Thanks Jafant,
Why do you think the 2.7 will do with less power/current?
It's rated close to the same bass response, has I believe the same type of impedance as the 3.7, but is even less sensitive (87db). I've seen others say the 3.7 should be easier to drive than the 2.7...? |
Thanks Rich. Message sent :-)
Omsed, fair enough, there have always been Thiel-haters ;-)
As I said, I already have experience with Thiels in my home (CS6) giving a beautiful smooth, warm mid-range, so I know it's possible. |
Cal3713,
That's interesting about the Thiel warmth over the coincident system (though I have to confess I'm not totally surprised, given my experience of coincident speakers...though I haven't heard them for a while now).
I keep hearing contrasting opinions about the 2.7, probably more than on the 3.7, some feeling "meh" who have heard them, others more enthusiastic. Whereas the admiration for the 3.7s seem to be consistent. Then again, far fewer have heard the 2.7 I gather.
Jafant,
Thanks for your input!
As I said I'm in a bit of a quandary: I could get either the 2.7 or the 3.7. The 2.7 certainly is a cheaper way of rolling the dice. (Though I don't know about their re-sale value relative to the 3.7 - it seems the 3.7s sell fairly consistently).
One Thiel dealer told me he actually preferred the 2.7s somewhat to the 3.7s, finding the 2.7s just a bit more sweet or forgiving, especially across a range of recording quality. I don't know if I've seen that opinion voiced elsewhere. What did you think between the two?
As for room size, the idea that the 3.7s need a big room could make me wary, except that I've had such success with large floor standing speakers in my smallish room (even the VR4s, which were rated down to 20hz). Though my room has become a bit more crowded with sofa furniture. I supposed the 2.7 could be a slightly better bet in terms of room integration, but on the other hand it feels like I want to "go for the gold" with the 3.7.
As for amplifiers, aye, there be magic.
It's always tough to know when an amp is going to work or not just by specs or even the recommendations of others. Because some will be happy with a set of trade-offs that others won't abide. For instance as you may well know, MBL Radialstrahler speakers are known for being a brutal load - 81db efficiency, into the lower 4ohms, which is why MBL builds those massively powerful amps.
And yet the best I ever heard the big MBL 101Ds was on tubes, at (ex) TAS writer Michael Gindi's place. My CJ premier 12s drive my MBL 121 monitors quite well and for the hell of it I tried my classic old Eico HF-81 14W integrated tube amp with the MBLs and the sound was MAGIC. I actually prefer it to the more powerful CJ amps.
My hunch is that the Thiels, like MBLs (or Hales that I also own) will reach their full dynamic potential with more powerful SS amps. But I'm willing to take a bit of a hit there as long as the Thiels maintain their core sonic qualities, smoothened out with tubes, as I got with the CS6.
Thanks for any further comments... |
Another question for 2.7/3.7 owners or those who have heard them: at least one review (from Stereotimes) docked points from the 3.7 for having to "analytic" a tone with strings, for orchestra. Has anyone else found this, or do the Thiels reproduce strings/orchestral work well. I've been meaning to get back into orchestral recordings and I want strings to be rendered with their appropriate beauty. Thanks. |
Jafant,
Could you elaborate about what differences you heard between the 2.7 and the 3.7 model? I'm still considering whether to start with the 2.7.
Also, when you say the 3.7 needs such a large room to work well, what do you base that upon? Have you heard it perform poorly in a small room?
(As I said, I haven't had problems getting full range speakers to work in my fairly small room, 13' x 15') |
Great stuff, very encouraging. (And very persuasive Richardyc).
I'm wondering about the bass difference between the 2.7 and 3.7. The 2.7 is rated down to 35Hz, the 3.7 to 33Hz, so on paper very little difference. Though with the bigger woofer the 3.7 will be pushing more air.
I'm not actually a bass-head at all, and prefer nice pitch and control in the bass region. Any comparisons in bass quality between the two would be appreciated.
I know someone who might sell me a pair of 2.7s in the most gorgeous ebony finish I've seen. It's probably the most beautiful speaker I've ever seen (from photos). And then I could pick up a pair of 3.7s in cherry wood. It's a nice finish, but definitely not my favorite, and I would seriously contemplate having it re-finished darker.
The choice about which way to go is killin' me.
(As for re-sale value, I get the feeling the 3.7s seem to sell pretty consistently...and I'm less sure about re-sale value of the 2.7s at this point). |
Unsound,
That's cool. I've always felt that the ultimate goal for describing audio is to describe it accurately enough so that the person reading can get an idea if he'd like the sound or not.
I completely understand people coming to different conclusions about the Thiel sound. (And, who knows, when/if I get myself some new Thiels, maybe I won't be as enthusiastic as I figured). |
Pops
Thanks for the info, that's encouraging to read that the 3.7s sounded ok sitting closer.
As for amp stuff, I'll let you know how my CJs drive the Thiels.
It always amazes me the balancing act in combining equipment, how I can loose an essential aspect of the sound I like by changing a pre-amp or whatever. (Though I'm not big on cables making a difference, to be honest, yes I've tried). |
Thanks folks.
They are second hand, about 4 years old. You can't get new anymore. It is nice that they will be broken in (but hopefully not broken in transport!). |
BTW, I was perusing the web concerning Thiels and saw several old announcements concerning a sort of experiment, where writers at Rolling Stone were given a really high end set up to listen to, including the Thiel 3.7s. It's a shame there seems to have been no follow up as to the results:
http://www.cnet.com/news/rolling-stone-magazine-discovers-high-end-audio/
|
UPDATE:
I received my pair of Thiel 3.7s last weekend. I'm going to give my initial impressions.
First, to re-cap, my situation posed (at least purportedly) challenges to a speaker like the 3.7. I have a smallish 15' by 13' room. I'm using low powered amps relative to what is typically recommended (I'm using Conrad Johnson Premier 12 140W/side amps, wheres most people say the Thiels "need" high wattage/current SS amps). I can't put the Thiels very far away from me due to room/sofa/set up restrictions, and it's typically touted that the Thiels need significant distance to become coherent. Further, I have very sensitive ears and here I had chosen a brand with a reputation for "ruthlessly revealing" and often "bright" sounding.
On paper, it doesn't bode well.
But how have things turned out in practice?
Great!
I've only had about 4 days of listening and dialing them in, and I clearly have more experimentation ahead of me.
But so far I'm getting what I hoped from the Thiels.
The first thing is, to my relief, the Thiels have NOT proven to be "bright" or aggressive. Just the opposite!
They are not detailed as in "added brightness emphasizing details," rather they are "naturally" detailed by having such low distortion, so little added "hash" to the sound, such a low "noise floor" that I can simply hear instruments as naturally organically detailed, not hyped. Far from fatiguing, I've found the Thiels invite longer fatigue-free listening than almost any speaker I've had. (Once I sit down, it can be 5 hours at a time listening...yes I'm not sleeping enough...)
I have a well damped room, so that would help. Also, being driven by the CJs no doubt aids this sense of relaxed detail. Which is as I wish it.
Do they work with the CJ 140W amps? Yes. That is, I'm not getting bass incontinence - the bass region is taut, controlled, and tonally dense in just that "Thiel way" that I love. The bass region is so defined, it allows large instruments, e.g. stand up bass, to be fully holographically placed in the soundstage. All the taught bass information coming from the instrument, not diffusing into the speakers. This is probably the tightest, most tonal and integrated bass I've heard in my room, be it monitor or floor standing speaker.
It's not perfect. I hear bass nodes here and there, room interaction, but it's rare and the same thing happens with any other speakers. (And it's frankly much more in control than what I tend to hear at other audiophile pal's set ups, even in their bigger rooms).
I've done lots of SS vs my tube amp comparisons with hard to drive speakers in the past, so I know the differences. I can recognize that the Thiels are capable of even greater bass control, lower bass and "slam/impact," and greater overall dynamics than what I'm getting, if feed a lot more watts/current. However, I'm still getting the general positive characteristics - density, coherency, tactile, control, dynamic aliveness - that I find often favors Thiel vs some other brands, and which suits my taste.
Positioning? They sounded good at around 8 feet away, just over 2 feet from the back wall, about 6.9 feet apart, as a starting position. However, I am enamored of a more nearfield listening experience. I'm used to having my speakers close, with a very wide spread, to the point where I'm immersed in the sound, not just watching it from across the room. Each day I've edged the 3.7s closer, and as with other speakers in my room, the rewards have been a smoother sounding frequency response, less room hash, more richly differentiated timbral qualities, more detail, spaciousness...basically more "entering the recording space and hearing more of what's in the recording."
At this point the Thiels are about 7 feet from me and it is really glorious. They are holding up well in terms of coherence, and the soundstaging is deep and precise. I'm going to try spreading them further apart to widen the impressiveness.
For me, beautiful, accurate/convincing timbral quality is job one for any speaker that I'm going to spend time listening to.
To that end, I've played with my sources - using my original locally built tube pre-amp (quite a neutral/frequency-extended sounding pre-amp), my newly acquired CJ Premier 16LS2 preamp (gorgeous tone and clarity, smoothness) and running my Benchmark DAC directly into the CJs. This combined with slight alterations of speaker positioning, slight toe-in or not etc, has allowed me to experience a variety of tonal qualities, depending on what I want. Right now I have the Thiels dialed in to provide a very focused image quality and an incredibly realistic tonal presentation.
Trumptes sound gorgeously "warm and brassy," voices convincing, wood sounds like wood. One test I do is play recordings of things like drums, bongos, hand claps etc and compare them to myself clapping/drumming on myself/objects in the room. When a system departs from reality - the case with most systems - there is a distinct disconnect between the tonal reality and presence of my sounds vs the reproduced sounds. But with the Thiels as I've got them sounding now, this discontinuity is close to gone. A bongo slapped in the soundfield between the speakers has a tonal/dynamic presence just like my own hand claps and slapping of my thigh. I've always found this "reality factor" a predictor of my longer term satisfaction with a system, and the Thiels are particularly amazing here.
Also, I played a recording of me playing my acoustic guitar (recorded in the same room) through the Thiels and they pretty much nailed the sound of the guitar.
It was like I just holographically appeared in the room corner behind the speakers, playing guitar, with no hint the speakers themselves were making any "sound."
The 3.7s have a reputation of super detail, extracting the last ounce of information from the source. Have I been bowled over by this aspect of the Thiels? Yes and no. Yes in terms of how *naturally* they uncover subtle details. But no as in I'm not necessarily hearing things like more fingers on strings, or the teeny sounds we often associate with hearing more detail. They are there, but the thing is I listen to a variety of speakers at home, and those include the MBL 121 Radialstrahler omnis. I have still rarely, if ever, heard a speaker that reproduces fine detail so effortlessly and naturally as the MBLs. They tend to make other speakers, good on their own, sound crude and mechanical in comparison. The Thiels get a closer to MBL-like sense of detail, though I still think the MBLs get that last bit of natural realism - e.g. just how fine, delicate and organic the sound is of human fingers plucking strings, on classical guitar, etc. I LOVE the sound of drum cymbals through the Thiels, so open and tonally believable. Though the MBLs do even better there.
The Thiels are giving me that other thing I was craving, and that I'd always loved about Thiels: that sense of believable image density. Not just image focus per se, but the way the Thiels organize all the sound that seems to go diffused or astray in other systems, to where they should be. It's not just that I can tell exactly what is making a sound and where in the mix. It's the impression of solidity and density to the instruments in front of me: a wood block sounds so solid you could tap it yourself. A sax has more of that vibrating column of air and brass, tactile quality. My Hales speakers get much of the tonal beauty right in instruments, but they lack this quality of presence and texture added by the Thiels. And it's more engaging.
Finally, my main impression of the Thiels really recapitulates the impression given in almost all the reviews
of the 3.7: the sense of reality and aliveness they present.
Talking about detail, soundstaging, timbral quality, dynamic etc on their own doesn't do the Thiels justice. Because that's not what they are about, as it were. The design goal, from phase/time coherency onward, is about "coherency." And that is what I hear: the Thiels seem to launch all attributes of an instrument at once, from the same space, like a live instrument would, giving the impression of "real instruments being played by real musicians" rather than as set of sonic attributes. On the Thiels, more than any other speaker I've had, I'm continually made aware of the *performance* of the musician, the dynamic ebb and flow of each one's efforts.
My foot is always tapping along to what the musicians are doing. This is just what I was looking for, so it's wonderful to experience.
Not that I think it's the perfect speaker, or even perfect in my room. I can see why some have issues with the bass region. The 3.7s are so controlled and restrained that you really find out when there is less bass in many recordings than you thought. They have a tendency to thus sound "smaller" and less substantial, more often, and with more recordings, than lots of other full range floor standing speakers. But when there is significant bass in the recording, you also hear it. Personally, especially in my smaller room, I enjoy the restraint shown by the Thiels.
Though, yes, sometimes I would like even more size and lushness to the sound, e.g. some classical recordings.
Also, in real life acoustic sounds are huge and lush relative to their reproduced counterparts. The Thiels have always been somewhat subtractive in this respect. I can accept this due to how much I appreciate all the other qualities that the Thiels are *especially* good at portraying, and which are engaging. So it's always a compromise. There are certainly systems that provide more realistic lushness and body to sounds. Though I usually have other quibbles when I hear them as well. (e.g. probably the most full sounding mids I ever had in my room were either the Quad ESL 63s with Gradient Subwoofers or the Von Schweikert VR 4 Gen 2 speakers. HUGE body to midrange sounds. But...neither to my ears sounded quite as timbrally convincing as the Thiels, and neither offered the solidity of sound of the Thiels).
I also might have some issues making these speakers work for me, insofar as I have to transport them in and out of the room for listening sessions.
But from what I've heard so far, I'm very impressed. |
Update: I purchased a pair of 3.7s! I should have them
by next weekend. I'm excited and a bit nervous, because it's a real "buy and try" situation, and I have some challenges with my room and amplification. Hopefully things work out. I swear I was tempted to grab that CJ 350 SS amp that just sold on Audiogon, just as a back up but couldn't justify the expense at this point.
I will be testing the outer limits for the Thiels, smallish room, closer seating, lowish power amp (CJ Premier 12 140W tubes). I'm even going to hook them up to my old Eico HF-81 for kicks (hey, they worked with my MBLs).
I'll report back the results.
(I'd originally thought the 3.7s would dry up on the used market somewhat, given 2014 saw all the dealers dumping their demo units and those are all gone. But no, the 3.7s have been popping up everywhere in the last month).
|
Thanks for reading Jafant.
I've always liked some of the qualities of high sensitive speaker designs, like Lowther-based speakers. They have that sense of dynamic projection and aliveness that gives things like percussion instruments, piano playing, acoustic guitar, a solidity and "thereness." But of course there are the colorations, limited bass etc.
The Thiels give some of those qualities to reproduced music. (Interestingly enough from a low sensitity speaker!)
|
Jafant,
I'm probably the last person to give interesting info (in audiophile terms) on cabling.
I use Blue Jeans speaker cables, a long 45' run from one room to another (due to my home theater reno-design). It's 10 awg Belden cable. For interconnects it's sort of a hodgepodge of cables I've owned, or that I've borrowed from more insane audio buddies who have heaps of expensive cables.
Off the top of my head I know I have some Kimber PBJ interconnects in the mix, some custom made Canare, some expensive Audioquest...and one much more expensive pair of interconnects...the name of which I can't even recall right now. All stock power cords.
(As you can see, I'm not particularly worried about high end cabling. I've done blind testing of high end cables that disabused me of some previous perceptions/assumptions. My bank account thanks me).
Cheers, |
Another small update:
I've moved the Thiel 3.7s even closer, now approximately 7 feet away, and spacing them out further. It's closer to ah Audio-Physic-type set up, which I've often favored. This makes for a larger soundstage, greater instrument "size," more immersive sound, yet it retains excellent image focus and density. The speakers truly "disappear" producing very life-sized images when it's on the recording.
The bass pitch and control, again using my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks, is just amazing. It's like the bass has it's own servo-control it just stops and starts on a dime, is holographic (e.g. never bloated, always focused in the soundstage coherently with the instrument). It's the most tonally controlled bass I've heard in my room, and among the best I've ever heard in that respect.
A musician friend heard them and literally found the realism spooky. In fact, that was what my other pal (who writes audio reviews) said when he heard some vocal recordings through the Thiels - that it was almost unsettlingly real. My pal has somewhat similar tastes to mine, we like a rich sound, but as close to neutral as possible, but both hate over bright sound. He said he'd practically run screaming from a Thiel 3.7 demo at one of the audio shows due to what he felt was an over-bright sound. So he was dubious this was going to work out.
But once he heard the 3.7s at my place he did a 180 degree turn around on them, found the sound open, realistic, but utterly relaxing, organic and easy to listen to. (I think this is a particular attribute of Thiels paired with nice tube amps, in my experience). He said "I have to admit, you always know what you are doing when you buy speakers" ;-)
And, the final kicker: I just recently got around to trying the 3.7s with my beloved old Eico HF-81 17W/side tube integrated amp. Given the Thiel's notorious current demands I figured this was more for try-for-the-hell-of-it and didn't expect much. Hot damn the Thiels sound AMAZING driven by the Eico! The Thiels just semed to reproduce the sonic virtues I've always loved about the Eico amp - the sound just generally became bigger, more lush, bass seemed to extend significantly lower (which I attribute to the Eico likely not controlling the woofers quite as well), yet the sound was sparklingly clear, believable, and had that buttery organic tonal richness that makes acoustic sources sound so....acoustic...and gorgeous.
The bass isn't as controlled as with the CJ amp, but the Thiel's bass character still seems "in grip" and in control, even as the bass sounds a bit more prominent. So it's still for most tracks great bass performance, and sometimes even better in ways than the CJ amps (sometimes the added richness is nice, especially with classical music).
At the moment I think the 3.7/Eico amp pairing is my favorite.
So, to sum up again: the old "put big floor-standers in a big room" and "The Thiels demand big power" and "place the Thiels at a greater distance than other speakers" are useful generalities, perhaps most likely to get the best out of them. But they aren't rules written in stone.
I'm thwarting all 3 of those rules, and hearing some of the best sound I've ever heard at home, and indeed more enjoyable than most of the systems I've heard elsewhere over many years.
|
Timrhu,
To describe my room: It's the first room on the main floor of our house, and it has a 6 foot wide entrance to the room (no door). The shape is broken up into odd angles on one side because of bay windows. So the room is 13' wide by 15' deep (at the deepest point of the bay windows).
For some reason this room has always worked for any size speaker, I'm supposing because of the broken up angles and large room opening. I've had some speaker manufacturers, and dealers, set up their full range speakers there and when the first see it they say "uh-oh, small room, might be tough" but then they are amazed at the sound we achieve.
I don't totally go for the big speakers absolutely require a big room (within reason). I've heard big speakers work well in small rooms (like mine). I read in a thread recently on the Quad ESL-63s that they "need a big room" to breath and work right. But they sounded incredible in my room, and the first time I heard them was in a pal's place, in a teeny portion of his basement literally not a lot wider than his couch, the Quads pretty much squished to nearfield, and the sound blew me away.
Acoustics are still a bitch though. I'd always set up my speakers so my listening sofa was at the long wall (near the room opening) and speakers were just forward of the bay window area, which worked great. But when I experimented in switching the seating/speakers 180 degrees for a home theater set up, the acoustics went to crap! It was demoralizing. But the room was totally re-done in consultation with an acoustician, there's tons of absorption, treatment, and now it sounds better than ever.
So I'm optimistic about the Thiels working in the room, even though I haven't had a large floor stander there for a while.
|
On the theme of Thiels, amps and tubes...
I'm presuming (hoping) to have success driving either the Thiel 2.7 or 3.7 with my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 Monoblocks. I've had plenty of speakers through my place and the Premier 12s haven't let me down yet.
For example, here are Stereophile Measurements for 3 speakers I've used with the Premier 12 amps:
Hales Transcendence 5:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/hales-design-group-transcendence-five-loudspeaker-measurements
MBL Radialstrahler 121
http://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-radialstrahler-101e-mkii-loudspeaker-measurements
(I put up the Stereophile measurements for the 101E because my small stand-mounted 121 MBLs are spec'd the same: 81dB/2.83V/m. Nominal impedance: 4 ohms).
Thiel CS6
http://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs6-loudspeaker-measurements
And how here are Stereophile's measurments for the Thiel
CS 3.7:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs37-loudspeaker-measurements
All three of those previous speakers came with reviewers etc warning "Pig to drive! Only BIG SS AMPS will do!" Yet, my CJ amps drove those first three speakers really nicely IMO. Does anyone see a reason, from the measurements, suggesting the CS 3.7s wouldn't work as well? Anything tougher to drive about them than the others?
(Again, my room is smallish at 13' x 15' and I don't listen very loud, which helps).
Opinions and insight welcome. |
Cool stuff folks, thanks.
Way back in the day, my tube amp journey started with a Conrad Johnson MV55 power amp. It powered my Quad 63s and my Von Schweikerts nicely, but then I got in some other more demanding speakers and I could clearly hear the amp struggling to control them, especially the bottom end.
So I moved up to the Premier 12s and never had an issue since - it sounds both CJ-liquid, well controlled and "muscular" with every speaker so far. (Pretty much as Michael Fremer described them in his old review).
Though I always had on hand a beefy SS amp as well, usually a big Bryston, which I always used on every speaker at some point, simply to make sure I knew what the speaker could sound like when assured a good supply of current/control.
Of course, I always heard what the Bryston did for the sound - the usual beefy SS amp virtues - tightening things up, bottom end slam, more focus etc. But it was never as involving as the tube gear I'd use, always a bit too "tight" and "dry" vs what I liked. (I also tried various other SS amps, from Pass, Musical Fidelity and others...always preferring tube amps).
But it's so often unpredictable too. I remember my CJ MV55 not being in control of some Waveform speakers, switching to Bryston to get that precision. But it just "dried up" the sound IMO. Then I tried it with a locally built even less powerful tube amp and that amp controlled the Waveforms better than the CJ, and I got closer to the best of both worlds. Weird stuff.
Anyway, I hope I get to hear for myself one of these Thiels sooner rather than later. I really want to experience the pinnacle of Jim Thiel's design efforts! |
I appreciate all the contributions to this thread.
Hey Thiel 3.7 owners…
I've pretty much decided on getting the 3.7s :-)
(And while I've posted the following question in another forum, I could use input here from 3.7 owners especially)
But I do have some limitations, not much room to play with.
I find in my room, especially since I switched the seating design for home theatre, that an optimal speaker distance from me is between 7 and 8 feet. I like this distance because it edges into near field and I get less room, more of the recording space. The rap on Thiels is you are supposed to get far away from them for driver integration, 8 feet and beyond.
Wes Philips stated he sat 91" away (basically 7 1/2 feet away) and didn't complain of any lack of driver integration. So that sounds promising. Ideally, I'd push it even a bit further to 7 feet.
Which brings on another question I could use help with:
Can anyone with the Thiel 3.7s tell me, by actually having tried it (or trying it) whether the sound remains ok, integrated, at 7 feet (and between 7 and 8 feet)?
Many thanks.
(I seem to remember I had the Thiel CS6s working well from a distance like that, but it was a long time ago now…) |
Jafant,
Thanks for your interest :-)
I'm still tortured about which move to make. I would have snapped up the 3.7s immediately, but as I mentioned earlier they are in a light cherry finish that wouldn't match our decor. I generally love the look of the 3.7s I've seen (in photos) in the amberwood and especially ebony finish. But who knows how long I'd have to wait for a pair with the right finish, in great condition, from a trustworthy seller?
Alternatively I can have the cherry-wood 3.7s re-finished (Thiel said they'd do it if I want) in a stain of my choice.
That could likely get it the right shade to blend in better at our house, though ultimately I'm sure amberwood or ebony would still be the more beautiful finish.
(I know lots of people love cherrywood finishes, but I prefer darker woods, hence why our house uses darker wood).
So I'm still trying to decide: 1. Grab a pair in cherry, in terrific condition, from a trustworthy seller...basically the "bird in the hand" as it were. Listen to them, see if they are keepers, and then re-finish them.
Or pass on them and wait..not sure how long...for an appropriate other pair in the other finishes.
OR...pick up the ebony 2.7s which I love the look of, but which I would likely want to upgrade from to the 3.7s (and hence have to sell them).
I can make an air-tight case in my head for any of the choices and it's driving me nuts!
I need some audio-therapy... |
Jafant,
One thing:
"Your over-view was excellent. Very precise in terms of the things you are hearing. You will most certainly get "texture" otherwise called "timbre".
Actually, in my view at least those are two different qualities. For me timbral quality is the accuracy of tone/harmonics, where wood sounds like wood, brass like brass, plastic like plastic, etc. The Hales line of speakers were among the best I've ever heard at nailing and re-creating a convincing array of instrumental timbers. The main thing my Hales speakers have lacked is the sense of "texture," which IMO is where you sense the physical characteristics of the object being played, the bow on the cello string, fingers plucking the guitar, and the sense that each object is vibrating the air in front of you as it would if present. A sort of reach-out-and-touch it quality.
You can start to loose this quality when, for instance, really underpowering speakers, where you may get a beautiful tone, but a limpid sound in which threadbare sonic images aren't really moving much sound. |
Jafant,
At the moment one of my interconnects are from Analysis Plus interconnects. (Though I've had varieties, including high end Nordost and others).
Again, all this is pretty much "Of convenience" for me when I add and subtract gear from my system, since I have access to these cables.
While I certainly appreciate the sentiment of advice about tuning the system via cabling, as a long time audiophile - I've been a previous contributor to on on-line audio review site, and have numerous friends in the audio and audio-reviewer community - I've come to different conclusions about audio cables. I've had varieties of expensive, highly rated cabling in my system, and I continue to regularly experience friends and audio reviewer's systems as we switch high end cables (top end Nordost, Crystal cabling, costing more than a car etc).
And I've exploited this situation over the years to do my own blind testing comparisons, which...well...has helped save me quite a bit of money. ;-)
I guess one way to put it is this: The friend who I'd previously mentioned has lots of high end gear flowing through his house, his system always has some version of high end cabling, and he recently just re-cabled with around $45,000 JUST ON THE CABLES.
The Thiel 3.7s I just purchased cost me around 1/7th of what just those cables cost! And I use mostly low-end/lower cost cabling.
Yet when my pal dropped over to hear my new Thiels, he was like "holy shit!" He found the sound spooky-real sometimes, and he was hugely impressed with the sound.
So I'm comfortable in my conclusions that my funds are best allocated to other parts of the audio system, vs spending substantial money on high end cables.
I respect anyone else's decision to spend their funds as they wish :-)
Cheers, and thanks for your comments.
|
Well I've certainly been loving my Thiel 3.7s.
But I have a question: What happened to all the Thiel 3.7s?
When I was originally posting, I was agonizing over whether to buy a pair of 3.7s that were for sale. There were quite a number available, on audiogon, ebay etc, but not one in quite the finish I wanted. But I grabbed a nice looking cherry-stained pair and...boy I'm glad I did. From my off-on perusing of the Thiel market, it's like right after I bought my pair last spring, the rest of them quickly disappeared off the market! I very rarely see any 3.7s (or 2.7s) come up for sale anywhere now, and when they do the prices are well HIGHER than when I was buying.
What happened? |
Thanks jafant.
Whether they still exist at Dealerships, I still find it odd that on-line second hand sales seemed to suddenly drop off a cliff, relatively speaking.
|
Goodness that's an expensive amp!
I'm sure it works great with the 3.7s.
As I've mentioned, my CJ Premier 12s drove the 3.7s really well, and my current 2.7s. No real bass "problems."
That said I recently received some upgraded CJ Premier 12s I'm testing out - upgraded caps, but also using KT120 tubes vs the usual 6550s.I've heard tell of how the KT120 tubes do great bass but..holy cow!It almost feels like I just got beautifully integrated subwoofers in my system, while simultaneously increasing the grip and definition on the bass.
Having had a Bryston 4B3 in my system not long ago (testing) I'm not wanting for bass depth and clarity with these tube amps!
|
