jim abandoned aluminum voice coil formers for nomex; probably for lower mass and smoother high frequency extension. But thermal conduction was traded off. This note is just to let you know where my investigations are leading.

BTW, I have a pretty big pile of foil coils, resistors, wire and caps, plus the Clarity Caps are finally on their way. I'm especially excited about a CC custom polypropylene cap we have developed to replace all the electrolytic caps. I'll be comparing the new CC to the ERSE PulseX Polypropylenes in those applications. Either way is a big step up from the present electrolytics in the shunts. Progress is being made. 

i have no knowledge of Luxman but that looks like a beast to beat the band.  how much

Did any of you consider Luxman amps to drive your Thiels ?If so i would like to have feedbacks.I have been told Luxman would be a very good match.I'm looking at this model : http://www.luxman.com/product/detail.php?id=19

good question Prof.

tomthiel,

What is the role played by the difference between tube amps and solid state amps, which it comes to damaging clipping?

It’s something of a cliche to say that tube amps clip more softly than SS.Is this true to the extent that it would be less likely to get damaging clipping from a tube amp of comparable power to an SS amp?

I’ve used tube amps since the 90’s . I’ve had a great many speakers, some as insensitive as 82dB and impedance all over the place, and I’ve played them loud.

But not once have I ever blown a driver. So I’m wondering if this has much to do with my choice of tube amplification. (I use Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks - 140W side).

thanks Tom.  i guess i play them too loud but i measured and the average is about 78 db with peaks of 85.  plus the PS Audio BHK 250 amp is a hoss.  I will have to be more careful  but interestingly enough,  in the past using lesser amps with the older models, and playing at the same levels,  they did not blow.   my  guess is that the newer coax is just a bit more touchy.  thanks so much for being on this thread.  

Ron, all of your failures sound like overheated voice coils, either delaminating or in the case of humming along, being loose enough to squirm on the former. The cause is most probably being fed a distorted / semi-clipped signal. The first driver was probably good out of the box and also failed via underpowering.

Had them make the interconnects from my preamp to the amplifier

Yes brayeagle, it’s great to have custom made stuff from Blue Jeans. I’m going to have some interconnect made, short and long.


They have really low capacitance interconnects which is great for some long runs I need, especially to my subwoofers. Though admittedly the really low capacitance of the BJ cables may be overkill for a subwoofer signal which is being low-passed ...what the heck...a little over-engineering never hurt.

prof: I have to agree with you. I'm running 23 feet of 10 gage Blue Jeans cable between a Bryston 4Bsst2 and a pair of Thiel 2.7s

Couldn't ask for anything better, including the cost of having Blue Jeans make them for me - - and with spades. 

thank you Tom.   maybe you can get Rob to join us here.

Prof: " Folks, for those who blew drivers, like the 2.7/3.7 coax, what were the sonic symptoms? Did the sound just die? Or did a crackle develop in the sound....something like that?"
first time:  scratchy sound though i think it was bad from the get go as it happened within two months, or perhaps the amp, a Marantz reference,  was not up to par.2nd time:  with BHK amp-got the crackle you referred to and it was really obvious something was wrong and Rob said it was blown.3rd time:  with BHK-weird as it was more of a hum,  almost like the unit was singing with the music, but it added something really weird to the sound.  Rob can usually fix them but this one stumped him if i recall. 

pops, I love both the ATCs and the Thiels.  Both are great products intended to be as accurate as possible but with somewhat different ways of going about it.  ATCs are usually active and the company is mainly known for pro audio.  ATC has been building its own drivers for a long time and their philosophy is that if you build drivers well enough you don't need a complex crossover.  I think Thiel is not that far from that.  Thiel produced passive speakers for home audio so they have different strengths.  Thiel had complex crossovers for a long time to fix drivers that weren't as good as they could have been.  When Thiel came out with their own drivers the complexity of the crossover dropped significantly per Tom Thiel in this thread.  

The founders/designers of both companies were piano players.  They're both hard science guys.  I get the impression that Billy Woodman isn't quite the obsessive perfectionist that Jim Thiel apparently was. Both companies use small diameter midranges which I've found that I prefer. Not sure why, lighter weight leads to faster response or maybe better dispersion.  

When my 3.7 mid blew it made a very noticeable scraping sound.  

Folks, for those who blew drivers, like the 2.7/3.7  coax, what were the sonic symptoms?  Did the sound just die?  Or did a crackle develop in the sound....something like that?

(The only driver I've ever seen damaged in my home is, apparently, one of my Hales T1 monitors which plays the R channel in my home theater.I think it was hit with some too-heavy bass at one point and these days, although it sounds fine with most material, a super low/heavy bass signal will make it pop and crackle).