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
Thanks Jafant,

Why do you think the 2.7 will do with less power/current?
It's rated close to the same bass response, has I believe the same type of impedance as the 3.7, but is even less sensitive (87db). I've seen others say the 3.7 should be easier to drive than the 2.7...?
Sure Prof-

the only difference between the CS 2.7 vs CS 3.7, is the soundstage. W/ the CS 3.7 it throws a very large, wide, deep, soundstage. This is the #1 reason for the larger room size. It is not a speaker to use w/out high power, high current amp. We are talking concert levels of performance here.

The CS 2.7 can stand a little less high power/current and be just as pleasing. Much will depend on your expectations and presentations. Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
Prof,

Thanks for the informative response. I do enjoy the 1.6s in my small room but think I'll go for the 2.4 if I find a pair close enough.
Jafant,

Could you elaborate about what differences you heard between the 2.7 and the 3.7 model? I'm still considering whether to start with the 2.7.

Also, when you say the 3.7 needs such a large room to work well, what do you base that upon? Have you heard it perform poorly in a small room?

(As I said, I haven't had problems getting full range speakers to work in my fairly small room, 13' x 15')
My pleasure Prof-

anytime I can turn somebody onto Thiel- it is a good day!
IME, the CS 3.7 is the speaker to own, if you have the proper room size and never want to upgrade. In other words, it is "the" last speaker that you will ever purchase.

The bigger Thiel will require much power and a high-current power amp for best results! Feel free to contact me if I may be of further service. Keep me posted & Happy Listening!


Timrhu,

To describe my room: It's the first room on the main floor of our house, and it has a 6 foot wide entrance to the room (no door). The shape is broken up into odd angles on one side because of bay windows. So the room is 13' wide by 15' deep (at the deepest point of the bay windows).

For some reason this room has always worked for any size speaker, I'm supposing because of the broken up angles and large room opening. I've had some speaker manufacturers, and dealers, set up their full range speakers there and when the first see it they say "uh-oh, small room, might be tough" but then they are amazed at the sound we achieve.

I don't totally go for the big speakers absolutely require a big room (within reason). I've heard big speakers work well in small rooms (like mine). I read in a thread recently on the Quad ESL-63s that they "need a big room" to breath and work right. But they sounded incredible in my room, and the first time I heard them was in a pal's place, in a teeny portion of his basement literally not a lot wider than his couch, the Quads pretty much squished to nearfield, and the sound blew me away.

Acoustics are still a bitch though. I'd always set up my speakers so my listening sofa was at the long wall (near the room opening) and speakers were just forward of the bay window area, which worked great. But when I experimented in switching the seating/speakers 180 degrees for a home theater set up, the acoustics went to crap! It was demoralizing. But the room was totally re-done in consultation with an acoustician, there's tons of absorption, treatment, and now it sounds better than ever.
So I'm optimistic about the Thiels working in the room, even though I haven't had a large floor stander there for a while.
Hi Cal,
We use the same amplifier but I have the Total Eclipse rather than your Super Eclipse speaker. I agree there is much upper frequency information and resolution, but it's natural and not clinical in my system(nuanced, airy and open). Have you tried different placement and toe in of your speakers? I don't have the "hotter" presentation you describe(different room I realize as well). Just curious. I hope you're enjoying this new pairing.
Best Regards,
Charles,
Prof, what do you mean when you say small room? I ask because I use a pair of Thiel 1.6s in a small room. They work beautifully IMO, but the lure of the 2.4 has had me for some time now. If a pair comes up within driving distance I may just get them and see how they work.
Another question for 2.7/3.7 owners or those who have heard them: at least one review (from Stereotimes) docked points from the 3.7 for having to "analytic" a tone with strings, for orchestra. Has anyone else found this, or do the Thiels reproduce strings/orchestral work well. I've been meaning to get back into orchestral recordings and I want strings to be rendered with their appropriate beauty. Thanks.
Cal3713,

That's interesting about the Thiel warmth over the coincident system (though I have to confess I'm not totally surprised, given my experience of coincident speakers...though I haven't heard them for a while now).
I keep hearing contrasting opinions about the 2.7, probably more than on the 3.7, some feeling "meh" who have heard them, others more enthusiastic. Whereas the admiration for the 3.7s seem to be consistent. Then again, far fewer have heard the 2.7 I gather.

Jafant,

Thanks for your input!

As I said I'm in a bit of a quandary: I could get either the 2.7 or the 3.7. The 2.7 certainly is a cheaper way of rolling the dice. (Though I don't know about their re-sale value relative to the 3.7 - it seems the 3.7s sell fairly consistently).

One Thiel dealer told me he actually preferred the 2.7s somewhat to the 3.7s, finding the 2.7s just a bit more sweet or forgiving, especially across a range of recording quality. I don't know if I've seen that opinion voiced elsewhere. What did you think between the two?

As for room size, the idea that the 3.7s need a big room could make me wary, except that I've had such success with large floor standing speakers in my smallish room (even the VR4s, which were rated down to 20hz). Though my room has become a bit more crowded with sofa furniture. I supposed the 2.7 could be a slightly better bet in terms of room integration, but on the other hand it feels like I want to "go for the gold" with the 3.7.

As for amplifiers, aye, there be magic.

It's always tough to know when an amp is going to work or not just by specs or even the recommendations of others. Because some will be happy with a set of trade-offs that others won't abide. For instance as you may well know, MBL Radialstrahler speakers are known for being a brutal load - 81db efficiency, into the lower 4ohms, which is why MBL builds those massively powerful amps.

And yet the best I ever heard the big MBL 101Ds was on tubes, at (ex) TAS writer Michael Gindi's place. My CJ premier 12s drive my MBL 121 monitors quite well and for the hell of it I tried my classic old Eico HF-81 14W integrated tube amp with the MBLs and the sound was MAGIC. I actually prefer it to the more powerful CJ amps.

My hunch is that the Thiels, like MBLs (or Hales that I also own) will reach their full dynamic potential with more powerful SS amps. But I'm willing to take a bit of a hit there as long as the Thiels maintain their core sonic qualities, smoothened out with tubes, as I got with the CS6.

Thanks for any further comments...
Prof-

another positive vote for Thiel loudspeakers. These are very versatile models, as you can use, solid-state or tubed gear. Separates or an integrated amp, Thiel will accommodate. Start w/ the model CS 2.4 for openers. I found this speaker wonderful w/ a Creek integrated amp and NAD cd player w/ Audioquest cables- a minimalist approach.

Next, I had the pleasure of auditioning the CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 models, same dealer/retailer-same listening sessions- w/ Anthem separates and Cary cd player w/ Audioquest cables/cords. My personal space will not allow for the CS 3.7, as this particular model, needs a very large space (20x20, 25x25, 30x30)...to really open up and do their best!

It is interesting as many owners enjoy ARC, Conrad Johnson, Pass Labs...w/ their Thiel speakers. It truly plays well, no pun, with others. Keep me posted and Happy Listening! JA
I am in the midst of switching over from a Pass Labs INT-30A/ Thiel 2.4 system to a Coincident Super Eclipse III/Coincident Frankenstein 300b SET system...

The Pass/Thiel combo is a bit warmer, at least with my source, the PS Audio DSD (and no pre-amp). I think the Coincident system is actually a bit hotter in the treble, and is more sensitive/revealing of high frequency distortion/sibilance.

I know many people (like Omsed) won't believe that a Thiel SS combo would be warmer than a 300b SET, but such is the outcome in my system & house. I always planned on just upgrading to 3.7s myself, but once the new ownership fired everyone and killed the old lines/designs, I decided it was time to switch companies.

I also heard the 2.7 at RMAF when they were just being released, and never felt like there was enough there to justify an upgrade from the 2.4s. The 3.7s were definitely a different story, however.
Thanks Rich. Message sent :-)

Omsed, fair enough, there have always been Thiel-haters ;-)

As I said, I already have experience with Thiels in my home (CS6) giving a beautiful smooth, warm mid-range, so I know it's possible.
'What's more comfortable, an ice-pick pushed through your ear into your brain or a screwdriver?" "I know neither is comfortable, but........"
Hello Prof, I have a fair amount of equipment including a pair of Thiel 3.7's
They are the second pair of a thiel speakers I have owned. I currently also have Von Schweikert VR-4 jrs, which I use with a pair of Von Schweikert 18" subs. I also have B&W nautilus 801's , studio electric speakers, and several others. I have multiple amps and preamps from Audio Research and Ayre. I mix and match from time to time.

The Thiel speakers have a beautiful midrange, perhaps the best of the lot. Yes, they are precise, fast, and image really, really well. But not at the expense of warmth in the minds. They sound quite warm when coupled wit the Audio Research Amps.

I don't know where you are, but you are welcome to come listen to them with both SS and tube gear and to compare them to the others. I am in Colorado.

Also, I think I would sell them to you. I have not been actively doing so, but I am wanting to consolidate and get one larger, amazing pair of speakers, so I could sell these.

You can call me at three oh three fore fore three ate five ate five if you want to chat, and perhaps have a listen.

Rich