Also for first order fans DSS in Carlsbad also has a big pair of Dunlavey....
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!
14,028 responses Add your response
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 |
Question for the group: What would you consider...whether it be a brand, model or speaker type...that would be most opposite of what Thiels are? IOW, the antithesis of Thiel. Not trying to be inflammatory or anything like that, just something I have been wondering about as I read/watch more and more speaker reviews. Tom: I have not yet been able to try tilting my 3.5’s back as my business trip away from home is lasting a second week, but will report back once I am able to. Hope everyone’s doing well... Arvin C |
Our early amps included Phase Linear 400 and Threshold S500, which turned out to be non-representative, leading to an error of judgement. I think the way Jim looked at it was that the tripling at 1kHz allowed for midrange transients beyond rated continuous power and that those peaks rarely coincide with bass transients, therefore the working headroom. Error, or hindsight, or fudged specs, the EQ gave Thiel some notoriety in the amp department. I don't think Jim ever got the amp demand part right (from a market viewpoint). If his design loads maintained 4 ohms minimum, the speakers would be so much easier to drive and the voltage sensitivity and current demands would be in sweeter equilibrium. That's my layman's opinion from the user peanut gallery. |
tomthiel -- and I presume his determination applied to the amplifier's ability to triple its short-term output into the lowest frequencies, the most problematic for any amp. I believe the IHF dynamic headroom test specified 1kHz, which obviously had little-to-no bearing on the amp's headroom into the bottom octaves. Manufacturers were then spec'ing continuous power output over the full 20-20k Hz bandwidth, but many of those amps were tapped out at 20Hz. Ask them for more power at those frequencies and it's no surprise they'd clip and burn tweeters, How many amps of that era actually had the balls to triple their continuous output for 1/4 second at 20Hz into a demanding Thiel load?? That sounds like quite a feat for even today's best amps! |
sdecker- when Jim developed the equalizer, that transient burst factor became obviously clear. He determined that an amp needed to deliver triple its continuous output for about 250ms to properly cope with a broad variety of music. He used that assumption when boosting the bass with EQ to take advantage of power that would, on average, be available in the bass. That assumption proved to be problematic in that many amplifiers, especially spec-driven designs, fell apart when asked to deliver transients while delivering augmented loads to the equalized bass. Some amps do a wonderful job in the series 1 and 3 equalized bass. But others don't, and sound bad, and burn out tweeters. |
Also, for many of these specifications, there isn’t any internationally agreed-upon measurement technique or standardization for something like peak current. An amp may deliver 60A peak for a millisecond, but any musical transient is much longer than that. But for 250 ms, that same amp may only be able to provide say 20A, and perhaps 8A continuous. The last time I believe this was standardized was the IHF dynamic headroom measurement, which was how much more power was available on a 20ms toneburst than on a continuous basis. But even this method was compromised as it was found that most fast musical transients are in the 80-200ms range, and I don’t believe a 200ms dynamic headroom test was ever standardized. Others may correct me. Back when this was part of an amp’s specs, a doubling (spec'd as 3dB) of the continuous power output with a 20ms toneburst was considered respectable. |
My understanding is a faster slew rate for a given component is better -- up to a point at which little-to-no difference is heard. Musical transients are only so fast, and if the component is substantially faster than the fastest musical transients, generally straightforward to do these days, you're good. That's not to say within the component you don't need much faster slew rates, like the I/V converter after the DAC chip. Sort of like
high-frequency response and harmonic distortion. Above say 300kHz and below say 0.01%, do better numbers equal better sound? My indirect experience says after achieving these specs, focus on other elements of the circuit or internal components to optimize the sound by ear and less-conventional numerics. |
Yes, Jim was an armchair electronics designer and enjoyed talking circuits with Nelson Pass, Dan D'Agostino, the Bryston Boys and others. He constantly pushed them for better transient performance, current delivery, etc. from their amps. Originally Thiel Audio fantasized making the whole chain: speakers (powered), preamps and turntables. We started before digital. It became quickly clear that we had more than our hands full with the passive speaker link in the chain. |
Jafant - remember, I'm not an engineer; my experience is more as an observer - user. Slew rate still gets lots of attention in professional audio, especially microphones and their preamps, but it doesn't show up much in print. I have Tom Jung's original Studio Technologies Mic Pre which was reworked by Jim Williams (pro geek guru) to upgrade caps, etc. He increased the slew rate by 5x as part of his magic. The preamp improved its transparency substantially, but lots of things were done at the same time, so I can't attribute any specifics. I wonder out-loud whether slew rate gets less attention now because it is generally faster now than in the old days. Also, I can only speculate as to Power vs Pre amp importance, but I suspect SR is important everywhere equally. Some amps like Spectral place storage caps right next to the output transistors to increase slew rate substantially by purely geographical means. My observations over the years includes SR being a major factor in transient performance and therefore detail retrieval. |
tomthiel As I started my higher end education back in the early 1990's via Stereophile and TAS subscriptions, I recall, Slew Rate being discussed quite often by the reviewers. In 2020, is this factor relevant as it pertains to power amplifiers? I will concur with the CS 3.7 being very efficient, as well as, models CS 2.4, 2.4SE and 2.7. Happy Listening! |
tmsdrg - I am one of the culprits of touting the necessity to double power with halving impedance. My point was more academic than of real consequencel. If an amp doesn't double its power into half impedance, then it is by definition current limited. BUT, as has been pointed out here previously, that point of art is of no real importance as long as there is enough current to deliver to the load. So, doubling is not a technical necessity to drive Thiels, but that sense of anemic bass, slow transients, etc. is symptomatic of running out of current capacity. The 3.7 is about twice the efficiency as many previous Thiels, so the problem becomes less of an issue than before. |
The 2.8 minimum impedance are manufacturer specs. There have been independent measurements (e.g.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs37-loudspeaker-measurements) indicating it is either 2.4 or 2.3. I've had different amps on my 3.7s including a Bryston 4BSST, 14BSST, Modwright KWA 150SE and the last two have been Class D (using a Ric Schultz EVS 1200 now). When my friend worked at a hifi shop many moons ago, I helped deliver a bunch of things and often Thiel was paired with Levinson (when I had my 7.2s I had a Proceed HPA). Like anything else it is dependent one's room and listening habits (music preferences and loudness level). My main room in the old place (I started with 2.3s, then 7.2s and then 3.7s) was huge (something like 7,000 cubic feet that opened into other spaces and when I had an old Bryston 4BST (not the SST), I actually drove it into momentary clipping. The 14BSST (15 amp version) could not handle the impedance (would go into thermal shutdown during music or movies which where somewhat intense) and I ended up building a custom amp stand with fans (which solved the issue). The 3BSST wasn't as bad a load but would get the 14BSST heat sinks hot enough to burn one's hand. The Modwright amp ran a hair cooler (and the heatsinks where inside the case). The room in the new place is big but not as big as the old place and the Modwright did a bit better but not as well as either of the Class Ds I've used (which bested it in every way and it still shocks me to touch the amp case and hardly feel anything warmth. |
@unsound Is there a technical reason that the "double down" ratio keeps popping up?For instance, the DMA_400 listed above does not do this in sequence from 8 ohms to 4 to 2, but as I run the numbers it seems more than adequate. Is that right, or does "doubling down" refer to an important harmonic ratio needed here? Also, the minimum impedence of the 3.7 is 2.8 ohms, so perhaps we need to consider that the DMA-400 does indeed double from the 8 ohm rating to the 2 ohm. Thanks again for any thoughts on this. |
