Thiel Owners

Unsound - I can shed some historical light on your query of "what would Jim Thiel do?" Jim's thinking was decidedly compartmentalized. He considered his business that of designing loudspeakers and the other elements to get right were the business of other entities - designers, technologies, etc.

We started with the Phase Linear 400 and then Nelson Pass' Threshold, then Classé, and gradually developed trade relationships whereby we swapped speakers for the best of form from Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Mark Levinson, and Krell. (There were undoubtedly others after I left in the mid 90s.) I know that the xx.7 series were developed primarily with Krell's 600fpb.

I remember vividly a visit from Larry Archibald (then incoming publisher of Stereophile magazine) where we demonstrated, among other models, our new CS1.2, with underhung, shunted motor, aluminum tweeter and other advanced-for-the-time technologies. All were quite impressed. The speakers sold for (approximately) $1500 / pair and the amps driving them were (prox) $15K. Larry argued the "marketplace absurdity" of such a pairing. Jim argued that good amplification was his assumption for his designs.
I would classify Jim as unassailable or incorrigible in the realm of his assessments, his assumptions and beliefs regarding such matters. And that was problematic within the company. Company politics demanded that Jim was always right, so all products were developed with relatively "great" amplification. (An inexpensive product might be developed with a $10K amp and an expensive on with a $20K amp, etc.) The same thinking applied to cables. And as you might know, our listening room was purpose built at 14' high x 22.5 wide x 35' long with low-key but very effective acoustic treatment. So, let's say that the working environment of our speakers under development and test was somewhere between great and rarely reproducible in our customers' real-life situations.

Both Larry Archibald and Harry Pearson in his original 03 review took Jim to task for his compartmentalized position, as have numerous later critics either directly or indirectly. Most of you as fans have carefully and painstakingly worked around these interface problems. Congratulations to you. Jim would be pleased for you and proud of your ingenuity. But it wouldn't have altered his position of "that's not my job". 
Note that there were other amps after my time. Dave Gordon, Thiel's national sales manager from the late 80s to late 90s would know them all, both at Thiel and in the field.

In my present work I am considering real life application environments. My amps and cables and room are quite modest and quite likely bettered by many of your environments. Among the lessons I have heeded is that there are problems attributable to the speakers which can be ameliorated in the speakers rather than shifting responsibility to source or chain. There is always more to learn, and I am immensely enjoying this learning experience.

@unsound

Um, one of us has the actual *experience* of listening to the CS2.4 driven by an Ayre AX-5.

Stereophile’s measurements help us to discern that the AX-5 is not a good match for the CS5 or Magnepan 20 and shouldn’t be mated with the CS2.4 *if* the listener demands 100 dB peaks. You might note that the CS2.4 never drops to 2 ohms (it was measured by 3 reviewers, Stereophile seems to have measured the lowest value). As for

But into 2 Ohms (green), not only is the THD higher, but the level was a *little* unstable at the lower frequencies

Not only does the CS2.4 never drop to 2 ohms but the AX-5 behavior JA is describing was observed only in the bass where the CS2.4 impedance curve greatly rises. Also, those were steady state test signals, not music!

Regardless, those measurements tell you *nothing* about how the amp sounds. You need ears for that part!

From the Thiel owner’s manual for my product:

Keep in mind that sound quality is usually much more important than sound quantity. There can be large differences in the sonic performance of two amplifiers of equal power, and this is more important than large differences in power. Most everyone will be happier with a 100 watt amplifier of high sonic quality than a 200 watt amplifier of mediocre sonic quality. For this reason, we feel there is no substitute for listening in making your amplifier decision.

Apparently, I’m in the "most everyone" camp. Good day, sir.

prof,

Thanks for the 2.7 vs Joseph comparison.
Although monaural, the SS2.2 sub reinforces the lower bass on my 2.7s.

I would love the opportunity to hear any Ayre amp on any Thiel speaker, especially with coaching from you guys.
I've been told that Jim greatly appreciated Ayre's products.

As a Modus Operandi, Thiel's listening always guided our work and led the way toward solutions. Measurements were taken to make sure that the audible improvements were valid and to guard against the paths of seduction where one or some elements might be improved at the expense of other elements. That was not acceptable in Thieldom.

In my present Laminar Launch investigation, I am honoring Jim's approach and standards. I can make no change if it compromises some other measured elements. I am chasing a clearly audible improvement in inner harmonic detail and reduced harsh glare with large, complex signal. The improvements are real and verifiable with other listeners, and achievable via multiple subtly variant techniques. Presently I am using measurements to identify which combination of techniques produces the least compromise of measurable elements. A particularly interesting measurement is harmonic distortion. That envelope varies between -50dB and -100dB and the envelope is changed via different solutions. I intend to find the combination that both produces the desired sonic effects AND reduces harmonic distortion, smooths group delay, quiets the waterfall thumbprint and flattens frequency response. By ear alone, I would be lost, since 4 different solutions have produced pleasing results, all demonstratibly better than stock. I'm zeroing in on a best choice.

This MO is what we practiced at Thiel Audio, although my explorations go beyond what our budgets of time and cost would have allowed.

@beetlemania, The CS 2.4's measure closer to 2 Ohms than they do to 4 Ohms. As there is a direct correspondence model between static impedance figures and sensitivity, measurements are typically made at such fixed points. I don't agree with your assertion that measurements tell you "nothing" about how an amp sounds. Quite the opposite, I think that while measurements might not tell all about how an amp sounds, some aspects of sound are quite predictable from measurements. Frequency response, impedance, power output, distortion, harmonic content, etc., etc., and when and where they are applicable can give one quite a bit of insight into predictable sound. These measurements also provide manufactures an opportunity to provide consistent results to the end user from sample to sample of a given product. They also indicate in what situations a product might or might not be appropriate. Furthermore, measurements give the consumer an opportunity to discover whether a manufacturer knows and or cares about what they are doing.

The amplifiers under consideration are not inexpensive. Having such a generous budget should probably allow for consideration of more options. That the products under consideration measure as they do, suggests that they might have been intended for other different uses. In other applications they may possibly be ideal.

The quote from Thiel is most interesting.  What is the intention of the use of the words "high sonic quality". In my conversations with Jim he told me that when he referred to an amplifiers power output, he was referring to standard 8 Ohm ratings. And, that recommendations for power output was with the understanding that one would be using a quality ss amp that could double down, and that if one was for instance choosing to use a tube amp then one should double the power output recommendations accordingly. Was Jim referring to "high sonic quality" as judged purely by perception or by technical prowess and the sonic consequences? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's the latter. An amp rated at 100 Watts that can double down to 400 Watts at 2 Ohms would qualify as an amp with more "high sonic quality" than an amp rated as 200 Watts that was heading into oscillation below 4 Ohms, when being asked to drive a sub 4 Ohm load.