Thiel Owners

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.

Prof, Thanks for the speaker reviews/comparisons. Also, your AR/CJ comparisons have me very curious. I'm going to try to find some CJs to audition which is tough to do living in the Deep South.