I certainly hope my 2 2s, 3.7s and mcs1 will still have parts and service available for a while. Once the abomination that is the current version of Thiel croaks I have to think there are enough Thiel owners and fans out there to resurrect some remnant of it. Maybe Kathy Gornik will buy it back for 3 cents on the dollar. That'd be fun. It'd be great if another manufacturer of unique audio products could buy it. Thiels would make a great alternative to Magnepan. Both great products offering great value but with different sounds and looks that will appeal to different people.
13,219 responses Add your response
@jafant Have you ever compared your CS2.4SE to Vandersteen 2Ce Sig II, 3A Sig or Treo? I used to own CS1.6 and loved them except there was no low bass (essentially nothing below 50 cycles in my room) and an occasional distortion in the upper mid-range most plainly revealed on some recordings of female vocalists. I wanted more bass and considered CS2.4 at the time but opted for the 2Ce Sig II which was much more affordable. The 2Ce is clearly a much better speaker than the CS1.6 except it doesn't have that last bit of Thiel transparency and resolution (I found that bi-wiring with high-quality cables helped a LOT but still a hint of veiled midrange). I have since upgraded my amp and the 2Ce - which I still consider the best speaker available for <$5K - is clearly the weak link in my system. Specifically, I would like the midrange transparency and resolution I heard with the CS1.6 but with the overall fullness I get with the 2Ce. The CS2.4 is back on my radar . . . please share your thoughts on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Thiel and Vanderstreen (assuming you have heard Vandy). |
Beetle: I had Vandersteen 2Ce Sigs v1 and, over time, felt they were not dynamic enough so I traded them for CS2.4s that are a significant improvement in that area. Extended highs were also notable in the 2.4s vs the 2s. But, my CS6s outshine my 2.4s top to bottom and are still may favorite speaker. |
Stevecham: CS6 could be interesting; i don't doubt you're happy. I rank the CS7.2 just a notch below the very best speakers I've heard (Vandersteen 7, TAD Ref 1, Vivid Giya, and Avalon Ascent) but better than Wilson W/P 7 and 8, Revel Studio and others. Of course, it's always tough to say for sure when the room and electronics are always different, not to mention the intervals between my auditioning. IMO, Thiel made some of the very best drivers but he failed to tweak the crossovers and wiring as much as he could have. There is a pair of CS2.4 on ebay for a reasonable price but it is missing the speaker cable nuts. I half-tempted to buy that and trick it our with Cardas binding posts, upgrade the crossover (per posts earlier in this thread), and make it bi-wireable. |
Good to see you- beetlemania- Yes, during my 1st Thiel CS 2.4 demo, the dealer/retailer (Soundscape Baltimore MD) actually had the Vandy 2CE Signature and 3A models in the same room. I was on work assignment for 4 months, so, I spent several listening sessions every week w/ that speaker lot. The basic CS 2.4 is much more dynamic, realistic timbre, compared to the Vandys. Much richer presentation as well. I will say that the CS 2.4SE is more on-par w/ the 3A Signature. Very close between those (2) models. To my ears, Thiel is the richest, most accurate speaker, that I have heard to date. If you enjoy the Vandy sound, the 3A Signature is a nicer upgrade, especially, used/demo. Keep me posted. Happy Listening! |
Thanks for the reply, jafant If you enjoy the Vandy soundI do except they have a somewhat veiled midrange, IMO, probably because of the plastic driver. The latest versions use a "tri-woven" driver which is said to be better but I haven't heard it for myself. The Treo CT with the carbon tweeter is well-reviewed. I've only heard the regular version. I quite liked it but it is a bit more than I'm willing to spend. I actually have heard the standard CS2.4 but it has been 10+ years ago. I recall very much liking it but went with the 2Ce Sig IIs because it was much more affordable and mimicked the sound of the 3A Sig (except for bass) in a much less imposing package (as you know the 3A is a 48" monolith, the 2Ce is 40"). IMO, Vandersteen's low-end models are easily the best value in high-end speakers. But they do have their weaknesses, as should be expected at these price points. As I wrote above, I want the fullness of the Vandersteens but with as much transparency and resolution as I can afford. |
My pleasure- beetlemania the Thiel speaker will give you the details, transparency and resolution, no doubt about it. Once you have had a taste, you will be hooked (I know that I was on first audition). The CS 2.4SE continues to build upon the excellent design incorporated in the standard 2.4 model. Happy Listening! |
Greetings the problem here is because Vandersteen is affordable it gets treated with entry-level Band-aid wires and gear and suffers the consequences. If you have latest Sig IIs with woven midrange an amp like the Ayre VX5/20 and Audioquest DBS Aspen bi-wire the dynamics are extraordinary, clarity, transparency will be on another level plus you have a smother in room bass response. Best JohnnyR |
the problem here is because Vandersteen is affordable it gets treated with entry-level Band-aid wires and gear and suffers the consequences.Yeah, the consequence of building to a price is that you can't have everything. The 2Ce and 3A are remarkable at their prices - they do everything competently or better (and one or two things at near SOTA levels). There are no glaring weaknesses, IMO. If I were to rank the SQ parameters of the 2Ce Sig IIs I would give most things an 8 or 9. It is supremely well-balanced, I am unaware of any other speaker that gets so much right at it's price (or, even, 2X its price). Unfailingly musical and a flat-out bargain. I'm just at the stage where I'm ready for more performance. Specifically, I want more transparency and resolution, especially in the midrange, and better defined bass would be nice, too. I don't doubt the woven midrange is better than the plastic one and I'm confident the Treo CT is a great speaker. I guess I'm trying to cheat the system by getting something more affordable than the Treo CT but still a step up from the 2Ce. Used CS2.4 seems like a good bet to achieve that. |
Hello everyone...Happy Holidays! I have been enjoying a vintage pair of Thiel CS 3.5's for well over 2 months now and can honestly say that I am absolutely thrilled with them. Their ability to play so cleanly with that incredibly wide and open soundstage never fails to amaze me as I re-discover my music collection. They truly are full-range...the bass is deep, clean, precise and authoritative. The other thing I've found is that as difficult as they are supposed to be to drive, my Denon PMA-2000 IVR (160 watts @ 4 ohms) integrated seems to be getting on quite well with them. I am using the tape loop in my integrated to play through the Bass Module. The Thiels do like to be driven, though...they really open up and "clear their throats" as I turn up the wick. Truly stunning performers!!! If I were to have one issue, it's that the Thiels expose poorly recorded material in a ruthless, almost non-correctable fashion. For instance, I have many CD's from the early days of the format that now have a harsh, irritatingly "bright" sound to them. What's even worse are digital files. I've been re-ripping my CD collection to loss-less FLAC, but any "lossy" files really are exposed in ways I never noticed as much before. Of course, Hi-Res files, DSD and MQA Master files from Tidal are played beautifully! My current set-up is decidedly "Mid-Fi", but has everything I need to get very good sound: - Denon PMA 2000IVR Integrated Amplifier - Denon DVD-2900 CD/DVD-Audio/SACD Player - Denon DJ VL12 Prime Direct-Drive Turntable with Shure M97xE (MC) & Denon 103R (MM) cartridges - Thiel CS-3.5 w/Thiel Bass Module - Toshiba Satellite laptop w/Meridian Explorer 2 USB DAC (MQA capable) - Roon and Tidal digital-file playback/streaming applications - AudioQuest Golden Gate interconnects - Gotham SPK-8 speaker cables with Eminence E400 banana plugs - Pangea Audio AC-9 (amplification) & AC-14 (sources) power cables - Tripp Lite LCR2400 Line Conditioner My current plan is to move towards separates. While I truly enjoy my integrated, I have an inkling that something like vintage Adcom, Threshold or Krell amplification will open-up the Thiels even more. What I do wonder is if what I really need to tame the harshness I get from some music is tubes...maybe something vintage from Conrad Johnson or Audio Research will work? I've posted several photos of my Thiels and little listening area here: www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1340 Thanks for any feedback or suggestions! Arvin |
arvincastro... I am also a BIG fan of the 3.5's. As to your comments regarding how these speakers reveal flaws up and down the chain, particularly with digital formats, I can only state that the existing issue is not the speakers. So far as tossing "vintage" separates at them to improve everything, I have had a Threshold 400A amp mated to a BAT tubed preamp and the results were very good. (I've tossed a pretty good amount of stuff at my Thiels, in fact.) My favorites? For amplification, hands down Pass Labs. (X150.5 model) For pre-amps? I really believe that Audio Research and Thiel are great matches. I like having tubes in my preamps for Thiel. ARC just has this "punchiness" that I like. LS3 and LS3b (tubed) models can be found on here at VERY fair prices. And they can still be repaired if an issue ever arises. I actually sold my Threshold fairly cheap because the meter lights weren't working - or so I thought. Turns out I wasn't throwing enough power to the speakers. (3.5's) As unsound, another member here and a wealth of things regarding Thiel overall related once, the 3.5's are one of the easiest models to drive. For the record, I always left the bass equalizer in operation. A few members have offered that they sound better without it, but I disagree. The speakers were designed to have it in use, so who am I to argue with Jim Thiel's design? Pass Labs, even pre-owned, can be expensive. I've had two X150.5 amps, paying a little more the second time around than the first, approximately $2500. A bargain, given how well Pass mates with Thiel. It just DOES for me. I have since moved back to a BAT integrated with identical power ratings to the Pass Labs, and it's working out fine. Pass Labs integrated are difficult to find on the pre-owned market. The INT150 has been discontinued but appears once in a while on the Renohifi site - a retailer I can highly recommend. Mark is a gent and a good businessman. I am currently selling my 3.6's because I miss the 3.5's so much. I am hoping to find a local pair of 3.5, or perhaps even a pair Maggie 1.7's. I have a soft spot in my heart/head for both these brands and what they do so damn well. I forget to whom I offered the guts of the last pair of 3.5's I purchased here. The cabinets were pretty rough and both midranges were inoperable, so I gutted them and keep the raw drivers, crossovers, bass eq, and grill hardware. The midranges LOOK fine, but they're dead - still repairable at around $300 apiece. The woofers and tweeters are in fine condition, 100% operational. Sequential serial numbers were on the cabinets as well. Anyone willing to pick them up is welcome to them free of charge. |
Thanks for the welcome, jafant...and Happy New Year to you & yours as well! oblgny: Thanks for your very detailed post...a lot of information I plan on putting to good use! You've pretty much confirmed what I was suspecting...that the Thiels are simply reproducing what's been recorded. As a child of the 80's, I grew up in the world of Japanese "mid-fi". And while I have always been one who lives by "It's about listening to music", I cannot help but now feel that what I'm really needing to do is move into the realm of Hi-Fi. The Thiels represent the first truly Hi-Fi piece of equipment I have owned & I can now understand why component matching becomes so critical as one "moves up the ladder." It's a journey I will be excited to make... Arvin |
arvincastro, I was a child of the 60's and grew up in the heyday of the "receiver wars" - Pioneer, Kenwood, Sansui, Marantz to name perhaps the most popular brands. Prior to becoming able to afford any one of those my family's "stereo" was a Magnavox console driven by tubes, LP only - no radio, no nothing. I still own a Pioneer SX1050 as well as a Marantz 2252B receiver, both of which are currently being employed and enjoyed as my girlfriend's sources of music in her house. In her living room the Pioneer is mated to a fairly cosmetically compromised pair of Meadowlark Kestrels, a manufacturer that shared an appreciation for coherent sound like Jim Thiel. The setup still surprises me as to how damn good it sounds. Those old receivers still rock. I do believe that I stumbled upon this site looking for another piece of "vintage" equipment. It's going on five years membership here now, and I think at the time I had a Cayin integrated amp rated at around 30 watts or so per channel, with a pair of Klipsch CF-3 loudspeakers that I purchased just around the corner from my new house. (circa 1994) Since discovering Audiogon it's been all downhill... I'm joking of course. I began with CS2.2, then CS2.3, until my first pair of CS3.5 about....4 years ago, methinks. I drove to Massachusetts to pick them up. While I liked both of the earlier models, it was the CS3.5 which really upgraded my system. There have been only two manufacturers that have made me stop in my tracks walking back to my seat while starting the music, one is, obviously, Thiel, the other Magnepan. What these brands do so damn well for me negates any "shortcomings" of either - they reproduce music, not sound. IMHO. Anyway...that's when I began buying stuff here. I was curious. You know the drill. So...in order of preference with Thiel... Amplification: First Watt M2 - low powered solid state that got me addicted to Pass Labs. Bought it, within a month traded it back for the Pass Labs X150.5 amp. Pass Labs X150.5 - 150 watts into 8 ohms, 300 watts into 4 ohms, plenty enough for my CS3.5's. Incredible improvement to my system. Colorless amp, colorless speakers. Truly the best match so far. Primare A34.2 integrated - class D, 150 watts into 8 ohms, "almost 300" into 4 ohms. (Actual quote from Primare when I inquired.) Don't let anyone tell you that class D amps aren't suited for Thiel - they ARE. The reason I traded that off was because I could not employ the CS3.5 bass equalizer without...I forget. It was a pain in the ass. I had separates before where gettin git in there was easier. Conrad Johnson MF2200, 2100 - very punchy and low-mid emphasized. CJ seemed to hold something back through the Thiels. Can be had pretty cheaply here from time to time. Mated with two different ARC preamps and still... McIntosh 6700 Receiver - 200 watts per channel, and $6700 ill-spent. Like so many of us McIntosh continued to have a hold on my imagination over the years. Didn't have it long. McIntosh MC275 Mark VI amplifier - loved it, but when a tube blew within a week I contacted McIntosh directly and related the problem to some "customer service" person who simply made me aware of the fact that didn't manufacture the tubes. I responded, "well they have the word McIntosh screened onto them, so..." Thanks to Dave Wasserman at Stereo Exchange in NYC for stepping into assist me - but I was done. With McIntosh forever. Feh! As far as you're concerned I would suggest staying away from the "vintage" gear out there with the only exception being Threshold. As I related in my earlier post, I thought my Threshold's power meters were malfunctioning, but when the gent whom I sold it to told me they were working fine I realized I just wasn't pushing it for them to register. Somewhere amidst all of this swapping in and out I had an Adcom and it pulsed my speakers on startup. Whoosh! Away it went. Regarding preamps, I truly lean toward Audio Research in that regard. To my ears they provided punch to the various amps I was using. (And there are more....) I also enjoyed a passive preamp for a while - I forget the brand - and with the Pass and the passive pre the Thiels were remarkably brilliant, if not as "forward" sounding as before. Oh yes, with all due haste I do have to mention that when I had separates I changed all my cabling over to Transparent. I had something of a mish-mosh of cabling prior, but after reading what jafant espouses here regarding cables I thought, "Why the hell not? Everything else I've learned from this forum has had value to one extent or another..." I also think Goertz cables work very well with Thiel. This IS a great forum. Folks here have truly helped me out in many, many, ways. unsound, mapman, jafant - to name a few - have all assisted me in bettering my stuff. I appreciate it. Happy new year Thiel lovers! |
arvincastro, I own Thiel 2.0, 2.7 and the last flagship 3.7 speakers. I’ve also in the past had the big Thiel CS6 speakers. For me the combination of Thiels and tube amplification is magic. Previous to hearing Thiels on tubes I’d always heard them on solid state amps and while I loved aspects of the sound - the accuracy, aliveness, density of imaging, believable tone etc, I also found them a bit “tight” sounding, a bit reductive in shaving off a bit of the fullness in voices and instruments and I could also see why some found them fatiguing after a while. That all changed for me when I heard Thiel CS 6 speakers with VAC tube amplification at a CES audio show. It was among the most beautiful sound I’d ever heard. (And I remember other people commenting, even non Thiel fans, that it was a stand out room at the show). I couldn’t afford VAC amps but wondered if I’d get any similar synergy with the Conrad Johnson tube amp I owned. So I ended up with a pair of the CS 6 at my place. They did indeed have a similar tonal richness that I heard at CES, but my amp then was only 55w and not known for good bass control or playing tough loads. I upgraded to a second hand pair of the Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks 140W/side and - bam! - just the ticket. The sound was now everything I’d hoped for: smooth, tonally rich yet accurate sounding, open and not rolled off sounding, and punchy and controlled throughout far whole frequency range. I still have the CJ amps powering my various Thiels and it’s always a killer combo. I have a case of tinnitus and harsh or bright speakers do a number on my ears, but I can listen to my system for as many hours as I like. Bad recordings and all. A reviewer pal of mine who’d complained of Thiels always being fatiguing for him finds my system to sound gorgeous, organic, realistic and anything but fatiguing. So that’s one storey for you to ponder if you are contemplating tubes with Thiels. I don’t think I’m getting the last word in what the Thiels can do in sheer dynamics perhaps, vs what a very powerful SS amp would give me. But I absolutely require a sense of dynamic life in a system and I have it with this combo. (Back when I had the Thiel 6s I also owned a Bryson 4Bst amp, 250w and a powerhouse in terms of driving any speaker I threw at if. But I consistently preferred the CJ premier 12s on the Thiels). All that audiophile stuff being said: please remember the role of room acoustics and speaker positioning given how profoundly it affects the sound. If you find the sound can become too harsh sometimes, even before contemplating adding acoustic treatment just playing with speaker angles and positions can work. For instance you should find that towing out the speakers more (facing more straight ahead inst ad of angled toward your listening position) will make the sound a bit less bright and more lush. Same with moving the speakers closer to you, which will take more of the room reflection/hash out of the sound for a smoother presentation. I favour sitting closer to my Thiels, with the speakers facing more straight ahead, for these reasons. |
Happy Friday fellow Thiel owners & fans! Ok, considering my earlier posts up above (and great feedback from jafant, oblgny & prof), I am now focusing on either Conrad-Johnson or Audio Research for pre- & amplification. I will be going the pre-owned route, as I just can't get my head around the full-price of new gear these days...but, that's a different discussion. How would you compare the sonic characteristics between the two, i.e. which is warmer, more revealing, has better high, better lows, etc.? Also, is going all-tube (in pre-amp & amp) going to rob me of too much speed, attack and bottom-end "slam" that I've grown accustomed to from solid-state gear? In full disclosure, I posted this same query in the "Amps Preamps" forum as well. Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions...Enjoy the music! Arvin |
Arvin The classic description of CJ vs AR tube amps is the CJs being “warm and golden toned” almost a romantic presentation with the AR being more nuetral with a whitish/grey cast to the sound. That’s exactly what my ears have heard every time I’ve compared My experience comparing the two agrees. My friend has also had AR tube amps and I’ve brought over my CJ amps to his place and I much preferred the CJ amps. I find the AR sound to have its own signature, a sort of bleached character that to me renders vocal and instrumental tones more in black and white vs the warmer tone of the CJs. My friend felt the CJs were more gorgeous sounding - wants them in his system when he hears them - but sticks to AR for what he feels is a combination of tube virtues and neutrality. I find the CJ sound to actually remind me of real life vs the AR sound, but that’s of course my subjective assessment. As for bass, the CJs I own have the most overall coherent sound I’ve heard in a tube amp - look at the Stereophile review as Michael Fremer nails their sound. That said, the 12s have seemed sometimes to shelve off the lowest bass frequencies. Some other amps I’ve tried seemed for whatever reason to go a bit deeper in the bass and I don’t know what would account for this, if I’m fact I’m hearing that accurately. But the sound with the Thiels is still plenty deep, and the bass is in virtually perfect pitch control to my ears. |
Arvin, I have been puzzled by prof's impression of AR tube amps, but I speak with very little experience with other tube amps since the only tube gear I have owned have been AR. I have moved up the AR chain starting with an integrated VSi60, then to a Ref110, Ref75, Ref150, Ref150SE then back to the Ref 150 (Ref 5SE preamp and Modwright Oppo BDP105). I can compare with other solid state amps including Krell, Exposure and Bryston. To my ears, tubes bring out the best in my Thiel CS3.6s. Unless you listen to music over 95dB, I would encourage you to find a preowned VSi60 and listen with your Thiels. If you like the quality of sound but want it louder with more punch, then slowly upgrade the AR chain. If not, you can usually sell for the same price you purchased on Audiogon at the cost of shipping. These have been selling for as low as $2500 and there are 2 I see on usaudiomart now. Jon |
Jon, I would never think that someone should presume a subjective impression like mine is objectively the case. The AR amps are obviously very highly regarded with lots of happy owners, and in no way would I say the CJ amps are "better." Just a bit different. What I found fascinating, though, when I was in heavy amplifier audition mode years ago, was that my audio companions concurred on exactly the same differences I described between the CJ and AR amps. But more interesting was...after I'd done my own comparisons...to read both plenty of audiophile comments on line, and reviewers noting just what I heard in the AR house sound. You can see an indication of this reputation here: Some reviewers have commented that earlier Audio Research amplifiers suffered from a certain lightening of tonal color, i.e., a threadbare or whitish quality. http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audio-research-reference-250-se-amplifier/ So although the reviewer states the AR amp under review doesn't suffer from this, clearly the AR house sound has some reputation that precedes it. (And numerous review have mentioned it over the years. John Atkinson has described some AR amps as "a little too much of the Minnesota snow blowing through it for my tastes.") By no means do I mean to say there's anything wrong about AR amps, and at this point in time I haven't even heard most of them. I'm only mentioning all this because you mentioned being confused about what I reported in listening to AR amps, which seems to suggest I may be the only one who hears them that way, or that you may have been unaware AR has had a reputation for a certain house sound. The "whiter" AR sound has often been contrasted to the "golden glow" CJ house sound over the years. I always felt AR amps did some things better than CJ amps - control, frequency extension, clarity etc. I just prefer the somewhat older CJ sound. |
FWIW... Yesterday while picking up some products at an audio store I was able to spend some time listening to a couple of speakers, and then went home to compare with my Thiel 2.7s. First was, the Monitor Audio Platinum II This store had really well acoustically treated demo rooms, and the speakers were well set up. In the case of the MA speakers I didn't play my own music, only sat down to listen to a bunch of full-res songs being played. I generally like the Monitor Audio sound. My father-in-law has a pair of huge monitor-looking Monitor Audio speakers from either the late 70's or early 80's I believe and they are still one of the most impressive speakers I've heard. They have a gigantic, full sound but also an amazingly beautiful, clear, realistic tone. Trumpets sound so realistically brassy, strings so much like strings, etc. Experience with other MA speakers (I use some for my sound work, and have a pair of MA Bronze surrounds for my home theater) has left me with the impression the MA speakers are one of those rare line that can sound "tonally colorful" for lack of better word. It's one of the reasons I'm so enamored with my Hales speakers as well (and why the MA bronze surround speakers mesh so well with my Hales L/C/R speakers). Though in recent years as MA has tried to up the resolution with ribbon tweeters etc I've noted a tilt upwards toward a bit more "whitening" of the tone. That said, at a recent audio show some MA speakers produced one of the clearest and most realistic drum sounds I've heard. The MA Platinum speakers had that super clear, precise sound I've heard from their modern speakers. But it was also tonally colorful, acoustic guitar sounding warm and woody in the lower registers, sparkly in the top. There was a rewarding sense of "surprise" to the timbral characteristics of different voices and instruments, from metal bells, to bass guitar, to wood blocks etc. Bass was decent, not amazing in tonal terms - a bit warmish. There was also a sort of boxy, speakerly quality in the lower midrange. The resonating body of acoustic guitars for intance seemed to sort of flatten in the soundstage, sound hard and not so detached from the speakers. Moving closer or further to take out room influence didn't change this character. There were some really beautiful moments of female background vocals that sounded so tonally pure and clear! On to the next speakers, ones I've heard briefly but wanted to spend some more time with (I'm always willing to kick out the Thiels should I hear a speaker I like more). The new Focal Kanta. They are mighty stylish and benefit from all that focal driver/tweeter technology. These were also in a very well treated demo room. This time I played my own test music selections from my USB thumb drive. Impressions: Yep, that super clear, clean Focal Beryllium, drivers sound. These had more tonal color than the smaller stand mounted Focal speakers I've demoed (e.g the Sopra), which had sounded too blanched of timbral color. Also, though clear and extended, I didn't find the sound particularly fatiguing. The room filled with absorbers/diffusors no doubt helped that somewhat. It was a similar presentation to the MA speakers, except I found the Focal speakers less timbrally colorful and suprising than the MA speakers. Just a bit more of an electronic cast overall. Piano, though, was particularly well served - really precise, clear transient quality and ringing tonality. I could really hear all the different layers of acoustic guitars and how each one was being played on some of the Johnny Cash's "Won't Back Down." It reminded me of my recent demo of the Paradigm Persona speakers, though I recall the Paradigms being just a bit more liquid and sophisticated...just a touch...though after time I seemed to fatigue more from the Paradigms than these Focals. I wasn't terribly impressed with the bass of the Kanta speakers. It seemed a bit thick and detached in character from the rest of the spectrum. The more tracks I played with lower bass, the more incoherent the sound seemed to me, like a brilliant. clear upper frequencies riding on a slightly different sounding, darker, more turgid and slightly boxy lower frequencies. I'm sure this could be ameliorated in certain room set ups. My take away thoughts when driving home where: Loudspeakers have been "progressing" at a glacial pace. By that I mean, as I've gone through various new contenders, very little has stuck out as being advanced over the older speakers I own, certainly including the Thiels. Do I hear "more detail?" Eh...not really in the sense of "Hey, I never heard that little detail before, finger picking, instrument at the back of the hall" or anything else. It seems more about reduction in "hash" insofar as tones become more pure. But even then, only incrementally. Of the two speakers I'd take the Monitor Audio speakers, for the more beautiful tone. That said, the biggest, most in-my-face impression of both systems was: "Hi-Fi" in the derogatory use of that term. Virtually every track, instrument and voice sounded distinctly artificial - an electronic hardness, sharpness, crispiness, and an icy electronic sheen to everything that consistently told me "this is artificial." When I got home and replayed the music on my Thiels (including some tracks I heard on the MAs) it was just another world in terms of how natural things sounded. Surely some of this is going to be attributed to the fact I've dialed in my speakers at home, and also to the difference in using Conrad Johnson tube amps vs the solid state amps used in the store. But...voices sounded sooo much more relaxed, dense, and natural. Strings, guitars, cellos, all so "woody" and rich and organic. Stand up bass which on the Focals had a sort of hard, whitish, artificial almost-sampled sound, sounded on the Thiel/CJ combo so obviously like the big wood resonators they are. Plus, the sound was so much more detached, controlled and unboxy from top to bottom on the Thiels. And the overall drive and pitch control on the Thiels, especially in the upper bass to the bottom, was so superior. I was listening to tons of music last night and the punch and musical "drive" of the Thiels is just amazing to me. So...I'm still holdin' on to them :-) As usual this experience re-enforces to me: 1. How much I prefer tube amplification like my CJs to most solid state. I never really seem to want to sit long listening to an SS based system like I do with certain type of tube amplification at home 2. How much more choice of speaker, placement, room etc impacts the sound over anything else. In both the demo rooms the speakers were hooked up to very high end equipment. The Focals for instance played off of Naim's high end server and amplification, giant garden-hose thick audioquest speaker cables, and a crazy high end AC conditioner that the salesman seemed convinced had transformed any system they'd used it in, including this one. "Veils lifted, life-like vocal sound achieved, dynamics improved, etc" And none of that added expense - thousands and thousands of dollars! - seems to translate to any more impressive performance than I get at home, my speaker cables and interconnects being nothing extravagant, my gear plugged into cheap power bars, etc. It makes me really happy not to be worried about putting big sums of my audio budget in that direction. I know I've rung that bell before, but I can't help but notice this every time I return from a high end system with all those expensive accouterments and listen to my own system. |
Hi Arvin and fellow Thieliacks, Just wanted to offer another option for your 3.5s.. I have found Rogue amps to be a great match with my Thiels. I have a Rogue Atlas Magnum (KT120s, 100wpc) that I use with my 3.7s. I find that it offers excellent (solid-state like) detail and bass control in additions to that luscious tube midrange. With its oversized transformers it has plenty of power and control... loudest I’ll usually go in my 15x20 listening space is about 11’oclock on my preamp dial. I recently sold my 3.5s (my first Thiel loves) and hooked them up for a few days to say my goodbyes and demo them for the buyer. I was so impressed with how good they sounded with the Rogue that I almost didn’t want to let them go! Compared to the 3.7s they weren’t quite as incredibly resolved and sounded a tad more compressed but they just had this extremely musical and “reach out and touch you” quality that in some ways even surpassed it’s newer siblings! Enjoy those 3.5s!! |
Hello all! First off, thanks for the incredible input prof, Jon, arniespin, oblgny and jafant...this is a great forum to be part of because of the fine participation you all give! OK, right now, I'm working on a deal to purchase an ARC LS7 line-stage. It's in great shape considering its vintage ('95-'97), offered by the original owner. He says the four 6922 tubes in it have a lot of life left in them. (Have to admit that I don't know how ANY tube-types sound as I have never owned tube equipment before...) Haven't closed the deal yet, but...Any thoughts? Arvin |
Arvin... I have owned three ARC preamps - LS2, LS2B, and an LS 3 - each attained at prices that were extremely reasonable. (The LS2B being the only tubed version.) At such prices they represent truly remarkable values given the build quality, performance, and sonics. Though I never experienced any issues with any one of them, the fact that most can still be serviced by ARC is quite comforting. One thing that needs to be said about moving up the Thiel food chain that perhaps isn’t obvious to people, including myself; as you pass the 3.5 model things change remarkably. The 3.6 ISN’T the 3.5 on steroids. It’s a very different speaker with very different characteristics, typically Thiel in the respects to clarity, soundstage, etc., but way more emphasized in the midrange with perhaps a softening of the highs. IMHO. My personal experience with this genesis has me missing the 3.5’s sonics - then again I’ve owned three pairs of them. Methinks the 3.6 model require lots of current/power to show their best while the 3.5 model requires less. I’m an “audiot”, new word! With rare exception most of my gear has been purchased used, right here on Audiogon. Now a five year member, my chain of sales/purchases runs 9 pages long. I’ve had more stuff in this time than I had during the previous four decades - and all because I found Thiel. True. I’ve never before experienced a speaker that does everything so damn well. My b&m shop had me listening to some Wilson model not too long ago and while I liked them, $16k was so far removed from my sensibilities that I wouldn’t even if I could. And they still weren’t Thiel to boot. You’ll be quite happy with the ARC LS7 if my experience can mirror your’s. The ONLY reason why I sold/purchased etc was to gain a remote control to remove getting up and walking the 12 feet to change the volume. I’ve since deconstructed my separates setup with a BAT integrated. I grew weary of all the wires and whatnot. Were I to return to separates again ARC amps/preamps would be at the top of my list. Hmmm...come to think of it I’ve never had an ARC power amp. Off to the listings! |
Having re-visited many of the latest speaker designs in my quest to possibly replace my Thiels, I've concluded that, especially with the 3.7s, they are conceivably "last speaker I need to own" quality. By that I mean that at anything around their price point (I mean even when they were new) they are still competitive if not better than anything new I've heard. The resolution seems to be at a point where you can't go much further, and they render box coloration so low that IMO most speakers are still trying to catch up, and most won't for a long time. So in terms of performance, I'd be comfortable with the 3.7s in terms of that "what am I missing?" itch that we audiophiles get "am I missing out on some advance in resolution or otherwise?" No, not that I've heard to a significant degree. But of course no speaker does everything better than any other speaker. and the character of speakers are different. I like some aspects of the 2.7 more than the 3.7 and visa versa. I've been re-visiting some old Thiel reviews and discussions and thus often encountering the "Thiels are brighter and thinner and more clinical sounding than most speakers" reputation. One of the interesting contrasts between the sound of my Thiel 2.7s and the Monitor Audio and Focal speakers I auditioned recently was how much more full, organic and lush the Thiels sounded compared to those speakers - basically all the aspects people don't associated with Thiel. It was actually the other speakers that sounded thin and reductive in comparison. I think this is likely explained, in my case, not only as due to how Thiel's last coaxial driver design managed to be both transparent and smooth, but also to the influence of using good ol' tube amps on the Thiels, as well as adjusting their position (more straight ahead) for this type of balance...and also room placement/acoustics. As I've mentioned before, I have sensitive ears and I can't believe how loud I'm finding myself playing the 2.7s. The distortion is so low, the sound so smooth and easy; even though they sound lively and punchy at lower volumes, it's just more comfortable than ever in my system to turn them up and really enjoy more life-like volumes. Both the 3.7s and the 2.7s are organic and seductive in their own way. The 3.7s are a bit more open sounding, more delicate in detail, and get the essential softness and delicacy of the human voice really well. The 2.7s though more incisive and dynamic both from top to bottom have a slightly "sweeter" sound in terms of frequency balance in the top end. Not *quite* as open and airy, but still a drum rim shot will tend to sound a bit more solid in terms of transient performance. The more alive dynamic, incisive character is balanced by a slightly more "sweet" tonal balance up top, and I think this is what makes them so addictive to me - the drive of the music keeps me pinned in my chair bopping around, but the ease of the tonal balance allows me to crank them up even louder than the 3.7s with comfort. While the 2.7s smack around most other speakers I've demoed in terms of low box coloration, they still don't quite disappear as completely, at every frequency range, as the 3.7s. There are some pieces for instance by the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet that have always been a complete marvel on the 3.7s. Just press play and 4 guitarists suddenly show up in the room, life sized, as if the speakers aren't there. And despite that they are all playing similar guitars, every guitar is perfectly untangled from the other in the mix. Not as much on the 2.7s where the size of the guitars is a tiny bit reduced, and there is just a bit of blur in certain areas - some resonance I think - that misses the perfection of the illusion achieved by the bigger 3.7s. On one piece the guitars are accompanied by an occasional metal triangle "ting" and that "ting" on the 3.7s is floated in it's own separate, airy space more than the 2.7s. Another area of give and take between them is string tone. The 3.7s have always been fabulous at rendering the detail of bow-on-string as well as the body of strings. But if I had any criticism it's that the sheen of strings on 3.7s is rarely quite as beautiful as I now strings can be - just a bit of a chalky quality vs a silky quality, in absolute terms. This is one area where the Joseph Audio Perspective speakers I auditioned in home exceeded the 3.7s - a truly grainless upper register that gave strings that present but silky quality. (Though I still think the 3.7s had a bit more detail). The 2.7s are a bit more similar to the Joseph speakers in that regard: string tone is more routinely beautiful on the 2.7s than on the 3.7s to my ear. I do think this is at the slight expense of not quite the same detail, but the trade off is musically a fairly happy one. I'm experimenting with subwoofers with the 2.7s and initial results imply that the 2.7 imaging becomes more like the 3.7s in terms of separation of instruments, with a subwoofer involved. But I'm trying to do it in a way that doesn't alter the midrange/high frequency voice of the 2.7s that I love so much. Next weekend I'm receiving a JL Audio CR-1 crossover, among the best analog crossovers available for dialing in subs, and hopefully that will help. Anyway...those are my current musings. |
I'm definitely of the opinion that my 3.7s are good enough for me. They are so great that I never feel the slightest urge to upgrade and I've had them almost six years. Part of it is that by the grace of God I'm not a neurotic audiophile anymore but mainly it's because they just don't do anything significantly wrong. |
