Thiel Owners

jafant

"I have heard the BP-26 with and with the separate power supply."

Can't figure out how the BP-26 can function without the power supply.

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:

Jim Thiel (Thiel Loudspeakers)


The high priest of the doctrine of coherence through first-order crossovers in loudspeaker systems. I do not even agree with his doctrine but nonetheless admire him for his engineering talent and uncompromising integrity. The man’s devotion to scientific design and quality construction cannot be questioned. On top of it he is a true gentleman.

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.

prof

I subscribed to the Audio Critic for several years, but quit around Issue 16. Pete was quite a character!