Thiel Owners

tomthiel -

I have owned 3.5's since 1979, and currently run four in a pseudo 5 channel system (bridged front L-R, for better stereo on non-surround-sound discs).  I also have a third equalizer since one or another of the channels on the first two alway seem to be noisy or intermittent.

My main interest is music, not film/video, and interestingly the four 3.5's practically eliminate standing waves, and with their 3db reinforcement, they also essentially require no subwoofer.  Plus the bass is smoother and quicker than on my pair of 2 2's, which are in my 2nd system.

I would DIE for a passive-part upgrade of these equalizers.  And from comments here, the same can be said true of many other 3.5 lovers.  Please keep it on your "to do" list.

ps.  BTW, I lived in Prospect, KY from late 1979 through early 1984, and recall being at a friends house when Jim auditioned his 3.0's or what I might have been early versions of the 3.5.  I lusted until I ran into the dealer demo pair I bought up in Burlington, VT in 1989.  So just know: I now lust for three upgraded external equalizers!  But I hope another six years don't go by until my lust is fulfilled.

This is really a question for tomthiel -

Tom, I have a four speaker 3.5 setup (used to be five).  An Accupahse AC-2 moving coil through a Marcof PPA2 headamp and an Oppo 105 through an updated Audio Research SP-6A for the front channels and Audionics BT-2 for the rears.  Four Outlaw M200 monoblocks feed the Thiels.

I love the accurate spectral balance of the 3.5's, which is why I am loath to give them up.  But I also have a pair of 2.2's in another room driven by a Counterpoint SA-1000 through an Adcom 5300, and this combo is definitely more transparent.

My question - are we ever going to get a "hot-rodded" audiophile version of the 3.5 cross-overs?  I've felt all along that the crossovers perform a subtle "masking" of transparency, and today I am even more convinced.  I'd gladly pay for an upgrade as a preference over having to trade up my speakers.

I own a pair of 2 2's as well as four 3.5's.  I am wondering, from those who have had 2.2's, 2.3's, and 2.4's what the sonic differences were as you go up the line.  But even more importantly, what the problem is with the 2.3's that keeps their used value closer to the 2.2's than to 2.4's.  Is it reliability, and if so, what?   Thank you in advance for your help.

I'd like to add a few comments re: the discussions just a bit earlier in this thread.

Tom Thiel was asked what he found so fascinating as to make the 3.5's a special speaker to him.  Beyond his personal involvement, he mentioned the seamless deep bass.   I have never listened especially to the higher members of the Thiel line (due to economic reality) but of the three and two series, the 3.5's simply are the only ones to have a smooth, fully fleshed out frequency response throughout the upper bass and lower midrange.  As this is where most voices exist, voices through these speakers simply sound fuller and "real-er" than any of the others.  It doesn't matter whether you are listening to Louis Armstrong, Eric Clapton, Judy Collins, Ella Fitzgerald, the Eagles, the Carpenters, or  Allison Krauss.  As good as the 2.2's sound which I also own, the 3.5's sound "real", the 2.2's and others in the line I've heard sound "light".  (I attend a lot of live concerts of both jazz and classical music which also provides an excellent frame of reference for instrumental sounds.).  Also perhaps because of the care Tom describes, the 3.5's have a coherence top-to-bottom that excels even the other members of the line.  This exhibits itself most forcefully with full orchestral music where the entire orchestra sounds "just right" and "of a piece" whether playing loudly or softly, whether strings, brass, or percussion, etc.  It is also easy to forget how much an underlying bass line is part of the classical orchestral repetoire.  Except, when you hear the 3.5's you realize what is missing from many, many speakers including the 2.2's.

The 2.2's have extraordinary transparency, and as part of my second system I listen to them a lot.  If I didn't have the 3.5s I wouldn't know what I was missing.  But I do, which is why they are in my second system.

I'd also like to comment on the home theatre discussion.  For about a dozen years I had a 5.0 system in a near-exact ITU setup.  It was all analog, consisting of three 3.5's (front, rears) and two 2.2s (L,R).  It sounded excellent except for the midrange discrepancy front middle-left/right.  More recently I've moved and have a smaller listening room.  In this room I've set up a more traditional stereo front (with 3.5s) using bridged left-right channels, as well as rear 3.5s.  

These surround setups have taught me two things. 

For one, placed alongside and touching a side wall, angled about 30-40 deg forward, full range Thiels make excellent surround speakers.

And second, three or four (or five?) 3.5's in anything approximating an ITU placement will neutralize room standing waves, and if they are 3.5's, also eliminate any need for a subwoofer.  Everything is there, even on the loudest explosions on film.  (Of course, it helps that I am using five Outlaw M200 monoblocks.)

Just for what it is worth for fellow Thiel lovers.

Thanks, Tom, for the explanation.  I think we hear the same things, but you know why whereas I just hear.  In any case, the 3.5's give me music .... I've mellowed in my old age.

BTW, I was part of a small group of audiophiles who formed a listening group for Jim once.  A mutual friend in Louisville where I was living at the time asked me to join in ..... he had a baronial place in the far suburbs beyond where I lived, and when I arrived the large living room was set up with an oracle turntable and Audio Research gear.  I believe the speakers may have been early prototype 3's (this was probably 1982).  In any case, the superior imaging and fulsom frequency respond were immediately apparent.  Once I got back home, the flaws in my own Audio Research gear driving IMF TLS-80's made itself known, although I kept them for another ten years.  Finally, after moving to Burlington, VT in 1989 I snagged a pair of 3.5's that served as dealer demo's.  Been happy ever since and later added the additional 3.5's and 2 2's for surround.

tomthiel - Larry Staples rings a bell.  If he is on this thread then let me say "Hello, Larry" as well.  As to it being a forming experience it was.  I bought the 3.5's as much on that Kentucky experience as the dealer's showroom, since he had pulled the speakers at the time I stumbled across them.  I have also liked Spica's and Vandersteins and so I guess my ears were latently attuned to phase coherence.  At least I believe the lack of same messes up some speakers that should sound better than they do.

Jafant - Glad you enjoyed the story.  I've got a few more audio stories to tell as well, but this is not the thread for those.

oblgny - when I lived in Port Washington I almost bought that amp when it first came out years ago.  It sounded excellent with my 3.5's.  Good find!

tomthiel - hear, hear!  

Just a note to point out that if you like 3.5's otherwise, four or five of them in a room eliminates any need for a sub while anything resembling recommended surround placement generally also eliminates bass room nodes.