I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model? Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Thanks for giving everyone a heads up on your components. Nice system/systems. Camera or iPhone will easily post pictures; Even a digital knucklehead like me figured it out.
I am still using a 25-26 yr old JVC CDP, but the two TTs are up to date.
I knew that you had to wait for the 2.7s. Will wait to hear what you decide.
Right now, I am waiting for my back to heal from surgery, so I can install ceiling panels and do final tweeking of room acoustics.
I do have (2) dedicated rooms; So I do not have challenges of you and others.
I should really think about reducing everything; but I do know how hard it is, when you have gotten so much pleasure from certain gear.
Sorry, no system pictures. I don’t know if I’ll ever get around to that. (I think the pictures would look cool because I designed my room carefully/aesthetically for home theater and two channel, while having to be a "nice" looking room since it’s our living room on the main floor. I used to have my system photos on imageshack, but they went to a paid model and took them down).
But since I don’t have a sytem page, I may as well take this moment to list my audio gear.
Currently, my stuff is:
Thiel 3.7 speakers.
I’ll be picking up the pair of Thiel 2.7 speakers I bought sometime in the next week or two.
Other speakers: - MBL 121 radialstrahler omni directional monitors. - Waveform Mach MC monitors (egg shaped). - Spendor 3/5s - Old Thiel 02 speakers (can’t bring myself to get rid of them - they re-ignited my hi-fi passion). - Just sold a pair of Harbeth Super HL5 plus speakers I was testing out.
For me it’s "tone first" when buying a speaker. I have to hear that organic warmth in tone - woody guitar body, sparkling strings, golden brass...as wide a rainbow as tonal colors as I can get (the MBLs are the champs here, but limited in extension).
The speakers have to soundstage well because that’s one of the things that makes it intriguing to bet my butt in the sofa listening to the system. (Though I have zero interest in a system that soundstages fantastically, but is tonally boring or off-putting).
I want an image density and projection as well, giving some dynamic life, which the Thiel brand excels at.
Amplification: Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks, 140W/side. Currently with the CJ advised Tungsol 6550 tubes (I’m not a tube roller...the amp sounds superb with them and I’ve got enough audio stuff to worry about).
Pre-amp: CJ Premier 16LS2. Also have a locally built tube pre-amp which absolutely excels like nothing else in providing image density and a realistic "they are there" solidity. The CJ preamp is more transparent and better delineates different instrumental timbre, so I go back and forth.
I have a prized re-furbished Eico HF 81 14W integrated amp which is an absolute marvel of musicality. It’s stunning to hear that amp drive the big Thiels!
Dac: still have my old Benchmark Dac 1. I’ll be upgrading soon. Usually streaming ripped CDs from itunes (god I hate itunes, I’ll be changing this soon).
Just got back into vinyl:
I have a micro seiki turntable and some nice cartridges (so I’m told) donated by my father-in-law, with a cheap Rotel phono stage. Sounds sublime, but obviously a path for future upgrades.
Cables: I don’t care about hi end cables. I have robust 10awg Belden speaker cable (I have a long cable run to the speakers), and my interconnects are a mishmash of kimber PBJ, low end and expensive high end cast offs from audiophile buddies who own too much cable. I couldn’t even tell you what some of them are. But they work :-)
I guess I am the bad boy describing the ARC preamp
" slightly bleached tone"
I think Prof & I hear the same way from his description's trying to clarify
the ARC has oodles of detail & soundstage, but TONE is gray or bleached to me ,as Prof said, too
The ET3 has a rounder, more fullly colored tone than ARC......
I have a sub connected, too & the adjustment in the 100-300 hz range really makes tones go thick, thin, boom, blurry, etc. You have to adjust with precision of surgeon....
When you get it right, as local audio guys have taught me, tone is very good & preamp shines thru
I suspect the tube is what makes the difference ( 6h30?) for etched/bleach/grayness
My own subjective impressions, especially of amplifiers, aren't much use to other people I think. We all have different tastes, different hearing, different criteria; what I hear as uninvolving will be someone else's musical nirvana.
And by "bleached" I'm talking of timbral or tonal color, nothing to do with dynamics. I tend to sort of see colors when listening to sound (and clearly so do some other people, which is why lots of audiophiles refer to colors in describing sound). When I listen to my acoustic guitar I always "hear" a golden sparkly tone. I'd take that recording around to various systems and speakers: from most of them, I don't hear that tone. It's more silver/gray. And that's my main complaint with most systems: they sound "bleached" of tonal color, which is what I always perceived whenever I was able to compare Audio Research amps with, say CJ amps, over the years (and that's only a few times, really).
That doesn't mean someone else will hear the same thing. Although...it was interesting to see it described that way here, and I have seen the Audio Research sound described similarly over the years. Just like the CJ sound is often described as "golden."
My pal loves his Audio Research amp - had it forever, doesn't want to part with it.
Wow prof, "Audio Research preamps (slightly bleached tone to me)".
To me, bleached means smeared with attenuation of dynamics. If anything, my AR Ref system tends to exaggerate details and dynamics, compared to live music. I just assumed that it was the recording process and my Thiel CS3.6s, but maybe it is simply the synergy between the components. Maybe I just lucked into the right combination.
Unfortunately, I have limited ability to listen to real world setups and my only comparisons comes from my few visits to audio shops while traveling, reading Stereophile and forums like this. I really need some local friends that have my same audio tastes. Jafant, we need to form an Alabama audiophile society!
"Audio Research preamps ( slightly bleached tone to me)"
That is always how Audio Research amps sound to me. From the day I first heard them in the 90's to even today (my pal uses Audio Research amps). There's just this sort of bleached sound - which in my mind invokes "gray" - that makes me not care to sit in front of the speakers for too long.
At one time my friend was testing an amp - I forget if it was solid state, or maybe it was his Audio Research, and I brought over my CJ Premier 12 amps to try in his system. As soon as they went in and we started the same song, we looked at each other like "aaah...THIS is the experience that keeps our butts planted in the seat." Just so damned musical and rich.
I have the Premier 16LS2 pre-amp, for maybe a couple years now. It sounds gorgeous - super clear, very low noise floor, tons of detail and spaciousness, and though fairly neutral just enough of that CJ magic glow. My one criticism would be it lacks a bit of the density and balls of my other tube preamp (locally made) but the other pre-amp doesn't have the detail and finesse of the CJ.
I saw notes on amps & preamps that are a good efficacy with Thiel ( at the start I could not say that!!!)
After a good 3-4 months ; I can say that Conrad Johnson ET3 and Pass Labs XA30.5's make a superb combo. ( Kimber Hero IC)
I tube rolled from EH6922 ( standard) which is very detailed an a bit , edgy, forward ( aggressive tone) to a Amprex & finally a National/Mitsubishi 6922 cyro job, very good bass, smooth & detailed highs and lots of space.
Anyway, The combo is rich tone, extremely spatial & smooth delicate highs
I always wondered if I should have gone with a older CJ 16 or 17? From the comments of others ( never listened to) But, Not now, the newer version ET3 is the best of both worlds( I think), details overflow And wonderful tone, especially compared to the Audio Research preamps ( slightly bleached tone to me) that I am able to hear in a lot of places
Highly recommended & food for thought
I am now dumbfounded at hearing differences in recording qualities of albums; some thin, some fat, some all highs , some all bass, some spectacular since preamp. and...............shitty 80's albums are almost enjoyable and not burning my eardrums out
Threshold amps still hold up well and provide plenty of current to drive most speakers. You have experienced much evolution in your gear over the years. Simaudio is receiving quite a buzz over their integrated amps. Good to learn that the Neo 340i was enough juice for Thiel speakers.
I enjoy your comments and banter here. Happy Listening!
I've also been able to enjoy my Thiels and a fair number of Maggies (MMG's, MGIIIa's, .7's, and 1.7's) as well with "modest" amplifiers in the past and..."power hungry" though their reputations may be, one can certainly enjoy any of the aforementioned models with relatively modest amps.
My first experience with Maggies was with a Cayin A50T tube integrated pushing 35 watts in triode. That was truly a "wow" event for me. Shortly after that I used the same amp with my first pair of Thiel, 2.2's, with the same result, only that from then on Thiel became my favorite/preferred/reference.
I took no small amount of satisfaction learning from here that Jim Thiel was fond of planar speakers as well, which kind of substantiated my oft-repeated phrase that Thiels are Maggies with mo' better bass. While the benefits of more power are certainly beneficial, one's listening level is more the determination for amplification. I'm not saying flea-watt power, but 50 watts and up can suffice. I recently had a Threshold A100 (?) with power meters that I thought were inoperable. Turns out I never threw enough juice to my speakers to have the meters register!
unsound and a few others in this thread have offered prudent advice concerning how to help Thiels show their best, all of which I've explored to various extents over the last few years. At the end of the day one's introduction to Thiel could be through a vintage Radio Shack receiver - and be hooked on Thiel for life.
I went from 2.2 to 2.3 to two pairs of 3.5's to my current 3.6 because my first impression from the "lowly" 2.2 had been - to paraphrase Newman and Redford in Butch Cassidy - "who IS this guy???" I had never before heard of Jim Thiel. (Mind you I had lapsed out of hifi for about 20 years before my prodigal return a few years ago. Damn you, Audiogon!)
I'm now using a Simaudio Neo 340i integrated capable of 200 watts per channel with the 3.6 and everything is peachy keen.
Basically speaking, for folks new to Thiel and/or this particular thread, "yes Virginia, it IS possible to discover the sonic excellence of Thiel with your current amp/receiver/separate" - but be forewarned that you've entered a space from which exiting is an exercise in futility. All ye who enter Audiogon should abandon all hope of ever believing what you have now is good enough for Thiel.
I’m sure you’ve mentioned it in the thread somewhere, but what amplification are you using for your Thiel 2.4s? Did you go solid state or tube?
I read through a lengthy thread on another forum about Thiels an amplification and it’s always interesting: some insist Thiels are current-hungry monsters that can never get enough power; others say they’ve tried all the powerful SS amps and always come back to tube amps as sounding best with Thiels. (When I had the CS6s in my room, I preferred tube amps vs SS, e.g. a powerful Bryston).
It’s been too long since I had my Bryston amplifiers so I can’t speak to direct experience with the Thiel 3.7s. But the combination with the CJ 140W tube monoblocks blows my mind. I don’t remember ever hearing Thiels of any model sound this good - liquid, huge, dynamic, precise, controlled, you name it. (And as I've mentioned before, I even tried 14W of Eico tube amp with the 3.7s - they didn't sound remotely anemic dynamically, at least subjectively, and they sounded huge. I only really lost some fine control in the bass).
Rob replied quickly that these are indeed model 4 and that the bottom element is a passive radiator. He added rebuild kits are available for the tweeters but that the woofer and passive radiator are no longer available ( mine all are good happily).
Rob also attached a model 4 marketing sheet contained specifications, and an owners manual in pdf format. Thanks Rob. Great service for a product bought at a garage sale.
When I got them, the passives surrounds were crumbling. The tweeter and midrange were intact. They must have used different material on the passive.
I ordered a surround replacement kit from Simply Speakers and that worked out perfect. First time I EVER replaced a surround. They include special glue, excellent quality surrounds and complete instructions.
A pair of Thiel speakers with model printed as 03A on connector board, but a sticker was placed over it that said 04. The sticker also had the serial number.
Only reason I know 03a was underneath is because one sticker fell off .
oblgny you are exactly right, once you live with the tonality and transparency of the Thiel sound other speakers just will not satisfy. I have ventured off campus more than once and the 3.6 always end up back in the system as they are now.
All speakers have tradeoffs, the slight leaness inherent in Thiels is easily overlooked considering everything else they do.....for me anyway.
The lean quality of Thiel is precisely what makes me so damn fond of them. Lean can mean different things to different people, but it is just that perception that struck me as uncolored, perhaps even a tad unforgiving of reproducing sound.
I returned to a much simpler setup before I got the 3.6's, from separates to an integrated. I wish I had kept my Pass X150.5 amp a little while longer to hear how that would have been with the 3.6's. With my 3.5's it was possibly the best sound I've ever gotten - there was ZERO to kvetch about.
Hmmm...I can't...I can't...I won't....
Yeah, right. Looks like I may be shopping separates again?
Your post reminds me that a leanness has always been the characteristics of Thiel speakers I listened to (and it's a very common description of Thiel). Virtually every Thiel I ever heard always sounded amazingly accurate, but also like it had somewhat squeezed the sound of each instrument just a bit too hard into a thinner element. (Contrast that to something classically "big and rounder" in the midrange like a Harbeth or older Spendor). It was one of my few complaints, and it was also jut about my only complaint when I had the big CS6s, which I otherwise adored.
That's an area I've found different in the 3.7. It does not sound lean; completely the opposite, it sounds more rich and full than most of the speakers I've been evaluating. I even just expected the Harbeth speakers to at least sound more filled out in the midrange, if only because they sounded so midrange rich in the store and that is their reputation. Yet the Thiels sounded even richer than the Harbeths. One of many tests I use is a recording of John Williams playing classical guitar. No other speaker I've auditioned yet renders Williams' guitar with such realistic weight and size.
"Moving up" the Thiel line as I have - 2.2's, 2.3's, 3.5's, and now 3.6's - does not necessarily infer that each was an improvement over the former inasmuch it does infer that each is rather different from the former, if not by definition "better".
The most immediately remarkable impressions were experienced from the 2.2's to the 3.5's - each had what the previous model had with a dash of mo' better everything tossed in.
The difference between the 3.5's and 3.6's is, with the 3.6's, a more pronounced, perhaps forward midrange that, to my ears, seems to soften the notably crisp highs of Thiel in general. This is not to say that the highs are suffered by any means, nor is the low frequency response. The few low-end hertzes I was willing to sacrifice with the 3.6's mattered not a whit; the bass is palpable, tangible, there's an appreciable sense of timbre and naturalness. I can't even imagine a need for a sub. No, sir.
Me no likey subs.
Thus far I've found that the 3.6's show their finest at a volume level a little higher than I normally prefer. And it's there that everything pours forth - the music is felt, defined, passing "the other room" test, causing me to re-enter the living room and think, "what a genius I am to have found these speakers."
Many contributors to this thread have been fortunate enough to purchase these speakers used at considerable savings. Considerable savings over what a comparatively new purchase of another brand would incur. That alone has made Thiel my reference point for considering any other brand. Extraordinarily difficult to beat.
For now, the 3.6's won't move. They're too damn heavy for one, and secondly they're just too damn good. Did I mention they're heavy?
They're heavy. Swapping cables is something of a chore requiring tipping them onto their sides onto a carpet to get at the connects on the bottom. Oof. Ouch.
Jim Thiel was one of the best, if not the best speaker designers! In a way, under appreciated. Yet as time goes by, he is justifiably getting his due more and more. If he had lived longer, Vandersteen would still be in the rear view mirror. My opinion of course. Best......
Auditioned the Raidho C 1.2 monitors today. They would normally be prohibitively expensive but a dealer has a great demo pair deal so I gave them a listen.
Very nice high end frequencies in terms of smoothness combined with subtle detail - open, lifelike, while not too bright (generally). Bass quite surprisingly big and impactful from a monitor. Decent soundstaging.
But...didn't care for them over all. Tonally I found them somewhat bleached and bland. They also sounded somewhat sculpted (as they actually are) with a BBC-like dip, which made lots of vocals and orchestral music sound naturally smooth, but showed up as a more obvious tonal and dynamic reticence elsewhere: for instance drum snares, rim shots I knew to have excellent presence in other more neutral speakers like the Thiels were dulled and made more distant. Acoustic guitar finger picking attack was made too polite - one classical guitar piece by John Williams which has shows tons of effort and energy on the Thiels and some other speakers sounded weakened and far less exciting on the Raidhos. Also, even when there's significant (apparent) bass extension there's something about a small monitor trying to sound big that I never quite buy.
Once I got home and played all the same tracks on the 3.7s I was amazed by how much better I thought the whole presentation was - clarity, organic quality, control, imaging, dynamics...just everything seemed better. Played the same John Williams guitar track and it simply sounded more like a real guitar in front of me, being played enthusiastically. It seems to me Jim Thiel didn't have to sculpt the frequency range to make for smooth sound - the 3.7s just are smooth, yet full and exciting at the same time.
Thanks....though your comments on the 2.7 bass sounded promising...right up until you mentioned you use a sub with them. It's no wonder you find the bass satisfying ;-)
As a 2.7 owner, I don't think you will be missing much as compared to the 3.7. I never heard the 3.7, but I find the bass satisfying.
Actually, when I auditioned them I was very surprised by the bass, much better than I expected.
(Although I do use a smartsub, to be honest you would never know it was there.)
I was just thinking yesterday "Now I see why some people get into DIY." That way you can attempt to build speakers that do the things you are looking for. If you have the talent, time and persistence (which I don’t...I have zero interest in DIY).
As for sub/monitor combos, I’m pretty much allergic to subwoofers - heard the combos in many set ups, including my own. No matter how many times I hear someone claim "it’s a seamless match" I immediately hear the sub and it annoys me. (The best blend I ever heard was actually a combo I owned: Quad ESL 63s that attached to Gradient subwoofers, specially designed to match the dipole radiation of the Quads. But that was a very room dominating system, like big, black room dividers).
It’s possible if I had enough time and resources on my hands I could end up with a subwoofer that mated well enough with some monitors, but it’s a no-go for my room. I’ve tried my best to make the technology invisible in the room (even my home theater speakers are covered in black velvet, against a black velvet screen wall). Subs would mean doubling the amount of speakers put in the room, when I’m looking to reduce (and I would not have the flexibility of placement options necessary to optimize the subs to blend them with stand mount speakers).
The problem is the Thiel 3.7s must be placed well into the room, where I like most of my speakers, for best sound and also to allow traffic into the room. The right speaker sits essentially blocking 1/2 the room entrance and if you saw a picture, you’d understand immediately why I’m trying to find a smaller speaker solution. Any inches I shave off the depth/height of the speaker helps.
I do think it’s possible smaller floor standers could satisfy me for several reasons. One is that they obviously help solve my aesthetics/ergonomics problem. Two, the 3.7s aren’t bass monsters to begin with. They are rated only down to 33Hz, yet I find this adequate to satisfy. The Joseph Perspectives, for instance, are similarly rated despite being much smaller and I found them generally satisfying in bass depth. Imaging was also terrific as well, though falling a bit short of the imaging size and precision of the Thiels.
The auditioning I had of the JM Reynaud monitors left me intrigued, but I have to say I really don’t care for their looks, especially their selection of wood finishes, so that’s a bit of a hurdle.
And on that aesthetic note: as I mentioned I have a pair of beautiful Harbeth speakers in Rosewood that I'm currently selling in another web site. I figured that the Harbeths, being smaller and more traditional looking than the Thiel 3.7s would be an easier sell for her. But she surprised me, saying she much preferred the look of the big Thiels in the room. I find she's right: the room has a contemporary decor and the more modern, sleeker lines of the Thiels actually blend in better. Hence...promise for the 2.7s.
I should have the Thiel 2.7s in house sometime after next weekend.
Confusion and Hesitation are problems I continually see on this site. Been there, done that.
Down sizing is not a great option.
Through this thread; l realized that I have had the Avalons for 12yrs. Changing from a 20yr Spectral owner to Pass amps is what made the Avalons sing even better.
I have been considering a pair of Rockports for about 1 1/2 yrs now. Alan Goodwin- Goodwin's Highend offered me a pair for 15k and I saw a pair offered in Denver for the same. Maybe when they get to 10-12k will I really start considering them.
But they are Not a downsizing. Just 50lb heavier and a "bit larger"
To replace the Avalons will take a larger Avalon or maybe the Rockports. But I will need to live with them for at least a year before I give up the Avalons I now have. 12yrs of a satisfying relationship that has even grown better since the Pass amps joined the system will be hard to replace.
Final caution, Do not let the 3.7s go without serious consideration. You will play hell to replace them.
I applaud your heroic efforts. Yes, truly full range is where it's at. A fairly reasonable facsimile for me took a pair of Wilsons and their 300lb+ sub. The music, the room, the air came alive! (23'x35'x14') room. Can only imagine what 2 of the beasts could do. My neighbors (even at low volume) lived in fear as their coffee cups and wine glasses vibrated on their table.
Lucky to be able to go to the Green Mill lounge to see Patricia Barber. Ricki Lee when she is at one of the small venues.
You became the designer/builder through your efforts. Took a longtime. When I get home; I just want to fire up the system and a "big fatty" and lay back.
The monitor/sub is ok for a weekend getaway. Even full range systems are just that; A System.
HP was right all along; Live Music and a night out is extremely pleasant.
All our our efforts are still not the Real Deal. Again, I applaud your effort. Enjoy what You have accomplished.
What I neglected to say above is that I think that your original point above really being about weak-sister sub/standmount systems having inherently more bass problems than they’re even worth is actually true and a perfectly valid one. But, I suppose that maybe the problem is less about the design goal than about the overall execution....the bass region being both so much more critical to the listening experience and technically difficult to get right than many of us may be, initially anyway, willing to deal with.
I tried and tried as well. But, in my own case, I came to the opposite conclusion - good, "killer" subs and and 2-way standmounts just might be the Only way to solve that problem...at least if you ask me. But, what I found was that all of that pushed me well into the DIY waters before I learned how to swim with it.
I have some amps that each have a suite of digital pro-tools (crossover, EQ, delay...everything except phase adjustment, which turned out to not be so critical for me) and with 3 of them (one stereo amp each for highs, mids and lows) I had the architecture in place to build my own speakers from scratch.
But with all that flexibility I found that I was, in a real way, suddenly freed from all the oppressive blunders and corner cutting that speaker manufacturers invariably make...crossover points that are too high or too low, crossover overlap or underlap, mismatched drivers, questionable crossover components or design complexity that’s intended to cover up for mismatched drivers, bad parts, etc, etc. But with an ability for me to design the speakers completely around the crossovers (from the start) instead of the other way round, I found I could finally have speakers (OB in my case) the way "I" would’ve made them, because...well, I Did.
All that led to my current setup, a pair of 15" Hawthorne Audio "Augies" paired with my own horn-version of Danny Ritchie’s "Wedgie" OB standmounts. But, again, no passive crossovers along with endless control over just where all the parameters are set is what made the difference...throw in some generous amounts of conditioning to settle the digital noise down and voila, it’s done. OB bass does load the room a little differently than box designs, but OB, IME, has the edge in everything else bass.
In this setup though, there IS no bass region any more...only bass instruments, with every bit as much tone, body, color, texture, harmonics, transparency and extension as instruments in any other portion of the range. As big as the Augies are, they hit hard and are more invisible here, from what I’ve ever heard, than any floorstanders I’ve experienced. Yes, all that took years of tweaking and a lot of off-roading on my part before I ever figured it all out, but it is possible to make this approach work and work well...even if all the challenges end up being not to be taken lightly.
In effect, I suppose I had to become my own designer.
I tried and tried. IMO you cannot put together a coherent full range system out of disparate parts. That's what designers do. You can augment a full range system down to 16hz ; but a giant killer monitor/sub system??? You can amaze people (even yourself) for a period. Then the cut, the one note that your heart is waiting for and Blah! Your make an adjustment and all is good until the next BLAH!! Bleep+#!?% moment.
I suspect coherent full range is what you need and have.
BTW... I mentioned earlier in the thread my interest in Kudos speakers as well. There
is almost no talk on Audiogon about that brand, it seems because they
are a small British company that doesn't get much word outside
Britain. But a couple years ago at an audio show, walking through the
hall, I heard the most life-like symphonic sound coming from inside a
room. I popped in and there were these huge horn speakers which I
presumed were making the sound. As the tracks switched to - I think
Stevie Wonder and other tracks - there was that incredible clarity and
palpability of sound, and dynamics, that had me say "Yup, that's why
some people love horn speakers." Turns out it wasn't the horns playing
at all, but the modest, slim, non-descript wooden two-way floor standing
speakers right beside them. They blew my mind and I took note of the
brand.
Recently I was in an audio store and noticed they had the
elusive Kudos speakers - smaller, cheaper models than the one I'd heard
at the show. I listened to some tracks and there it was, that sound I remembered from the audio show. They really wowed me. It turns out Kudos has introduced a series of flagship speakers, one of which may be within my reach, so it's now on my radar. In my mind, thus far, my "smaller speaker" solution has come down to between the Thiel 2.7, Joseph Audio Perspective, and the long shot Kudos Titan 606 (if I ever get to hear it...and I might).
I mention this partially because, as a Thiel fan I found the Kudos pushed many of the same hard-to-find buttons (though the Kudos are brighter and less neutral) as the ones Thiels push for me.
Yeah, my wife...and especially one of my audio buddies...mock me if I suggest I will end up with "the speaker." If I haven’t by now, I probably never will. I always start pairing down my speaker collection, but then build back up again.
Especially since I renovated my 2 channel room into a home theater/music listening room, the tension between "big and fully satisfying sound" and "discrete enough to work in the room aesthetically" has been a real back and forth. I switch between floor standers and stand mounted speakers. When I set up one of my monitors I always love the sound and think "this is so great, what more do I need?" That happened again recently when I put my old Waveform (egg shaped) monitors in my system. The tone was so gorgeous, the dynamics so convincing, it was only when certain sections of a song would hit where I would miss the drama I was used to with the extension of the bigger speakers that I’d say "Oh yeah...that’s why I tend to go back to floor standing speakers."
I still have one of my all time favorite speakers - the Omani-directional MBL radialstrahler 121s. Within their frequency range they astonish me. But then I ask myself "Why do the MBLs have so much less time in my system when I have a floor stander like the Thiel 3.7s?" I seem to eventually crave what a big speaker can do. (And adding subs to my monitor speakers is a non-starter for several reasons).
So this time of trying to downsize somewhat, I’ve tried to find an in-between: a speaker that is smaller than the 3.7 but which has *enough* frequency range to make me not feel I’m missing something. That’s why I’ve been auditioning mid-sized speakers like Audio Note, Audio Physic, Joseph audio Perspectives, Harbeth Super HL5 Plus, and some monitors that are larger and go low for their size - e.g. JM Reynaud Offrande Supremes, and others. And that’s where the Thiel 2.7s come in - they may look good enough in the room to leave there, while giving enough sonically of what I desire. Though, I’m no longer under the delusion that anything will be my "last" speaker.
I picked up a pair of Harbeth Super HL5 Plus speakers to check out in my home and while they were excellent, I couldn’t pass up the deal on those Thiel 2.7s, so I’m selling the Harbeths to finance the Thiel purchase.
On a better note. Good luck with the Thiel 2.7s. In my search to replace my 3.5s. Speaker size was a concern to me due to thinking that we would be moving back to Alaska at a future time. Anyway those thoughts have taken a back seat to other issues. You sound like you have the knowledge to make them work in your HT system; but will they be as satisfying as the 3.7s for music? I tried for 4yrs to find Speakers to replace my 3.5s I came to the conclusion that a fairly large speaker is required for coherence and satisfaction through the frequency spectrum. But as I learned that the room was really the major component; I realized through careful placement and acoustic treatment that you could fully enjoy a large speaker system in a variety of rooms. I always told my wife that I intended to downsize one day. She just laughs at me now. Yes smaller Speakers and subs could keep me satisfied for a bit; but long term, a full size/ full range speaker is needed. Just my thoughts.
Best Wishes on your Journey nkonor
P.S. --- Ended up with a bigger house, multiple rooms, plus storage capacity.
I did enjoy the JA line of speakers. In similar fashion to Thiel both brands plays well (no pun) w/ tubed and solid state gear. Whichever your room dimensions, you will want to maximize the sound and presentation. Happy Listening!
Jafant...while I appreciate your enthusiastic input in to this thread, I do find it frustrating that you keep saying things like this, especially to me:
------------- "a room size of 20x20, minimum, is the starting point for owning the CS 3.7 speaker. It throws that size of a sound stage." -------------
Why are you trying to tell me that when I actually have lived with the 3.7s for years now, and I’ve explained a number of times why it simply isn’t the case they need a room that large to sound superb?
I mean...you are you are saying that to an audiophile (me) who has had decades of experience tuning systems (I also work in professional sound for film). And, unlike you, I actually own the 3.7s and so can talk from direct experience as to how well they can sound in a smaller room, when proper care is taken.
I really think it does something of a disservice to keep repeating the idea that large speakers like the 3.7s inherently require a large room to sound excellent.
As anyone in this hobby should know, the final sound will always be a combination of factors, especially the speaker design, the placement in the room, and the room acoustics. The 3.7s are actually EASIER to set up in a smaller room than other large speakers, due to their exceedingly well damped bass region.
In my room with correct placement, the 3.7s are not activating any obvious room nodes, and go rumbling-under-the-feet deep when required, while room reflections are controlled meaning the sound is super low in added hash for extremely fine tonality and super precise imaging. Soundstaging-wise: the entire front of the room melts away with the biggest, deepest, most life-sized soundstage I’ve heard from a speaker anywhere near their size (and I’m not talking "heard in my room" but in anywhere, from a similar sized speaker). It’s like being wrapped in sound. Play the right orchestral piece and the back wall is "gone" with an almost life-sized sounding orchestra stretching side to side, off into the distance. I’m not compromising the soundstaging of the 3.7s - I’m deriving the level of soundstaging they are actually capable of!
My room was renovated in consultation with an acoustician, and so it is treated carefully (and I can modulate the level of reflectivity in the room). I’ve had many large floor standing speakers in there, some flat down to 20Hz and all have exhibited superb sound, with excellent bass - in every instance, better than the larger rooms in which I’d originally auditioned them - cleaner, more spacious, more in control, bigger, etc. Because...that’s what paying close attention to placement and room acoustics can do.
One of the best speaker experiences I ever had was at a reviewer’s house for The Absolute Sound. He had the big full range MBL 101D speakers in a hilariously tiny room - comically so. It felt like a closet. But...he’d treated the room well and finely tuned placement of the speakers. I’ve heard and auditioned the MBL 101s many, many times in many different room sizes. Nothing ever came close to the performance I heard in that guy’s tiny room.
I’ve had plenty of superb smaller speakers in that room - smaller floor standers, monitors of all types - the size of which you may have recommended over the 3.7s based on your assumptions, and I can tell you none came close to what a large floor stander like the 3.7 can do in the room.
I know you want to be helpful, but I do think you could update your thinking about speakers and acoustics, and take into consideration reported experiences like mine and others that doesn’t fit with your preconceptions - because you keep giving out confident-sounding advice that doesn’t seem very nuanced and thus can be misleading.
BTW, I think perhaps your reply mixed up the Joseph speakers I referenced? I said I was interested in the Perspectives not the larger Pearls. The Perspectives sounded beautiful when auditioned in my room, certainly better than in the larger store demo room.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
