Thiel Owners
snbeall - regarding cable theory - I am familiar with that Townshend paper and have kept up (as time and education allow) with cable development. Within the considerable snake oil in the cable corner of the market, I believe there is a lot of real, honest, verifiable truth. The stuff in the Townshend paper is consistent with my understanding of the arena. As an anecdote, I collaborated briefly with John Dunlavy in the mid 1990s regarding cabinet design. I was amazed by John's grasp of and attention to wire considerations. John held multiple patents regarding antenna design, and thus paid close attention to electromagnetic and other propagation effects of signals through wires. His knowledge far surpassed my understanding, but his stack of patents and results in his speakers spoke volumes to me. In general, I see parallel explorations between audio cable designers and high-level physics considerations, and much of the dismissal and ridicule coming from the engineering-oriented skeptics who want the designers to prove their points. As a manufacturing practitioner I know for certain that we plain can't afford the time, energy and approach of proving our improvements to anyone. We, as designer-manufacturers, have to do our innovating, get it to market and run as fast as we can to innovate again. Let the academic engineers fight it out, as long as our customers support our work. |
Harry - good to see you. Thiel did have early exposure to Monster, I don't remember the models, but it was with their high-end offerings. I remember Audioquest bettering our Monsters and so on and so forth. I don't know whether I mentioned our significant relationship with Monster. Jim had designed and patented a head amp circuit (his first patent) in the early days of moving coil cartridges where their very low outputs presented serious problems to the input circuitry of phone stages. Monster exclusively marketed that head amp and we swapped / beta-tested products with them until the late 1980s when cartridge outputs got higher, preamp circuits improved and CDs ran away with the market. I have a couple of those head amps if anyone wants to try one in a low-output moving coil system. |
snbeall- regarding the 02 / SCS / PP series. I do consider them true Thiels to the core. Yes, they use second order slopes because they were designed with home theater considerations, etc. But, Jim's implementation used both drivers positive polarity and a non-conventional alignment. That alignment plus the dispersion characteristics of the two drivers with large diameter differences, results in a flat room response and no excess energy at the crossover point. The 02 is quite unique in that regard. The fact that a box speaker can be placed on its side and/or at any height makes it susceptible to non-alignlment, which Jim's personality couldn't tolerate. So, the 02 directly led to the SCS with the coincident / concentric tweeter which yields a coherent wavefront, albeit with broader phase angle swings than first order, but never falling farther out-of-phase as do inverted polarity implementations. Note that I use a pair of PowerPoint 1.2s as my room-filling / mixing references. That 45° launch was patented and is uniquely effective. My only suitable space in my studio is near the corners at the wall-ceiling joint, which works quite well - I have also demonstrated them on a floor, which works better. Ceiling was their design environment if you have a suitable situation. I built outboard crossovers for all ClarityCaps and Mills resistors. Better than stock. I do have a quibble with the concentric driver in general. Through time Jim was able to create the double cone for a shallow, wave-guide geometry of the front cone with a deep, straight-back reinforcing back cone - minimizing the cupped hands effect, but it's still there a little. My enamourment with the 02 is to make a stand monitor with two discrete drivers, with Jim's second order style crossover and without the inherent problems of the concentric driver. Note that I do appreciate the concentric driver's ability to deliver coherent sound relatively independent of listener position. We can't always get it all. (Except perhaps with the radial wave 7 coaxes. |
@snbeall Remembered I wrote this post: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-owners-2/post?highlight=Summarize%2Bclarity&postid=... |
I hate cables. I really do. Started with: Computer (running wtfplay) --> Synergistic Active USB --> MSB Analog --> Chord Cobra VEE2 --> Krell FBI --> Audioquest 4 --> Thiel 2.7 Current state: Computer (running wtfplay) --> Synergistic Active USB --> MSB Analog --> Transparent Reference XL MM2 --> Krell FBI --> Acoustic Zen Satori --> Thiel 2.7 Had the opportunity to pick up a pair of the Transparent Reference XL MM2 interconnects for a fraction of the retail price so I jumped on it. Put them in from DAC to Integrated amp. Instantly hated it. It made the treble for lack of a better term "scratchy". So I put the Straightwire Maestros in for the AQ. That turned a colorful but scratchy sound into greyscale. Have a pair of Acoustic Zen Satori speaker cables laying on the floor. Put those in and voila! it all comes together. I had tried the AZ cables several times and they always disappointed. With the Transparent cables in between the DAC and amp they are amazing. Was listening to the Shostakovich 7 with the CSO and Bernstein on DG. Toward the end of the 4th movement the brass is doubled. The normal section is stereo right as per usual and the additional players are on stereo left. I have never heard something so massive on record. Live is another story. The color was on par with what I have heard them do live. The range and impact was there. It was glorious. |
beetlemania, tomthiel and Rob have said they lack the schematics for any of the active electronics (at least until the bankruptcy is settled - the hope being that they might turn up once they can sift the ashes). This includes all of the sub amps. The amplification stage itself was OEM’d out toward the end (BASH?) so might be serviceable. The secret sauce of Jim’s room boundary circuits is a different story. I happen to have a SS-1 whose original amp died and was replaced with the latter USS amp plate which (I am hoping) will be serviceable. That said, can you point me to page number where your 2.4 DIY work is discussed? |
@snbeall Finding a stereo pair of Thiel subs with the appropriate crossover is a tall order. And, yes, lack of amp service is an issue (I think Rob Gillum only services speakers). Finally, the Vandersteen room correction is very appealing (although I would have to send my integrated amp to Ayre for an internal crossover). But this is academic as I’m not seriously considering this move. I am aware of my system’s minor shortcomings and enjoy it nonetheless. Immensely. I mean, it’s not like it sounds broken. :) |
beetlemania, I may be coming into your 2.4 saga late, but when you mention sub reinforcement, why do you go Vandersteen? Rather than Thiel that have very well matched subs - particularly via speaker level PX crossovers? I have at least 6 different subs that I have tried to integrate via line level input. The current system with PX crossover is by far the most natural and completely integrated I’ve heard. Granted, there is zero support when the amp eventually gives out. Is that your motivation? |
I'm an old-timer in this business and so "cabled-up" way back in the mid-eighties, buying used Monster M1000 (their top-line) interconnects in many lengths. Liked them very much, although I only compared them to about four other brands. So over time I have grown two complete Thiel systems strictly with these cables, other than for speakers where I use WaterCables (the Monster speaker cables seriously degraded the sound of my Thiel 3.5's.) These Monster's calling cards were audiophile cables long before the name showed up in Best Buy. The M100's new in the '80's were around $200 for a one-meter pair (most of mine were bought used at about $100 a pair.) Their calling card was three woven layers around increasingly larger dialectrics, and Monster says they were "phase coherent". Don't know about that, but they do have depth and width of soundstage, as well as naturalness and coherence on individual instruments, and every improvement I've made in components has been audible, so they don't seem to be masking anything. Anybody else had experience pro or con with these? Tom, I take it from your comments that you haven't. Did Jim or Thiel corp ever try them? |
I have a Starke Sound AD4.320 amp on trial currently. Had some issues getting it working with my PX-02 crossover and USS sub, but suddenly everything worked. Intermittent connection somewhere. I have Powerpoint 1.2’s on my hardwood over (heavy urban) concrete floor. One might scoff whether this is a true Thiel setup. I know that tomthiel who owns some does not. These are serious two way speakers that happen to be optimized for a planar infinite baffle at 45 degrees setup. This is probably the best sound of my life. Seriously. I used to be a an “amp denier” having been spoiled by the ‘70’s amp races to “perfection” - which the 70’s were. They became far less of a limiting factor. Speaker tech had to catch up. It did. As you know from my recent post, I have been a Meridian believer for the past two decades. I abandoned the archaic analogue multi component system as flawed. I now have (for the time being) a hybrid system with a digital streaming front end and “digital” amplification to an analogue conventional crossover passive speaker. The result is sublime. And I suddenly understand what modern amplification has brought. Leapfrogged again. |
I have recently tried for long periods 3 speaker cables with a Thiel CS3.7. From my Benchmark AHB2 amps I used the following: 1) Benchmark SpeakON terminated cables. (6 foot) 2) Audience Conductor SE (9 foot) 3) Audience FrontRow with SpeakON termination (1 meter) Both Audience were better sounding, though the Benchmark was also good. The FrontRow is a great sounding cable. I am still using all 3 cables with #1 and #2 for different purposes. |
similar to the improvements in beetlemania's 2.4 upgrade. Two years later, I remain of the opinion that these are my last speakers. Compared to the very be$$$t speakers/systems I’ve heard, the list of faults is short: 1) no audible output below ~30 Hz; 2) low bass is not as resolved as a quality sealed box design (eg, Avalon Ascent); 3) image density not SOTA (eg, TAD Ref One). 1 is noticeable only on music with organ. 2 is only apparent in direct comparison. Those two faults could be addressed with, maybe, a stereo pair of the Vandersteen subwoofers and I would have a near SOTA system at a relatively “affordable” price (but not excited to have two more large boxes in my living room). Meanwhile, my sonic priorities - resolution, transparency, and neutrality - are very close to the best I’ve heard at any price. Bravo, Jim and Tom Thiel. Thank you. |
Jon_5912, About wire/cable effects, I’m with you - a bit skeptical (and feeling bad about it). That said, I have to think that if there are effects, many would come from length, not to mention physical connections/interfaces (as tomthiel has found), so that eliminating or reducing them would be a good goal. The end result of what you describe as you shorten the connection chain is the active speaker. And the end result of your other notion of taking it a step further and keeping the signal in the digital domain as far as possible are Meridian’s DSP speakers. It’s why I’ve owned a pair for two decades. My Thiels are a more recent enjoyment. tomthiel, I can’t help but think that going active was discussed/explored @ Thiel Audio. Could you comment? I can’t imagine what could have been produced were Meridian to use Thiel drivers.... It ruins all the mix and match tinkering that many audiophiles love, but I think you would get a lot more of the younger generation (not to mention spouses) interested in audiophile sound. And honestly get better sound in the end. KEF and Devialet are interesting current examples. In my perfect world, there would be standardized module sizes similar in principle to rack mount 1U, 2U, etc. that manufacturers could produce and swap out to update as advances come. |
tomthiel, I'm only 70, so you have two extra years of knowledge acquisition compared to me. Hope you keep letting interesting ideas seep in. Thanks for the thoughts about my 8m cable runs. I've been worried about the long speaker cables, but I can't easily rearrange my multi-purpose living room to move the amps close to the speakers. Most people now seem to recommend going with short speaker cables and long interconnects rather than the other way around, just as you suggested. I spoke to a tech at Cardas about my long speaker runs, and he said that the Parsec cables should work very well at lengths up to at least 30 feet. I hope he's right about this. The Parsec is the latest evolution of the classic Quadlink, which may have been a cable you've come across in one of your previous audio endeavors. |
jafant, Yes, some of the Synergistic Research products seem too good - or too weird - to be true. I'd have to be working with a friendly dealer to even try them. The latest SR product I tried was a USB cable that was among a group of 5 USB cables from the lending library at the Cable Company. The Synergistic cable had screw-in modules to tune the cable to be warmer or cooler in overall sound. I liked the imaging of the cable, but it seemed to emphasize "air" at the higher frequencies at the expense of the bass, The group of cables I tried included "mid-priced" cables from Cardas, Audience, Synergistic, Stealth, and Shunyata. I ended up buying the Shunyata Alpha, which is pretty high-priced in my world, but far lower priced than the Shunyata Sigma or Omega models. |
jon_5912 interesting points-of-view. Certainly many factors to consider regarding cables/cords. Shorter runs of SP are preferred. A flat SP like Nordost can benefit from a longer run, as it is a very fast cable design. Otherwise, I enjoy a more robust design with a smaller gauge in diameter. The possibilities are endless. Thank Goodness. Happy Listening! |
As a cable skeptic, I'm wondering how the length of speaker cables plays into this. If we assume that the perfect cable is transparent, shouldn't the ideal situation involve extremely short runs? Since I run mono amps I have a very short run of Audioquest type 4 cables, 3 feet I think. I could pretty easily shorten this to less than a foot if I believed it mattered. Is 1 foot of moderately priced cable better than 10 feet of expensive cable? This length vs price relationship has to be relevant. And if this sort of thing is so important shouldn't we see a lot more mono dacs and preamps so you can send your digital signal from your digital source to the mono dacs right next to your speakers that are hooked directly to the preamp that is hooked directly to the amp that is hooked directly to the speaker? Why not just eliminate significant analog cable runs altogether? I could buy a second identical dac, use only one channel on each one but make the dac/preamp/amp connections essentially plug to plug. If cables have the potential to do such harm why not just get rid of them? It's terribly difficult for me to believe any of the cable talk. I feel a little bit bad about it. |
snbeall Thank You for the link and post regarding Townsend Audio. Impressive abstract and article. I found the information highly interesting. Pretty cool to fathom that cabling was researched and tested way back in the 1970's. No matter how you guys feel about this White Paper, always, trust your ears. Happy Listening! |
tomthiel et al, What are your thoughts on this paper from Townshend Audio about cable technology. Would seem to fly in the face of everything we - or at least I - know or believe about speaker level cable: http://www.townshendaudio.com/PDF/The%20Sound%20of%20Music%20and%20Error%20in%20Your%20Speaker%20Cab... Then, on a separate topic... going back a few pages (I don’t get here as often as I’d like), you were commenting on the development of “coherent source” in various Thiel models over the years. During your discussion, you referred to second order crossovers being used in the SCS series. Would that include our beloved Powerpoints? I’m crushed! Although I can’t argue with the results. |
sdl4 I certainly will keep you guys posted. I would not mind delving into Synergistic Research, however, their company offer several lines of products. It is easy to get lost in the weeds so to speak. And then there are those magic bullets... I wished that I had a local dealer/retailer to test drive those offerings. Happy Listening! |
sdl - knowledge is lovely stuff, but never enough. At 72, some seeps in. I have used my 2.2s as my main playback tools for my whole professional life. I love them, but they will get better, similar to the improvements in beetlemania's 2.4 upgrade. Old Thiels age well and die hard. I like Cardas, have evaluated some samples here, and like them a lot. But so much history with Straightwire precludes jumping that gunwale. Their focus on timing should matter a lot for Thiels. Tell us what you learn. 8M is a long way to run. I have that run for my 'far end' 3.6s to compare my nearfield 'corner launch' system under test to the mid-far field 3.6 reference. I'm getting best results with the OCOS (doubled) coax which is comparatively immune to cable run length. Have you tried an amp close behind each speaker with long interconnects? You could use Mogami, etc. pro interconnects as a trial. I could send you a pair for trials. Carry on, there's always more to come. |
tomthiel et al, What are your thoughts on this paper from Townshend Audio about cable technology. Would seem to fly in the face of everything we - or at least I - know or believe about speaker level cable: http://www.townshendaudio.com/PDF/The%20Sound%20of%20Music%20and%20Error%20in%20Your%20Speaker%20Cab... Then, on a separate topic... going back a few pages (I don’t get here as often as I’d like), you were commenting on the development of “coherent source” in various Thiel models over the years. During your discussion, you referred to second order crossovers being used in the SCS series. Would that include our beloved Powerpoints? I’m crushed! Although I can’t argue with the results. |
tomthiel, I am always amazed at the depth of your knowledge of areas in audio where my knowledge is so much more superficial. I'm looking forward to the possibility of upgrading my CS 2.2s when options are available. As I mentioned earlier, the 2.2s are doing a great job of keeping up with some amazing changes in my streaming system, including adding an Innuos Phoenix USB reclocker that just arrived yesterday. I've looked at the Morrow speaker cables several times but never taken a chance on ordering them. It seems like all of their models use the same set-up of lots of insulated small wires, with the more expensive models simply having more wires. It's never been clear to me how to decide what the right match for wire density is in my system - so I don't decide. My speaker wire runs are too long (8m) to take a trial lightly, so I haven't. My current (from the 1990's to today) speaker wire is Straight Wire Encore in a 24-ft pair, but I'm planning to install Cardas Parsec soon. After several comparative trials, I've been using Cardas Clear Reflection balanced interconnects and Shunyata power and USB cables. I can't afford to use the higher-end Cardas speaker cables in my 8m runs so I've chosen the more mid-range Parsec as a compromise. I like that the Parsec uses Star-quad geometry, high-quality Cardas copper, multiple small gauge Litz wires, and even some of the "matched propagation" strategies from the more expensive Cardas wire to equalize timing of the conductors and dielectrics. I've wondered if this focus on timing will especially matter for Thiel speakers. |
| Post removed |
jafant, Please continue to keep us up-to-date on your cable search. I have to admit that I have not had much luck with Synergistic Research for interconnects or USB cables in comparative demos I've done in my system. However, I know others who love SR wire in their systems, especially when using the more expensive SR offerings. |
@jafant I've found that an old pair of simple AudioQuest (I think 4) cables sound the best on the 2.7 and DHLabs Q-10 sounds best on the 3.6. The rooms are also quite different. The 2.7 better damped and the 3.6 a little bit more live due to hard surfaces. Another note on the ARC CD6 test. I didn't mess with speaker cables at all during that test - only interconnects. Thiel/Krell has never been known for soft/weak/wooly/uncontrolled bass so I didn't think to mess with the speaker cables. If I get the chance to test another ARC spinner I'll mess with speaker cables as well. @tomthiel I've been looking for a pair of the Goertz cables to try however none have popped up locally. |
jafant - I suppose my experience might have some instructive value. Note that my approach is not that of a hobbyist, but that of an experimental observer. My choices must approach the ideal, including the assumptions, general practice and choices of producers upstream. I recognize that is an impossible task, but within my constraints I try. For example, I chose Sennheiser 800S headphones, not only because they are very good, but because many high-end producers (mastering engineers, etc.) use them; so my potential personal preference for some other audiophile darling cans becomes functionally irrelevant. This is squishy territory which can cause a strict, skeptical engineer to abort - to conclude none of it matters, because it is a functionally unsolvable problem. I conclude that I must make my most balanced evaluations and choices toward this ephemeral ideal. Let’s go to wire. I am lucky to have a personal beacon experience. Without an illuminating experience I can see being lost in the wilderness forever. You may remember cousin Ted, the aerospace physicist who suggested wire as a wild-card solution from GE’s deep space communications problems. I spent the summer of 1978 investigating, experimenting and choosing wire which became Thiel’s standard, and an early milestone for wire’s importance in audio. Over the years, Thiel compared various wire geometries, etc. and stayed with the 18-2 solid CDA101 in teflon for internal wiring. I am presently expanding that solution which we’ll address another time. Interconnects and speaker cable are more complex, since we can’t predict the particulars of length, environment, and source and load characteristics, especially with speaker cable. Let’s stick to speaker cable. Before wire was a known thing in audio, Thiel started with homespun, getting pretty quickly to 00 welding cable, and around 1980 had our ears knocked off by Ray Kimber’s prototype braided wire at $1K/ pair foot. Someone here might remember the model name. I remember the radical improvement and that we beta tested further improvements of that flagship cable over the years. Astonishingly good both technically and to the ear. Jim developed a test bed to read various reactances in frequency, distortion and phase /time domains. I hear knowledgeable people claiming there are no meaningful measured differences - I say emphatically that is not true. I rather think that opening Pandora’s Wire Box simply raises more questions and considerations than they want to address. Back to cable. There was a stream of Kimber. Also there is Straightwire who was a close ally with Thiel from their beginning. Steven Hill is an engineer and has developed and explicated a significant knowledge base over the decades. At present I have some early Straightwire (model unknown) that I’ve lived with since the 1980s. One of my studio workhorses is Straightwire Octave II @ 4 runs in 12’ lengths, star quad with individual terminations that I can mix and match for mono and/or bi-wire or bi-amp. I am not in the listen and choose my favorite game myself, lacking the time, access or budget to do so, and eschewing my personal preference, while valuing "rightness" and "standardness" in my decision matrix. So my process goes like this: discuss with Steven what I want, weigh his solutions and technologies toward those goals and accept his recommendation as to where to land, which is generally the performance sweet spot of the brand. In this Case the Octave II is suitable for my purposes - I use it every day. Let’s jump to preference. I prefer the Morrow SP-4, which I chose by a similar process, but in 12’ lengths it lacks some beef on the bottom. I have 4 runs which I can double and get the solidity I want. I could get it by running 6’ lengths (which I have demonstrated), but for my purposes, such non-standard runs defeats some of my reference purposes. Awhile back we explored here (or possibly behind the curtain with some of you, pardon my spotty memory) the pros and cons of parallel vs twisted runs. I agreed with those who preferred the parallel runs which produced an ephemeral, liquid-like presentation. But, my measurements and further listening led me to conclude that those pleasant effects were artifacts of delicious problematic behavior. Nix. So, I twist my double runs. In addition to those brands, I have and use some old Audioquest, model unknown as well as Benchmark’s Canare, Bluejeans Belden, ProCo (professional) 12’ gauge star quad and OCOS (Dynaudio’s coax), as well as various Audioquest, MIT and who knows what that are occasionally borrowed for comparison. I use many of these wires in live recording and off-site playback duties, and can identify their sonic fingerprints. I know some folks here just don’t buy the wire thing, and you among others are committed to pursuing those nuances as a serious undertaking. I don’t claim to understand much of what goes on in wire, but do know that some serious stuff is going on. Part of the mix includes dielectric considerations and many manufacturers just don’t go there. Of the thermoplastics, the Teflon family wins, both in listening and measuring. The hierarchy is known and agreed, and, who would guess, more expensive performs better. As an anecdote, I quizzed John Siau of Benchmark about such dielectric considerations, to which he had no response, side-stepping to star-quad geometry’s cancellation of distortion mechanisms as the important factor. I bought his wire. It’s good, one up from ProCo, similar to Belden, but lacks the higher order performance of audiophile cable. I don’t think he could be convinced of such further considerations, but then that’s not my job. I overlooked AntiCables. I like Paul’s approach and the product, and he seems now to be addressing directionality. I know that directionality matters, but I also know how wire is drawn and how little I could trust the process to yield consistent draw-down monitoring to guarantee which direction the crystals lie. Anyhow, directionality can be heard, so therefore probably tested via some method beyond my scope. In the ’no insulation is the best insulation’ stream, Morrow is on to a big deal. Grown cellulitic fibers are better dialectics than thermoplastics. Morrow uses cotton fiber, which is excellent. (Ever notice how great those paper capacitors can sound?) I’ll mention a recent lesson from my internal wiring quest. Dialectic matters, and two or more different dialectics in the bundle is better than one - to spread out the anomalies. If we assume CDA101 (best) copper and great insulations, geometry is a really big deal. The cost and consistency of braiding are unfeasible to me. Small irregularities in braid more than undoes the advantages. Same-direction twist wins as an implementable solution well grounded in known physics and within reach of conscientious manufacturing processes. My proprietary configuration may end up being patented or proprietary to Straightwire, so I’ll not go further. And, believe it or not, craftsmanship is a far bigger issue than I assumed. Small physical / mechanical variations in my hand-laid samples create audible and measurable differences, which go way down with optimized mechanical lay-up. I note that Jim ended up with Goertz flat wire and the Absolute Sound or Stereophile reviews of the 3.7 noted its superiority for that speaker. I have read about flat wire, but never heard any. And I wouldn’t go there myself because its market marginality would buck my practice of swimming mid-stream. So, that’s a look at my little corner of the world of wire. It’s a fascinating world, and one who’s dismissal would leave many delights unsavored. This post scratches the surface - there’s always more. I enjoy hearing your perspectives - I don’t get out much - and I should get back to work now. Cheers |
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-2-3-vs-2-4-the-real-difference If anyone else is interested, I found an old thread comparing the differences between the 2.3 and 2.4. In a nut shell, there are slight differences in the mids and uppers. Not as big a difference as sdecker claims (2021). According to him its “not night and day” ,and “NOT big differences”(2003). I’m thinking maybe his 2.3s didn’t have the upgraded coaxs, so with my 2.3s upgraded there should be even less of a difference. |
