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!
Thank You Prof Your in-depth evaluation is fantastic, Its to bad the the " professional " evaluators couldn't be as precise as you. You've help me get over the regret of not moving up to the 3.7s I purchased one of the last CS2.7 pairs available from Thiel, I had to purchase the speaker spikes used on the 2.4SEs and 3.7s in order to penetrate the carpet. I love the sound and the looks and they aren't so heavy that I'd need help to move them.
I actually find the 2.7 sounds a bit more like the earlier models vs the 3.7. The 2.7 has that slightly tighter, denser, focused concissive quality I'd always heard from Thiel - the 3.7s being a bit more of a departure - smoother more lush. This is fairly subtle stuff, though.
I was thinking back to the times I auditioned the CS 2.4, 2.4SE, 2.7 and 3.7 models. Ultimately, I chose the 2.4SE. I must say that it was a close race between the 2.4SE and 2.7. To my ears, the 2.4SE won out based upon the facts of cabinet, cross-over, binding posts and included outriggers (necessary w/ the CS 1.6, 1.7 2.4 and 2.4SE).
The CS 2.7 offers the best in JT last designs. These are getting harder to find in the used/demo markets. It would be interesting to learn about the number of pairs built? I concur, the Ebony finish is special.
Do you mean how much have I tilted them? I haven’t tilted either the 3.7 or the 2.7. Simply set them down without spikes (I’ve tried spikes before and they didn’t make anything better about the sound). So they have whatever tilt is built into their shape.
I often experiment in terms of my head height when listening - sometimes sitting up, slouching, lying more reclined. Thus far I found the tonal balance changes a bit more with the 3.7 when doing so, vs the 2.7. There’s a slightly richer, more mellow balance the further I go below the 3.7 tweeter height. But the difference may be that the 3.7 tweeter starts out higher than the 2.7 given my listening position, so slouching in front of the less tall 2.7s means I’m still more in line with the 2.7 mid/tweeter, so the frequency balance doesn't change as much.
I’m going to get used to the 2.7 for a while longer and continue experimenting before I put the 3.7s back to compare.
Last night I spun some vinyl, Niel Young at Massey Hall. While it didn’t have quite the cavernous scale as on the 3.7s, there was a more solid sense of the performance, which made it remarkably realistic.
I think the very slightly more forward upper midrange - a more incisive leading edge - combined with the upper bass/lower mids density of the 2.7 (due to it’s different tuning for the smaller woofer) tends to give piano notes in particular a more solid presence. Pretty nifty stuff.
Prof Happy Day! Glad to see you are enjoying your delivery. Glad you found the bass satisfactory and noted differences between the two. Just curious though - how is the tilt as compared to the 3.7?
Thanks for taking a break to give us your 1st take of the 2.7s and comparisons to the 3.7s
Yes, I know that your wife thinks you have a lot of gear. The Speakers are heavy and a lot of work to move and adjust. She should be used to it by now and know that you are hopeless. Take your time. I don't think she will leave.
I have been able to visualize your comparisons and would concur with them; have gone through the same drill.
Do not want to voice to much to influence you even at a subconscious level.
You said, that you do sound work for film, so I know that the HT part is important to you. Personally, the HT is just Tricks & Treats for me.
Ok, so here for anyone interested is my initial first impressions report on the Thiel 2.7s:
As I've mentioned, I have the Thiel 3.7s and have considered downsizing somewhat, for space/ergonomic reasons, though not for sound - because they sound mind-blowing.
The 2.7s are in a high class ebony which matches the room really well and they are one of the most beautiful pair of speakers I've seen. That's huge because part of my move has been for aesthetic reasons.
At first the 2.7s didn't seem that much smaller than the 3.7s when taking them out of the box. But once set up the difference is really noticeable. They are much less room-dominating and more sleek than the 3.7s. (Though I ultimately like the look of the 2.7s better, my wife slightly prefers the 3.7 design). And certainly moving them around is much easier in terms of their size and weight.
I've had the 2.7s up and experimenting with positions for 2 days, and for the moment have found a nice position that seems to maximize their soundstaging, precision, tone, dynamics. (They are close to the same set up as my 3.7s ).
Having lived with the 3.7s for years, how do the 2.7s sound? First impressions: almost exactly like how I thought they'd sound: just like the 3.7s. That same immediately identifiable tone and presentation, just a bit smaller. And the bass seems quite satisfactory - a lot of the times it seemed to be going as low as the 3.7s.
But it wasn't long, in going through many familiar tracks, before some sight differences started to emerge. The first is the soundstaging. The 2.7s do that wonderful Thiel thing in disappearing as sound sources. Very "un-speaker-like" sound emanating from all around the speakers. (Far cleaner than, for instance, the Harbeths I recently had). Images have amazing precision all around the speakers. That said, it's not the same soundstaging as the 3.7s insofar as the 2.7s present a more forward, more present and less deep and wide soundstage. This is something that would not be noticed if I hadn't lived with the 3.7s which are just about the most phenomenal soundstaging speakers I've ever had. The 3.7s just can cast an enormous soundtage, almost life-sized feeling for jazz and even classical with the right set up. It's almost like the depth and width can keep going and going.
In contrast, the 2.7s soundstage pulls all the musicians closer. I can hear all the reverberation cues and spaces, but the instruments aren't placed as far away.
Also, in favor of the 3.7s, the big guys sound a bit more relaxed and sort of softer than the 2.7s, with a bit more carved out "air" around instruments and voices. Plus, not surprisingly, instruments and voices can be a bit smaller on the 2.7s.
The other differences are that the 2.7s sound very slightly more forward and present than the 3.7s, with just a bit more sparkle and shine in the upper mids/lower treble, giving cymbals, brass, and anything with a "leading edge" such as guitar picking or piano notes a bit more presence. It's not an incoherent "tweeter sticking out" sound at all; they are incredibly coherent like the 3.7s, but somewhere just a very slightly different tonal balance.
Then there is the bass/midbass/lower midrange. Voiced for the smaller woofer, this aspect of the sound changes as well. It's sort of like taking the 3.7s deep weighty sound and shifting and squishing that energy upwards more into the midbass. The 2.7s have just astounding "punch" and density - and control! - in terms of bass that goes up into the lower mid range. There was a thread on audiocircle where the fellow who did some design work on the 2.7 chimed in:
His comments on the bass are right on. Bass drums and stand up bass are so dense and punchy.
So what this all combines to on the 2.7 is a presentation that seems more forward, more exciting, more alive, and even more "dense" than I get with the 3.7s. Everything just vibrates the air as if it's really there, in front of you. I had wondered about the specs of the specs of the 2.7s because they are rated as quite a bit less sensitive than the 3.7s. Though my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks (140Wside) have driven any speaker I've used, I wondered if I still might here a bit of dynamic reticence in the 2.7 vs the 3.7. No, just the opposite! These things utterly kick ass with the CJ amps! Incredibly punchy, ballsy and more dynamically alive than virtually any non-horn speaker I can ever remember hearing. That is their main virtue thus far: the way the field around the speakers is populated by particularly dense, air-moving voices and instruments. Drum solos have more pop, snap, punch, thereness and I'm more aware of the sounds and variations in how the drummer is playing (or bongos or anything percussive). Stand up bass panned to one speaker sounds like it's in the room, moving air.
Vocals? Thus far what I'm hearing gives some ground to the 3.7s, takes away in others. I'm getting more focused sound, more density and "thereness" and a bit more presence, so vocals can sound quite astonishing. On the other hand, the 3.7s seem to have a sightly smoother, more subtle, softer and organic texture for voices. I can enjoy both.
Strings, similarly, have a somewhat more subtle, softer sheen on the 3.7s, just a teeny bit more rasp on the 2.7s, but also more dense on the 2.7s, more "moving air."
Overall thus far I'd describe the 3.7s as sounding more relaxed and cinematically scaled, the 2.7s bring forth more life energy, impossible not to be tapping my toes through pretty much every song.
I'm going to take a while in making my decision (as much as my wife is putting the pressure on!). Thus far I love aspects about both the 2.7 and the 3.7.
And for anyone wondering about the 2.7 (who thought about grabbing one)...it seems they are pretty rare on the second hand market, but I can't recommend them highly enough if you think the Thiel sound is for you. I've been auditioning plenty of more expensive contenders recently, but I don't know if I can think of a better bargain than second hand 2.7s.
I know that your excited. Take your time for many good listenering sessions before you make a final decision. Like I said earlier; a new speaker would need to satisfy me for a year, before I would give up my current 12year affair. Happy that it is a Wow !! Speaker. Can hardly wait for you to be able to give a more in-depth take on them. I sure others are waiting with me and will settle for short previews whenever you put them out.
Norb, congratulations on some nice progress on your recovery. Surgery is a b*&^$h! Awesome you can enjoy some tunes this Weekend.
I'll bet that second system of yours does sound great. I came so close to buying the little 50 watt Forte - class A amp when they came out - the one that got away!
Prof - curious to hear your impressions on the 2.7 - still cranking my 3.6 after 18 years of service!
Finally getting your 2.7s. My benchmark has always been my 3.5s. Took me years to stumble into a pair of ProAc Tabelettes. Finally a midrange that could sing to me. Keep them in a 2nd system with a pair of Forte' class A monoblocks and a Velodyne sub. An incredibly musical system. Just mates perfectly. I could never sell these Speakers/system.
Just had an amazing leap in my recovery from my back surgery. Was finally able to tweek some of the tube traps and diffusers. Will be a Musical weekend; Hope yours is too.
I was moving my 3.7s to make room for the 2.7s I’m getting tomorrow. For the heck of it I set up my old Thiel 02s. For those who don’t know that model, it was before the time/phase coherence - just a regular box speaker, but engineered for a flatter response than most speakers at the time (even though it’s not perfectly flat - a bit of emphasis in the upper mids). Not sure I’d listened to them yet since I got my CJ Premier 16LS2 pre-amp a while back.
Unbelievably musical. So clear, alive sounding, yet warm, with more sparkle than the 3.7s. It’s actually my benchmark for the sound I’ve been chasing for years, which is why I can’t ever get rid of them. Every time I fire them up I end up thinking "maybe this is all I need" but I know after time I can start to crave some of the finesse of a newer speaker (and scale). But boy do I love those speakers, an unbelievably synergistic match with the CJ amps. (And my Eico HF-81). I actually prefer listening to them over the Harbeth SHL5 Plus I just sold!
I should have my 2.7s tomorrow so this will be interesting...
It wasn't a serious consideration because the room doubles as a home theatre too; where we often add a second row of seats.
There's a structural telepost (masqueraded by a 16" wooden column) that interferes as well so it was better to have it off to the one side rather than directly in the middle of the seating.
Anyway I was just playing around with the Cardas golden ratios and such, and seemed to have reached a good sonic solution for 2-ch.
That reminds me to build my next house with floor trusses; and free up the space for even more flexibility...
^I believe the most critical distance for time and phase coherence (an attribute that can only be found with classic Thiel's beginning with the CS series and a handful of other loudspeakers) is the 8' minimum recommended distance from loudspeakers to listener. The recommendation to start with an equilateral triangle has led many to perhaps over generalize that listener to speaker distance of 8' to a strict minimum distance between speakers. IMHO, still a good baseline from which to start. As rooms, and room nodes and reflections vary from room to room, other considerations might weight more heavily.
Have you considered long wall placement? IME, (and in a room not too different than yours) such placement, with absorptive room treatment directly behind the listener, has been the preferred placement.
So all this talk about room size, and placement theory, had me experimenting and moving the 2.4s around again. The room has absorption panels on the side walls, corner bass traps on the front wall, and diffraction on the back wall. Room is 13'6"W x 23'L x 8'H.
I ended up with them 57" from the front wall, 44" from the side wall, and 75" apart. Listening position is 100". All measurements are from the centre of the THIEL name plate.
So I lost none of the soundstage width (which often goes wall-to-wall), gained some depth, and a little tighter focus in the vocals.
I'm somewhat amused by this, because it seemed to fly in the face of the wisdom of most literature recommending an 8' minimum distance between speakers. I've been able to free myself of the head in a vice behaviour, as a result.
I've been running through my usual test tracks and have been pleased with the results. Painter's tape markings have been repositioned accordingly.
Good to see you guys enjoying the exchange of ideas, banter and celebrating of our beloved loudspeakers. Like so many here in these forums, I enjoy Conrad Johnson gear, as well. Keep up the friendly fire.
Congrats on the new home, dedicated room, use of "Jim Smiths" book and the willingness to take some time and think things out. Did you use a tape or get the recommended laser? The laser will help you get that last bit of everything the Thiels or any speaker can bring to your room.
Dedicated line yet? Sounds like your enjoying already. Your Thiels are worth the extra effort.
The past few weeks have been filled with moving into our new home including setting up my new dedicated system room. The two rooms, old and new, could not be more different. Old: cathedral ceilings, wood floor, area of an open floor plan main living space. New: 14' x 13' x 8', thick carpet. There is also a dormer window where my rack fits nicely. I left the spikes off my 2.4s initially and spent hours over days moving them around, measuring to the walls, moving some more in patterns I have previously used (thank you Jim Smith). Initially I was stressed and depressed. I forgot I had tuned my entire system, over many years, to a very different environment. I placed my room treatments aNd moved them to incrementally new positions and went back to starting over with speaker positioning. Suddenly, after a very minor change (after many minor changes) it all came together. The clarity of my Thiels 2.4 soundstage and presentation was exactly as I had hoped. Better than I was ever able to achieve in their previous room. I placed their spikes on and can't stop smiling. Every time I worry my Thiels might need to be "replaced/upgraded" they re amaze me, re engage me and make me realize their only issue was me, that I didn't have them set up correctly.
Cool. I look forward to hearing my new Thiel 2.7s next weekend.
I also have some "ear issues." I played for decades in a very loud band and acquired quite a case of Tinnitus and some hyperacusis (hearing sensitivity) came along for the ride. It was really rough for a few years but has gotten better over time. It made my ears quite sensitive to bright speakers or coarse distortion (I don't have hearing loss issues though, fortunately my hearing - when tested - is excellent).
So this makes it somewhat ironic that both of us own Thiel speakers, which have a reputation among so many audiophiles as being bright and hard to listen to. It never was quite true in a good set up, but I think it's a tribute to Jim's final designs especially just how smooth and fatigue-free he got them sounding, while producing as much or more detail than ever. I can listen fatigue-free to the 3.7s endlessly, more than any speaker I've had. (Of course system matching is part of the key; the CJ gear helps here - liquid and organic, but with no sense of darkening, roll-off or making the sound simply polite).
I've love to hear the Volti speakers! I figure they would bring an even greater sense of presence and density to the sound than even the Thiels. But with other trade offs. I wouldn't be able to place a speaker like that in my room.
As for reproducing voices and intrumental timbre, as I mentioned I find the MBLs the current champ...and the previous champ were the Hales Transcendence speakers - I had the floor standing T5s at one point but...forgot to mention in the above....I have a bunch of Hales Speakers still, Transcendence monitors. They are amazing for having a low noise floor and producing a rainbow of tonal color. They are dynamically reticent though, have less density and texture than the Thiels.
I found the joseph audio Perspectives to edge the Thiels in tonal beauty - just a bit lower noise floor, a bit more surprising variety in instrumental timbre, a bit more pure/smooth sounding high end. Though the Thiels edge out the josephs in other ways (image size, soundstage, density, dynamics, bass control...)
Nice "stuff" I saw one of the big tube amps you have......Lots of big tubes!
Mbl has a nice rep, but to hard to find space to listen to at shows
" tone" over details is where I seem to be morphing, too, also But love great soundstage & details, too
I've got a hearing loss issue that accents screeching treble, harshness, more than most & has had me searching to make 80's compressed music listenable, for me The CJ pre and a Tube change has really finished to search A EH tube to a NOS has REALLY helped satisfy my ears
I've listened to Thiel 1.7,2.7 & 3.7 THE 2.7 was best for me due to playing with an Ayre amp The others with a Parasound, & no break-in Ayre has a sweet high end with a tad softening
All,had the Thiel sound, just varying bass levels that effected the tonality. A sub fixes that!! And has adjustment
What a hobby! Note: a friend has a Volti speaker and it is a tone monster, to me If you get a chance listen to one...
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 .
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.
