Too clinical, dry and thin to my ears. Silver cables will present this way on Thiel loudspeakers, especially, the newer models. Sigh. It's worth pointing out occasionally that there is no actual basis for such a claim, beyond imagination. Audiophiles misleading audiophiles.... Anyway, back to Thiels... |
prof I don't endorse any. In most realistic use cases there would be no need to pay extra money for silver cables. Silver is a teeny bit more conductive than copper, but even that can be made up by a higher awg copper wire. And in most non-extreme cases (e.g. crazy long cable runs) it's not hard at all to choose a copper wire of sufficient awg and characteristics to work just fine. Properly used, there is no inherent "characteristics" of "silver wire" that changes the frequency balance vs copper, such as to actually thin out the sound (e.g. by attenuating frequencies in the warmth range - e.g 60 to 250Hz or lower mid 250 to 500Hz range). It's a psychological thing. We know silver is visually "bright" so audiophiles imagined "sounds bright," this became an audiophile meme, and so now there's the "silver sounds bright" or "thin" concept among audiophiles. Silver coated cables may extend the life of some cables, but that's about it - it's not going to change the sound in proper use cases. |
To re-iterate a tiny bit of anecdotal amp data on Thiels. I’m still having fun going back and forth between a loaned Bryston 4B3 and my CJ monoblock tube amps (140W side) on my Thiel 2.7s. Anyone who thinks Thiels need gobs of SS power should hear this set up. Even compared to the Bryston, 140w of tubes sounds absolutely balls-to-the-wall energetic, punchy and dynamic. The Bryston provides a tiny bit more grip on the sound, but the bass is by no means "loose" with the CJ and it sounds at least as punchy, probably even more so. With the CJ the sound seems more "live" IMO. |
@tomthiel I think I've brought this up before but... One of the differences I heard between my 3.7 and 2.7s was a finer, more subtle sense of detail on the 3.7s and the 3.7s "disappeared" a bit better.So even if an instrument or voice was panned hard right to the speaker location, the voice would float around the speaker. Whereas the 2.7s have a teeny bit more problem getting the sound "out" of the speaker in the same situations. Apparently the baffle of the 3.7 was metal (aluminum?) where there was a bit of cost-cutting in the 2.7 so it was a less stiff material (wood? MDF?). I presume that could be responsible for the observation. It makes me wonder about a tweak for the 2.7s of re-enforcing the baffle from behind within the cabinet, say with metal or something that makes it comparable to the 3.7's baffle. Is that something Rob could pull off? I have no idea how difficult that would be. Thanks |
Tom, Thanks very much for the detail. I'm not a handy-man type so wouldn't do that myself, but I'm saving that info and maybe some day I can get a local speaker repair shop to do it for me (if not send them to Rob). BTW, speaking of getting the 2.7s to "disappear": I just tried a fascinating tweak with the 2.7s. To backtrack, I spent a month several years ago putting together an isolation platform for my turntable. I bought tons and tons of footers and various isolation material (hard and soft), testing most of them with vibrometer apps etc. By far the most effective were the Townshend "seismic isolation pods." They are a spring-based design that holds up the heavy turntable and layered platform. Without the springs if you stomp around the equipment rack with a hand on the top shelf, you can feel tons of vibration. Also a Seismometer app measures plenty of big vibration spikes with ringing. But with the spring pods under the platform, stomping around you can't feel anything getting to the platform, and almost nothing registers on the vibration app! So quite objective verification that at least some register of vibration is not getting through. That experience made me curious about the spring-based speaker isolation platforms sold by Townshend, which get great reviews (what doesn't?). But those are pricey so I thought I'd try an experiment with some cheap spring-based footers on amazon. I placed them under the Thiels and just finished listening for over an hour.Wow, they work! The effect was very similar to when you get a subwoofer dialed in really well - not extended bass but a perception of clearing up and tightening of the entire frequency range, starting in the low bass. Bass instruments were tighter, floating better in their own space, every thing had a bit more clarity top to bottom, and the speakers disappeared better, the soundstage taking on more of that wide CinemaScope width of the 3.7s, instruments to the side less stuck in the speaker! I certainly wouldn't say they suddenly sounded just like the 3.7s, but it sure was fascinating for a cheap tweak! The problem is the speakers get a bit tippy on the spring footers so I don't think I'll stick with that particular solution (because I have a lot of foot traffic in that room right past the speakers to get in and out). I'm sure with a bit of ingenuity one could make some outriggers using the footers for greater stability. But I have a feeling I may pick up the Townshend speaker bars in the future. |
Just stumbled upon an old Stereophile review of the 2.2s. https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/492thiel/index.html A quote:
"What I admire most about these speakers is the fact that the product is so professionally done. The cabinetry is impeccable. I get the feeling that these speakers are the result of many months, perhaps years, of careful research, engineering, and listening—not something that was rushed to market half-finished, with revisions to follow. "
It must be nice when reviewers and customers note the effort you folks put in to these products. I remember when I had the CS6 at my place in amberwood (as I recall) it was just so...impeccable...in it's finish, design and workmanship. It adds so much pride of ownership and satisfaction.
|
@tomthiel I can't remember where I got this information, but I seem to recall that Thiel speakers were designed with the grills in mind. That is, they are voiced with the grill on and thus ideally should be used that way.Is that correct? I've never actually taken the grills off my 2.7s to try them that way - one reason being I don't like seeing speaker drivers (I find it distracting when I know exactly where the sound is coming from). |
Thanks very much for the info Tom. That's what I figured. I don't have much urge to take the grills off my 2.7s. I do find my Joseph speakers benefit somewhat with grills off in terms of opening up the high end and delivering all they are capable of. At the same time, though, they are actually a bit more coherent with the grills on (high frequencies more seamlessly integrated). In fact I find many speakers sound a bit more coherent in the top frequencies with the grills on. |
I wonder who maintains the Thiel Blog. I was just going over the many warm remembrances of Jim Thiel on this page (which I've posted before):
http://thielaudio.blogspot.com/2009/09/please-share-your-memories-of-jim-thiel.html#comment-form
Also...who are THESE people who seem to have taken over the ThielAudio domain/name?
|
tomthiel
So do you mean the actual content of that ThielAudio site is "fake," as it were? And it's just fishing for contact info? I posted a link to the Thiel blog. I didn't mean it was active, but simply that it is still there and not taken over (like the ThielAudio site) so I figured maybe someone still hosts/maintains it or something? http://thielaudio.blogspot.com/
|
I'm still going back and forth between the borrowed Bryston 4B3 and my CJ premier 12 tube monos (140w/side). Basically the same impression every time. The Bryston has a bit more grip from top to bottom, a bit more tonal precision and clarity (well...tough call about clarity...both sound clear, the Bryston just a little bit more informative). But the CJ is no wilting wallflower tube amp. It has at least as balls-to-the-wall energy and punch as the Bryston. And it has that "breath of life" tonality, where instruments and voices sound more texturally filled out and present, airy and "there" like I'm seeing through the electronics to the real event. My dream is to try something like the Conrad Johnson ART amplifiers (e.g. original ART 275W/side, or the new ART 300 monos or ART 150 stereo amp). As I understand it those give the closest to the best of SS and the CJ sound. I'm also currently playing with a JL Audio 110e subwoofer with my Thiel 2.7s. Buried way back in this thread, 3 years ago, I was talking about integrating these subwoofers. Yes they have actually been sitting around that long because THAT is how much I dislike subwoofers! :-) Anyway, it's getting interesting. I've been unable, as was the case last time I tried. to fully keep the midrange and upper frequency character I love about the speakers when using the subwoofer. I have a Dspeaker anti-mode I'm going to use today to see how that helps. |
Tom, I don't know if it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but the buzz is back concerning the youtube documentary: One Man's Dream - Ken Fritz Documentary Absolutely insane dedication by a brilliant audiophile to making a massive home system. He mentions you and Jim several times, saying he did some work for you (Theil cs5 as I remember, baffles?) and that he took your advice for an element of his wall construction. I don't suppose you've heard Mr. Fritz's system, have you? |
Every time I throw the old Thiel 02s in to my system it tells me that’s the sound I’ve been chasing. Decade after decade. Something about the palpability and tonality of the sound that grabs me every time. For some reason they seem to tell me more about what something is made of - a sort of solidity so chimes sound "solid," reed instruments have a solid resonating body, the metal of a trumpet vs a string instrument etc. I just don’t know why. I wonder if part of what I like in the 02 has anything to do with it’s higher sensitivity - 90 dB/watt-meter. Tomthiel, do you happen to know anything about the impedance on the 02? Is it an easy to drive speaker impedance-wise? (Sure seems so just by ear, whenever I hook up any tube amp to those speakers). I’d love a bigger, more refined version of that speaker. I’m still fiddling with the idea of testing out the Devore O/96 speakers in my room, which have some of the 02 qualities, but bigger and more refined. The aren’t as refined as the Thiels overall though, in a "modern loudspeaker" type of way. They don’t fully disappear as sound sources, do the wall to wall soundstaging etc. |
tom, Your modded 02s certainly intrigue me. And your Audio neurology hypothesis sounds plausible. Especially in my case the 02s were my gateway drug in to high end audio, so I'm sure they made an impression on me. It's like the Quad ESL 57 phenomenon - many people who start with Quad 57s eventually give them up to chase a speaker that does what they love in the Quads, but without the limitations. "Quads but better." That's very much how I feel about the 02s. Admittedly they are still a great place to visit, not to live (for me). Every time I put them in they show me something missing from whatever speaker I have at the moment. For instance the Joseph Perspective speakers are insanely high resolution, clear, grain-free - thoroughly modern sound without being anti-septic. When I put the 02s in I hear a slightly greater palpability and texture and density which I love. And the 02s stay in the system for quite a while, a week, two, three. But eventually the lack of refinement, the slight courteousness, compared to what I'm generally used to starts to show and back in go the more modern speakers. |
I've had an interesting time tube rolling with my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks.
Same ones I drove the Thiel 3.7 and now my 2.7s.
When I had both the 3.7 and 2.7 in the house I was trying to decide which one to keep. One of the distinguishing factors is the 3.7s sounded like they were: a bigger speaker. Even though by specs only slightly extended further than the 2.7, there was a sense with the 3.7s of the proportion of the sound being a big different. Bass went a bit deeper, the scale was a bit larger on everything. The 2.7s seemed like putting a bit of a girdle on - like the bass frequencies were lifted slightly upwards, putting more emphasis on the punchiness of the mid-bass.
I finally tried replacing the 6550 power tube on my amps with the larger more powerful KT120 tubes. What a difference! Bass feels deeper, the scale of everything - soundstage, image sizes - expanded. Now the 2.7s truly remind me of the 3.7s in that sense. Pretty amazing.
|
Many pages back - in fact several years ago now! - I was writing about how I'd purchased some JL Audio Subwoofers and a JL Audio CR-1 crossover to finally try adding subs to the system. At the time the main motivation was seeing how close I could get the slightly smaller 2.7s to sound like the 3.7s I sold. But then generally I also just wanted to finally give subs a good go since so many people rave about them (though I've never had a great experience). It certainly says something about my level of enthusiasm that I only got around to really checking them out a couple weeks ago! The stuff just sat around forever because I never felt compelled, because subwoofer stuff is a hassle, and in my case an even bigger hassle since my source equipment/amplification is way down the hallway from my listening room. This necessitates having lots of really long interconnects to even do testing, and if I wanted the subs to stay I'd have to run the wires through my wall, along my basement ceiling etc. So I kept putting it off. Also, I was fairly limited in where I could..or would...place subs in my room. I had one placed near the wall a few feet behind the Thiels, and another behind the listening sofa hidden. I hate...HATE....the look of subwoofers and never cared for even seeing one of them in the room. I go for as clean an aesthetic as possible. But...was willing to try. To report on how it went: I had first tried the subs using the high level input of the subwoofers only, running them "REL style" with the Thiels run full range. It added a bit of richness to the sound, but also took away the more open, incisive tone I liked. Also sounded a bit dynamically limp. I finally got around to using the CR-1 crossover which was an amazing piece of gear. All analog high quality crossover - as far as I could tell transparent and not taking away or adding from the signal. The controls for setting the crossover points and the other controls are so simple, intuitive and effective. I started out only with the sub behind my sofa. That was a "hail mary" attempt, the one I'd be most likely to keep if it worked, since at least it was out of sight. But, a challenging location. (I did level and phase dialing in using the sound doctor instructions/signals). Frankly I was amazed how easy it was to dial in a pretty satisfactory blend of sub and sat, even with the subwoofer nearby behind me.It was mostly invisible, only occasionally making itself known in some low bass tracks. The challenge was dialing it in to the system without altering the tone that I like so much with the 2.7s. It was much easier to do so with the CR1 vs the subwoofer only. (I tried various crossover points, 24db curve, from 30hz up to 80 or 90hz). I should mention that the CR1 crossover has a button that can switch the subs in and out of the system, so I could immediately switch between my speakers run full range, or crossed over to the subs. Also, after a while I also put the subwoofer signal through my DSpeaker Anti-Mode dual core 2, which does room DSP for subwoofers. I like the unit a lot as it's super simple to use. It did flatten out the subwoofer/bass in the room a bit more, making the subs a bit more invisible sonically. Ultimately, the bass sounded maybe a little more even with the sub dialed in, the sound a little bit richer. Just a touch darker too. There was an emphasis of hearing the reverb in the recordings. It was very easy on the ears, almost sounding a bit rolled off, still a little darker than without the subs. And it was dynamically a bit more reticent, still. On tracks like Herbie Hancock's Chameleon, or Talk Talk's Happiness Is Easy, the drums "sat back" in the mix sounding less punchy. Disengaging the subs made the kick drums have that more realistic attack and "punch the air" sensation.Even instruments in the midrange and higher just seemed a bit less dense and present, like xylophones, synth tracks, bongos etc. Dynamically everything was just a bit too polite. No matter how I dialed the subs, and whatever the crossover. While I thought the sound with the subs was really good, every single time I listened without the subs I preferred what I heard: it was more alive and beautiful and open sounding, more dynamic, present, punchy...all the things I've been pushing my system toward. The same happened when I tried the other sub behind the speakers, and with the subs together. A telling track was Talos from the Jason And The Argonauts soundtrack, which has huge kettle drums doing "giant walking" beats. They sounded massive with the subwoofers in, but to my surprise with the subwoofers out, they sounded just as big and deep, but more dynamic and more "real, like they could be playing in front of me" as the upper midrange and treble seemed to open up. I thought that subs would at least be preferable for those tracks, but no. Ultimately, I decided I just didn't need the subs. I just sold the subs and the crossover, and since I don't need the Anti-mode I'll sell that too. And frankly it's all a relief. I'm happy to be shedding that extra gear, the extra wires, the extra AC cables, the extra hassle and complexity, getting better aesthetics in the room. The money will go to my "audio bank account" for sold gear. If I build up enough I may finally scratch my Devore itch and grab a pair of O/96 speakers second hand if I can find them. But I still don't envision selling the Thiel 2.7s. They are just too good, too even and competent across the board. |
am confident that I am not alone in thinking that there are instances where the CS 2.7 and/or the CS 3.7 would require subwoofers. That's a timely comment for me, as I just spent the last couple days checking out my new CJ amplifiers. I've used the CJ Premier 12s for 20 years and just grabbed a pair of Premier 12s that had been upgraded with lots of the CJ "Art" series upgrades, Teflon caps, works better with KT120 tubes etc. Wow, it's literally sounds like my speakers got bigger! The bass depth and soundstage are just huge, and seem to give up little to nothing to what I remember from my Thiel 3.7s. And it sounds better to me than with the subwoofers I had (which I just sold). In no way would I dissuade anyone from adding subwoofers to their speakers, Thiel or otherwise, as there are plenty of happy listeners who have done so. But having had the 3.7s, and the 2.7s with subs, I'd take the sound I'm getting now any day. |
sdl4, Funny you should ask :-) I’ve been going through just those experiments again. I’m sure it will be room and listener dependent. My Thiel 2.7s are on a carpeted wood floor. I have tried herbies footers, sliders, spikes, various forms of decoupling, isoacoustics footers, and finally even (expensive!) Townshend audio isolation bars (spring based). In every case I found the sound to be "better" when the speakers were simply sitting directly on the carpeted floor. No spikes. Nuthin.’ The thing is one of the aspects I’ve been going for in my system is a sense of density palpability and impact. Not just the airy-fairy hologramsof many speakers, but a sense of instruments and voices having some acoustic power, moving air. In essence - the opposite of the electrostatic speaker sound :-) Horn speakers tend to do this by nature, I find. But I can’t accommodate horn speakers (and not sure I’d fully get along with them anyway). So I’ve tried my best with regular box dynamic speakers. Thiels have a dense, focused sound. I find my CJ tube amps add yet another aspect of being filled out sounding, sometimes vinyl playback add yet more of this effect, and I play with room acoustics and speaker/listener arrangement to get there too. Whenever I have decoupled the speakers from just sitting on the floor, whatever benefits there were have been outweighed by a change in the tonality away from what I like and find convincing in my speakers (usually footers/decoupling makes it a bit too dark sounding when decoupled) and a loss of density and impact. The speakers may "disappear" a bit better, the sound may get a bit smoother etc, but the actual sense of realism and air-moving/room engaging impact takes a step back. I don’t want to take that step back. So, that’s at least where I am, thus far. |
sdl4, Unfortunately you are asking for clarification on the one comparison I feel less sure about. It's been quite a while since I had spikes under my 2.7s. The 2.7s were second hand and didn't come with spikes. But since I also owned the 3.7s at the same time for quite a while, I had grabbed the spikes and tried them on the 2.7s. But I sold those spikes with the 3.7s years ago now. Anyway, simply from memory, I don't remember the spikes changing the sound very much (which is a good thing IMO). But it was easier to shift the speakers around on the floor without them, so I didn't keep using them. But spikes are definitely the case where my memory on this may be less reliable, since I haven't had them for a while. FWIW: The Herbies big sliders worked really well under my speakers. Didn't "help" the sound in any way I noticed but didn't seem to hinder it much. I took them off recently to try the Townshend bars but haven't bothered to put them back on afterward, so the speakers are just sitting on my floor. Sounding great :-) |
One point about my situation is that I move my speakers probably more than most people. For one thing, I swap in various speakers (sometimes my Thiels, sometime my Joseph Audio speakers, occasionally different speakers). Plus I do play around with speaker positioning rather than just finding one spot and never moving them. So having an unfussy speaker in terms of movement is a plus for me. |
I think I may have mentioned earlier in this thread... I actually just returned my Townshend speaker bars that I tested under my Thiel 2.7s (which sit on a sprung wood floor, covered in carpet). Like I've said, the Townshend spring based products are one of those tweaks that "actually do something" - and something measurable.The question is whether it's what someone wants. The spring based Townshend pods unequivocally reduced vibration transmission to my turntable. Easily felt, easily measured with a vibrometer app. Stopped the records from skipping when my son, who shakes the house like Frankenstein, would walk past the turntable. And when I tried some cheap spring based footers under my Thiels it was easy to feel the difference in vibration around the speaker - the floor stopped vibrating with the music once decoupled by springs. Also the sound changed obviously- the speakers disappeared more, detail seemed more pronounced and more fine. But the sound also became a bit too lean and had less punch and density. Part of that was likely due to raising the speakers on the footers. (But not entirely as raising them a similar height using isoacoustic products produced a different, darker sound). The Townshend pods designed specifically for my speaker's weight, and which also barely raised the speakers would seemed to have been the ticket. But in the end I didn't find the effects to be as dramatic as the cheap springs, which in a way was a good thing as it kept a lot of the punch and tonal balance of the speaker. But I did lose a bit of that upper midrange tone and presence - that in-the-room live sound - and there was a slight depletion of density. Ultimately I found this outweighed any of the benefits for me, and once again I found myself preferring the speakers just sitting on the floor, no spikes or anything. But I can certainly see the product working for other people, or even why someone might have even preferred the effects in my system, even if I did not. Plus they area good company to deal with. |
Yes that’s a sort of typical combo people try when they attempt to get the best of both worlds, tubes and solid state.
And it makes some sense. You may have a speaker that just works best with a solid state amp driving it, but want to add a bit of tube sweetness on to that, so you add a tube preamp.
For me though it doesn’t really work in practice, for my particular taste. I really am a tube amp guy, and I find that it’s the amplifiers more than the pre-amps that really impart the tube characteristics most. Since I find my conrad johnson premier 12s drive my Thiels really well, I have no need to change my amp.
However, when I borrowed my friends Bryston 4B3 amp for a while I certainly heard some intriguing things the SS amp brought to the party - even more over-all precision, grip in the bass, solidity and clarity of transients, slightly lower distortion.
However overall I found the sound a bit too stiff, mechanical, edgy and hard, even with my very tubey CJ Premier 16SL2 preamp. I ultimately preferred my premier 12s over the Bryston for the more organic, rich, filled out and spacious sound, while maintaining good punch and drive.
However to see if I can get a bit more of "best of both worlds" I’ve been experimenting in using my Benchmark DAC 2L as a pre-amp. It’s a DAC but also has a fully functioning pre-amp stage (all analog signal). It generally sounded fantastic and close to a "best of both worlds." There was a greater sense of clean, clear sound, transients tighted up, bass tighted up somewhat, sounded really "accurate" yet it also maintained the essential sonic signature of the tube amps driving the speakers - big, meaty, rich, organic, spacious.
So I’ve just purchased a second hand Benchmark LA4 pre-amp - you won’t get more lower distortion/neutral SS pre-amp than that! I hope to try it in my system in the next few days.
But in any case, my sense is that unlike the usual SS with tube preamp, it’s actually a tube amp with SS pre that gets closer to best of both worlds. IMO. |
Seems even (the late) Art Dudley noticed the cabinetry skill in Thiel speakers. I was just reading his review of the Volti Audio Vittoria speakers in which Art stated:
Way back in the late 90’s the CS6 were the first "real" pair of Thiels I had in the house and I never tired of looking at the quality of the build and cabinetry. It was magnificent and put lots of other speakers to shame. |
I think I may have asked before in this years long thread but... Are Thiel speakers generally designed to be listened with the grills on? I seem to remember the answer is "yes" and if so that would make sense, given the way Thiel grills seem to be designed "in to" the face of the speaker. That's the impression I have of my Thiel 2.7s as well. Though I've never listened to them with the grills off. Thanks. |
Thanks Tom!
roxy54, I don't like seeing speaker drivers generally, and I would find the 2.7 drivers - white woofer and shiny aluminum mid etc - particularly distracting. In a way I don't want to try them without the grills because I might hear "more detail" but still won't listen to them that way anyway. So I was mostly curious about Tom's answer. |
In the category of "audiophiles think of the craziest things..." I’ve sometimes wondered how possible it would be to alter the color of a speaker driver. As an example, take the white woofer of the 2.7 or the aluminum midrange. What would happen if you lightly spray painted them black or something? What, if any, sonic cost might be incurred? My intuition is that if it’s going to alter the sound it would do so more with the upper drivers (mid/tweeter) vs woofers. |
