Thiel Owners

I will do soldering soon by myself, but kind of worrying about my soldering skill will mess up the 7.2 or not. Although Rob told me that's straight forward. 

Then you will have the confidence to upgrade your caps and resistors or build a full “hot rod” kit if/when it becomes available.  :)

oops. mixed up the A3 with the Magico Q7 Mk II. They are $223 K.Harrylavo, if your equalizers have problems, get them fixed by Rob. I had mine damage the low voltage circuit of my power amp.

The designer's job becomes extremely easier by using 4th order Linkwitz Reilly crossovers which give you everything except phase coherence at the XO point. They introduce 360° / 1 full cycle, which is considered by some, including someone recently posting on this forum, to be zero. The full-cycle time error can be corrected with digital signal processing, if one is in the digital domain. The "new Thiel" pulled a AD-correction-DA jujitsu. It works except for that last truth of ultimate rightness of doing it right in the analog domain. I suspect the Magico to be doing in some fashion what I described, but I don't know anything about it.

I have a friend/dealer (the only one in NC that sells Magico) and heard the A3 speakers recently. I think they retail for about 10K and not $223 but glad the 3.7's can hold their own.   Recently heard some bigger ones (about $28K) and they were very impressive. however i did not come home and get that sick feeling when i know my speakers suck by comparison.   In fact was very happy with the 3.7's.

Harry, the CS3.5 was introduced in 1988, but its lineage goes straight back to the O3 in 1978, updated to the O3a (equalized) in 1979, O3b and then CS3 in 1983 and the 3.5 in 1988, numbered such as the 5th incarnation of the fundamental "3" design. They all share the same design goal of full-range, accurate in all spheres 10"x 3-way reference monitors. One core value, early on, was sensitivity / efficiency. The O1 and O2 came in at 93+dB @1w/1m. The hard facts of physics relegated efficiency to a lower rung on the survival ladder, which haunted the brand furthermore.

A simple passive part update for the stereo 3.5 EQ might be feasible, depending on how much space is available in the chassis.

Wayne, from the beginning, before the O1 in 1976, we experimented with many wave-form paradigms before settling on the wide-dispersion point source that became synonymous with Thiel. A highly intriguing form was the sound-field created by two back-to-back speakers forming a bi-pole radiator. I have run a pair of CS1.5s backed against my CS2 2s with wonderful results. The back-firing pair can get by with less evolved amplification.

Great discussion group!! Thanks @thieliste @ronkent for the information!
I have 2_2 first, then 7.2, now 3.7 all together, and find them different in personalities. I had once audition with 5i with Jeff Roland 7f mono but was not very impressed because the music was somehow "heavy" not "vivid" to my taste. I don't know if I misunderstood 5i's potential or not. But I like 7.2 more than 5i based on that experience.
I am very glad to hear the progress of upgrade kit of 3.7. I just had my mid-range drivers of 7.2 rebuilt by Rob. There were some materials degraded as time went by. The rebuilt was done. I will do soldering soon by myself, but kind of worrying about my soldering skill will mess up the 7.2 or not. Although Rob told me that's straight forward. And I use WBT solder, I don't know if it's ok.
One more interesting thing, I was told that Jim Thiel once said it would be better if someone got 2 pair of 7.2s to sit back to back (one face front  and one face wall). To eliminate reflex? Any idea?
Happy Weekend!

tomthiel -

I have owned 3.5's since 1979, and currently run four in a pseudo 5 channel system (bridged front L-R, for better stereo on non-surround-sound discs).  I also have a third equalizer since one or another of the channels on the first two alway seem to be noisy or intermittent.

My main interest is music, not film/video, and interestingly the four 3.5's practically eliminate standing waves, and with their 3db reinforcement, they also essentially require no subwoofer.  Plus the bass is smoother and quicker than on my pair of 2 2's, which are in my 2nd system.

I would DIE for a passive-part upgrade of these equalizers.  And from comments here, the same can be said true of many other 3.5 lovers.  Please keep it on your "to do" list.

ps.  BTW, I lived in Prospect, KY from late 1979 through early 1984, and recall being at a friends house when Jim auditioned his 3.0's or what I might have been early versions of the 3.5.  I lusted until I ran into the dealer demo pair I bought up in Burlington, VT in 1989.  So just know: I now lust for three upgraded external equalizers!  But I hope another six years don't go by until my lust is fulfilled.

Prof. just read a review of those 223K speakers tonight. Glad to know the 3.7 can compete. Afraid that any upgrade from my 3.5 will  only signify a difference and a major adjustment. Tom, just ordered a calibration mic and will do some testing with my Bryston in the large room next week. Stay tuned.

beetlemania,

The audiophile in me of course salivates at any possible upgrade.

But the cautious side makes me not want to mess with what I have.

Turns out...I like my Thiels better :-)

Hmmm, what will you say should you upgrade your crossovers? 

Well, I just auditioned one of the latest and greatest recent speakers:
The Magico A3. 

(See my "Devore speakers/auditioning" thread if interested in details).

Turns out...I like my Thiels better :-)

Rob, the passive parts quality will leap-frog present Thiel crossovers, plus we'll address other subtle issues.
Thielrules, since you have gear, give it a try. You can see the boost curve in John Atkinson's Stereophile review. That boost is designed to not overload the woofer on normal music content. Be careful with movies or other bombast.I among others here would be interested in what you learn.

Tom,

Great info, as usual!

Mr. Thiel
Thank You for the great detail and for giving up so much of your time .

"A factor that contributes to "great bass" is that of articulation which, in a first-order design, includes the low end of the mid-range driver. Jim's 3.7 XO treatment is much more sophisticated and uses better parts than the 2.7 due to budget constraints and designer choices. The 2.7 midrange is fed through a 400uF electrolytic cap, albeit with a PP and styrene bypass in parallel. The 3.7 uses a bank of 75uF polypropylene caps with a styrene bypass. Multiple smaller PP caps provide faster reactions and less distortion than a large electrolytic. "
This explains a lot .

Hopefully when you and Rob  develop an upgrade for the 2.7s
they will based on the 3.7s design with new and higher grade components .
Rob  

I'm wondering if replacing the equalizer of the 3.5 with a mini-dsp or a more professional equalizer such as DBX 1231 STEREO GRAPHIC EQUALIZER (have one sitting unused) could be an improvement, especially if calibrated for the listening space. Any experience with that?

Unsound et al, Thiel's electronics were all developed and built in-house. Jim was a circuit guy before we took up loudspeakers. His first patent was a sweet phono head amp circuit which we built and shipped for Monster Cable to market. The various equalizers suffered from an identity crisis, being seen as such a valuable and viable solution to us, but being considered a pariah in the marketplace, in no small part via Bose's low-grade application of the idea, and therefore resented by many dealers and consumers as somehow unworthy, therefore limiting the budget to fund exemplary execution.

Regarding the CS5 bass drivers, remember the mid 80s were the Dark Ages. We were designing our drivers and Vifa was making some, such as the CS5 proprietary tweeter. Otherwise, we identified some driver manufacturers to customize appropriate drivers. Those CS5 Kevlar units incorporate Thiel magnet structures and copper shunt rings and long excursions. Those 8" Kevlar cones were extraordinary, much better than their 10" stable-mate, and crossed over superbly to the 5" low midrange. With their extremely long excursions, they moved lots of air. The CS5 bass alignment is different than it looks. The bottom and third subwoofer have mass-loaded cones to lower their natural resonance plus damp the upper breakup mode. The way they straddle the center woofer allows them to create a larger-than-obvious radiation pattern for the 20 to 50 Hz (plus first-order roll out) range. The center woofer is lighter and covers 50 to 400 Hz loaded by its own sub enclosure. Let's just say that drivers are chosen for many interacting reasons. These did the job very well.

As I mentioned, the CS5's Achilles Heel is the low impedance bass load and the delay lines required for proper time-alignment of so many drivers. As I mentioned some time ago, that speaker would do well via incorporating an SS2 powered bass driven through a custom Thiel external passive crossover for the two subwoofers. Above that we might drive the upper woofers via an equalizer and handle the top end with my imaginary driver that mounts a 3.7 coax within a 6.5" wavy cone triax. Let's make all those drivers with carbon fiber diaphragms while we're at it.

Jim's low-impedance choice is indeed a quandary. Even with a 4 to 5 ohm minimum, the voltage sensitivity would not have been too low. If Thiel were starting over today, I think we would settle on higher impedance not only to spare amplifiers, but to reduce cable interactions. Such speculation distinguishes imagination from history. 

Your recollections and future considerations of the CS 5's is most interesting. Perhaps my favorite Thiel model. If it weren't for the associated amplifier demands, I'd probably own a pair.

IMO, the ultimate Thiel would have the 5's sealed bass, the 3.7 coax, and Tom Thiel's optimized passive parts . . . and more amplifier friendly impedance. *That* could be a crazy good speaker!

So my dilema is do I upgrade the 2.4's to 2.4SE's as I can get the upgrade kit from Rob and be content with my current system or do I sell the 2.4's and the SS2( hopefully to someone who loves Thiel and appreciates the quality) and get a pair of 3.7's?

The sonic part of the SE "kit" simply replaces the 13 uF polypropylene + 1 uF styrene bypass with a 14 uF Clarity SA and the 27 uF PP + 1 uF bypass with a 28 uF SA. Those are the coax feed caps and SA's were chosen by Jim Thiel and Gary Dayton as the best sounding circa 2008.

But there are better caps available now (eg Clarity CSA) and other passive parts (caps in other positions as well as resistors and coils) can also be upgraded. That is what Tom Thiel is working on. If all goes well, this "super" upgrade kit will be available from Rob Gillum by the end of the year. If you decide to keep the 2.4s I advise waiting for the more robust upgrade kit. "Just" upgrading the resistors made a very nice improvement on my SEs and I suspect the full upgrade will bring the SQ to the next tier.

That said, if you have the coin I recommend the CS3.7 which has better drivers and cabinet than the 2.4. And Tom Thiel might have an upgrade kit for those boards, too, although the time line is further out. I suspect a tricked out CS3.7 would be sonically competitive with some of the very best speakers out there.

Happy Friday Thiel Lovers

I just recently found this forum as I've been a longtime member on Audiogon.  I've read through the many pages the last couple of days and it is so wonderful to see the love for Thiel, the knowledge from current owners and the effort to try and improve the product.

I fell in love with Thiel about 14 years ago when I auditioned the 2.4's at a local Audio shop.
I was blessed to be able to afford a pair before my wife and I had kids :)

I've owned my current setup for a little over 11 years which I love tremendously.

Thiel 2.4's, MCS1 and SS2 in Silver and 4- Powerplanes 1.2.

My family and I are truly  blessed to have the system that we have.
This system has brought my family so much joy listening to music or watching movies together.

Quite a few years back I heard a pair of 3.7's at the Thiel facility and ever since I've dreamed of owning a pair(second hand of course).

So my dilema is do I upgrade the 2.4's to 2.4SE's as I can get the upgrade kit from Rob and be content with my current system or do I sell the 2.4's and the SS2( hopefully to someone who loves Thiel and appreciates the quality) and get a pair of 3.7's?

Thanks for your time.  

cheers 

@wayneuncle    i am no expert on subs but have had really  good results with the REL s/5 SHO.  if you get a sub,  try to get the dealer to come and set it up

@wayneuncle, do you know the year they were manufactured ?Otherwise you can send your serial number and finish to Rob Gillum and he will tell you.Price for the latest crossovers is $800/pair.

As alluded to above via driver size, air-coupling is a factor in the experience of bass authority. The 3.7 10" woofer has 50% greater area to drive its wave-front, reducing compressive non-linearities of air. Bigger makes cleaner. The 3.7 cabinet is also more inert and its baffle is less compressive for attack transient integrity. Regarding prof's thought about bass voicing, the 3.7 was Jim's work, the 2.7 incorporated various outside engineering input. Jim tuned his bass alignment to Q.707. Many designers give a little slop for "bloom, bigness, warmth", etc. I heard the two speakers at Thiel at finalization and heard the 2.7 bass as tuned a little looser. Most designers try to second-guess popularity, expectations and so forth. Jim was fairly immune to those ways.

Also note that image is highly dependent on cabinet and driver edge effects. Prof mentioned the driver part. The 3.7 cabinet design (love it or not) is very highly functional regarding diffraction, even though the 2.7 might qualify for world-class, it is not as good. 

A factor that contributes to "great bass" is that of articulation which, in a first-order design, includes the low end of the mid-range driver. Jim's 3.7 XO treatment is much more sophisticated and uses better parts than the 2.7 due to budget constraints and designer choices. The 2.7 midrange is fed through a 400uF electrolytic cap, albeit with a PP and styrene bypass in parallel. The 3.7 uses a bank of 75uF polypropylene caps with a styrene bypass. Multiple smaller PP caps provide faster reactions and less distortion than a large electrolytic.

Unsound, the 3.5 equalizer addresses only the bass with a simple, shaped boost centered at 22Hz or 40Hz depending on selection. Our reference set-up during development was bi-amped with identical amplifiers and 4 identical wire runs providing no EQ pollution into the midrange-tweeter circuit. (We were subsequently amazed by how many ways users could screw things up with varying amp and cable configurations working at cross purposes. So the bi-wiring option went away.) The EQ circuitry is elegant enough, but the budget required utilitarian execution (and use of generally inferior interconnects) adding some grain and haze to the signal. Jim considered the ported solution (O2, O4, CS2) to be inferior to sealed-box bass and only grudgingly accepted the market necessity of the passive radiator rather than the equalized bass in aspiring products. We aired the possibility of an EQ for the CS5 (the CS5 followed the equalized 3.5) and we talked about a follow-up super edition with an equalized bass. But Thiel was a one-man development lab experiencing high growth, and there was not time to explore such niceties.

One intriguing reincarnation for a CS5 Super would be to add balanced equalizers to the CS5 bass driving a separate bass input. That bass section has three  woofers in two configurations loaded by two sub-enclosures. All bass frequencies up to 500 or so are covered by that subsystem.     

Happy Friday -All.

Any recommendations of add-on sub to match 3.7 or 7.2? My current equipments included Linn DS, YBA 1 pre-amp and accuphase m-1000 mono with MIT MH-750 shotgun speaker cables. Mark Levinson ml-2 mono are on the way and I will try them even they only have 25 watt per channel.

@thieliste , How to differentiate the generation of cross-over of cs3.7? I got a black pair recently.

FWIW:

Bass depth and weight are experienced as very similar between the 2.7 and 3.7. Though there are tracks where you can definitively hear the 3.7 go a bit lower.

The main difference is the sense of scale and linearity. The 3.7 just creates larger sonic images and a bigger soundstage. What exactly to attribute that to is a bit of a puzzle to me as they share the same mid/tweeter and only differ slightly in woofer size. Is it JUST that extra 2 inches in woofer size? Or is it something about the bigger cabinet of the 3.7 as well? I don’t know exactly what causes this difference.  Confusing the issue a bit further: with the brief tests I've done integrating a sub with the 2.7s, the soundstage does seem to grow somewhat, but I don't think the image sizes expand in to 3.7 territory - and yet with a subwoofer that's adding another 10" driver and producing more bass than the 3.7!

I’ve also wondered why the 3.7 sounds a bit more linear all the way to the bottom of it’s range. It could be a difference in voicing to some degree (maybe the 2.7 was voiced with a tiny bulge to compensate for it’s slightly smaller size - though I don’t think that was normally the Thiel way. Thiel was never shy about keeping linearity even if it meant their smaller speakers sounding a bit base-shy compared to some other brands).

I’ve wondered if the added control/linearity has anything to do with the different woofer constructions. The 3.7 has that sort of dimpled woofer and passive radiator and it’s general shape was claimed by Jim Thiel to get rid of some common reflections around woofers. So I wonder if that contributes.

8 v 10” woofer. Prof and ronkent can probably describe the difference.

The Absolute Sound basically asked the question when having reviewed
both the 3.7 and the 2.7 , is 2hz worth almost twice the price ?
So Tom's point about the difference is academic but
The auditory value of extended bass might not be heard ,
but the feeling  can be quite rewarding  .
 

Beetlemania, true but the auditory value of extended bass garners greater perceived value. Of course, if one's room can't accommodate those waves things can go south.

Tomthiel, does the 3.5's eq do anything besides bass boost?

Not much musical content below 35 Hz: 

http://www.sineworld.com/html/basic_knowledge/freqchart.html

I can never again live with a speaker that isn’t robust down to 40 but I’d rather have a killer speaker that stopped at 40 than a mediocre one with full output below 30.

I can offer a general answer. For perspective, the difference between 33 and 35 Hz is barely academic, virtually identical. Thinking in half-octaves (15 Hz at 30 Hz) is more germane to performance class than is a few cycles. Low E1 on a bass is 40 Hz.

Differences are accounted for by technical particulars. Bass alignment is very specific to cabinet volume, rigidity, driver position, diaphragm mass, maximum excursion, suspension characteristics and motor factors. An alignment is optimized considering these many factors among others. 

Question , why are the 2.4 spec'd at 33 hz manuf ( 36hz stereophile )
and the 2.7s are 35hz manuf, when they both have the same woofer and approximately the same size cabinet ?
Crossovers ? why would the newer speakers have less ?

I'm not complaining about the 2.7s lower end
(  especially after moving from 2 way speakers )  
and 'am looking forward to the upgrade possibilities
but I thought I'd ask Why the difference .

Rob

Happy almost Friday

@prof   i would really be interested in some recommendations for electronic music.   do not have much but my favorite album is underwater sunlight by Tangerine Dream.  thanks in advance

 I haven't yet looked at the 3.5, but will look into it. The equalizer could indeed be ignored in an upgrade. 

Sounds good, Tom. Seems to be some demand for that model! And maybe someone will step up to address the equalizer?

As can be seen in this thread, and another speaker thread I have going, I have a roving eye for speakers.  I just like trying various types.
But even if I purchase another speaker I can't see myself ever getting rid of my 2.7s.  Too good, and the bargain I paid was ridiculous for the performance. 

I love electronic music and the 2.7s are a dream for that category.  Their particularly dense, punchy, solid imaging and gorgeous tonality make electronic music feel like another dimension has been summoned in and around the speakers.  I never get tired of it.

Beetle, I haven't yet looked at the 3.5, but will look into it. The equalizer could indeed be ignored in an upgrade. The 3.5 has 6-nines coils and hookup wire and custom 1uF styrene bypasses. We could renew the 'lytics with best of class 'lytics, especially in shunts. But any 'lytics in Signal Path would benefit from our newly developing custom CSA-160 volt propylene cap. Mills resistors. Possible SP feed coil upgrade. Layout can be addressed by building a new midrange board to allow space on the main board for woofer and tweeter upgrade bulk. I'm settling to a system. I "did" the 3.6 today with our first-round assumptions which need confirmation with first-pair trials of 2.4 and PPs.

Guys i  e-mailed Rob Gillum about the CS 3.7 crossovers and he told me it is still possible to order from him the latest crossovers if you want to upgrade first generation of CS 3.7s.

upgrade the equalizer, which would be required for system synergy

I might not even be able to *spell* "equalizer" . . . Is there potential harm to the balance by simply upgrading the caps and resistors on the XOs, keeping the layout as is? Keeping the same layout might preclude replacing the electrolytics with film caps but I imagine 30 year old 'lytics should be replaced if only with another 'lytic. I guess I'm wondering if there is a "partial" upgrade route for 3.5 owners that would replace aging caps and increase SQ at least a bit but without risking the balance with the bass equalizer.

Just for clarity, I think the CS3.5 is in many ways Jim's pure vision, especially the bass equalizer. I believe it to be a strong contender for an update / upgrade and I would be interested in addressing the crossover. However, I lack the chops and time to upgrade the equalizer, which would be required for system synergy, since in terms of sonic transparency, the EQ is already a performance limit. So many good ideas, so little time.

Welcome! thielrulesThank You for the intro regarding your Audio journey. We all have a story to share. I think that you will find several owners of the 3.5 model here. This speaker still has quite a following. I am looking forward in reading more posts from you.Happy Listening!

I have been lurking for a few years now, but willing to be more visible now. I live in Lexington, KY just around the corner from Rob G. Started my audiophile interest with Kef 104 Reference speakers, purchased in 1974 from my first summer job. Believed that I had great speakers, until I met my girl friend, who had the Thiel 02 bookshelf speakers, that had less bass but better and clearer upper range sound. Since being together, we have had the cs 3.5 for about 15 years, and recently I purchased another set, since I have become so attached to them. Easy to drive, I have Bryston 3B-ST for a large listening space, 30 by 30 with sloped ceiling up to 18 ft. My source is now primarily streaming through Bluesound Node 2, listening to Tidal. So convenient and nothing beats the selection. Skipped a pre-amp and directly connected to the power amp. My second set of Thiel speakers are located at a smaller space, primarily listening at night. Amp is Transcendent Sound, single ended OTR, only 4 Watt, but perfectly adequate. As I value my hearing, never listen louder than 80 db, often 60-70 db. Lost my ability to hear higher tones, above 12K Hz, but still can easily discern lower tones, down to 20 Hz. My musical interest ranges and includes blues, folk, bluegrass, classic, jazz and some rock. The Thiel cs 3.5 are well suited for my taste. Had to have both equalizers repaired and that made a big difference to have the equalizers back in the chain. Got to know Rob better, and had many temptations to upgrade, seeing all his museum pieces. Figured I would wait to find out what his update plans involved, but now understand from Tom's response, that may not be the case? Anyway, this can serve as my intro. Great threat.

Jafant keep me posted after you audition the cubed amps ive heard good things about them. I would love to know what you think of them vs the st series. I’ve always wanted to listen to ayre,pass and krell as well to see how they match up with Thiel. 

My pleasure - fitter468
Bryston is an excellent sonic match for Thiel speakers. I want to demo the new "cubed" series of power amps for comparison to the older ST and SST models.  I have read about M.I.T. cabling acting as a sonic match as well.

Proceed and older Mark Levinson gear seems to be a fan favorite w/ Thiel speakers too. I do believe that repairs/service is still provided for these Vintage products.  Thanks! for sharing your Audio journey.Happy Listening!

Thanks Jafant I’m using a bryston 4nrb with a proceed avp with mit cables before the avp I had a rotel pre amp then I went to a forte f44 with each progression the sound got better the dream someday is to go to a pair of cs5is with an avp2. I usually listen to rock. Thanks  to everyone on here for all the good info.

tomthielThank You for the update on drivers and cross-over(s). Have fun and stay safe out there.Happy Listening!