Thiel Owners

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!

I'm very happy with my vintage Classe ca-300 with my 3.7s.

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.

jon,

I would stay happily with my 3.7s if I didn't have to battle room ergonomic/aesthetic issues.

(Well, as my flagship speaker anyway.  I like different speakers too much to only own one, so I usually have a couple different on hand to switch in for a change).