@silvanik My floor is a wooden floor and my system sits on a thick acoustic carpet.
I have tried the Gaia carpet discs and it didn'd do it for me, sound was very thin.
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!
13,494 responses Add your response
biannuzzi22 Contrary to what many will say, CS 3.5's do NOT need big watts or the ability to go down to 2 Ohms. The 3.5 is one of the (perhaps the easiest) easier Thiels in this regard. They will, however, really show whether it is a quality amplifier. I've run my 3.5's with an ARC Classic 60 since 1988 and it's a truly great match. That's right, 60 tube watts in triode driving the 4 ohm Thiels. I've never heard a SS amp that sounded as good with 3.5's. So look for quality and don't be swayed by all the high watt/low impedence talk that really applies to the later Thiels. Sure, the big watt amps will drive them, and if you have a large room or play at high volumes, maybe you want more than 60 watts, but they love tubes and clean, smooth detailed amps. Hope this helps! |
@thieliste thank you for your opinion and experience on Gaia feet. A question, do you have hard floor type or carpet under your 3.7s ? My set of Gaia has arrived and now I'm curious to test them, meanwhile have also sourced a set of spikes that were not included with the speakers I purchased. So, it's time to make some comparison and decide what I like better. |
@lars888888 Power output into 4 Ohms isn’t that relevant. Power output into 2 Ohms is. Look for something with between 400 and 1600 Watts into 2 Ohms. Personally I would look for something with at least 800 Watts into 2 Ohms. |
Jafant, I'm currently using a JK Acoustics Passive 5, which is an old school design from The Netherlands. Very minimalist when it comes to the number of components. Great to hear that you've experienced both, I'd bee interested to hear your experiences! Since I'm in no real rush to upgrade, I'm also considering holding out for a hybrid design which runs on pure class A when little power is required. |
@biannuzzi22 I’d suggest a recapped Threshold S 500 Series Ii. It’s a power amp, so no tape loop. |
Good Morning All, I have some information I would like to report to the group. I asked earlier about using a rubber conditioner on the rubber surrounds and this is what Rob told me: 1) I do recommend a rubber conditioner for the surrounds to your speakers, except the coax, and they are silk. For rubber surrounds I use Protectant 303. 2) I use a solder which has a high silver content. (Alpha NRG+. SAC305). Here is a link to Aerospace 303:
|
For anyone with a fireplace especially in an audio room. Always chasing an improvement in soundstage size and shape but this was originally conceived to make my walk out lower level warmer. Even with the flue packed with fiber glass and the doors closed the cold air drops 3 floors where the temp falls 4 to 5 degrees. To help solve this issue I purchased a sheet of 1-inch pink Styrofoam and 1 sheet of Luan. And 2 decorative handles and some spray adhesive. I used the same cloth that covers my home-grown acoustic panels and sprayed glued the 2 panels together with the luan on the backside so the fabric could be glued and stapled to the wood. Tight snug fit, sealing the opening. The room is warmer as a result and my audio system sounds better too. The fireplace is over my right shoulder and 12 ft away on a diagonal. The center fill is now much more precise the bass has more impact and the midbass is very specific on placement. I did the same for the other 2 fireplaces with a different choice of fabric selected by my bride. More consistent air pressure in the room is probably why there is better audio performance. TomD
|
Thanks for chiming in so far! Good to hear that there's at least one original owner whose drivers look the same. My Thiel 2.4s are powered by monoblocks from a local manufacturer called JK Acoustics. Their power rating is 105 watt into 4 ohm, but I figured they might suffice because of their dampening factor of 800 at 8 ohm. Speaker cables are Kimber 8TC, interconnects are Kimber PBJs. I mostly stream, using a Schiit Yggdrasil dac and a pi2aes 2.0 streamer connected by an Audioquest carbon aes/ebu cable. |
stringreen
Good to see you here my fellow AYRE fan and owner. Yes! to my ears, from models 3A down, Vandy and Thiel are very close in presentation and sound. (I have not spent time with model 5A. Nor did I like the Treo but did enjoy the Kento) Thiel loudspeakers have a remarkable treble section. This factor is easily confused as being "bright or"hot" on the top end. Careful cable and gear selection is a must. Happy Listening! |
lars888888
Welcome! Good to see you here. Stay tuned until one of the Panel members chimes in to address your query. Speaker CS 2.4 is a modern classic with many fans and owners here. This was my 1st Thiel "experience" An experience that I will never forget! I could easily live with this Loudspeaker, if I had not heard the CS 2.4SE. What gear and cabling rounds out your System?
Happy Listening! |
Mine has that as well just slightly noticeable. Being I purchased the pair brand new in 2005 it's got to be the many years of temperature fluctuating and normal playback wear and tear. Maybe take a Hex Key and tighten all the front screws in the case they became loose over the years which hold the speaker cones in place.
These speakers require lots of quality watts to sing their best. What amplifier are you using? |
Hi everyone, Long time reader of this thread here, but first-time poster (: I was hoping for some insights on the following: I recently exchanged my CS1.2s for a pair of 2.4s. When I brought them home, I noticed a sort of brown residue were the surround meets the cone of the mid driver. It looks a bit like ferrofluid. I'm wondering whether this is just something that happens to these drivers with as the glue ages, or whether it means my driver needs servicing or has been tampered with. I'm especially curious because to my surprise, the 2.4s sound a bit brighter than the 1.2s, where I was told they were one of the more mellow-sounding Thiels. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Here's a link to a picture of the driver and the residue: https://www.icloud.com/photos/#0d0w-Z13Lc7fTf9ntPVQODZqw
|
bianuzzi22 - Identical concept and specified performance. The main difference is the midrange driver. The original CS3 Vifa was upgraded to a custom ScanSpeak midrange that allowed broader (7 octave) coverage. Also, the CS3 woofer got a polymer coating which smoothed out its upper range. Crossover tweaks were necessary and the baffle angle is a little different. Same tweeter. The 3.5 EQ is a little more sophisticated. The CS3 sold 2000 pair and the 3.5 sold 5500 pair. I consider the CS3.5 as quintessential Jim Thiel. I am bundling the CS3 and 3.5 together. All upgrades will apply to both platforms. |
@duramax747 Absolutely not you can listen as loud as you want with the Jadis. I don’t listen at low volume but i admit i don’t listen to hard rock or any techno music. The Jadis integrated betters the Vitus in just about every departement and has so much more meat on the bone than any SS amps i have ever heard and i have heard some very very expensive ones in my system in the past 2 years. The Jadis sounds like real live music as opposed to SS amps. Price of Jadis amps is very reasonable here in France.
|
danomar - the PCS was built in the Lexington plant where any and all finishes were available including a variety of stock plus a couple levels of custom, including customer paint or other treatments. Black Ash (real veneer) was a stock finish. Gloss (piano) black was also available. And others to numerous to itemize. |
A pair of PCSes is available in Florida for anyone interested. I am very pleased with mine using a subwoofer. I cannot vouch for this particular seller, though. Question: Did the PCS originally come in a black finish/veneer? |
Good day, all! Happy Monday! I have a question for you all. Does anyone recommend using Sonax Rubber Protectant on rubber surrounds for your speakers? The only reason I ask is because I saw it on this video from Dynaudio:
|
@jafant I am using my mid-level Luxman C-12/M-12 combination. I am in a temporary housing situation, so the full system is still in boxes. Still, thus far I am impressed. To put my choices in perspective, a year or so back I decided to focus on smaller speakers because 90% of my listening is at moderate (70-80 dBA) volume levels. I was planning to get KEF Reference 1s but opted for the KEF R3 Meta a month ago because right now is not the time for the more expensive speakers. The KEF R3 Meta is surprisingly good. It produces very tight, deep bass and the midrange/treble is very clear. The soundstage is very good, too. When compared to the KEFs, the PCS speakers have more nuanced response (more cohesive and balanced) and, more important to me, a better-filled soundstage. I listen to a lot of live performances (mostly jazz) where one can discern where instruments are placed: The PCSes create a wide, dense soundstage that approaches the KEF Reference 1 and perhaps the Eclipses. I seem to be within the performance with the PCS rather than looking at it with the KEF R3s.The KEFs produce greater clarity and response overall, but the PCS sounds like one speaker whereas the KEFs seem like a collection of drivers. The R3 is still impressive, but the Thiel soundstage is what I crave. Since these speakers seem designed for use with subwoofers, I dragged out one of mine and hooked it up. Few speakers that I have heard work as well with a subwoofer as the PCSes. I was keeping an eye out for a pair of CS2.4s, but when I saw these, I needed to get them if only out of curiosity. They might fit my needs better than the 2.4. I have owned Dahlquists, Vandersteens, and a variety of other speakers, but now I understand the Thiel presentation. Very nice. Very, very nice. |
danomar and gman - I don't have direct knowledge of the PCS, it coming after my time at Thiel plus never having actually seen one. But I can throw some scattershot around it in case something may help. The Y2K PCS was a trickledown product from the 1998 CS2.3, which was Jim's first generation passive-coupled mid-tweeter. That 2.3 driver also graced the 1998 MCS. The PCS - Personal Coherent Source - was billed as a desktop system. I didn't know about a stand. I've heard that an upgraded PCS was in the background haze, which would have utilized a third generation passive coax being co-developed for the 7.3 along with a 'normal' 2-way active coax in case the passive didn't cut the mustard for the pinnacle 7.3. Such a gen3 coax would also have gone into the CS2.5. None of that happened. An interior woofer brace with drawbolt was designed for the CS7 / 7.2. I don't know about similarities / differences to the PCS. Regarding comparisons - the most direct family resemblance would be with the 2.3. The 2004 CS2.4 coax was improved and the XO refined. I've never heard either the 2.3 or PCS nor seen schematics of the PCS. My speculation is that it would likely have true first-order crossover slopes because the driving problem necessitating the hybrid first-second XO is overtaxing the bottom end of the tweeter. The CS2.3 / PCS driver has that mechanically coupled midrange driver to carry the bass end of that compound voice coil. (Clever, no?) To round out my comments, The SCS4 / PowerPoint (etc.) products all returned to true first order, having the advantage of Jim's further tricks for increased tweeter power-handling. Just for grins I'll add that my SCS4P (professional) in development places a thru-wall heatsink on both the woofer and tweeter for thermal stability when using the speaker hard for hours on end. Cheers, Tom |
danomar I’ve never owned a pair of the proprietary stands offered with the PCSs, but I can attest to the functionality of that panel for internal access. The drivers can be removed from the front, but the mid/woof is actually braced against the back of the baffle by a block of wood that slides along a kind of rail system and tightened by a very long wood screw. Does anyone know if this construction was used in other models? Anyway, it’s pretty cramped in there and the panel allows access to the crossover (which seems to be directly attached to the lovely Vampire terminals), without removal of the pretty hefty mid/woof. One reason I’m interested in the conception of that rail system is that it is part of the source of the well-known cracks that can form in the mid/woof region of the baffle. I would guess that the brace was properly tightened at the factory, but I don’t know what role it would play in the recommendations for transport. In any case the bottom panel allows access to adjust the brace, removal of which, at least, also facilitates crossover access. FWIW, I find that if one is not using an amp that truly doubles output into lower impedances, they can be a bit bass shy. However, I am constantly amazed at how well a simulacrum of closed-box bass is created by these speakers. With proper boundary placement, these are the least ported-sounding, ported speakers I’ve ever encountered! I’ve always assumed that they were meant to be used with one of the Thiel SmartSubs, and were commonly reviewed in that configuration. |
@silvanik I've had them on my 3.7s but didn't like the sound at all. It sucked the life out of my Thiels therefore i sold the Gaie feet and put back the original feet. |