Thiel Owners

Hi Everyone,

3.7s owners I would like your feedback.  What is the minimum size room you think is appropriate for them?  I'm not asking for the optimal size, but one whereby if you went any smaller, it significantly damages the ability for the 3.7s to image properly.  If you've moved from a 3.7s to 2.7s (I think that includes you Prof if I'm not mistaken), or moved from 2.7s to 3.7s, I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts.  I've got a pair of 2.7s and there are a couple of 3.7s on the market that are whetting my appetite.  The 2.7s are perfect for my current listening room right now but we're in the process of moving so I'm curious as to what size room I should have to fit a pair of 3.7s appropriately.  Not sure the wife agrees with my priority list for the new home though:
- Short commute distance to work
- Quality schools for the kids
- Properly sized listening room for 3.7s... 

Tom,
Curious when Jim was developing the 3.7s did he use a particular room for listening/voicing them?  If so, what size was that room?  Or was not a part of the equation?

Sincerely,
Batmanfan

Batmanfan - I was long gone at 3.7 time, so I can only give you a sketch. Rob says nothing had changed since my days. The tonal balance and hard-core engineering was done in the chamber, which was semi-anechoic with previously delineated dimensions, but roughly 20' high x 30' wide x 40' long with the tweeter at 10' above the ground. Outdoor measurements and ground-plane measurements all went in the mix for tonal balance.

Listening was done in our built-to-purpose room at 14' high x 22' wide x 34' long (more or less from memory). Big room with furniture, plants and some wall panels. Big enough to support and report on what the product was doing. Smaller rooms, especially approaching cubical and/or with half or double dimensions are more problematic. There are various ratios known to work better than others.
A room that sounds good is good. And women tend to feel it wen it's right. Good luck.

my present work on these products strongly suggests that "neutrality vs musicality" is not necessarily a dichotomy. The assumption that we must sacrifice Articulation / Neutrality / Resolution in order to get "Musicality" is not necessarily so.

That is true albeit at a rather high cost.  If you were to build low cost speakers, then it's not likely you can get all three- neutrality, resolution and musicality.  Depending on the cost you may only get one out of three.  And the more you're willing to spend on R&D and manufacturing, the more likely you'll get all three in one package.  

The Thiel CS2.4 is one of those rare speakers that are close to getting all three.  In stock form, it has neutrality and musicality.  Its weakness is in the high frequency extension resolution.  Based on what others have done, it probably came down to the xover and internal cables, and it seems like if you upgraded the xover and cables, you can get quite good high frequency extension resolution as some have reported. 

Of course by the same extension, the same would apply to preamps, amplifiers, digital front ends, cables and so on.   

@tomthiel, Perhaps not. ;-)