Just a note to point out that if you like 3.5's otherwise, four or five of them in a room eliminates any need for a sub while anything resembling recommended surround placement generally also eliminates bass room nodes.
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
13,807 responses Add your response
At one show before the advent of surround, we positioned 2 pairs of 3.5s in the normal stereo position - back to back. There was about 5' between the back-firing pair and the wall and plenty of side wall space as well. The effect is magnificent. The bass wave forms a quasi spherical wave front and the transition to upper frequency in-fill is seamless. If you like bi-polar presentation, try it. That's if you have a spare pair of 3.5s, or your main speaker of choice, available. |
A pair of Thiel 3.7s just hit the market: https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/649484143-thiel-cs-37s-satin-black-wtheir-original-spikes-an... FWIW, I've bought several items before from that seller. Good guy! |
Guys, I maybe considering a Krell KSA-300(s) power amp. I know that it dates back to the 1990's. Many of you enjoy and like the Krell FPB series of power amps. I am taking experiences, impressions and thoughts on this monster of a power amp. The KSA comes from a very good home, avid audiophile that enjoyed Vinyl and Martin Logan, Magnepan, loudspeakers. Happy Listening! |
jafant If you're considering the KSA-300, I'd suggest three things (based on previous experience of a friend.) Install a dedicated 20 amp circuit for it. Nothing else on that circuit! Have two very husky young men to help uncrate, move, and place that beast where you want it. Be certain it has very, very ample circulation. Just some thoughts. YMMV George |
jafant I'm a Bryston guy: BP26 - BP17c (two systems), and two 4BSST2 amplifiers. BD-3 spinner in one system, BDA-2 DAC and a Cambridge CD transport in the other. Magnum Dynalab FM tuners in both. (gave upon vinyl). Thiel 2.7 speakers on one system and Bryston Mini T speakers in the other. I'm torn between the BP26 and the 17c, but lean towards the 26, as it has a polarity reverse capability. I used a BP6 for years with earlier versions of the 4B amplifier, so I'm used to the way the 26 handles the music, as both the 6 and 26 employ the same basic circuit layout. I've listened extensively to both the 26 and 17 using my STAX Lambda Pro headphones, The 17c might be a little laid back, but both are the classic "straight wire with a gain" preamps that let you hear the quality (or lack thereof) of the recordings. Neither one covers up the mistakes made in the control room or the pressings. "Warm and Liquid," they are not. The Thiels are 4 ohm, but go down to 2.6 ohm in the circa 100-160 cps region. The 4Bs handle that without a problem, even at very loud volumes. At low volumes, IMO, the 4Bs are exceptional. Disclaimers: My comments about the 4BSST2 amps are based on listening to my classical and organ CD collections. Further, I installed dedicated 20 amp circuits for each of the 4Bs. (I have an all-electric home.) Have Fun auditioning those Brystons. BTW: Jim Thiel was the person who introduced me to Bryston. |
jayant Not often, but surprisingly, polarity invert makes some of my piano-only CDs sound more forward and sharp. Also, there are several pieces on Helmut Walcha's Bach's Organ Works that sound less dense. Could be my imagination; however, I think it helps. As for the the BP6 and BP26, the separate power supply for the 26 might help, although my reason for switching to the 26 was to get the balanced outputs. |
brayeagleI have heard the BP-26 with and with the separate power supply. It never disappointed me one way or another. I can report that the SST/SST2 series of power amps respond very well to a Tubed pre-amp. Much Thanks! for address the reverse polarity query. I suspect that some CD titles out there were recorded with polarity issue(s)? Happy Listening! |
I know that there is some polarity jumble out there. In the 1980s early CD period, the BBC did a study that determined "most people" preferred aggressive sounds (trumpet, drums, etc.) to be in reverse polarity so that the cone moves inward on its initial transient attack. In today's world of large track counts and greater reliance on recording technologies, it seems that more records are made in proper polarity and don't require any diddling. |
Here is a prettry interesting design that would be cappable of driving Thiel speakers with tube refinement but without the drawback of power deficiency http://www.acusticaapplicata.com/news.php?lang=eng#alieno |
Gary - you must find a 7.2 woofer solution because all those owners including yourself can't be left stranded. Good luck with Rob. The 7.2 is on my wish list of eventual upgrades. But the only information I have is the owners manual and product reviews. I would appreciate any information anyone might have. Thanks, Tom |
I was reading an old Audio Critic magazine pdf recently. For those that aren’t familiar, it was run by notoriously critical and cranky editor Peter Aczel who was devoted to repudiating "audiophile myths" via appeal to sound engineering and science. He would publish sometimes his "White Hat/Black Hat" list of those in the field of audio, distinguishing between the "good guys" who were solid no b.s. engineers (and writers) and the "bad guys" who peddled dubious technology, poor speaker designs, woo-woo and snake oil. He put Jim Thiel in his select list of White Hats. A quote from the article:
|
prof — jafant i tried to contact jserio (selling the black 3.7s) through US AudioMart to ask some questions but he didn’t reply. I question whether the speakers are still for sale. One concern I have with the 3.7s (and also 2.7s) is that when I listened to the 3.7s -about 8 or so years ago in my room (a friend dropped them off to me to listen to) the midrange seemed somewhat thin sounding; with vocals it sounded like the body of the singers voice was not as full as in real life. I actually preferred the midrange of my 3.6s over the 3.7s (although I appreciated the improved detail, transparency and bottom end control of the 3.7s) so decided to stick with my 3.6s. But at the 21 year mark now with my 3.6s, I’ve been reconsidering the 3.7s, but my concern remains, especially since I’ve read that same comment in a couple of reviews and heard that same quality in a Bryson-based system (I have Naim electronics). I’d think the cause is the new aluminum mid/tweeter design. For any 3.7 or 2.7 owners following this, any comments would be appreciated. |
rosami, I have extensive experience with the 3.7 and 2.7 and the older big CS6. I am betting that the thinness you heard was very likely in the set up of the speakers. As with many speakers, I found I could dial in the size and richness of vocal and instrumental tone and images via tweaking speaker positioning. If placed closer together, or if toed in a bit too much, it could squeeze the sonics down. Once I had my 3.7s dialed in they sound was HUGE in every way, and extremely big and lush. I originally thought I'd have to live with some level of disappointment with the smaller 2.7s due to a reduction of "fullness" and size to the sound.However, like the 3.7s, further experiments in placement in my room finally yeilded the type of big, rich presentation I was used to from the 3.7s. Of course, I can't tell from my perspective that your 3.6s actually *don't* sound richer and less thin than the 3.7s. It's been a long time since I heard them myself, though my memory is that they sounded thinner than what I got from the 3.7s. But the 3.7s definitely sounded richer than the CS6s I had. |
@rosami best sounding Thiel C's 3.7s I have heard to date is driven by Aries Cerat Concero 65 monoblocs. No SS amps can come close to this level of musicality, very rich and organic sound. Problem with Aries Cerat is that the gear is huge, extremely heavy and generates a lot of heat. A dedicated room is a must for this level of gear. With my wife we have listened to CH Precision pre-power and it was not as engaging as Aries Cerat but still very liquid. Cheers |
@thielrules, Yes Aries Cerat preamp and monoblocks is in another league paired with the 3.7s, it is even more musical and engaging than the Ypsilon pre-power.This level of musicality is impossible to reach with SS.If you are ready to spend 46K and cope with size and weight of the gear than i would recommend Aries Cerat no question.Regarding myself i have not yet made a decision between Aries Cerat and CH Precision, the later one being much easier to live with, not heat and the gear is totally future proof.I cannot afford to make a mistake because here we're talking 80-90K worth of pre-power.This will be my end game system. |
prof, thanks for your comments on the CS3.7s. I've spend some time reading old posts on this forum and paid attention to your many past comments. I see your long history and experience with Thiel speakers and with the 2.7s vs. 3.7s - and your travails in trying to choose between the two models. I'm going through much the same process currently so am finding your experience helpful. I haven't read through all the thousands of comments on this very interesting forum (I have to sleep some time unfortunately); I stopped at the point that you were still trying to make a decision between these two models. Your most recent posts seem to suggest you gave up and bought both or have decided to keep both? When I make a decision, I will be sure to experiment more with speaker positioning and, based on many comments by members, not limit myself to the standard triangle and instead try more variations. Best. |
jafant Thanks for your feedback. I agree that I could have experimented more with positioning when I had the 3.7s for audition but was somewhat limited by time. I hope the issue is not a speaker-electronics mismatch because I don't have any plans to give up my Naim stuff. The match has been excellent with my 3.6s and - based on the specs - the 3.7s would seem to be a slightly easier load. While my Naim amp is not high-powered by Thiel standards, it is capable of driving low loads and providing high current so should be a good match with the 3.7s. ...so the journey continues... |
thieliste Interesting -- I had never even heard of Aries Cerat Concero 65 monoblocs prior to reading your post. I checked out the website and their products do indeed look very interesting - but way beyond what I'd be willing to spend -- and I remain committed to my Naim electronics based on long experience with the brand. I've been "out-of-the-market" for many years so this renewed bout of audiophialic disease is both exciting and frustrating! |
@charles1dad, my wife obviously prefers the Aries Cerat combo with the 3.7s.She loves this very rich organic sound and at the same time so transparent and dynamic.Imagine what we've heard is only the first level in Aries cerat line.There is this guy named Billy in the US who is building the world's biggest Aries Cerat system with full top of the line gear.The 6 chassis monoblocks retail for 250K. |