^You shouldn’t have issues with bass depth. Bass volume can be a bit shy. Do you have the eq set up correctly? Unless you’re amplifier and/or room compromised, bass should be a strong suit.
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!
13,557 responses Add your response
I’ve been meaning to post here for a while. But since this was a ‘new speaker acquisition’ thing the posts seemed to be pretty technical and I couldn’t seem to find the right opportunity. Decided just to jump in. I’ve been an enthusiast for a long time and have had a number of systems over the years. In conjunction with moving (to NH) a number of years ago I sold my equipment. Kept some vintage stuff from my college days (a very long time ago) and also brought a couple thousand lp’s which are still mostly in storage. I happened to see an AR turntable for sale locally. Since I had one in the old days my curiosity was peaked. Anyway to make a short story long I bought it (see thread in “Vintage”). That resulted in dusting off my old gear - mostly vintage Marantz stuff. Sent all of it to be checked over. I needed speakers so I found a vintage shop in RI and auditioned a number of candidates. Once I heard the Thiel that was it. I didn’t exactly come in at the top of the food change as they were 1.2’s. I was so impressed by the sound! The footprint was great too as I’m in a relatively small place (and WAF is an important consideration). The speakers produced such a nice wide stage despite their rather modest size. So fast forward several months. While I really liked the speakers I would have liked just a little more on the bottom end. Came across a beautiful pair of 3.5’s. Bought them and picked them up yesterday. My listening area is up a flight of stairs from the entry so I had to bring them upstairs. The speakers came in the original boxes and I guess this is no great revelation but these puppies are heavy! (Previously had K horns and while they were heavy they could be split into two pieces so they were actually easier to move around). Finally got them unpacked and in place. They sound great! I realize every system is different but they immediately had a fuller richer sound than their little brothers. Big sound stage and wonderful clarity. But not quite as much bass as I was expecting. I’m still experimenting but my space is limited so not many options. Bottom line is I think the speakers are terrific and expect to keep them for a long time. |
I have commented before, but an additional comment might be in order.That is that terminology often obscures the discussion. Some of that obfuscation is purposeful, some is accidental. It may help to insert the word ’polarity’ when it fits. Polarity, here, is the direction the driver moves when fed a signal. A 6-volt dc (battery) signal is appropriate. With plus to plus, the driver(s) should move out into the room. Coherent speakers do that, most don’t. A Wilson, KEF, etc. will leap-frog such that the woofer comes out, midrange goes in, tweeter comes out, etc. Those speakers are polarity-incorrect. Conversely, when all drivers come out, many companies call that ’phase correct’, despite any other phase or timing anomalies. I would call that ’all out’ condition ’polarity correct’. But most designers and critics consider either behavior as OK, whether all drivers move out, or leapfrog up the array, irrespective of many phase and time anomalies. That’s because the ear-brain can reassemble the intended wave-form, and do it quite well. I believe that many listeners, including pros, actually enjoy the mental gymnastics required to reassemble the waveforms. Consider that the BBC ruled that if an individual person can distinguish positive or negative air pressure (polarity inversion), the preference-judgement is personal. Their ’research’ demonstrated that a majority of their subjects preferred negative polarity, which would make a drum hit (for instance) suck rather than blow. The leading edge would be a vacuum whereas it was a pressure wave from the real drum. The BBC deemed that the negative pressure attack was more polite and acceptable. - preferred by more (British) listeners. In that light, the typical designer generally strives for ’listenability’, that polite, acceptable presentation, which is quite often not what the microphone ’heard’ or the recording stream produced. (Deeper discussion deferred that many ’modern’ recordings invert various polarities to ’fill the mix’.) But I am addressing the speaker reproducing its input signal. Wilson (as example) inverts polarity at each driver exchange (crossover point.) Good engineering executes the hand-off between drivers with smooth phase transitions. The absence of abrupt glitches gives the ear-brain no hard evidence of trouble. And most design styles, companies and critics call that victory. In contrast Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen (and a few other oddballs) chose to preserve the phase-time information intact. Many of you guys appreciate that, most people do not. When phase is kept intact AND the drivers are aligned so that their leading edge transients all reach the ear simultaneously (time-alignment), we call that Coherence. I notice that today the C word usually means ’smooth phase transitions’. rather than our assignment of ’integrated waveform’ period. First order roll-offs (including electrical and acoustic elements) sum to produce zero phase shift. (One driver leads by the same amount that the other lags, such that at the design listening distance, they sum to produce no shift.) Add physically equidistant sound sources, and you get an actual representation of the input signal representing the recorded sound, with no need for the brain to descramble the phase and time information. Thiel and Vandersteen decided that goal of authenticity was worth all the difficulty of making it right. The industry at large does not consider that element of fidelity to be important, or important enough to warrant its difficulties. I suggest pulling out ’phase’, ’polarity’ and ’time’ in trying to understand the landscape. Richard Hardesty’s journal has been cited here. I consider his clarity and teaching style to be stellar. |
@ctsooner , @erik_squires , et al, Please see the post by the late Roy Johnson dated 05-09-2005, 12th paragraph: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/first-order-crossovers-pros-and-cons |
@cascadesphil I cannot imagine modifying the filters for the CS3.7 (really, any speaker but especially first order designs) based on John Atkinson’s quasi-anechoic measurements! That’s whack. I actually exchanged messages with that ebayer (his ebay history is spotless!) as I was buying my 2.4SEs. He had an ad for tweaking the 2.3 and 2.4 XO. I was flirting with the upgrade idea even before exchanging ideas with Tom Thiel. I am super glad I worked with Tom instead! |
"Pistonic motion" does not. To be fully accurate: at a high enough frequency most cone drivers eventually have break up modes where the driver no longer functions as a piston. It is the speaker designer's job to account for this in picking the driver and low pass filter. There is no "true piston" vs. not designation in traditional drivers, just what range and what output levels they remain pistonic in. The exception that proves the rule though are the Ohm type drivers, which are decidedly NOT pistonic. I believe they are fixed at one end, and driven at the other. |
One area in phase that you is always left out is the phase of the midrange cone during playback. If you look at the Wilson midrange it’s out of phase as it’s not a true pistonic driver. I’m sorry but this is misinformed. The correct polarity of the driver (which terminal is attached to + or - wires) has nothing to do with "true pistonic" motion. We assume they’re all pistonic in their operating range. The reason a speaker designer may flip a driver is to phase match the driver above or below it. The output’s phase angle is related to the rolloff. This flip ensures optimum frequency response across the crossover region. In fact, using positive polarity would create a deep null. With traditional (non time-aligned) 2-way speakers, flipping the tweeter relative to the woofer is quite common. With three, having the mid-range flipped relative to the woofer and tweeter is. The angle of the speaker’s baffle, the acoustic center of a driver and the crossover slopes all contribute to these choices. "Pistonic motion" does not. Lastly, if we are talking about the sliced paper cone drivers Wilson uses, those are some of the very best sounding mid and mid-woofers in the world. I have them in my own speakers and many high end manufacturers have turned to them as well. They are amazing. |
One area in phase that you is always left out is the phase of the midrange cone during playback. If you look at the Wilson midrange it's out of phase as it's not a true pistonic driver. That's not marketing hype by Vandersteen. I have no idea, but I wonder if the pre 2000 cones were phase correct for any speaker? There are break up's when they aren't pistonic and it throws things out of phase. On the flip side of phase, not everyone is effected by it. Some folks don't even notice it, but they may notice soundstage depth and pinching in the rear. Those who don't notice phase anomalies may be more aware of stage size etc... We all hear differently. I'm the first to say that I couldn't listen to Wilson speakers until recently. They have done a great job of making a dynamic speaker, that is non fatiguing, but to MY ears lack the micro and macro details that I am aware of as my Vandersteen's don't smear. It effects the leading and trailing edges per say. All speakers have to have compromises. It's who's compromises you like best or who's marketing you buy into. Makes it fun. |
Hi @unsound, All multi-way speakers employ crossovers, and the phase must align correctly or there will be frequency response anomalies and lobing effects. What I suggest you do is look at the Stereophile reviews for Thiel and Vandersteen speakers and compare them to say Monitor Audio or Wilson. your answer is there. |
I can promise you that to MY ears there are differences for sure. The deal with all digital is that it's so room/house dependent. That's mostly for power cords and conditioners and grounding. Ethernet and USB do make a noticeable difference to me though. Dave is a great guy and really knows his stuff. He's fascinating to talk to. |
And it may interest you that Dave was Thiel's national sales manager from the late 80s to 90s. He moved his family to Lexington to help Thiel navigate their rapid growth into compatible and excellent dealers that he knew from ARC and Magnepan. He eventually went back home to ARC, and everyone was better for the experience. |
@stspur I don’t think you’re going to find a 630V EL. If you’re swapping for fresh ELs just match the voltage rating. The high voltage *film* caps are for critical feed path placement in which higher voltage = thicker film = better sound. Now, if your 3.6 is like @vair68robert CS2.7 and you have ELs in the feed path and you want to upgrade to film caps then you might need to go to an outboard solution. And be prepared to $pend. |
I want to update my statement about stereo vs bridged Benchmark AHB-2 use. I spoke with John Siau today who said they updated their software to allow current to 1 ohm at full power, with no sacrifice of noise or distortion performance. Any Thiel model can be used either stereo or bridged. I listened today and found very slight subjective differences. Stereo produces slightly more 'air' and sense of harmonic detail. Bridged produces slightly fuller bass lines, probably due to the halving of damping factor from 370 to 185. Bass still sounds clean and tight. JS does not relate to these subjective differences. I will change from bridged to stereo, using one channel of each amp per speaker for a slightly better 'I am there' presentation, since 100 watts provides more than enough volume in my space. I'll also correct my statement of limited audiophile acceptance. My impression was wrong, they're selling like hotcakes. I love mine. |
Many thanks for all the responses towards my 3.6 XO project. This is proving to be such fun already and so glad to have the history along the way! With regard to the Claritycaps: I see 250v and 630v option. I know that the 8.2uf version will be used as recommended by Tomthiel however, I can't seem to find 630v versons of some of the remaining ELs if required. The original Solen VersaTronics are rated at 400v so I'm a little stumpted here. I'm checking out Madisound and Partsconnexion for all components. Any other referrals would be greatly appreciated. |
Rob - I knew Tantalums from Bryston's 1980s designs, and checked them out. Not as good as our stock caps. Bryston abandoned them also. Taking the woofer XO closer to the midrange driver would not be good.Some models would benefit from moving the XO to the cabinet floor, but the bottom is glued in. I've been running around this bush quite a bit. I will say that outboarding the crossover is having wonderful results. In addition to the gain in distance from drivers, add absence of vibration and freedom to mount components in free air, and lower ambient temperature for XO and for drivers, since the XO itself generates heat. |
@tomthiel I was reading a lot of posts all over the internet on Benchmark because I am currently buying some of their gear, including a couple of AHB2's. From what I read, I think the AHB2 gets a lot of respect in the HiFi community. Some people do not like it saying it is too dry for their tastes. Personally, I do not feel that way and love it (I owned it before). Today, I was speaking with Mike Siau (maybe the son of John) of Benchmark on some issue with my HPA4 preamp. An incredible sounding unit which I am now wondering if I should buy a second unit. There was some minor issue with something and he did some somersaults to make sure things would get resolved ASAP without me missing a second of music. I feel good about supporting companies like this. |
BTW: Benchmark's designer John Siau reviewed the XO schematics and specs and fed back the following: CS7.2 stereo or bridged, CS5, 3.7, 3.6, 2.4 stereo mode only. That said, I use bridged nearly exclusively without problems. Seems that class H amps hit a hard wall at high current into low impedances. As I've said, I sometimes see flicker, but have never shut one down. |
My amps for comparison include an Adcom 555II, a pair of Classe DR9s bridged and not and a pair of Benchmark AHB2s bridged and not. I do not find the Adcom very musical and use it mostly to drive speakers under test. I like the Classe, but the AHB is my go-to amp. It drives the CS2.2s to beyond my loudness tolerance. Its ultra sensitive overload lights tell me when I'm pushing it, which is almost never. I'd call it just the facts, and all of them, more so than the rebuilt and optimized Classe pair. The ABs are class H with a patented THX topology where the class H regulated power supply drives small class A output stages with feed-forward distortion correction. It got class A from Absolute Sound, and seemingly no cred in the hi fi community. I love 'em. |
Tom and 'tweak, Yes, as a matter of fact it was QSC model USA 850. My only critical observation was that it could have had a bit more "filling out" or saturationof the colors. But even so... Tom, I remember you posting here a while back re the Benchmark AHB2. Do you think this could drive the 3.7s, either bridged mono or single unit?I've been looking into amp upgrades and the shortlist includes Hegel, Ayre, maybe Spectral. But the Benchmark looks very intriguing, especially since that unit would do two things that make me very happy: save a bundle and get better sound. I've spent my life in and around acoustical music in orchestral halls, chamber halls and studios. All I need and desire is (as Jack Webb famously put it) "just the facts, ma'am." |
Just an aside in response to the amp mini-thread that preceded Tom's last post:I've had Thiels in my system since the mod-90s. First the 2 2, now for the last three years, the 3.7. Recently, the sound from the speakers has been breaking up. It sounded like an amp problem (Classe ca-300) but just to make sure I called a friend who works in pro audio to see if he could lend me an amp to swap for troubleshooting. He supplied a 400 watt amp that he uses for PA systems. I thought, oh boy, what will that sound like. But it was a revelation. First, it is my Classe that is going. But ... the sound. At first it sounded a little "thin" but after a few minutes, it was obvious that this was a much better presentation of the material. We listened to Boulez' cummings ist der dichter from the excellent Erato recording and some tracks from the equally excellent new Innova recording of pieces by Jeremy Beck. Everything was in its place and just as it should be, no added warmth or profiling. Timbre, stage, dynamics, transients, balance and placement of instruments in the orchestral sound field all spot-on faithful. That from a nuts and bolts pro audio machine. Quite a few implications here. |
stspur - I second what Beetle says, and I'll add my personal perspective. I haven't lived with 3.6s, but I picked up a pair, thanks to this forum, which I measured and listened to and as mentioned was thoroughly impressed. Regarding upgrade in general, be very careful. Hundreds of man-hours went into selecting and voicing those particular components for the job. You could spend a lot and do worse. But, on the other hand, there are some better components available. First, let's survey what's in there. The coils would be hard to beat with the exception of foil. But foil might require value tweaking of the circuit, since the resistance to inductance ratio is different for foil. The wire is CDA-101 aerospace grade OFHC with first-class winding. The resistors were developed in-house and are very good within their budget constraints. But Mills MRAs are better. Safe swap. Consider doubling in the signal path. Caps are upgradable, especially the lytics. Those VersaTronics lytics are stellar, industrial, long life caps. BUT, film is better. The "S" is indeed Solen. In the day it didn't get any better. Depending on your vintage, they are either made in France or Canada from French film, which was considered tied for best of form with a German film. Later, North American consumption was wound in Canada with same equipment and specs. Great caps. Those yellow caps are a foundation of Thielness. We found and bought a best of form German cap starting with the 2.2 in 1990. They are styrene film on Tin foil @ 1uF (usually within 1%). When the German company went out of business, we bought the remaining foil and film and contracted a California aerospace cap maker for what produced 60,000 caps. When that stash was gone, ERSE made a clone from a world-class Japanese film and foil. Eventually (we found from Beetle's late 2.4SEs) the cap was cloned in China with not necessarily lower quality. An interesting experiment (which I haven't yet gotten to) would be to replace the 4 parallel yellow 1uF tweeter feed caps with a 4uF CSA or CMR. Clarity's ("C") copper alloy end caps are a game changer. That swap should have no circuitry implications. We would all love to hear the outcome. As stated, electrolytics may drift over time and their sonic signature is less than best. In Thiels they are always bypassed by the yellow styrene / foil 1uF. But you could upgrade to CSA in the series feed circuits - the parallel shunts are meaningful, but less important and harder to justify for space and expenditure. The midrange feed has 2 parallel 100uF lytics. If you can fit CSA's, try it. The tweeter feed has an 8.2uF which I have targeted for a 630volt Clarity CMR. There are various upgrade stragegies, I have 3, but most require additional real estate, which is why I am migrating to outboard crossovers. They also require the ability to tweak values, especially in the parallel shunts which are tuned to driver resonances. It would be easy to make things worse. My personal perspective is to be cautious, heed the advice from this thread, and make any changes incrementally. Swapping resistors would be a safe start. If you are a cable guy, you might consider dual inputs. And if so, and if you're my kind of crazy, you might take the woofer XO out of the cabinet and 3-4' away from the electromagnetic soup, as my 2.2 experiments have suggested. Of course I and others here would appreciate your feedback. I gave this public response to reach more people than a PM would. But, we must beware of overwhelming those with less technical interests. Does anybody remember the original Thiel motto? "For the Love of Music". |
@jafant Yes i like the Dag build quality, sound is phenomanal, very refined and a little warm just what we need for Thiel speakers.Also Dag is knowned for it's power delivery doubling all the way down to 2 ohms.I can see driving the Dad S250 directly from a Totaldac d1-direct + d1-driver.That would be a simple and very neat system.Cheers. |
last_lemming Right On! Yes- the CS 2.4 can absolutely play well with as little as 60wpc. Your 12x13 room provided the icing on the cake. My 1st encounter with the 2.4 was in a small room (not exact on actual dimensions?). I always go into any demo with my living room in mind and Soundscape's room was smaller indeed. In reflection, the presentation and sound was perfect. And to think, a small Creek integrated amp was provided the aural pleasure. I was and am hooked! Happy Listening! |