Thiel Owners

Good to see you- thielrules
Happy Listening!

Much Thanks! brayeaglefor sharing your thoughts and impressions here for a fellow CD lover.Sacd(s) too.  Happy Listening!

One cannot own too many loudspeakers - prof.
Happy Listening!

ronkent
Many Thanks! for sharing your impression and thoughts owning both CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 models. I trust others can benefit from your and prof's experienced ears.
Happy Listening!

Thanks brayeagle, sounds like you more or less confirm my suspicion. Have others noticed more significant differences after an "upgrade". Remember, I don't play music any louder than 70 DB and very happily employ a 4 watt set amp.

Nice! thielrules
not too many of you guys using a SET amp out there.
Happy Listening!

I believe that if home theater and other spectacular bass recordings (ie: 1812 Overture Canons) had not been on the rise, Thiel may have stuck with sealed enclosure bass. The CS5 was developed as a guidepost to the future; its tweeter went into the 2 2 and the 3.6 and its Kevlar drivers were precursors to the stiff aluminum diaphragms to follow. CS5 bass approached 20 Hz with 3: 10" woofers (two deep and one upper bass.) They didn't bottom on full symphonic crescendo or heavy rock. But they bottomed on some "modern" mixes. Jim wanted deep bass as the foundation of the music, so he settled on the passive radiator due in large part to its ruggedness. Without a voice coil to bottom, bend and burn out, and with proper tuning, the passive radiator can do a pretty good job.

I like what Vandersteen has done with a powered subwoofer in the enclosure. I suspect that Jim may have gravitated in that direction, having spent considerable effort developing the SmartSub.

Prof:

Your 3.7s had to be used, weren’t they? Hence if break in occurred, I presume it would already have happened long ago. It’s my suspicion that it was acclimation on your part, vs the speaker.

I would have thought so too but i found out from Rob that he had replaced a number of the drivers and that may explain it.   plus they were demos that had been taken to shows but not used a lot. the first night i put them in, i played a Sting cd that i had played earlier that day. it was terrible,  and i thought, i have really screwed up.  but i let them play as much as possible when i was not around,  and they did get better.  A friend who had bought a used pair about three years earlier that had not been played much,  made the same comment about the need for more time.

For instance, during only the period of last week I went through a "Wow are these speakers are incredible, I’m totally happy with them" to "why am I finding nothing impressive on these tonight?" to "I really think I need a more lively speaker" back to "wow these are INCREDIBLE."

Boy do i know what you mean.  sometimes the music is so compelling and other times,  it is just so so. glad it is not just me that has those issues.  

I’ve acclimated to the different 2.7 sound now and in a way they now sound "different" to me (I don’t notice, or pay attention, to things I used to in how they differed from the 3.7s). 

I have sold my 2's so no more comparisons,  but on discs that i am very familiar with,  i do think the 3's are sounding better for my taste.  But as i said earlier, i could live with either and i do like the looks and the size of the 2's better.

Tom Thiel:

  I like what Vandersteen has done with a powered subwoofer in the enclosure. I suspect that Jim may have gravitated in that direction, having spent considerable effort developing the SmartSub.

PS Audio is working on some new speakers that may be quite fantastic and they are using a powered sub built in as well.  Unlike Prof.,  I have not heard in great detail all the speakers he has.  A local dealer carries Magico but have not spent enough time listening to them (I do not want to waste his time since they are not in the budget right now),  and there is a Joseph Audio dealer also nearby. Those two brands along with the PS speakers would be on my short list to audition,  but for the next 3-5 years or so,  the 3.7's will be staying here (yes I know,   famous last words)

Ron and Prof, Ron's 3.7s are new old stock as I interpret the particulars. Rob has various cabinets and parts and I believe he assembled that pair from such service parts. So, all the parts would be unused.

Break-in is something that many engineering-oriented observers dismiss as voodoo or make-believe or user acclimation. From the very beginning, we perceived its reality beyond question, but have never developed any definitive causal narrative. Jim's official answer was "I have no idea why." Of course he had ideas, but didn't want to enter the controversy. Among the causes are physical elastomeric settling of driver suspensions: surrounds and spiders. The cabinet itself settles in via the extended vibrational patterns. All the passive parts have their micro-structures altered by electricity, magnetism and vibration. A huge deal is solder joints . . . heat distresses the molecular structure of the long-crystal copper, which the "heals" with use. I experimented with crimped (cold-welded) joints, to audible improvement, which isn't practical in crossovers.

Although subject to derision in some circles, I will be comparing cryogenically treatment to non. Prior experience with guitar strings and knowledge of what is happening biases me toward expecting improvement there. The ear-brain is capable of immense discernment. Our job is to find synergy among the myriad variables to produce cost-effective outcomes. 

thank you TT,  your continued input is so appreciated. 

here is a great video on burn in from Paul McGowan. 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJFnlDTtsBA

ronkent

Another  reason for a manufacturer to burn in electronic devices is to ensure they continue to work to specifications under the advertised voltages and loads. If solid state components are to fail, they'll do it very early on.  It's for the sake of the warranty. 

makes sense.  thanks

Tom, thanks.  Some form of mechanical break in sounds plausible to me for speakers.

music lovers may want to read this article on how to protect our valuable hearing.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/07/26/how-to-treat-tinnitus.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20180726Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM223863&et_rid=375695806

Prof - at Thiel we all began as skeptics. Through thousands of experiments over dozens of years, we gradually adopted the Modus Operandi of believing what we hear, rather than what we understand. There are countless ways to lack cognition of experience. Trust your ears.

From the Thiel 2.7 Owner’s Information:

"The CS2.7s, like most speakers, require a period of playing before they perform optimally. The time required depends on how loudly the speakers are played; more time is required if played softly, less if played loudly. At least 200 hours at moderately loud levels are required before the speaker is performingnear optimum. You should notice even more improvement after 300-400 hours of playing."

Happy Friday- All.

One advantage a manufacturer has is the ability to compare samples with 0 to hundreds of burn-in hours. Speakers, cables, caps. Very interesting what one hears with an open mind.

Wow. I’m so relieved to hear that things I don’t fully/technically understand I am able to HEAR. I fell in love with Thiel not because of what the specs are but the way these speakers SOUND. 

I almost feel proud. 

break-in is something that many engineering-oriented observers dismiss as voodoo or make-believe or user acclimation. From the very beginning, we perceived its reality beyond question, but have never developed any definitive causal narrativeeyond question, but have never developed any definitive causal narrative

Yes, thanks for sharing this perspective, Tom. I completely agree. I’ve experienced break-in not just from speakers but from electronics and, even, cables. Just because we can’t explain or measure it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. 

Beetle - that distinction may be the watershed between hi fi and high end. Hi fi, dominated by academic engineers, mathemeticians and physicists definitely listened with their fore-brains and negated the existence that couldn't at least be verified by double-blind ABX tests. High end, on the other hand, broke through myriad barriers because they/ we believed what we heard. When the cats payed attention, we really took something seriously . . . the cats didn't even read the specs.

who hears remembers Julian Hersch,  aka Mr. "if it measures the same it sounds the same" from the 70's?

sheesh.   should have said "who here", not who hears. i should not post this late in the day :)

rankest,

I do remember Julian, and read many of his articles in Stereo Review and elsewhere.    (BTW: We were both about the same age)

those were the days before TAS and Stereophile started making headway.   But by 1978 or so i quite reading SR and followed TAS and HP.  I am 65,  so officially old :).   Julian was from the school that said if you could not measure it,  it was not a discernible difference. 

damn.  should have said quit, not quite.  i need to preview my posts first.

I still have Issue #1 of The Audio Critic (and all the rest) Peter Azcel was an interesting writer. Being trained as a electrical engineer, I followed his articles with interest.   btw: I'm 95+ (really!)

OOPS  Misspelled Pete's name.  Should be Aczel

Peter Aczel attempted with the Audio Critic to reconcile the objectivist with the subjectivist models of evaluation. A watershed event was his endorsement of Andy Rappaport's AMP-1 which was a zero feedback, highly coherent power amp that carried significant noise, which Aczel allowed as a successful amplifier design.
Peter Moncrieff went even farther with his International Audio Review by devising new measurement techniques to support his (generally brilliant) subjective interpretations.
Julian Hirsch preceded these guys and set the stage for evaluative techniques to educate the masses. However, his reliance on measurements denied the possibility of sonic differences if they couldn't be measured. He wrote more broadly than for Stereo Review, but his approach was consistent, often summarized as: "Of all the products I've heard, this is certainly one of them."

By the early 80s Thiel had established strong retail presence in the NYC area. One of our very supportive and influential NYC dealers convinced us, over our considerable resistance, to have Julian review one of our products. (I'm sorry I don't remember which, but probably the 01, 02 or 03.) A review appeared in Stereo Review and a related article in the New York Times. (Something besides Bourbon comes to the real world from Kentucky!) The response was overwhelming; Thiel had somehow become legitimate in the minds of many thousands of readers by getting JH's stamp of approval. Note that none of that dealer interest was appropriate for an emerging high-end speaker manufacturer, and we did not sell direct to consumers. Those articles produced a flurry of activity that disrupted the ephemeral path of growth we were on. However it did serve our education regarding what game we were in, which was not Stereo Review's game.

The emerging high end at that time, considered JH and Stereo Review to be solidly Mid-Fi, which was dominated by Bose and Bang & Olufsen. JH's drumbeat of endorsement of Bose served as a cornerstone of the establishment of the high end. "If Bose is as good as it gets, then I (aspiring dealer, manufacturer, etc.) have a real shot at survival" was a consistent mantra of the emerging high end.

Yes, aczel is interesting. 😬 I figured you had to be 95+. I did the math.

tomthiel,

Can you tell me:  what was Jim's thinking about loudspeaker design before he started producing time/phase coherent speakers?

I still have my old Thiel 02 (circa 76' ?) and love them.   Was Jim going for flat response as a main attribute...or any other salient goals before he was captured by time/phase coherence?

Thanks.

Pray tell BrayEagle,   what is your secret or secrets. 95 and still enjoying audio.  that is so wonderful.  i think daily doses of music we love keeps us young.  My mother's 95 year old boyfriend (who looks and acts about 70) would add red wine to the list of things to keep you young,   He loves going to live classical concerts and he would travel 60 miles to hear a string quartet concert as well. 

Prof - From the beginning in '74-'75 the goal was to find the best platform on which to build a line. We investigated (translate designed and built) spherical arrays, line sources, panels, folded horns, powered multi-driver speakers, and I may be forgetting a few. Phase coherence was in the list of goals, but not found to be practical. The first real product to take shape, the Model O1, incorporated what we could achieve in practical terms within our constraints. Its strengths were very high efficiency (94dB?) with its equalized sealed box bass, built on a custom driver by Eminence, who built stage drivers for Peavey and others. That driver had a huge magnet, good thermal management, long excursion and good linearity, but with a normal, overhung voice coil; the best that we could find for our needs. BTW, better than SEAS, Dynaudio, etc. The tweeter to match was a Long Engineering 1.5" mylar dome with good performance. Jim messed with first and second order filters for that product and landed on 3rd - 18dB slopes as the most practical solution. It was fairly linear, bass below 30Hz and a not too refined treble in a medium bookshelf package in all the wood finishes Thiel became known for.

We gathered a following, especially due to some serendipitous European export opportunities. Dealers wanted a more refined, audiophile product and Jim developed the O2 as a response to demand more than his own ambition. It was a ported 6.5" Seas treated paper woofer under a 1" Peerless silk dome with second order slopes. It delivered a more refined presentation, trading off bass response and some efficiency. I think it came in around 90dB and served as a stepping stone into the emerging audiophile market, which really hadn't gelled yet.

By 1977 we had attended our first CES and had enough distribution to figure out that we had to do something unique, memorable, extraordinary to carve out a meaningful niche. The next year and a half of extreme difficulty went into developing the O3 as a minimum phase transducer. We went to our second show with a second order O3 as backup because EVERYTHING mattered so much more when phase coherence was added to the formula. There were deficiencies that were later solved. We mustered our courage and presented the Minimum Phase version, having the rectangular normal tower in the closet, just in case. The response was overwhelmingly positive, and we never looked back to normalcy.

That sounds smoother than it was. We faced another year of tracking down weird stuff such as magnetic eddies, wire anomalies, diffraction and so forth, all of which were sonically invisible with high order filters, but glaringly obvious with first order. The ear-brain interpreted the sound as "real" and held it to a higher standard than regular canned sound. That's a big subject, but I must sign off for this evening. 

hi BrayEagle,   thank you for a wonderful post.  what a great story.  it is so neat that at 95 you are still enjoying audio,  and no longer using a cactus needle as a stylus.  what happened to your post.  it has disappeared. 

I pulled it off, as there was too much extraneous stuff in it for a real answer to your query.
Yes, I learned about and really came to appreciate classical music via the old Red Seals, 77, 45, LP. reel-to-reel and CD recordings. Additionally, I began listening to classical FM stations in the 50s. I was fortunate to be able to see some operas at the Met, the Chicago Lyric and Washington DC Kennedy Center. My Air Force career and subsequent employment let me attend performances of symphonies and opera in Vienna, London, Milan,Rome, Paris and Germany. What still sticks in my mind is Risa Stevens in Carmen, Christoff in Faust, Ramey in Boris and Mestopholese, and attending the Volksioper, where we saw Boris - - sung in German! And, the Anonymous Four’s concert, sung from the middle of the Nave in the National Cathedral.
I’ve never been a true high-end audio guy - - just building and buying things to let me sit back and enjoy recorded music without picking apart the reproduction, per se. I wanted to listen to the music, and not the equipment.
Beginning by building speakers (using Thiele-Small where possible), I came to believe speakers ARE what define excellent reproduction, and so my quest has been to find speakers that will let me listen to the music and performances I know and love. Just a few thoughts

Thanks Tom, I also have a set of series 2 still in use. Helps to have a historical perspective and appreciate all the work that went into it. If somebody wrote a book about thiel history it might make a fascinating movie.