vair68robert
any Cable/Cord discussion(s) are welcomed here! Have fun and keep us posted on progress.
Happy Listening!
any Cable/Cord discussion(s) are welcomed here! Have fun and keep us posted on progress.
Happy Listening!
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!
13,745 responses Add your response
sdl4 the Parsec is 4 , 2 for each polarity ( Quad link ) Go to Cardas look at the picture of the Parsec speaker cable , they show one side single ended , you'll see a twisted pair of wires going to a spade connector for each polarity , then look at the other end , 4 wires ( bi-wired ) that are straight or a single wire . I can't explain the error in the catalog , Cardas uses 15.5 , 11.5 and 9.5 awg , but since your question I discovered that they a have 6.5 awg used in Clear only . Call or e-mail Cardas , Start a forum question to see if anybody made a lateral move by going from Quadlink or Golden Reference to Parsec or Clear Reflection , the only difference being the patented Matched Propagation . Yes there is a special way , that is why a solder pot is needed , check out Cardas video . Contact Michael Percy Audio for cable and connectors , he might prepare the cable ends for you so you wouildn't have to purchase a solder pot and solder bar ( you can't use solder wire in it ) I'm sure this is boring others so you can e-mail me at rsr921@live.com Rob |
Rob, Thanks for the additional info on the Cardas cables, but I'm still a little confused. Looking at the Cardas website and a 2019 Cardas catalog I have, it looks like the Parsec speaker cable is made of 4 X 15.5 AWG conductors in a star-quad arrangement rather than 2 X 15.5 AWG. Also, the Clear Beyond is listed as 8 X 10.5 in the catalog and 8 X 9.5 on the website. Not a big deal, I guess, but still confusing. Both sources make it clear that the chassis wire is Litz wire with individual strands coated with enamel. Did you have to deal with the enamel in any special way when you terminated the wires or does the solder take care of it? |
sdl4 If you look at the Cardas Audio website then Beyond Clear you'll see 4 X 9.5 awg , the chassis wire is 1 of those (9 different guages) without the 2 layers of shielding . If you decide to try you'll need the following tools wire stripper , crimping tool , solder pot , solder iron and heat gun . I completed mine about 10 daysago and are now broken in. I have found it hard not to express my enthusiasm over these since every day, every album I am enjoying them like hearing them for the first time , to me this was one of those changes that turned into a "Hey Hey" & "Holy Cow" moment vs. just a "that sounds better" one . The Parsec cable that you said you could afford uses 2 X 15.5 awg wires = 12 awg , the same as my first set of Quadlink, As far as the match propagation , I'm sure there is something to it but how much ? For the cost it's definatly something to think about , especially with your required length . Rob |
vair68robert, Thanks for the suggestion about making DIY cables from the Cardas 9.5 gauge chassis wire. Your thoughts are interesting about how Cardas' "golden ratio" designs may be affecting what you hear from the cables you've tried. I'm also wondering about the audio effects of Cardas' use of "matched propagation" in their newer cables to match the speed of the conductors and dielectrics. Maybe this type of construction matters or maybe it's mainly marketing hype - I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. How is the chassis wire constructed? |
Robert - there are many variables in wire including gauge, purity, surface smoothness, dialectrics, layout, etc. To some degree, enough size is enough and the other design parameters become more important. Cardas knows a lot. Regarding internal wire: my point was that XO to driver resistance change will have more effect on tonality than pre XO runs. In fact, the differences will be pretty negligible and the other considerations may tip the balance in favor of "better" wire. Norah Jones rocks. Little slice of history. The late Bob Lundvall found and signed Norah to his Blue Note label. I was working with his son Kurt who has his own audiophile recording and mastering business. Bob asked Kurt to critique the master of Come Away with Me, for which one of his references was my Thiel CS2.2s. I imagine that Kurt's evaluation notes probably had some influence on the final master. I love the recording. |
I would like to amend a statement I made from " size matters " to sizes matters . When Mr. Thiel asked me about the AWG of the cables I was using vs.the cables that I made I was suprised that a smaller AWG sounded better , so I looked back at my history of cable upgrades . I started with BJ cables of 10 AWG then went to Cardas Quadlink cables that were 12 AWG and liked them more , upgrading to Cardas Neutral Reference cables that are 8.5 AWG and again liking them more than the Quadlink . In making cables using Cardas 9.5 AWG chassis wire and liking them even more than the upgrade from 12 AWG to 8.5 AWG I got to thinking WHY ? The only conclusion I could come up with is the design of the Cardas Golden Ratio , as the individual cable increases in AWG the outer strands become larger . When I looked at the construction of the Cardas speaker cables the maximum AWG they used for the Reference line was 11.5 , using multipules for increased total AWG , until Clear Beyond their top of the line which uses multipules of 9.5 . Since Mr. Thiel used Morrow cable I looked them up and they use a simular approach that many cables makers use , more of the same . Morrow like Belden or Monster uses small single strands using many to make their AWG so a 10 AWG has more of the same single strand gauge wires than the 12 AWG cable . I'm not saying that one is better than the other but to my ears I believe that there is something to it . While this may seem like a bunch of self inflated BS , I am preparing myself for the start of the internal speaker wiring upgrade. Mr. Thiel recommended that I could increase the AWG of the wire from the speaker post to the crossover board and at the same time I should keep the wires to the speakers the same AWG or the same resistence . I remember beetlemania used Cardas chassis wire and was very pleased with the results . @sdl4 You mentioned that you like the idea of Cardas cables but need 7 meters and that Parsec cables would cost $ 1,575 , for $700 you could try making your own and I believe have a much better sounding set of cables . I also use the Norah Jones album Come Away With Me side 1 as my first reference music after any change , especially when tube rolling in my phono preamp . |
Arvin - thanks for your detailed report. I would like to add some thoughts because setup is so crucial for performance. It's no secret that Thiels, especially the pre-coax models are tricky devils to optimize. I'll describe Jim's design assumptions, since working toward those ideals, within your own constraints, will result in the closest approach to objective correctness. Anyone's preferences may vary. All considered, I like a more far-field perspective; some like to be on the performance stage, and the room size dictates so much. The design distance is 10' from speaker to ear (mic) at about 20° off axis - speaker straight ahead yields that angle. That setup takes a pretty big room and/or some sort of absorption at the side wall reflection point. Ear height is assumed at 3' (normal couch / easy chair). The farther afield, the more leniency develops for all geometry. Distance to backing wall is user selectable. I like about 4', which gains greater bass articulation at the expense of less bass amplitude. Over the years, I have seen the most grief caused by too-high ear position. 3' is the target, which gets more critical as distance decreases. Closer than about 8' and the relationships really suffer. Note that ear height adjustment works better than speaker tilting, since tilting changes the way the floor bounce works. I suggest getting ear height as close as possible, then tinting so that the tweeter (3' up) fires at your ear, and toeing in to control wall bounce while keeping the speakers firing at 10° to 20° off axis - they will cross behind your head. All speakers deal with the room puzzle, but Thiel adds the challenges of lobing to the equation. |
Hello all! I have finally been able to make it home and put in a dedicated listening session, experimenting with tilting my speakers as @tomthiel had suggested and also varying ear height with regards to my listening position. First off, this experiment started due to the fact I had been experiencing graininess/brightness issues recently. At first, I thought it was due to switching to MIT Terminator 2 RCA interconnects from my line-stage to the Thiel Bass Equalizer and again from there to my amps. Then, I thought it could be the onboard DAC in my Bluesound Vault 2, which has been described by some to be on the lean/bright side. Finally, could it be the addition of the second D240 MKII amp? Now that I'm running a bridged mono configuration, is it the 3.5's showing off their revealing nature even more? Only when Tom saw the pics of my listening area did he suggest to tilt the speakers back to try and compensate for a listening height that may be too high. Tracks used for critical listening included: - "The Game of Love" by Santana - "Steam" by Peter Gabriel - "Crush" by Dave Mathews Band - "Soul Bossa Nova" by Quincy Jones and his Orchestra - "Desafinado" by Stan Getz and Joao Gilberto - "Midnight Blue" by Kenny Burrell - "Don't Know Why" by Norah Jones - "Son of a Preacher Man" by Dusty Springfield All these tracks are in Hi-Res FLAC (Vault library) or MQA (streaming) formats coming from my Bluesound Vault 2 using the onboard DAC. After listening to the tracks in my default position, I began by tilting each speaker back about 3" using sand bags. I found that they became quite unstable if I tried to tilt them much further than that. In listening to the tracks now, there was a noticeable change in sound: there was a smoother presentation overall, with less glare at the very top. I wouldn't say it was rolled off or missing, just not as pronounced as before. However, the more i listened, the more I realized I was missing some of the instrument separation that I had before, not in a bad way, but just different. The tilted position also made the speakers "disappear" a bit more, but was I losing some of the "presence" of the musical performance? So, I decided to experiment further: instead of tilting the speakers, I got a different, lower chair and measured my ear height based off of Tom's recommendations. Now, with my ears about 32" from the floor, I was definitely below the tweeter level. In this position, I felt instantly familiar with the overall presentation from my speakers...maybe not as smooth as with the tilted position, but the highs were better controlled than I had heard in my original position. Most importantly, I felt more presence, more involvement here...that I could "see" where instruments, sounds and vocals were coming from. What did I learn? First, Tom knows what he's talking about when it comes to our speakers. Second, because of my space constraints, I have a suboptimal setup (toed-in, speaker to listener height/distance) that really affects the way the speakers perform. Lastly, Thiels reputation for being ruthlessly revealing is well warranted...and may not be "solvable" because in trying to tame some brightness, I felt like I lost some presence and detail. Perhaps I'm not one who enjoys a speaker that "disappears"...maybe what I really enjoy is a reproduction that makes me feel like I hear every instruments' and sections' and singers' position across a stage/studio when I close my eyes. The Thiels are MORE than capable of doing this. I am more than satisfied with this chair and the new, lower listening position. I feel that I've gotten the brightness under enough control, while maintaining the details and presence I didn't realize I loved until I lost some of it. Maybe I'm not making any sense...but, I am enjoying listening to this system and the music! Thanks for all your suggestions and for reading...Hope you're all doing well! Arvin |
I have seen the Carlsbad pair of 3.6 and aside from a woofer dust cap dent they are in incredible shape with absolutely lovely veneer. Local pickup only was offer to me and $400 the pair was quoted. IF someone makes the drive, let me know as I live about 2 miles from store - visit for a listen to music |
To my suprise Outside Diameter: .600 Dielectric Type: Teflon®, Air Inductance: .034 uh/ft/loop Capacitance: 117 pf/ft Bi Wire Option: Yes Cable AWG: 8.5 !!!!! Conductor Type: Golden Ratio, Constant Q, Crossfield, Pure Copper Litz But they use 2 wires to get there , so maybe I like the 9.5 AWG because being 1 wire/cable the outside windings have a larger diameter wire . Also since I'm running them seperated there isn't any capacitance , maybe that helps . Can't find specs on 9.5 . |
Robert - you inspired me to double my speaker runs to check results. I use Morrow SP4 with equivalent AWG of 14 ga / positive or negative with 8' runs. Nice improvement not only in tighter, better articulated bass (as anticipated), but as you say, across the board clarity and outside the box dimensionality. What was the equivalent AWG of your previous Cardas Neutral Reference? |
A few weeks ago I brought up the question about what speaker cables Theil 2.7 owners use . I then looked back thru the many pages on this very popular forum and then researched the different manufactures and their offerings . I came to the conclusion that I couldn't afford even used cables that might or might not better my current Cardas Neutral Reference . So I decided to take a chance and make my own . After researching bulk cable available I had narrowed it down to Furutech , Oyaide and Cardas , here again price became an issue when it came to taking a chance . I purchased 4 @ 6.5ft long 9.5awg Cardas wire and 4 pairs of Kimber spade connectors all for $249.00 + shipping . I have to say I'm amazed , they did everything better , I have more bass than ever ( size does matter ) more soundstage with the speakers seemingly disappearing . I never heard Hearts Dreamboat Anne or Beethovens 3rd symphony by Solti w/CSO sound so good . These will problably be that last speaker cables I own ( until I win the lottery ) . |
@oblgny Thanks for sharing. I, too, remember my high school music theory teacher, Mr. Yankee. Very well educated, slightly quirky guy who seemed like he just wanted an excuse to hang out with the guys (went to an all boys private school), shoot the crap and listen to music all day. Plus, he listened to EVERYTHING & made sure to share something different with us every class we had. Anyway, I will always remember him not for the songs we listened to, nor the lessons he taught, but always for this quote he gave us. One day, during class, after we had just finished listening to “In My Life” by The Beatles, he looked up from his desk and told the class: ”Gentlemen...all the great songs and all the great music have already been written.” This was my sophomore year in 1987. Looking back now and seeing what passes for music these days for so many people, I have to think that he was correct... Arvin |
R. I. P. McCoy Tyner. I was first properly introduced to jazz by a stereotypically whacky high school English teacher who loved Hemingway and possessed a pretty decent physical resemblance to him. One night after retiring from a local pub we went back to his house to listen to some non-juke box music. I don’t remember the manufacturer of his tube setup - it was matched - but the speakers were Dahlquist DQ-10’s. The first record we listened to was Charlie Parker, the second was McCoy Tyner. This was also my introduction to “real” tubed equipment; even though the console stereo in my house was tube driven, this was the first time I had ever seen an amp and preamp rig. Stereo! I bring this particular episode of my often wayward youth into this thread solely because the sound left an indelible imprint on my brain. I was then a stereo receiver guy, into Zep, The Who, the usual suspects mucking about at the time. The connection made between sonics and musicianship absolutely opened my mind to genres other than rock. Having a stereo that could do justice to music became something of a quest that would take me decades to fulfill. The first speakers to help me attain that? |
Prof, and other 02 guys - here's a little report from fun in the trenches. I picked up a single SCS4 this week, and have some PowerPoints and 02s in the hotrod garage. I set up a 4-way comparison with those models plus a CS2.2 for reference. I both listened and measured. What I learned is that not only was the 02 a very good little speaker, but that it holds its own very well against the others. Since I have 4 02s, I'm upgrading a pair for giggles and grins and learning. The SCS4 is the 4th generation of the coincident driver, but is actually the 5th generation of the 6.5" 2-way. The crossovers are the same topology - 2nd order / positive polarity with the (high-pass / low-pass) crosspoints separated to eliminate the classic 3dB hump rather than inverting polarity as B&W, Wilson, et al do. The frequency and phase response measurements are very good, as good as the SCS4. The motivation for the coincident driver was because anybody could place a bookshelf speaker in any position or orientation. But on the proper axis the 02 is as coherent as the SCS. BTW, that topology is also employed in the passive coincident drivers in the 2.4, etc. |
Great deal in Carlsbad, California for a pair of 3.6’s. https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lisa0cj2-thiel-audio-cs-3-6-full-range If you need a set of Thiel CS 3.6 original speaker boxes in nice shape w/inserts. https://www.ebay.com/itm/264657315220 |
Jon - I haven't been able to determine how many VPs were sold. The closest I get is a "few thousand pairs" of all the Power Products combined (using that coaxial driver). But, that may also be incorrect. Painted with a broad brush, it seems that as brick and mortar demonstrating dealers declined and on-line and other sales channels took over, Thiel's sales per product and solid user experience also declined. Thiel had relied on high-quality dealers to select and manage appropriate customers, who often remained satisfied and committed over the long term. It seems that pattern may have eroded over time. |
I'm a proud owner of a pair of 2 2s. I love that space. On a separate note, I got my viewpoints set up at the office and am enjoying them for over an hour most mornings. I was very worried after having to glue the magnet back on the frame but they seem to be working fine. No rubs or distortion. They have very little bass so I bought a tiny PSB "sub" that fills in to about 40hz. It's not "high end" but it's a sealed box and it doesn't let high frequencies through to muck up the midrange. And it fits behind my monitor. Overall it's a thoroughly enjoyable little desktop system. The viewpoints are serial numbers 59 and 60. I wonder how many of those they sold. They were putting that fantastic coax in a bunch of different boxes. |
I have to say I laughed out loud when I read Bose used Thiel as their audio benchmark. Would anyone venture a guess as to how well 2000s-era Bose speakers emulated the 'Thiel sound'?? I'd be curious to know what they use today for their large(r) speaker benchmark. I'm sure someone would have to know a Bose insider to find that out... |
I find this question re "opposite of Thiel" to be a good one. It demonstrates how individual the pursuit is. Each designer / company brings their own values, perspectives, resources and vision to the task. And both the task and its historic and cultural contexts are sufficiently large and complex to allow huge variability of outcomes. Thiel was a tiny player, which may have helped it remain true to its calling, which was to produce and support Jim's vision of a thoroughly accurate transducer, equally honoring all musically relevant aspects - augmented by the contributions of the other founders. I didn't notice Bose on the list. Even if nothing is truly an opposite, I think it fair to remember that Bose was greatly responsible for the emergence of high end, especially brick and mortar demonstration stores. Most of the operators I knew in the day cited Bose as their focus for entering the arena, with phrases like "there must be better than Bose" , "Bose doesn't cut it", "Hard to believe people think they want Bose" etc. The upstart young designers resented that the large majority of Bose's budget went to advertising and marketing rather than product development and other oddities of Bose's dominance. A personal piece of history: Bose made Thiel cease and desist from using the number 2.2 for our second generation model 2, which we renamed the CS2 2, without the decimal point, garnering more publicity and support than any emerging company could ask for. I found it amusing in the 2000s after moving near Boston and knowing some guys who worked for Bose, that they used the Thiel CS3.5 as their laboratory reference standard for product development benchmarking. Now, isn't irony sweet? |
mobilesax -- I've heard Merlin VSMs at a few audio shows and at one store, but not in my own room vs whatever speakers I've owned at the time. I've had the utmost respect for his creating a solid design and then constantly refining it year after year to as fine as it could possibly be. That a pair of vintage Thiels of unknown condition one step away from the dumpster could so impress you says a lot about both the Merlins and Thiels, and certainly your electronics are 'adequate'! More to the point, if you do score a pair of 2.4s, a thorough listening contrast would be appreciated, if only by me, because those two speakers were on my short list a 15 years ago. I didn't get the Merlins, so I'm still not entirely sure what I'm missing, though I can't complain about my 2.4s. |
I had never had a chance to listen to theil speakers before saving a pristine pair of 2.0 from going into a dumpster. A relative of an audiophile friend suddenly went to assisted living and an apartment had to emptied quickly. Nobody wanted them so lucky me. I put them in my main system which entails a PS Audio direct stream dac , bhk pre, bhk 250 amp, with synergistic research atmosphere cabling. The theil’s replaced my Merlin vsm’s black magic edition. WOW was I impressed. Large soundstage, sweet highs, solid midrange and a nice tight bass for a speaker of its vintage. I enjoyed a week of listening including a live broadcast of Beethovens 9th on period instruments from Carnegie hall that was especially memorable. Lots of jazz,some Dead it was all good. They will not be replacing the Merlins but they will be the foundation for a great starter system for my son when he finishes graduate school. I’m thinking of looking around for a pair of 2.4’s to play around with. Thanks for the thread. |
The antithesis of the 'classic' Thiel sound, often stereotyped, never copied? I'm pulling these purely out of memory from dozens of audio shows and general familiarity, not A/B home listening! I could be wrong on any of these, corrections are welcome. Sonus Faber, rich, romantic, not particularly 'fast.' Harbeth, Spendor, or several British speakers (among others I'm sure) that still have the 'BBC dip' as part of their sonic design intent (a dip in the upper midrange to make them sound less-forward, more-'polite'). Magnepan or Apogees, the opposite of box speakers, with dipole radiation, narrow lateral dispersion, broad wide imaging (the antithesis of 'pinpoint'), limited bass dynamics and extension, certainly not bright. (I'm leaving out true electrostatics as so often reviewers compare Thiel's speed and coherence to them). Horn loaded speakers starting with Klipsch, including some of the Cerwin Vegas mentioned. Huge SPLs with no danger of frying a midrange coax. Not that any of these brands are innately 'inferior' or 'worse' than Thiels, but that their design briefs -- by choice or speaker type -- are quite different. |
@jafant & @jazzman7 You guys definitely bring back some memories! Back in high school, when car stereo was HUGE, I remember the local installer/enthusiast community absolutely loved Cerwin Vegas. They were more then once described as the “home version of a 2000 watt bass box”! LOL...the things we loved from our youth, right? Arvin C |
