@andy2
have you compared Clarity, Mundorf, and Jantzen (or others)? Which ones?
have you compared Clarity, Mundorf, and Jantzen (or others)? Which ones?
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
Showing 50 responses by beetlemania
@holco Take a look at this if you’re not already aware http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/coils.htm Also, I previously suggested mounting resistors on aluminum to help with cooling when you had them buried under caps. Yeah, um, do *not* do that. It appears you will have more room on your new boards to fit everything and give the resistors some breathing room. |
Thanks for the reply, Andy. I’m pretty sure the C in CSA is for copper. Maybe your earlier experience was with Clarity SA? Tom Thiel suggested Mundorfs as a possibility for the coax feeds early last year and I considered those. From my reading, there is wide performance among Mundorfs, probably owning to their varied sources. Somewhat independently, each of us circled back to Clarity (in no small part after reading through a long capacitor thread on a’gon). The CMR range captured my imagination but Tom convinced me that CSA with a good bypass would have similar performance for less money (Thiel Audio’s MO). The Jantzens seem to be excellent and that is what @holco is using to great effect. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve heard a top-$helf system but my upgrade captures what I recall of its SQ. Of course, the CS2.4 comes up short in low bass and a XO upgrade can’t help that but my upgrade has resolution, immediacy and transparency on par with the best I’ve heard. Musical immersion. The only criticism I can muster is that image density doesn’t match the best I’ve heard. Not sure whether it’s something with my set-up or room or the speakers. But I otherwise now have my own top-shelf system. |
Nice job, @holco a second confirmation that Thiel performance can be elevated to the next tier by better passive parts. TBF, the parts I have were not available when the 2.4 was introduced. And if they were, they might have nearly doubled the retail price! I think Tom is working on a solution that gets most of the SQ I’m hearing but for less money. But final costs may be influenced depending on whether you have Lexington or FST boards. |
The driver motor distortions are less than 1/10th of anything else I have seen. And the dual cone driver has extremely low breakup This is the main reason I came back to Thiel. Off the top of my head, the only drivers that I consider clearly better than Thiel are the Vandy carbons and TAD beryllium coax, maybe some of the diamond tweeters. But those designs are well out of my budget. Jim T should be lauded for his efforts in making this level of performance available to working people. And, now, with better passive parts the performance level of those drivers gets really close to the $$$ designs. |
New XO boards now in final configuration on my former SEs. I guess I need a moniker for these. Maybe CS2.4TB for Tom’s Bliss ;^) And though the boards are finished I still want to replace my FST input and output wire. Also, I intend to replace the binding posts and make the speakers biwirable. So, not quite to my end point. I have all the parts to complete the project but the Cardas wire needs to be tinned and my soldering gun is not the right tool. Gonna have to get a solder pot . . . The new parts have various hours on them as I changed configurations over the past several weeks. I might have heard changes even up to 200 hours, which is where others have said Clarity settles in (Dave Garretson among them). So, burn in might not be finished? That said, I’m super happy with the SQ I’m hearing. Musical immersion. I get the house to myself this evening :) |
Pretty sure I once heard a V-1 with the CS7.2, no issues just music. CS5 I’ve not heard ever but agree that most Ayre amps probably not be the best match. The “40” on the indicator is for my specific combo of amp and source! I can probably calculate the typical clipping level for the combo you have below. |
@jafant glad you got to hear that Ayre stack. My combo of AX-5 and QB-9 will result in clipping around a “40” on the volume indicator (max 46, 1.5 dB steps). My room is 18x19 with a vaulted ceiling and two large openings on the rear wall. I listen at indicated 20-24 for folk and such, maybe 26-28 for orchestral, and 28-32 for rock. Much more than that becomes too loud for my preference. I have not experienced any strain at any level, just beautiful music. |
@jafant Looks like either a qx-5 or dx-5 into an ax-5 will clip at about “40” on the indicator, assuming full output CD such as most rock recordings. Only a small difference between the models. This is for XLR connections. RCA will be more like “44”. This also assumes a stock AX-5. Apparently, there is a version with 6 dB gain resistors, so that will modify accordingly. Keep in mind this is not an exact science and other factors can influence the onset of clipping. |
@jafant I have the stock resistors. I suspect the 6 dB gain version is for people with low gain phono setups. I have a TT but my cartridge and phono stage work well with my amp albeit the gain is plainly down compared to my DAC (and with hirez I rarely listen to vinyl anymore). Regardless, the stock version works well with my 2.4s. |
I really enjoyed my years with the CS1.6. I had them well away from the rear wall and there was no meaningful output below 50 cycles. I gave serious consideration to adding Vandy or Thiel subs but ended up moving on. Outside of the lack of bass, my only complaint was an irritating distortion with a subset of songs from certain female vocalists. Had me reaching for the volume control. But the overall transparency and resolution was exceptional at that price point. |
From Jim Thiel in Soundstage review of 2.4SE http://www.soundstageultra.com/equipment/thiel_cs24se.htm How were the improvements measured? Jim Thiel again: "The improved resolution is not the kind of thing that shows up well in measurements; the magnitude of the difference between the CS2.4 and the CS2.4SE is more easily heard than discerned from graphs. The new capacitors allow more nuance, air, detail, and decay to be reproduced by the coaxial drive unit. This was especially evident to us when listening to recordings that contained realistic reverberation, as well as recordings where the instruments were not processed heavily." |
FWIW, I measured freq response of a tone sweep pre and post on axis and from the listening position. Now, the microphone was simply my iPad but both channels had the same handicap. All good. Well, there was a detour but not worth typing out the story :) Tom has more sophisticated tools but his upgrade is not as far along as mine. what is Rew? |
@tomthiel Not that I’m an expert or professional but that approach sounds “right”. Measurements are useful for identifying problems but not necessarily helpful for indicating superior SQ. How is it that amps, for example, with similar measurements sound so different? The improvements I’m hearing in terms of resolution and transparency are undeniable but I’m doubtful there would be any meaningful difference on a frequency response or waterfall plot. |
An update on my upgrade impressions . . . There have times over the past couple of weeks when I wondered whether the new boards were fully settled. Regardless, I’ve noticed more than ever the differences in recording and mastering quality among albums, so it could be that’s some or all of what I’m hearing. Michael Fremer, among others, has commented on speakers that are “too” revealing. I don’t agree with his conclusion but now appreciate what he is referring to. While listening a few days ago I recalled Shane Buettner’s review of the 2.4. He generally raved about it but one complaint was that he heard “slightly on the cool side of neutral sound”. He caulked it up to the aluminum diaphragms (he’s a huge fan of Vandersteen). I ran this past Tom Thiel and he pointed out that aluminum drivers can sound bright or tizzy if poorly implemented but not “cool”. Anyhow, vocals on some songs do sound a bit thin or cool. I suspect this reflects the recording quality because vocals on other songs sound dead neutral. Something like the Norah Jones debut album or recent Keb Mo sound superb but something like Shawn Colvin’s debut not so much. Tom also mentioned that John Atkinson would find flaws in his recordings while reviewing Thiels. To be clear, I have zero regrets about the upgrade. The textures and spacious sound are intoxicating. The resolution and transparency are pretty much SOTA. This is easily the best sound I’ve had in my room and, in most ways, rivals the best systems I’ve heard. Although recording and mastering foibles become apparent on some albums I wouldn’t go back. And the well recorded music is just so freaking good. I listen to my system almost every evening and I can now bliss out more than ever. But, this might be a warning to those who share Fremer’s point of view if you are considering the XO upgrade. Curious to hear responses from the community. My upgrade is not finished. I still need to replace the hookup wire with Cardas and replace the binding posts. I’m also toying with the idea of trying a Jupiter copper foil 0.01 uF bypass cap on one of the coax feeds. |
@holco Impressive! Curious to know what difficulties you encountered replacing the hookup wire. The run from the coax board to the coax looks problematic to me. Some questions: Was your OEM wire in a tube, sealed with hot melt? How did you guide the new coax wire from the coax chamber through the fiberglass and around the brace above the woofer? How did you seal the new wire at the hole where it enters the coax chamber? Finally, what gauge is your new wire and did you have any problems fitting it into the hole on the driver tab? |
@tomthiel I am surprised by your Lex v FST listening results. And this seems to confound the upgrade path I imagined. On the one hand, FST owners will be relieved that their sound is not necessarily diminished by those parts (good news). But on the other, Lex owners may be looking at retaining fewer parts in the upgrade, increasing costs (bad news). Perhaps the Lex coils are the only parts worth salvaging? |
Your thoughts on 2.4 upgrade vs all-FST might be of interest to the group. I suppose my impressions are scattered across the many pages of this thread, so maybe it is worthwhile to summarize in a single post. I bought my CS2.4SEs in January, 2018. Of course, these cannot match the bass extension and definition of the better mega-buck speakers. And I was also aware that the 2.4s also fall a bit short of the very best in terms of qualities such as resolution and image density. But at this price point (and even 2-3 times more expensive) I don’t think you can do better for an overall fine speaker. I was really happy and could probably have lived with the SEs forever . . . except for a “glassy” quality in the midrange that I became increasingly aware of after listening to the SEs for multiple weeks. Meanwhile, the dialog with Tom Thiel on this thread had me dreaming of substantially improved sonics possible with improved crossover parts. My 2012 built SEs had FST-sourced crossovers with MKT (polyester) caps. The first thing I did was replace all sandcast resistors with Mills MRA-12s. With one channel upgraded, I listened in mono using Roon’s DSP to compare with and without the Mills (I used this procedure for all later comparisons). The Mills channel sounded richer and fuller, with just a bit more texture/microdynamics (possibly because of a lower noise floor). Listening in stereo with Mills in both channels, bass seemed to have more impact than I remembered and music was presented with more ease. Most importantly, the glassy quality in the midrange was mitigated. Tom enrolled me as his beta tester for the 2.4. After several months of correspondence and buying a few parts on my own, Tom sent me a kit with caps, coils, pre-drilled Masonite boards, and miscellaneous supplies. Most of the caps are Clarity CSAs, custom made to Thiel value capacitance, and I independently purchased Multicap RTXs to use as bypasses on the coax feed caps. Coils are ERSE or Jantzen air cores, matching Lex parts, except for one each on the coax and woofer boards in the feed position. These two are ERSE Foil Q, one of which was custom built to match the Thiel inductance value. The new build retains nothing from the FST boards. There were a few bumps in the road and a few things needed to be tested and measured before I began the build in earnest. And I had to back track at one point as an aspect of the build proved somewhat deleterious. I’ll spare the details other than to share an unrelated caution from Tom Thiel to the DIY community: be careful to match the DC resistance of the original crossovers! In mono listening with FST+Mills in one channel and the new build in the other (retaining only the Mills MRAs from the previous iteration), the CSA channel had better resolution, more textures, and apparent microdynamics for *every* voice and instrument. The CSA channel was more open, clear, and transparent. The FST channel was relatively veiled and “woolly” sounding. On some tracks these differences were subtle and on others more obvious, with textures on vocals and guitars having previously escaped my awareness. Later, I compared with and without the RTX bypasses. These produced more subtle differences (in fact, some tracks sounded indistinguishable to me), with improved transients (most notable with percussions) and slightly improved resolution/textures. A few tracks, especially concerto selections, sounded richer with the RTX. I also compared two voltages of CSA caps on the woofer board. Again, differences were relatively subtle and varied from track to track. That said, the higher voltage version seemed to have more heft on bass, kick drums and the like. Many, but not all, songs seemed to have improved ease of presentation with the higher voltage version. These are both shunt caps and it is controversial whether these have sonic consequences. To my ears, they do! As an aside, I did my comparisons after 100-200 hours of burn in but I suspect the new parts were not fully settled until closer to 300 hours. That said, it wasn’t until I installed the new boards in the other channel, listening in stereo, that I really appreciated the upgrade. I literally had a smile on my face for the next couple of hours. The clarity, intelligibility, openness, ease, resolution, and transparency are exceptional. I think the upgraded 2.4 nearly matches the very best speakers I’ve heard in those regards (my short list includes Vandersteen 7, TAD Ref One, and Vivid Giya – all north of $50K). Bass depth, of course, has not been improved by this upgrade although I perceived improved bass impact/heft. That “error of omission” aside, I can only muster two criticisms: 1) image density does not match the very best I’ve heard; and 2) the high resolution reproduction reveals flaws in recording and mastering. This latter point seems to be the only downside of the upgrade. But, hey, I’ve always said I want to hear what’s on the recording to the utmost fidelity. And well recorded music is sublime. Without question this is the best my system has sounded. It’s easier than ever for me to turn the lights off and bliss out listening to my favorite music. I was very surprised at Tom’s Lex v FST results. But I told him I was *not* putting the FST back in. In fact, the old boards are on their way to him as I write this. ;^) |
So, thank you for your participation and thank you all for your interest, which has helped me take on this rather complex and challenging project.You’re welcome and thank *you* for your coaching and encouragement. It’s been fun, even if I had a moment or two of doubt. I saved for over two years to buy my Ayre amp. But then it became obvious that my speakers were the weak link. Not wanting to wait as I saved again, I bought the SEs which I figured would be a nice step up for relatively small investment. They were, but I knew even more was possible. With the SQ I’m now hearing I think I would need to spend at least $15-20K to find something better. I suspect these are my last speakers :) |
More upgrade for less cost than the more complex 2.4.The coax has separate XO for tweeter and midrange, right? Ie, not mechanical like the 2.4. is this pic for all 3 drivers? Or just the coax? https://hi-fi.com.pl/images/numeryhfim/2012-03/jpg/44-50_03_2012_07.jpg |
If you already have CS2.4 the XO upgrade is a no-brainer, IMO. Sure, it’s not the last word in low bass extension and definition but not much music happens below 30 cycles. You’re missing only some organ notes and the left most key or two on a piano. As for the 99% of the musical spectrum, oh my goodness! If you’re really pining for everything, adding a pair of subs seems sensible. I would probably get the new Vandersteen adjustable versions if I had the funds. Or patiently wait for used Thiel subs and XO to come up on the used market. If you’re not yet an owner and wondering what Thiel to buy, there is zero doubt in my mind that the 3.7/2.7 coax is the best Thiel driver ever, and I would put it among the best from any manufacturer. Super low resonance design so you’re hearing music, not distortion. The 2.4 coax is excellent in this regard but the low slope crossover is a real challenge, and the wavy x.7 coax really solves this problem. If Tom Thiel comes up with an upgrade for the 3.7 . . . |
how do Thiels sound compared to Vandersteens?I have heard Thiel 1.6, 2.4, 2.4SE, 3.7, and 7.2; Vandersteen 2Ce Sig II, 3A Sig, Treo, Quatro, and 7 (the 7 is a true top shelf speaker and it *should* be with that price tag). I have lived with Thiel 1.6 and 2.4SE, and Vandersteen 2Ce Sig II (and am pretty familiar with 3A Sig). Comparing the Thiel 2.4 to Vandy 2/3, the Thiel has tighter, better defined bass but the Vandersteen has deeper extension. The Thiel has slightly better resolution and transparency. Some have opined that Vandersteens are "warm", "forgiving", and "laid back", Thiels are "bright", "ruthlessly revealing", and "forward". IMO, those are great exaggerations, if not entirely inaccurate. I find both brands quite close to neutral and very musical. For my sonic priorities, I prefer the bass articulation, midrange resolution, and overall transparency of the Thiel. And with my upgraded crossovers, I think you would have to move up to the carbon driver Vandersteens to match/exceed the clarity, resolution and transparency I'm getting. |
But a subtle difference between the 2 and 3 is that the smaller woofer and midrange of the 2 gives it an advantage in delicacy; since smaller drivers weigh less and move less air, they are slightly more nimble.
That’s an interesting point, Tom. I venture to guess, all other factors equal, that advantage *could* result in relatively better dynamics/transients and resolution. But this would be countered by the X.7 coax with breakup modes further out of band, a notable benefit when using low slope filters. Would be interesting to compare my modded 2.4s to the 3.7 (I’ve only heard the 3.7 once, at RMAF in the Rowland room). And the low frequency extension of the 3.7, judging from Stereophile’s measurements, reaches “only” 2-3 Hz lower than that of the 2.4. Yet another example of the tradeoffs in speaker designs. |
$1300 for CS2.4 is a great deal if they’re in good shape (clean drivers and decent cabinets). Pairs in good condition (eg, 8/10) more typically fetch about $2000. I haven’t heard the Revel 208. Years ago the M20 was on my short list and I auditioned it but ended up with Thiel CS1.6. I heard the top of the line Salon IIs at RMAF and was underwhelmed. Maybe it was the Levinson electronics but I thought their performance was pedestrian compared to the rave reviews. The 208 probably has deeper bass than the 2.4 but I’ll take the Thiel all day every day, all the more so with the possibility of Tom Thiel’s crossover upgrades. |
replacement parts are pretty much nonexistent Not quite that bad. Some parts yes, some no. In the case of my CS2.4, Rob Gillum said replacement drivers are not available but he can rebuild broken ones. And he does have some drivers for a few models. He did supply some of the coils used in my new crossover build. Sounds like that 3.5 midrange, however, is a conundrum. |
how much do you think the Thiel CS2.4 would be retailed for in today money (if they are built today?)Using a simple inflation calculator, the standard CS2.4 would retail for ~$5500 today. But that ignores much steeper inflation for copper and magnets, so call it $6000-8000. Adding the passive parts I put in could push retail north of $10K. |
@james63Without knowing what new sound you're looking for, I suggest upgrading the crossovers. The CS2.4 cabinet is very good and the drivers are outstanding. There are some *really* nice gains to be had with improved passive parts. This is a huge thread but it might be worth your time to look at posts from Tom Thiel starting January 2018. That said, if you're looking for more bass you need to add subwoofers or get something entirely different. For myself, the 2.4 bass is good enough for me (~30 Hz) and the modded XO otherwise puts the SQ on par with $$$ designs. |
My room is not quite 19.5’ wide. But setup is not centered. Left channel only 3’ from wall, right wall has a wood stove and walkway to an exit. Kinda funky, and FR measuremnts during my XO build did reveal some room mode issues worse than I imagined. Conditions ameliorated by vertical houseplants, wall coverings, a bookcase, and especially, two large openings on rear wall. I have experimented with speaker position, including toe-in, several times but keep coming back to pretty much where they now sit. |
@77jovian Thanks for posting. I, too, have an AX-5. I’m quite certain it’s my last amp. Treo CT was the top of my short list for speaker upgrade (I’ve only heard the standard Treo) but the AX-5 pretty well crushed my budget! I ended up with used CS2.4SE. I was quite happy with those. Now, with Tom Thiel’s XO upgrade, I’m quite certain these are my last speakers. |
Speaking of the other thread, I shared my impressions of the Cardas hookup wire and binding posts over there: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-cs2-4-upgrade-to-cs-2-4-se/post?postid=1713577#1713577 I am completely finished now! The SQ is superb, immersive, . . . Obviously, the upgrade didn’t change the bass extension (the 2.4 has enough for me for pretty much everything I like to listen to). But I think I’m otherwise getting SQ close to or on par with the best $peakers I’ve heard. I’m curious to listen to an uber speaker again to assess that conclusion. Thanks, Tom Thiel, for helping bring this degree of sonic bliss into my room! |
@laserjock1963 Well, *I* pulled it off successfully. Are you comfortable using a soldering iron? I didn’t have a lot of experience but my electrical engineer father and audiophile older brother taught me some basics when I was a teen. If you’re not a seasoned DIYer, I suggest waiting for the upgrade kits from Tom Thiel and Coherent Source Service. Tom spent months researching the parts and has the layout worked out (coil position is important). The kits will have single capacitors with full capacitance rather than having to run two or more in parallel (which *can* have better or worse results). The Thiel bankruptcy, however, is confounding the timing of availability. If you want to DIY without delay, you can find useful information in this thread or the one regarding CS2.4 to CS2.4SE upgrade. There are at least three of us DIYers on that thread that can offer coaching if you encounter difficulties. A hot-rodded CS2.4 is a very fine speaker! The drivers are extraordinary and improving the passive parts quality unlocks their full potential. |
Unfortunately there is only a high-pass filter so I can’t experiment with that.Have you tried the experiment of unplugging the subwoofer? The Stereophile review of the CS2 points out that the 42Hz extension is adequate for most rock music. And your system making you nauseous is pretty much the opposite of enjoying your favorite music. https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1085thiel/index.html |
I’ve never heard the 3.6 so will defer to others other than to say the 3.6 reaches deeper into the lowest octave and appears a more difficult load for the amp. Also, I’m a big fan of the coax in the 2.4. My short list of Thiels I think better than the 2.4 are 3.7 and 7.2, maybe the 6 and 2.7 (haven’t heard the last two). And that’s not considering my crossover upgrade. Don’t think I’d trade my pair for stock 3.7s or 7.2s, certainly not without listening first. Tracy Chapman is in my living room as I type :) |
Disagree, unsound, with wholesale dismissal of multiple brands known to work with Thiels, including those with sub 4 ohm impedance. It’s complicated to predict the interaction between impedance and phase angle, never mind how the partnering amp will interplay. The measurements can flag models unlikely to work and those likely to work but there is a large in-between that can only be known by listening. Also, there is the room and the listener’s preference. The Ayre AX-7 drove my CS1.6 louder than I cared for as does my AX-5 drive my CS2.4. In responding to a PM from jafant, I estimate my personal upper limit of comfort at the listening position (9’ away) to be about 85 dB. There’s about another 12 dB available before clipping with my particularly combo of amp and DAC. My experience with the CS7.2 was also powered by Ayre, either a V-1 or V-5. And my CS3.7 demo was in the Rowland room at RMAF. Wes Phillips reported that his 35 W Fisher wasn’t his first choice for the CS2.4 but “it didn’t acquit itself too badly”. General guidance of amp brands is useful but not any more so than actual reports from users who have tried specific combos of Thiel and amp. Even for the CS5, I’m confident that there are suitable amps from most of the brands you mentioned. |