Thiel Owners

What little I know about Adcom. In the day, Adcom may have out-sold everything else put together - solid entry into high value high performance. I knew Nelson Pass at the time and he designed a few of their mark I products. The updates and mark II versions were not designed by him. In his (paraphrased) words: "I would design a simple, clean, straight-forward unit, it would have its market life and then they (Adcom) would hand it off to someone else to pile on the parts." He said he had nothing to do with the GFA555mkII. It was designed by a well regarded French designer with considerably more complex circuitry and feedback schemes.

Fast forward: I contacted Jim Williams regarding upgrading my 555mkII. Jim rebuilds and upgrades professional studio gear out west, considered about the best it gets. He upgraded my Studio Technologies mic preamp that I got from Tom Jung. Jim picks only gear with solid upgrade potential into the big leagues. The improvement in the mic pre was stunning in every audiophile respect as well as textbook measurements. This is all to say that Jim told me he doesn't work on 555mkIIs - he doesn't really like them. BUT if I sent him an original 555, I would like what he sent back.

Two points: 1: don't assume a later amp in the line is the same. 2: If you stumble on a good deal on an original 555, snag it, for yourself or me. I would have it delivered to Jim Williams and eagerly await its arrival in my hotrod garage.

I’ve heard the 555’s I liked em but the 5800 i love right now. Great unit I think.

@tomthiel

Another great read, thanks!

Though you can count me as one who has always loved the bass response of the Thiels with the passive radiators!

I tried throwing the Bryston 4B3 amp in to the system again today, doing some back and forth between it powering the Thiels and my CJ tube amp. I keep thinking "I’ll put it in and just live with it for a while."


But when I put on familiar tracks - e.g. Talk Talk’s Happiness Is Easy - I can’t help be taken aback by the difference.

"Where is that roundness, fullness, 3 dimensionality of the images?"


By 3 dimensionality I don’t mean that with the Bryston the Thiels don’t image/soundstage. They certainly do, with precisely placed voices and instruments. But the voices and instruments themselves sound flattened dimensionally and tonally. More like the way "3D" images look on those old viewmasters - a series of flatt images placed in 3D relief. That’s an exaggeration, but essentially the nature of the difference I perceive.

I put back in the CJ, and everything sounds bigger, more filled out, the drum kick and snare sound rich, with a present texture, the drum-set now seems more 3 dimensional like I’m peering in to the studio, voice sounds organic, acoustic guitars have that similar golden sparkle I hear from my own guitar, etc.


And with the Bryston, string/keyboard parts that usually float organically and 3D sound thinner, flatter, more icy in tone and texture.


Interestingly, this is exactly the character I perceived when my friend switched from his tube set up to the Bryston, at his house. Ever since then I’ve found a slightly off-putting coldness/hardness/icy quality to the sound - things sound clear but nothing sounds organic and real. (Though I never tell him this! I know not to excite audiophilia nervosa!)


Anyway, none of that is to say the Bryston is objectively worse than the CJ tube amps. The Bryston also brings some excellent qualities. Just not the ones I tend to value first.

I've been enjoying the comments and historical perspectives from @unsound and @tomthiel regarding the 3.5s and Thiel's efforts at creating solid and marketable bass. Although I generally like sealed boxes for producing tight bass, I have to agree with @prof that I've really enjoyed the bass performance of Thiel's passive radiators, such as those in my 2.2s.

This discussion got me thinking about my purchase of the 2.2s way back in early 1992, at which time I debated between the 2.2 and the 3.5. Although the 3.5s sounded good, there was something more natural and "together" about the 2.2s - at least to my ears. There was something about the EQ on the 3.5 that I didn't really like. Maybe the ones I heard weren't set up correctly or maybe I had just been brainwashed enough by the critiques of the 3.5 equalizer in TAS and Stereophile, but the 2.2s were a better value in my eyes (and ears). The 2.2s were sleeker, cheaper, and sweeter IMO, and I haven't regretted the choice a bit. And lately I've been finding that upgrades to my amps, preamp, DAC and cables have opened up the sound from the 2.2s further than I could ever have imagined possible. Unless my 2.2s finally succumb to the ravages of old age and can't be repaired, I have no plans to be speaker-hunting in the future.