Schubert, could be. Check the drivers very carefully. Make sure they are from Thiel. Some buy beat up speakers, put different drivers in and dump them on unsuspecting buyers. The drivers might appear to be off the shelf parts, but Jim Thiel often had customized lots just for his individual designs. The cross-overs were adapted to these customized drivers. Note if the surrounds are similar and if the screw hole patterns are properly symmetrical. Use a photo of known samples as a base line. Lower the volume and listen to each driver up close and individually. The grills on the CS 2’s are particularly important on this model, as they are shaped to work with the baffles for the designed dispersion characteristics. If you notice paint removed from the baffles during inspection, don’t worry, Thiel used automotive tape to help keep the grills attach to the baffles. It’s only a hidden cosmetics issue and new tape will bring them right back.
Scoring on Used Thiels here
Has anyone scored a great deal on used Thiels here lately? With Thiel going under, there appear to be a lot of good deals on used THiels here for takers. Anyone picked used Thiels up here recently and regretted it?
Just wondering. Some of the used prices look too good to pass up.
Just wondering. Some of the used prices look too good to pass up.
61 responses Add your response
Been looking but may have to wait to play with something new in that some unexpected household repairs came up. Problem is WAF will be a problem with 2-3 models large enough to possibly eliminate need for a sub. 1.6 woud work but be more of a lateral move so no huge incentive there. SCS monitors would fit nicely but have not come across those still very much. Also still not ruling out various other lines still as well but not likely to do anything for a while now. What I have sounds very good but I do like to try different things. The info on this thread has been very helpful so thanks to all for that. |
Unsound ... you are right the Thiel equalizer has a high input impedance ... either the 90k you mention or perhaps 100k. That is why it can take the high output impedance of the SP6's or other pure tube preamps. However, its output impedance is very low, so it works well into the 10K input impedance of the Outlaw monoblocks, which is low even for solid state amplifiers. |
| Post removed |
sandydennis11, https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs37-loudspeaker-measurements https://www.anthemav.com/products-current/model=str-power-amplifier/page=specs I don't see this as a good match. |
Re MBLs, rooms etc. I have a very nice sounding room as fortunately it was a reno done with the assistance of an acoustician. All the acoustic "treatment" is hidden as part of the design, so for instance the ceiling is built down and is actually covered in stretched fabric (you wouldn't even know until you looked because it's so flat), with bass/mid traps at strategic points behind the fabric. And it acts as a first reflection absorber for the ceiling bounce. Big shag rug, huge stuffed sofa, and a variety of velvet curtains, thick and thin, which I can pull along the walls as required. So I can have my room "more damped" or "more live." I've recently gone "more live" with my room, even have experimented adding a diffusor at first reflection points. I really enjoy the added energy and presence and airiness of the more live rooms in some ways. Though ultimately if I had to choose one, I think I prefer a bit on the damped side (e.g. when I pull my velvet curtain across the first reflection points of the speakers). This cuts out any wall bounce/room hash and the sound becomes lush and smooth, variations in instrumental timbre more nuanced, voices more fleshy and natural, and the finest details of room and reverb on the recording become apparent - different recordings sounding more different. I'm trying to add a bit of diffusion to see if I can split the difference. Anyway, I pretty much anyone who ever thought the MBLs sounded bright, harsh, strident or metallic at demos would not find them so in my room. No doubt due to the more damped nature of the room. They sound smooth, easy, yet ridiculously resolving - on a level I still don't think I've heard elsewhere. I agree with Jonathan Valin who long touted the MBL tweeter as the best, or one of the best, in the world. It provides astounding clarity yet sounds so utterly "un-tweeter-like." Sonic objects are just "there." Back to the Thiel show....and hey, Thiels are pretty good too...:-) |
A little off the track, but four or five Thiel 3.5's make a superb surround sound system. the various locations tend to cancel out room resonances and without room correction allow their smooth bass to really make itself known. You haven't heard an organ at home until you hear 16hz on such a system. Another oft overlooked consideration .... the 3.5's equalizers serve as a buffer for high impedance tube preamps feeding low impedance solid state amp inputs. This is particularly advantageous for me as I use ARC SP6a preamps into Outlaw M200 monoblocks (10k ohm inputs) to drive the system. |
http://www.fredsoundofmusic.com/specials/pre-owned-components.html U15040 THIELCS2.2FLOOR STANDING SPEAKER PAIR 999.00 95U15186 THIELCS3.6FLOOR STANDING SPEAKER PAIR-AS IS 899.95 If you live in the Northwest Fred's in Portland has these . |
beetle one has to hear the MBLs set up properly to hear what prof is talking about. I’ve heard it in a showroom but never at a show. The OHM F5 speakers I have in my main rig are my attempt to capture that at home. They do quite well for a fraction of the cost. Most peoples rooms, including mine, are limited compared to the dealer room I heard the ultimate mbl demo in, often in practice bringing mbl back closer to the pack mainly in terms of soundstage depth and 3-D holographic imaging. The OHMs do probably have an edge on mbl in terms of coherency of the sound top to bottom, as do Thiels and a handful of others over the rest. I’m used to that very coherent sound top to bottom and tend to levitate to speakers that exceed in that area. |
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 rangeI'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. |
unsound, I was big on Dunlavy when they were popular, heard many models, including auditioning some as possible purchases. The Aletha model (unfortunately not many made as Dunlavy folded not long after introduction) was really something. It produced one of the most realistic sound I'd heard at that point. But as you know Dunlavy speakers were always really big, even their "decor-sized" models like the Aletha. And Dunlavy was a bit more head-in-the-vice in terms of optimizing listener position, Thiels with the coaxial drivers more forgiving. |
both the 2.3's and 2.4's drop below 3 Ohms. From Stereophile's CS2.3 measurements:
|
beetlemania, On the subject of soundstaging: I've always owned speakers that were particularly good at disappearing and soundstaging. Which is a bit ironic because my first priority by far is tone in a sound system - the ability to portray beautiful timbral qualities of voices and instruments. If a speaker doesn't do that, I don't care at all what else it does. I remember a formative experience with this in the 90's listening to some massive Infinity speakers at a shop in New York, playing some orchestral music. For the first time ever a hi-fi system reproduced in front of me something like the scale of a symphony orchestra, with incredible depth, transparency and soundstaging "like being there." Except to my ears what was missing was the beautiful nature and variety of the timbral voices of real orchestral instruments. It was the equivalent of listening to an orchestra where every instrument had been replaced by plastic replicas. I quickly learned that without beautiful tone, soundtaging and imaging was a neat trick that would quickly bore me. But once I'm hearing great tone and find myself compelled to sit and listen, I love great imaging and soundstaging, and "disappearing" speakers. To that end almost every speaker I've owned or has passed through my listening room has been among the best disappearing/soundstaging acts I've heard anywhere, from Quad ESL 63s, Von Scwheikert, Waveform, Shun Mook, Audio Physic, Thiel, Hales and many others, on up to my current Thiels and my MBL omnis. 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 (that I've experienced in my room and most other rooms). But the Thiel 3.7s are probably the box speaker that gives them the most run for the money. Back to the Thiel 2.7s - I love their image density and palpable presence at lest as much for electronic music (a love of mine) as for acoustic sources. When I go through various electronic music the ever-surprising variety of sounds, from the tiniest beeps dotting the air around the speakers to groaning upper bass synths vibrating a colum of air "between " the speakers, it feels almost like I've invited aliens right in to the room with me to perform. Hard to give up once heard. |
Go for it! mapman excellent speaker traits and characteristics as above. I chose Thiel speakers for their inherently rich timbre of different instruments. The CS 2.4 is a real sweet spot in the modern line. I cannot comment on more vintage models. Keep me posted on the models that you audition. Happy Listening! |
Thiel recommended at least 1' from the rear wall, at least 3' from side walls, and at least 8' from the listening position. Thiel recommended ideally, 3' from the rear wall, 5' from the side walls and 10' (he measured at 3 meters) from listening position. The little SCS's with their single co-axial driver was the most forgiving in this regard. Listening height is more of an issue (like most dynamic time coherent designs) than with other designs. |
2.3s on US audiomart look very nice. Would only have to ship a few hundred miles.... They are big though. Probably more obtrusive than I’d like in that room. They have to go in a particular location in that room, would be very close to rear wall and with an even taller solid wood cabinet immediately to the right, and on either side of a big screen TV sitting on a very solid but open wood stand. Not ideal for those I suspect. This is a second system after all in our family room and things need to not be obtrusive. The cs1.6s would fit in nicely I think. I could just keep the sub. OR maybe hold out for 1.7s? Gotta get it right. No rush. What I have now sounds very good, but you know how it goes.... |
Mapman, in the present marketplace CS 2’s Should be in mint shape to command $600. FYI, the CS 2’s have been Thiel’s most durable and reliable model. The impedance is one of the smoothest I’ve ever seen, 6 Ohms nominal, 5 Ohms minimal with a reasonable 87 dB sensitivity. Minimum suggested power was 40 Watts. Though technically easy to drive, sonically there’s a bit more to consider: the ported bass can be a bit soft if not driven with an amp with good damping, and the treble needs to be treated delicately. I haven’t heard your integrated, and I don’t typically like to over generalize like this, but Class D’s often are tight in the bass,so long as the impedance doesn’t drop too low ( no problem w/ CS 2’s) and the Class D’s often roll off the high’s a bit. Again way over generalizing Class D’s, but if it holds true, just might work very nicely indeed. FWIW, Jim Thiel thought Class D’s sonics should be limited to subwoofers. But a lot of time has transpired since then, and who knows perhaps he might have changed his mind, if he had the opportunity to hear the more recent offerings. |
@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. |
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. |
One local dealer does still have a pair of used black matte cs1.6s for under $1k I believe. This would work aesthetically but I'm thinking more of a lateral move from the Triangle monitors in that the bass extension is limited. Of course I do have the sub.... Another local shop has a used pair of cs2s (listed on ebay) just a tad beat up (pushed in dust caps, etc, for $600. Might work aesthetically with a little clean up. Would have to take a look. |
beetlemania, Nice post! I can tell you that if you were listening to the 3.7s you wouldn't have any reservations about the soundstaging, depth. The 2.7s I have do fore-shorten depth a bit, but the 3.7s sound just spreads massively, seems to go on forever in terms of depth and width. That's one reason they are still sitting in my house and I haven't sold them. I find the same regarding the microdynamics in teh 2.7 as you do in the 2.4. They really excel in that area and given an aliveness and a sense of the actual changes in effort for a musician, even more than my 3.7s. I continually note how this plays out in vocals as well, like you mentioned. The the inflections in a singer's performance are more pronounced and it's that much more like listening to a real person sing. When I spend an evening going checking out, say, Tidal tracks of various singers I'm continually struck the the sensation that truly unique and different voices are making appearances in my room. And the fact the 2.7s produce the most concise, dense imaging I've experienced also makes it all the more palpable. And that's a curious area where our experiences part on our speakers. I wonder if this was an area somehow improved with the 2.7s (thought dense imaging has traditionally been a trait of Thiel speakers), or whether it is due to how you've set your speakers up. I find I have quite a lot of flexibility with the 2.7 and 3.7, and can go quite wide apart while maintaining image focus and density (though a bit less leeway with the 2.7s over the 3.7s). |
@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.
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! |
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. |
uberwaltz, been eyeing those myself, even though I don't need another pair. Unfortunately, Mapman's current integrated amps doesn't have a tape loop to accommodate the 3.5's eq. Too bad, as his room seems up to carrying that down to 20 Hz small foot print, not dropping below 4 Ohms, sealed box bass. |
I suggest getting as much bass as you can. IMHO, Thiel's might sometimes sound a bit tilted up without lower octave support. With the various Thiel's models I think you'll find that the heights of the cabinets vary more than the actual footprints. IMHO, the sloping baffles tend make the cabinets less visually obtrusive. Something to keep in mind with Thiel's is that in order to appreciate all that Thiel's offer; one must be cognizant of placement and listening position. I'm firmly in the camp of amps for speakers, not speakers for amps, and perhaps even more so with Thiel's. |
