Thiel with "Warmest" Midrange? 2.7 vs 3.7 vs Older


I know, I know, Thiels of all speakers are NOT known for a "warm" midrange, at least that's their reputation.

But I'd nonetheless be interested in how people would rate the general sense of midrange "warmth" and "fullness/richness" of the various Thiel models through the years, including the CS 3.7 and 2.7 models.

(I've noted that around the time of the CS 7.2 and CS6, I was actually seeing the descriptors like "smooth" and "warm balance" which is not something I'm seeing much in descriptions of the newer 2.7 and 3.7).

So I'd be interested in such comparisons between older to newer Thiels through the years, and for the 2.7 vs the 3.7.

Feel free to stop reading there, but for those interested below I'll share my thoughts about Thiel, why I'm asking this, and why I have "Thiel Fever" again…..

--------------------------

I'm on a quest to try Thiel speakers in my system again, and I'm particularly interested in the culmination of Jim Thiel's efforts, the CS 3.7. But it's been a long time since I've heard Thiels and unfortunately as we know, they've been discontinued, and all the product dumped by dealers. (I think I missed the boat by literally a month or two, my zeal-for-Thiel re-igniting just last month).

Like many audio-nuts, I've gone through periods of crazy extensive speaker auditioning (though I'm talking well in the past now, I've kept up minimally in the last decade or so).

I love a warm, full midrange (like many others here) and I feel that one of the defining elements of "real voices and acoustic instruments" is a sense of that organic warmth. That's after all why I also favour tube amplification (the ones that tend to reduce the mechanical elements of the sound - I happen to use Conrad Johnson amps at the moment).

So why am I after Thiels, given their reputation for leaner, cooler sound?

I'd always admired the Thiel speakers, starting with the 3.6 as I remember. They always struck me as somehow "telling me the truth" about a recording, and how those instruments sounded, in an almost Quad ESL type manner. (I don't mean the Whole Truth, neither being perfect speakers, but they gave some sort of window on the truth, a sense of accuracy within their limits, that seemed to separate them from the pack). So there was a certain rightness of tone I'd hear through the Thiels.

And one of the main characteristics I LOVED about the Thiels is one often mentioned in reviews: their amazing focus and density of sound. It's not just the concept of pin-point imagine per se, in terms of being able to point to exactly where an instrument is playing in the soundstage, but the sense of all the sonic information of that instrument coalesced into a dense whole - giving a better sense of solid objects vibrating sound in front of me, vs most other speakers. I think that was something that really connected me to their sound. I found even mediocre old recordings, though revealed as such, gained more life, drive and liveliness through the Thiels than the soggier-sound approach that can cover up harshness, but also
reduce the excitement of the presentation.

On the down side, Thiels to me sounded a bit over damped, a bit too tight, and a bit leaner than I would prefer. Instruments sounded made of the right materials, but reduced in weight. And the sound tended to be a bit on the dry, forward side. So I admired them, but couldn't love them. And my quest went on.

(I ended up, after Quad ESL 63/Gradient subwoofer, moving to Von Schwiekert VR4 Gen IIs…with stops at Shun Mook speakers, Waveform, Audio Physic virgo/Libra/Scorpio, Hales T-5s, Meadowlark, currently own some MBL 121s etc).

But way back at CES 2000, after hearing the Thiel CS6 speakers in a room or two (I'd heard and admired them in showrooms before) I happened upon the VAC amplification room, which also employed the CS6. I was about to move on when I realized I couldn't stop listening. I sat down and heard among the most beautiful reproduction I'd ever heard - this was Thiels…on TUBES! It had all the Thiel virtues I loved, the precision, truth, density of sound, tonal believability, dynamics etc, but it was no longer dry and tight, but had a liquidity and more of the body I found to be more believable and gorgeous. It was an epiphany: I'd always dismissed the combination as a no-go zone due to the Thiel rep for requiring beefy solid state amplification.

Not too long after that I got hold of a pair of CS6s to try with my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 140W/side amps.
And it was fantastic! I got essentially the same type of gorgeous mix of characteristics as I'd heard at CES. It wasn't just me: audio pals declared it the best sound they'd ever heard in my room. (My room is on the small side, 13' by 15,' but it's odd dimensions and large room opening has allowed all the large floor standing speakers to work well in the room, and I don't listen loud at all).

But, for various room aesthetic and ergonomic reasons, and because I was changing the room to home theatre, I couldn't keep the CS6s.

But now, after many years of using various other brands, I've got the hankering for Thiel again. I can't get out of my mind the characteristics they brought that I haven't quite found elsewhere.

And this led me to look into the "newer" CS3.7. I became excited about owning a Thiel speaker that could even surpass what I heard with the CS6, and which was also substantially smaller and lighter (important for how I will integrate this speaker into my room). The idea of owning the culmination of Jim Thiel's engineering efforts is very compelling.

But I realized I wanted the Thiels too late, only a month ago, just missing the boat after they'd been discontinued, and all the stocks dumped and snapped up.

So I have to appeal to those here with experience of these new Thiel models to help me out. I like a clean midrange, but I don't want sterile, nor do I want a speaker that will cause ear fatigue in the high frequencies (I have sensitive ears). And I guess the benchmark with which I'm most familiar is the CS6. Would you consider either the CS6 (or choose the 3.6, or CS7.2) to have a smoother, or warmer midrange relative to the newer 2.7 and 3.7 models?

Me sense in reading reviews is that the newer 2.7 and 3.7 have a "smoother" midrange insofar as being even lower in distortion than past Thiel speakers, but they could also sound brighter, being more extended in the highs (and the Thiel CS6 as I remember, was sometimes thought to be a bit lacking in the upper high frequency airiness, which perhaps even contributed to my ear comfort with that model?).

I'm hoping to strike magic again, pairing the 3.7 with my CJ Premier amps. As far as I can tell from the Stereophile measurements, the 3.7s don't look any harder to drive (re my CJ amps) than the CS6, or the killer loads of my MBL, Hales speakers etc.

I'm also possibly interested in pairing VAC with the Thiels - I see some Renaissance 70/70s on sale sometimes - given the magic I'd heard at CES with that amp and the Thiels. (And Thiel's own blog reported that amp did some magic with the 3.7).

Finally, since there are no 3.7s available (used or otherwise that I can find) at this time, I may pick up a second-hand pair of 2.7s. My sense is that I would grab them to tide me over until some 3.7s showed up, though perhaps I'd like them enough to stick with the 2.7. And on that note, for anyone who has heard the 2.7 and 3.7, is the midrange any more "full" or rich on the bigger speakers?

Any words of wisdom or experience on these matters will be gratefully received.

(And, may as well ask: does anyone have a pair of 3.7s for sale? :-) )

Thanks,

Prof
prof
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.
Great to read-Prof!

I am happy that you are happy. I do not think that I steered you wrong, in my description, of these wonderful loudspeakers. Truth is, I would never endorse any gear, w/o much exposure / demo sessions to form my final opinion.

Your over-view was excellent. Very precise in terms of the things you are hearing. You will most certainly get "texture" otherwise called "timbre". It is truly a remarkable thing upon hearing it.

PLease keep me posted and Happy Listening! -JA
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,

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.
Thanks! for sharing- Prof.

I knew I had witnessed something special during my 1st demo w/ the CS 2.4 loudspeaker. It was connected to a Creek integrated and NAD 565 BEE cd player. The texture & timbre were both present in spades.

Now, if Creek would only build a more robust integrated amp, say 200wpc. This could be quite the sonic match for a CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 loudspeaker.

Keep me posted as you massage your new speakers into your listening room!