Thiel Owners

While some might enjoy these Thiels with tube amps, ultimately I don't  believe tubes are the ideal match:

I can't comment on Pops current cable recommendations, and I know he's previously tried some of the following, but I'll put them forward any way:

Alpha-Core Goertz (w/ rc networks or zobels)

Ocos

Straightwire

Wire World

Enjoy!

^Interesting, your impressions of the MI 2's vs. the MI 3's were so different than mine. I found the MI 3's to negate the emphasis of the brightness region (mid to lower treble), centering  the sonic midrange, and though appearing contradictory; making the bass both tighter and richer . Perhaps it's due to different model Thiel's, with different amps, in different rooms through different ears. :-)

dar57, Most rooms vary enough, that there are no hard rules. My room is very similar to yours, though I do have a rather high ceiling.

I prefer the long wall placement when it can work. I have my Thiel's backs out 3' from the wall behind them, 10' apart center to center, >5' from speaker cabinet wall to side wall, with my listening position close up against the opposing wall with a large piece of thick foam with thick fabric covering, speakers are about 9' from the listening position firing straight ahead, without toe in.

Of course one could use other approaches, i.e., rule of thirds, etc.. With Thiels  do try to keep 8'-12' from listening position to speaker. Keeping the entertainment center cabinet well away from the speakers is a very good idea!

The bottom placement of the speaker terminals might be nuisance when auditioning cables, but once one's decided upon their favorite cables, I find their unobtrusive appearance and the hidden from children, pets, etc. a bonus. I would think again about raising the speakers.

BTW, why travel to get cables when cables can come to you;

http://fatwyre.com/

http://www.usedcables.com/

oblgny, At the risk of appearing petty, the 3.5's come with an external equalizer or bass booster not a cross-over. Though the smooth impedance rise with it's insertion mitigates its total demand on amplifiers, it does put added demands on amplifiers none the less. The point being, extra power can be quite beneficial with these particular speakers.

It appears as though you might be able to use the Primare i22 with the 3.5's if you aren't using the tape loop for anything else.

Though it was some time ago, and the state of Class D amps might have progressed since then, Jim Thiel once told me that Class D amps were only suitable for subwoofers, and not competitive with traditional amps further up the frequency range.

If you like to try different gear with your Thiel 3.5's, I suggest you consider some iron fists in a velvet glove old school high out
put big iron: Krell, Threshold, etc.

I suppose the MF200 would sort of qualify. I'm a fan of c-j ss. I ran an MF 80 with CS 2's (Thiel's easiest load) when I had a smaller room years ago. The c-j's don't quite double down the same way, and the bass isn't quite as tight. A small bit of c-j warmth coloration seeps through, but that isn't exactly unwelcome with these older Thiels. The c-j ss amps match very nicely with most tube pres as well. C-j's own ss pres are quite nice too. BTW, I found the Goertz Alpha-Core MI series cables to work beautifully with c-j and Thiel.

I keep an eye on Class D, though I haven't heard all the latest. Conceptually I love the idea,  and while there are differences amongst them, I find the treble curious on all of them. Is it because I'm not used to such a clean presentation, or are they lacking in harmonic extension? I'm not really sure. What little there is of published measurements are not especially encouraging. I hope I can look forward to your sharing  your impressions of them, especially with the 3.5's!

oblgny, I've heard the other arguments, but I steadfastly believe that "backasswards" is exactly how you should build a system! Starting with knowing how much of the contents of the billfold in your back pocket your willing to depart with, to the listening position in your room (where the sum everything before comes together), and the room (don't forget the treatment) is so important, then to speakers (the most colored of components, so make sure that those colorizations are the least objectionable possible) that will vary more in rooms more so than the vast majority of reasonably compatible electronics ever will, to the amplification needed to drive those speakers in that room, then keep going back to the source(s), then to the rack, finally fine tune with cables.

If you like Pass Labs, there's a good chance you'll like Threshold, some even prefer the Thresholds.

Curious that they list the doubling down 4 Ohm rating of their A60 amp (250/500 both channels driven) but not their A34.2. If it's not specified, I'd be hesitant to assume anything.

Unless the amp has lots of power to spare, if it doesn't double down, it will compromise frequency linearity with most dynamic speakers such as your Thiels.

The 3.5's and 3.6's used different drivers, similar but different cross-overs. The 3.5's used bass eq/boosted sealed boxes, and with the 3.6's a passive radiator.

IMHO, the 3.5's are more coherent, have deeper bass response, and are easier to amplify. The 3.6's are more refined and suave in the mid to upper frequencies, and are capable of more dynamic range.

The amplification requirements of both requires careful consideration, especially for the 3.6's. With that said, most seem to prefer the 3.6's and I seem to be I the minority of preferring the 3.5's.

^If I may; it's not a typical eq. It's really a bass only booster.

 By compensating for the natural bass roll off of the 10' woofers in a relatively modest sized sealed box cabinet Jim Thiel (and others including B&W, KEF ,etc.) was able to make a truly full range speaker with a high WAF.

 The disadvantage of this approach is a bit more cabling in the loop, and more demands on the woofers and amplifier (more on this later), and of course the rightly or wrongly audiophile thought of anathema of putting more electronics in the path.

The advantage is of course true full range bass (!) in a much less expensive to make (well) and easier to sell smaller cabinet. Some have suggested less energy storage, and tighter response from the smaller woofers than would otherwise be necessary as a plus.

 As for the extra amplifier demands, yes it's true, but in the case of the Theil 3.5's it's not quite as challenging as it might first appear.  The 3.5's are spec'd as 4 Ohm nominal, 4 Ohm minimum, and they do have a very smooth steady impedance, but at 70 Hz,  the eq gradually starts to put more and more demands on the amplifier to compensate for that typical sealed box roll off, but just as that happens the impedance plot starts to increase  and ergo so does the sensitivity. See, quite brilliant.

Jim put  one small switch on the eq to access bass response to either 40 Hz or 20 Hz to  adapt to different sized rooms or musical demands. By musical demands I mean bass volume. Some music such a much popular music doesn't have much below 40 Hz but is typically played very loud in that region, where as other music such as much classical music might go deeper but not necessarily as loud there. The 3.5's can play deep bass quite loudly in typical rooms, but truth be told, one can only bend the laws of physics so far; very loud, very deep bass still needs a much bigger and much more expensive speaker system.

 As Jim Thiel once told me, unfortunately the eq raised a red flag to many audiophiles with preconceived prejudices. One might imagine that with today's digital room correction eq's this strategy might return, as one could not only dial in accurate bass to anechoic standards, but also to customers individual rooms in the very frequency range most likely to be problematic.