Thiel Owners
I sit even closer to mine (7 to 6 1/2 feet)! Though I disagree a bit with some of the things stated on the mapleshade site. For instance the idea that sitting closer gets you better bass impact and slam. I've tended to find the opposite with almost every speaker - the closer I get the more linear and less bloated the bass, but also the less kick and impact (the more headphone-like it gets). So I'm always trying to balance - close enough for smoothness, distant enough to keep impact. |
there are some great tips on the Mapleshade web site. Pierre thinks we sit too far away and too high and i have been using his suggestions for years with all my various Thiel speakers. I have the speakers 114" apart (tweeter to tweeer), 90" from my ear to the tweeter, and i sit where my ears are about 32" off the floorhttp://www.mapleshadestore.com/freeupgrades.php |
Regarding color, my 3.7s are Morado and I also have an MCS1 in what they call dark cherry. If there is any difference between these two finishes it's subtle. When I bought the MCS1 I was hoping it would be a matching center with the 3.7s as fronts and, for all practical purposes, it is. I didn't set them side by side and do a careful comparison but they look the same. I'm just posting this in case anyone else has wondered if mixing these two finishes in a multichannel setup would look ok. |
batmanfan, Yes my Thiel 3.7s are in the Morado finish! :-) But just so we are talking about the same thing: I’ve seen one or two people mix up the "Morado" finish with the Amberwood finish. Mine are in what Thiel called their Morado finish, which is the darker reddish stain with the nice wood grain patterns, as shown in the very first image on this page: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-thiel-37-part-1-visiting-old-friend.html In preparation for selling them a while back I had a top level furniture re-finisher go over them to make sure they were tip top. They came back looking essentially "mint" like they just rolled off the factory floor. I was so impressed by this that I actually couldn’t let them go and it’s one reason I held on to them that much longer! My wife likes the look of these 3.7s more than my 2.7s. (My 2.7s came to me second hand a bit scuffed so I intend to bring them to the same place to get the "like new" treatment). Still, my 3.7s gotta go at some point. Believe me, I know how tough it is when you want a rare speaker and ALSO put the constraint of a certain finish on them. That’s what I did with the 2.7s and had to wait 3 years or so for them to pop up in Ebony, and even then never seen another pair for sale, so I feel like I found my Unicorn. |
As above, Martin Logan really hit it out the park w/ the Decent and Grotto subwoofers. IMO, very easy to integrate (like a REL) into any system. I have heard each model on several occasions- very accurate in sound and presentation. These do not appear often on the used/demo market, grab one. Happy Listening! |
With all the talk about integrating a REL subwoofer and SS2, I’m curious about anyone else’s setup if you have one. I’ve got a Martin Logan Descent that has nice, tight bass complemented well with my previous 2.4s and which hasn’t skipped a beat integrating with my 2.7s. It’s amazing on musical passages and most movies but I have heard other subs, beasts intended to necessitate an annual budget for window repair, that really do sound better for certain blockbuster-type movies. Not ready to give up my ML just yet since these movies only make up less than 5% of the time I use my system. Of course I would consider replacing it with a Thiel sub but that’s probably lowest in my list of changes. Bass is something I must plead ignorance because I’m not sure I could tell the difference between two high quality subs (unless one is in just another league or serves a very specific purpose like blowing the roof off your house). That said, does anyone else have ML that supplement the bottom of their Thiels? I would be curious how you came to your settings? I know everyone’s environment is different, but would like to know the process itself and if there was anything unique with respect to integrating with Thiels, particularly the 2.4/2.7. |
Hi Prof, by any chance are your 3.7s in the Morado finish? While I used my 2.7s in 2-channel most of the time (which had increased after I upgraded my amplification), they’re a component of an entire home theater setup which includes MCS1 handling the center duties (hidden) and a pair of matching PCS in Morado that bring up the surround, and four HigherPlane 1.2 up in the ceiling (painted to match the ceiling). As a result, I wouldn’t be getting any 3.7s unless they are in the same finish. Looks like a part of the audiophile curse is not just the endless tinkering but also layered upon that limitations beyond budget (of course) and real world restriction such as physical size in a room, color matching, or the WAF. If they are in Morado, please keep me in mind if you decide to sell to another Thiel fan. If I’m the chosen one, they would be in a loving home with others of their kind ;-) If they’re not in Morado, then my search for the holy grail will have to continue. I may very well never come across a nice pair of Morado 3.7s again (there was one that came up before I completed my home theater but were long gone before I did), but at least I have a fantastic sounding system as I continue that quest. |
hi Arnie, the person you got them from had the same problem i had with mine when i first got them. i thought, my goodness these are not near as good as my 2.7's. they were just as he described and i was not sure i would keep them. now after about 6 weeks or so of very intensive time being played, they sound like a whole nother speaker. every time we are gone from the house, i put the Reference Recordings burn in cd on repeat (cut 9) and let it rip. sometimes i will leave a Michael Jackson cd on repeat as well as it is loud. so anyway, they are fantastic and cds that sounded okay through them 6 weeks ago, now sound like they have been remastered. |
batmanfan, I've made numerous comparisons of my 2.7s vs my 3.7s in this thread and I'm presuming you've read them already (as you said you've read through the thread). Of course I empathize with the audiophile nag in the back of the mind "could I have gotten something better?" I'd originally been deliberating between buying a pair of used 2.7s in beautiful ebony, vs the 3.7s in other finishes (very nice finishes, but none in my preferred ebony finish were available). The 2.7s would be an obviously better fit for my room size/aesthetics wise. But I thought if I bought them I may well end up thinking "these sound so great that I wonder how much better the 3.7s would have been." I chose 3.7s over 2.7s so that I wouldn't have that niggling doubt that I didn't go for the best I could get. The 3.7s turned out to be awesome and sonically fantastic in my room. But the funny thing is, especially due to the 3.7s physical size in my room, I started wondering "maybe I should have gone for those 2.7s after all." It's a curse ;-) So when the 2.7s in ebony showed up on audiogon I couldn't resist to try them out. And it turns out, it seems: yes, the 2.7s are the one that best fits my needs. As for selling my 3.7s, I have decided I'd like to sell them soon, but still haven't decided which route I'll take - trade in, selling them only for local pick up, or opening it up to selling them to someone on Audiogon. |
hi Arnie, i suspect i need to bring my settings down but i would encourage you to raise yours. i had some correspondence with John Hunter of REL and he gave me a rough idea of what he thought i should set the crossover at. read below starting with my letter to him first John Hunter (REL Acoustics) Jan 10, 10:16 PM MST Sounds as though you are in the right ballpark. Might have the crossover a tad high and the volume a tad low. To get the crossover just right, bring it down about 2 clicks-- if it is too low it will sound cold and hard immediately. Increase the volume about 1-2 clicks and see if it doesn't get richer, fuller and more consistently fleshed out.
Kent Jan 9, 12:28 PM MST I have set the crossover at 12 o'clock (no idea what that actually translates to), and the volume around 11 o'clock. Kent Tager |
Hi ronkent, thanks! I’m still tweaking the RELs settings myself but find that when I go too high on the crossover I start to “step-on” the 3.7s low frequencies, and that’s the last thing I want to do. That S5 is a beautiful looking sub, enjoy! BTW, how are your 3.7s sounding? I purchased mine “used” but they really started to open up after a few months of enthusiastic play! The previous owner complained about them being “bass shy and lacking dynamics”.. I don’t think he actually gave them a chance to break-in. These speakers really do need a good amount of play to reach their full potential. |
hi Batman, good to hear from you. glad my response got you into this group. i have learned so much from reading all this and it is great to discuss our wonderful speakers with fellow Thiel lovers. I use the BHK electronics from PS Audio and could not be happier. They are a great product at a very fair price. hi Arnie, i checked my settings on my REL S5 and they are high compared to yours but i am always "fiddling" with them. I think you might want to raise your crossover setting as that does seem low to me. i have mine at about 9:30 for the crossover and about 1:00 for the level. I had set them originally for the 2.7's and probably need to adjust down a bit. |
Hi everyone--long time reader but never posted. Have loved the Thiel sound ever since I got my CS0.5s back in 1996 which was all I could afford back then. Gone through several generations from the 0.5 to 1.5 to 2.4 and ended up with a beautiful pair of Morado 2.7s. After mating them with a pair of Bryston 28B-SST2s, I was in heaven and I couldn't be happier, but in the back of my mind I've always wondered if the 3.7s should be my end game. (That's partly the reason I got the Brystons--they're certainly overkill for the 2.7s, but I've heard they are a fantastic match for the 3.7s.). That's when I saw Ronkent's ad selling his 2.7s, and I exchanged emails with him re: his thoughts between those and the 3.7s. He then introduced me to this discussion, and I was blown away! Over the last few days, I've been reading everyone's comments and not only have I learned so much from this group, especially from Tom (thank you), I was also pleasantly surprised that there is still a loyal following to what I guess I should call the "classic phase-coherent Thiel sound" (as opposed to the current, modern Thiel Audio sound). Awesome discussion regarding the upgrading path. Didn't think this was an option until now! Looks like the 2.7s are last on the list, which is fine because I don't usually like to mess with anything unless I think there is a problem...or unless there is something better, whether it's measurable or even if it's just perceived to be better. But alas, that's the audiophile's curse, is it not? To tinker, mess around and upgrade in an endless search for better sound. That said, I'm guilty as charged, with having this curse! Heaven knows, if I had put the money I spent on audio equipment over the last 2 decades into Apple, I would be able to retire now, hahaha! Still, this endeavor makes life interesting. Again, thank you everyone for contributing to this discussion re: Thiels. Keep it coming! P.S. Prof, have you decided to sell your 3.7s or trade them in for another pair of speakers? Last I can recall you were still deciding. Let me know if you end up going with the former route--I may be interested in those 3.7s. |
Hi Ronkent, I have 3.7s and am also using a Rel subwoofer. Mine is an older REL Storm III. I like the fact that it takes a high level signal from my power amp and seems to mate very well with the Thiels. I have the Gain at about 1/4 power and the crossover set at a low 23dB to just add that foundational Bass under the frequencies that the 3.7 can produce on its own. Curious as to how you have your REL setup.. crossover, gain, placement? Thanks |
Magico Q7 Mk II. They are $223 KI’d like to think these would outperform a $15k speaker! But the SQ gap, if any, is not anywhere near the $$$ gap. All the more so if the crossovers are upgraded to premium parts. Maybe some of you CS3.7 or 7.2 owners will try Dueland or Path resistors. Anyone wanting to explore the outer limits with Dueland caps, however, will certainly need to go outboard (see Jim Smith’s outboard http://jeffsplace.me/wordpress/?p=5464). In the meantime, Tom Thiel’s parts choices will be significant quality upgrades while still in line with Thiel Audio’s performance/price sensibility. |
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! |
Good to see you - harrylavo Count another fan of the 3.5 model loudspeaker. I must report that the majority of you guys currently own, previously owned this speaker. Impressive that it goes all of the way back to 1979! There is an expressed interest in those equalizers as well. Thank You for sharing your story about meeting Jim Thiel. Happy listening! |
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. |
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. |
| Post removed |
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 |
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. |
Tomthiel, thankyou for your prompt and illuminating response. Were the 3.5's eq's developed and/or built in house or contracted out? 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. I've wondered why Jim used three 8" drivers rather than say a some combination of progressively larger bass drivers, and why he chose such a low impedance? |
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 |
