Thiel Owners

Prof, I had seen that quote from Phil here before. The story from Thiel doesn't really match all that well. Regarding the 2dB/decade, I don't really see that in my perusal of comparative test results. I wish that Stereophile had reviewed the 2.7 so that we might compare John Atkinson's rigorous measurements between the two speakers. In the absence of that direct comparison, I am postulating reasons to explain what I have heard. Please note that I have not done any serious forensic engineering on these two models, since I am addressing older models first.

As I have mentioned, I was at the Thiel factory when the final 2.7 arrived for confirmation, and we heard it compared repeatedly to the 3.7 with a couple different amps in the room that I knew extremely well, having built it in the late 80s. My opinion is that the two speakers share all their textbook and test stuff, but the 3.7 is a higher resolution device due to many particulars. That higher resolution comes at a price of revealing everything: all that stuff of amp and cable and RF and room mode interaction and on and on as audiophiles are wont to do.

Among the reasons the 2.7 might be easier to take is that it has a high count of large electrolytic caps in its signal path. That statement might sound backwards, but please hear me out. E caps serve to extend the time signature, a distortion that provides a more forgiving presentation. Similarly, the 2.7 baffle is made of MDFiberboard, which is softer and absorbs a little of the leading-edge transient. Also, the more "normal" 8" woofer of the 2.7 will flex a little more, providing a slight sonic cushion.

Here comes another controversial statement, one that I have noticed consistently over many aspects of music-making and playback over nearly 5 decades. We humans are more comfortable with the known. We use our history as our benchmark. Those tendencies translate into comfort with distortion, as long as it is low order and musically plausible. Note that most of the record-making craft centers on the introduction of various distortion components. Note also that most of those liberties are in the interest of second-guessing the particulars of the imagined playback milieu. I think the 2.7 comes closer to those assumptions of normalcy and is therefore what Natasha called "friendlier".

I can tell you that in the Thiel music room, the 3.7 provided goosebumps and giggles and OMGs. The 2.7 provoked smiles of admiration and relief regarding a long, hard haul to create a respectable product worthy of the Model 2 heritage of translating Model 3 breakthroughs into a more affordable package. The 2.7 is gentler. The 3.7 is more vivid. But I would not attribute the differences to tonal balance, or at least not primarily so; the two speakers are pretty similar in frequency response and polarity patterns. The 3.7 comes closer to Jim's goal of authentic translation of the input signal. What a fine pair of products, no?

A very fine pair of products- tomthiel.Much Thanks! prof for the follow up and Phil's quote as above.  All points taken from you guys on descriptors are on-target to be sure. The CS 2.7 is sweet, certainly nowhere near dark, and represents Model 2 heritage respectfully. Whomever had a hand in the concept models CS 2.7 and CS 3.7 should feel a strong sense of pride. It would be of interest to learn the number of pairs sold on each model.  Both loudspeakers are loved by true music lovers.
Happy Listening!

Additionally, I feel very fortunate to have had the generous opportunity to demo models 2.4, 2.4SE and 2.7 for the sake of comparison, critical listening. This shines a positive light on the great Thiel Audio dealers/retailers network prior to the conglomerate that took over soon after Mr. Jim Thiel's passing. Those business owners had such a professional disposition representing the brand.

Happy Listening!

Great stuff Tom, thanks!

I’ve been saying since I got my 2.7s a year ago that the 3.7s sounded a little bit more revealing. (And spacious, and a bit more even).

One thing that really surprised me about the 2.7s is the dynamics. I’m using Conrad Johnson Premier 12 amps, 140W/side of tubes. The 2.7s are lower sensitivity than the 3.7s and I wondered if I’d notice a slight reduction in impact/dynamics or whatever.

But to my surprise, to my ears and with my amps, the 2.7s sounded more dynamically alive than the 3.7s (which were already excellent!).I thought at first maybe it was due to a little mid bass hump somewhere giving that extra sense of "oomph." But it was really top to bottom, in both micro and macro dynamics, where even a trumpet sounded like it was being played with a bit more life-like energy and micro-dynamic life between all the notes.(And also I have the sense of more density to the sound, and sonic images, on the 2.7s, whereas they are bigger and more spacious on the 3.7s).

I have no idea what accounts for this, but it’s been my consistent impression in owning both the 2.7 and the 3.7.

Tom and Prof

I was able to listen to both the 3.7s and 2.7s at my dealer for several hours over a couple of days.. (I could afford either pair)
Maybe it's just me, but after continuous listening sessions, I decided The 2.7s would "wear" better for extend listening in my living room, as I fire up my system for two or three hours almost every evening for serious listening to classical music.  
I believe there might be a difference between short term versus  long term attentive listening to content, rather than listening for flaws in reproduction.