Thiel Owners

@ish_mail

Wow, I couldn't have asked for a more helpful response!  What great information.  Thanks for sharing as it will come in very handy!

I'll let you know how things go.

beetlemania,

I'm always looking for the most immersive sound I can get, while not sacrificing image density.

For whatever reason, the 3.7s can be spread ridiculously wide and still have focused images.

The 2.7s, which are the next version of your 2.4s, are very good in that regard but don't take to be spread quite as wide.

Still, I've got my 2.7s at 8.4 inches apart, 6 1/2 feet from my listening position, and the image density (their hallmark) is superb.  I just demoed them to a musician friend and the first thing he raved about was the imaging and the "thereness" of the images between the speakers.

My room was designed with an acoustician - it does both home theater and 2 channel listening duty.  It's 13ft x 15ft deep, 9ft ceiling, with a large opening to one side of the room into the hallway.  That opening helps "save my bacon" too I think.  It's a well damped room.

My Left speaker is close to the side wall, near a fireplace with reflective tiles, so for years I have placed a thick velvet cover over those tiles when I'm listening.  It mellows out the sound, reduces hash, increases image focus.  But just recently I've tried leaving the cover off and I've really appreciated the added liveliness it brings to the sound.  The only issue is that tonality does take a little hit. 

So I'm going to order a curved diffusor and try that out, to see if I can keep some of the liveliness I'm enjoying, but restore a bit better tonality.

Thanks for the reply, prof
6.5' seems close for Thiels. Seems like most listeners prefer at least 8', so I'm surprised to read about your set-up. Sounstage's measurements of the CS2,4, however, were taken at 2 m (~6.5') and the frequency response was outstanding at that distance (as opposed to Stereophile's inadequate measurement at a mere 50"). I hope your diffusor gives that result you want!

@prof 
oops

Finally, a team of audio pros working with JLA f112's and Thiel CS3.7s chose 100 Hz in this example, http://www.soundoctor.com/studio/. 

Actually, these guys chose 80 Hz, not 100. It seems that 80 Hz is the default choice for crossover freq. Still, no harm trying other values.

As in my prev. post, it's interesting that Thiel says 80 and below, while Sound Doctor says 80 and above. Too bad we can't ask Jim his reasons.

Beetlemania,

I've always liked closer - takes out more of the room, tonality smoother, speakers soundstage/disappear more, etc.

More distance generally means tighter images, brighter more lively sound.  I play with both, but tend to end up trying to get a good mix with a closer seating.

One constant is that I almost always have the Thiels points almost straight ahead.  I don't like the more pinched, tonally brighter sound when they are toed in, and that goes for pretty much every speaker I buy.
Toeing out closer to straight ahead gives a bigger, more lush sound, where to my ears voices and instrument start to become more realistically life-sized.

BTW, one thing I've occasionally puzzled over is how the Thiel 3.7s seem to be just a tad more airy and resolving, despite the fact both speakers share the exact same coax/tweeter.  I recently watched a Thiel video introductions of the 3.7 and the 2.7 and noticed that in the 3.7 Jim made the point to that the 3.7s front baffle was made of inches thick aluminum.
But on the 2.7 video, the front baffle was only described a "3 inches thick" but aluminum wasn't mentioned.  So I think maybe the 2.7 uses maybe thick MDF or some other material to mount the drivers in, vs the aluminum in the 3.7s.  Perhaps that accounts for the slight difference I seem to perceive.