Thiel Owners

As I've said in the past, I use a pair of Cambridge 840s with my 3.7s and I think they're completely adequate, at least at the moderate volumes I listen at. You'd pay in the 3-4k range for a pair. I know a guy who hangs around on audioasylum uses a $2,500 parasound a21 on his 3.7s and has for a while. I tend to think that amps are a good place to make a compromise on price. As long as they have enough power the differences tend to be small compared to speakers. I think the preamp makes a significantly bigger difference overall.  The Benchmark looks like it'd probably do fine with most Thiels, although it's pretty small compared to your pair of Classe amps. I'd be interested to know how a bridged pair would do with the low impedance.

I assume going forward people building Thiel systems will be the type who are more interested in getting great sound for the money than in big names or eye candy.  I get more satisfaction from knowing I got great performance for a moderate amount of money  I've got around 16k in my system and it's so good I have no interest in messing with it.  Benchmark DAC2, Bryston BP26, Cambridge 840 x2, Thiel 3.7, Infinity Intermezzo 1.2 sub.  The electronics definitely won't win a beauty contest but they perform great.  

^Enough power for the load at hand.

Good points unsound. Amps from the same manufacturer often have differing goals and topologies and do not perform similarly. Thiel speakers got progressively more demanding - I guess the 5 bass was worst, but the earlier speakers were more benign, probably because Jim didn't yet have the Krell FPB-600 and Levinson 33Hs. Bryston amps seemed to get better and better at driving Thiels, partly because Thiel was their design-test torture load.

(Thanks again to the well-wishers for your kind comments!)


Tom,

Where does the 7.2 sit in your estimation?   Is it still the pinnacle of performance in Jim's designs?

prof - Please note that I have not heard the 7.2. I am relaying insider remarks from those who lived with the products, the process of evolution, the politics of markets and the necessary contraction of the company after Jim's death. I have also extrapolated factors regarding components and their sonic contributions. And then there is the undeniable fact that each new product stands on the shoulders of all of its predecessors, giving the x.7s a distinct advantage in many particulars.

All that said, I would choose the 7.2 as the epitome of Jim's work. He was working on a 7.3 which incorporated the 3.7 coax (or derivative) and the wavy driver geometry. Such a product could justify the cost of the quality components which beetle and I are lavishing on our upgrades. The low-level cabinet resonances could be quieted. Thermal management could be applied to the drivers and resistors, and so forth and so on, to create a next-league contender. I have little doubt that the 7.3 would be his very best work. But, I don't have a real answer to your query from personal experience. In hindsight, I wish I had stayed another day in Lexington in 2012 to absorb the upper models in the listening room. Time moves on.

I hope to learn enough and find the time to soup up the 7.2s. Notice that they don't show up on the used market. Rob says that the large majority of CS7 owners upgraded to 7.2s and are happy as clams with few reported problems. Plus, I find them beautiful in a way that reflects my design sense.