Thiel Owners

pops,

I know!  It's one reason I've been so shy on putting one of my Thiels up for sale.  Given the fact they seem to have dried up on the used market in terms of availability, it feels like it would be quite a final decision to get rid of my 3.7s.  Unlike, say, Quads or something that you'll always be able to find easily again.

BTW, I contacted Rob Gillum and he has all the drivers for the Thiels, including the 2.7s.  That's good for me as I'm pretty much convinced I won't be giving up these 2.7s.   They sound glorious and look perfect in my room - I'd never find another pair on the ebony finish.  So I may grab a spare coax/woofer/passive radiator for the 2.7s, and if I keep the 3.7s I might do the same for them.  

Nice thread!  I've actually been thinking about "where are the Thiel owners these days?" as well.

I was on here quite a bit last year as I fretted about which set of Thiels to buy.  Huge fan of the old CS6s, and struggled between buying a second hand pair of the "newer" 2.7 or 3.7.

I ended up with a nice pair of 3.7s from audiogon and have had a great time pairing them with my CJ monoblocks and even sometimes with my tiny Eico HF-81  (flabbier bass...but oh that huge, golden Eico midrange combined with the Thiel clarity and transparency is pretty magical).

I've got them working very well in my smallish room, very even sounding, no bass bloat.  But at this point I'm wondering if I might have been better off with a pair of 2.7s that I had been interested in.  They had my favorite composite ebony finish.  They would have probably been a better fit aesthetically for me.

So sad the real Thiels are no longer....

(And the Thiel website doesn't even seem to be up to date or working either.  I wonder how they are doing).

jafant,

Benchmark Dac, custom built tube pre-amp and also a CJ Premier 16LS2 pre-amp.   Also Eico-HF81 integrated.  I like tubes :-)

Cabling...I'm not a "cables" guy (I've had access to as wide a range of cables as you can imagine, due to contacts in the industry, and have found my money better spent elsewhere).  I'm using Beldon 10 AWG
speaker cable.  (My friend often thinks my system sounds better than his, even when he has $18,000 speaker cables in his system).
I guess that is another reason Jim Thiel's products appeal to me - more of a no-nonsense engineering approach vs the more fringy part of audiophiledom.

jafant,

As I've written before: my CJ Premier 12 monoblocks are driving the Thiel 3.7s very well.  If one wanted more "slam" to the sound, especially the bass, I suppose one could go to much more powerful SS amps or something.  But in terms of the evenness of sound, and bass articulation it's been a great combination.  That smooth CJ sound aligned with the see-through clarity of the Thiels is pretty magical for an "all the detail you could want, presented musically" presentation.

@beetlemania,

Just wanted to say:  Thanks very much for all the work you are doing and letting us know the results.  Much appreciated!

tomthiel,

My problem with my 3.7s isn't sonic; it's aesthetic and ergonomic.  Aesthetic in that they are visually just a bit overwhelming in the room (though I love their design).  And ergonomic in that they must be placed in a way that impedes traffic flow in and out of the room.

Sonically, in my room they are as perfect as I've heard in any loudspeaker anywhere, in terms of not showing any obvious room interaction issues.  My room was an expensive re-design employing an acoustician in the design - bass treatment etc is built in to the room, and I can alter some of it's reflective characteristics easily for higher frequencies.   The 3.7s sound completely linear and controlled.

But....they just don't work in terms of size...such is life.

The 2.7s I picked up are a very nice consolation prize, though. :-)

thieliste,

I doubt many 3.7 owners have driven the 3.7s with a succession of different amps.  But FWIW, I've found the 3.7s pretty easy to drive.
My 140W/side Conrad Johnson tube amps drive them great (great tone, grip, control) and even a 14W integrated tube amp sounded wonderful (if less taught in the bass) on the 3.7s.

Like most speakers you'll probably realise the greatest dynamics the more good watts you throw at them.  But that's the usual trade off between tubes and SS amps on most speakers of average efficiency/impedance.

"I highly recommend very short runs of speaker cable. "

FWIW: I've been using 25 foot long Belden speaker cable (10awg).  Nothing fancy or special, but the 3.7s still sound better than just about anything I've heard anywhere near their price.  (Including my friend's system that uses tens of thousands of dollars worth of Nordost etc).

Tom,

I used the Belden 5000 series Cable, 10-guage, from Blue Jeans cables:

https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/speaker/index.htm

Though I've been a high-end audio nut much of my life, I'm not big on spending money for high end boutique cables, which makes me a bit unusual I guess in forums like these.  (Even though through my friends and contacts I have access to, and have listened to, some of the the most expensive cables in the world from Nordost and many others).

I like Blue Jeans cable because they are a no b.s. company, you can find measurement specs for the cable, etc.

I located my source equipment down the hall from my listening room so I had to run speaker cables under the floor to my speakers - about a 25 foot run or so.  The Blue-Jeans cables have excellent specs for long runs and I went with 10-guage, which is probably over-kill.  But what the heck.

As I said: I've heard some speakers I own with with these cables, and with the highest end Nordost, and...well...even for a super picky listener like me I'm happy where I spent my money :-)

As I've written about earlier in the thread I have to sell my 3.7s because they are just big enough to impede traffic flow in and out of my listening room.   Despite auditioning the newest-thing speakers out there, the 3.7s have been sooooo hard to replace because they just seem to effortlessly "do it all."

jafant, 

Just wondering:  are you a moderator?

As I've said: I've been quite happy with Conrad Johnson 140W/side tubes.  Lots of Thiel owners have preferred tube amplification with Thiels (and that has virtually always meant lower power). 

ronkent,

Wow, another person with both the 2.7s and 3.7s!  Looks like we are in a similar scenario.  Though I've decided to sell the 3.7s.

I'm just trying to decide whether to sell them myself, or accept a nice trade in price from a local dealer for another pair of speakers (Devore).
I wouldn't be giving up my 2.7s which I intend to keep.  And the Devores are almost hilariously at odds with the Thiels in terms of design.  But there's many ways to skin a cat as they say, and I enjoy having access to more than one speaker sound.

nkonor,

I will indeed watch that sale. I’m really liking the 2.7s. I hit a "sweet spot" in positioning them which gave me the best depth and tonality. Now they are getting more soundstage depth like the 3.7s. Tonally the sound is ravishing on the 2.7s - lush, transient clarity, sparkle on top, rich dark tones when appropriate in the lower mids, and an aliveness that even the 3.7s don’t quite do.

There are many tracks that I actually like a bit better on the 2.7s, though also tracks that were better on the 3.7s. Sometimes I will miss the vastness of the 3.7s presentation that can just be hallucinatory. The 2.7s counter this with a greater sense of density in imaging - the way a bongo or a synth part will just ripple the air right in front of me. Centered vocals have a "thereness" that is like someone has rushed in and set up a center channel.

In contrast to what we often hear "get the smaller speaker for the smaller room," the 2.7s have been more challenging to set up in getting the type of performance I was used to with the 3.7s. In fact they seem to have a warmth in the upper bass either due to design, or to interaction with my room (though my room is well treated). I’ve got it almost dialed out, but not totally. Most of the time, though, the bass is superb.

Overall I’d still call the 3.7s the betters speaker - bigger, airier soundstage, richer/bigger sonic presentation and image sizes, more relaxed, slightly more resolving I think,  and it seems perhaps the cabinet design and different rippled woofer of the 3.7s get the best out of the whole package - they just sound more perfectly realized in terms of completely disappearing as a sound source.

But the 2.7s are so gorgeous sounding I may almost have been weened off the 3.7s. I’ve actually ordered a pair of JL Audio 110 subs. I usually HATE subwoofers, but I want to see if I can integrate them to give some more bass reach and weight to the 2.7s, and if that happens I will likely sell my 3.7s.

nkonor,

I appreciate your being my audiophile conscience :-)

I certainly know what you mean about hearing something off with a set up, knowing that I would have sold the system that didn't have such faults.

On the other hand, I also have other things to balance - room aesthetics and ergonomics, which provide constant, strong motivation to replace the 3.7s.   I put a ridiculous amount of money and energy - 2 years - into the design and reno of that room so that it could accommodate both the new home theater system and 2 channel listening, in a way in which every element is ergonomically and aesthetically "perfect" for my goals. 

It's only when I introduced the big Thiels to the room that it was thrown off kilter.  Originally I bought them with the plan that I'd move them in and out of the room, as I used to go through "2 channel listening phases" and "home theater phases."

I've tried everything, making wheeled platforms, adding wheels to the speakers, using a dolly, adding sliding feet.  Nothing truly makes them easy to get in and out of the room.  And I've realized I listen to 2 channel so often that the only route that makes sense is to have permanent 2 channel speakers in there that stay, and which also look right.

The 2.7s, in size and finish, suit that goal pretty much perfectly.   When I look at the room with the 2.7s I swoon at how nice it looks.   When the 3.7s are in there it's always a bit of a drop in my heart because they impede on the balance I sought so hard to construct.

So, yes if I get rid of the 3.7s I will no doubt miss them on various pieces of music, or hear something in the 2.7s that were more perfect on the 3.7s.  On the other hand, I have to weigh that against the even more constant visual/ergonomic frustration in keeping the 3.7s.   Such is life...

ronkent,
Beautiful looking speakers!  Someone will be lucky to get them.What does your your girlfriend like better about the 2.7s?  Is it just a size, design thing?  Or does she actually prefer the way they sound?
For me the 2.7s is a nicer looking design than the 3.7s and I figured my wife would agree.  But I was surprised that she actually liked the looks of the 3.7 a bit better. 

Not me though.  I think my 2.7s are just about the nicest looking speaker I've ever seen and finding them in ebony was such a rare occurrence, and I got them for such a great price, I don't think I'll ever let these go.  Even if I bring in another speaker to play with.
I've had the 3.7s out of my system for so long it's helped me "forget" to some degree the ways in which they are obviously better.  I don't want to do any more comparisons, and my 3.7s are ready to sell.  I'm just trying to decide if I'm going to sell them myself or take a trade in from a local dealer for another pair of speakers (Devore Fidelity).

BTW, I see a subwoofer in your set up.  Did you have any trouble mating it with the 2.7s?  And how did you go about doing so?
I've had my JL 110E subwoofers for a long time and STILL haven't got around to giving another try to mate them with the 2.7s.  It just seems such a damned complex undertaking once it involves cross-overs etc.Feels like I'm trying to re-design a speaker.

ronkent,
Yes I've commented on the mid-bass bloom of the 2.7s as well.  It can really add some nice punch and warmth in many cases, and a dynamic feel.  And for the most part it does it invisibly.   But certain tracks can really zone in on that hump and then I hear it thrumming, getting confused.
Fortunately this doesn't happen very often and so most of the time the 2.7s sound to me superbly defined and controlled.  They are a dream speaker for electronic music - the imaging, palpability, punch, control, gorgeous tone. 

But the 3.7s do sound more linear and a touch more open in the midrange.

Funny you mention Magico, I'm going to be checking out the Magico A3 speakers soon.

I tried hooking up my JL subs in the REL fashion (they allow for that type of set up) and didn't have great success - the sound got tonally darker and less dynamic for whatever reason. So I went whole hog and bought a high end JL crossover to "do subs right" and split the signal between the mains and the sub (as all the subwoofer aficionados will tell you).  

But it's such a friggin' hassle I can't get around to doing it.

ronkent, jafant,

I've long been familiar with REL and their approach.  I've had REL subs in my home before.  But I want to try doing subs using a crossover, which have some advantages if done right to the REL system.

Rob,

I agree with you about the looks of the 2.7s ,they are gorgeous
the 3.7s kinda look like a skinny r2d2.

Ha, just this weekend I had a guest say the 3.7s looked like a skinny R2D2!

Having hosted a gathering of pals, I was doing a little poll as to which speakers I should keep, on looks alone.  For me it seems a no-brainer: the 2.7s.  Yet opinion was divided on the looks of the speakers with, to my surprise, slightly more people preferring the look of the big 3.7s! 

They thought the 3.7s looked a bit more cool, different "statement-like."

I auditioned the much-hyped Paradigm Persona 3F speakers today.
They were very impressive in many ways, balanced, open, detailed, clean.

But I'll say this:  when I got home and put the same music on my Thiels, I felt like hugging my Thiels :-)

jafant,

The Paradigms were mated with a big Anthem amp. Don’t know which one, but it was big! I first listened to some vinyl (I don’t know what record player) and then I listened to my own burned CD demo tracks (I think it might have been a Bryston CD player, but not sure).

I paid no attention to cables, sorry ;-)

My feeling is that I’d prefer the Paradigms on tubes, like my CJ amps. I found the Paradigms a bit relentless to listen to after a while. Though I’d be a bit wary about the bass control if they weren’t paired well with the right tube amp, just because even with the Anthem they were just edging into the "rich, round bass" territory and I don’t know if they’d edge over into loose bass. Thought not against the back wall, they were closer than I’d want ideally so I heard a little bass lift (even though the Paradigm’s downward facing port is supposed to make them less sensitive in terms of placement). As usual I took various seating positions, close and far, to take the room out of the equation to some degree.

The main impression is very open, airy - giving a very live realism - and very clean and clear.

In comparison I've dialed in my Thiels to achieve a sound I prefer, which is an almost ideal (to my tastes) combination of clarity, energy and warmth.  They are completely unfatiguing.   The Paradigms tended to emphasize the artificial nature of recordings, with harder sibilance and a slight hi-lighting of singers breath over the actual vocal tone of the note, the slightly icy, chalky character of bow on string emphasized vs the deeper string tones.  Singers always sounded very clear in a "hi-fi" manner, but never particularly warm and real.

In comparison,  my Thiels/CJ combo has more warmth, and less emphasis on the lower treble area, for a slightly darker sound, but to my ears less artificial and electronic.

The Paradigms were often captivating, though.  They have a big, full sound - so you get really nice scale for the size - I woudn't need any bigger (though I think I get even bigger scale from the 3.7s when they are set up).

In terms of clarity and realism, the Paradigms gave one of the most impressive playbacks of Herbie Hancock's song Chameleon that I've ever heard!

Improvements are always good.
But for me I have to say the last thing on my list I'd write down as "needing improvement" is the cabinet behavior of the 3.7s.
I say that because I find the 3.7s to already beat just about any other speaker I've heard in terms of sounding utterly boxless.  It's one of the main things I notice every time I came home from auditioning even the latest, greatest speakers.  The 3.7s disappeared as detectable sound soruces (at least in my room) more effortlessly than any of them.

tomthiel,

I look forward to the results of your efforts!

I'm a bit gun-shy about messing with the tone of my 2.7s, but if I read some brave soul happy about upgrades I may go for it. (That is, if such upgrades become available for the 2.7).

ronkent,

I was quite interested in the GAIA for quite a while and intended on trying them with the Thiels.

However, I ended up buying some Isoacoustic Iso-pucks which I was thinking of using under my turntable platform.  I tried them under one of my Thiel speakers and didn't care for the effect - tended to make the sound a bit more flubby and less alive.  (Which could all be due only to the acoustic effects of raising the speaker - I can't be sure).

But it did dampen my enthusiasm for spending more money on the GAIA.

My speakers tend to sound best simply sitting on the floor, no spikes or risers.  I tried some other risers again - some Herbie big footers which not only add some isolation, but make them easy to shift the speaker position.  Yet again, I found raising the speakers to sound a bit less preferable to simply sitting on the floor.

I am intrigued quite a bit by the Townshend isolation base for speakers, a they are designed to isolate the speakers from the floor without raising them up, and I had terrific success using the Townsend spring-based pods for isolating my turntable (very big measurable difference with a vibration-measurement app when the pods were used under the turntable base)

As can be seen in this thread, and another speaker thread I have going, I have a roving eye for speakers.  I just like trying various types.
But even if I purchase another speaker I can't see myself ever getting rid of my 2.7s.  Too good, and the bargain I paid was ridiculous for the performance. 

I love electronic music and the 2.7s are a dream for that category.  Their particularly dense, punchy, solid imaging and gorgeous tonality make electronic music feel like another dimension has been summoned in and around the speakers.  I never get tired of it.

FWIW:

Bass depth and weight are experienced as very similar between the 2.7 and 3.7. Though there are tracks where you can definitively hear the 3.7 go a bit lower.

The main difference is the sense of scale and linearity. The 3.7 just creates larger sonic images and a bigger soundstage. What exactly to attribute that to is a bit of a puzzle to me as they share the same mid/tweeter and only differ slightly in woofer size. Is it JUST that extra 2 inches in woofer size? Or is it something about the bigger cabinet of the 3.7 as well? I don’t know exactly what causes this difference.  Confusing the issue a bit further: with the brief tests I've done integrating a sub with the 2.7s, the soundstage does seem to grow somewhat, but I don't think the image sizes expand in to 3.7 territory - and yet with a subwoofer that's adding another 10" driver and producing more bass than the 3.7!

I’ve also wondered why the 3.7 sounds a bit more linear all the way to the bottom of it’s range. It could be a difference in voicing to some degree (maybe the 2.7 was voiced with a tiny bulge to compensate for it’s slightly smaller size - though I don’t think that was normally the Thiel way. Thiel was never shy about keeping linearity even if it meant their smaller speakers sounding a bit base-shy compared to some other brands).

I’ve wondered if the added control/linearity has anything to do with the different woofer constructions. The 3.7 has that sort of dimpled woofer and passive radiator and it’s general shape was claimed by Jim Thiel to get rid of some common reflections around woofers. So I wonder if that contributes.

ronkent,

Yes for the most part I've used the Thiels sitting on my floor (shag rug over wood floor) - no spikes, nuthin'.

I like playing with speaker positions so I recently put some Herbie's gliders under them (which screw in to where the spikes go).  It raised the Thiels a bit and to my ear thinned the sound a tiny bit.  I tried to make up for the height change by angling the Thiels a tiny bit down toward me.
Seemed to get a bit better.

But whenever I've tried footer thingy's, the tone of the speaker gets dark and base gets less tight.  Everything snaps together when they are just sitting on the carpet.

@beetlemania,

Thanks for the updgrade info.  That's more comforting that parts values will remain so similar.

Oh, right, I forgot that the new crossovers would be outboard.  That would almost certainly rule them out for me.

^^^ Thanks for the added info.  

Been I while since I posted in this thread, happy to see it still going!

A few things:

1. Has anyone noticed that the sales of the Thiel flagship 3.7 and 2.7 speakers has almost totally dried up???!!!

I’d decided I had to have the 2.7 or 3.7 soon after Jim had passed away and after Thiel changed hands to the new speaker design. So in early 2015 I had to go into the second hand/dealer demo market to get them. And there were lots available at that point. I missed out on some sales of the ebony finish I favored, so I grabbed a morado/red pair.

I’m glad I grabbed that pair when I did because having continued to monitor the market..I noticed that shortly after that they became very sparse in the second hand market - like I got in at the tail end of the fire-sale.  It now seems damned hard to come across those classic flagship models for sale anymore - specifically in North America. It’s like whoever owns one is keeping it! And owning the 3.7s, boy do I understand that.

2. That said...I may be selling my 3.7s - and if so I already feel regret! - due to a rather idiosyncratic set up that causes me some ergonomic problems. Basically, I have a smallish room that does double duty as my home theater and two channel listening room. So it’s already full of my surround speakers, and I have to drag the 3.7s in and out to listen to them. I’ve thought of some possible solutions to the issue, but none seem as good as just trying to find a smaller speaker to work with. This comes at a time when I’ve currently dialed the Thiels in to such a degree in my room that my mind is just blown by these things.

But...before I decide on whether I’m keeping them, I’ve started to seriously research and demo other more portable alternatives to the 3.7. So I’ve read a lot about and auditioned: Harbeth speakers, JM Reynaud, Audio Note, Audio Physic, Vivid (kind of, just quickly), and Joseph Audio thus far.

I plan to do start another thread with a detailed post about what it is like living with the 3.7s and my impressions of those other speakers. And if I’ve found anything worthy of replacing the Thiels :-)

zkga,

Glad it worked out for you.  Your experience is the type of lesson many audiophiles could benefit from; you'll get far more from the free tweak of playing with speaker placement than from spending money playing cable roulette.  (And of course addressing room acoustics if necessary - which may not be free depending on the acoustic solution, but is likely to still be less expensive than a lot of audiophiles spend on cables). 

I'm constantly amazed at how much sonic change can occur moving or angling a speaker by inches - sometimes even less.  But, that's the physics of acoustics for you.

robinbarbour,

Yes, why do you ask?

(The only thing that sort of temps me to replace them someday could be some VAC amps.  The CJs have been able to control every big or small speaker I've had, combining a tautness and punch with the CJ musicality.  It's a very hard combination to give up).

Ah, got it. 

Sometimes I wish I'd grabbed an early pair of 2.7s that were available to me, if only because they are a bit smaller and they had the ebony finish I coveted. 

Still, it's simply astonishing how well the 3.7s work in my small room.  In terms of "room problems," frequency bulges or nodes they are as perfect as I've ever heard in any speaker anywhere.  There is literally nothing in any track I can play that trips them up and calls attention to the speaker.

And, again, that's driving them with the CJ tubes.  Though I used to own a smaller CJ tube amp many years ago before the Premier 12s, and it didn't control the bass of larger speakers like the Premier 12s do.

As I may have mentioned earlier in the thread, I've also sometimes hooked up my tiny Eico HF 81 14Wpc integrated tube amp and, aside from the bass getting a bit overwarm, it sounded glorious with the 3.7s.

jafant,

I went into lots of detail about the Thiels and (my) tube amps in this thread a while back:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-with-quot-warmest-quot-midrange-2-7-vs-3-7-vs-older?hig...

My speaker cables are still 10 awg Belden cable ;-)

oblgny,

I thoroughly agree about Thiel's and bass.  I've enthused about this often.  It is the most tonally controlled bass I've ever experienced.
When a stand up bass plays there is none of that added bit of blur/bloom at the bottom that you hear with most speakers.  You hear that vibrating string and soundboard resonating - and only that - all the way to the floor as it were.  And all the bass energy remains focused right where the instrument is coming from, making even low bass just as holographically placed as any other part of the spectrum.  They are such an achievement!

jonandfamily,

I never had the 3.6s, though I heard them many times "back in the day."
I preferred the CS6's over the 3.6, and had the CS6's for quite a while.
(They worked well in my small room; the 3.7s work even better).

Nothing I miss about any previous Thiel's over the 3.7s.  Jim's final designs somehow managed to keep all the great things we love about Thiel speakers - the aliveness, believability of transients, instrumental timbre, etc, but increasing coherency and smoothness in the upper mid/treble, for an even more organic sound.  It's seems ironic to me that Thiel over the years has had the reputation for ruthlessly revealing and being bright.  I have very sensitive ears - including Tinnitus - so if a speaker is bright or hashy sounding at all, I have real problems.  The 3.7s (especially combined with my CJ amps) have been about the smoothest, most fatigue free sound I've ever had in my room.  I can listen for hours without my ears getting too tired or sensitive.

BTW, as I mentioned, despite my adoration for my 3.7s I may have to sell them for ergonomic reasons.  Not that they don't work perfectly in my smallish room (13 x 15), but rather because I have other speakers in there
taking up room for home theater, I have to place the 3.7s right at the room opening, which makes it awkward getting in and out, among other things.
I really need a smaller speaker only in that regard.   Sonically, they are as close to perfectly balanced as I've heard in my room or anywhere else.

jafant,

Understandable.  We all have our own criteria. I personally like a near field, or close to near field listening set up because I love being enveloped in the sound, I get the most realistic sound staging, and to my ears usually the most natural, relaxed and realistic timbral qualities to voices and instruments (since near field reduces the influence of the room).
But more distant set ups do tend to sound more dynamic and lifelike in that way, so I can see the appeal in how you prefer to listen.

jonandfamily,

It's been a long time since I heard the 3.6s - or the CS6 for that matter - but what I remember is the 3.6s having just a bit more "shine" to the upper frequencies that could be a bit detached to piercing, whereas the CS6 had a smoother, more sophisticated sound.  No doubt the coaxial design had something to do with it.   But I also remember some mild issues with the CS6, a bit of hollowness that could creep in in the high midrange/low tweeter frequencies, especially dependant upon seating height/position.  It could add a sort of thinning, cardboard/papery sound to instruments when they travelled in to that range (e.g. high register woodwinds).  But it wasn't frequent or bad enough to be a bummer.  The 3.7s have none of that, I was happy to find. 

Tom,

Great info, as usual!

Well, I just auditioned one of the latest and greatest recent speakers:
The Magico A3. 

(See my "Devore speakers/auditioning" thread if interested in details).

Turns out...I like my Thiels better :-)

beetlemania,

The audiophile in me of course salivates at any possible upgrade.

But the cautious side makes me not want to mess with what I have.

batmanfan,

I've made numerous comparisons of my 2.7s vs my 3.7s in this thread and I'm presuming you've read them already (as you said you've read through the thread).

Of course I empathize with the audiophile nag in the back of the mind "could I have gotten something better?"   I'd originally been deliberating between buying a pair of used 2.7s in beautiful ebony, vs the 3.7s in other finishes (very nice finishes, but none in my preferred ebony finish were available).

The 2.7s would be an obviously better fit for my room size/aesthetics wise.  But I thought if I bought them I may well end up thinking "these sound so great that I wonder how much better the 3.7s would have been."

I chose 3.7s over 2.7s so that I wouldn't have that niggling doubt that I didn't go for the best I could get.   The 3.7s turned out to be awesome and sonically fantastic in my room.  But the funny thing is, especially due to the 3.7s physical size in my room, I started wondering "maybe I should have gone for those 2.7s after all."

It's a curse ;-)

So when the 2.7s in ebony showed up on audiogon I couldn't resist to try them out.

And it turns out, it seems: yes, the 2.7s are the one that best fits my needs.  

As for selling my 3.7s, I have decided I'd like to sell them soon, but still haven't decided which route I'll take - trade in, selling them only for local pick up, or opening it up to selling them to someone on Audiogon.

batmanfan,

Yes my Thiel 3.7s are in the Morado finish!

:-)

But just so we are talking about the same thing: I’ve seen one or two people mix up the "Morado" finish with the Amberwood finish.
Mine are in what Thiel called their Morado finish, which is the darker reddish stain with the nice wood grain patterns, as shown in the very first image on this page:

http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-thiel-37-part-1-visiting-old-friend.html

In preparation for selling them a while back I had a top level furniture re-finisher go over them to make sure they were tip top. They came back looking essentially "mint" like they just rolled off the factory floor. I was so impressed by this that I actually couldn’t let them go and it’s one reason I held on to them that much longer!

My wife likes the look of these 3.7s more than my 2.7s. (My 2.7s came to me second hand a bit scuffed so I intend to bring them to the same place to get the "like new" treatment).

Still, my 3.7s gotta go at some point.

Believe me, I know how tough it is when you want a rare speaker and ALSO put the constraint of a certain finish on them. That’s what I did with the 2.7s and had to wait 3 years or so for them to pop up in Ebony, and even then never seen another pair for sale, so I feel like I found my Unicorn.

I sit even closer to mine (7 to 6 1/2 feet)!

Though I disagree a bit with some of the things stated on the mapleshade site.  For instance the idea that sitting closer gets you better bass impact and slam.  I've tended to find the opposite with almost every speaker - the closer I get the more linear and less bloated the bass, but also the less kick and impact (the more headphone-like it gets).  So I'm always trying to balance - close enough for smoothness, distant enough to keep impact.

ronkent,

The speakers are so easy to move around on my rug (one thing nice about not using spikes) that I often fool around with different listening positions.  I may settle on one for a week, or a month, or many months, then move them around. 

Right now I have my 2.7s a bit further from my ears than I thought - 7.4' - probably because they are spread out a bit more - 8.4' from the inside of each speaker.  Due to the wider spread, I have them toed in a bit to maintain some sparkle and image focus.  When in a narrower setting, I tend to have little to no toe-in.

I also find listener height can alter the sound a bit, but much less so on the Thiel's concentric driver arrangement vs a lot of other speakers (sound gets a bit more "plummy" rounded and warm with a lower seating height.  I've slightly angled my 2.7s downward to account for a bit of this).

I'm really a nut about tone and timbre and it's easily diminished by room acoustics and speaker/listener positioning.  I want warmth, roundness of tone, but with a realistic inviting sparkle as well.  To that end I find imaging, soundstaging and tone are almost always best for me when there is nothing behind my head - e.g. my sofa cushion comes up to my shoulders but no further.   Leaning my head back in to the sofa pillows, more reclined, while comfy, also changes the sound due to the reflections - makes it a bit more whitened and lively and spread out.  Which actually can be fun sometimes.

I've looked for pillows to lean my head on that don't alter the sound in an unappealing way, but there are no "neutral" pillows because it's going to change the sound reflections around my head.  Physics is physics.

That said, I just discovered that one of the small, narrow arm-rest sized pillows on my sofa, which is only the width of my head, actually works quite well to lean on.  Doesn't destroy soundstaging and imaging - though alters things a little.  Tone gets a bit more zing and aliveness, lightens up a bit, and a bit more focus.  So for instance a cow-bell or wood block hit will actually sound more lively and immediate.  And the tone doesn't "whiten" so much as leaning against a big pillow, but goes a bit more into the "amber" territory (I tend to perceive sound in colors this way).  Which I quite like.

Further...while on the subject of acoustics, I keep meaning to make a little thread about diffusors.  A single small diffusor that I bought a while back has proven really fascinating to play with - the way it can alter and dial in the sound so minutely via any number of positions in the room.
Placed right beside the speaker, I get a more alive sound, but also a bit more blanched in tone.  Placed just beside and behind the speaker and I get sonic images snapping even more together, and sounding a bit more dense and lively, but without loosing much of the organic roundness of the presentation.  Really fun.

Sorry...way more than you asked for.

Ok batmanfan. Noted.  I've had interest from others too.

I'm also  still deciding whether to trade them in for some Devore speakers, or sell locally (both those options meaning no shipping hassle).

batmanfan,

You possess more equanimity than I...

jafant,

Thanks, glad you got a kick out of my wacky journey.

tomthiel,

Thanks!  That explains why the grain pattern of the Morado I have is so similar to the Amberwood finish.

But just to be clear:  Do you mean the dark red color of the Morado wood is natural?  I'd always presumed the speaker started out with a lighter color and some type of red stain was added to give the red color.

tomthiel,

More interesting info.  Thank you.

I once had Thiel CS6s in my house, in Pau Ferro and they were beautiful.  Still one of the nicest speaker finishes I've seen.

I've never heard the Thiel 3.5s (that I recall) but used to listen to the 3.6s here and there, though many years ago.  So you have to take any comparison I'd make with a big grain of salt.   That said, I also lived with the big Thiel CS6 speakers for a while too, so I have a pretty good bead on the Thiel house sound in general, I think,

Whenever I listened to the 3.6s "back in the day" my impression was always consistent: a sense of accuracy, in terms of tonality, soundstaging, imaging and a sense of life - great transient quality and an overall sense of control.  There was a real confidence, a sensation of "hearing the recording for what it is."

The slight knock on the 3.6s was, as many have said before, to my ears a teetering toward brightness and a tad bit of hardness.  Just a tiny bit of a "ruthless" quality.  Not as bad as that sounds, but just tipping a bit in that direction.

The other is a slightly "reductive" quality that I tended to hear in Thiel speakers.  The density of the imaging had the great result of palpability, but it seemed the Thiels could squeeze the sound just a bit too tight, with a signature that to my ear could seem to slightly remove the amount of body and heft of the sound of voices and instruments.  (The smaller woodwinds, for instance, could become fairly thin sounding).

The CS6 speakers I had, while sounding huge overall and full from the upper bass down, also had this slightly reductive quality.  Though I found them not bright at all, and not in to the ruthless territory so much.  They sounded gorgeous with my CJ tube amps.

The difference I find with the last flagship 3.7 (and to a degree the 2.7) is that I do not find any of this reductive quality.  Voices and instruments sound smooth, big, even and as lush as one could want.  If you have an acoustic guitar recorded up close it is BIG and full.  The sense of image sizing and soundstaging goes beyond any Thiel I had heard before.  And the tonal balance seems completely smooth - missing the slight hollowing sensation I could occasionally hear in previous Thiels.

And they have a more open and delicate way with fine detail.  
While giving you that aliveness, snap and image density and specificity that Thiel is known for.

So to my ears the 3.7s take the Thiel sound and simply refine it.  

As I've pointed out in my other, long speaker audition thread, despite listening to many of the best contenders now available, I did not find any that seemed to do it all as well as the 3.7s.