2. speakers
  3. 119616-87

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!
jafant
jafant's avatar
jafant OP
20,086 posts
 

tomthiel

I hope that you are well this Spring day.  Thank You,  for more Thiel history. As always, a detailed and fascinating read.

 

Happy Listening!

tomthiel's avatar
tomthiel
1,702 posts
 
devinplombier - yes these woods more than some others do change over time.

I wanted to avoid stains when possible because the refractive index of bare wood is 3 dimensional and complexly enjoyable. Some dyes are minimally destructive, but pigmented stains obscure quite a bit. I sought out clear finishes with maximum UV blockers and film density. Without UV or oxygen wood stays fairly fresh, and over time it mellows attractively. Around 1983 when the CS3 accelerated sales, I co-developed a custom finish with Guardsman. By modifying some chemistry we got lower levels of dangerous outgasses plus higher levels of UV protection and film density.

The only stains we used were German metal oxides and/or chemical transformations (coloring via chemical reactions with the wood).

Fast-forward to around 2018 when I bought a used pair of CS1.6s and was chagrined to find the Morado finish to be a heavily pigmented, fairly bright red coating. I learned that the Guardsman custom lacquer had been replaced by an ordinary product. Also, I have seen some seriously sun-bleached Amberwood and my Dark Cherry SCS4s are heavily pigmented.

The short answer is that before 1995, Thiel put considerable effort into keeping our wood finishes natural-looking and long-lived, but later those sensibilities and capabilities were lost. Wood has a life of its own, and resists being managed.

unsound
7,341 posts
 

I thought this might be of some interest to followers of this thread, though this paper is nearly 10 years old, it just recently came to my attention:

https://www.keele-omholt-technologies.com/papers/Keele-CBT-Paper-08-Oct.-2015-Time-Phase-Behavior-of-CBT-Arrays.pdf

for those that want to take a deeper dive into the subject:

https://www.keele-omholt-technologies.com/papers.php

more discussion:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/constant-beamwidth-transducer-cbt-speakers.12060/

 

 

ronkent's avatar
ronkent
375 posts
 

Greetings Thiel fans, I wanted to update you on a modification that i made (with the great help of my friend Bob M. who did most of the leg work on this). This was inspired by a suggestion that Rob Gillum had made to us in putting some three ohm resistors in front of the mid and tweeter in the 3.7’s.

Rather than add one three ohm resistor we put two parallel going to both mid and tweeter. This would reduce the nominal impedance by 1.5 since they were in parallel. The result was a easier to listen to top end with a bit more naturalness to it. Rob gave us the idea and Bob did some digging and came up with the idea of running them in parallel rather than Use a 1.5 resistor. of course YMMV. this is what we added and it took 8 total. Dayton Audio DPR10-3.0 3 Ohm 10 Watt Precision 1% Audio Grade Resistor. Parts Express.

I would not do this unless i was pretty proficient with a soldering gun.  i would use solid silver and it takes two to make it doable,  one to hold the driver and one to solder.  when using the resistors in parallel,  be sure to twist them together. 

 

roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,122 posts
 

@ronkent 

What did you mean by "solid silver"? Did you actually mean solder containing silver?

More to discover