Any Thiel CS3.6 owners?

My Thiels always sounded better with tubes.
CS2's with a CJ MV-75A1
04A's with a Marantz 8b.

 

Maybe he'll like the new non-Thiel Thiels.

 

Has anyone heard the "new non-Thiel Thiels" with high-end audio gear? I met the people involved at an audio show and the name means nothing now. They threw out everything that was the old company, and started from scratch. But, I am still very curious about them.

 

I haven't heard them and I was kinda bummed by the whole thing. I had a certain pride in the fact that they were from my hometown. My granddad owned a pair (03a). I own a pair (cs 1.5). I met Jim on a couple of occasions and he was a really nice guy. So the whole direction of the new company and its marketing speak annoy me.

 

So, if you don't mind my asking, what is your take on time and phase coherency in speaker design?

 

The first time I ever heard of the concept of "Time and Phase Coherency" was when I heard a pair of Thiel O3a. I was shocked and amazed by the soundstage and imaging. Particularly amazing to me was that these speakers' locations totally disappeared. So instead of two speakers that sounded great (which was actually rare enough), there was a continuous soundstage that sounded great (the first time I had ever heard this quality), with width extending outside the speaker locations, and obvious depth from in-front to far behind the speaker locations. I bought a pair, still have them, and they still amaze me in this quality.

All of the magazine reviews, and Jim Thiel himself, associatied this amazing ability to "Time and Phase Coherency". Later the CS3 was produced, and then the CS3.5, both with the same glorious reviews that emphasized this quality. I bought a pair of CS3.5, and still use them in one of my audio systems. The CS3.5 turned out to be much more finicky than the O3a. They sounded analytical and aggressive compared to the older model. My friends called this "Thiel-like". I found myself spending years playing with associated equipment to achieve a sound I could live with. But, finally, the CS3.5 are even more amazing than the O3a. They image with such beauty and precision, plus they are so marvelously detailed and expressive of very subtle details, that I cannot imagine ever getting rid of them. So I am a gigantic fan of Jim Thiel and his design concepts.

More recently, I have heard speakers that are have flat front baffles (not slanted like the Thiels) which image every bit as well as the Thiels. The Audio Note E-Lexus-HE for example. So I am not so sure, anymore, that "Time and Phase Coherency" is actually the magic behind the Thiels. Maybe that incredibly small "phase distortion" that Jim Thiel eliminated is not such a big deal, and maybe not the whole story about how his speakers pushed forward the art of speaker design. But the overall achievement that he created, with his 3 series speakers, was still a landmark in the history of high-end audio.

The O3a, CS3.5, CS3.6 and CS3.7 are still some of the best sounding speakers I have ever heard. But increasingly with each model, they require VERY careful selection of associated equipment, particularly amplifier. These speakers can REALLY sound terrible with a perfectly good amplifier. So you must experiment, use your ears, and choose based on sound, not on any preconception of "good amplifier" or "bad ampifier".

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. My previously mentioned foray was similar, in that I attributed certain design characteristics to certain stated design goals. I'm sitting here typing, listening to a pair of speakers that can't possibly be perfectly time aligned, but are phase correct. My logic has steered me toward the idea that time alignment, while an admirable as a design parameter, is variable based on specific placement of one's head. I suspect this is why you find some more esoteric speakers that promote time alignment have adjustable tweeter distance.

I also ponder the point of putting a driver pointing upwards, which obviously skews time alignment.

So, having come into hi-fi on a time/phase coherent cloud of perceptions, I'm now starting to wonder. I suppose that even if designed for time coherency, one would have to be on axis with both towers, or have the design indicate a certain degree of off axis response.

 

I have owned the 2.2, 3.6, 7.0 and 7.2 speakers and the 7.2 speakers are the cream of the crop by far. I haven't heard the 3.7 speakers so I cannot comment about the sound. If Jim Thiel was still alive and well, I believe he would have made another 7 model which I probably would have upgraded to.

 

I have never heard any of Thiel's larger speakers sound good, even though I trust that they can. THAT is why I hope to visit Boston, someday, and hear the 7.2 with CAT amplifiers.

Unfortunately, after about the time of the CS3.5, Thiel's show demonstrations (well, the ones I heard at various CES) never sounded good. This was when Thiel became big and corporate, so neither Jim Thiel nor Tom Thiel were involved in the show set-ups. They started to have VERY large rooms, focusing on conversations with dealers, and displaying all of their products, instead of creating an optimum listening environment.

The only reason I ever heard CS3.7 sound good, was because I bought a pair (used) and experimented with associated equipment until they sounded great. Then I sold them (for a profit) and went back to my O3a, CS3.5 and CS3.6, all still playing now, in my various systems.

And, the only reason I sold the CS3.7 was because I felt they would go way-down in re-sale value (like the CS3.6) so I didn't want to make THAT mistake again. I will buy another pair someday.

How is it possible that a pair of speakers as amazing as the CS3.6 sells for a mere $500 to $1000 on Ebay?

 

Warren, I've got the cs1.5s and a VTL IT-85. Do you know if the VTL would also play well with the 3.6? Thanks.

 

It is 80 Watts into 4 ohms, which (in my opinion) is enough power for a tube amp into the CS3.6... it uses EL-34s, which I have good experience with playing the CS3.6... the amp is known for being "polite" which the CS3.6 likes... it will not play as loud with the 3.6 as it does with your 1.5, but the resolution and bass will be better.

So, even though I have no direct exprerience with this combination, I would say it is definitely worth a try, and will support the 3.6 as an upgrade from the 1.5.

 

I almost bought them. I heard them at the Listening Room in Westchester. They were nicely set up driven by some Krells. The sound was excellent and very life like. But ultimately I decided they were too finicky, because almost every where else I heard them they sounded strident and analytical.

I do know they can sound quite stunning with 3d imaging if they are properly fed and set-up.

 

I had the 2.4s in house for a review a few years back. All of the Thiels I've heard have a lean, almost hollow sound.
http://www.blu-raydefinition.com/hardware/thiel-cs2-4-loudspeakers.html

 

I applaud the final two "cons" in your review:

"The Bad:
Proper amplification a must for best performance.
Mid-range can tilt towards lean with some recordings."

But this is hi-fi, which is not about convenience. It's not practical to expect recordings to sound warm and mellow, when in fact most are not provided to us that way. Thiels do reveal real problems, and in that way they are extremely resolving. If you want strident, aggressive recordings to sound mellow, a Thiel is exactly the wrong speaker to choose. I would recommend a Vandersteen or Von Schweikert for that job... maybe any number of British speakers, or an old Advent... all of which I also enjoy.

Your "All of the Thiels..." generalization above implies (to me) that you didn't experiment with enough amplifiers, when you had the 2.4s, and you haven't heard a system in which someone had.

Everyone that I have spoken with, who uses Thiels with tube amplifiers, does not experience "lean" sound with good material (recordings and front-end equipment). I am sure there must be some solid-state amps that won't sound "almost hollow" with a Thiel, but I haven't heard one yet.

 

I agree with Warren. My Thiels have all been great at revealing upstream sources. Garbage in Garbage out or high quality sound going in high quality sound coming out. I listened to the Classic Records version of Peter Gabriel 3 last night. I would hardly call the presentation lean. The record had midrange bloom and resolution to be admired. If I put on the AF Scorpions "Blackout" that would be lean through the Thiels.

I recently added an outer ring on my TT and because my system including the Thiel 7.2s resolves up stream sources that results were amazing. I was stunned by the difference the ring made to the timbre, soundstage, resolution and noise floor. In other words my speakers were still capable of more than I was giving them.

I believe system matching is important. When my CAT mono blocks went in for upgrade service, I put a NAD 272 power amp in. The NAD is rated at 150 watts per channel and the CAT's are rated at 100 watts per channel. Every aspect of the speakers performance went down. I couldn't stand listening to the Thiels with that amp. However that same NAD amp sings with some of my bookshelf speakers.

Warren mentioned earlier that the 3.6 Thiels are going for around a thousand on Ebay. I really wonder what NEW speaker for a thousand dollars could out perform the 3.6's. I doubt any could. In fact, I may start looking for some going below a thousand.

I measured the 7.2's in my room and was surprised how flat the frequencies measured. Except for a bump at 38hz, which I fixed with some corner traps.

 

I had a pair of these in '98 as my first real set of audiophile speakers. Had them in a small listening room and sounded stunning. The sound of a piano was so real it was spooky. HOWEVER, they were so revealing I had to give them up. I could hear every mechanical movement inside of Diana Krall's piano that was rather distracting. It presented the analog hiss in U2's Unforgettable Fire in all it's glory, too.

 

Well, if you stand next to someone playing the piano, these are things you hear. How is that a bad thing?

 

I see your point. However, the mics are often "inside" the piano and I generally don't get to stick my head in there!

 

Then you have a problem with the microphone placement and not the speakers. They could have put a mic further away from the piano.

 

Please don't go back and forth about this, and bog-down this interesting thread about Thiels. You are both right. Thiels are extremely resolving and finicky. Tullman and I appreciate these qualities, but I can imagine many other listeners not wanting to deal with their tendency to an "analytic" quality and the need to tweek associated equipment.

I cannot even use any-ole cartridge with my Thiels. Most MC cartridges sound "lean" and aggressive (which supports the comment above by SamS), whereas most MM cartridges sound bland. I've found I need a warmish MC cartridge, like a Koetsu, Benz-Micro, or Shelter to compliment the speakers.

So I think the sound of Thiel speakers is intrinsically a controversial subject, which justifiably invites disagreement.

 

I always thought my CS 2.4s were some of the best speakers in their price range I had ever heard. I listened to all the usual suspects such as B&W, Focal, Dynaudio, Aerial, and even a Verity model. I went with the 2.4s. I felt no need to upgrade until I was able to really go way up in performance.

- Buck

 

I thought the 3.6's (I think that was the model) sounded great in a Mark Levinson system. They were driven by those big vertical Levinson mono amps. It was a decade ago and it certainly gave me something to aspire to. I'd be curious as to how that system would stack up an Ayre/Ariel system that the Dealer now carries...also great.

 

Mark Levinson amplifiers were the best sounding solid state amps I ever heard with Thiels, in more than one system. I had an ML with my CS3.5 (before I went to tubes) and ML amps were used in the best sounding CES Thiel room (with CS3.6) that I had heard in many years.

A ML No-27 or No-27.5 amplifier would be a very nice upgrade from a B&K. But, the No-27 doesn't have have RCA jacks, only Camac and XLR. The No-27.5 has RCAs. The No-331 followed the No-27.5, so it is probably another good one to look for. These are all 100 wpc into 8 ohms, 200 wpc into 4 ohms.

 

I'd hate to listen to Keith Jarrett through Thiels. His "singing" would drive you crazy!

 

Cute! I am a big fan of Keith (particularly since we share a hobby and a last name), and I admit his singing and chair squeeks come VERY clearly through my Thiel speakers.

I wouldn't have it any other way.