Thiel Owners

SME is the 1st pressing (1999) 

Happy Listening!

Some important news was found out from my DRC measurement steps (first step actually).

I want to clarify a point about the slight harshness I was hearing on the CS3.7 top end. I was saying it was not as smooth as the KEF LS50.

The measurements showed that right speakers Coax driver is out of phase with the left speaker Coax (maybe one can say the opposite). There is some harshness on the frequency response due to this miss-wiring. I guess my hearing is good.

Prior to the sale I knew that the previous owner got a new Coax driver from Rob G and soldered the Coax wiring himself. He was a little worried about the wiring since there was a 2 week delay with shipping the driver to Rob and getting the new one. Anyways, the previous owner and I are working to get this fixed, should be an easy job. I will give Rob a call tomorrow to find out the specifics of the job.

So the DRC work is halted until this out of phase issue is resolved. I am going to find some electronics guy/gal to do the solder, since I am a newbie on that and I want it perfect.

BTW - the engineer up in Canada, Mitch Barnett, used to owned Thiel CS3.7 and he loved them.

@jafant My pressing of the SACD is from SME records. I now have my SACD player less than a foot from my seating position. Makes things easy. Getting real lazy with age.

yyzsantabarbara

2nd- Santana 'Caravanserai' is an excellent SACD for testing one's system. There are 2 different releases on this title. I believe that I own the 1st pressing. MoFi is the re-issue.

Happy Listening!

^I agree, when there is no DSP. But, that’s the beauty of DSP, it has the potential to remove those “assumptions” and replace them with real time and space measurements. Problems arise when the those measurements correct the relatively small in volume (not sound pressure) though more important primary direct sound as though they were the larger in volume (again not sound pressure) though less important reflected and distorted room sound, creating a weird primary direct sound. By placing the initial primary source of the sound close to the room boundaries they are more similar and there is less difference between the two. Flush mounting would be ideal. Due to the inherent bass reinforcement, it can also relieve the amplification of some burden, that might or might not be exacerbated by the DSP processing.

Keep the time domain in mind, especially for phase coherent speakers. On and off axis radiation patterns are different as the frequency rises. The speaker is balanced into an "average" environment with assumptions made as to where the front and side walls "might likely" be. Those assumptions never include placement near a wall. Perhaps you can unscramble the changes with DSP, but the differences with placement will be significant.

^ I would think that the very close (right up against the wall) would really only work with DSP. Without DSP I would think the opposite would be true, Though bass reinforcement  and less strain on the amp might be the case against the wall with or without DSP.

@vair68robert Thanks for  your input. I am going to stick with the GIK panels for now because I am low on funds and also these panels made my room sound great with the KEF LS50s. Prior to the panels the sound was awful. I understand the CS3.7 is a different beast but I am getting close to the sound I want.

I am taking the the suggestion of unsound and moved my speaker back 1 foot from the back wall. This is the closet I have had any speaker in this room. Still trying to figure out if I like that positioning. Though with DRC it will not matter.

I am playing Santana's Caranvanserai SACD and it sounds pretty good. Thought last night when I played it on my headphones I was wowed and thought I need to hear this again on the CS3.7 in the morning. It is not as great on the speakers and I think it is not the room this time, Ii is the amp. This is an album where some power is required out of the amp. There is a lot of percussion on this album.

I got feedback from the DRC engineer this morning after I sent him my 2 preliminary measurement files. He plotted the measurement on a graph and the lines were very close from the 2 different days. The measurement with the desk in the room actually had a little better base. Though I liked the sound without the desk.  I will be sending more measurements today to get him going on the Convolution file generation for my room.

yyzantabarbara

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in , not about amps because of the cost 
but about room acoustics .
For a very reasonable price you could try replacing the 4 inch thick
panels you are using for the side reflection with 1 or 2 inch thick ones ,
on the acoustimac site the give the graphs for each of thier thicknesses .
You can see how you can absorb higher frequency reflections while allowing the lower ones thru , this might help with your lack of bass .

Just a thought
Rob

Unsound  & yyz- thanks for the catch. Seems I am confusing my stories. The 'cubed' feedback stands as exceedingly complimentary; but I don't remember from what source. 

Bryston Cubed Series

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=139680.0

@tomthiel, Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I seem to recall Bryston’s cubed series of amps coming out years later than the 3.7’s?

beetlemania

Thank You for the review link. I have no doubt that this integrated can drive a CS 2.4 / 2.4SE loudspeaker without challenge. A 650w burst tone is quite powerful, usually into 1 channel (Stereophile). Paul Miller does a good job testing gear in his lab.

Happy Listening!

"
thoft62 posts10-27-2020 12:12amSo uh there’s a set of 3.6 for sale next state over. They’re asking 1500. It’s itchy.."


I've owned my 3.6's since shortly after they were released in late 1993. I still find their sound very very satisfying.  I sure would recommend them to anyone.  I did have issues with the tweeter and a midrange driver on one of the speakers...about 6 years apart. I spoke with Rob on those issues when he was still at the original Thiel, and had the drivers rebuilt and returned. They have worked just fine ever since. I've tried lots of power amps with them over the years and found that I've been most happy using a Threshold SA/4e pure class A, Nelson Pass designed amp. That combination just works really nicely. I've tried others, including an Adcom Gfa 555 Mk II, plus a pair of Emotiva XPA 1 moniblocks.  They all sound good through the Thiels, but I keep coming back to the Threshold.

I’m not trying to discourage you from using DSP, just what might be involved. I think having the speakers right up against the wall behind the speakers could reduce demands on the amp, and perhaps more importantly not over correct the direct primary sound from the corrected reflected room sound, as the two sounds will be so similar.

That’s OK, I paid good money for the amp, need to put the amp to work.

When I first got the Thiel CS3.7 into my room I said the sound was like a 70/100. I got improvements with various steps. This room changes today take me to about 90/100. I am very interested to see what the DRC Convolution files do to the sound. I emailed the file to the engineer to do his magic. Good thing is that it is a matter of flipping a switch to either use the DRC or not use it.

^It’s possible that DSP could add demands to the amp.

My last comment on the AHB2 so I do not drone on and annoy people. I am doing acoustic measurements with REW software and Minidsp microphone. I am doing these measurements to have Accurate Sound of Canada’s Mitch Barnett analyze my room measurements and make me some Convolution files to run on my ROON server.

My first set of measurements came out with some graphs that seemed to me that the sound was bad. I though that cannot be good and decided to do some surgery to my room. Mind you I have no idea what the graphs mean. There was a lot of red colored measurements which could not be good.

I removed a side desk and some plants and moved my system even further away from the speakers.

(the last 2 photos are the result of the surgery)
https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/7605

I ran the measurements again and this time hardly any red in the graphs. Maybe good news maybe bad news, no clue. What I do know is that the sound is much improved. The room sounds bigger and the amp sounds better. I could actually live with this sound. Though I still will get that Coda #8 amp given how much money I have already saved with this system.

I found the Bryston’s very much improved over their earlier models (which I didn’t much care for) with the ST models with the earlier 4 Ohm > and up model Thiel’s. Not comparable to the likes from Krell, Threshold, et al, but a nice viable affordable option.

As a point of Thiel history, Jim used very good amps to design the speakers. His attitude was that making a good amp was the ampmakers’ business, and making a good speaker was his business. We generally had on hand the best from Levinson, Krell, Audio Research and others for comparison. His workhorse for the 3.7 development was the Krell FPB-600.

But at shows, Thiel usually exhibited with amps priced commensurate with its products. No $30K amp for a $10K speaker. Bryston was often used. I found the Bryston amps rather coarse compared to the better stuff at the factory. Many reports said that all changed with Bryston’s ’cubed’ series - which are more refined. Thiel used the a cubed series amp (perhaps 4B3?) to introduce and show the 3.7. That was the combination that George Cardas dubbed the best sound he had ever heard at a show. Bryston offers trade in and upgrade packages. I suggest that the ’cubed’ Brystons come very close to supporting Jim’s design intent for the 3.7, even though it doesn't meet the double-down standards for full current delivery into low impedance loads.

^The Bryston 4B3 is not spec’d into 2 Ohms, and isn’t spec’d to double down from 8 Ohms into 4 Ohms. I wouldn’t consider this amp as a testament of the full potential prowess of ss amplification with the Thiel 2.7’s.

One of my CJ amps had to go in to the shop momentarily and an audio-pal lent me his Bryston 4B3:

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1073-bryston-4b3-stereo-mono-amplifier

I tested it on my Spendor S3/5s and then my Joseph Audio Perspective speakers.   I had the usual reaction when I use solid state:  wow, neato grip and power, density, transient edge vividness etc.  Really fun.   But once I got my CJ amp back and compared...I was definitely still in the "tube" camp.   They sounded about as powerful, but richer, fuller, more organic and beautiful.

Next up I'll be trying the Bryston with my Thiel 2.7s.   I've never heard the 2.7s with solid state so this should be interesting. 

Did anyone hear EAR Yoshino pre-power with Thiel speakers ?This brand is very musical but i wonder if EAR monoblocks could handle Thiel load.

@xyzsantabarbara, As I understand it; yes. I believe many of the Krell’s do, that the Mark Levinson ML 2’s did, some of the Pass Labs might (limited to 4 Ohms maybe?)? I wouldn’t swear on it though. I’ll hazard a guess that the Class A output is halved as the output doubles as impedance is halved. Though most times one cruises along at low power output, that output increases rather dramatically exponentially. You’ll have to decide how relevant the Class A output in your circumstances. Keep in mind that available higher total output can potentially protect drivers from under powered clipping damage, and the ear tends to be less sensitive to the cross-over distortions of Class AB at higher volume levels.
These are the areas that separates typically have advantages over their integrated brethren; the ability to double down and and the ability to stay in Class A output longer when doing so.

usaltus

In making my speaker cables I used Kimber Kable spades .
If you are thinking of using spades they are easy to connect to the cable and don't have to be tightened with a wrench at the binding posts .

@unsound  

^Does the Class A drop, maintain or increase as impedance load is lowered?

Response from CODA

It drops. This is the nature of the calculation and is true for every amplifier.

CODA

So are there amps that maintain the Class A on lowered impedance?

I’m paying off the aq type 9

@jafant You might be interested to read the new AX-5 Twenty review in Hifi News
https://www.hifinews.com/content/ayre-ax-5-twenty-integrated-amplifier

On the bench, it produced 650 W into a 1 load under “dynamic conditions” (I think this similar to the tonebursts that Stereophile did for an interval, more music like than steady state test signals; not specified whether that was for one or two channels driven). Eye-popping how much more powerful the Twenty is compared to the original even though Ayre did not change the spec. Pretty well confirms what my ears hear paired with the CS2.4.

I have just received an 11 foot pair of Van Den Hul D-352 Speaker Cables they are without termination.
I would like to connect my CS-5 speakers to my Conrad Johnson Premier 350sa power amplifier.
Both are factory unmodified 5 way binding posts.
I am asking this group for recommendations based on sound quality from experience. Thank You All in Advance!

@solobone22 they have a black silver weave pattern.  They're pretty old, the color has probably changed.  

@jon_5912 Do your AQ cables have a burgandy jacket?  I have a pair of (I think AQ 4) cables that work great with 2.7's.  Simple no-fluff cables.

I've been driving my 3.7s with a pair of bridged mono Cambridge 840W's for a long time.  I think they're great.  I thought they were clearly better than the pair of Classe CA200's they replaced.  They've been in my system for close to 10 years now with no problems.  The front-end is a $600 Sony 4k blu ray player feeding a benchmark dac2 with Bryston bp26 preamp.  I run inexpensive balanced interconnects.  Possibly blue jeans or mogami gold, I've got a pair of unbranded interconnects I paid $100 for that might be in there and maybe some lower tier Audioquest.  Speaker cables are very short Audioquest type 4 I think.  I never ever feel the need to upgrade.  This is my low/moderate volume system so I don't push it volume wise.  It excels at unamplified music played at moderate volumes.  It can play reasonably loudly but if I wanna rock I listen to my other system that is better suited to it.

^Does the Class A drop, maintain or increase as impedance load is lowered?

@tomthiel 

I want to modify yesterday's statement about the deep bass performance of the AHB-2. The more I listen the more I like it, and my in-room sound pressure measurements suggest that the bass amp is weaker. Therefore my call to Benchmark regarding gain; and here's hoping they can be matched. Then, of course, funds would have to be found.

I am finding the same thing with the AHB2. With some music it really sounds great. I was about to post an ad to sell my AHB2 to fund part of the cost of buying the Coda #8 (not sure V1, V2, or V3). If I sell the AHB2 I could get the Coda at the end of this month. However, I could not pull the trigger to sell the AHB2, it is too good. Unfortunately not good all the time with the CS3.7. I will keep the AHB2 around when I want to hear that clean all Benchmark sound and also get the Coda #8. 

The Coda #8 specs are as follows (8 Ohms | 4 Ohms | 2 Ohms):

• V1 150 watts w/18 watts pure class A  (150 | 300 | 600)
• V2 250 watts w/12 watts pure class A  (250 | 500 | 1000)
• V3 350 watts w/8 watts pure class A    (350 | 700 | 1400)

$6K MSRP

I am trying to decided which version to get for my small room.

@tomthiel, I would imagine that with the extreme overlap of the first order cross-overs that when multi-amping there would be significant advantages in using identical amps.

A friend of mine drove his 3.7s with a Audio Research Ref 110 tube amp. Sounded wonderful. He decided to sell it and downsize and now the Ref 110 is driving my 2.7 with no issues at all. Best amp I have owned. The Ref 150 is supposed to have a better power supply which would have better woofer control. Whatever amp you choose look at the power supply specs. It isn’t always about the WPC.

@vaankuil Aesthetix pre-power is beautiful with CS 3.7s, i have heard that combo with 3.7s.
Possible to find used.

I really appreciate amps with clipping indicators, since there are so many variables of room, level and loudness preference - it's hard to predict amplifier power need; except that more is better, but usually at the cost of sonic finesse.

Rules - to your question of other benefits the answer is YES. I am working with older models of moderate (88dB/2.83volts range) with somewhat higher impedances (6ohm nominal). Let's say my amps are beefy enough to hear no clipping and to see little if any clip LEDs.

When using an amp for each driver, there is an unmistakable sense of ease and transparacy. Returning to the stock speaker with 1 amp imparts a hard edge, especially with loud, complex material. I love the tri-amp configuration, but that multiplies the cost of amplification.

A feasible solution would be to use amps available on the used market. A primary problem is gain-matching the amps. I am running the mids and tweeters in vertical bi-amp mode where each driver is driven by a channel of a stereo amp. Assume a matching amp for the other channel and there are no problems (after you get a splitter to send your preamp line out to both amp channels.) Now, the beefier woofer amp must be gain-matched to the smaller stereo amp. I am sending my source signal to two parallel chains, each having a preamp with volume control for manual level matching. But that's not a real world solution.
I am consulting John Siau regarding gain matching of the AHB-2 in stereo and mono. I am not certain that the levels are matched between stereo and mono. I'll report when I learn more next week. In my dreams I imagine 4 AHB-2s with each channel having a stereo amp for the mid and tweeter and a bridged mono amp for the woofer, which also controls the subwoofer.

I want to modify yesterday's statement about the deep bass performance of the AHB-2. The more I listen the more I like it, and my in-room sound pressure measurements suggest that the bass amp is weaker. Therefore my call to Benchmark regarding gain; and here's hoping they can be matched. Then, of course, funds would have to be found.

^While your point has merit consider that ;  the 92db sensitivity rating is a standard rating into 8 Ohms. Drop 3 dB for each halving of impedance from there. Now we’re looking at something that is actually closer to 86 dB sensitivity. Which is why doubling down maintains frequency linearity. Jim Thiel told me himself that the power recommendations made were for standard 8 Ohm power ratings for amplifiers capable of doubling down, and if one were to use say a tube amp one should double the power recommendations as necessary. Thiel recommended 100 Watts minimum for the 3.7’s into 8 Ohms, doubling down into 2 Ohms would bring that recommendation to 400 Watts into 2 Ohms.

Tom, with a tri amp setup, do you hear other benefits besides better matching of the amp to the driver?
Regarding amp preferences for the 3.7, it all depends how loud you want to play and how big your room is or distance from the speakers. The 3.7 is rated at 92 dB for 1 watt and pretty efficient. The stability of an amp at 2 ohm is relevant but the need to double power from 4 to 2 ohm is only meaningful if you use the maximum output. I based this on experimenting with the bryston 7bst, which allows to switch from parallel to serial, with a minimum impedance cut in half. No difference at any level below 90 dB listening level. 

^A minimum of 400 Watts into 2 Ohms is excellent advice. Depending on ones room and desired volume output, multiples of that power output into 2 Ohms could be appreciated. As far as preamplifiers go, much of it depends on the specific amplification and source components used, it’s possible that you might not even need one.

@vaan whatever you choose make it 400 watts minimum at 2 imo 

^It’s all about using the right tool for the job at hand. A different particularly fine tool might be better for a different job.

The best sound I ever got from the KEF LS50’s was with the AHB2. However, the LS50’s does not have much bass but is still rather good in a small room Now if a speaker can benefit from 2 AHB2’s, and a lot can, then that is another story.

I just listened to Linda Ronstadt’s Greatest Hits on the CS3.7 and single AHB2 and it sounded wonderful. I actually listened to it 2 times since I enjoyed it so much. However, listening to things like Zeppelin leaves me wanting more power.

I am keeping the AHB2 for its great synergy with my KEF LS50’s. I have decided on getting the $6K (less from a dealer) Coda #8 V2 which is 250 | 500 | 1000 at 8, 4, and 2 Ohms. It is also a little warmer (12 watts Class A) than the AHB2 which I think mates better with the Thiel CS3.7’s top end.

Some persons midrange on their thiels were toasted so they pulled all drivers put in all new drivers and made it an active crossover pair of speakers. I can only cringe.