Thiel Owners

Update on my Journey, kinda fits in with the above. 
Thiel 2.4s, Proceed Cdp direct to Bryston 4B SST2 

The Bryston 4B SST2 was detailed with a powerful bass but too tight but quite harsh. 
It is no longer in my system.
I got great trade-in credit and price on a PS Audio BHK 250 power amp. Thank you TMR audio for assistance in recommending this amp.
Bingo!!
Right out of the box, what a wonderful combination. Balanced and wonderful sound! The sound is tonally right on. Much more detailed, smooth , and musical then the Bryston. So realistic, I can separate out individual background singers. I can resolve what I call the “woodyness” of a cello, the timbre and subtle vibrato.
This is releasing the Thiels to shine.
Man the bass is full and bottomless, yet no booming. A good  description is the bass is precise. 
Imma let it cook for the next day or two and post what happens.
I’m really pleased .
Dave

I'd guess the 2.4 is the best in some ways.  I've never heard them but it's the last Jim Thiel designed 3-way with an 8" woofer.  I don't know if there's any hard and fast rule but there are definitely advantages to not having huge jumps in driver size.  The 2 series might be an ideal design for a 3-way intended for moderate volume listening.  

jon_5912
Spot On! The 8" woofer is excellent, as well as, the passive radiator. Really does make for a pleasant aural experience at any level in a small to medium sized room.  Happy Listening!

gasman117
Thank You for the update. Good to read that about another PS Audio BHK amp owner. These products are really gaining traction in the customer base. It seems that both Mono and Stereo amps are favored compared to the competition. A few more PS Audio owners over on Audio Asylum.
Happy Listening!

jab
Good to see you again. Yes, it is noted that VAC and VTL are well-suited for Thiel loudspeakers. Thank You for citing your preference. What other gear is in your system?
Happy Listening!

beetlemania
Thank You for the CH (RIP) note. Ayre and Pass Labs integrated amps are well documented with the CS 2.4 loudspeaker. It is a simple matter of listening level(s) and brand taste(s).  Hope you are having fun on the XO project.
Happy Listening!

jon - yes indeed. The design criteria of the model 2 permits less deep bass and overall lower output than the 3. For that you get more finesse and delicacy via a smaller midrange, woofer and cabinet. Plus the 2 always trailed a next-generation 3 (or higher) development and admitted trickle-down technologies, keeping its price lower. Sweet spot. 

2.7 as it was the last speaker Mr. Thiel designed and built.

Yesterday I posted false information about who completed the CS2.7, which was finalized and released after Jim Thiel passed. I have since deleted that post. From Tom Thiel’s PM to me:

The project was engineered by Warkwyn / Canada - Tim Gladwin leadengineer. . . . The development job was actually directed by the Thiel Team and every engineering step was approved and/or re-directed by Thiel. The job would have been a minor one in Thiel-land because the actual-same coax was used and FST-China developed the 8" woofer as a near clone of the 10" 3.7 woofer. Virtual piece of cake transplant job.

Tom included some information regarding how Jim Thiel would have created a passive coax for the 2.7 had he survived to do so (the 2.7 shares the 3.7’s double-motor coax).

On this site many believe the 2.4 is the best sounding

I don’t recall reading those opinions here but I see that Tom Thiel considers the 2 to be Thiel’s sweet spot. That said, the "hot-rodded" 2.4 should push performance to the next SQ tier. In the context of Stereophile's rating scheme, the upgrade might be considered as "Class A - restricted" (ie, limited low frequency extension). Stay tuned . . .

On this and other fora, it has been repeatedly stated that Thiel speakers need big amps, specifically big currents, in order to "sing" and sound their best. I plan to find a way to test this common reported experience as I got these new 3.7 and have now in addition to the bryston 3b St, a set of 7b St. These amps are very similar except for output  and provide a way to compare a regular 125 watt amp with limited current, to a high output 800 watt with limited current (serial bridged), to a 500 watt with abundent current (parallel bridged). I'll do a comparison of sweep with rem software. Please suggest any other measurements that may capture a difference. What is a good piece of music that would reveal any differences? I'll record the music through the different amps at a 90dB loudness with a high resolution recording and do a blind test where you can vote to identify the recording. Any volunteers to help out with this? Thanks

Beetle - by 'sweet spot' I also include the price. The 3 generally out-sold the 2. But in those cases of smallish room / lowish levels and deepest bass not needed, the 2 shines for a lot lower price.

Rules - go for it. Remember that amp 'distress' is nearly invisible in tests. And, of course, listening is more difficult to objectify. I suggest you will learn more at a higher listening level. Look for things like 'glare', 'anemic', 'hard' and similar adjectives. Mono testing works well, switching between A & B in near real time.

Keep us posted.

@thielrules

Music Reference Amp designer, Roger Modjeski, has been pointing out on a thread in the amps forum something I think we often forget: that most audiophiles often overestimate how much amp power they actually need. Most are barely using the power available in their amps, given typical listening levels. It often takes some significant volume to get them out of a couple watts. I tend to listen when sitting in front of the speaker to an average level of 70 to 75 db at most (though I crank it up when listening from another room). Apparently, my amp would just be cruising, barely breaking a sweat at those levels, even though I’m using a 140W tube amp.


I also have never noticed any sense of strain when I turn it up louder.Now if I truly cranked it REALLY loud levels, it could be a different story.  But, as I understand it, if one’s listening levels aren’t terribly loud to begin with, then there’s no reason lower powered amps should be a problem on Thiels or many other speakers.


(I sometimes use my Eico HF81 on my MBL speakers which are a brutal 82 dB sensitivity, and it sounds plenty good to me, no strain that I notice).

There are of course other variables to consider: current, damping factor, bass quality, possible impedance interactions, the type of music one listens to in terms of dynamics/peaks and how loud. But in terms of sheer power, from what I understand, there’s not mystery why tube amps, which are so often much lower power than one can find in SS amps, often sound good with Thiels.

@thielrules, I measured my 3.7s with a single Cambridge 840w because I felt the bass was lacking.  I did it using test tones and my Behringer ultracurve and measurement mic.  The weak bass didn't show up in the measurements as it measured fine.  I bought a second identical amp to run bridged mono and the bass improved significantly.  The power went from 350 watts/channel into 4 ohms to 800.  The difference wasn't in the volume of the bass but in transients and texture.  As far as recordings go I'd find some with sustained, textured bass and also some with deep and punchy bass.  

This is Edgar Meyer playing his bass with a bow.  Lots of texture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcXQcsAOx0I&list=RDQcXQcsAOx0I&start_radio=1

Lots of sustained synth in this silly and possibly creepy eighties music video from Queen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeL25_Ee5A0

tomthiel brings up a good point about "sweet spot" or best value. For instance my previous declaration in favor of the Bryston 3B (within appropriate matching with older Thiels) was based upon such a criterion. It's not necessarily one the best sounding amps, but at it's price point it performed quite admirably for the task at hand at the time. Which is quite an accomplishment! It's a lot easier to make a cost no object good sounding (and unfortunately enough examples of the over priced / under performers exist as well) kit, than one that performs nearly as well for quite a bit less.

Since we're talking about amps again: some time ago I posted a plea for a list, however small, of amps that by spec would be completely capable of matching the low impedance needs of the Thiels. Has anything materialized? I mean, besides the Krell FPB 600. Seems like we are stuck in "I like the sound of it, but..." land.

Thanks for any input.

Tms - I would love to see that list materialize. A good handful of offerings have been made. It takes someone to pull it together off this forum. Perhaps you?

My own personal experience suggests:
Bryston 4B3 (cubed) most recent and most refined of their series
Classé DR-9 in any configuration, stereo or mono
Threshold S-500 (Thiel lab amp, updatable) {showing my age}

And my present research suggests:
Benchmark AHB-2 specifically vetted by Benchmark, not heard yet
PS Audio BHK-300
300 specifically vetted by PS, 250 questionable at high gain.

My needs are clean, neutral, capable and affordable rather than 'good-sounding to me'. But then I actually enjoy hearing what was recorded as honestly as possible. I cross-check neutrality with Sennheiser HD800S closed cans and co-play with Beyerdynamic ref 240 ohm.
And 50+ years in hi-fi manufacturing, recording and mastering-consulting have supplied some helpful experience. That's my short-list for my own purposes with my own constraints.

I am looking forward to the new xo's when ready. Thanks Beetlemania and Tom for you efforts.

As far as amps go I ran a sumo polaris amp (100 watts into 8ohms and I think it doubled or close into 4ohms) and audio research ls1 pre that sounded fantastic with my 1.2's.
Now for my 2.4's I run a Belles 150 Reference V2 (125 watts into 8ohms and 250 watts into 4ohms) with a lightspeed passive and burson buffer and it sounds really good, a good step up from my other system. Both amps sounded solid as far as I could tell and I would recommend them in the same application.
I did work for a couple of high end shops. Nothing to do with audio equipment but I got to listen to a lot of stuff. And my system's however modest the midrange sounded as good or better on the average with anything that they could put together. That was my priority, the midrange and have the extremes blend in nicely.

The Stereophile review of your product of interest shows an impedance vs phase curve with explanation. Low impedance, especially where phase angle changes quickly represents difficulty. The rule of double power at 4 from 8 ohms and at least triple of 8 at 2 ohms is less important with larger amps where you demand less of its capability. And rules are made to be broken; the differences between rooms and users is immense. And the difference between how amps respond to the first watt and under full load is immense. So, there's a lot to be said for commonly shared wisdom. Traditionally a great dealer added value to this matching equation. The amps regularly mentioned on this forum have a lot going for them because knowledgeable users have chosen them from myriad competitors.

tom

Thanks

George

Seems like an amp list might be heavily biased to simple measurements, and it’s tough to meaningfully measure either speaker or amp, never mind their interaction. Most Thiel models drop below 3 ohms over part of the audioband but what can you say about how phase angle confounds that? Might be even worse with amp measurements. And to predict the interaction from measurements? Good luck!

I drove my CS1.6s with an Ayre AX-7e, 60 W into 8 ohms, doubling into 4. The 1.6 impedance drops to about 3 ohms over part of the audio band. AX-7 has 66 1 dB steps on the volume control. I usually listened at about 30, maybe low 40s if I had the house to myself and wanted to rock out (my room is 18 x 19 with a vaulted ceiling and two large openings on the rear wall). Much louder than that and it became painfully loud. I found out later, when I switched to the low efficiency Vandy 2, that my combo of amp and source would result in clipping starting at about 45 on the volume control. That little amp had plenty of balls to drive the “low” impedance Thiels.

Yes, some Thiels are tough loads. The CS5 comes to mind, dropping to about 2 ohms in the low bass and even lower where musical content peters out. So, extra care is probably a good idea for some models. But most any amp that is comfortable at 4 ohms can probably adequately drive most Thiels. 

The extra headroom from more power is certainly audible and desirable but less so, IMO, than the SQ from a superb amp regardless of its measurements. As it says it Thiel’s manuals, most users will be happier with a great 100 W amp than a mediocre 200 W amp. If a list must be done, I suggest maybe categories of amps: clearly underpowered, probably adequate depending on user/room, and fully adequate. I would not dismiss out-of-hand a “mere” 100 W amp. Just look at the many reports of good results with tubes!

Beetle - you and everyone else here has solved the Thiel Amp problem or you wouldn't love Thiel speakers. Indeed a high sound quality amp used within its comfort zone produces good music.

The problem introduced by amp-swapping is that there are many amps which don't produce good music when driving Thiel's low impedance load. Ask all those experts who say that Thiels are harsh, anemic, spikey, boomy, glarry, bright and so forth. You have a valid point. Specs aren't likely to tell what you need to know because amp specs show an extremely limited picture of the amp's interior workings.

As a broad generalization, Thiel speakers present low impedance, resistive load characteristics and many audiophile amps got better over the years in driving such loads. The brands presented here as successes are good bets.

Here's part of a note from a long-time Lexington Thiel insider:
Equipment he remembers from Nandino (Lex address):
" Levinson Transport/Dac Sonic Frontiers gold faceplate 2 chassis preamp, Levinson - Krell - Bryston Amps, when Dave Gordon was there you used some Audio Research.
Straightwire, Wireworld, Goertz, Kimber, Nordost cables  Another show did all Levinson with Kimber Select cables when they were introduced. Also you had the only pair of Kimber Black Pearl speaker cables (ones with the gel) I had ever seen or heard. I remember Jim liking the Nordost. Some dealers really liked the networked cables in Transparent or MIT (Progressive Audio). I tried Transparent but they always seemed to suck the life out of the music. I used Straightwire Maestro the longest. As far as amps I have used or heard that sounded good with Thiels: Ayre, Krell, Levinson, Threshold. I owned a B&K amp when I had CS2’s. Actually, one of the most musical sounds I ever had. When I moved to 3.6’s compared the B&K, Bryston & Levinson. The B&K was okay, the Bryston had a little better grip on bass but nothing dramatic over B&K. The Levinson brought the 3.6’s to life. I still think Krell was the best. Your comments about an amp that doubles down is definitely true if you want to hear what the speakers are capable of."

Cheers

My hearing issue is improving enough to get bits of listening in on my system (not too loud).

And on that note: I visited my pal’s place today because he currently has in the new Vivid Kiya speakers. He has many thousands of bucks worth of Nordost cabling, power conditioners etc. He switched a while back from tube amps to a Bryston 4B3. He’s happy. I find his system lost something I valued quite distinctly when he made that switch.

Anyway, listened to a bunch of tracks on the very expensive Vivids. In a nutshell: very vivid! More "transparent" sounding with super extended sounding high frequencies than I hear at home on my Thiel 2.7s.
It was super-fi in terms of clarity. I’ve heard Vivid speakers before, so this was more of the same.

But beyond that, as usual when I got home and whipped music on my Thiels powered by my big ol’ CJ 140W side tube monoblocks: wow what a difference. So much bigger, richer, so much more believable tone and organic quality. And despite that the Vivids are known for really "disappearing," which they did quite well from the low mids up, the Thiel system just whipped their butt in terms of a sense of soundstaging dimensionality, with solid images totally detached from the speakers. The same tracks with stand up bass on the Bryston driven Vivids sounded a bit boxy/speaker-bass to me, where on my Thiels, in my room, the bass just exists as a taught, natural instrument detached from the speakers top to bottom.


I missed that Thiel focus and density to the sound and imaging when I listened to the Vivids. Played some Johnny Cash on the Vivids and, while super clear, it was "hi-fi" sounding insofar as Cash’s voice just sounded artificial and a bit crispy around the edges. And the acoustic guitars, again, vivid, but bleached of tonal color. On the Thiels/CJ combo cash sounded like a human in front of me. And when the acoustic guitars came on on both sides, they sounded so much bigger, thicker and richer, and tonally it was "aaahhh...THAT’s that authentic acoustic guitar tone I was missing from the Vivids."

If anyone still had the idea that Thiels are bright, or thin or harsh sounding speakers, I can confidently declare a listen to them at my place would dispel that instantly. They are chameleons that you can make sound as you wish, via associated equipment, positioning, etc.
Just thought I’d share.

@prof, I completely agree that Thiels aren't remotely thin, bright or harsh.  My experience is mainly with the 2 2 and 3.7.  From what I've read both are on the warm side of the average Thiel.  That said, I can't imagine anyone finding either of them bright.  They're both very well balanced.  I find the 2 2 to be slightly warm and the 3.7 to be too close to call.  I think any deviation from neutral can be reversed by raising or lowering your seat a little.  I've powered the 2 2s with a Yamaha HT receiver and a B&K st202.  They aren't bright.  Anybody who says they are likes really rolled off highs or has some other axe to grind.  I haven't heard the 3.7s sound bright but I have heard them sound a little bit indistinct and soft in the bass.  That was remedied by doubling the power.  With enough power it's hard for me to imagine anyone finding significant fault with them.  They're fantastic all around performers. 

Happy Friday! All.

"density of sound"

I keep hearing this phrase coming up when describing the sound of Thiel speakers.  

Is this a special characteristic of first order filter?  Or is it a matter of speaker voicing?

For example, if I were to design my speakers using 4th order filters, can I still achieve this aspect of sound?

andy2

Good to see you. I believe the whole density of sound to refer to the speaker voicing. Perhaps one of our order filter experts can chime in.
Hope you are well and enjoying your pair of CS 2.4 loudspeakers.

Happy Listening!

jon_5912
Agreed- they are fantastic all-around performers. Over the years I have come to learn that a great deal of audiophile do prefer a centered and large midrange presentation. I find this "sound" to roll off lows, highs or both to my ears.  Happy Listening!

Prof

It is good to read that your hearing has improved .

Rob

jon - a little history might help. Thiel's original balance was -2dB shelf below 200 from anechoic flat to compensate for room gain. Purist, first-principle approach. However, 40 years ago there was little marketplace agreement of what constituted flat, and Thiel was often called 'bright' - we were lighter than the BBC / Advent, etc. broad 100Hz bass bump. Over time, our interpretation has become standard. The 2.2 had historically the richest bass due to better room coupling of the passive radiator than either the previous ports or single-driver sealed enclosures.

I am experimenting with adding a little midrange to the hot-rodded 2.2 balance to align it closer to other Thiel designs. It conveniently has a midrange series resistor for straightforward tweaking. 

Good to see you, prof! Your Vivid experience dovetails with Andy's "image density" query. My perspective is complex and deep and would take a book to explore. But in its simplest form, the 'reality factor' and 'image density' issues revolve around how the ear hears.

We make it up. Hearing is a synthetic activity of very high order. That mental process requires significant cognitive processing (which is why closed eyes help!). All that cognitive processing serves to decouple the experiencing-listener from the real-direct aural experience. A major part of that cognitive processing is the brain reconstructing the aural meaning from signals which have had their phase-time information compromised. So, I don't think that Andy or anyone else can get 'it' without first-order alignments which preserve phase-time. Once it's scrambled, work is required to guess the meaning.

Being a synthetic process, hearing benefits from all the cues and clues it can get. So all the other elements such as edge diffraction, panel resonance, component and thermal distortion, etc. all matter. The more that is 'right', the better we can hear - synthesize a meaningful aural experience. 

I investigated the Vivid speakers. They are seriously competent. But I can't find anything about their filter alignments; I strongly suspect they are higher order, whereby they can more easily solve all the other design aspects and produce convincing music. Prof, I suspect you are particularly attuned to phase-time element. When the ear doesn't have to perform that aspect of sonic reconstruction, things seem more real. Because they are.

Thiel attempted to tame the dragon, to wrestle with all the elements that became even more aurally important when correct phase-time was preserved. Sane engineers and business consultants all say 'don't go there'. The current consensus is that 'there' either doesn't matter or it's not worth the effort. I appreciate the regard you all have for Thiel speakers because for you what we did was worthwhile. It matters to we few.

I found Stereophile reviews of Vivid products. John Atkinson - Giya. Indeed they use high-order filters with concomitant wavefront delays from each driver. Common wisdom considers this temporal distortion to be OK / non-hearable. I agree that the hearing brain can reconstruct the sonic deconstruction reliably and well. But, I also believe that on an emotional-involvement level such reconstruction activity removes the whole person from the well-recorded sonic event.

One thing I hope we can all agree on is that live music, or any live sound for that matter, is, by definition, phase-time correct. From the moment we try to capture that music or those sounds on any recorded medium, phase-time takes a hit, if ever so slightly. Those speaker designers who knew, from both an intuitive and engineering standpoint, that it mattered by doing the least amount of harm to an already compromised signal, were on the track for phase-time accurate, in-home music reproduction. As I’ve written several times here in other threads, our auditory system evolved to be acute in its time-domain sensitivity purely for reasons of survival. Studies have been performed, but we really don’t know the absolute time-resolution limits for directional cues resulting from differential arrival times between our two ears. And, it turns out, pressure receptors in our skin have some ability to detect these time domain elements as well; some directional perception comes not only from our ears. From what I’ve read in the peer-reviewed literature, the human ear can tell the direction of a 90 degree side-presented, 1500 Hz pulse of 660 microseconds (or 0.660 milliseconds). Most speakers cannot even accurately resolve that timeframe when subjected to step-response measurements; those that can are phase-time correct. This is a clear case where objective design, measurements and bioacoustic science merge to create a subjective advantage.

About 15 years ago, when downsizing my system from CS7.0 (which I loved!) to go to a pair of Dynaudio speakers, that experiment lasted less than a year before I purchased a new pair of CS6s. I have now found a home for these due to yet again more downsizing, but my 2.4s are indeed keepers.

I'd also mention the Vivid speaker frankly looked and felt cheaper than my Thiel 2.7s (or my previous 3.7s, or the CS6s).   There has always been an obvious pride of build quality that came through Thiel speakers, which translates IMO in to a pride of ownership.

You guys make my day. I turn 70 today, a time for reflection and renewal. I am so pleased to have found you; I am otherwise virtually invisible - I don't do the modern cyber world much at all.

Onward - Tom

I investigated the Vivid speakers. They are seriously competent. But I can't find anything about their filter alignments; I strongly suspect they are higher order, whereby they can more easily solve all the other design aspects and produce convincing music.

If I had deep pockets, Vivids would surely be on my audition short list. But until then, I'm plenty happy with my 2.4s and anticipate being even happier soon!

My short list of best-ever speakers includes those with and without first-order filters, so uncertain how important that feature is to my ears. But I notice that since I moved up from mid-fi to hi-fi that I've only owned either Thiel or Vandersteen. Hmmm.

To be fair, domestic production and affordability were also factors in my decisions but I did prefer the sonics of the CS1.6 to the widely acclaimed Revel M20s, among other contenders. FWIW

@tomthiel Happy Birthday! All the best to you - have fun! Thanks for sharing Thiel history here and encouraging our XO mods.

@tomthiel - happy birthday.  I'm certainly happy you're here.  There aren't a lot of places for audio enthusiasts to get knowledgeable opinions from someone who doesn't need to be biased because their livelihood is wrapped up in selling something.  

@beetle - I'm not sure if the phase coherence is the difference either.  I've wondered if the biggest difference isn't that designers who believe that everything makes a difference are forever listening for changes in sound due to small changes in materials or design.  Even if they were wrong about some factor making a difference their belief could lead to them developing a better ear and being very careful about a wider variety of factors.  I'd expect that to ultimately lead to better products.  I know Charles Hansen of Ayre was like that.  He believed that everything made a difference.  I don't really believe it's possible that everything he believed was true but I'd guess that his beliefs led him to be a more careful and open minded designer.  Regardless of the minute details of what does and doesn't make a difference in amp design, it seems everyone agrees the end products were great.

One speaker that is readily available and is most likely much more phase correct than average is Martin Logan electrostats.  I don't know if anyone has mentioned them but the panel typically only has a single crossover point to the woofers and that is at a fairly low frequency.  I doubt the crossover is first order but everything above that point would be coherent.  They're available at a lot of Best Buys, they're probably among the most available brands out there.  

Hey, Tom, 

Happy Birthday!

You're still a Spring Chicken!

George

Happy Birthday, Tom.
It's a pleasure!
Todd

tomthiel

Happy 70th to you! May there be many, many more in the upcoming years. As always, it is a pleasure to have your expertise on board.

Happy Birthday!

All

check out a thread per cwlondon titles "Hall of Fame: Biggest, Baddest Monster Amps". Feel free to post here your personal experiences with any of those contenders!

Happy Listening!

Pair of 2.7s in Chicago.  I'm surprised how much they're asking.  Maybe there's more demand than supply. 

http://audioconsultants.com/equipment-Thiel-CS27-7812

jon_5912

nice catch! Actually, that is not a bad price at all. Probably could get down to the $5000 range. Again, it would be good to learn the number of CS 2.7 pairs sold globally.

Happy Listening!

I hesitate to mention how much I got my Ebony 2.7s for on Audiogon!  It was a price I really couldn't pass up.  Ridiculous bargain for these speakers.

But if I hadn't happened upon them, I'd still probably be taking a look at that pair in jon's link.

Happy birthday Tom Thiel!  Thanks for posting some of the equipment used in lex! Makes me want to get a krell fpb amp 

Tom tomthiel. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

I think you nailed it regarding time. I’ve come to believe that like other things in audio some people are more sensitive to such things. And even if statistical data suggests that many if not most don’t seem to appreciate it; for  the many that do, do it consistently and deeply. 

I also hope you realize that your time on this mass hurling through space, has brought about deep and enduring joy for many.
 
I’m sure all here wish for you to be around for many more birthdays. Thank you.

Tom, Happy Birthday to you!

We are all proud here to have such a master with whom to share our opinions and listening to valuable advice.

I'll never forget that day, long time ago, when I had the opportunity here in Italy to listen to a pair of 3.6 in a very good setup, since then that sound remained engraved in my mind and heart but I could only dream about Thiels. More of twenty years later I put my hands over these jewels to never let them go, a pure joy every time I switch on the system.
I know that all this is also your merit, so, thank You Tom!

Just to add a amp to the list that in my opinion has a very good synergy with Thiels, the McCormack DNA-2, with its ease and authority to drive loads around two ohm and even less,not to mention also the marvelous reproduction of the upper middle part of the spectrum.