Thiel Owners

ronkent

I sure will. Dynamic headroom is a must for me so if the first watt sounds great and I can get plenty additional watts then why not. I have Pass XA200.5 in room now. I was using Bricasti M28 before that. 

If you look at the lid off the Rex 500 and Rex 300 it appears the Rex 500 has a very different layout. The paper in oil caps in 500 are not seen in 300 for instance. 

Tom

Thanks for chiming in and providing reliable intel.

Duramax, Well if i had the dollars and even more, the space for it, i would get a 500 now and then go mono in about a year as i think it is pretty easy to convert them  (not sure if it can be done at home or sent back to the factory).  

guessing you like the Pass.  had their XP22 preamp a few years back and much prefer my current preamp (especially with Thiels) the BAT VK 80.   if you are ever in the Greensboro area, please let me know.,

Unsound

Thank you for the clarification on the subwoofer interaction.

So just to satisfy my curiosity, will twin subwoofers perform as well or better than say ported base drivers in a pair of speakers. My apologies for all the questions I haven't experimented with that many speakers and come to think of it, the ones I do have or tried are all ported or passive radiated. 

Tomthiel

Thank you so much for the additional information, its exactly what Duramax was eluding too. 

Duramax747

I had no reason to doubt what you were say as a matter of fact after you mentioned about going the route of the 2.4's, I got even more excited about the looking into the them and thinking about the possibilities. While I was walking along the beach it dawned on me about using the pair of subs either the SS-2' or 2Wq's of which I have both.

I have time, the upstairs renovation won't start till after is cools down a little and I can start work in the attic, pretty sure that will be hotter than your room with no A/C lol, but oh cool it was in that hot room.

Seems the more I look into the 2.4 the information keeps pushing me in that

direction. 

Take care and Happy listening.

I've got a really nice pair of CS1.5 that I purchased second-hand a year ago. They sound great but they look a bit different than most. The mid-woofers look original except they have white cones. Could this be repair or replacement from Rob at Coherant ? 

I would not normally part with these speakers but I was fortunate to find a really nice pair of CS2.2 so it's time someone else enjoys these and I'd like to know if they are genuine replacements or repairs. Would it be worth removing one of the woofers to see if there is a tag or any ID if Rob did the work?  Thanks.

@ig316b , That’s a bit of an open ended question?

Not all subwoofers are the same. Amongst other things, many subwoofers are ported as well.

Ported speakers have the advantage of providing more bass in a smaller box and/or more efficiently. However if one is pursuing more accurate bass, especially if time coherence is an objective ports, slots, passive radiators, etc., are a compromise. With the first order 6 dB slope used in most time coherent designs exacerbates this. With that said it’s quite remarkable that Jim was able to make ported bass speakers as well as most anyone at their price points and above, even compared to designs without time coherence objectives using more forgiving cross overs.

Still my preference is, for amongst other things: sealed boxes.  In the past blending subs with main monitors was problematic.Things have advanced, and it’s much more likely to succeed in satisfactory blending today. IMHO, ports and their ilk as a design principle, should only be considered when space and/or finances are more limited.