I used an Ayre AX-7 to drive my CS1.6s and now using an AX-5 with my CS2.4s. Very happy with both pairings. Measurements can give a hint but listening is only way to know.
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 had a Bryston 3BST in the secondary system (along with an Odyssey Candela preamp and a Meitner MA-1 DAC) driving Ohm Microwalsh Talls (augmented by a Rel Strata III sub). I had a friend bug me about Class D in the summer of 2017. I had last seriously listened to them at the Capital Audiofest in 2015 and I thought they had gotten better but not quite there yet. I told him I would look again at RMAF in 2017 and that I'd probably get one as I had multiple systems and I was sure by this point I could at a minimum replace something like the Emotiva XPA-200 I had in one system. I ended up getting the Mivera SE amp. I broke it in using the secondary system and just put it in place of the Bryston 3BST. It smoked it right out of the box (was shocked by that much of a difference and surprised how much better the system sounded - always thought the speakers were more limited but was wrong). I ended up using that (the Mivera, where it bested the Modwright amp - even more shocking and I had a Bryston 14BSST before the Modwright) in the main system. I traded the Modwright amp for the Hegel (then sold off the amp, preamp and DAC I had in that secondary system) and then I got the EVS amp and moved the Mivera and sold off the Emotiva amp. I still use the Mivera in the main system for HT (my main system in an integrated AV system and it is a pain to get behind it so it is easier to move the Mivera which drives the 3.7s with ease). I wanted to get a higher end Hegel that had a less limited USB but just couldn't justify it for the secondary system. I'm sure Hegel would drive Thiels quite nicely. |
@cascadephil Thanks. Bryston 3BST / Bryston BP20 has been my amp / preamp combo since 2004. Been driving CS 2.4s since 2011. Before that CS .5s. When I purchased used pair, my dealer still had brand new CS 2.4s on the floor, and was my Bryston dealer as well. Made it much easier to audition both the speakers and the ampflication, as well as the pairing. Won't be so easy next time around. And my local dealer just retired and closed his doors. Been thinking that should I move on from the 3BST, should I entertain going with an integrated, and if so what integrated. In that regard Hegel has been on my radar. Hence my question. |
@jazzman7 "I'd be curious to know if you ever tried using your Hegel H190 to drive your Thiels ... and if so what you thought of the pairing.Hegel specs say their integrated amps are stable down to 2 ohms.So if so, all that is left is if it's a good sonic match." No have never used the Hegel on the 3.7s. The main system is in a larger room (16x18 with 10 foot ceilings and a tray ceiling on top of that and open into other spaces bigger than the 16x18). I was using a Modwright KWA150SE (along with a Modwright LS26.5DM preamp) to drive them and tried a Class D (Mivera), and was shocked that it bested the Modwright. I now use the EVS 1200 amp (same module as the Mivera except dual mono and with mods) to drive them and it's plenty of power and sounds great. I traded the Modwright amp straight up to a dealer for the Hegel and sold off my preamp, DAC and amp I was using in the secondary system. Am quite pleased with the Hegel. I'm using a small PC music server with JRiver since the USB DAC in the Hegel 190 is limited and it can't do DSD (I use JRiver to play it back at 176.4 along with a USB to coax converter). If I were to use a Hegel (integrated) in the main system, I'd go with one of two models above it (I'll probably at some point convert the DSD files and have them somewhere on the network so I can just play them back over ethernet (the Hegel can use UPnP) and do away with the PC - just have other things I'm working on for now and don't use the secondary systems all that often). |
sdecker - regarding the 2.4 vs 2.7, I can supply some contextualizaion and personal observations. I don't know either speaker well, but I heard both in September 2012 when the 2.7 was finalized, although our working comparisons were between the 2.7 and 3.7, which is a different story. I think the 2.7 is an extraordinary speaker, but built and priced by a different standard than Jim's ethos. I also think that it veers away from the traditional role of the model 2, which was the svelte little sister to the model 3 big brother. The model two had always used a smaller diameter midrange than the three, along with the smaller woofer with higher crosspoint - resulting in less doppler distortion, lower inertia, and a more nimble, lithe personality for the model 2. The 2.7 was developed under different circumstances and therefore different rules. Thiel needed a new product after Jim's death to demonstrate that they could produce a credible contender without him. I say it is a success, but not the same contender that Jim would have designed, because Thiel no longer had his considerable chops and long-range vision. Jim was working on a CS7.3 with a new, improved coincident, passively coupled high driver. (The CS7's high driver was developed in the CS2.3). That 7.3 high driver would then be tumbled down to the 2.5 - the way Jim Thiel did things. All those plans went on hold when Jim died and a successor engineer or company was not found to carry the torch. A far simpler and executable fall-back plan was to take, as you mentioned, the extant 2.4 bass system including the woofer, passive and enclosure volume and mate it with the extant 3.7 wavy high driver, making XO changes to accommodate. One circumstance is that the higher woofer to mid crosspoint necessitates a very large capacitance coax feed. The 2.4 has 30uF feed capacitance and the 2.7 has 416uF, including a 400uF electrolytic. That's the only electrolytic feed cap since the 1976 model 02, as far as I know. So, yes, the CS2.7 is a valid Jim Thiel tribute design with first order slopes, minimal diffraction and lots of learning rolled in. And it is good. Some forum members here and elsewhere choose it over the 3.7. But it is in some ways less elegant and demure than the next model 2 from Jim would have been. Enjoy the ride, wherever you go. |
I've mentioned this before, but perhaps it's worth mentioning again. Claims of stability into a given impedance doesn't really say much, other than the amp won't go into oscillation when faced with such an impedance. Sure it's nice to know your amp won't blow up when confronted by such a load, but it doesn't indicate how it will perform when dealing with it. How much power can it deliver under such a load? Failing to double down into lower impedances suggests that frequency linearity could be compromised at the amps high power outputs. Often times amplifiers start to strain and sound hard before going into actual clipping. Altx's CS 2's have a fairly easy and particularly smooth impedance for any speaker never mind a Thiel. Probably not an issue for him. https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs2-loudspeaker-measurements Neither of the afore mentioned intergrateds are spec'd below 8 Ohms. The Ayre EX 8's measurements: https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-ex-8-integrated-hub-integrated-amplifier-measurem... are rather disappointing to my eyes for such an expensive ss amp. Still, for the CS2's if not pushed too hard in a smaller room the Ayre EX 8 could work. Unfortunately I couldn't find independent measurements for the Hegel 390i, but is spec'd for much higher power output into 8 Ohms. https://www.hegel.com/products/integrated/h390 The Hegel 390i will probably work for the Theil CS 2's. If an amplifier can double down into lower impedances, they'll likely list those specs as bragging rights. If an amplifier can't double down (or come reasonably close) into lower impedances, It's less likely they'll list those specs because they're not proud of them. |
@altx, I’m not really versed in the intergrated market. iIntergrateds do offer value in reducing the significant cost of case work, reduced cabling and shelf space. On the other hand, if you notice the top pres often have separate power supplies, as do the Uber high end power amps. Typically separate power amps offer better isolation of noise and heat and better possible weight distribution. Often one will see higher class A bias, and or better power delivery into lower impedances from a manufacturers separates than from their own comparable intergrateds Both the Hegel and the Ayre’s have received rave reviews. I haven’t heard the Hegel’s in any sort of serious context. I have no opinion on them. I’ve only heard the early Ayer separates. I found those Ayre’s too rolled off in the top end for my liking. YMMV. The more recent models have been described as sounding quite different. As I posted earlier, the CS 2’s with their 6 Ohm nominal / 5 Ohm minimum super smooth impedance, and fairly easy 88 dB sensitivity are from a technical stand point rather easy to drive. You should have plenty of options to choose from. Just be mindful of the CS 2’s sonic signature. At these prices have you considered moving up the Thiel line? |
Can anyone direct me to the pages that would have specific 2.4 vs 2.7 listening comparisons? My understanding is the entire 2.7 low-frequency system is pure 2.4 (cabinet loading, woofer itself, radiator, XO tweaks only to
better match
woofer
roll-off to 3.7 coax), yes? The 2.7 is the only full-size Thiel of their last 15+ years I haven't heard. |
mr-bill I spent several weeks auditioning the 3.7 vs the 2.7 speakers using a collection of my classical CDs. Like prof, I ended up getting the 2.7 speakers, but added a SmartSub SS2.2 to extend the bass. IMO, both the 3.7 and the 2.7 needed bass extension, and the subwoofer solved the problem. I'm a very happy camper. Agree with prof on the 2.7 soundstage. |
@altx, I’n the past I’ve run CS2’s with a few different amps including amongst others the B&K ST 140 and closer to your EX-442, the B&K M 200’s. The M200’s are really nice. I am not familiar with the Sim intergrated. I do know that the Sim amps have over the years garnered mixed reviews. I’d be concerned about resale value with the Sim. The CS 2’s are especially easy to drive Thiel speakers. But, their sonic nature requires special consideration. The ported bass can be a bit bloomy and the upper midrange to lower treble can become a bit forward and hard if not carefully matched to appropriate upstream components. You’d be mistaken if you were to assume from the above that I don’t care for them. They are IMHO one of the high end’s greatest speaker values. With all that said I’m not sure that a move to the Sim would be an improvement, and perhaps even a step back from your B&K. I strongly suggest you audition with your speakers before making a move. |
Pair of white 2.7s in VA https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649579278-thiel-27-speakers-rare-white-like-new/ |
mr_bill If you search this thread you’ll see a lot from me comparing the 2.7 to the 3.7s. I owned both at the same time for a while and ultimately went with the 2.7 as it’s smaller size fit better aesthetically in my room. (Plus to my eyes the 2.7s are among the best looking speakers I’ve ever seen). The 2.7s have the essential sound of the 3.7s, with a slightly reduced sense of scale. Though without direct comparison to the 3.7, the 2.7s cast a really big soundstage - among the most expansive and precise as you’ll find anywhere around their size. |
@mr_bill The CS2.7 was developed after Jim T passed. It was a collaboration in house but with external engineering for the crossover. Search “CS 2.7” written by “tomthiel” to get the history. It has a first order network. If you aren’t afraid of a soldering gun, get a pair of CS2.4 and either wait for Tom Thiel’s upgrade kit or pour through this thread for ideas of how to make a great speaker into a superb one. |
jafant, it was sold as a nominally 100wpc stereo power amp. Steve McCormack's estimates of mine is 125/250/500 wpc 20-20k@<1% THD into 8/4/2 ohms, absolute stability into 1 ohm, and as much as 60A peak current delivery depending on the measurement technique. Most of this power improvement comes from barely fitting in the custom Plitron power transformer designed for the DNA1 upgrade. Overall negative feedback has been reduced to 3-4dB (which is nearly zero by today's standards) and it will pass DC (at a much reduced level, and hopefully not) to the outputs all the way up to a 250kHz -3dB point, intentionally rolled-off to prevent ultrasonic issues... |
When it comes to true Jim Thiel designed models with first order slopes/coherent source CS models I imagine the 3.7 is the ‘best’ model or top of the heap. After the 3.7......what is most desirable? 2.3 or 2.4? 3.6? 1.5 or 1.6? these are the most reasonable sized models and I’m talking using in a normal sized room. Thanks for comments as I’d really like to own a pair of Thiels at some point and 3.7 is a bit too large. |
I know audiophiles don’t admit physical aesthetics. But the 3.6 and 3.7 are as different as it gets in the Thiel line. Another thought is that the 3.6 drivers are completely Thiel design and build. OK the tweeter was assembled by Vifa, but it’s all-Thiel, unlike the 3.5 which were modifications of normal, pre-FEA era. |
@yabe1951. Nice amp and speakers you have. I own both the 3.6 and CS6. Thielist makes a good point about tradeoffs. I am using the CS6 because I have a large room and the 6 is more dynamic than the 3.6. However, the 3.6 is the most transparent speaker I have had in my room, you give up just a tiny bit with the larger model 6. They are definitely cut from the same cloth - both are excellent. The CS6 fits my needs in my room better. I never warmed up to the 3.7 after much anticipation being a longtime 3.6 owner. I thought Thiel got a little aggressive on the price 12K to 14K. I know it was innovative and an upgrade but the 3.6 has always been my favorite speaker. Hope that helps your decision. |
yabe1951 Welcome! Good to see you here. Thielrules and sdecker offers sound advice. In order to determine if the upgrade via a pair of CS 3.7 is warranted, seek out another audition. 10 years is a long time between demo time. 10 years ago Ayre had not invented the Twenty Series of gear. Much changes. Either way you go, retain your 3.6 or purchase 3.7, McCormack amplification is a sonic match. Several members of the Panel, here and on other Audio forums, enjoy the McCormack brand.Keep us posted on your Audio journey. Happy Listening! |
Thielrules, It seems your takeaway is IF you spend all the money on tri-amping, finding which drivers to replace or update with limited available resources, and (to some of us, compromising your signal chain by) using DSP that's not commonly done in most higher-end audio systems, only then will a 3.5 "approach" the sonics and performance of a baseline 3.7. Even if his 3.6 is X% more-evolved than the 3.5, it would seem the 3.7 would be an easy replacement recommendation with an appropriate room acoustic? Yabe1951, I have been powering my 2.4s with a custom SMC upgrade to my McCormack DNA-0.5 for a decade now. We designed the upgrades for synergy with Thiels, including a scad of current drive into low impedances. The pairing is perfect. A recent amp shootout confirmed how well this amp sounds compared to the best-regarded amps of today in the $5k-15k range. I can confidently say your amp will never need replacement for purposes of better sound! |
I had the 3.5 and got last year the 3.7. I can argue both ways: the mid and highs of the 3.7 are superb, but the bass and extended bass can be improved with subs. They're improvements that shine in a large room. Now, it all depends on the room. If your 3.6 work for your space and more importantly, you have learned to like them for what they are, and all the drivers and xo are good, any change to a 5,6,7 or 3.7 will involve a trade off. Proceed with caution, and clarify your goals depending on your situation. By tailoring my 3.5 by going with tri amping, replacing some drivers and carefully applying dsp, I was able to approach the listening experience of the 3.7 using the 3.5 in the space they were located. |
So happy to find thoughtful and wise Thiel owners/community... I am hoping to get a bit of advice. My 1st pair of Thiel speakers were the model 2 2 (no point, I think is correct). I could never afford a decent amp so, I "moved up" to the model 3.6 driven by an upgraded McCormack DNA 1 with the larger toroidal transformer, balanced inputs and just about every other option that Steve offered as of last year. I have been very pleased with the sound. The 3.6 reveals every tiny change made in electronics, cables, etc. I have been able to tune my system based on what I am hearing through the 3.6 system. So, as I am reaching the end of my working life (48 years as a middle school teacher) I have saved enough $$$ to "move up" again. I am considering the model 3.7 that is perhaps 4-5 times the cost of the 3.6. No expectation that the 3.7 is many times "better" than the 3.6. My question is, how might the 3.7 be an improvement over the model 3.6? The only time I heard the 3.7 was probably 10 years ago being driven by Ayre electronics. I was not impressed as the the system was far too lean, although the Thiel clarity, articulation and soundstage were mostly present. Should I hold tight or go for 3.7s? Thanks in advance. |
@beetlemania Certainly a valid question to ponder, for any small business reliant on the founders combination of drive, passion, technical and innovative chops needed to thrive... I can assure you that Richard Vandersteen and I have had that exact conversation in some detail / I consider him a friend, peer and also a mentor in many things. His is a family business with son and daughter playing important roles. Nathan was the innovator behind subtle but effective innovation in the model 7 mk2. While I enjoy them immensely, I don’t expect them to be the end of the line. i spent a career in high technology manufacturing and program management, always willing to help small firms in any way I can. All the best! jim c |
It is nice to imagine innovations to the Thiel speakers but to really make this happen will take a considerable investment. I'm curious how many of us have resources to share to assist Tom in his pursuit and would be able to commit to make this a success. Tom is not immortal and will need support and cheering if not some simple help to verify the accuracy of his observations. I am very willing to contribute to such an initiative and am wondering if there are others. You can privately contact me if you prefer. |
I am not arguing about the technical merits of time-phase coherent. I am only arguing about Thiel business model as if it is financially viable. I would not criticize PSB or B&W as they are able to find a way to be viable even if using a different design strategy. To me it seems like Thiel had put themselves a bit into a corner with such a singular mindset - that is first order time-phase coherent or all else which may be correct technically, but financially, it did not have a way out.Or perhaps Thiel had been successful *because* of the "singular mindset". Thiel speakers were (and are) unique, well-executed, and great sounding. And when Jim Thiel passed without any other engineer among the small business’ staff, subsequently bought by people with no experience in the industry (who steered the company completely away from Jim Thiel’s design principles), it was predictable that Thiel Audio would fail. We’re talking about *Thiel* Audio. B&W is part of a much larger company. Can you name any of their engineers? I know Laurence Dickie designed the Nautilus but I can’t name any current engineer at B&W. Will Vivid stand after Dickie passes? What do you think will happen when Richard Vandersteen passes? Jeff Joseph? It looks like Wilson Audio is making a go of it with Dave Wilson’s son as the main engineer. ARC successfully transitioned from Bill Johnson and Ayre is making it work with Ariel Brown. But it’s not great for a small audio company to lose its founder and primary designer. I suppose Mark Mason could have been more successfully plugged into Thiel Audio if Jim Thiel had designed me-too speakers. But, then, would Thiel Audio ever have been successful at all? Would we be on this thread talking about our Thiel speakers? Loving them? Modifying them to get even better performance? |
uncle_monkey Welcome! Good to see you here. Agreed, life gets in the way of our hobbies and passions. It appears that the CS 2.2 is catching up with the 3.5 owners among the Panel. Vintage models are certainly represented.I concur with your assessment and evalaution of Maggies / Vandies. Incredible that we all connect on Thiel Audio versus the competition. Happy Listening! |
