Thiel Owners

I use an AQ Niagara 3000 but only for my sources and LPS, amplification straight into the wall is best with good Furutech wall outlet.

I have thick  curtains in front of my 2 glass doors.

Lloyd - I've had good results from pleated-cell blinds - the heavier audio-grade variety. Draperies work best when pleated to provide air spaces and an undulating surface. Beware that too much absorption can kill the dynamics. Start with a little and add if you need more. I would start with the blinds.

For those Thiel owners who are contemplating using Isoacoustics GAIA footers beneath their speakers, I am eagerly awaiting your reviews of how it impacted the sound quality. I am a CS3.6 owner and my speakers sit atop of Sound Anchors stand that I have configured with 2 front and one rear spike that then sets in a stainless carpet disc with a little depression in it for the spike. 
 

My listening room is in my 2nd story living room (suspended floor). There is a good amount of bass energy that sort of “escapes” into the floor and can be powerfully felt downstairs. I never utilized the blue rubber discs that Sound Anchors provided to go between the speaker bottoms and the top of the stands. I am currently on a mission to “voice” my system better so I may start by placing 4 of these blue discs under each speaker corner then do some analytic listening. I will likely also try without the carpet discs and just push the spikes firmly into the carpet then listen. Lastly, I plan to try 1 front and 2 rear spikes or 4 spikes in each corner of the Sound Anchor stands which are pre-drilled for both configurations. 

But actually I was curious about the unthreaded 1/4” pin sockets that originally are spec’d on the CS3.6 speaker bottoms and accept 4 unthreaded 1/4” diameter spikes. I bought my speakers used so I don’t have the spikes but I may try to obtain 8 of these spiked pins from Coherent Source Audio in Lexington, KY. With these spikes I might experiment with the CS3.6’S spiked on dimpled discs on top of the Sound Anchor stands. 

My objective with all this is to tighten up the bass and hopefully further quiet or eliminate smearing across the audio band. My new Bryston 4B3 amp is more detailed for sure than the previous iteration (4B2) but bass punch and clarity have been underwhelming so far. The 4B2 may have even been better with bass than the new version per my recollection. 

After I complete some of the above listening tests, I may go ahead and purchase Isoacoustics GAIA feet to mound beneath the Sound Anchors stands. Due to the total weight of my CS3.6 @107# + the weight of the Sound Anchor stands, I am at the maximum recommended weight for the GAIA 2’s. I messaged Isoacoustics and they thought that getting the bigger GAIA 1’s which have a weight max of 220# that a good option for me would be to set my Sound Anchor stands up with 3 of the GAIA 1’s. I believe I would use the 1/4-20” screws that come in the package. Since I would only need 6 of the GAIA 1’s I would purchase one 4 pack and 2 additional ones that are sold singly. 

From what I have read about the Isoacoustics GAIA feet, these might be a moderate price tweak to decouple the CS3.6 speakers with the payoff being increased clarity of the bass. Hopefully the de-coupling would not rob my speakers of bass, this is my biggest concern about trying this implementation out. I suppose if the performance of the GAIA feet changes the SQ in a way that I don’t like, they could be resold on Audiogon or eBay. The total cost of the 6 GAIA 1’s looks like it would be right around $900 USD which isn’t bad if the results do what I’m hoping they can do. 
 

Feel free to give feedback on my idea and I can provide future updates as I try out the different configurations.
 

One other remark I would make about the Isoacoustics GAIA feet: there was some discussion on a YouTube comparison video with the Townshend Audio ones that involved ported vs non-ported enclosure designs and they seemed to say that the ported designs bass performance improved considerably with decoupling but sealed designs suffered a bit with arguably too “dry” or washed out bass. 
 

I’m just curious how the CS3.6 would perform with bass response since it has that passive radiator. I’m actually eager to try it out for myself but perhaps some other Thiel forum members already can speak to whether there is a synergy here (best case) or worst case - perhaps all of this might conspire to cancel out some of the low end that we all know must be present and not attenuated in comparison to the midrange & treble response.

masi61 - Greetings. There’s been no response most likely because there’s no safe answer. Everything depends on everything, and your room dimensions, absorption, damping and losses interact with the floor coupling. I, too, await with interest any observations from those experimenting with GAIA feet.

I can tell you how we approached the matter at Thiel (early days / first 20 years), which may have changed, but not too likely to diverge radically from the following.

Speaker development occurred both in the lab and under multiple test conditions. In other words, we did not tweak for or against any particular coupling conditions, since those are so complex (as stated above) and unknown, to be counter-productive to project or assume. Bass target was .707. Baffle step (progression from omni-directional to directional propagation behavior) was first calculated and then verified multiple ways: speaker hanging in free air, speaker on pins on a solid, non resonant surface, on a solid elevated platform, buried in a sandbox, and in at least two listening situations - all under measurement and critical listening.

Over time we learned to correlate these conditions to shape toward our target .707 x -2dB bass shelf in anechoic free-space. Our surfaces were these: Outdoors was A) flat roof with rubber membrane roof over hard foam insulation on deck = highly damped and non-resonant. B) parking lot with asphalt over packed clay (heavy truck surface) which is also non-resonant. Mic positions were overhead, ear-height (floor bounce) or ground-plane (no floor bounce). Note none of these has any reflective / reactive coupling component. The sandbox puts the speaker on its back, firing up with baffle edges flush with the ground plane (no diffraction). Alternately the speaker is in the lab wall in a quasi infinite baffle. Comparison of sandbox to wall-mount lets us see cabinet vibrational effects and leakage losses as well as edge diffraction effects.

Indoors had two major environments: A) the farmhouse had stiff hardwood on joist construction with very little bounce, but significant bleed which differed with and without spikes. (Oak floor on hard southern yellow pine subfloor over SYP joists) 1903 Victorian Farmhouse. We treated spiking as a way to effectively eliminate enclosure recoil / sway, but ignored tonal additions / subtractions as arbitrary. After 1980 the lab was moved from the farmhouse (which had incorporated a cross section of the previous elements, to industrial space in a second floor, wooden-floor space, then two subsequent concrete-floor spaces. The concrete floor was industrial freight warehouse spec. The factory purpose-built music room had that same slab floor topped with glued-down industrial hair underpad and tight wool / jute-backed carpet for a very quiet noise profile. (A 10# iron ball drop did not ring).

We also took every speaker in development back to the original farmhouse living room which produced a warmer, fuller room sound than any of the lab or factory listening environments.

Of course there were show environments, which we took as they came. And we received criticism for rarely tweaking the room or floor coupling for ’best’ performance. We used shows more for dealer and reviewer engagement rather than showing off the highest performance of the product.

All this is by way of describing that there are many, many interacting variables with little to no way of predicting how your variables will stack up against neutrality or your tastes. A particularly tricky business is separating room modes / placement issues from floor coupling / leakage issues. Have you used any of the dimension calculators to assess your room issues? You are welcome to post your dimensions here if you wish and I’ll respond with first-pass performance comments.

I have no experience with any of the commercial isolation / coupling products. I have learned a little from show setups and local installations. With the stock Thiel pins you can effect their floor interface by using blu-tac or mortite in the sockets and/or under the round end at the floor termination. On a carpet you can tune the interface by how hard you force the points into the carpet or whether or not you put anything under the point (rivet, washer, penny, checker, matchbook, etc.) Historical note, the later, wider stock points with 60° included angle do not readily pierce the carpet,but they do concentrate the load well enough to minimize cabinet recoil. Using these simple, free approaches, you can get a pretty wide range of isolation / coupling with various floors.

I realize there’s very little practical guidance in all these words, but practical advice lies beyond my ability to comment. Hearing some GAIA comments might shed some light.

@masi61 

I'm pretty sure I detailed my impressions of the Isoacoustics Gaia under my Thiel 2.7s somewhere not long ago in this thread.  But just in case I'll copy/paste my comments from another thread:

-------------------

So..finally...I got around to trying some Isoacoustic Gaia 2 isolators. I’m really late to the party with those. One reason is that I actually had some isoacoustic pucks left over from building an isolation base for my turntable. I’d tried the four of them under one speaker, didn’t think I heard anything I cared for. So I followed through with the Townshend stuff which seemed to be rated even higher than the isoacoustics for decoupling. (Plus...I’d done my own experiments measuring the vibration isolation properties of the Townshend springs vs the Isoacoustic pucks I had, and the Townshends provided far superior decoupling).

What I was looking for, ideally, was to get enough isolation beneath the speakers such that the bass would tighten up, they’d disappear some more, but not SO much that I lose any sense of room feel and palpability to the sound that happens when I fully decoupled with spring footers. I figured perhaps the Isouacoustic Gaia just might be that that 1/2 way point.

And...that is pretty much what I seem to be getting!

With the Gaia’s installed, the bass tightened up pretty nicely, the speakers did vanish a bit more from top to bottom, a bit more space around instruments/voices, but the speakers still have some density and punch as well.

I’m still getting used to it, evaluating if I’m going to keep the Gaias under the speakers or not. It did slightly change the tone of the speakers and I’m not sure how I’ll get along with that. I need more listening. But so far I’m quite impressed with the product.

prof - sorry if I missed that.

masi61

Thank You for an early report on using IsoAcoustics GAIA footers.

Happy Listening!

tomthiel

Thank You for another Thiel Audio history lesson. Very cool to have started in a Farmhouse. Then, moving to a Factory setting. I venture to say that the Investment paid off. Big Time.

Happy Listening!

prof

Thank You for your impressions and thoughts on IsoAcoustics Gaia 2 footers.

Happy Listening!

2nd Note:

It is going to be interesting to see(hear)  if other "footers" best Thiel's Outriggers.

Happy Listening!

Guys i’ll give you my take on the Gaia II footers onces i receive them, my distributor didn’t have the right threading for my 3.7 this is why i have to wait another 3-4 weeks.

I hope this is OK to leave here.  I saw these pop up and they look like they could be a good deal for someone.                                                                                           

Were they really $8900.00 new, or is that a crazy Canadian retail? That said, it looks like a great deal.

zkga

Nice catch! I hope that these 2.4 speakers find the next good home.

Happy Listening!

That could very well be the Canadian price of the CS2.4. In the USA, Thiel acted as its own distributor, managing marketing, promotion, retailers, reviewers, service, etc. We attributed about 25% of our sell price to those functions. In foreign markets (Canada is actually foreign, eh) a third party distributor supplies those functions. Even though we discounted export sales, distributors generally added more cost than we did, partly because their warranty services cost more than our in-house support. And the Canadian dollar sometimes fell considerably below the US dollar which was reflected in variable sell prices at different times. Canada was a good market for Thiel.

tomthiel

Agreed. $8900- is pretty close to the Canada price. I hope that you are well this day.

Did you find a new Space for Hot Rod Garage ?

Happy Listening!

JA - Thanks for asking, and I suspect an update is in order. I would characterize the present state of the HotRod Garage as ’distributed’. I have found suitable workspaces around the village with some being more suitable in warm than cold weather, and for different purposes. These developments represent real progress.

My work is expanding my knowledge / solutions beyond classic Thiel implementations. There were many areas of subtlety that were simply beyond consideration in a company whose vision was to bring outstanding performance at the most affordable price. I am developing and evaluating advances that would not have fit that classic Thiel paradigm. But cost-effectiveness is still of central concern. One could spend as much on a few caps as we spent on an entire speaker system.

As you know, I began experimentation on my CS2.2s because I had them. I have expanded that stable to 13 models (including subwoofers) with more lined up. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been focusing on the 02, which has been quite a trip because nearly nothing in that product is identifiably ’Thielesque’. Any change I make, such as stranded to solid wire, makes it sound more identifiably ’Thiel’. The workhorses or any model have served as sandboxes for trial and error. The survivor outcomes of the trials are applicable to all models. And there’s a good, solid list of techniques and technologies.

This winter we’ve entered the realm of actual, presentable product development. The backbone platform is the SCS4 - fifth generation of the 02 portable 6.5" two-way. The SCS4 embodies virtually all signature developments from 1976 up its 2007 release. However, it still contains much room for improvement, some at very little cost. The driver and its control circuitry stay; much else gets attention, some of which might later require slight XO re-tweaking. Interested parties might put a pair of SCS4s on their radar.

As a blast from the past, I am expecting a pair of original 01s - first iteration. As an example of Jim’s instincts it shines a light on his innate values, much like a recording artist’s first album illuminates their inherent nature. Virtually nothing of the 01 survived the arc of his career, but the instincts did motivate all further work. As one example, Jim held high sensitivity / efficiency in high regard and employed minimal crossover circuitry in service to that goal. As he sought further refinement his crossovers became famously (infamously ?) complex, and system efficiency suffered. In his later work, as he was able to engineer his proprietary drivers toward greater linearity, as well as break ground with lighter moving mass and stronger magnetics, the speakers became considerably more efficient while achieving outstanding linearity. Anyhow, I will relish examining, measuring and listening to a pair of the first generation 01s, designed in the farmhouse with slide-rule and rented oscilloscope, and built in the garage with finish sprayed on the back porch. The product was unique enough to garner (first year CES) distribution in Germany, then other European success, which raised some eyebrows in the USA.

I would like to thank you and everyone on this forum and especially those of you who have joined as collaborators in these explorations. A final note is that after a year (more or less, I’ve lost track) the ClarityCaps along with the new Purity samples are scheduled to ship March 2 from Wales. Patience is a virtue. Satisfaction is more fun.

@tomthiel 

Where you working to somehow make the Thiel 02 time/phase coherent, or are you keeping the basic original design?

Also, sometimes I wonder what modded 2.7s would sound like.  Any idea what one would do to "upgrade" those?  I always think about a more solid-re-enforced front baffle...and I don't know...better caps?

Prof - I think of you as I have worked on the 02. Somehow the 02 just sounds 'right' to you. I get it. I have a pair of unmodified 02s, and my living situation has a pair in which I have tightened up the hand-wound coils and replaced the off-the-shelf stranded hookup wire with Thiel solid / teflon, upgraded components to ERSE quality, as well as modified the grille frames for shallower angles. But fundamentally they are still 02s with second order slopes in dual-positive polarity with the tweeter signal arriving a cycle before the bass signal - like most speakers in the world. I believe that discontinuity allows the ear-brain to give the perceived signal a free pass, not subjecting the signal the rigorous reality check it gives a (first order) integrated, coherent signal. It sounds just fine, plus it's easy to listen to and doesn't draw attention to itself.

When developing the 02 research workhorse, I iterated various platforms and settled on first order slopes with the woofer on a stand-off and constrained listener ear-height . . . because that configuration allowed so much more obviousness between the variables I was comparing (wire, caps, resistors, layouts, wave-launch fluid dynamics, etc.) I used CS.5 drivers and crossovers with small modifications for the different cabinet. That product bears little sonic resemblance to the original 02 - its purpose is a modifiable, shipable, accessible research platform.

So if someone like you would want to upgrade your 02s, I would recommend upgrading the XO passive parts, moving the XO out of its present placement (in direct line of fire of the woofer electromagnetic field, and tweaking the grille frames while leaving the second order format in place. Within a few months (after I get the long-awaited ClarityCaps), I'll be firming up those mods to one of my 02 pairs. I'll post that saga here.

There is some low-hanging fruit on the CS2.7. There are big (up to 400uF) electrolytic caps including the midrange series feed, which break Jim's lifelong rule of paralleling any cap over 100uF. There is room in the cabinet bottom (excellent) XO location to add those caps. There are also polyester film caps where polypropylenes would upgrade performance. I would advise a CC or Purity in the tweeter feed. Big bang for buck improvement. Mills resistors could be sprinkled into the series feed stations. These comments reference an internet in-cabinet image which represents a down-grade of original as-designed 2.7s that I saw in the Thiel factory and show-samples. Individual evaluation would be necessary to learn what's in there. 

And the MDF baffle, no matter how thick, is worth upgrading. I've settled on Torrified (heat-hardened) bamboo floor stock as an excellent, cost-effective brace material. Retrofitting isn't easy, but it's worth a good look. And the list goes on. I'm addressing older speakers first due to my learning curve as well as the need to re-specify the non-replacable drivers. The beat goes on.

tomthiel

Awesome! Update.  I know that you are quite happy to own an original 01 and 02 speakers. I have my sources on the lookout for more 01 and 02 Models for your discretion.  Must be a wonderful feeling, revisiting, the very Models that launched 

Thiel Audio. I knew that you would connect with the Past. Again, very cool discovery.  Thank you for the Hot Rod Garage findings as well.  Keep up the excellent work.

Happy Listening!

JA - I really appreciate all the backgrounding you have done to point me to these Thiel speakers. Thank you.

tomthiel

My pleasure. I am glad that you are enjoying the CS 2.4 loudspeaker.

It is a very fine Model.

Happy Listening!

Happy Friday! All

tomthiel,

Thanks so much for all the detail on the 02s and 2.7 upgrade ideas!

I don't know that I'd touch my 02s, and if I were ever to try and upgrade them I'd probably find another pair to do so. 

As for the 2.7s, I really have got them sounding glorious.  That said I have my Joseph Audio Perspectives back from being upgraded to the "Graphene 2" version (new drivers/crossover) and they do dig out more timbral nuance than the Thiels at this point.  But the Thiels sound overall more authoritative, thick, dense and rich.  So I sometimes wonder about what the 2.7s would sound like...even more refined.

Prof - we have demonstrated various improvement avenues for any / all Thiel models. Beetlemania posted his 2.4 results on this forum. There have been others. The upgrades all leave the basic stock platform unaltered, but upgrade various aspects that can benefit from improvement. I haven't done anything with the 2.7, since they are late-model and excellent. But, we know that we can improve them with our bag of tricks, if and when the time comes.

Regarding your stock 02s. I can recommend here a tweak that does no harm. Get inside and rig the fiberglass insulation away from the crossover network for better thermal management. Get some butyl rubber sticky-tape and route the driver wires away from each other (woofer / tweeter) and tape it to anything solid that you can, or just use the tape itself to keep it still. And, solidify the coils however you can. I add ordinary shellac or varnish and zip-tie them as tightly as possible.

Those coils were hand-wound, and their looseness robs transients.

These mild tweaks will tighten up the sound without changing the sonic character. Or, find another pair if you want to do more. First pass would be to move the crossover away from right behind and in line with the woofer EMF field. And then there's cabinet wall bracing and passive parts quality, etc. etc, etc.

tomthiel

Excellent advice, as always, as above. I agree about loose Coils robbing transients. I also support the idea of using Bamboo for internal bracing.

Thinking outside of the box always Wins.

Happy Listening!

Thanks Tom!

If I ever feel handy enough, at least you've given me a road map.

@prof

If you would like to discuss the issues and or obstacles to upgrading your 2.7 crossovers PM me  . You can see the finished woofer and work in progress mid/tweeter board on virtual systems .  The finishing touch will be the Purity 1uf caps .

Rob 

vair69robert

Thank You for sharing your XO DIY project- Rob.

Wonderful pics on your Virtual Systems page.

Happy Listening!

I just would like to update on some changes of my system from the last 2 months.

I decided to change my source system from Cary DMS700 Streamer + MQA DAC to the separated Pachanko Mini SE as Computer Audio Transport + Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC.

I also changed my Music streaming Service from Tidal to Qobuz since my new Tambaqui DAC doesn’t support MQA.

With these 2 major changes, I can tell that the Sound Quality improves significantly in terms of Sound Stage, Mid range, details musical, 3D Dimension and Bass level. I’m so happy with my new system now.

My only problem now when the Bass improves significantly, my speaker dancing and moving (I put the mark on the floor and I can see my Thiel CS7.2 slightly moved)

I just invested in buy IsoAcoustics GAIA I (Thiel CS7.2 weights 160 Pounds each) So, I need to go with Series I of GAIA. I will get them by 2 days from now. Will keep you posted the result of GAIA I. (I currently use OEM Spikes + ISOClean TT-009 disc)

I’m 100% on Streaming Music and this system gives me very Analog sound.

My Systems Feb 2023

Tambaqui + Pachanko Mini SE + Diretta

SOTM Switching + LPS

Audia Flight Strumento 1 + 4 Pre + Power Amp

Elrod Statement + Statement 2 for Pre-Power, Furutech DPS 4.1 for DAC

ISOAcoustics GAIA I

bas79

Good to see you here again. Thank You for the System update. Beautiful pics!

Always good to see Audia Flight gear with Thiel speakers. I know that the Panel will be pleased to learn IsoAcoustics  GAIA I is a sonic match for loudspeakers.

How did you like the Cary DMS 700 Streamer system? I would not mind adding the DMS model that had the CD playback capability.

Happy Listening!

2nd Note:

IsoAcoustics GAIA I for Thiel CS7.2 loudspeakers.

Happy Listening!

Hello All - regarding MQA. I’ve been paying attention to MQA and its claims since the beginning, and I have been somewhat bewildered by the fairly intense controversy surrounding it since the beginning. I know some mastering engineers who swear by it. I also know some who reject it and some very astute listeners, some with significant technical chops who consider it (various degrees of) less than helpful. This past weekend I had a personal experience which I want to report.

I recently procured a pair of SCS4s which I’m documenting for actual upgrades (for the real world.) I took them to an audiophile friend with a good system and amazingly analytical ears. Our source was various reference pop titles via Tidal. His turf, his call. I was underwhelmed and disappointed by the SCS4s in his setup. On working through the maze of possibilities Saturday night it occurred to me to explore MQA, since John had mentioned it as being offered by Tidal. I read Peter Moncrieff’s MQA section from his ’Digital Done Wrong’ series - coming away with a cogent set of strong arguments against MQA.

Let’s digress to Peter. For those of you unfamiliar with him, Peter has published the International Audio Review since the early 1980s. He is brilliant, self-assured and not deterred by the norms of polite discourse. I have always found him to be right. Peter is who assigned the title CS to our 03b at the 1983 CES. He got it and reported it very succinctly.

Back to MQA. Peter itemizes how the ultra short sampling schema of MQA misses the ’unlucky samples’ that fail to describe sharp transients. What I heard at John’s house was music without upper transients as well as a global haze or ambient cloud, noticeable mostly in the upper registers. I messaged John and he reported that his Tidal MQA filter was indeed engaged. We have not yet had a chance for direct comparisons with and without MQA. I should add that a pair of Klipsch RP600Ms did not exhibit ’the pleasant vagueness’ that the SCS4s did. I felt this note was in order to ask your experience and opinions about the subject. I’ve studied enough about the process and heard enough examples to at least question the process.

tomthiel

Good to see you this day. I enjoy Peter Moncrieff's writings as well. Last Fall, I had an opportunity to audition my 1st Luxman CD player (D-03x) and MQA CD from Patricia Barber. I was able to switch out several CDs including my own Reference disc. The Luxman proved to articulate that classic Japan goodness ( Accuphase, Pioneer Elite, Sony ES and Yamaha). I must say that I did not hear anything special on the MQA coded CD. Perhaps MQA is better demonstrated via Server/Streaming services?

Happy Listening!

2nd Note;

tomthiel - Can you talk about the Gear in John's system?

Happy Listening!

JA - John’s system is decidedly low-key, and interesting for that. He had sold his system before early retirement to Sandwich. His primary source is streamed music via Tidal, generally high resolution with MQA option. He has a turntable, but I haven’t seen him use it. No disc player at all. The server is (I’m blanking the brand) mid-priced, good performance. His previous server was PC NAS based which he had hot-rodded for verified bit-perfect delivery to the USB output. (John’s background includes MIT electrical engineering and computer science. He knows stuff. The new dedicated server outperforms his PC rig. Amplification is a Prima Luna integrated at about 35 watts, in which he has rolled tubes to firm up the bass, de-glare the mid-highs, etc. Speakers have included Thiel CS1.5, 1.6 and now 2.4s that he bought from audiojan (through this forum). Cables are Belden via BlueJeans, although we have run some of my experiments through his system. Presently we’re looking for a time to compare my StraightWire Rhapsody III ICs and Octave II SCs, as well as a borrowed pair of Iconoclast II speaker cables to his stock stuff. He has some sort of good AC filtration.

His room is well-enough proportioned, but has glass walls behind the speakers and the listeners. Ceiling is high enough, but reinforced with flat trusses. We have swept it and it’s pretty clean, but could definitely use more work. He is a very busy man, and we find time for audio fun less than once a month.

He was a founding operative of JazzBoston (which didn’t make it). He knows musical performance and production and has an amazing ear which I have come to trust more than my own. He is younger with hearing all the way up.

I would say John’s setup is good enough to show intrinsic behavior of whatever we’ve put in (such as Benchmark stack vs his PL). I know this MQA bit-truncation (or whatever we’ll call it) is real, but not yet analyzed enough to make much sense. What we both heard points to the kinds of misgivings I’ve been stirring around.

Tomthiel, 

I do 100% agree with you on MQA. 

I actually did audition by myself using Cary DMS700. I primarily use Roon to play streaming musics and Pachanko is my Computer Audio Transport.(CAT)

I tested it by add both Tidal and Qobuz in the Roon. Played same songs and listened for quite sometimes. Songs on Tidal were all MQA while listened to FLAC lossless on Qobuz. I can notice rightaway that the MQA songs from Tidal were lacking of details and Transient. 

One of Audiophile Groups in Thailand discussed about MQA and we think it's not 'Loseless' format. How can Folded MQA musics as good or better than Native Loseless FLAC/WAV? 

For MQA, we need both Software and Hardware to completely decode and render to get 24/192. Without MQA DAC, you can get only 1 step unfold which is not recommended by MQA. (Software in Roon or Tidal can do only 1 step unfold) 

That's why I'm really don't care about MQA DAC anymore. The MQA render process is to apply some 'Filter' to smoothen the songs. That gives the good and bad at the same time. If you notice. Good DACs in the market rarely have MQA Capability. (Mola Mola, DAVE, Naim....) 

With the Internet Speed today, we can listen to Full Loseless songs on Qobuz without any bandwidth issue. That's why I'm moving from Tidal to Qobuz. 

Jafant, Cary DMS700 is one of a good Streamer+MQA DAC in my opinion. Anyway, It can't compare to separated CAT + DAC. It's the good starting point for streamer but I recommended you to go Esoteric if you need CD Player + DAC. 

bas79

Thank You for the follow up. I do own a sweet Esoteric DV-50 player.

Happy Listening!

tomthiel

Thank You for the follow up. Good to read that you guys had a fun Audio outing.

Happy Listening!

Same here i downgraded my Tidal membership to regular 16/44 because my gear doesn't take MQA.

I mostly stream from Qobuz up to 24/192 and much less from Tidal.

Happy Friday! All

hi Everyone,  have not posted in a while though i think i did post about this a ways back.   Below is new correspondence with Tom Thiel and  his response.

Hi Tom,   I wanted to update  you FIVE YEARS LATER as I think this is very useful info for Thiel fans.  I have really enjoyed the 3.7’s I got from Rob Gillum back in 2018 but there was always a bit of persistent glare, most notably on female vocals.   I started looking for new speakers a few months ago and listened to the Magico A5’s,  and the lower priced Wilsons (Sashas and Sabrinas).   

But then I got the new DSD DAC  II from PS Audio (it is second generation and replaced my older one) and my reaction after playing it a bit was “holy cow,  I got new speakers”.  And a friend who has the same system as I do had about the same reaction.  The 3.7’s were not really the main issue,  it was the digital glare caused by jitter.  The new DSD DAC  II reduces jitter enormously and the sound is much more enjoyable.   I think the 3.7’s were just reproducing what they were fed. Suffice to say,  both my friend and I have put our speaker search on the back burner. 

   In fact two audio buddies came over this week and they have heard a lot of very new high $$$ gear very recently, and they were both “blown away” by the sound of a system with speakers designed in 2008.   Gosh Jim sure was ahead of his time.  

 Here is Tom's response:  Hi Kent,

Yes, good information for Thiel fans. Perhaps you might post it on the Thiel Owners Audiogon Forum.

Speakers always get blamed for whatever is being heard. Thiel has a particularly harder time because its phase/time correct format increases aural scrutiny around what's wrong with the signal. The ear-brain expects perfection when it believes the signal is real rather than adulterated. I'm so glad you ironed out this wrinkle.
At some time in the future there will be upgrades for your 3.7s, but only after we have created some entity that can support sales, installation and service of these Thiel Renaissance upgrades. The CS3.7 is very mature with little  low-hanging upgrade fruit. Potential improvements include input terminals, hookup wire, baffle turbulence control, thermal management in the XO and drivers and possibly a new grille ( eliminate both steel and fabric ).

Thank you for this report.  Tom

 

ronkent

Good to see you- as always.  Over the years, I have advised that if One wants to better a Thiel loudspeaker, a significant amount of money will be spent. Not only monies for the Loudspeaker, include monies for upgraded Gear as well.

Thank You for being a Panel member and Thiel expert.

Happy Listening!

hi Jafant,   you did warn me about that.  Now with the improved sound due to the new DAC, and the potential for updates from Rob and Tom,  I suspect i will be a Thiel guy for years to come.   I do want to add that without a good pair of subs,   they will never really show their stuff.  My REL 812 subs really complete the sound

There is a pair of White 2.4s on reverb for sale $1850 .

Tom , the grill on the 3.7 looks to be the same type as the 2.7 ,

do you recommend something different ?  and what could replace it ?

ronkent

My pleasure to save you a few Dollars.

Happy Listening!

vair68robert

Nice catch! White- is a rare finish on the CS 2.4 and CS 2.7 speakers.

Happy Listening!

Robert - I’m sorry that at the present time my comments are more theoretical than practical. My experiments based on fundamentals is that I dislike any iron / steel and even anything electrically conductive in the high-intensity inductive field directly in front of the drivers. I’m working toward a stiff fiber mesh to give physical and visual protection while eliminating electrical / emf coupling. Even though these late model grilles are very acoustically transparent, I suggest removing them for critical listening. I don’t know whether you’ll hear a difference, but I would love to hear anyone’s report on the subject.