Scoring on Used Thiels here

Tons of great info on "Thiel owner’s thread".

I bought a pair of CS2.4SEs just a few weeks ago knowing that Thiel was in serious trouble. I figured I’d be OK as long as the drivers were in good shape (they are flawless). Short of abuse, drivers usually last many, many years without issue. I figured I’d buy a broken pair for parts in a worst-case scenario. Capacitors can wear out over time but these can be replaced without much issue. In fact, it’s a good chance to upgrade to better sounding capacitors.

Meanwhile, Rob Gillum has just opened "Coherent Source Service" and says he has the parts and abilities to repair or replace almost anything on a Thiel. In fact, he’s even willing to honor warranty repairs for speakers still under coverage despite that he has no obligation whatsoever. Most exciting for me is he is planning "hot-rod" kits for owners to upgrade the passive pasts to maximize SQ.

I’ve listened to a wide range of speakers over the years and I’m unaware of anything <$10K than sounds better than my Thiels. Upgrading the crossovers should put me on par with most anything up to $20-30K.

To summarize, I'm a recent - enthusiastic -buyer. Zero regrets!

Thiel appeals to me.  The low efficiency is a concern for me.

The efficiency is about average, actually. Most models rated 87-89 dB. The "problem" is the low impedance. Thiels draw a lot of current. You will want a high quality amp with a decent 4 ohm rating.

Years ago I drove a pair of CS1.6s with an Ayre AX-7e. That amp is rated at "only" 60 W but doubles into a 4 ohm load. That amp had plenty of balls to drive the Thiels as loudly as I wanted.

The amp quality part is very important. Thiels are highly resolving and will reveal weaknesses in your amp, cables, and sources. I'd MUCH rather have a high quality 60 W amp (again, with a 4 ohm rating) than a 200 W meh amp. BTW, a zero-feedback design sounds fantastic with Thiels, IME.

What Thiel models are you considering?

thiel 2.4 or 2.7 are probably as big as I would go.   Might fly without the sub. Or maybe 1.6 or 1.7. I saw a pair of 1.6 s at a local dealer a while back.

I agree with unsound, get as much bass as you can afford. I went from the CS1.6 (no audible bass below 50 Hz in my room) to Vandersteen 2Ce Sig II (audible bass to mid 20s) and I could never go back to a speaker that can't go below 35-40. Also, the CS1.6 has a distortion/resonant mode in the upper midrange/lower treble. This was only apparent, to my ears, on certain recordings of female vocalists and at high SPLs. The CS1.7 has an updated woofer, so maybe not a problem with that model.

At any rate, the CS2.4 is a great speaker. My CS2.4SEs are as transparent, open, and resolved as anything I've heard south of $10K. In fact, I think they approach the very best I've heard regardless of price in those parameters (tbf, I can't do a direct comparison). Rob Gillum is going to offer "hot rod" kits for Thiels. I'm guessing an upgrade to the capacitors on a CS2.4 would make it competitive with most anything new up to $20K, maybe higher.

@audionoobie I have the SE version with audiophile-grade capacitors in the coax feed, so can't speak directly to standard CS2.4 in terms of a direct comparison. I did hear the standard version many years ago and wanted a pair but unexpected dental bills ate that budget. At that time, I was also interested in the Vandy 3A but wasn't excited to have those monoliths in my living room. I knew someone who was familiar with both and listened to the 2.4s in his room. He told me he used to prefer Thiels to Vandersteens but changed his mind, deciding that the Thiels overly emphasized sibilance. Not long after that, he moved to Vandy Quatros. I ended up with the Sig IIs as they had the 3A's midrange and tweeter plus are 8" shorter as well as more affordable.

I was super happy with the Sig IIs after some second guessing during break-in. They weren't quite as resolved as the CS1.6 but my main complaint was a veiled quality in the midrange. I was able to all but completely cure that by biwiring with a nice pair of Cardas (no way to know how much of that was because I removed the low quality jumper or because of the biwiring). The rest of my system has improved considerably since then. Most notably, I now have an Ayre AX-5 Twenty which is crazy good. Being an audiophile, my nervosa got me to wondering how much of that veiled quality was still obscuring the Ayre’s excellence. I have an early Sig II with the plastic midrange diaphragm. The natural step would be the Treos. I’ve heard the standard Treos and really liked them, but never the CT version. Well, I pretty well killed my upgrade budget with the Ayre so I started thinking about more affordable upgrade options that I thought would be promising.

After that overly long preamble . . . the Sig IIs do have more bass than the CS2.4SE. By ear, they have full output down into the mid-30s with useful output into the mid-20s. Quite amazing at that price point. The 2.4s might have *full* output just a scotch lower but the bass falls off a cliff below 30 Hz. That means they can’t reproduce the left most key or two on a piano. That said, I’ve only sampled one song (Tracy Chapman’s “3000 miles”, with organ tones) wherein that deficiency was notable. In terms of bass definition and resolution, however, the Thiels are substantially better. That is an easy trade-off given my sonic priorities. The other area where I *might* give the Sig IIs a slight edge is soundstaging. The Thiels image beyond the bounds of the speakers just like the Sig IIs but spatial depth might be just a bit shallower. I otherwise prefer the CS2.4s in every way.

In addition to the better bass definition, there is greater resolution into the midrange and treble. Microdynamics can be almost startling. I’m hearing subtle percussions that were previously unnoticed on familiar songs. Inflections of backing singers more apparent. Decay of chimes, symbols, and triangles is superb. The Thiels *are* more transparent than the Sig IIs (the reason for wanting an upgrade) altho’ this difference is not as big as I had imagined (the Sig IIs are a really good speaker, competing with other designs at multiple their price). I think the Thiels are a scotch more coherent than the Sig IIs and overall better balanced from bass to treble.

My sonic priorities are neutrality, resolution, and transparency. The Thiels better the Sig IIs in each of these. In fact, I think these Thiels (again, with the audiophile capacitors in the coax feed) get most of the performance of the very best speakers I’ve heard regardless of price. Other than the lack of bass below 30 Hz, the only shortcomings I hear are image density not on par with the best I’ve heard (might simply be sub-optimal speaker placement) and, maybe, a slight “glassy” quality in the midrange. Perhaps this is what Shane Buettner meant in his review when he wrote “slightly on the cool side of neutral”? I would need a direct comparison with a reference speaker to confirm this. Regardless, I think I’m getting 90% of the SQ of, say, Vivid Giya G3s. And I suspect I can get even better performance by upgrading the crossovers. Highly recommended!

@mapman Hi-fi shark shows CS2.3 available on audiogon for $1500 or on US Audiomart for $1000. If this is your budget, I would get one of these and see about a "hot-rod" kit from Rob Gillum.

Vandy’s are more forgiving of amplification.

I think that's probably true for the lower end Vandys because the Thiels are more resolved and transparent. Ie, upstream problems are more readily revealed. That probably changes for the carbon diaphragm Vandys. But if you're dropping $30-60K on those Vandys you are probably also getting ARC, Ayre or equivalent amplification.

@prof I would love to hear your 2.7s, My only audition with 3.7 was in the Rowland room at RMAF a few years back. Really good stuff. I would like to hear them with Ayre or ARC.

One thing I didn't write is that I think the Sig IIs soundstage pretty much as well as anything I've heard including the TAD Ref One, Vandersteen Seven, etc. So, it's hardly a problem if I don't think the CS2.4 SE is quite as good!

I'm not giving up on trying to get better image density. I have short interconnects which makes it difficult to change speaker locations but I will continue to try new placements. So far, I've tried listening distances 8-10' with the speakers 7-8.5' apart. So far, "best" results are with listening position 8-9' and speakers ~7.5' apart. Usually image density is improved with closer placement but at the expense of soundstage size.

both the 2.3's and 2.4's drop below 3 Ohms.

From Stereophile's CS2.3 measurements:

The Thiel featured above-average sensitivity, at an estimated 90.5dB(B)/2.83V/m. However, like all Jim Thiel designs, it is quite a demanding load for an amplifier to drive. Its plot of impedance magnitude and phase (fig.1) reveals it to remain below 5 ohms throughout the midrange and treble, with a dip to 2 ohms at 450Hz. Note also the combination of low impedance and high capacitive phase angle in the upper bass—wimpy amplifiers stay home.

 

The MBL omnis are peerless for disappearing and creating a 3 dimensional sonic image. Absolutely spooky, and ultimately the most realistic presentation within their frequency range

I've only heard MBLs once, at RMAF. They sounded good to my ears but nothing special. The room set-up was weird, tho', with the speakers along the long wall. Probably not optimal placement.