Bryston Demo Systems

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 18663 times.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #20 on: 29 Oct 2007, 10:36 am »
James,
Great comments and I believe you put into words what a lot of us are looking for in our systems.
Please contrast the impressive new 3.7 with your Magneplanar 3.6 and 1.6. 
Do you ever use the BP26DA in your systems or just the Bryston separates?
Also, is the 3.6 across the board better than the 1.6?
Thanks and it's great to hear comments from someone with your experience.
Bill

Hi Bill,

Yes my BP26 has the internal DAC as well so I can switch between the DAC in the BP26, the DAC in the CD Player and this weekend the External DAC we are working on.

The 3.6 has a more extended bandwidth (top and bottom) and dynamic range than the 1.6 and the ribbon tweeter in the 3.6 is exceptional but I have to say that the 1.6 being a basic 2-way system has a lot going for it. I set up the 1.6's in the same room and location as the 3.6's and I swear I could hear sounds coming from way up the left and right side walls of my listening room and even behind my head. A speaker has to be incredibly phase coherent to produce that kind of extended soundstage (try some "Q Sound" recordings). So I think the integration of the 2-way driver panel in the 1.6 is exceptional. It really sounds like one big driver.

james



James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #21 on: 29 Oct 2007, 10:39 am »
Hi James, how do the thiels compare with mb2's?

Hi Via,

I do not have the MB2's at home I have an active pair of IB2's.
I will report back on that as soon as I have more time on the Thiels.

james
« Last Edit: 29 Oct 2007, 06:00 pm by James Tanner »

Viajero5000

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 293
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #22 on: 29 Oct 2007, 12:36 pm »
Thanks James.

mr_bill

Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #23 on: 9 Nov 2007, 04:02 pm »
Hi James,
Any further words on your new Thiel 3.7's and how they are working for you.  Also, how they compare with the Mag 3.6's you have. 
Thanks,
Bill

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #24 on: 9 Nov 2007, 04:32 pm »
Hi James,
Any further words on your new Thiel 3.7's and how they are working for you.  Also, how they compare with the Mag 3.6's you have. 
Thanks,
Bill

Hi Bill,

Yes I have burned the Thiel's in for the 100 hours they recommend and I am getting read to do some serious listening.

I think I am going to start with a discussion on rooms and speaker polar response to give some back ground on room/speaker interfaces before I post my thoughts on the speakers.

james

Thunder

Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #25 on: 9 Nov 2007, 08:06 pm »
Janes, please remember to comment on performance of the Thiels vs the PMC IB2 active and passive. Thanks.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #26 on: 11 Nov 2007, 04:49 pm »
Hi All

As a follow up to my initial comments about my experiences with the Thiel CS-3.7 speakers at the Denver Hi-Fi show I purchased a pair and some have asked me to comment on my impressions.

Before I do, I would like to first talk about the most critical part of any speaker system evaluation and that is the ROOM/SPEAKER INTERFACE. Without recognizing how the room imposes it’s boundaries on the speaker there is no way to truly assess a given speakers performance. I have demonstrated the same speakers and amplifiers over the years in many different audio/video shows and believe me the ability to make a specific speaker work in a specific room is no easy feat. The dimensions and structural influence of the room is critical to the understanding of the overall performance. Also different speaker designs, Dipoles, Omni, Bi-poles, Line sources and the ever sought after Point Source being the most recognized versions of a theme.

I have been trying to come up with an analogy of how to best understand how a speaker and room interact.  I think the best one I have so far is to think of the speakers drivers as individual light bulbs. So for purposes of this discussion let’s consider a 3-way system with the tweeter, midrange and woofer being light bulbs and being rated at tweeter-25 watts, mid-50 watts and woofer-100 watts. Also the light bulbs can be either a FLOOD light or a SPOT light or anything in between. So the 25 watt bulb (tweeter) has a limited amount of light it can put out and it also has a specific light radiation pattern. So we will consider the light bulbs watt rating to be our tweeters power capability and the light radiation pattern to be the speakers POLAR- on an off axis frequency response. The same analogy with hold true for the midrange and woofer.

Given the different speaker designs out there the room/speaker interface will produce specific interactions based on the polar response and the integration of the drivers in the speaker as well as in the room. Generally it is accepted among most designers that the better the integration of the drivers to one another the better response a specific speaker will attain in the average room.  If we think about our light bulb analogy what you want is the light from the tweeter overlapping with the mid in a very controlled way. You want those two different light sources to merge on and off axis at just the right amount to have a seamless, uniform light pattern. In other words it looks like it is a single light bulb with uniform light emission rather than two independent bulbs. You do not want there to be dark areas or overly bright areas in the room. Same goes for the light integration between the mid and the woofer. The light now appears to be one large light with uniform dispersion of light equally in all directions from the speaker. 

I should mention that because different frequencies behave differently in a room getting all drivers to behave similarly is almost impossible.  Bass radiates out from the speaker in all directions like a Flood light. Tweeters on the other hand generally radiate forward like a Spot light and midranges radiate like a combination of flood and spot lights. Because this uniform and equally distributed light pattern is almost impossible to achieve most designers attempt to get as close as possible to this goal given their choice of speaker design. In my demo systems the PMC’s and the Thiel’s represent the point source approach. The Magnepan’s and the Quad’s represent the Dipole approach.

Getting back to our light bulb analogy, the Thiel’s are a very wide dispersion (FLOOD) design so the integration and off axis polar response of the light is a wide as possible from the front of the speaker. If you measure the speaker’s frequency response it is very flat on axis (in fact a little hot on axis) and very uniform all the way out to about 60 degrees off axis in both directions from center. So the Thiel’s are very successful in providing a very wide dispersion evenly balanced frequency response (light) forward and to either side of the speaker. Recognize that when you’re listening to a speaker in a room you are always listening to a balance between the ‘Direct Sound’ and the ‘Reflected Sound’ from the boundaries of the room – this is called ‘POWER RESPONSE.’ It is that balance between direct and reflected that changes depending on the frequency radiation pattern (polar response) of the speaker.

The Maggie’s and Quad’s are dipoles so their radiation pattern looks more like if you took two ‘spotlights’ and placed them back-to-back so the radiation pattern (light) looks more like a figure eight. As a result of this figure 8 pattern the ‘power response’ in the room is totally different because there is hardly any energy (light) striking the side walls, floor and ceiling - just the forward and back sound energy is to be considered.

Ok, the point of this entire preamble is that when I do my assessments of a speaker all of the above conditions have to be taken into account.  What works well for a ‘Spot’ light does not necessarily work well for a ‘Flood’ light. If I have meticulously set up my room to accommodate a specific type of speaker – let’s say a Point Source – then dropping a Dipole in is not a fair way to judge the Dipole or any other speaker with a totally different radiation pattern.

Hope this helps everyone understand my perspective when evaluating audio systems and I will now get back to my listening and report back my thoughts on the Thiel 3.7’s soon.

James
« Last Edit: 11 Nov 2007, 06:15 pm by James Tanner »

Viajero5000

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 293
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #27 on: 11 Nov 2007, 06:55 pm »
very interesting/ informative post James.... i'll come back with a few questions after i've read the balance of your review.

vegasdave

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4039
    • My online rock magazine-Crypt Magazine
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #28 on: 12 Nov 2007, 08:38 am »
Thanks James for your assessment.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #29 on: 19 Nov 2007, 05:51 pm »
THIEL CS-3.7 Review:

Hi all,

Here are my thoughts on the new Thiel 3.7 speakers in one of my listening rooms. The room is 23x16x8. The speakers are 4 feet from the front wall, 3 feet from the side wall and 10 feet apart center to center. I am sitting 10-11 feet back.

The first thing I will say is that I have never owned a speaker that tells me to this degree what is going on in front of it. Change a cable, change an amplifier, change a CD player and the difference is revealed instantly.  This can be a blessing or a curse depending on the result and the specific needs of the listener. For my needs I love it as it really is a magnifier of changes in the system - good or bad.  Also they need about 300 hours of break in. They will sound ‘raspy’ at first but will start to smoothen out and integrate after about 100 hours.

As I stated in my earlier posting the speaker/room interface has to be considered in totality when evaluating a specific speaker in a specific room and the Thiel 3.7 is a very good example of that. The Thiel CS-3.7 speaker has a very ‘wide’ and ‘even’ polar (frequency) response ‘on and off’ axis and as a result there is a lot of reflected sound information bouncing back from the ceiling, floor and side walls.  The theory is that the smoother the off axis response of the speaker the better the tonal balance between the direct sound and the reflected sound will be. In other words, the reflected sound will have the same overall tonal balance and sonic characteristics as the direct sound if ‘on and off’ polar response is smooth and even. Most designers feel this approach also provides the best overall three dimensional soundstage as well.

The Thiel CS-3.7 uses a COAX midrange and tweeter assembly. This has always been an ideal way to provide even and controllable on and off axis polar (frequency) response but has proved difficult to do because of the various small reflections and interactions (comb filtering) between two individual drivers. Jim Thiel seems to have got this right because the ability of the speaker to provide a deep and wide sound stage with specific images floating in space is the best I have experienced. The speaker literally ‘melts’ into the soundstage. You are never aware that the sound is coming from two boxes in front of you.  The stage starts at the speaker and extends backwards and outwards in all directions. Sometimes, and this is very hard to do, images would appear to be off my left or right shoulder.

The speaker is very efficient (90 dB) so although you do not need a mega-watt amplifier to drive them the impedance dips to 2.8 ohms in some areas so an amplifier with high current capability is a must. I have always found that very efficient speakers have the ability to provide excellent ‘micro’ dynamics and excellent tonal balanced at very low volume levels. The Thiel’s do this very well – from a whisper level to a concert level you always feel that the overall tonal balance (bass relative to – mids - relative to highs) stay’s balanced as the volume level is increased.  The only caveat is because of the large amount of reflected off axis energy at very high volume levels the speakers can start to sound a bit hard if your rooms surfaces are very reflective. So my comments about the acoustical qualities of a specific room with a specific speaker readily apply in this case.

I have stated on pervious post’s that I prefer Active speakers generally because they have an ability to respond to transient information better than most passive systems I have heard. The Thiel is the first passive speaker I have heard that really seems to be able to approach active systems in this regard. A speaker with the ability to stop and start relatively instantaneously has always, in my opinion, been able to provide me with a more lifelike presentation and delineation of fine details. Little auditory clues that tell our brains if a sound is real or reproduced has a lot to do with how a speaker handles transient information. The Thiel’s would sometimes fool me into thinking a sound was in the room as apposed to being in the recording.

Tonal balance on the Thiel’s relative to other speaker’s leans towards the top end. So if your room tends to sound thick and droning below say 150 Hz or so the Thiel will certainly sound very well balanced sonically. If your room tends to dissipate the low frequencies quickly then you may find the Thiel’s lows and mid bass lacking. It is a good example of being cautious when evaluating speakers. The way your room reinforces or interacts with the speaker can greatly affect the overall tonal balance in a room. So a speaker like the PMC IB2 which has more mid and low bass output can sound very balanced in the same location whereas the Thiel sounds thin in comparison. Where the IB2 might sound thick and ill defined in a specific location in the bass the Thiel comes off sounding just right tonally. So again, just a caution that when evaluating speakers moving the speaker around in the soundroom is a mandatory requirement if overall audio performance optimization is the goal. Remember, as mentioned in my earlier post above, the design criteria (wide vs. narrow dispersion etc.) of the speaker has a huge influence over the tonal balance (power response) in the room.

So all in all I find the Thiel CS-3.7 speakers superb in a number of areas. The ability to disappear and provide a huge soundstage with focused life-size images floating in space has to be heard- it really is extraordinary. The ability to respond to transient information with a quickness that rivals good active systems is a major benefit in providing inner details and a ‘you are there’ presentation. The ability to act as a magnifying glass on what is placed upstream is a big plus for an audio manufacturer like Bryston as any small change in our designs becomes readily apparent.

These I will keep.


James

Phil A

Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #30 on: 19 Nov 2007, 10:16 pm »
James, thanks for the review.  I have also found that Thiels (I have 7.2s currently) tend to be the poster children for being impacted by everything put in front of it (e.g. cables).  As you noted, this can be a positive to some and a negative to others.

budt

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 113
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #31 on: 25 Nov 2007, 09:08 pm »
  Hi James
     Thanks for your review of the Thiel 3.7  .I was wondering what your impressions were of voice
( as in human voice) reproduction of those speakers.
   Thanks

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #32 on: 26 Nov 2007, 04:15 pm »
  Hi James
     Thanks for your review of the Thiel 3.7  .I was wondering what your impressions were of voice
( as in human voice) reproduction of those speakers.
   Thanks

Hi budt,

I find the voices quite good. I have always been a fan of Dome Midranges and I think the coax driver technology that Thiel is using comes close to providing the smooth on and off axis response the better dome units have - like in the bigger PMC's. 

I do not know if you are familiar with the Thiel midrange design but it is a flat piston type driver and seems to respond incredibly well to voices.  I really noticed when you have massed voices as in a chorus etc. the Thiel mid can really delineate each and every voice in the mix and hold the image independently in space.

james
« Last Edit: 26 Nov 2007, 06:54 pm by James Tanner »

Phil A

Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #33 on: 27 Nov 2007, 09:18 pm »
I liked what I heard of the 3.7s in the store.  I broke down and sold my Thiel 7.2s last night and ordered my 3.7s today.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #34 on: 27 Nov 2007, 10:09 pm »
I liked what I heard of the 3.7s in the store.  I broke down and sold my Thiel 7.2s last night and ordered my 3.7s today.


Hi Phil,

Wow that should be interesting. Let me know how it goes.

james

Phil A

Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #35 on: 27 Nov 2007, 10:39 pm »
James, will do.  I understand I may have them by Saturday afternoon.  I think my 14BSST will be happier with the greater efficiency vs. having both the impedence and efficiency of the 7.2s as my room is really large (about 16x20ft. with 19 ft. ceiling and opens into other spaces).  While there is no doubt the 7.2s can play lower frequencies, it is not a big deal to me as I have 2 Rel Storm III subs.  I had them set at 22HZ with the 7.2s and after the 3.7s start to break in, I'll hook the Rels up along with my 1/3 octave RTA, a friend also has the Rives Audio test disc that compensates for the Radio Shack SPL meter and I also have a test disc (Delos Records "Surround Spectacular") that also has detailed bass tone countdown from around 160HZ down.  The few HZ difference can easily be adjusted with the Rel crossover.  My intial impression from listening to the 3.7s in the store was that it was similar to the 7.2s but a bit more refined.  The bass was excellent.  I read some posts about people claiming the 3.7s were bass shy but not from what I heard and I'm used to hearing 7.2s each hooked to their own Rel sub and the room I have the 7.2s is treated and they were not down a single db at least to 25HZ from the last time I set them up after getting new carpet a few mos. back.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #36 on: 8 Jun 2008, 03:49 pm »
Hi All,

Please see below comments on the 3 Bryston DEMO systems I currently have setup at home from a person I admire greatly. All 3 systems used the BP26 preamplifier and BCD-1 CD Player as front ends.  The amplifiers varied depending on speakers- (28B's-Thiel) --- (4B - MG1.6) --- (2B SST-Quad). All systems have Torus Power Isolation Units.


Bio
David McCallum is co-owner of Toronto’s Tattersall Sound and Picture.  A sound designer & editor, David has won numerous awards during a 15 year career including 3 Genie Awards for best sound in Canadian film, 7 Gemini Awards for best sound in Canadian television, and Britian’s prestigious BAFTA award for best sound.  David has recently returned from Sao Paulo, Brazil where he was working as the dialogue supervisor on Blindness – Fernando Mierelles’ film adaptation of the Nobel Prize winner novel from Jose Saramago, and the opening night gala at the 2008 Cannes International Film Festival.  David has also spent more than a decade writing Hi-Fi reviews and columns.



"Notes to James Tanner
Hi James,

What a pleasure it was spending a few hours listening to your 3 systems.  Being away in hotel rooms for the last three months has restricted my hi-fi listening, so it was great to let my ears open up and take in some 2 channel hi-fi bliss!

I’d like to start with the Thiel (3.7's with two SS1 Subs) system.  Even though it was the last system we listened to, prior to arriving this room had interested me the most, and after spending almost a year enjoying Thiel’s SS2 subwoofer I was curious to hear a more elaborate Thiel based system.

My observations with the Thiel speakers in the room were almost instantaneous, and can most simply be described as ‘complete.’   While I had really enjoyed how revealing the previous PMC setup was, if you recall at the time I was a bit fixated on some minor frequency issues (that was probably related to a bias of mine from back then), but with the Thiel system I was immediately able to relax into the presentation. 

Perhaps this is related to the settling of the sound a few feet further back from the older PMC system, but I really enjoyed the musical presence.  From its starting point almost near your back wall the sound-stage stretched way outside the speaker range creating a wonderful sense of envelopment – on both the Ladysmith Black Mambasso and Simon & Garfunkel track I truly felt like I was listening to a multi-channel recording. 

There were details that I enjoyed here – the inner detail and image were balanced beautifully, the frequency timing (if that makes any sense) seemed dead accurate, and the integration of low frequency dynamics into the overall presentation was as good as I can recall hearing.

I believe a truly great hi-fi system doesn’t call attention to any one thing other than perhaps getting out of the way and revealing the written, performed and recorded music.  The Thiel system was masterful at letting the music do the talking and is perhaps the best overall presentation of Hi-fi I have ever heard in a home, or most ‘complete’ if you were!

Moving backward, even though we spent the least amount of time here, I probably smiled the most while listening to the Maggie’s (MG1.6's with two PMC-TLE Subs).  The sound of this quasi-ribbon speaker reminds me of my studio escapades, that tight and extremely revealing upper-end frequency extension can be magical to hear.

I remember vividly one moment in the Patricia Barber track (you’ll have to remind me which one) where I heard a high-frequency burst that I immediately thought I would have removed had I been in the engineer’s chair during the production.  I’m glad I wasn’t in the chair, and even more glad that the recording engineer had more discipline then I and left this detail behind, as it’s often these types of moments that allow recorded sound to feel ‘real & live’ even if at times they strike us as imperfections. 

But that’s what the Maggie’s bring – challenging and unforgiving presentation of the source material.  It’s good we didn’t listen to any lesser quality recordings, as these speakers would have surely spit them out across the floor in front of us!

And finally my love.  The Quad’s (2905's).  Oh how I love Quad’s.  Like so many of us, my first experience with true hi-fi was on a pair of Quad’s – in my early 20’s while working at a Philips Classic recording and mastering studio in Baarn, Netherlands I spent 3 weeks working on a pair of ESL 63’s, and have subsequently listened extensively to both the 57’s and 63’s – and I must say what 20 year old can resist that sound once they have been exposed to it?  I couldn’t.

But it’s been quite a few years since I’ve listened to an electrostatic speaker, and I must say what a treat it was to experience this new model.  All the things I remember were still there – magnificent staging, detail that pulls you forward in your chair asking you to walk into the music, and a complete disappearance of the equipment playing the music!  Paired with your ‘modest’ 2B SST amp and set in your smallest room, I didn’t find the system lacking for anything and could and would spend hours enjoying music in this room.

The last thing I’ll say is that over the years I’ve observed a lot of Hi-Fi enthusiasts searching for a singular perfection in audio presentation.   However, my time at different film studios as well as when writing for audio magazines has taught me that there are numerous ways to present great Hi-Fi, and that this diversity can in fact be the most rewarding part of our shared hobby. 

So perhaps then the best part of our Saturday morning wasn’t any one of the rooms, but the combination of all three.  They are all ‘great’ and getting a chance to hear each system with the same Bryston components connected at the front was an excellent study in speaker design, room acoustics and system set-up.  I’ve taken a lot away from those few hours and have a few changes in mind for my own system.  But I’ll be back soon for sure. 

Thanks James, great fun!

David
"
« Last Edit: 9 Jun 2008, 01:31 am by James Tanner »

vegasdave

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4039
    • My online rock magazine-Crypt Magazine
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #37 on: 9 Jun 2008, 04:14 am »
Cool review, James...you no longer have the PMCs?

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20471
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #38 on: 20 Oct 2008, 10:39 am »
Hi All,

Rumor has it the latest issue of Absolute Sound has a review of the Thiel 3.7's-anyone seen it yet?

james

EDS_

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 725
Re: Bryston Demo Systems
« Reply #39 on: 20 Oct 2008, 01:15 pm »
Hi All,

Rumor has it the latest issue of Absolute Sound has a review of the Thiel 3.7's-anyone seen it yet?

james


Hey James,

Not a rumor. Anthony Cordesman offers up a great review that is quite positive.  AC rarely gushes about anything.  It's clear AC believes that Thiels - even at $12,900 offer up great bang for the buck.