@tomthiel, ..."interpretation of the artists' dream." is a slippery slope, and one fraught with potential arrogance. I'm all for improvement, and using the current status as a baseline can have merit, but it can also be an obstacle for the advancement of the original objective. I would much prefer that manipulations to the original source be up stream, be adjustable, and perhaps more importantly be defeatable.
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 unsound
@tomthiel, Of course I am most interested in the 3.5 mods! Would these baffle mods go so far as to wave guides? I would imagine that baffle manipulation might mitigate lobing? I found it interesting that both Jim Bau and John Dunlavy in their much later designs seemed to embrace variations on triangular baffles. |
@tomthiel, your actually pursuing what I have from time to time briefly considered. Bravo! Years ago, when he was then demonstrating the then new CS 5's; I questioned Jim as to why he didn't use a more tapered narrower baffle, he told me that he would have preferred to use wider, yet still curved baffles. But succumbed to market considerations. He went on to say that wider baffles would offer the end user more predictable results with less room to room variability. |
While I commend Stereophile for actually measuring some of the gear they review. Some of their published measurements are from less than ideal procedures. In particular their speaker measurements and especially those pertaining to time. Ideally they would use anechoic measurements and do them from a distance consistent with manufacturers recommended listening distances. John Dunlavy took them to task for their measurement protocols. |
@tomthiel. Too bad about the CS 2's. From time to time I see reasonably nice examples being offered for sale for about a couple of hundred bucks. Shari once told me that they were Thiel's most reliable product. The sensitivity being a fairly reasonable 87 dB is enhanced with a very smooth (and fairly kind load for Thiel's) 6 Ohm nominal / 5 Ohm minimum impedance. All in all easy to drive. This and bass that drops cleanly to below 40 Hz. Other than the trick baffle/grill (which perhaps fortunately is a bit difficult to remove) it seems like a rather simple straightforward design of rather exceptional execution, that could be easily maintained for a long time. And no need for stands!, ha. All told at present prices these might be the best used speaker values currently available. These could make for great entry into the hobby, gift setup, charitable contribution, etc.. I'm sure many of these were sold. It almost becomes a social consideration as to whether or not to let these go to waste. Lest I mislead anyone about the ease of powering them, let me say that while from a technical perspective they are very accommodating, sonically they can be more discriminating.
|
@tomthiel, it appears that you’d settled on a path. That is most encouraging. The models you’d decided to start with are perhaps closest to my heart. Though I must admit that Jim’s last co-axial drivers certainly have their appeal. Do you think your updated CS 5’s with simpler crossovers will ease the amplifier burden? |
Re: Thiel CS 3.5 bass eq and subs please see my thoughts previously posted here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/thiel-owners-2?page=12 With subs I recommend using the eq at the 40 Hz setting. |
I am in complete agreement with Beetlemania. The core designs are what helped separate Thiel from the herd. It would be hard for a small company to market competing design principles and still maintain credibility. Grooming a replacement for Jim wouldn't be too easy. As the late Roy Johnson of Green Mountain used to say, most people aren't up to doing the math. There aren't that many with the chops and the will. It's one thing to put together a 1st order crossover in a slanted box , it's another to customize for driver anomalies so that the whole acts as a time coherent system. When I first got serious about auditioning speakers, and not understanding the reasons why, I kept coming back to the few time coherent designs (the maggies were the only exception even considered). To this day I am still consistently attracted to time correct designs over all others. |
@altx, I’n the past I’ve run CS2’s with a few different amps including amongst others the B&K ST 140 and closer to your EX-442, the B&K M 200’s. The M200’s are really nice. I am not familiar with the Sim intergrated. I do know that the Sim amps have over the years garnered mixed reviews. I’d be concerned about resale value with the Sim. The CS 2’s are especially easy to drive Thiel speakers. But, their sonic nature requires special consideration. The ported bass can be a bit bloomy and the upper midrange to lower treble can become a bit forward and hard if not carefully matched to appropriate upstream components. You’d be mistaken if you were to assume from the above that I don’t care for them. They are IMHO one of the high end’s greatest speaker values. With all that said I’m not sure that a move to the Sim would be an improvement, and perhaps even a step back from your B&K. I strongly suggest you audition with your speakers before making a move. |
@altx, I’m not really versed in the intergrated market. iIntergrateds do offer value in reducing the significant cost of case work, reduced cabling and shelf space. On the other hand, if you notice the top pres often have separate power supplies, as do the Uber high end power amps. Typically separate power amps offer better isolation of noise and heat and better possible weight distribution. Often one will see higher class A bias, and or better power delivery into lower impedances from a manufacturers separates than from their own comparable intergrateds Both the Hegel and the Ayre’s have received rave reviews. I haven’t heard the Hegel’s in any sort of serious context. I have no opinion on them. I’ve only heard the early Ayer separates. I found those Ayre’s too rolled off in the top end for my liking. YMMV. The more recent models have been described as sounding quite different. As I posted earlier, the CS 2’s with their 6 Ohm nominal / 5 Ohm minimum super smooth impedance, and fairly easy 88 dB sensitivity are from a technical stand point rather easy to drive. You should have plenty of options to choose from. Just be mindful of the CS 2’s sonic signature. At these prices have you considered moving up the Thiel line? |
I've mentioned this before, but perhaps it's worth mentioning again. Claims of stability into a given impedance doesn't really say much, other than the amp won't go into oscillation when faced with such an impedance. Sure it's nice to know your amp won't blow up when confronted by such a load, but it doesn't indicate how it will perform when dealing with it. How much power can it deliver under such a load? Failing to double down into lower impedances suggests that frequency linearity could be compromised at the amps high power outputs. Often times amplifiers start to strain and sound hard before going into actual clipping. Altx's CS 2's have a fairly easy and particularly smooth impedance for any speaker never mind a Thiel. Probably not an issue for him. https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-loudspeaker-measurements Neither of the afore mentioned intergrateds are spec'd below 8 Ohms. The Ayre EX 8's measurements: https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ex-8-integrated-hub-integrated-amplifier-measurem... are rather disappointing to my eyes for such an expensive ss amp. Still, for the CS2's if not pushed too hard in a smaller room the Ayre EX 8 could work. Unfortunately I couldn't find independent measurements for the Hegel 390i, but is spec'd for much higher power output into 8 Ohms. https://www.hegel.com/products/integrated/h390 The Hegel 390i will probably work for the Theil CS 2's. If an amplifier can double down into lower impedances, they'll likely list those specs as bragging rights. If an amplifier can't double down (or come reasonably close) into lower impedances, It's less likely they'll list those specs because they're not proud of them. |
@warjarrett, tomthiel set you right. Two subs are better than one. Especially for two channel music as opposed to the .1 output for home theatre. Unlike HT with it’s dedicated sub channel, when using one sub for two channel sources, the bass frequencies need to be summed. It’s possible that one channels signal will be overlapping and opposing the other channel, which can actually cause bass subtraction. Furthermore, having two subs can distribute the bass in the room so that room influenced peaks and valleys can be evened out. |
@warjarrett, I'm envious of your potential setup! I'm confident that such a configuration will compete with systems that cost multiplies of your proposed Thiel system. I'm not trying to tell you what to do or how to decorate, but...,there is a strong argument to be made for using even more than 2 subs. Using even more multiple smaller subs to even out room induced anomalies that particularly effect bass response, might be more effective than a couple of larger subs. DSP can also be quite helpful with bass peaks though much less so with nulls. Of course vertical space loss might be less intrusive than extra footprint room space loss. Not to mention the extra cabling required. With so much invested in bass response, one has to wonder if the 3.7's could be modified for sealed bass response? Perhaps replacing the passive radiator with another woofer and appropriate cross-over to compensate for differing proximities to the floor and the variables that brings. What ever you decide, I wish you the best of luck and do hope your report back on your decisions and results. I'm sure many here share my envious curiosity. I |
@tomthiel, I think your 3 series division is most logical. There is much respective overlaps there. The division also corresponds to amplification requirements of their respective eras, earlier models >4Ohms, later models <3 Ohms, and what users might have built around. I have no idea how many units have survived. IMHO, the marketplace for these speakers is too unstable now to use as a barometer. @thielrules, this also true of many other manufacturer's powered subs. Unlike some high end consumer class D amps, the OEM Class D units have perhaps become the most persistent break down problem in audio presently. |
@jafant , For your reconsideration: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-2-loudspeaker-specifications https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-2-loudspeaker-measurements https://www.ayre.com/products/amplification/ax-5-twenty/#FEATURES-SPECIFICATIONS https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ax-5-integrated-amplifier-measurements https://www.ayre.com/products/amplification/ex-8/#FEATURES-SPECIFICATIONS https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ex-8-integrated-hub-integrated-amplifier-measurem... https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-ax-7-integrated-amplifier-specifications https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-ax-7-integrated-amplifier-measurements |
@beetlemania, @jafant, https://www.manualslib.com/manual/170241/Thiel-Cs2-4.html?page=5#manual The CS 2.4's are spec'd at : 87 dB@2.87 V -1m and suggests a minimum of 100 Watts per channel I would offer that even accounting for gain from room lift and the doubling of speakers, the sensitivity drop off from standard 8 ohm rating to actual load by 3dB for each halving of impedance and similar loss to actual recommended listening distance of 3 meters would preclude a 90 dB sensitivity with CS 2.4's . With an admittedly crude phone app I reach peaks in excess of 100 dB's at my listening position, sometimes up to a few times per day, though only averaging dB's in the mid 60's. Many amplifier manufacturers suggest that amplifiers are in their most linear state somewhere between 10 and 20 % of rated full power, and further recommend that one have 8 to 10 or more times that of clean head room power available beyond that. As far as the ability to "vomit" power into 2 Ohms; I would suggest that ability to do so is suggestive of a healthy response for the speaker load at hand. Not being able to do so is often suggestive of a weak power supply and/or poor heat dissipation capabilities. If an amp manufacturer's amp is capable of doubling down into 2 Ohms or come reasonably close to doing so, they are likely to brag about it. If an amp manufacturer fails to list their amps specs into 2 Ohms, it's likely because they are not proud of those measurements. https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ax-5-integrated-amplifier-measurements When Stereophile measured of the AX-5 into 2 Ohms it clipped at 220 Watts with only one channel driven with a higher level of distortion at lower powers. …"That the AX-5 was not as comfortable driving 2 ohms as it was higher impedances can be seen if fig.6.".."But into 2 Ohms (green), not only is the THD higher, but the level was a little unstable at the lower frequencies." https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurements With the 2.4's measured sub 3 Ohm load and difficult phase angle, that might be good enough, but I think one could do better. When driving Thiel's, it might be prudent to ask; what would Jim Thiel do? |
@beetlemania, The CS 2.4's measure closer to 2 Ohms than they do to 4 Ohms. As there is a direct correspondence model between static impedance figures and sensitivity, measurements are typically made at such fixed points. I don't agree with your assertion that measurements tell you "nothing" about how an amp sounds. Quite the opposite, I think that while measurements might not tell all about how an amp sounds, some aspects of sound are quite predictable from measurements. Frequency response, impedance, power output, distortion, harmonic content, etc., etc., and when and where they are applicable can give one quite a bit of insight into predictable sound. These measurements also provide manufactures an opportunity to provide consistent results to the end user from sample to sample of a given product. They also indicate in what situations a product might or might not be appropriate. Furthermore, measurements give the consumer an opportunity to discover whether a manufacturer knows and or cares about what they are doing. The amplifiers under consideration are not inexpensive. Having such a generous budget should probably allow for consideration of more options. That the products under consideration measure as they do, suggests that they might have been intended for other different uses. In other applications they may possibly be ideal. The quote from Thiel is most interesting. What is the intention of the use of the words "high sonic quality". In my conversations with Jim he told me that when he referred to an amplifiers power output, he was referring to standard 8 Ohm ratings. And, that recommendations for power output was with the understanding that one would be using a quality ss amp that could double down, and that if one was for instance choosing to use a tube amp then one should double the power output recommendations accordingly. Was Jim referring to "high sonic quality" as judged purely by perception or by technical prowess and the sonic consequences? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's the latter. An amp rated at 100 Watts that can double down to 400 Watts at 2 Ohms would qualify as an amp with more "high sonic quality" than an amp rated as 200 Watts that was heading into oscillation below 4 Ohms, when being asked to drive a sub 4 Ohm load. |
Mod Squad seemed to really start to make their mark with "Tip Toes". Some conrad-johnson pre's can work quite well with some McCormack amps. But due to the high output impedance of some of the c-j pre's coupled with the low input impedance of some of the McCormack amps it can be a bit trickier. Furthermore, the high output of some c-j pres with the high input sensitivity of some McCormack amps can reduce the effective range of the volume control. Of course c-j doesn't offered balanced outputs for some of the McCormack's balanced inputs. |
@sdecker, thanks for the specifics. It's helpful. Checking the c-j website: https://conradjohnson.com/vintage-conrad-johnson-products/ It turns out that the output impedances aren't quite as severe as I thought. I might have been confusing the Audible Illusion pres with them. In any event, unless one is using some weird esoteric cables I doubt there should be many issues with that. On the other hand, the gain and output voltages can be even higher than I thought. Let me compliment you on your choice of the Sonic Frontiers pre. I am a huge fan. I typically fall in the ss camp, but the SF models are exceptional. A dear friend had an SFL 3 that I heard quite often. Despite rumors of troublesome volume controls; count me as mightily impressed. One of my all time favorites. |
@coop_301 , Just to clarify; that with the Thiel’s sonically I’d much prefer the ML to the Crown or Eagle, and many others too. Which is not to say those amps might not be preferable with other speakers. The Eagle would be a great match with more reticent speakers (Vandersteen’s come to mind), or if one needed very high volume levels in a large space; the Crown could be just the ticket. i can’t speak to the BAT amps I will say that at one of my preferred dealers who had the then entire lineup on display; when just approaching the volume controls on each and every pre, a rush of static ran through the speakers connected to their respective specific set ups. I immediately lost interest in the brand.
|